Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 09:54:40PM +, Paul Vixie wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Jay R. Ashworth") writes:
> > There are, as I implied in another post, many unobvious end-to-end
> > systemic characteristics that make the PSTN the PSTN that Internet
> > Telephony isn't going to be able to fulfill for some time, if ever, due
> > to the differing fundamental engineering assumptions that underly it.
>
> i, as a user, only use the PSTN for its reach, not any of its differing
> fundamental engineering assumptions, most of which i'd challenge if i
> cared, but i don't care. internet-as-disintermediator means clearchannel
> can't prevent podcasting, newspapers can't prevent online auctions and
> online news websites, politicians can't prevent bloggers, and sears can't
> prevent amazon... but as long as we have the FCC and NANP and an
> investment-protection policy, PSTN *can* prevent voip, and they'll use
> selective enforcement of 911 as one of the tools to do so.
>
> which is why i predict that we'll see more computers doing voice, using
> domain names rather than "phone numbers" for rendezvous.
And yet (this is drifting off topic from Internetworking into the
larger realm of networking as a whole; feel free to tune out, folks),
I'm not sure that's entirely a good thing.
Subsidy business models have long been the means by which those
functions of the commercial telecommunications industry which were not
direct retail items to end users were funded, and if all that revenue
is siphoned off, then those -- important and necessary -- functions
will have to be paid for by *someone*.
The analogy I usually use here is to "cheaper Canadian drugs".
Yeah, they're cheaper. But they wouldn't stay that way long if a
statistically significant fraction of the US started bying their drugs
from Canadian sources, and it wouldn't have anything to do with
regulations, at all.
The declining subsidy from consumer snapshot film to the other parts of
the film photographic industry as digital cameras take over is another
good one.
Short version is: not all the things an industry does are immediately
obvious, especially to civilians, and it's good to put some thought
into what they are before blindly encouraging them to go out of
business.
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Designer Baylink RFC 2100
Ashworth & AssociatesThe Things I Think'87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274
If you can read this... thank a system administrator. Or two. --me
RE: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 7:59 AM > To: nanog@merit.edu > Subject: Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors ) > > [ SNIP ] > But, leaving that aside, if the IP phone has a battery > inside it and if it can record previous GPS locations > and if you move the phone outside to a new location, then > it could remember the last GPS detectable location and > use that when it connects to the net again. May as well implant an RFID and a Emergency button on every citizen. A more feasable solution might be to integrate SS7 into the head-end and pass to the proper PSAP like we do now based on LIDB, CNAM, etc. This would continue the legacy transmission of subscriber data to assist emerg. services in locating you. Prior to E911 you had to identify yourself and your location though. It's nice to have intelligent network features, isn't it? -M<
Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
Dan Hollis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > because integrated or pci audio are often plagued by internal > electrical noise. USB largely avoids this by doing all the > conversion externally and largely isolated. Like that's going to matter for a monaural signal that's sampled at 8kHz with 13 bits of resolution before compression. Don't forget to use the green markers on the X-Lite installation CD and hook it all up with oxygen-free cable. -- PGP key ID E85DC776 - finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for full key
Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
USB is better because almost every computer today has USB ports. Not all of them have headset/mic jacks. My personal favorite is the Telex H551 implemented as a USB adapter which provides standard headset/mic jacks. Owen --On Friday, April 1, 2005 2:00 PM -0800 Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> (speaking of amazon, i found that usb headsets are down to ~$34.94 >> now. yay!) > > if you mean the logitech 980130-0403, $32 at newegg > > why is usb better than the headset/mic jacks? > > randy > -- If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me. pgpjfW8pCsQAe.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
Thus spake "David Barak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > --- Paul Vixie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > most american PBX's don't have 911 as a dialplan. > > you have to dial 9-911. > > We work on different PBXes. The ones on which I work > are specifically configured to respond to 911 OR 9-911 > to avoid a problem. Would YOU want to have been the > person who didn't enable one of those options, and > thus delayed response time? Flagging 9,11 as the same as 9,911 is problematic since 11 is part of the standard NANP dialing plan. You probably won't run into it unless you have rotary phones (* is 11 and # is 112, IIRC), but it's still valid even for touchtone users. You also have problems with someone who intended to dial 9,011 but has a bad 0 key. Lately I've been running into PBXes that don't require 9 for outside lines; if they get a dial timeout (or #) after collecting 4 or 5 digits, they consider it an extension, otherwise they consider it an outside number. What are they supposed to do when someone starts dialing extension 91125? S Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do." K5SSS --Isaac Asimov
Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
> (speaking of amazon, i found that usb headsets are down to ~$34.94 > now. yay!) if you mean the logitech 980130-0403, $32 at newegg why is usb better than the headset/mic jacks? randy
Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
On Fri, 1 Apr 2005, Randy Bush wrote: > > (speaking of amazon, i found that usb headsets are down to ~$34.94 > > now. yay!) > if you mean the logitech 980130-0403, $32 at newegg > why is usb better than the headset/mic jacks? because integrated or pci audio are often plagued by internal electrical noise. USB largely avoids this by doing all the conversion externally and largely isolated. -Dan
Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Jay R. Ashworth") writes:
> There are, as I implied in another post, many unobvious end-to-end
> systemic characteristics that make the PSTN the PSTN that Internet
> Telephony isn't going to be able to fulfill for some time, if ever, due
> to the differing fundamental engineering assumptions that underly it.
i, as a user, only use the PSTN for its reach, not any of its differing
fundamental engineering assumptions, most of which i'd challenge if i
cared, but i don't care. internet-as-disintermediator means clearchannel
can't prevent podcasting, newspapers can't prevent online auctions and
online news websites, politicians can't prevent bloggers, and sears can't
prevent amazon... but as long as we have the FCC and NANP and an
investment-protection policy, PSTN *can* prevent voip, and they'll use
selective enforcement of 911 as one of the tools to do so.
which is why i predict that we'll see more computers doing voice, using
domain names rather than "phone numbers" for rendezvous.
(speaking of amazon, i found that usb headsets are down to ~$34.94 now. yay!)
--
Paul Vixie
Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 06:48:08PM +, Paul Vixie wrote: > but go ahead and visit a few large companies and tell me how many such warning > labels you see. as an added boon, note that campuses with blocks of 1000 DIDs > end up using the corporate headquarters or the address of the PBX as the 911 > locator for all 1000 (or 1 or whatever) extensions, making the fire dept > have to select from among 20 different buildings by looking for smoke plumes. > > geez, where's the FCC when you need 'em, huh? They're there, actually. http://www.qwest.com/pcat/large_business/product/1,1016,989_4_25,00.html http://www.xo.com/products/smallgrowing/voice/local/psali/ et al. > i think the selective enforcement here is sickening, and that if old money > telcos can't compete without asset protection, they should file for chapter > 11 rather than muscling newcomer costs up by calling these things "phone" and > then circling their wagons around the NANP. but that's not going to happen, > so i predict that the internet will do what it always does-- work around the > problem. so, domain names and personal computers rather than "phone numbers" > and things-that-look-like-phones. > > i've got nothing against 911, and i love my local fire dept. Glad to hear it. But it's not as easy as all that. There are, as I implied in another post, many unobvious end-to-end systemic characteristics that make the PSTN the PSTN that Internet Telephony isn't going to be able to fulfill for some time, if ever, due to the differing fundamental engineering assumptions that underly it. > if there are people out there who want cell-quality voice, are willing to > live without 911, but want to make multiple calls at once with flat rate > billing, they should be able to choose VoIP (or VoPI, i guess). however, > the FCC seems to have decided that this would be $bad, which i guess from > the point of view of old money telcos and capital inertia, it indeed is. I'm not sure that one assumption supports the other, but... Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth[EMAIL PROTECTED] Designer Baylink RFC 2100 Ashworth & AssociatesThe Things I Think'87 e24 St Petersburg FL USA http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274 If you can read this... thank a system administrator. Or two. --me
Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 09:30:19AM -0800, Bill Nash wrote: > On Fri, 1 Apr 2005, Adi Linden wrote: > > If VoIP companies are regulated into providing 911 service, minimum > > availability standards, etc is one thing. Forcing anyone that might be > > transporting VoIP into becoming a Telco is quite another... > > At this point, I think it's simply an argument over the interpretation of > 'signalling technology'. Nope, it's an argument over the *implementation* of 'signallaling technology'. Do *you* want to build your network to 5-nines? Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth[EMAIL PROTECTED] Designer Baylink RFC 2100 Ashworth & AssociatesThe Things I Think'87 e24 St Petersburg FL USA http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274 If you can read this... thank a system administrator. Or two. --me
Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 11:25:27AM -0800, David Barak wrote: > > most american PBX's don't have 911 as a dialplan. > > you have to dial 9-911. > > We work on different PBXes. The ones on which I work > are specifically configured to respond to 911 OR 9-911 > to avoid a problem. Would YOU want to have been the > person who didn't enable one of those options, and > thus delayed response time? Would *you* want to be the person who got a dressing down from the local fire chief because several of your phones had skip-py 1 keys, people trying to dial 9-1-800-555-1212 kept dialling 911 instead? There are *many* possible failure modes involving 911: http://www.911dispatch.com/911_file/911_misdials.html And for background: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9-1-1 It's not as simple as it looks, off topic though it probably is. Cheers, -- jr 'learning opportunity' a -- Jay R. Ashworth[EMAIL PROTECTED] Designer Baylink RFC 2100 Ashworth & AssociatesThe Things I Think'87 e24 St Petersburg FL USA http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274 If you can read this... thank a system administrator. Or two. --me
Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 09:45:42AM -0800, David Barak wrote:
> >we're going to have to integrate it into our computers. ("dammit, i
> >need a decent quality USB headset for less than USD $300!") because
> >as long as something looks-like-a-phone, the POTS empire can use the
> >NANP (or local equivilent) and 911 regulations (or local equivilent)
> >to prevent newer more efficient carriers from making money from
> >"voice".
>
> Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but your implication seems to be
> "damn the 911, full steam ahead." That's great for optional voice
> (calls to Panama) but not so good for non-optional voice (to the fire
> dept).
An excellent distinction, and one that the government had to deal with
many years ago... when they discovered that AT&T had *many* facets, and
that breaking up the functions they used to use Ma Bell for required
*figuring out what those functions were*. Many of them had cropped up
by accretion, along the way.
To a first approximation, for example, Bell Labs was America's national
research laboratory, and I'm sure the country hasn't entirely
benefitted from what *they've* had to go through.
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Designer Baylink RFC 2100
Ashworth & AssociatesThe Things I Think'87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274
If you can read this... thank a system administrator. Or two. --me
Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
Actually, that's an interesting point... What if SIP based phones could "know" do the following: 1. If they know where they are, include: X-Lat: N/S dd:mm:ss.sss X-Lon: E/W ddd:mm:ss.sss In the SIP headers. 2. If they don't know where they are, include: X-Location: unknown 3. 911 is automatically mapped to: SIP://e911.emergency.int E911.emergency.int, would be resolved by ANYCAST DNS servers operated by 911 centers. Ideally, each VOIP capable 911 call center would operate one of these. It would return the IP address of that 911 call center's SIP proxy. Sure, it's not perfect, but, your topologically closest 911 call center is not unlikely to be at least somewhat geographically closest as well. This provides at least as good a service as cell phones without GPSs, and, where possible, as good as cell phones with GPSs. Just random thoughts on the subject. Owen -- If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me. pgpDExKi1dv32.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why can't we have VoIP phones with built-in GPS receivers and a built-in 911 dialplan that makes the phone transmit your coordinates along with the emergency call? are you serious? if you are, why don't you ask for a pony while you're at it. [EMAIL PROTECTED]< The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
--- Adi Linden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If VoIP companies are regulated into providing 911 > service, minimum > availability standards, etc is one thing. Forcing > anyone that might be > transporting VoIP into becoming a Telco is quite > another... I agree - the former is exactly the direction I think we should go. David Barak Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise: http://www.listentothefranchise.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Personals - Better first dates. More second dates. http://personals.yahoo.com
Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
On Fri, 1 Apr 2005, Adi Linden wrote: If VoIP companies are regulated into providing 911 service, minimum availability standards, etc is one thing. Forcing anyone that might be transporting VoIP into becoming a Telco is quite another... At this point, I think it's simply an argument over the interpretation of 'signalling technology'. - billn
Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
> Personally, I'm quite glad for government regulations > regarding food safety, home inspection, and lots of > other things which are safety related. There are > other restrictions which I'm not thrilled about, but I > have yet to hear a compelling reason (which does not > inherently boil down to a libertarian argument) to > stop requiring that anything which defines itself as a > phone-based voice service should have a working 911 > connection. The VoIP companies currently call > themselves "phone" companies, and by doing so, IMO, > they open themselves to this level of regulation. If VoIP companies are regulated into providing 911 service, minimum availability standards, etc is one thing. Forcing anyone that might be transporting VoIP into becoming a Telco is quite another... Adi
Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Barak) writes: > > sure as hell, we'll see laws requiring every home to have a telephone, > > to have that telephone in the kitchen or other main room of the home, > > and to be clearly marked. then the POTS tithe comes back, it'll be > > with vengeance. > > So given that you see this as likely, and by your tone, I'm guessing that > you're not in favor of this outcome, what do you propose? i propose that if a gov't is going to mandate something, that they be required to ensure competition for the revenue thus enabled, or they be required to provide it in a not-for-profit manner (like water and sewage). again-- i like 911 and i love my local fire department. what i do not love is protectionism for capital inertia, in the form of selectively enforced regulations (like 911). one of the reasons i like open source so much is that people will only run BIND9 (et al) if they think it's the best way to solve their problem, and one of the alternatives that's always available is "code fork!". this tends to make for responsiveness on the part of vendors. and while i've been heard to quibble about some of the restrictive aspects of GPL (vs BSD), the same is true of emacs, gcc, linux, freebsd, and everything else i use. i want that kind of alternative available for my voice communications or indeed anything i spend money on. 911 is to POTS as MSIE is to Windows-- it helps put the "lock" in "lock-in". -- Paul Vixie
Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
> To: nanog@merit.edu > Subject: Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors ) > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 13:58:39 +0100 > > > > > Why can't we have VoIP phones with built-in GPS receivers and a > > > > Because GPS doesn't work indoors. > > GPS works anywhere where the satellite signals can be detected. > http://www.u-blox.com/technology/supersense.html > Obviously, signals get weaker when they have to pass through > solid materials like building walls. But people are already > working on more sensitive receivers. > > But, leaving that aside, if the IP phone has a battery > inside it and if it can record previous GPS locations > and if you move the phone outside to a new location, then > it could remember the last GPS detectable location and > use that when it connects to the net again. > There's a reason these kinds of capabilities aren't in VoIP "phones". That reason is *money*. GPS capability in the handset would raise the cost of low-end VoIP handsets by an order of magnitude, at least. Using battery-power for the GPS while not plugged into the line is a laugh. Think about what happens when the batteries run down, *before* the phone reaches it's final destination. Suppose it's in an airplane at the time. The 911 call shows a "location" of 37,000 ft _above_ the middle of Lake Michigan. Care to imagine the lawsuit when somebody *dies*, when 'emergency responce' didn't get there in time, _because_ the phone lied about where it was at? Note: this is all getting _fair_ afield from the chartered NANOG subject matter. I'll shut up.
Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Fri 01 Apr 2005, 14:57 CEST]: >>> Why can't we have VoIP phones with built-in GPS receivers and a >> Because GPS doesn't work indoors. > > GPS works anywhere where the satellite signals can be detected. > http://www.u-blox.com/technology/supersense.html > Obviously, signals get weaker when they have to pass through > solid materials like building walls. But people are already > working on more sensitive receivers. > > But, leaving that aside, if the IP phone has a battery > inside it and if it can record previous GPS locations > and if you move the phone outside to a new location, then > it could remember the last GPS detectable location and > use that when it connects to the net again. Sure, why not put in a GSM receiver as well? You don't even need a subscription or even a SIM card to make emergency calls. Or what about a boiler plate, so your phone can make you a nice cup of tea? That'd be useful, not having to get up in the middle of a conversation anymore to get fresh tea. -- Niels. -- The idle mind is the devil's playground
Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
> > Why can't we have VoIP phones with built-in GPS receivers and a > > Because GPS doesn't work indoors. GPS works anywhere where the satellite signals can be detected. http://www.u-blox.com/technology/supersense.html Obviously, signals get weaker when they have to pass through solid materials like building walls. But people are already working on more sensitive receivers. But, leaving that aside, if the IP phone has a battery inside it and if it can record previous GPS locations and if you move the phone outside to a new location, then it could remember the last GPS detectable location and use that when it connects to the net again. --Michael Dillon P.S. assuming that phones like this come on the market, we might see the following exchange on a web forum somewhere... Q. Hi. My ACME VoIP Phone is complaining that it can't provide E-911 service. I reset it, pulled the plug, but nothing helps. A. Do you live in an apartment building? Q. Yeah, why? What difference does that make? A. Trust me. Unplug the phone, take it outside and walk to the nearest major intersection. Cross all 4 streets at the intersection, walking around until you get back to where you first arrived at the intersection. Then go home, plug in your ACME VoIP Phone and try again. Q. WOW! It worked! I can't believe it. Now I have a new problem. I told my friends how I fixed the phone and now they all think I'm smoking strange substances. A. Well, you win some, and you lose some. :-)
Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
--- Owen DeLong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I can't speak for Paul, but, I propose that the > government stop telling > me what I do or don't need, and what risks are or > are not acceptable for > my family and allow me to make those choices for > myself. This belief == libertarianism, no? I take it you'd rather inspect your own food processing plants, and not have a licensing system in place for elctrical work (et. al.)? Personally, I'm quite glad for government regulations regarding food safety, home inspection, and lots of other things which are safety related. There are other restrictions which I'm not thrilled about, but I have yet to hear a compelling reason (which does not inherently boil down to a libertarian argument) to stop requiring that anything which defines itself as a phone-based voice service should have a working 911 connection. The VoIP companies currently call themselves "phone" companies, and by doing so, IMO, they open themselves to this level of regulation. >If I want 911 > service, then, I should subscribe to at least one > telephony service which > provides it, and, which charges me for it. If I am > willing to risk life > without reliable 911 service, then, that should be > my choice, and, I should > be able to choose voice carriers which do not > provide 911 service and I > should not have to pay for it. Should you be able to subscribe to the fire department? How about the police? That's how it used to be, but that model didn't work nearly as well as universal coverage paid by taxes does. David Barak Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise: http://www.listentothefranchise.com __ Yahoo! Messenger Show us what our next emoticon should look like. Join the fun. http://www.advision.webevents.yahoo.com/emoticontest
Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [Fri 01 Apr 2005, 13:33 CEST]: > Why can't we have VoIP phones with built-in GPS receivers and a Because GPS doesn't work indoors. -- Niels. -- The idle mind is the devil's playground
Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
> most american PBX's don't have 911 as a dialplan. you have to dial 9-911. > this isn't a violation of the law as long as there's a warning labelabout it. > but go ahead and visit a few large companies and tell me how many such warning > labels you see. as an added boon, note that campuses with blocks of1000 DIDs > end up using the corporate headquarters or the address of the PBX as the 911 > locator for all 1000 (or 1 or whatever) extensions, making the fire dept > have to select from among 20 different buildings by looking for smoke plumes. Why can't we have VoIP phones with built-in GPS receivers and a built-in 911 dialplan that makes the phone transmit your coordinates along with the emergency call? That solves the campus problem. And since VoIP phones are nearly as portable as cellphones, this makes good sense. If you take your VoIP phone to grandma's house at Thanksgiving, plug into her broadband router and need to call for assistance, it would just work. Of course there is the little matter of a national E-911 center to accept the calls, decode the GPS info, and dispatch the call correctly... --Michael Dillon
Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
On 4/1/2005 12:34 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > on the other hand I disagree with your example that the US is inventing > everything, Nope, didn't say that either. > Also, look at where implementation of high-speed local access is being > done, it's not in the US anyway. Also a reflection of culture. We aren't high-density as in Korea, and we don't have massive natural resource and taxation revenues to afford fiber drops into every isolated corner of a single state as in Norway, and so forth. More to the point, we're not going to move into single-room dwellings or invert our economy (both of which are suggested from time to time--"the koreans/norwegians can do it, so can we..."). Instead some fool will develop (and deploy) unproven technologies that may or may not eventually solve our problem, at great pain and expense to us all. Even more to the point, of course, we're glad that others are successfully using (and will be using) the technologies that work out in spite of our apparent foolishness in pursuing them. But really, all I'm saying here is that nationalizing and/or mandating technology may work great elsewhere (and even in some areas here) but generally speaking its not in our culture and the suggestion falls flat. I'm not bragging, I'm explaining why. > If the PTTs can sit on their access networks without regulation, there > will be no competition in the access, and then the market comes to a > standstill because building new access networks costs an arm and a leg, > especially if right-of-way is hard to come by and you have to negotiate > with every land-owner on the way. It's in everybody's interest to reduce capitalization requirements and increase access. See voluntary tower-sharing agreements, for example. http://wethersfieldct.com/B+C/PZC_05-18-2004.html and start reading at 'tower sharing'; I'd prefer to see this made easier, certainly. -- Eric A. Hallhttp://www.ehsco.com/ Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/
Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, Eric A. Hall wrote: Besides which, your exmple of parallel [and identical] networks shows that there are dumb things to be found in trying to maintain artifical competition in a non-competitive environment. Yes, of course there are plenty of examples of dumb things being done, but on the other hand I disagree with your example that the US is inventing everything, well, unless you didn't mean to imply that you use it as well. I attenced a Ethernet in the first mile seminar at N+I last year, and sitting there listening to US telcos saying that ethernet might work was just fascinating. The rest of the world has been doing this for years. Also, look at where implementation of high-speed local access is being done, it's not in the US anyway. If the PTTs can sit on their access networks without regulation, there will be no competition in the access, and then the market comes to a standstill because building new access networks costs an arm and a leg, especially if right-of-way is hard to come by and you have to negotiate with every land-owner on the way. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
--- Paul Vixie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > sure as hell, we'll see laws requiring every home to > have a telephone, to > have that telephone in the kitchen or other main > room of the home, and to > be clearly marked. then the POTS tithe comes back, > it'll be with vengeance. So given that you see this as likely, and by your tone, I'm guessing that you're not in favor of this outcome, what do you propose? David Barak Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise: http://www.listentothefranchise.com __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
On 3/31/2005 7:22 PM, Brad Knowles wrote: > At 6:27 PM -0600 2005-03-31, Eric A. Hall wrote: >> Our system is chaotic and annoying at times but it produces better stuff >> in the form of whole new technologies and in the form of incremental >> improvements to existing technologies. > Don't pretend that just because you're an American, you > automatically know better, I don't pretend, and it's not because I'm an American > or that your system is inherently better. I didn't say the system was better, I said it produces "better stuff" insofar as that applies to long-term advancement, but that's nothing to say about here and now. Stability is cheap and friendly, which is arguably better when you are trying to exlain why somebody's TDMA phone won't ever work with a CDMA network. OTOH, I'm glad the world didn't stand still on X.25 and OSI, if you know what I mean. They are different models is all. But if you insist on reading something into that, then perhaps it's yourself suffering from prejudicial bias. Just a thought. > It is entirely possible that the Europeans might know a thing or two It's possible I guess. I mean, a European did bother advancing beyond Gopher to create HTTP, although I suspect that says more about the low-capitalization requirements of network services than anything about the cultural differences. -- Eric A. Hallhttp://www.ehsco.com/ Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/
Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
On 3/31/2005 2:29 PM, Larry Smith wrote: > If / when we get back to the state of "monopoly" on data pipes such as > water and sewer are today (I doubt you have little if any choice on > where your water comes from or where your sewer goes There are loads of non-municipal installs where if you want water and sewer, you dig your own holes in the ground. Regulations still exist for safety and such but that's separate from the monopoly providers found in denser installs. -- Eric A. Hallhttp://www.ehsco.com/ Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/
Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
On 3/31/2005 2:40 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > But I do agree, the whole US market would be better off with more > regulation in all areas actually. No, we're not Europe. > There is no need for a lot of parallell networks really, Our system is chaotic and annoying at times but it produces better stuff in the form of whole new technologies and in the form of incremental improvements to existing technologies. I mean, you guys can wait around and then standardize on some point in the development cycle, but we're inventing the technologies and the incremental improvements. If we did what you do then we might as well all stop and stand still now. Besides which, your exmple of parallel [and identical] networks shows that there are dumb things to be found in trying to maintain artifical competition in a non-competitive environment. -- Eric A. Hallhttp://www.ehsco.com/ Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/
Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, Paul Vixie wrote: to that end, i've wondered why the US doesn't join other industrialized nations in regulating cellular roaming agreements and tower spacing and coverage. in the parts of sweden with a density less than 10 people per square kilometer, cell phones work. in similar parts of the US, they don't. Being a Swedish cellphone subscriber, I cannot roam at all between the Swedish providers. If you are an user from outside Sweden, you can roam with them all. Three parallell networks trying to cover a country the size of california but with only 9 million people in it, and generally they're not allowed to use each others infrastructure. Silly. The best coverage in the less populated parts of Sweden is still with an analogue 450MHz based system from the 80ties that is going to be shut down soon. But I do agree, the whole US market would be better off with more regulation in all areas actually. There is no need for a lot of parallell networks really, in theory you only need one, especially in parts that are less populated. So the local loop is regulated in Sweden and a lot of the swedish population can choose from 3-4 different DSL providers, all competing with price and speed. Current best price for 8M/1M adsl is $35 excluding tax. Of this the phone company gets $8 for the shared copper used in the local loop. Wholesale of bandwidth and capacity and dark fiber works well, everybody buys from everybody at decent prices. The capital municipality runs its own fiber business where anyone can rent fiber for approx $200 per month and kilometer of fiber (cost per kilometer goes down as distance goes up). The PTT is competing with the same prices, they have to. Telia (the PTT) is even one of the first to aggressively offer digital broadcast TV over broadband to compete with the cable companies. Comparing to other countries where the municipalities aren't involved in infrastructure, fiber in Sweden is cheap. When the municipality puts down other infrastructure such as heating and cooling pipes, paving roads etc, they also put in fiber. Doesn't cost much more when you're doing work anyway. The important thing of course is that they have to sell to everybody, otherwise you run into problems. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
On Thursday 31 March 2005 14:15, Paul Vixie wrote: > > occam's razor? We have government regulations regarding things which > > look like (and function similarly to) light switches, no? We have > > government regulations regarding the nature of water and sewer pipes, why > > not regulations regarding the nature of data pipes? If / when we get back to the state of "monopoly" on data pipes such as water and sewer are today (I doubt you have little if any choice on where your water comes from or where your sewer goes - hence the regulation), then yes, we will probably end up with such regulation - but will also have the same "choice" of data pipes as we do water pipes today. -- Larry Smith SysAd ECSIS.NET [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Barak) writes: > Well, here's the catch - it wasn't the VoIP subscriber who was > complaining, it was the PSTN subscriber. The experience left her with > the opinion that VoIP = bad quality voice. I suspect you'll see a lot of > this... like the libertarians like to say, "use your dollar-votes." > > ... the most the gov't should be allowed to require is that i put a > > warning label on my front door and on anthing inside my house that > > looks like a phone. > > occam's razor? We have government regulations regarding things which > look like (and function similarly to) light switches, no? We have > government regulations regarding the nature of water and sewer pipes, why > not regulations regarding the nature of data pipes? because some phones look like model cars, and that's not something any gov't ought to have a say about. > ... specifically configured to respond to 911 OR 9-911 to avoid a > problem. Would YOU want to have been the person who didn't enable one of > those options, and thus delayed response time? i'm in favour of the warning labels and standardization. my point is that out there in POTS-land there is wide variance in attitudes, and selective enforcement of the rules. > ... I see this as a public safety issue, not a freedom issue. It is in > the public's interest for 911 to work the way we expect it to, everywhere. to that end, i've wondered why the US doesn't join other industrialized nations in regulating cellular roaming agreements and tower spacing and coverage. in the parts of sweden with a density less than 10 people per square kilometer, cell phones work. in similar parts of the US, they don't. market forces are allowed to dominate this equation even though we'd save a lot of lives if cell phones worked in the hinterlands. yet the FCC is ready to fine vonage if 911 doesn't work universally. why is it okay to let the public's interest suffer so as to promote innovation and competition when it's old money vs. old money, but not when it's old money vs. new money? > But VoIP companies calling their product a "communications service" and > saying that they're exempt from 911 regulation, and at the same time > beating up the ISPs for deprioritizing their traffic based on the same > 911 access is completely fine, huh? don't take it so personally. MMORPG companies also beat the stuffing out of ISPs who can't maintain isochrony of packet delivery, too. anyone whose application isn't supported by the infrastructure is going to complain -- and rightly so. especially, Especially, ESPECIALLY if it's done on purpose with anticompetitive goals. > Voice is an application, but a gov't regulated one. In this regard it is > fundamentally different from email or ftp. ah, yes, but when i run a voice app on my computer and use domain names to reach out to folks rather than "phone numbers", it's fundamentally The Same As email or ftp, and that's what makes it so wonderful and full of potential. > > and when 20% or 50% of the homes in a region lack this service because > > the people who live in those homes don't want to pay a POTS tithe, > > we'll see some interesting legislation come down, and you can quote me > > on that. > > Yes, I'm certain we will. The legislation will likely be due to a > particularly bad fire during a power outage or some other event which > makes national news. sure as hell, we'll see laws requiring every home to have a telephone, to have that telephone in the kitchen or other main room of the home, and to be clearly marked. then the POTS tithe comes back, it'll be with vengeance. -- Paul Vixie
Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
--- Paul Vixie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Barak) writes: > > > anecdote: one of my good friends uses Vonage, and > my wife complained to > > me yesterday that she has a very hard time > understanding their phone > > conversations anymore. She correctly identified > the change in quality as > > originating from the VoPI. > > as long as she's getting what she's paying for, or > getting the cost savings > that go along with the drop in quality, and is happy > with the savings, then > this isn't a bug. Well, here's the catch - it wasn't the VoIP subscriber who was complaining, it was the PSTN subscriber. The experience left her with the opinion that VoIP = bad quality voice. I suspect you'll see a lot of this... > > unfortunately a lot of companies who use voip or > other forms of "statistical > overcommit" want to pocket the savings and don't > want to disclose the service > limitations. that gives the whole field an > undeserved bad smell. agreed. > > > Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but your > implication seems to be "damn > > the 911, full steam ahead." That's great for > optional voice (calls to > > Panama) but not so good for non-optional voice (to > the fire dept). > > i'm not especially tolerant of governments telling > me how safe i have to be. > if i want a 911-free phone in my house then the most > the gov't should be > allowed to require is that i put a warning label on > my front door and on > anthing inside my house that looks like a phone. occam's razor? We have government regulations regarding things which look like (and function similarly to) light switches, no? We have government regulations regarding the nature of water and sewer pipes, why not regulations regarding the nature of data pipes? > most american PBX's don't have 911 as a dialplan. > you have to dial 9-911. We work on different PBXes. The ones on which I work are specifically configured to respond to 911 OR 9-911 to avoid a problem. Would YOU want to have been the person who didn't enable one of those options, and thus delayed response time? < snip regarding corporate bad behavior in configuring PBXes> > geez, where's the FCC when you need 'em, huh? actually, yes - I see this as a public safety issue, not a freedom issue. It is in the public's interest for 911 to work the way we expect it to, everywhere. > i think the selective enforcement here is sickening, > and that if old money > telcos can't compete without asset protection, they > should file for chapter > 11 rather than muscling newcomer costs up by calling > these things "phone" and > then circling their wagons around the NANP. But VoIP companies calling their product a "communications service" and saying that they're exempt from 911 regulation, and at the same time beating up the ISPs for deprioritizing their traffic based on the same 911 access is completely fine, huh? Voice is an application, but a gov't regulated one. In this regard it is fundamentally different from email or ftp. > but > that's not going to happen, > so i predict that the internet will do what it > always does-- work around the > problem. so, domain names and personal computers > rather than "phone numbers" > and things-that-look-like-phones. > and when 20% or 50% of the homes in a region lack > this service because the > people who live in those homes don't want to pay a > POTS tithe, we'll see > some interesting legislation come down, and you can > quote me on that. Yes, I'm certain we will. The legislation will likely be due to a particularly bad fire during a power outage or some other event which makes national news. David Barak Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise: http://www.listentothefranchise.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Personals - Better first dates. More second dates. http://personals.yahoo.com
Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
On 31 mars 2005, at 12:18, Paul Vixie wrote: ...all kinds of things that nobody outside the POTS empire actually cares about. folks just want to talk. cell-quality voice is fine. When we first started playing with voice over IP at CLEAR in New Zealand in the mid-to-late 1990s, we found that there was a wide variety of call quality that was acceptable to users, far down below the "minimum acceptable" voice standard defined by the ITU (and, subjectively, much worse than GSM). We ran packets across all kinds of deliberately-broken networks in order to see how people coped with it. The important thing, we found, was that the quality had to be consistent in order for people to be able to use it. It didn't matter so much that the quality was nasty, as long as it was consistently nasty. Joe
Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Barak) writes: > anecdote: one of my good friends uses Vonage, and my wife complained to > me yesterday that she has a very hard time understanding their phone > conversations anymore. She correctly identified the change in quality as > originating from the VoPI. as long as she's getting what she's paying for, or getting the cost savings that go along with the drop in quality, and is happy with the savings, then this isn't a bug. unfortunately a lot of companies who use voip or other forms of "statistical overcommit" want to pocket the savings and don't want to disclose the service limitations. that gives the whole field an undeserved bad smell. > Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but your implication seems to be "damn > the 911, full steam ahead." That's great for optional voice (calls to > Panama) but not so good for non-optional voice (to the fire dept). i'm not especially tolerant of governments telling me how safe i have to be. if i want a 911-free phone in my house then the most the gov't should be allowed to require is that i put a warning label on my front door and on anthing inside my house that looks like a phone. most american PBX's don't have 911 as a dialplan. you have to dial 9-911. this isn't a violation of the law as long as there's a warning label about it. but go ahead and visit a few large companies and tell me how many such warning labels you see. as an added boon, note that campuses with blocks of 1000 DIDs end up using the corporate headquarters or the address of the PBX as the 911 locator for all 1000 (or 1 or whatever) extensions, making the fire dept have to select from among 20 different buildings by looking for smoke plumes. geez, where's the FCC when you need 'em, huh? i think the selective enforcement here is sickening, and that if old money telcos can't compete without asset protection, they should file for chapter 11 rather than muscling newcomer costs up by calling these things "phone" and then circling their wagons around the NANP. but that's not going to happen, so i predict that the internet will do what it always does-- work around the problem. so, domain names and personal computers rather than "phone numbers" and things-that-look-like-phones. i've got nothing against 911, and i love my local fire dept. > > the solution of course is to use computers rather than "phones" and to > > use domain names rather than "phone numbers". > > fine by me - such a service would never be confused with POTS, and no one > sensible would treat it as a reliable/robust service. and when 20% or 50% of the homes in a region lack this service because the people who live in those homes don't want to pay a POTS tithe, we'll see some interesting legislation come down, and you can quote me on that. > > all it has to be is as good as a cell phone. > > Requirements differ. To paraphrase Randy, "I encourage my competitors to > use this voice quality standard." back at DEC, the company policy was to build the products we thought the world should be using, and then try to convince the world to use them. DEC was later bought, in disgrace mind you, by a company whose policy was to figure out what the world wanted to use, and build it better and cheaper. if there are people out there who want cell-quality voice, are willing to live without 911, but want to make multiple calls at once with flat rate billing, they should be able to choose VoIP (or VoPI, i guess). however, the FCC seems to have decided that this would be $bad, which i guess from the point of view of old money telcos and capital inertia, it indeed is. -- Paul Vixie
Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, Paul Vixie wrote:
("dammit, i need a decent quality USB headset for less than USD $300!")
Here in Sweden you can purchase a "skypephone" which is a POTS wireless
phone with a USB connector. It has two call buttons, one which taps into
your computer Skype client, one that works on the POTS line. It costs $100
plus tax here.
I've been told it's decently well made.
--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
--- Paul Vixie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Toll-quality voice requires ...
>
> ...all kinds of things that nobody outside the POTS
> empire actually
> cares about. folks just want to talk. cell-quality
> voice is fine.
> (just ask anybody in panama who has relatives in the
> USA!)
anecdote: one of my good friends uses Vonage, and my
wife complained to me yesterday that she has a very
hard time understanding their phone conversations
anymore. She correctly identified the change in
quality as originating from the VoPI.
> sadly, to get "voice over ip" (note, it's not
> telephony over ip, it's
> voice over ip),
The difference between the two is readily apparent to
businesses: VoIP::POTS as "ToIP"::PBX/Centrex
>we're going to have to integrate it
> into our computers.
> ("dammit, i need a decent quality USB headset for
> less than USD $300!")
> because as long as something looks-like-a-phone, the
> POTS empire can use
> the NANP (or local equivilent) and 911 regulations
> (or local equivilent)
> to prevent newer more efficient carriers from making
> money from "voice".
Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but your
implication seems to be "damn the 911, full steam
ahead." That's great for optional voice (calls to
Panama) but not so good for non-optional voice (to the
fire dept).
>
> the solution of course is to use computers rather
> than "phones" and to
> use domain names rather than "phone numbers".
fine by me - such a service would never be confused
with POTS, and no one sensible would treat it as a
reliable/robust service.
> > ..., the public Internet has substantial jitter
> and high
> > coast-to-coast latency, ...
>
> just thinking out loud here, but which "coasts" do
> we mean when we talk
> about the "public internet"? my first thought was
> lisbon-to-sakhalin,
> rather than seattle-to-miami.
>
> given that the public internet isn't even centered
> in let alone predominated
> by north america any more,
How do you measure this? According to Telegeography,
London has been the city with the most international
connections for about the past 5 or 6 years, but New
York (& environs) still had the highest aggregate
international bandwidth during that time. I would
certainly say that North America is a disproportionate
source and sink of traffic relative to population.
> and that some of the best
> (and/or loudest) speakers
> at nanog (both on the mailing list and in person)
> are from outside north
> america, it seems to me that the "reform party"
> should be thinking of a new
> name. i'll happily turn ANOG.$CNO and/or
> WORLDNOG.$CNO over to any elected
> board who becomes merit's successor-in-interest over
> "nanog governance"...
Well, North America does have its own issues, and
there should be a venue for that. (side note: I'm far
more likely to have my employer send me to Seattle
than to Tokyo...)
> (if you didn't know about the nanog-futures@ mailing
> list, go find out, plz.)
>
Thanks for the plug :)
> > OTOH, if you're going across a network with decent
> QoS or within the same
> > general area of the country, you can afford a
> larger transmit buffer without
> > risking the "walkie talkie" effect.
>
> all it has to be is as good as a cell phone.
Requirements differ. To paraphrase Randy, "I
encourage my competitors to use this voice quality
standard."
David Barak
Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise:
http://www.listentothefranchise.com
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
