[[email protected]]

A recent article in the electronic newsletter for FIdonet
states the voice over internet protocol will supplant plain
old telephone service in most of the world soon. MIght be
true. IN either case, I have some problems with that.
HEre's my response. COmments anyone?

IS there a future for pots? another viewpoint


I read the article in 2536 with some interest, as I"m one of those with pots
connectivity only. Although many are sold
on voice over internet protocols I'm not convinced, and hope that our
telecommunications companies here in North America
avoid the switch for a variety of reasons. I'll list them
in order of most important to the public down to my personal reasons.

first and foremost, VoIp requires more infrastructure to get the audio from
point a to point b. In most advanced
societies services such as 9-1-1 for emergency response
dispatch are readily available, and we've grown to depend on them. with the
simple pots technology we've become used to
handling it can remain reliable even after weather events
such as storms do major damage. The reason is that most of
the landline cabling is buried underground in many parts of
the U.s. Combine this with reliable battery backup for
switching facilities and you've got a robust system that
will still continue to handle calls even after the trees
have blown down and the power grid is knocked out. I'm such a firm believer in
maintaining simple pots capability that
I've convinced many elderly family members not to give up
their pots lines for cell phones only. while arguing the
point with them I tell them not to abandon their plain old
telephone handset with keypad or dial in favor of the
wireless systems and others that also require power from the grid. IT just may
save a life.

voIp on the other hand requires more infrastructure to
remain working. You've got to convert that audio to data
packets, and route them. THe more complex you make a system the more vulnerable
it is to failure either due to tampering or just accident. Many times when
operating an emergency
radio communications facility I've hooked up a small battery to a field
telephone like armies use and strung some wire to the folks
I'm providing
communications for. THis way, they
can communicate directly with me without having to send a courier from one place
to another. I can also phone patch them
directly onto the radio if the need should arise. it's
simple, a low voltage power source, some wire and two simple handsets. THe
regular landline telephone you find in your home isn't
much more complicated than that. OTher than the dual tone
generator which is driven by the same power source as the
rest of the system it's just a simple audio connection. The twisted pair
balanced line does fairly good at keeping
interference out and delivering audio to each end of the
connection reliably.

This simple system is easier to troubleshoot, easier to
restore to service after the large scale outage. STring
another line to patch around the trouble spot, add more DC
power; if all else fails go back to electromechanical
relays. Easy to use; easy to fix; high degree of
reliability. What's not to like?

Many claim not to hear a difference in audio quality for
voice calls routed via VoIp or via regular pots connections. Wish I could say
that. I've used VoIp modes communicating
over ham radio, and communicated many times with people
using such voIp phone services. I'm appalled that we would
consider the poor quality audio we get from these digital
cell phones and VoIp connections as acceptable. Telephone
audio has become poorer just in my fifty plus years on this
planet, and it should be getting better. I seem to spend
more time with these newfangled digital packet switched
audio connections saying "what was that again?" than I
should be.


THen again, there are plenty of folks in the developed world still on dial-up
internet connections. There are still many
places here in the Americas where you're too far away from a switch to get dsl
reliably. IN many of them there is not
cable TV service.

IN short, those of us with a few clues should be telling the telecomm service
providers that we expect reliability and
better sound. THe first time your packet switched cool voIp system causes
Grandma not to get emergency services MR.
TElecomm CEO I hope they drag you through the courts for the rest of your
natural life.

Just $0.02 worth from out here in the trenches.




Richard webb,
replace anything before at with elspider

[Don Pearce]

wrote:
A recent article in the electronic newsletter for FIdonet
states the voice over internet protocol will supplant plain
old telephone service in most of the world soon. MIght be
true. IN either case, I have some problems with that.
HEre's my response. COmments anyone?

IS there a future for pots? another viewpoint


I read the article in 2536 with some interest, as I"m one of those with pots
connectivity only. Although many are sold
on voice over internet protocols I'm not convinced, and hope that our
telecommunications companies here in North America
avoid the switch for a variety of reasons. I'll list them
in order of most important to the public down to my personal reasons.

first and foremost, VoIp requires more infrastructure to get the audio from
point a to point b. In most advanced
societies services such as 9-1-1 for emergency response
dispatch are readily available, and we've grown to depend on them. with the
simple pots technology we've become used to
handling it can remain reliable even after weather events
such as storms do major damage. The reason is that most of
the landline cabling is buried underground in many parts of
the U.s. Combine this with reliable battery backup for
switching facilities and you've got a robust system that
will still continue to handle calls even after the trees
have blown down and the power grid is knocked out. I'm such a firm believer in
maintaining simple pots capability that
I've convinced many elderly family members not to give up
their pots lines for cell phones only. while arguing the
point with them I tell them not to abandon their plain old
telephone handset with keypad or dial in favor of the
wireless systems and others that also require power from the grid. IT just may
save a life.

voIp on the other hand requires more infrastructure to
remain working. You've got to convert that audio to data
packets, and route them. THe more complex you make a system the more vulnerable
it is to failure either due to tampering or just accident. Many times when
operating an emergency
radio communications facility I've hooked up a small battery to a field
telephone like armies use and strung some wire to the folks
I'm providing
communications for. THis way, they
can communicate directly with me without having to send a courier from one place
to another. I can also phone patch them
directly onto the radio if the need should arise. it's
simple, a low voltage power source, some wire and two simple handsets. THe
regular landline telephone you find in your home isn't
much more complicated than that. OTher than the dual tone
generator which is driven by the same power source as the
rest of the system it's just a simple audio connection. The twisted pair
balanced line does fairly good at keeping
interference out and delivering audio to each end of the
connection reliably.

This simple system is easier to troubleshoot, easier to
restore to service after the large scale outage. STring
another line to patch around the trouble spot, add more DC
power; if all else fails go back to electromechanical
relays. Easy to use; easy to fix; high degree of
reliability. What's not to like?

Many claim not to hear a difference in audio quality for
voice calls routed via VoIp or via regular pots connections. Wish I could say
that. I've used VoIp modes communicating
over ham radio, and communicated many times with people
using such voIp phone services. I'm appalled that we would
consider the poor quality audio we get from these digital
cell phones and VoIp connections as acceptable. Telephone
audio has become poorer just in my fifty plus years on this
planet, and it should be getting better. I seem to spend
more time with these newfangled digital packet switched
audio connections saying "what was that again?" than I
should be.


THen again, there are plenty of folks in the developed world still on dial-up
internet connections. There are still many
places here in the Americas where you're too far away from a switch to get dsl
reliably. IN many of them there is not
cable TV service.

IN short, those of us with a few clues should be telling the telecomm service
providers that we expect reliability and
better sound. THe first time your packet switched cool voIp system causes
Grandma not to get emergency services MR.
TElecomm CEO I hope they drag you through the courts for the rest of your
natural life.

Just $0.02 worth from out here in the trenches.




Richard webb,
replace anything before at with elspider



The UK telephone network backbone is VoIP, and I have experienced no
problems. I know of no plans to attempt to take VoIP any further than
the switch - there is no need while everyone has their own copper pair
to the house. Of course services like Skype run on systems without GOS
specifications, intended for non-realtime data transfer so it is no
surprise that they perform badly.

d

[Don Pearce]

Soundhaspriority wrote:
"Don Pearce" wrote in message
et...
wrote:
A recent article in the electronic newsletter for FIdonet
states the voice over internet protocol will supplant plain
old telephone service in most of the world soon. MIght be
true. IN either case, I have some problems with that.
HEre's my response. COmments anyone?

IS there a future for pots? another viewpoint

[snip]
The UK telephone network backbone is VoIP, and I have experienced no
problems. I know of no plans to attempt to take VoIP any further than the
switch - there is no need while everyone has their own copper pair to the
house. Of course services like Skype run on systems without GOS
specifications, intended for non-realtime data transfer so it is no
surprise that they perform badly.

d

Here in the U.S., investment analysts have been observing a steady drain
from POTS. This has even had a negative effect on Verizon, whose broadband
infrastructure is growing. I myself live in a neighborhood where every house
has fiber, (FIOS), and Verizon initially tried to remove the copper from the
house of every new subscriber. The investment community has concluded that
POTS is definitely dying.

The business model predicts the trend. In other words, even if we have a
personal bias in one direction, it shouldn't blind us to the eventual
outcome. POTS will survive as a legacy technology, until the tipping point,
when telcos will find it cheaper to switch the customer for free to packet.

My household has two Vonage subscriptions running over a Verizon FIOS
connection. My personal experience has been that, over the past four years,
VOIP has improved steadily. It is still subject to network congestion during
peak periods, but, unlike times gone by, we have two distinct cellphone
networks as backups. And if we had chosen Verizon VOIP, even the occasional
congestion problem might not manifest.

When we had POTS, we had long periods of affliction with noisy lines. FIOS
is perfectly quiet and immune to moisture. The carbon fiber reinforced
outside lines are extremely tough. The reliability of FIOS far superior to
either POTS or Comcast cable.

The elderly have the most difficulty adapting to any form of change. We
cannot keep an entire obsolete infrastructure running just for them, but
government should keep an eye out for their welfare.

I know that Richard Webb has distinguished himself in emergency services.
Richard, in the Gulf region, which is more subject to infrastructure
disruption than most of the U.S., now is the time to put new technology in
for emergency personal backup. Some activist group could develop a
"neighborhood emergency communcations cooperative" based on satellite
internet shared by neighborhood wifi. These dishes are down to about $60 a
month. They can be stowed and mounted after the winds. Wifi repeaters can
create bubbles of connectivity hundreds of yards in extent.

Bob Morein, WA3IOX
(310) 237-6511



You raise an important point with emergency services, namely that few if
any VoIP phones will operate through a power cut (8 hours is I think the
minimum operation time for any emergency-qualified terminal). You still
need your pots line for that.

d

[Richard Crowley]

"Don Pearce" wrote ...
You raise an important point with emergency services, namely that few if
any VoIP phones will operate through a power cut (8 hours is I think the
minimum operation time for any emergency-qualified terminal). You still
need your pots line for that.

I'll probably give the order this week to disconnect my POTS.
My cell service costs 1/2 the price and includes many features
that would make POTS cost even mo Nationwide free roaming,
nationwide free long-distance, caller-ID, voicemail, etc. etc. And
since there's nobody at home when I'm gone, it mostly rings for
nobody. All my friends, credit cards, etc. have my cell number,
so only telemarketers call the POTS and good riddance to them.

I've got widespread 2m ham radio coverage in case of disaster
(Where cell service will be useless or nearly.) And dunno how
many telco COs still have big rooms full of twenty-four 2V
lead-acid "cells" as big as refrigerators?

[Don Pearce]

Richard Crowley wrote:
"Don Pearce" wrote ...
You raise an important point with emergency services, namely that few if
any VoIP phones will operate through a power cut (8 hours is I think the
minimum operation time for any emergency-qualified terminal). You still
need your pots line for that.

I'll probably give the order this week to disconnect my POTS.
My cell service costs 1/2 the price and includes many features
that would make POTS cost even mo Nationwide free roaming,
nationwide free long-distance, caller-ID, voicemail, etc. etc. And
since there's nobody at home when I'm gone, it mostly rings for
nobody. All my friends, credit cards, etc. have my cell number,
so only telemarketers call the POTS and good riddance to them.

I've got widespread 2m ham radio coverage in case of disaster
(Where cell service will be useless or nearly.) And dunno how
many telco COs still have big rooms full of twenty-four 2V
lead-acid "cells" as big as refrigerators?



They don't need the big rooms any more, but I think you will find they
all have ups and generator coverage for much more than 8 hours.

d

[Geoff]

Don Pearce wrote:
The UK telephone network backbone is VoIP, and I have experienced no
problems. I know of no plans to attempt to take VoIP any further than
the switch - there is no need while everyone has their own copper pair
to the house. Of course services like Skype run on systems without GOS
specifications, intended for non-realtime data transfer so it is no
surprise that they perform badly.

VoIP arther than dedicated PCM ? You sure ?

At a sunscriber-end solution I've never seen (heard) anything but
unsatisfactory with VoIP over a sustained period.

geoff

[[email protected]]

On 2008-09-08 said:
You raise an important point with emergency services, namely that
few if any VoIP phones will operate through a power cut (8 hours
is I think the minimum operation time for any emergency-qualified
terminal). You still need your pots line for that.
Yah, but within eight hours you can figure something out, or
have summoned help if you're conscious and trapped.

I'll probably give the order this week to disconnect my POTS.
My cell service costs 1/2 the price and includes many features
that would make POTS cost even mo Nationwide free roaming,
nationwide free long-distance, caller-ID, voicemail, etc. etc. And
since there's nobody at home when I'm gone, it mostly rings for
nobody. All my friends, credit cards, etc. have my cell number,
so only telemarketers call the POTS and good riddance to them.
I've got widespread 2m ham radio coverage in case of disaster
(Where cell service will be useless or nearly.) And dunno how
many telco COs still have big rooms full of twenty-four 2V
lead-acid "cells" as big as refrigerators?

I"m still happy with ours. I"ve got continental 1 price
unlimited use ld on my pots. We do a tracphone but few have
the number. I pay for voicemail, business folks can call
and leave a voicemail. My modem performs well, I get
reliable 28.8 kbps connects most of the time, modem will do
faster but the line supports that.
Cell phones are banned in the working cabin of remote truck
anyway, and last thing I want is a cell bugging me when I"m
working. I have 50 watts with a 5/8 wave 2 meters on the
van and hf with 100 watts as well so have all the road comms
I need. HOwever, I've convinced my parents to leave one
regular plain Jane pots connected in the basement, and one
in the kitchen. NO need for additional power other than the
phone line, and should still work.
wHEn the ice storm took everything else out for them a
couple years ago their pots was still functional.





Richard webb,
replace anything before at with elspider

[[email protected]]

Bob wrote:

The business model predicts the trend. In other words, even if we
have a personal bias in one direction, it shouldn't blind us to
the eventual outcome. POTS will survive as a legacy technology,
until the tipping point, when telcos will find it cheaper to
switch the customer for free to packet.
True enough, but I think that those pushing the switch had
better know what they're doing before they do that and
consider all these factors as well. FOr eample, the
hospital where I manned a communications post during Katrina
had no phone system, thanks to its all digital system which
ran concurrently with its data networking.
A clinic across the street had one working phone line, and
that phone line remained functional, and able to dial around
NEw ORleans to other working pots lines even when IT
couldn't dial outside the metro area. I made it across the
street to use it once and finally reached my mother in IOwa,
whom I told to call Kathy's mother in MInnesota. I could
reach the 800 number for my telephone debit card but not a
trunk line to the midwest, but through my debit card's lines
I could reach the midwest.

When we had POTS, we had long periods of affliction with noisy
lines. FIOS is perfectly quiet and immune to moisture. The carbon
fiber reinforced outside lines are extremely tough. The
reliability of FIOS far superior to either POTS or Comcast cable.
The elderly have the most difficulty adapting to any form of
change. We cannot keep an entire obsolete infrastructure running
just for them, but government should keep an eye out for their
welfare.
True, but we must also consider how reliable a new system is
and how robust before we make wholesale switches.

YEsterday I was running a phone patch for a guy on a boat in
the Caribbean to a 719 area code number, somewhere in
PEnnsylvania iirc. I kept squinting at the meters on the
rig and the phone patch when I'd hear what I thought was rf
feedback and other problems, where usually I don't have to
make any adjustments on the patch at all, just get the
person on the telephone end to speak clearly. nExt
transmission from the phone end would be clean and clear and
I wouldn't have changed a thing. I finally asked the fellow
on the phone end of the ocnnection about his phone system
and he told me he was on a VoIp service. I've found this
the case over many of them, just plain inconsistent with the
audio quality, from poor phase shifted weird sound to broken
up and distorted, to the next sentence clean and clear. AS
I commented in my response to the article, I find myself
having to say "what was that again" too often on the phone
these days.

I know that Richard Webb has distinguished himself in emergency
services. Richard, in the Gulf region, which is more subject to
infrastructure disruption than most of the U.S., now is the time
to put new technology in for emergency personal backup. Some
activist group could develop a "neighborhood emergency
communcations cooperative" based on satellite internet shared by
neighborhood wifi. These dishes are down to about $60 a month.
They can be stowed and mounted after the winds. Wifi repeaters can
create bubbles of connectivity hundreds of yards in extent.
Yah , if you can keep your laptop charged. I was using
plain old voice over hf ham radio, and good old
international MOrse to get our traffic out of that hospital.
All these computer folks around there were rediscovering the
good ol' fashioned pencil and a notepad g.
THe most popular use for battery power in those parts was
for personal flashlights, next for portable radios. I
played "lending library" with our human powered crank it up
broadcast receiver we had in the radio room g.
WE have enough trouble teaching hams and those doing field
audio about care and feeding of rechargeable batteries,
teaching Joe average about care and feeding of emergency
backup power for the neighborhood wi fi hotspot and keeping
those laptop batteries charged would be some real fun.

I've a lot of elderly in this neighborhood where I live
right now, and we're right on hte NEw Madrid fault line.
I'm pushing neighbors to get those little family radio
service rigs and use 'em once in awhile just to make sure
the alkaline cells they contain are still good. I"ll have
antennas up on temporary masts even after the shake rattle
and roll is over or the tornado blows through, and if
trapped a neighbor can always yell helps on frs 1 and we'll
play relay station, or at least the wife will. IF roads are
blocked I"ll be on my way to the local hospital where we're
their emergency comms backup plan, she'll man the station at
home, after I get her temporary vhf/uhf yagi pointed at
MEmphis and an nvis wire strung for 75 meters.

HOwever, that's us, we've been there, got the tee shirt and
the proverbial tattoo. Most folks aren't as well prepared
as we are. OUr freezer is full, plenty of ready to eat type
foods around, usually at least half a tank of gas in the
van.

73 de nf5b



Richard webb,
replace anything before at with elspider

[Jay Ts]

geoff wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:
The UK telephone network backbone is VoIP, and I have experienced no
problems. I know of no plans to attempt to take VoIP any further than
the switch - there is no need while everyone has their own copper pair
to the house. Of course services like Skype run on systems without GOS
specifications, intended for non-realtime data transfer so it is no
surprise that they perform badly.

VoIP arther than dedicated PCM ? You sure ?

A couple of details may need attention. First, the old-style
of digital long distance was packet-switched, highly-compressed
to (IIRC) 6kHz and 4 bits. That was transferred using a digital
system that guaranteed 120 ms. of delay.

Although Skype uses VoIP, it is also possible to run a VoIP
system that is independent of the Internet, making it possible
to implement a higher quality of service. It is essentially
like packet switching without having its QoS.

With sufficiently high-bandwidth networking hardware, it
is possible to implement telephone connections with VoIP
that are (arguably?) about as good as the older packet
switching network. And it is a lot cheaper.

[Corrections welcome -- I was treading thin ice through all of
that, going on my memory of a talk given by the head of the
Cisco's Phoenix sales office several years ago, when they'd
just come out with their new VoIP product, and were trying to
sell it to corporations as a cheaper replacement for international
T1 lines.]

Jay Ts
--
To contact me, use this web page:
http://www.jayts.com/contact.php

[Richard Crowley]

"Jay Ts" wrote ...
A couple of details may need attention. First, the old-style
of digital long distance was packet-switched, highly-compressed
to (IIRC) 6kHz and 4 bits. That was transferred using a digital
system that guaranteed 120 ms. of delay.

Although Skype uses VoIP, it is also possible to run a VoIP
system that is independent of the Internet, making it possible
to implement a higher quality of service. It is essentially
like packet switching without having its QoS.

With sufficiently high-bandwidth networking hardware, it
is possible to implement telephone connections with VoIP
that are (arguably?) about as good as the older packet
switching network. And it is a lot cheaper.

[Corrections welcome -- I was treading thin ice through all of
that, going on my memory of a talk given by the head of the
Cisco's Phoenix sales office several years ago, when they'd
just come out with their new VoIP product, and were trying to
sell it to corporations as a cheaper replacement for international
T1 lines.]

Large corps (such as my employer) have been doing inter-site
VOIP for many years. Most systems like that overflow to the
public switched network when the VOIP is full, but none of
us have ever been able to detect any difference in QOS. Of
course they use very heavy-duty hardware encryption :-)

[Geoff]

Jay Ts wrote:
geoff wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:
The UK telephone network backbone is VoIP, and I have experienced no
problems. I know of no plans to attempt to take VoIP any further
than the switch - there is no need while everyone has their own
copper pair to the house. Of course services like Skype run on
systems without GOS specifications, intended for non-realtime data
transfer so it is no surprise that they perform badly.

VoIP arther than dedicated PCM ? You sure ?

A couple of details may need attention. First, the old-style
of digital long distance was packet-switched, highly-compressed
to (IIRC) 6kHz and 4 bits. That was transferred using a digital
system that guaranteed 120 ms. of delay.

4KHz bw and 8 bits. Mind you, that was me in dedicated hardware pre-packet
switching PCM days, so it might have changed in the meantime (!)..


With sufficiently high-bandwidth networking hardware, it
is possible to implement telephone connections with VoIP
that are (arguably?) about as good as the older packet
switching network. And it is a lot cheaper.

That the 'in theory' bit. In practice the latency seems variable even on
Gigabit Ethernet.

Wass the packet-switching phase of PCM telephone trunk transmission on a
'per call' or a 'per system' basis ?

geoff

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:
YEsterday I was running a phone patch for a guy on a boat in
the Caribbean to a 719 area code number, somewhere in
PEnnsylvania iirc. I kept squinting at the meters on the
rig and the phone patch when I'd hear what I thought was rf
feedback and other problems, where usually I don't have to
make any adjustments on the patch at all, just get the
person on the telephone end to speak clearly. nExt
transmission from the phone end would be clean and clear and
I wouldn't have changed a thing. I finally asked the fellow
on the phone end of the ocnnection about his phone system
and he told me he was on a VoIp service. I've found this
the case over many of them, just plain inconsistent with the
audio quality, from poor phase shifted weird sound to broken
up and distorted, to the next sentence clean and clear. AS
I commented in my response to the article, I find myself
having to say "what was that again" too often on the phone
these days.

People now expect that of telephone service. The average phone
customer is so used to the terrible quality of cellphone service,
and has not noticed the gradual degradation of cellphone service
over the years, that their expection of reliability and of
audio quality are substantially lower than the telephone customer
of thirty years ago.

And this, in short, is why VoIP is becoming popular. It's cheap,
and the quality is no worse than what people have come to expect
on their cellphones.
--scott

Okay, so I have a 500 set on my desk right now. But it sounds good.
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Jay Ts wrote:

A couple of details may need attention. First, the old-style
of digital long distance was packet-switched, highly-compressed
to (IIRC) 6kHz and 4 bits. That was transferred using a digital
system that guaranteed 120 ms. of delay.

It was not packet-switched. It was circuit switched, so each channel
had guaranteed bandwidth.

I don't know where that delay spec came from... I have had T-1 circuits
especially over satellites that had way more than 120 ms of delay. The
good news is that the delay was constant.

Although Skype uses VoIP, it is also possible to run a VoIP
system that is independent of the Internet, making it possible
to implement a higher quality of service. It is essentially
like packet switching without having its QoS.

It IS packet switching. Normally systems like this use IP packet switching
with QoS management on top of IP. This does not give you the guaranteed
bandwidth of a circuit-switched network, but you can engineer a system
that works well most of the time by throwing bandwidth at it and keeping
circuit utilization down. Bandwidth is cheap (and the bandwidth utilization
doing this is still a lot higher than with a circuit-switched network).

With sufficiently high-bandwidth networking hardware, it
is possible to implement telephone connections with VoIP
that are (arguably?) about as good as the older packet
switching network. And it is a lot cheaper.

I wouldn't say a LOT cheaper, because it's expensive to do it right. But
it's possible to do it well.

[Corrections welcome -- I was treading thin ice through all of
that, going on my memory of a talk given by the head of the
Cisco's Phoenix sales office several years ago, when they'd
just come out with their new VoIP product, and were trying to
sell it to corporations as a cheaper replacement for international
T1 lines.]

The problem is that if you do this, you still need either international
T-1 lines in order to get control over all the bandwidth in your private
network, OR you need a frame relay network where the telco gives you
guarantees about quality of service. Admittedly you can get a good bit
more channels over a T-1 running VoIP than you can running straight voice
with SS7, even with good quality. You can get a huge amount more if you
can put up with lousy quality.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[John Cafarella]

On Sep 9, 12:39*pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

The problem is that if you do this, you still need either international
T-1 lines in order to get control over all the bandwidth in your private
network, OR you need a frame relay network where the telco gives you
guarantees about quality of service. *Admittedly you can get a good bit
more channels over a T-1 running VoIP than you can running straight voice
with SS7, even with good quality. *You can get a huge amount more if you
can put up with lousy quality.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. *C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

You're right on pretty much every count in your post Scott.
I'm an operations manager at a decent sized telco, we indeed do use
VOIP as a good portion of our backbone, but this is on a carefully
managed private network, and throwing large amounts of bandwidth is
key to sucess, along with very careful attention to routing and backup
routing. Voice quality is indistinguishable from traditional PCM.

Instead of using frame relay with guarantees of service, the more
usual implementation these days is an end to end managed IP based
Virtual Private Network (IVPN), with well designed QOS.

An IP based backbone can deliver perfectly good quality, but it DOES
have to be carefully managed. However the same is true for a TDM
based network, it's just that the technology and techniques are more
mature, and therefore trivial. Low cost players don't always have the
knowledge and training to run a network well.

John

[Meindert Sprang]

wrote in message
.. .
A recent article in the electronic newsletter for FIdonet
states the voice over internet protocol will supplant plain
old telephone service in most of the world soon. MIght be
true. IN either case, I have some problems with that.
HEre's my response. COmments anyone?

IS there a future for pots? another viewpoint


Just for your information: POTS was already digital between switchboard
before the internet became common place. Compared to the "ancient" digital
connections, VOIP is just another protocol over the same physical
connection, being copper or glass. Since eons, optical fibre is used for
long distance and high capacity telephone links. Again, long before the
internet became what it is now. And all those fibre links needed more
electronics than the plain old copper twisted pair and a lead-acid battery.

Meindert

[Mike Rivers]

Soundhaspriority wrote:

Here in the U.S., investment analysts have been observing a steady drain
from POTS. This has even had a negative effect on Verizon, whose broadband
infrastructure is growing. I myself live in a neighborhood where every house
has fiber, (FIOS), and Verizon initially tried to remove the copper from the
house of every new subscriber. The investment community has concluded that
POTS is definitely dying.

This is unfortunate. I still have copper going to my house, but
admittedly, it's getting harder and harder, when I have a problem with
service, to get someone to properly diagnose the trouble. I use DSL for
my Internet and POTS for voice telephone. I don't have cable TV. Just
yesterday I had a repairman out at the house. He spent an hour here
trying to convince me that my problem was with a phone or my inside
wiring. He was sure he had found the problem phone, and finally
acknowledged that the problem was with the system. After the "replaced
some network equipment" the problem was solved. He asked why I didn't
have FIOS and I showed him my $30 monthly phone bill. I told him that
when I could get voice and Internet over fiber for that price I'd be
happy to switch.

I can usually make and receive phone calls during a power outage. I know
that the FIOS box has a backup battery (about 3 hours worth, I think)
but if I depended on a computer for making my phone, I'd need a suitable
backup for that, too. My POTs don't require any power other than the
battery on the phone line. And frustrating as it is to get support from
Verizon nowadays, I still feel better about not allowing them to tell me
"it's your computer" and then have to prove that it isn't. At least all
I have to do to prove that the problem isn't with my inside wiring is to
disconnect it all.

I've had people ask if I have Skype so they can call me to discuss a
technical problem. I tell them that I can call them for 3 cents a minute
(in the US and Canada anyway) and that if they want, I'll call them.
They usually call me, probably on their cell phone during the "free
calls" period. That's another technology I wouldn't want to depend on.


--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[[email protected]]

On 2008-09-08 (ScottDorsey) said:
as I commented in my response to the article, I find myself
having to say "what was that again" too often on the phone
these days.
People now expect that of telephone service. The average phone
customer is so used to the terrible quality of cellphone service,
and has not noticed the gradual degradation of cellphone service
over the years, that their expectation of reliability and of
audio quality are substantially lower than the telephone customer
of thirty years ago.
And this, in short, is why VoIP is becoming popular. It's cheap,
and the quality is no worse than what people have come to expect
on their cellphones.
I know, it's cheaper. DOesn't matter how cheap it is if you
can't use the *@@@ thing!!! I've told more than one idiot
to park the damned car when he sees lots of bars on his
phone and call me again, I'm not going to listen to the
burpy choppy intermittent signal and try to decipher what
he's telling me. wHen I can hear better audio from a narrow
fm or ssb signal than I can get on a telephone something's
terribly wrong.

reliability has to count for something these days, at least
I"d hope.




Richard webb,
replace anything before at with elspider

[[email protected]]

On 2008-09-09 said:
Just for your information: POTS was already digital between
switchboard before the internet became common place. Compared to
the "ancient" digital connections, VOIP is just another protocol
over the same physical connection, being copper or glass. Since
eons, optical fibre is used for long distance and high capacity
telephone links. Again, long before the internet became what it is
now. And all those fibre links needed more electronics than the
plain old copper twisted pair and a lead-acid battery.
AGreed, but the end user's connection is on said copper,
backed up by generator power or said lead acid battery
grin. NOte my comment about the hospital being without
its phone service, but a pots line across the street still
being available during the hurricane. From that phone on a
desk to the switch was copper, with backup power of some
type. Long distance was an iffy proposition on that line,
but you could still reliably dial across town, and
presumably reach the local 9-1-1 answering point.

REgards,




Richard webb,
replace anything before at with elspider

[Kevin T]

On Sep 8, 10:39*pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Jay Ts wrote:



A couple of details may need attention. First, the old-style
of digital long distance was packet-switched, highly-compressed
to (IIRC) 6kHz and 4 bits. That was transferred using a digital
system that guaranteed 120 ms. of delay.

It was not packet-switched. *It was circuit switched, so each channel
had guaranteed bandwidth.

I don't know where that delay spec came from... I have had T-1 circuits
especially over satellites that had way more than 120 ms of delay. *The
good news is that the delay was constant.

Although Skype uses VoIP, it is also possible to run a VoIP
system that is independent of the Internet, making it possible
to implement a higher quality of service. *It is essentially
like packet switching without having its QoS.

It IS packet switching. *Normally systems like this use IP packet switching
with QoS management on top of IP. *This does not give you the guaranteed
bandwidth of a circuit-switched network, but you can engineer a system
that works well most of the time by throwing bandwidth at it and keeping
circuit utilization down. *Bandwidth is cheap (and the bandwidth utilization
doing this is still a lot higher than with a circuit-switched network).

With sufficiently high-bandwidth networking hardware, it
is possible to implement telephone connections with VoIP
that are (arguably?) about as good as the older packet
switching network. And it is a lot cheaper.

I wouldn't say a LOT cheaper, because it's expensive to do it right. *But
it's possible to do it well.

[Corrections welcome -- I was treading thin ice through all of
that, going on my memory of a talk given by the head of the
Cisco's Phoenix sales office several years ago, when they'd
just come out with their new VoIP product, and were trying to
sell it to corporations as a cheaper replacement for international
T1 lines.]

The problem is that if you do this, you still need either international
T-1 lines in order to get control over all the bandwidth in your private
network, OR you need a frame relay network where the telco gives you
guarantees about quality of service. *Admittedly you can get a good bit
more channels over a T-1 running VoIP than you can running straight voice
with SS7, even with good quality. *You can get a huge amount more if you
can put up with lousy quality.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. *C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott

Are there any stats on current average MOS or PESQ etc. for most VOIP
customers. I believe the old AT&T POTS had ~ 4.0 to 4.5 MOS benchmark.
Lucent wireless was very happy with ~ 3.6.Land to Mobile. How far have
the Vonage type providers degraded the Bell Labs audio quality ? How
far can they push it until Joe average looks elsewere ?

[Scott Dorsey]

Mike Rivers wrote:
This is unfortunate. I still have copper going to my house, but
admittedly, it's getting harder and harder, when I have a problem with
service, to get someone to properly diagnose the trouble. I use DSL for
my Internet and POTS for voice telephone. I don't have cable TV. Just
yesterday I had a repairman out at the house. He spent an hour here
trying to convince me that my problem was with a phone or my inside
wiring. He was sure he had found the problem phone, and finally
acknowledged that the problem was with the system. After the "replaced
some network equipment" the problem was solved. He asked why I didn't
have FIOS and I showed him my $30 monthly phone bill. I told him that
when I could get voice and Internet over fiber for that price I'd be
happy to switch.

Wait... wait... how are you getting POTS and DSL from Verizon for $30
a month? Is there something I am missing here? I would like this service
whatever it is!
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers]

On Sep 9, 1:13 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Wait... wait... how are you getting POTS and DSL from Verizon for $30
a month?

$19.99/month for DSL (used to be $14.95 until a couple of months ago)

$7.13/month for message unit calling (a dime for each outgoing call,
just like a pay phone is supposed to be). I don't make many phone
calls, so there's maybe another buck on top of that.

There's about $9 in taxes and other crap, so I guess it's more like
$36 now.

My long distance is through Pioneer Telephone out of Maine. 3 cents/
minute, no minimum, no connect charges, no nothing if I don't use it.
I usually have my bank send them 9 or 11 cents in a normal month,

[Jay Ts]

Mike Rivers wrote:
This is unfortunate. I still have copper going to my house, but
admittedly, it's getting harder and harder, when I have a problem with
service, to get someone to properly diagnose the trouble. [...]
Just
yesterday I had a repairman out at the house. He spent an hour here
trying to convince me that my problem was with a phone or my inside
wiring.

Sounds like what's happening here. Every few weeks or so, I have a
loud hum on the line, which I suppose is a grounding problem. It makes
my phone unusable, but it generally fixes itself at night.

I called Qwest and asked for help, and was told that if the
repair guy couldn't find the problem in their system, I would
have to pay them $80 for the service call! And of course there's
absolutely no way he can show up on the same day I again notice
the problem.

So now I'm left trying to figure a way to deal with the Qwest
"customer service" reps to get them to send a guy out, maybe
repeatedly until the problem is diagnosed and fixed, without
being charged extra. It's insane.

Meanwhile, if my high-tech wireless Internet connection goes
out, the little company down the street sends someone out really
fast to fix it.

This just by itself is getting me thinking about trying Skype or
some other service. And the thing is, I **like** landlines. But
that's assuming there is a company maintaining the service,
keeping the copper wires touching each other!

Qwest still acts like it is still the 1960's when they were the
only game in town. "We don't care. We don't have to. We're the
phone company."

Jay Ts
--
To contact me, use this web page:
http://www.jayts.com/contact.php

[Scott Dorsey]

John Cafarella wrote:

You're right on pretty much every count in your post Scott.
I'm an operations manager at a decent sized telco, we indeed do use
VOIP as a good portion of our backbone, but this is on a carefully
managed private network, and throwing large amounts of bandwidth is
key to sucess, along with very careful attention to routing and backup
routing. Voice quality is indistinguishable from traditional PCM.

Pretty much all I know about this stuff, I am having to learn on the fly
from dealing with remote broadcast stuff. It used to be you could call
the telco up and order a 16KC loop from the radio studio to the local
club, or to a club in another state. You can't do that any more, and so
now pumping realtime audio data over ip networks is becoming the only
available route for remote broadcasting.

Instead of using frame relay with guarantees of service, the more
usual implementation these days is an end to end managed IP based
Virtual Private Network (IVPN), with well designed QOS.

How is the IVPN different than a frame relay network? I think of frame
relay as sort of a virtual network over the telco's larger IP cloud.

An IP based backbone can deliver perfectly good quality, but it DOES
have to be carefully managed. However the same is true for a TDM
based network, it's just that the technology and techniques are more
mature, and therefore trivial. Low cost players don't always have the
knowledge and training to run a network well.

As a former GTE customer, I can say that I have experienced situations
where the TDM network become overloaded. But then, I experienced situations
where the local analogue network became overloaded and you had to wait
thirty seconds for a dial tone after picking up the receiver.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Kevin T wrote:

Are there any stats on current average MOS or PESQ etc. for most VOIP
customers. I believe the old AT&T POTS had ~ 4.0 to 4.5 MOS benchmark.
Lucent wireless was very happy with ~ 3.6.Land to Mobile. How far have
the Vonage type providers degraded the Bell Labs audio quality ? How
far can they push it until Joe average looks elsewere ?

I would LOVE to see that kind of data, but I don't know of anyone who
has gathered it. Remember that the VIOP provider is only one tiny part
of the whole equation, too, and the network connection itself is not under
the control of the provider. That's why the provider cannot actually give
any guarantees about anything.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

In article ,
Scott Dorsey wrote:
John Cafarella wrote:

You're right on pretty much every count in your post Scott.
I'm an operations manager at a decent sized telco, we indeed do use
VOIP as a good portion of our backbone, but this is on a carefully
managed private network, and throwing large amounts of bandwidth is
key to sucess, along with very careful attention to routing and backup
routing. Voice quality is indistinguishable from traditional PCM.

Pretty much all I know about this stuff, I am having to learn on the fly
from dealing with remote broadcast stuff. It used to be you could call
the telco up and order a 16KC loop from the radio studio to the local
club, or to a club in another state. You can't do that any more, and so
now pumping realtime audio data over ip networks is becoming the only
available route for remote broadcasting.

While we are on this subject, by the way, does anybody make a squawk box
Clearcom-style intercom that operates over IP? I want to plug a box in
at the remote truck, one backstage, one at the studio, put the IP addresses
of each one in it, and have each one hear what the others are saying when
they press the PTT button.

Telex will sell me a very expensive gateway box that goes between an
intercom string and the IP network, but that's not what I want.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

On 2008-09-10 (ScottDorsey) said:
Pretty much all I know about this stuff, I am having to learn on
the fly from dealing with remote broadcast stuff. It used to be
you could call the telco up and order a 16KC loop from the radio
studio to the local club, or to a club in another state. You
can't do that any more, and so now pumping realtime audio data
over ip networks is becoming the only available route for remote
broadcasting.
I'm curious about what folks are using to pump these feeds
to the net, as well as folks possibly doing live streaming
audio. tEchniques I"m familiar with are the old get the
loop from the telco.
wE're set up for that in the remote truck, distribution
amps, all that, but I"m going to have to adapt our way of
working for broadcast stuff.


While we are on this subject, by the way, does anybody make a
squawk box Clearcom-style intercom that operates over IP? I want
to plug a box in at the remote truck, one backstage, one at the
studio, put the IP addresses of each one in it, and have each one
hear what the others are saying when they press the PTT button.
Telex will sell me a very expensive gateway box that goes between an
intercom string and the IP network, but that's not what I want.
I"d be curious about this as well, thanks for asking the
question Scott. Maybe we'll both get some answers to that
one g.






Richard webb,
replace anything before at with elspider

[Kevin T]

On Sep 10, 10:51*am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
In article ,





Scott Dorsey wrote:
John Cafarella wrote:

You're right on pretty much every count in your post Scott.
I'm an operations manager at a decent sized telco, we indeed do use
VOIP as a good portion of our backbone, but this is on a carefully
managed private network, and throwing large amounts of bandwidth is
key to sucess, along with very careful attention to routing and backup
routing. *Voice quality is indistinguishable from traditional PCM.

Pretty much all I know about this stuff, I am having to learn on the fly
from dealing with remote broadcast stuff. *It used to be you could call
the telco up and order a 16KC loop from the radio studio to the local
club, or to a club in another state. *You can't do that any more, and so
now pumping realtime audio data over ip networks is becoming the only
available route for remote broadcasting.

While we are on this subject, by the way, does anybody make a squawk box
Clearcom-style intercom that operates over IP? *I want to plug a box in
at the remote truck, one backstage, one at the studio, put the IP addresses
of each one in it, and have each one hear what the others are saying when
they press the PTT button.

Telex will sell me a very expensive gateway box that goes between an
intercom string and the IP network, but that's not what I want.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. *C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

3 VZW PTT phones sounds about right ?

[Kevin T]

On Sep 10, 10:49*am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Kevin T wrote:



Are there any stats on current average MOS or PESQ etc. for most VOIP
customers. I believe the old AT&T POTS had ~ 4.0 to 4.5 MOS benchmark.
Lucent wireless was very happy with ~ 3.6.Land to Mobile. How far have
the Vonage type providers degraded the Bell Labs audio quality ? How
far can they push it until Joe average looks elsewere ?

I would LOVE to see that kind of data, but I don't know of anyone who
has gathered it. *Remember that the VIOP provider is only one tiny part
of the whole equation, too, and the network connection itself is not under
the control of the provider. *That's why the provider cannot actually give
any guarantees about anything.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. *C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

But that's what the customer wants & used to get. At Lucent I once had
to prove in the customer CEO's office that the CDMA voice quality from
Mobile to Pots landline & L to M was IIRC 3.0 MOS average.This was
Real 35 person AT&T MOS testlab . it was a contractual requirement
with $ penalties for non compliance The cusomer office included
many poor POTS lines that were already noise degraded to ~3.2 ! We had
to sample dozens on lines in various offices until we found a fairly
clean quiet line to test with.