ISDN Alternatives?

[[email protected]]

Greetings all,

In my day job, I work for an AM/FM/TV combo station. We do lots of internal audio production & also a fair amount of work for outside clients. Some of this work includes remote interviews, voiceover sessions, etc....all done, via ISDN.

While ISDN has served us well for years, the phone companies are no longer so interested in maintaining ISDN lines--and in some cases, are phasing it out, completely. Our lines may work fine one day...and be intermittent, the next day.

Talking to colleagues around the country, it's pretty obvious we're not the only users suffering from intermittent ISDN connectivity & lack of real support from the providers.

But--what alternatives are available??

That's my question to the group. While VOIP technology is advancing, our experience has only been moderately successful, using a couple different types of VOIP (Telos & Comrex, for example). And, while Telos ISDN boxes can be configured to use standard ISDN lines *and* internet, I've not found many users who have such dual capability....meaning we're typically stuck using our ISDN lines for about 95% of our remote connections.

Anyone see anything new coming down the line? I haven't been to the NAB show for a couple years, but the last time I was there, I spent quite a bit of time talking to various vendors, asking about new technologies that might be a suitable alternative to ISDN? None had a good answer, except to say VOIP is the future.

But then...how do you deal with technical issues, like heavy traffic on the public internet? That can cause delays and/or dropouts...which can ruin a session, for sure.

Anyone see anything new in this area? What's a die-hard ISDN user to do?

Thanks in advance,

Mike

[mcp6453[_2_]]

On 2/4/2014 2:24 PM, wrote:
> Greetings all,
>
> In my day job, I work for an AM/FM/TV combo station. We do lots of internal audio production & also a fair amount of work for outside clients. Some of this work includes remote interviews, voiceover sessions, etc....all done, via ISDN.
>
> While ISDN has served us well for years, the phone companies are no longer so interested in maintaining ISDN lines--and in some cases, are phasing it out, completely. Our lines may work fine one day...and be intermittent, the next day.
>
> Talking to colleagues around the country, it's pretty obvious we're not the only users suffering from intermittent ISDN connectivity & lack of real support from the providers.
>
> But--what alternatives are available??
>
> That's my question to the group. While VOIP technology is advancing, our experience has only been moderately successful, using a couple different types of VOIP (Telos & Comrex, for example). And, while Telos ISDN boxes can be configured to use standard ISDN lines *and* internet, I've not found many users who have such dual capability....meaning we're typically stuck using our ISDN lines for about 95% of our remote connections.
>
> Anyone see anything new coming down the line? I haven't been to the NAB show for a couple years, but the last time I was there, I spent quite a bit of time talking to various vendors, asking about new technologies that might be a suitable alternative to ISDN? None had a good answer, except to say VOIP is the future.
>
> But then...how do you deal with technical issues, like heavy traffic on the public internet? That can cause delays and/or dropouts...which can ruin a session, for sure.
>
> Anyone see anything new in this area? What's a die-hard ISDN user to do?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Mike
>

The short answer is, for now at least, you're out of luck. Skype is the best
audio connection you'll get, and it's often flaky. There are other options, such
as SIP-to-SIP clients, like Blink from http://icanblink.com, with 48K Opus codec
connections, but the people engineering those systems are not audio people. They
often limit the bandwidth to "good enough" for their ears.

You could consider an option like AudioCompass or Fideliphone. There's another
service that may be viable at http://ipdtl.com. Before they limited the
bandwidth, we were getting broadcast quality audio with a TeamSpeak server and
client. However, they're all over the Internet.

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 3:23:19 PM UTC-6, mcp6453 wrote:
> On 2/4/2014 2:24 PM, wrote:
>
> > Greetings all,
>
> >
>
> > In my day job, I work for an AM/FM/TV combo station. We do lots of internal audio production & also a fair amount of work for outside clients. Some of this work includes remote interviews, voiceover sessions, etc....all done, via ISDN.
>
> >
>
> > While ISDN has served us well for years, the phone companies are no longer so interested in maintaining ISDN lines--and in some cases, are phasing it out, completely. Our lines may work fine one day...and be intermittent, the next day.
>
> >
>
> > Talking to colleagues around the country, it's pretty obvious we're not the only users suffering from intermittent ISDN connectivity & lack of real support from the providers.
>
> >
>
> > But--what alternatives are available??
>
> >
>
> > That's my question to the group. While VOIP technology is advancing, our experience has only been moderately successful, using a couple different types of VOIP (Telos & Comrex, for example). And, while Telos ISDN boxes can be configured to use standard ISDN lines *and* internet, I've not found many users who have such dual capability....meaning we're typically stuck using our ISDN lines for about 95% of our remote connections.
>
> >
>
> > Anyone see anything new coming down the line? I haven't been to the NAB show for a couple years, but the last time I was there, I spent quite a bit of time talking to various vendors, asking about new technologies that might be a suitable alternative to ISDN? None had a good answer, except to say VOIP is the future.
>
> >
>
> > But then...how do you deal with technical issues, like heavy traffic on the public internet? That can cause delays and/or dropouts...which can ruin a session, for sure.
>
> >
>
> > Anyone see anything new in this area? What's a die-hard ISDN user to do?
>
> >
>
> > Thanks in advance,
>
> >
>
> > Mike
>
> >
>
>
>
> The short answer is, for now at least, you're out of luck. Skype is the best
>
> audio connection you'll get, and it's often flaky. There are other options, such
>
> as SIP-to-SIP clients, like Blink from http://icanblink.com, with 48K Opus codec
>
> connections, but the people engineering those systems are not audio people. They
>
> often limit the bandwidth to "good enough" for their ears.
>
>
>
> You could consider an option like AudioCompass or Fideliphone. There's another
>
> service that may be viable at http://ipdtl.com. Before they limited the
>
> bandwidth, we were getting broadcast quality audio with a TeamSpeak server and
>
> client. However, they're all over the Internet.



Thanks for the reply! I've played around with skype a bit, just out of curiosity. Naturally, adding a decent mic, instead of using the built-in computer mic, does greatly improve audio quality. But, you're still at the mercy of your internet pipeline and the issues that go along with it.

Comrex does a nice job with their "Access" unit, but that's mostly intended for doing remote broadcasts. The connection on the other end also has to have a Comrex box to connect to.

Over the last couple of years, I've put this question out there in various forums, hoping to learn of some new gadget that offers hope for a solution.

Maybe next year?

Thanks again,

Mike

[mcp6453[_2_]]

I'm not sure what you're seeking. The alternatives that are available now
(particularly AudioCompass if it works as well as advertised) are as good as the
Internet gets. The Internet is the weak link. Copper phone lines are going the
way of hope and change.

On 2/4/2014 4:23 PM, mcp6453 wrote:
> On 2/4/2014 2:24 PM, wrote:
>> Greetings all,
>>
>> In my day job, I work for an AM/FM/TV combo station. We do lots of internal audio production & also a fair amount of work for outside clients. Some of this work includes remote interviews, voiceover sessions, etc....all done, via ISDN.
>>
>> While ISDN has served us well for years, the phone companies are no longer so interested in maintaining ISDN lines--and in some cases, are phasing it out, completely. Our lines may work fine one day...and be intermittent, the next day.
>>
>> Talking to colleagues around the country, it's pretty obvious we're not the only users suffering from intermittent ISDN connectivity & lack of real support from the providers.
>>
>> But--what alternatives are available??
>>
>> That's my question to the group. While VOIP technology is advancing, our experience has only been moderately successful, using a couple different types of VOIP (Telos & Comrex, for example). And, while Telos ISDN boxes can be configured to use standard ISDN lines *and* internet, I've not found many users who have such dual capability....meaning we're typically stuck using our ISDN lines for about 95% of our remote connections.
>>
>> Anyone see anything new coming down the line? I haven't been to the NAB show for a couple years, but the last time I was there, I spent quite a bit of time talking to various vendors, asking about new technologies that might be a suitable alternative to ISDN? None had a good answer, except to say VOIP is the future.
>>
>> But then...how do you deal with technical issues, like heavy traffic on the public internet? That can cause delays and/or dropouts...which can ruin a session, for sure.
>>
>> Anyone see anything new in this area? What's a die-hard ISDN user to do?
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>>
>> Mike
>>
>
> The short answer is, for now at least, you're out of luck. Skype is the best
> audio connection you'll get, and it's often flaky. There are other options, such
> as SIP-to-SIP clients, like Blink from http://icanblink.com, with 48K Opus codec
> connections, but the people engineering those systems are not audio people. They
> often limit the bandwidth to "good enough" for their ears.
>
> You could consider an option like AudioCompass or Fideliphone. There's another
> service that may be viable at http://ipdtl.com. Before they limited the
> bandwidth, we were getting broadcast quality audio with a TeamSpeak server and
> client. However, they're all over the Internet.
>

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 2/4/2014 2:24 PM, wrote:

> In my day job, I work for an AM/FM/TV combo station. We do lots of
> internal audio production & also a fair amount of work for outside
> clients. Some of this work includes remote interviews, voiceover
> sessions, etc....all done, via ISDN.

I didn't realize that they still supported ISDN at all, but I suppose
they have to, for the commercial customers. Verizon was having such a
hard time keeping my DSL working that they gave me fiber for a few bucks
a month less than I was paying for the copper DSL service instead of the
$40/month more that they've been trying to extract from me for a few years.

If you use Skype, you still have to get on to the Internet somewhere,
but it's convenient because your outside clients can set it up on their
computers with no additional equipment. I sure wouldn't trust it for
live work, though, and when I hear a news remote via Skype (usually from
a foreign country where cellular service isn't available) it always
sounds like a really low bit rate MP3 file, the kind that taught us to
say that we hate MP3.


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Scott Dorsey]

> wrote:
>
>Thanks for the reply! I've played around with skype a bit, just out of cur=
>iosity. Naturally, adding a decent mic, instead of using the built-in comp=
>uter mic, does greatly improve audio quality. But, you're still at the mer=
>cy of your internet pipeline and the issues that go along with it.

That is always going to be the case, but these days a lot of venues will
provide you with a proper network connection with QoS management and
guaranteed bandwidth and latency if you ask for it. It's not as easy as
calling in for an ISDN line or a radio loop into the basement of the local
pub, but a lot of places where you'd be doing larger remotes have real
networks.

We have a local station around here that dusted off their VHF Marti unit,
got a couple yagis and some fibreglass camoflage poles for a mast and
do remarkably good-sounding remotes over considerable distances with it.

And, of course... do you really need to be in realtime? You can record
in the field, then bulk transfer via ftp within minutes for that "Live
Via Ampex Tape Delay" process with a bit less latency. Useless for
interviews with someone in the studio of course.

>Comrex does a nice job with their "Access" unit, but that's mostly intended=
> for doing remote broadcasts. The connection on the other end also has to =
>have a Comrex box to connect to.

And of course you need to have the bandwidth.

>Over the last couple of years, I've put this question out there in various =
>forums, hoping to learn of some new gadget that offers hope for a solution.

Complain to the PUC!
--scott

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

[geoff]

On 5/02/2014 12:22 p.m., mcp6453 wrote:
> On 2/4/2014 5:59 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:


>
> Most people don't use Skye properly. Take a look at the live feeds on
> http://gfqnetwork.com. All of the non-studio guests are on Skype - audio and
> video. A lot of people have NO idea how capable Skype really is. The problem,
> though, is that it's the Internet. It breaks. Now that Microsoft owns it, the
> reliability has declined even more.

How long has Microsoft owned the Internet for ?

geoff

[Sean Conolly]

> wrote in message
...
Greetings all,

In my day job, I work for an AM/FM/TV combo station. We do lots of internal
audio production & also a fair amount of work for outside clients. Some of
this work includes remote interviews, voiceover sessions, etc....all done,
via ISDN.

While ISDN has served us well for years, the phone companies are no longer
so interested in maintaining ISDN lines--and in some cases, are phasing it
out, completely. Our lines may work fine one day...and be intermittent, the
next day.

Talking to colleagues around the country, it's pretty obvious we're not the
only users suffering from intermittent ISDN connectivity & lack of real
support from the providers.

But--what alternatives are available??

That's my question to the group. While VOIP technology is advancing, our
experience has only been moderately successful, using a couple different
types of VOIP (Telos & Comrex, for example). And, while Telos ISDN boxes
can be configured to use standard ISDN lines *and* internet, I've not found
many users who have such dual capability....meaning we're typically stuck
using our ISDN lines for about 95% of our remote connections.

Anyone see anything new coming down the line? I haven't been to the NAB
show for a couple years, but the last time I was there, I spent quite a bit
of time talking to various vendors, asking about new technologies that might
be a suitable alternative to ISDN? None had a good answer, except to say
VOIP is the future.

But then...how do you deal with technical issues, like heavy traffic on the
public internet? That can cause delays and/or dropouts...which can ruin a
session, for sure.

Anyone see anything new in this area? What's a die-hard ISDN user to do?

Thanks in advance,

Mike


For a commercial facility, I believe you can still get a T1 with a mix of
voice and data channels. For remote work at a location with Internet only,
about the best you could do is to use a network compression appliance at
each end. Between the compression and packet batching, they can be
surprisingly effective over a bandwidth-restricted interlink.

We use Riverbed devices for our link between SE Asia and USA, and it works
very well on a 128kbs pipe with 250 ms roundtrip latency. I don't know if
there's a small-business equivilant, though.

Sean

[Neil Gould]

wrote:
> Greetings all,
>
> In my day job, I work for an AM/FM/TV combo station. We do lots of
> internal audio production & also a fair amount of work for outside
> clients. Some of this work includes remote interviews, voiceover
> sessions, etc....all done, via ISDN.
>
> While ISDN has served us well for years, the phone companies are no
> longer so interested in maintaining ISDN lines--and in some cases,
> are phasing it out, completely. Our lines may work fine one
> day...and be intermittent, the next day.
>
> Talking to colleagues around the country, it's pretty obvious we're
> not the only users suffering from intermittent ISDN connectivity &
> lack of real support from the providers.
>
> But--what alternatives are available??
>
> That's my question to the group. While VOIP technology is advancing,
> our experience has only been moderately successful, using a couple
> different types of VOIP (Telos & Comrex, for example). And, while
> Telos ISDN boxes can be configured to use standard ISDN lines *and*
> internet, I've not found many users who have such dual
> capability....meaning we're typically stuck using our ISDN lines for
> about 95% of our remote connections.
>
> Anyone see anything new coming down the line? I haven't been to the
> NAB show for a couple years, but the last time I was there, I spent
> quite a bit of time talking to various vendors, asking about new
> technologies that might be a suitable alternative to ISDN? None had
> a good answer, except to say VOIP is the future.
>
> But then...how do you deal with technical issues, like heavy traffic
> on the public internet? That can cause delays and/or
> dropouts...which can ruin a session, for sure.
>
> Anyone see anything new in this area? What's a die-hard ISDN user to
> do?
>
Since you're already using Telos gear, I'd suggest that you call them and
talk to their tech support about what's on the horizon.
--
best regards,

Neil

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

wrote:
> Greetings all,
>
> In my day job, I work for an AM/FM/TV combo station. We do lots of
> internal audio production & also a fair amount of work for outside
> clients. Some of this work includes remote interviews, voiceover
> sessions, etc....all done, via ISDN.
>
> While ISDN has served us well for years, the phone companies are no
> longer so interested in maintaining ISDN lines--and in some cases,
> are phasing it out, completely. Our lines may work fine one
> day...and be intermittent, the next day.
>
> Talking to colleagues around the country, it's pretty obvious we're
> not the only users suffering from intermittent ISDN connectivity &
> lack of real support from the providers.
>
> But--what alternatives are available??
>
> That's my question to the group. While VOIP technology is advancing,
> our experience has only been moderately successful, using a couple
> different types of VOIP (Telos & Comrex, for example). And, while
> Telos ISDN boxes can be configured to use standard ISDN lines *and*
> internet, I've not found many users who have such dual
> capability....meaning we're typically stuck using our ISDN lines for
> about 95% of our remote connections.
>
> Anyone see anything new coming down the line? I haven't been to the
> NAB show for a couple years, but the last time I was there, I spent
> quite a bit of time talking to various vendors, asking about new
> technologies that might be a suitable alternative to ISDN? None had
> a good answer, except to say VOIP is the future.
>

Pushing a clock that far hasn't made technical sense for a long
time. The problem is that the companies that offer replacement
technologies are unstable.

For a while, I was doing remote contracting. I think it was Yahoo
that offered a fee/cheap VoIP service, so I just used
that with a good mic and my monitor speakers over a cable modem
to call ( or be called by ) home.

For *voice* level stuff, it was great, and sounded quite
good.

I don't think the Yahoo thing is offered any more, but I'd at least
experiment with Skype.

> But then...how do you deal with technical issues, like heavy traffic
> on the public internet? That can cause delays and/or
> dropouts...which can ruin a session, for sure.
>

There may be a way to have VPN service with some QoS. I'm not
much help with vendor names there.

> Anyone see anything new in this area? What's a die-hard ISDN user to
> do?
>

There is a technical guy at http://www.econtalk.org/ who gets credited*.
He may know; they do a weekly podcast of interviews.

*i have yet to find his name on the page - it may be at the end of the
podcasts - I'd use the most recent.

> Thanks in advance,
>
> Mike
>

--
Les Cargill

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Wed, 5 Feb 2014 01:27:24 -0500, "Sean Conolly"
> wrote:

> wrote in message
...
>Greetings all,
>
>In my day job, I work for an AM/FM/TV combo station. We do lots of internal
>audio production & also a fair amount of work for outside clients. Some of
>this work includes remote interviews, voiceover sessions, etc....all done,
>via ISDN.
>
>While ISDN has served us well for years, the phone companies are no longer
>so interested in maintaining ISDN lines--and in some cases, are phasing it
>out, completely. Our lines may work fine one day...and be intermittent, the
>next day.
>
>Talking to colleagues around the country, it's pretty obvious we're not the
>only users suffering from intermittent ISDN connectivity & lack of real
>support from the providers.
>
>But--what alternatives are available??
>
>That's my question to the group. While VOIP technology is advancing, our
>experience has only been moderately successful, using a couple different
>types of VOIP (Telos & Comrex, for example). And, while Telos ISDN boxes
>can be configured to use standard ISDN lines *and* internet, I've not found
>many users who have such dual capability....meaning we're typically stuck
>using our ISDN lines for about 95% of our remote connections.
>
>Anyone see anything new coming down the line? I haven't been to the NAB
>show for a couple years, but the last time I was there, I spent quite a bit
>of time talking to various vendors, asking about new technologies that might
>be a suitable alternative to ISDN? None had a good answer, except to say
>VOIP is the future.
>
>But then...how do you deal with technical issues, like heavy traffic on the
>public internet? That can cause delays and/or dropouts...which can ruin a
>session, for sure.
>
>Anyone see anything new in this area? What's a die-hard ISDN user to do?
>
>Thanks in advance,
>
>Mike
>
>
>For a commercial facility, I believe you can still get a T1 with a mix of
>voice and data channels. For remote work at a location with Internet only,
>about the best you could do is to use a network compression appliance at
>each end. Between the compression and packet batching, they can be
>surprisingly effective over a bandwidth-restricted interlink.
>
>We use Riverbed devices for our link between SE Asia and USA, and it works
>very well on a 128kbs pipe with 250 ms roundtrip latency. I don't know if
>there's a small-business equivilant, though.
>
>Sean
>

There is nothing intrinsically bad about IP for voice. The entire UK
telephone backbone is IP - it's a good few years now since anyone made
a switched telephone call, and nobody complains of dropout or delay.

The key to making it work is to use the right protocol.

d

[Scott Dorsey]

Don Pearce > wrote:
>
>There is nothing intrinsically bad about IP for voice. The entire UK
>telephone backbone is IP - it's a good few years now since anyone made
>a switched telephone call, and nobody complains of dropout or delay.
>
>The key to making it work is to use the right protocol.

That's the FIRST half. The second half is making sure all the routers
understand QoS extensions and will route VoIP in preference to data that
isn't realtime when that is appropriate.

This is not a problem at all when you control the whole network end-to-end,
which you can do if you're a radio or TV network. The problems all come when
you start having to put stuff on the public switched internet.

I really wish we'd got SONET to the home instead.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[jason]

On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 18:29:57 GMT "Don Pearce" > wrote in
article >
>

> There is nothing intrinsically bad about IP for voice. The entire UK
> telephone backbone is IP - it's a good few years now since anyone made
> a switched telephone call, and nobody complains of dropout or delay.
>
> The key to making it work is to use the right protocol.
>
> d

Hasn't the the US telco system been IP-based for quite a while as well?

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Jason wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 18:29:57 GMT "Don Pearce" > wrote in
> article >
>>
>
>> There is nothing intrinsically bad about IP for voice. The entire UK
>> telephone backbone is IP - it's a good few years now since anyone made
>> a switched telephone call, and nobody complains of dropout or delay.
>>
>> The key to making it work is to use the right protocol.
>>
>> d
>
> Hasn't the the US telco system been IP-based for quite a while as well?
>

Nope.

You can get a copper pair as DSL or as a landline ( which is fully
circuit switched )

You can get cable modem, and have VoIP over that.

There's FiOS and other offerings.

--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Don Pearce > wrote:
>>
>> There is nothing intrinsically bad about IP for voice. The entire UK
>> telephone backbone is IP - it's a good few years now since anyone made
>> a switched telephone call, and nobody complains of dropout or delay.
>>
>> The key to making it work is to use the right protocol.
>
> That's the FIRST half. The second half is making sure all the routers
> understand QoS extensions and will route VoIP in preference to data that
> isn't realtime when that is appropriate.
>
> This is not a problem at all when you control the whole network end-to-end,
> which you can do if you're a radio or TV network. The problems all come when
> you start having to put stuff on the public switched internet.
>
> I really wish we'd got SONET to the home instead.
> --scott
>

FiOS ain't bad.

--
Les Cargill

[Sean Conolly]

"Les Cargill" > wrote in message
...
> Jason wrote:
>> On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 18:29:57 GMT "Don Pearce" > wrote in
>> article >
>>>
>>
>>> There is nothing intrinsically bad about IP for voice. The entire UK
>>> telephone backbone is IP - it's a good few years now since anyone made
>>> a switched telephone call, and nobody complains of dropout or delay.
>>>
>>> The key to making it work is to use the right protocol.
>>>
>>> d
>>
>> Hasn't the the US telco system been IP-based for quite a while as well?
>>
>
> Nope.
>
> You can get a copper pair as DSL or as a landline ( which is fully
> circuit switched )
>
> You can get cable modem, and have VoIP over that.
>
> There's FiOS and other offerings.
>
> --
> Les Cargill

I think some people get confused between digital and IP. Don't know what the
major backbones use but there is still a lot commercial use of plain T1
lines just because the equipment is already there, but that's not VoIP.

I got out of telephony about 10 years ago so forgive me if I'm a little
behind.

Sean

[Scott Dorsey]

Jason > wrote:
>On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 18:29:57 GMT "Don Pearce" > wrote in
>article >
>
>> There is nothing intrinsically bad about IP for voice. The entire UK
>> telephone backbone is IP - it's a good few years now since anyone made
>> a switched telephone call, and nobody complains of dropout or delay.
>>
>> The key to making it work is to use the right protocol.
>>
>
>Hasn't the the US telco system been IP-based for quite a while as well?

The US has no one telco system, which is part of where the problems happen.
There is a lot of IP-based long distance infrastructure out there, but there
is also a lot of SS7 stuff out there as well. And they all interoperate,
but not always very well.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

Les Cargill > wrote:
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> Don Pearce > wrote:
>>>
>>> There is nothing intrinsically bad about IP for voice. The entire UK
>>> telephone backbone is IP - it's a good few years now since anyone made
>>> a switched telephone call, and nobody complains of dropout or delay.
>>>
>>> The key to making it work is to use the right protocol.
>>
>> That's the FIRST half. The second half is making sure all the routers
>> understand QoS extensions and will route VoIP in preference to data that
>> isn't realtime when that is appropriate.
>>
>> This is not a problem at all when you control the whole network end-to-end,
>> which you can do if you're a radio or TV network. The problems all come when
>> you start having to put stuff on the public switched internet.
>>
>> I really wish we'd got SONET to the home instead.
>>
>
>FiOS ain't bad.

It doesn't offer any circuit-switched audio connections, which ATM/SONET does.
And as far as bandwidth goes, it's still very far behind what is available in
most rural areas in Korea.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[geoff]

On 7/02/2014 7:32 a.m., Jeff Henig wrote:
> geoff > wrote:
>> On 5/02/2014 12:22 p.m., mcp6453 wrote:
>>> On 2/4/2014 5:59 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Most people don't use Skye properly. Take a look at the live feeds on
>>> http://gfqnetwork.com. All of the non-studio guests are on Skype - audio and
>>> video. A lot of people have NO idea how capable Skype really is. The problem,
>>> though, is that it's the Internet. It breaks. Now that Microsoft owns it, the
>>> reliability has declined even more.
>>
>> How long has Microsoft owned the Internet for ?
>>
>> geoff
>
> LOL! Nice.
>
> No, MS owns Skype, not the entire Internet.
>

It is on their list, but Google aren't selling it ;-/

geoff

[Scott Dorsey]

Oh, on this subject, I just was doing some maintenance for some folks who
are using a Moseley audio-IP device for their studio to transmitter link,
as well as a bunch of other slick Moseley stuff for routing audio around on
IP networks.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[geoff]

On 7/02/2014 10:41 a.m., Jeff Henig wrote:
> geoff > wrote:

>
> Huh. For some reason, I thought MS had bought Skype. Maybe I got that
> confused with Google buying them out--or maybe that I saw a news blip about
> MS *attempting* to buy Skype.
>
> Thanks for straightening me out on that.

Snip - "The problem, though, is that it's the Internet. It breaks. Now
that Microsoft owns it, the reliability has declined even more."

Claro ?

geoff

[jason]

On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 21:02:13 -0600 "Les Cargill" >
wrote in article >
>
> Jason wrote:

> > Hasn't the the US telco system been IP-based for quite a while as well?
> >
>
> Nope.
>
> You can get a copper pair as DSL or as a landline ( which is fully
> circuit switched )
>
> You can get cable modem, and have VoIP over that.
>
> There's FiOS and other offerings.

I meant the portion of the system between CO's.

FIOS is a pipedream that will never be available apparently beyond what's
already in place. Verizon has said as much. They seem perfect comfortable
divying up the customers with their rivals.

[jason]

On Thu, 6 Feb 2014 21:41:35 +0000 (UTC) "Jeff Henig" >
wrote in article <2090469539413415466.557116yomama-
>
>

> Huh. For some reason, I thought MS had bought Skype. Maybe I got that
> confused with Google buying them out--or maybe that I saw a news blip about
> MS *attempting* to buy Skype.
>
> Thanks for straightening me out on that.

MS did buy Skype. I just bought a subscription to Office 2013 for a non-
profit where I volunteer and MS makes a big deal of the fact that the
subscription also includes Skype. Whoopee.

[hank alrich]

geoff > wrote:

> On 7/02/2014 10:41 a.m., Jeff Henig wrote:
> > geoff > wrote:
>
> >
> > Huh. For some reason, I thought MS had bought Skype. Maybe I got that
> > confused with Google buying them out--or maybe that I saw a news blip about
> > MS *attempting* to buy Skype.
> >
> > Thanks for straightening me out on that.
>
> Snip - "The problem, though, is that it's the Internet. It breaks. Now
> that Microsoft owns it, the reliability has declined even more."
>
> Claro ?
>
> geoff

I think M$ picked it up shortly after Gore's big invention.

(Don't you hate having to explain jokes? Just takes the punch right out
of the line.)

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Sean Conolly wrote:
> "Les Cargill" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Jason wrote:
>>> On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 18:29:57 GMT "Don Pearce" > wrote in
>>> article >
>>>>
>>>
>>>> There is nothing intrinsically bad about IP for voice. The entire UK
>>>> telephone backbone is IP - it's a good few years now since anyone made
>>>> a switched telephone call, and nobody complains of dropout or delay.
>>>>
>>>> The key to making it work is to use the right protocol.
>>>>
>>>> d
>>>
>>> Hasn't the the US telco system been IP-based for quite a while as well?
>>>
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> You can get a copper pair as DSL or as a landline ( which is fully
>> circuit switched )
>>
>> You can get cable modem, and have VoIP over that.
>>
>> There's FiOS and other offerings.
>>
>> --
>> Les Cargill
>
> I think some people get confused between digital and IP. Don't know what the
> major backbones use but there is still a lot commercial use of plain T1
> lines just because the equipment is already there, but that's not VoIP.
>
> I got out of telephony about 10 years ago

You and a whole lot of other people...

> so forgive me if I'm a little
> behind.
>
> Sean
>
>
--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Jason wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 21:02:13 -0600 "Les Cargill" >
> wrote in article >
>>
>> Jason wrote:
>
>>> Hasn't the the US telco system been IP-based for quite a while as well?
>>>
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> You can get a copper pair as DSL or as a landline ( which is fully
>> circuit switched )
>>
>> You can get cable modem, and have VoIP over that.
>>
>> There's FiOS and other offerings.
>
> I meant the portion of the system between CO's.
>

I am not current.

SKAIK, It's mostly still high powered ATM/SONET, maybe
some MPLS type stuff.


> FIOS is a pipedream that will never be available apparently beyond what's
> already in place. Verizon has said as much.

Probably.

> They seem perfect comfortable
> divying up the customers with their rivals.
>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Jeff Henig wrote:
> Les Cargill > wrote:
>> Jason wrote:
>>> On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 18:29:57 GMT "Don Pearce" > wrote in
>>> article >
>>>>
>>>
>>>> There is nothing intrinsically bad about IP for voice. The entire UK
>>>> telephone backbone is IP - it's a good few years now since anyone made
>>>> a switched telephone call, and nobody complains of dropout or delay.
>>>>
>>>> The key to making it work is to use the right protocol.
>>>>
>>>> d
>>>
>>> Hasn't the the US telco system been IP-based for quite a while as well?
>>>
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> You can get a copper pair as DSL or as a landline ( which is fully
>> circuit switched )
>>
>> You can get cable modem, and have VoIP over that.
>>
>> There's FiOS and other offerings.
>
> Having that copper pair landline has been really nice when the power has
> gone out, shutting down cell towers and such. The phones that are line
> powered just keep working, for the most part. I keep mine for that reason.
>

Understood. That's basically vestigial, though. The equilibrium that
could keep you a copper pair was destroyed at least ten years ago.

> Maybe it's just me, but I was 12 miles from the epicenter of the '89 Loma
> Prieta (World Series) Quake, and I remember how long it took to get stuff
> straightened up. Even though circuits were busy for a bit, the land lines
> kept working.
>

Frankly, other than a media breach, there's no real reason the other
stuff can't replace that.

There are a lot of *sur*real reasons, though. The Bernie Ebbers
bubble was of roughly the same magnitude as the original John Law/
Mississippi Bubble - although against a much more stable basic
economy.

> Fast forward to current times, we've had ice storm power outages that
> knocked out power to cell towers, but the land lines kept working.
>

I expect we're seeing "Katrina" effects - for which disasters
are worst cases planned for.

> Not sure I'm ready to trust VOIP over copper pairs, either. The internet
> around here drops out much more often than even cell phones.
>

It's a very real problem.

>
> Just my .02 worth.
>
--
Les Cargill

[mcp6453[_2_]]

On 2/6/2014 4:41 PM, Jeff Henig wrote:
> geoff > wrote:
>> On 7/02/2014 7:32 a.m., Jeff Henig wrote:
>>> geoff > wrote:
>>>> On 5/02/2014 12:22 p.m., mcp6453 wrote:
>>>>> On 2/4/2014 5:59 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Most people don't use Skye properly. Take a look at the live feeds on
>>>>> http://gfqnetwork.com. All of the non-studio guests are on Skype - audio and
>>>>> video. A lot of people have NO idea how capable Skype really is. The problem,
>>>>> though, is that it's the Internet. It breaks. Now that Microsoft owns it, the
>>>>> reliability has declined even more.
>>>>
>>>> How long has Microsoft owned the Internet for ?
>>>>
>>>> geoff
>>>
>>> LOL! Nice.
>>>
>>> No, MS owns Skype, not the entire Internet.
>>>
>>
>> It is on their list, but Google aren't selling it ;-/
>>
>> geoff
>
> Huh. For some reason, I thought MS had bought Skype. Maybe I got that
> confused with Google buying them out--or maybe that I saw a news blip about
> MS *attempting* to buy Skype.
>
> Thanks for straightening me out on that.
>

Microsoft owns Skype. The way I wrote the paragraph was confusing. geoff is
trying to be amusing.

[hank alrich]

Les Cargill > wrote:

> Jeff Henig wrote:
> > Les Cargill > wrote:
> >> Jason wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 18:29:57 GMT "Don Pearce" > wrote in
> >>> article >
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>> There is nothing intrinsically bad about IP for voice. The entire UK
> >>>> telephone backbone is IP - it's a good few years now since anyone made
> >>>> a switched telephone call, and nobody complains of dropout or delay.
> >>>>
> >>>> The key to making it work is to use the right protocol.
> >>>>
> >>>> d
> >>>
> >>> Hasn't the the US telco system been IP-based for quite a while as well?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Nope.
> >>
> >> You can get a copper pair as DSL or as a landline ( which is fully
> >> circuit switched )
> >>
> >> You can get cable modem, and have VoIP over that.
> >>
> >> There's FiOS and other offerings.
> >
> > Having that copper pair landline has been really nice when the power has
> > gone out, shutting down cell towers and such. The phones that are line
> > powered just keep working, for the most part. I keep mine for that reason.
> >
>
> Understood. That's basically vestigial, though. The equilibrium that
> could keep you a copper pair was destroyed at least ten years ago.
>
> > Maybe it's just me, but I was 12 miles from the epicenter of the '89 Loma
> > Prieta (World Series) Quake, and I remember how long it took to get stuff
> > straightened up. Even though circuits were busy for a bit, the land lines
> > kept working.
> >
>
> Frankly, other than a media breach, there's no real reason the other
> stuff can't replace that.
>
> There are a lot of *sur*real reasons, though. The Bernie Ebbers
> bubble was of roughly the same magnitude as the original John Law/
> Mississippi Bubble - although against a much more stable basic
> economy.
>
> > Fast forward to current times, we've had ice storm power outages that
> > knocked out power to cell towers, but the land lines kept working.
> >
>
> I expect we're seeing "Katrina" effects - for which disasters
> are worst cases planned for.
>
> > Not sure I'm ready to trust VOIP over copper pairs, either. The internet
> > around here drops out much more often than even cell phones.
> >
>
> It's a very real problem.
>
> >
> > Just my .02 worth.
> >

My rural situation is much like Jeff's. When it snows the cell tower
become less effective, while the landline keeps working well.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic