  N3OGHCertified GLG-20Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:1 | Doomed Utterly fucking doomed.
This might happen, along with cold fusion, a man on Mars, and pigs flying.
Oh wait, we all ready had Swine Flu...
--
Petty people are disproportionably corrupted by petty power… | |
|
 |  BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: Doomed said by N3OGH:Utterly fucking doomed. This might happen, along with cold fusion, a man on Mars, and pigs flying. Oh wait, we all ready had Swine Flu... "swine flu" or more correctly H1N1 is REAL. If you don't believe me ask those in my area that have lost loved ones to this "imaginary" flu. | |
|
| |  jester121Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL | Re: Doomed Methinks you missed the terrible pun. | |
|
| | | | | Re: Doomed He didn't USE random ALL CAPS words. | |
|
| | N3OGHCertified GLG-20Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:1 | Swine flu = real.
Swine flew = pigs flying. Hasn't happened yet.
Sorry if my sarcasm was a bit esoteric....
--
Petty people are disproportionably corrupted by petty power… | |
|
| | | | i hate it when people simply call the SWINE FLU just 'H1N1 flu', cause it is not (did the swine flu name aggravate the pig farmers?). swine flu is a particular strain of the the influenza A subtype H1N1 flu. simply saying H1N1 does not differentiate it between past flu viruses, current seasonal flu virus, and the 'swine flu'/'novel H1N1'. | |
|
| guppy_fishPremium
join:2003-12-09
Lakeland, FL
kudos:1 | The government is looking at the fact they are loosing the POTS taxes base, nothing more. This is nothing but a smoke screen to have taxing IP as POTS is today! | |
|
| | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:1 | Re: Doomed Possibly. Or it might actually be motivation to advance the aging infrastructure in this county. If it's taxation, I would think it much easier to simply levy a tax opposed to going through this rigmarole. | |
|
| | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Doomed The FCC wants to migrate us to all IP?? When did they run a phone system?? gumpy fish is right.. this is just more of a move to migrate the taxes to IP voice from Pots..
The government is not smart.. they're idiots, in fact.
Companies are already installing VoIP and they didn't need the government to make them or help them..
As for phone, right now, they'd need to push fiber.. otherwise, you still have the same copper running DSL circuits to run that IP voice.. so why bother?
Wireless is the future, not VoIP.. more and more people are cutting cords every day...
Copper is going to be around for years to come.. like I said, it's that same copper that carries VoIP in many cases.
The government can't do anything "easy".. they have to have the smoke screens to make things work. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Doomed Wireless is bunk. The spectrum is only getting more and more congested as usage goes up. In Amsterdam, you will typically see 10 wireless networks or more from within your own home and getting your own to work is usually a nightmare.
And VoIP really is the future. Providers all over the world are already moving everything except the last mile to VoIP, and many providers (among which is my employer) are providing DSL+VoIP (Including FttC VDSL) or CableIP+VoIP (Including FttC Eurodocsis 3.0) or FttH+VoIP.
In fact, where I am, the ILEC is still offering ISDN or analog, there are two competitors offering analog on a services from them, tech from the ILEC basis, and at least a dozen companies offering (your choice) DSL or Cable Internet, with VoIP add-ons if you want them (Full disclosure: My employer among them). Analog+DSL is so far in the minority on new installs it's not even a blip.
What provides the IP is entirely and completely independent of whether your phone runs over the analog copper you already have, or over VoIP. That's the beauty of an all-IP world. Certainly there needs to be a push toward FttH, which is happening (everybody who is now pushing FttC does that at least partially so that those last links from Curb to Home can eventually be replaced by fiber...), but the move from copper to VoIP is entirely independent of that. The best scenario is probably simply to let the market go VoIP on its own and when the critical mass falls below a certain point drop the requirements for the maintenance of the analog phone network, probably to be replaced with a requirement for the maintenance of the copper-pair-for-DSL network. | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: Doomed said by JasperJ :
Wireless is bunk. The spectrum is only getting more and more congested as usage goes up. In Amsterdam, you will typically see 10 wireless networks or more from within your own home and getting your own to work is usually a nightmare.
I think fiberguy meant wireless phones, like cell phones.
People are dropping landlines for cell phones and going cell only. In contrast, most voip users also have a cell phone, but not vice versa. | |
|
| | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | I am talking about wireless phones.. yes.
And, like I said, you still have to have copper to have Voip (or fiber, depending) but that remains to be seen if they put teeth into that.
However, there is no law or anything that can force a carrier to migrate from copper to fiber.
Still, Voip isn't the future as the main product.. wireless phones are.. All this would really mandate change for is the central office equipment.. instead of hard switching equipment, it would be soft switching.. no major change and a worthless unfunded mandate if they were to even get close to pushing this..
In time, things will naturally migrate over to VoIP.. they're already doing it now. | |
|
| | | | | said by openbox9:Possibly. Or it might actually be motivation to advance the aging infrastructure in this county. If it's taxation, I would think it much easier to simply levy a tax opposed to going through this rigmarole. It's actually both, plus pandering to lobbyists.
Upgrade the network so that they can have an excuse to tax VOIP since everyone will be on VOIP.
Satisfy the lobbyists who want to sell a network upgrade.
Have something to boast about come election time and justify reelecting their sorry butts. | |
|
| |  n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
 ·Optimum Online
| said by guppy_fish:The government is looking at the fact they are loosing the POTS taxes base, nothing more. This is nothing but a smoke screen to have taxing IP as POTS is today! Agreed! If the government is taking interest then they are more than likely really interested in the tax angle.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears. | |
|
| | |
| |  Dude111An Awesome DudePremium
join:2003-08-04
USA
kudos:9 | POTS IS MUCH BETTER THAN THIS IP CRAP!!!!!
Believe me!! | |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Comcast
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| Step one: figure out who's still on circuit-switched I'm guessing that most providers by now have converted to an all-IP backbone; it's so much cheaper that way. I don't have a problem with circuit-switched POTS sticking around as long as people want to keep using it, so if the FCC is trying to move away from that I've gotta ask why. But I agree that beyond the last mile everything should be packet-switched.
I'm just curious who's still circuit-switched on the back end anymore. | |
|
| Reviews:
·MSN
·Brand X Internet
·DSL EXTREME
1 edit | Re: Step one: figure out who's still on circuit-switched said by iansltx:I'm just curious who's still circuit-switched on the back end anymore. No one is. The major telcos all converted within the past decade. All the long distance companies are also strictly IP based. All the new telcos, long distance companies (of course) are all IP based. | |
|
| | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | Re: Step one: figure out who's still on circuit-switched So why is TDM SONET still so hot? | |
|
| | Its about time Telcos can taketheir DMS 10s and use it as an anchor for a battleship. | |
|
| | Common carrier utility Start with a net-neutral 'last mile' common carrier utility mandate and then let those who want to provide services on top of that do so. | |
|
| | | Re: Common carrier utility said by IP Man :
Telcos can take their DMS 10s and use it as an anchor for a battleship.
If there were any battleships remaining, outside of floating museums, a DMS-10 wouldn't be a sufficient boat anchor. A DMS 100 or the whole CO's battery plant would do nicely, although the battery plant and backup generators are one of the main reasons POTS is more reliable/survivable than VOIP. | |
|
| | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | Re: Common carrier utility And if the FCC allows POTS to be decomishioned you can be they won't apply POTS reliability standards to IP, and they wont regulate, or allow states to regulate IP the same way POTS was (net neutrality/interconnection, uptime, repair times, service credits, universal access). | |
|
| openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:1 | But with a "net-neutral last mile", how does one get QoS and sufficient uptime? | |
|
| | Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | Re: Common carrier utility Net-neutrality only applies to VOIP that runs over the internet, not the stuff that runs on private networks(CC,Charter, etc). | |
|
| | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:1 | Re: Common carrier utility I realize that. So what am I missing from MaynardKrebs  ' post? | |
|
| | | | Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO
1 edit | Re: Common carrier utility openbox9
Edit: need to be awake before I post. | |
|
| | | | said by openbox9:But with a "net-neutral last mile", how does one get QoS and sufficient uptime? One gets it just as they get it now in any other non monopolistic / duopoly service - competition.
With VOIP, you can use any provider anywhere. If one is not meeting your needs you go to another. That is the beauty in competition, it actually makes companies provide a good product and service to stay viable.
Just because you don't allow them to make packets a priority (which is ONLY needed on a congested network) does not mean quality will suffer. If you have to implement QoS on any packet, then you are simply stating your network is not up to handling the amount of traffic on it and thus you should reduce the number of users you are servicing through either higher prices or some other anti-consumer mechanism that will cause your customers to go elsewhere. Choice is your - Upgrade the network or reduce you customer base. | |
|
| | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:1 | Re: Common carrier utility said by Skippy25:One gets it just as they get it now in any other non monopolistic / duopoly service - competition. How many competitive services really need QoS? And how many other "non-monopolistic/duopolistic" services have had their QoS issues solved by competition? I'm guessing the answers are pretty close to zero.said by Skippy25:With VOIP, you can use any provider anywhere. If one is not meeting your needs you go to another. That is the beauty in competition, it actually makes companies provide a good product and service to stay viable. You have that now. Besides, that's really not what this discussion is about.said by Skippy25:Just because you don't allow them to make packets a priority (which is ONLY needed on a congested network) does not mean quality will suffer. If you have to implement QoS on any packet, then you are simply stating your network is not up to handling the amount of traffic on it and thus you should reduce the number of users you are servicing through either higher prices or some other anti-consumer mechanism that will cause your customers to go elsewhere. Choice is your - Upgrade the network or reduce you customer base. You do realize that QoS exists on the PSTN now. It even exists for mobile phones, especially for emergency responders when the unfortunate happens. Networks, whether packet or circuit switched, simply can't/won't be built to handle major catastrophic situations where everyone jumps on their voice connections. QoS is critical. | |
|
| | Broadband phone without the broadband? I guess they are just assuming the whole lack of broadband deployment is going to magically fix itself in time for people who currently survive on 33.6 dial up to use VoIP?
--
Intel Q6600 @3400Mhz/GA-EP35-DS3P/4x 2048Mb G.Skill/WD Raptor 300Gb/3x WD20EADS 2TB/2x PNY GTX 260/Silverstone 850W/Custom water cooler | |
|
| Reviews:
·MSN
·Brand X Internet
·DSL EXTREME
2 edits | Re: Broadband phone without the broadband? said by Camelot One:I guess they are just assuming the whole lack of broadband deployment is going to magically fix itself in time for people who currently survive on 33.6 dial up to use VoIP? No.
This will BECOME part of broadband deployment. Everyone that gets POTS service will also get with it a minimum quality DSL broadband connection (likely 1000/384). Your POTS will share this connection. The BIG advantage of this is that no longer will telcos have to provide one copper pair for each POTS line back to the phone office. They will be able to run many POTS lines on one pair. They will also be able to use the extra pairs for pair bonding to increase distance and/or speeds of DSL. Finally, they will be able to use products like Adrenaline (google it) to also improve speeds and/or distances. | |
|
| |
See 12 replies to this post |
 MurdocPremium
join:2009-02-08
Manitowoc, WI | Lower the price of landline I don't know why its so damn expensive for a landline these days threw the big national phone companies. The price for just a dial tone is quite alot every month. Att and verizon i am looking at you, I am sure theres others. | |
|
|  elbm
join:2000-08-03
Reisterstown, MD | Re: Lower the price of landline It is expensive because the plant/local loop is very expensive to maintain, the switches and transport systems are very expensive to maintain.
The phone companies have hundreds of central offices, with millions of dollars in equipment in and power plant in them. They have realized efficiencies over the years and POTs is relatively cheaper than it was 30 years ago and long distance cost almost nothing.
With the advent of fiber through the 80's and 90's Bell System/RBOC's replaced all of the national long distance system and their inter office transport system. Upgraded all the central offices to near 100% digital and extend alot of fiber to the node in the local loop. Most of this that has been replaced over the past 30 years at the cost of 10 of billions is near obsolete and will be replaced. With faster transport and soft switch routing but it will be many years before it replaces pots. | |
|
| | MurdocPremium
join:2009-02-08
Manitowoc, WI | Re: Lower the price of landline I find it amazing that instead of lowering the price of something alot of people use they raise the price how many times in a year very stealth like. But they screw themselves in the end. | |
|
b10010011Whats a Posting tag?
join:2004-09-07
Bellingham, WA Reviews:
·Comcast Formerl..
4 edits | Sorry, VOIP is just not relaible enough You can have my POTS line when you pry it from my cold dead fingers.
VOIP is just not relaible enough when the only broadband choice is Comcraptic.
Cellualr is no more reliable than VOIP.
A few months ago this happend abotu six blocks from my house causing a major power outage:
»[video] Electrical Wire Tears Apart Tree
All of the local celular service went out, (no service NOT EVEN ROAMING on my phone) so did my Comcraptic internet service.
My POTS line still worked fine. | |
|
|
See 14 replies to this post |
|
| | Something tells me... This means higher taxes for VOIP lines. | |
|
|
See 6 replies to this post |
|
 ModusI hate smartassery on forumsPremium
join:2005-05-02
us | NO AT&T! If they do choose to move foward with this i hope they don't get AT&T to implement it or else it's going to suck like everything else they do.
--
Think Ahead. Learn More. Solve Now! | |
|
| | | Re: NO AT&T! LOL! Just look at how they handle their wireless service and that will tell you how good the 'new and improved' VOIP system will work. The ONLY reason ATT's current old-timey POTS telephone service is pretty reliable is that much of it was built under the old bell system of the past where 100 percent was an absolute requirement. With the new att (SBC cloak and dagger) it will be just reliable enough to get people not to churn away from them too much. I have an idea for the damn government. Go straighten up your own messes. The FCC itself is nothing more than a revenue generator for Congress via fees, auctions, and fines. Go hire some technical people that have a clue for once FCC to go with the thousands of stupid lawyers you employ! Lawyers come up with stupid ideas like this without understanding WHY when people call 911 they usually get ahold of emergency services instead of saying to themselves "oh it's broke again". | |
|
| |  alanxenosH. Sapien
join:2008-09-26
Winnetka, IL | Re: NO AT&T! The POTS lines in my area were placed during the days of the Bell System, and there has been no problem. (You can still see the faded logos on the phone line drop terminals. The AT&T Cell Service stinks, about 2/5 Bars. | |
|
approval from:
Scatcatpdx
| VoIP Voice Quality for all is still a long way away VoIP parity with POTS voice Quality is still a long ways away. Some of the issues include, but not limited to:
1) PSTN POTS can work under a power outage. Broadband DSL or Cable is years aways from this and in remote areas perhaps decades away.
2) PSTN POTS provides extremely good Voice Quaility. VoIP voice quality consistently is achieved at around a 10 Mbps connection. If someone has under a 10Mbps connection, and especially a asynchronous connection like DSL, multitasking surfing on the internet and talking and VoIP can run into lots of interaction issues on VoIP quality (uplink bandwidth, downlink bandwidth, Web 2.0 model javascript CPU usage competing with VoIP codec CPU needs, etc.).
3) As desktop computers can drive more and more ethernet bandwidth, simultaneous use of P2P applications can cause havoc with VoIP services. Some P2P applications will even spoof the ToS and QoS bits to enable higher bandwidth for their P2P service, and thus VoIP suffers. The FCC would need to step into everything P2P and lots of MMOG games as well.
4) Wireless data bandwidth, outdoor placement of radios and indoor use is extremely difficult. Your cellular voice service is now at about 4 Kbps. Think about all the drop calls and Voice quality problems at 4 Kpbs then translate that to a 5 Mbps service on a Wireless data network. This is evidenced by all the Clearwire quality problems.
And these are the icycle on the tip of the iceberg topics.
I do applaud the effort. Just wish that most of the development would be done in the USA, but due to globalization, this initiative would most likely only increase development and jobs in foreign countries and thus stimulate those economies. I wish companies like Cisco would be required to have a % made in the USA label like the Car companies. The amount of product developed overseas is so huge. Another issue for the FCC to try and address. | |
|
| Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | Re: VoIP Voice Quality for all is still a long way away You are trying to compare internet VOIP and regular POTS, this is not what is being suggested. The VOIP that is being suggested is what CC, Charter, etc is using, an isolated network just for VOIP. | |
|
|
| | | Re: FCC, don't put all your eggs in one basket! But what happens if your POTS line breaks? Back before I had a cell phone, that meant walking to the payphone in a park down the street to call for repair. And I had to do that a couple times. | |
|
| Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | Mr Matt
What they are talking about is not VOIP over the internet. They are talking VOIP like CC, Charter, etc are using, on an isolated network. Faxes work fine on this type of VOIP, essentially all this does is move the digital part (all LD and most other calls are digital at some point) closer to the user. | |
|
 Tel
join:2001-10-12
Mauldin, SC | Right! Our Government is going to fix something else The day I give up my landline is the day I'll do away with the phone completely. Wait a minute, when the idiots in Washington get through with it, there may be no phones anyway. | |
|
|
 maartenaElmoPremium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
kudos:1
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·DIRECTV
| What would it take? You would need broadband to every single village and farm this country has!
Granted, you'd probably only need 128 kbps (Vonage uses 90 Kbps by default) for a voice connection, but since even a farm house out in the boonies can get two analog lines these days (and quite few do, a farm is a business and many of them have been using faxes, and/or have a second line for their dialup) you would probably at least need 256 kbps to every single house in America. And since you are at it, why stop there. If you have the technology to do 256 kbps, there is a good chance it can do 1.5 Mbps.... soooo in a nutshell, to switch to VOIP, you would need broadband everywhere.
And then of course you would need it to be reliable. During Katrina, the last thing to go down in New Orleans was analog phone service, and it was the first thing to come back up. In the areas that weren't flooded, analog POTS lines often stayed up for all of the weeks power was actually out.
--
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" | |
|
| Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | Re: What would it take? I suspect that part of what is behind this is just that. If all phone has to be VOIP it would help move along the broadband everywhere project.
There is absolutely no technical reason that VOIP cannot be as reliable as POTS. | |
|
| | dddd hehe pots to voip don't think would be good till they figure out how to make the 911 system work on it. | |
|
| | New Regulation? Many of the VOIP companies skirt telephone system regulations by claiming they aren't a phone company, but data only. Once everyone is VOIP how do you see the regulation going? | |
|
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| hold on to your wallets!! Will the FCC give up it's ability to tax $6.30 onto each wireline still on "POTS"? Doubtful, what this DOES mean is they will want to apply the charge(s) to VOIP phone lines making a de-facto tax apply to the millions of voip customers in addition to the USF fund, and state taxes that many voip companies are now collecting (voluntarily) against your (the consumer's) best interest!
This is also a cart before the horse as there are STILL many areas that couldn't even get a 128k dsl connection.. you may want to set some priorities on that FIRST, before trying to get your money grubbing tax hooks into voip! I also wonder how the fcc would deal with companies such as Verizon who attribute VOIp to something akin to the plague. Would they force the company to finally give up the ghost (of pots past) with POTS over FIOS? Dobutful. | |
|
bemis
join:2008-07-18
Stoneham, MA Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Sprint Mobile Br..
| TV is a cake walk? The effort would probably make the FCC's coordinated transition to digital television look like a cake walk From a physical infrastructure point of view, probably...
In terms of the users, I beg to differ--
With broadcast TV you have absolutely no way of knowing who has a TV set because they aren't registered and they're sold everywhere. The result was massive delays, huge billion-dollar campaigns for advertising the transition.
However, with telephones you not only know who has them (they all have a bill that arrives each month), but you also have a straight forward way to contact them 
So, you offer up 2 converter boxes for free to each household for a year via notices included in everyone's bills, and you allow robo-calls to anyone who hasn't responded to the fliers or requested converters within the first 6 months. If after a year of notices and robo-calls you still don't have a converter, well, then you're probably too stupid to use a phone anyway.
Just make sure the converters can detect when it's PSTN vs. IP and pass-thru PSTN until the day of the transition, then you're all set in terms of users.
The real issue here is, do the Bell's actually care? Unless they stand to save billions per year by converting PSTN to IP I think they'll say no way to this. In that case the government has to foot the bill.
That said, I think this is just as worthy an effort of government money as many other programs I see out there being paid for. | |
|
dagg
join:2001-03-25
Galt, CA | technically not that big a deal they are looking to change the switching end.. not the customer end.
this has nothing to do with VoIP as most people understand it and at best would be only mildly challenging for rural carriers and rather easy for any carrier that has DSL offerings already in place.
the problem isnt the technical aspects of making that kind of change, that is the easy part... the real problem is getting carriers to spend the money to make changes... ESPECIALLY rurual carriers who would be forced to upgrade all of their CO's so that they were using equipment that was designed this century. | |
|
| | What about the alarm systems Anyone in the security industry will tell you that VoIP anywhere in the path from premise to monitoring station causes failure. Yes, there are IP communicators, but that doesnt change the fact that 99% of the installed base of security systems still uses POTS.
With requirements to have fire systems and monitored sprinkler systems in most commercial buildings, there is a massive installed base of POTS based systems and it's growing. The fact is that most AHJ's (fire marshalls) still insist on POTS lines to the fire systems, and they hold the final word in granting a certificate of occupancy. | |
|
|
|
FCC, don't put all your eggs in one basket!
What do you do when your broadband service fails. Pick up your land line and call your ISP, unless of course you are using VoIP. Then you suck wind and wait until your ISP gets around to fixing the problem. Then of course there is the matter of hackers. Once all voice communications are migrated to VoIP the hackers can come out from under their rocks and begin wire tapping America. Then there is the matter of sending a FAX. With VoIP lots of luck. The FCC must be thinking like Microsoft. When Microsoft finally patches one of their operating systems, until it is more or less reliable, they introduce another bag of bugs. If it works don't fix it. The PSTN has evolved over a period of more than One Hundred Years. Lets get all of the bugs out of the broadband networks before placing voice communication in the VoIP Basket.
·