[VOIPSEC] 4G Issue Map: signaling complexity - more

[Michael Slavitch]

Some Internet Service Telephone Providers are beginning to deploy OEM DSL
connections to the customer site to get around the engineering problems
related to NAT and the quality of the connection to the PSTN and between
like peers.  It's just another DSL circuit only dedicated for streaming
media such as video and voice. It's cheap: provision the DSL, set up the
circuit, limit concurrent sessions to what the codec/bandwidth pairing
allows and go.

A bargain-bin SIP walled garden without the need for IMS. For most
businesses with good access to DSL it can replace a T1.

My local Freenet, staffed largely by volunteers, can easily pull this off as
a value add service over and above basic DSL. It is far simpler and cheaper
than IMS level engineering while offering the right level of service at the
right price.  DSL circuits and the bandwith needed to interconnect such
systems are traded commodities. Why the traditional carriers can't follow
through on this is beyond me. They have the brand and the infrastructure.



On 8/29/06, Paul E. Jones <paulej at packetizer.com> wrote:
>
>  :-)
>
> And Lotus had a petty argument over "look and feel" with Borland, losing
> its spreadsheet market to Microsoft.
> WordPerfect said there was no business case for going to Windows, thus
> giving its word processing business to Microsoft.
> (I would make a prediction about traditional carriers and cable companies
> here, but I'll give the carriers a chance to take action here before it is
> too late before I declare a winner.)
>
> I am of the mind that it is far too late to try to preserve the
> traditional voice business model as it was: trying to do so is likely to be
> detrimental.  Voice is and will be an important part of ongoing business,
> but expanded thinking here is definitely in order.  Carriers should have a
> team of strategists focused on new business services, models, and revenue
> streams.  Do they?
>
> Paul
>
>  ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Michael Slavitch <slavitch at gmail.com>
>  *To:* Paul E. Jones <paulej at packetizer.com>
> *Cc:* stuart jacobs <stu.jacobs at verizon.com> ;
> bill at flanagan-consulting.com ; Henry Sinnreich <hsinnrei at adobe.com> ;
> Voipsec at voipsa.org ; Geoff Devine <gdevine at cedarpointcom.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 29, 2006 4:00 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [VOIPSEC] 4G Issue Map: signaling complexity - more
>
>
>  On 8/29/06, Paul E. Jones <paulej at packetizer.com> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > What has struck me as odd is why the traditional carriers do not view
> > this changing market as an opportunity like everybody else.  For the first
> > time, traditional carriers will now be able to offer a whole range of
> > services over IP, from IP-based radio, voice, video, news delivery, weather,
> > conferencing, security systems, etc.  Sure, competition is out there, but
> > they have the wherewithal to grow into being huge multimedia corporations,
> > not just serving as a "pipe".  (Even being a "pipe" is a revenue-generating
> > business all by itself.  I've really wondered why some carriers have
> > complained about the use of VoIP when they are collecting an additional
> > $50/mo from users who were not paying that money before.... perhaps I need a
> > business lesson.)
> >
> >
>
>  You may ask the same question of GM and Ford.  Meanwhile, Nissan and
> Renault now realize they are what they are, brands with good channel.  The
> fact that they still manufacture cars themselves is probably a temporary
> thing.  Notice that most new assembly plants are small.
>
> Because the new world is all software, all applications, over any network,
> over any physical media.  The telecoms space is a protected world far
> too used to metal and circuits, generous time and generous budgets, far too
> used to calling the tune when it came to the when, where, what, how, and how
> much.   That space used to be completely vertical, completely under tarriff,
> when bandwidth was a scarce resource. Even the traditional 3rd party PBX
> wouldn't have happened without the help of the courts.
>
> In total:  Too many people have too much to lose.  Imagine standing up in
> a boardroom and saying that all the assumptions that got everyone there are
> wrong?  It's a quick way to be fired.   Too many empires and relationships
> stand in the way.
>
> It is just too different and difficult to contemplate   That leap is even
> worse in the CPE world.  The traditional CPE vendors are reluctantly
> building SIP into VAX-era systems when I can buy a comparitive
> supercomputer from Dell for under $1000.00 and a good SIP phone for under
> $100.00.
>
> I've been told more than once by traditional CPE people that what my
> employer is already shipping is by definition impossible to do.
>
> Can't be done.  Can't be contemplated. Don't want to know. Please go away.
>
> M
>
>