North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
- From: David Barak
- Date: Thu Mar 31 12:50:47 2005
- Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; b=TqudPbqdTaerjJ4vHLhHJBcNywKUOGG0bt/y+Hha+7Ic9hX3YdBfRQSkHotUflcfhX4rHkfeeMyvaN4aTo5J2Q7TQaObuQ6chmJcyaP75dV+rG84ls20wS5chiDFf2AKrLYlMeiGWJFR7yYTKAT5PyNsjnqt1IwVYbXSFpOXvRY= ;
--- Paul Vixie <email@example.com> wrote:
> > Toll-quality voice requires ...
> ...all kinds of things that nobody outside the POTS
> empire actually
> cares about. folks just want to talk. cell-quality
> voice is fine.
> (just ask anybody in panama who has relatives in the
anecdote: one of my good friends uses Vonage, and my
wife complained to me yesterday that she has a very
hard time understanding their phone conversations
anymore. She correctly identified the change in
quality as originating from the VoPI.
> sadly, to get "voice over ip" (note, it's not
> telephony over ip, it's
> voice over ip),
The difference between the two is readily apparent to
businesses: VoIP::POTS as "ToIP"::PBX/Centrex
>we're going to have to integrate it
> into our computers.
> ("dammit, i need a decent quality USB headset for
> less than USD $300!")
> because as long as something looks-like-a-phone, the
> POTS empire can use
> the NANP (or local equivilent) and 911 regulations
> (or local equivilent)
> to prevent newer more efficient carriers from making
> money from "voice".
Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but your
implication seems to be "damn the 911, full steam
ahead." That's great for optional voice (calls to
Panama) but not so good for non-optional voice (to the
> the solution of course is to use computers rather
> than "phones" and to
> use domain names rather than "phone numbers".
fine by me - such a service would never be confused
with POTS, and no one sensible would treat it as a
> > ..., the public Internet has substantial jitter
> and high
> > coast-to-coast latency, ...
> just thinking out loud here, but which "coasts" do
> we mean when we talk
> about the "public internet"? my first thought was
> rather than seattle-to-miami.
> given that the public internet isn't even centered
> in let alone predominated
> by north america any more,
How do you measure this? According to Telegeography,
London has been the city with the most international
connections for about the past 5 or 6 years, but New
York (& environs) still had the highest aggregate
international bandwidth during that time. I would
certainly say that North America is a disproportionate
source and sink of traffic relative to population.
> and that some of the best
> (and/or loudest) speakers
> at nanog (both on the mailing list and in person)
> are from outside north
> america, it seems to me that the "reform party"
> should be thinking of a new
> name. i'll happily turn ANOG.$CNO and/or
> WORLDNOG.$CNO over to any elected
> board who becomes merit's successor-in-interest over
> "nanog governance"...
Well, North America does have its own issues, and
there should be a venue for that. (side note: I'm far
more likely to have my employer send me to Seattle
than to Tokyo...)
> (if you didn't know about the nanog-futures@ mailing
> list, go find out, plz.)
Thanks for the plug :)
> > OTOH, if you're going across a network with decent
> QoS or within the same
> > general area of the country, you can afford a
> larger transmit buffer without
> > risking the "walkie talkie" effect.
> all it has to be is as good as a cell phone.
Requirements differ. To paraphrase Randy, "I
encourage my competitors to use this voice quality
Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise:
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!