atcomsystems.ca/forum Forums General General Telephone & Systems Information Is VoIP an attempt to steal phone tech work?

One thing that seems to slide back and forth with no real differentiation is exactly what someone means when they use the term VoIP. This always presents a somewhat interesting challenge to figure out in what capacity someone means VoIP.

I think that most of you here mean VoIP as in SIP across the public internet. The bigger problem here is not completely VoIP but more that the network that this method of VoIP is riding over is not capable of providing the QoS and SLA needed. Everyone knows these reasons and i'm not going to beat a dead horse here.

VoIP in a controlled network environment (just like the PSTN network) is just as reliable. VoIP and TDM are only as good as the switch they connect to. VoIP and TDM are only as good as the network they travel. VoIP and TDM are only as good as the software and hardware they run on. Logically we are not comparing apples to oranges but comparing an Orange to a Tangerine. Unfortunately there are more IT then Phone guys and therefore people with little to no experience with cabling systems or network design get designated to do so and only have the marketing they read telling them what they want. Silly consumers.

Telco switches do not have a consumer market, and therefore do not suffer from consumer woes. If no-name chinese offshoots made PSTN switches how stable do you think that network would be? Obviously not very. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on how you want to look at it) the VoIP arena does have a consumer market, and hence, consumer woe's. It is being flooded with hack-job hardware and software in a "First to Market" attempt.

Has anyone looked at the VoIP angle from the manufacturer's and telco's point of view?

Now i'm sure someone will correct me, but is a Internet-Based VoIP or PSTN-Based service easier for the telco to provide? All they need to provide the customer is a data jack (read: DSL). No porting (termination done in some magic POP somewhere), no need to roll a truck to turn up an extra line or two, Changes and features are instantaneous, No need to run seperate copper for voice or data, and the internet (which you have assets in) already exists.

The Telco's are already doing something similar with SS7 by using D-Channels to dynamically determine switch circuit routing paths instead of static paths. DNS operates on the same principle.

I've already stated that I think it's cheaper for the commercial vendors to develop IP PBX's because of the vast majority of development tools out there for PC's. Are there more updates for an IP-PBX because it's that much less stable? Or because you dont need hardware changes or large production investments to change the system (Like older TDM systems). How many bugs have you found in your PBX Hardware that wouldn't be fixed because not enough people complained? If you say none because the hand of god came down and touched your hardware then either you dont know it's there or are lying

Now all that being said, VoIP software is still lacking stability and robustness. But then again, it's also the youngest thing out there. TDM Phone systems do the same thing with a V.1.0 but the primary difference is the vendor's keep it at V.1.0 (short of a major bug) for a few years making everyone get used to it's quirk and recouping costs before releasing an updated version as a completely different product. An old AT&T Partner and a Lucent ACS are essentially the same design, but with different updates, making one not necessarily work with the other. Other then the corporate buy-out, did it really take them that long to develop, test, etc the hardware design from a Partner to an ACS?

VoIP will be prime-time soon enough. The telco's are providing better provisioning, the commercial vendor's are scaling it up and TDM down, the marketting is going after it, and it truly does have some promise if you can look past today.

If I argue anything I argue for ambiguity. I still say the Internet and PSTN will merge to a point that it becomes the "PSTiNet" and no one really knows what they ride over.

Ohh yeah, I made post #100. I win!

Kumba -

I agree with you about much of what you said, but i have to take exception to one thing.

My main issue with VOIP is that it is not as reliable as TDM and it never will be.

The problem is the Internet itself.

When I call my brother in California, my call steps up through the "pyramid" of exchanges going from my local Class 5 CO on the base of the pyramid perhaps all the way up to a Class 1 CO at the tip. Then it steps its way back down to a Class 5 CO in Orange County. When the circuit is established I have a dedicated circuit that is all mine (it may be a channel on a T - but it's MY channel). That circuit is all mine for the duration of the call and is only broken down upon disconnect. As a result, the maximum bandwidth available to me is only 56 or 64K but I've got all of that to myself.

What's wrong with that scenario from a military perspective?

Well, let's say a Class 2 office (and there aren't too many of those!)is in Sheboygen and the Russians find out about it. Prior to launching WWIII they explode a small thermonuclear device over Sheboygen. Now I can call the Bronx or Westchester, but I may not be able to call DC or certainly not Cheyenne Mountain.

Unacceptable to the DOD and the Pentagon.

It was too late for the government to redesign the telephone network (they tried to an extent with AUTOVON - but that's another thread), but it wasn't too late to start fresh with this brand new DATA network (Arpanet) that was being developed. As a result the Internet was designed that if I want to "place a data call" to someone in California, my router sends out packets not just on one route, but on MULTIPLE SIMULTANEOUS routes. This way if Sheboygen gets nuked the call will still get through.

It won't get through with the same immediacy as a voice call, but it will eventually get through and it has the potential for a heck of a lot more bandwidth then a voice call.

This is great for data but it SUCKS for voice. Voice requires low bandwidth and high immediacy (is that a real word?)Data requires high bandwidth but not necessarily high immediacy.

When you put Voice over the Internet (NOT an INTRANET - the Internet)how do you guarantee immediacy? You can't. Sometimes the call will go through perfectly and sometimes it won't.

I took my CCNA and Cisco VOIP classes and I learned all the tricks you can try - but none of them are guaranteed once you hit the cloud.

That's the way the darn cloud was designed! Randomness! Keep America safe from the Commie Attack.

Which is why I think VOIP will always be a second class phone service.

That doesn't mean it won't take over, shoot - manual elevators with real operators beat the pants off automatic elevators for a whole host of reasons - and how many elevator operators do you see these days?


Sorry for the Rant, but this stuff makes me nuts.


Sam

I am with you on pretty much everything you said.

I agree that the internet in it's current form can not reliably offer phone service.

I think we can also agree to disagree in that you don't believe the internet will ever be able to offer the QoS and I believe that it eventually will through additions or changes to it's fundamental protocol's. Guess we will just have to hurry up and wait to see

Kumba -

I hope you're right - because it looks like VOIP is coming - ready or not. And if it is, I'd rather it work than not.

Sam

I've tried to keep out of this discussion but I feel the need to slap another couple of pennies on the table like everyone else.

First off, Dexman... If you have ever priced out an average sized Magix(using new equipment prices before the line was dumped) and compared it to the same size IP Office you would find that both systems are VERY similar in price. So the whole thought that these new generation of switches are going to kill the smalller business is just plain silly.

As for VOIP in general, it's been covered repeatedly by several people that no, the public Internet is not ready for wide spread VOIP deployment. That doesn't mean VOIP isn't ready for prime time. Every technology has it's usefull place. The problem is some people just think in "buzz words" VOIP is either the greatest or it's the worst thing invented depending on who you are talking to.

There are several sides of "VOIP". VOIP over any segment of an unmanaged network (ie: the Internet) is of course a crap shoot on reliability and/or quality.

VOIP in an office with users on a managed network be can be MORE reliable than standard TDM phones in certain situations. The "limitations" that Sam mentioned above are also an asset with the proper network. This "managed network" can be a single office area, multiple floors, or multiple offices scattered across town or across the world. It also doesn't take thousands and thousands of dollars and fulltime IT departments to deploy a good network for VOIP. The need for money and personel to manage a network utilizing VOIP isn't much different than what it would take to manage a "data" only network plus TDM phone system. The more users involved with either technology, the more people and money you need.

Then you have VOIP service providers. These can be the "Vonage"'s of the world, or it can be AT&T, XO, Cbeyond, etc. Services that provide "lines" via the Internet will have the same problems people complain about quality etc, but the LECs and CLECs that are now offering VOIP services can provide you with greater flexability for normally less money than other traditional transport methods with the same reliability and quality(which is still covered by the same regualations as TDM based services)

So like it or not VOIP is here to stay and if you don't want anything to do with VOIP, you are only limiting yourself. There are plenty of good places for VOIP to be deployed to provide services that TDM based options are either impossible or cost prohibitive.

Both Kumba and IPOfficeguy are right about VOIP being practical and usable on an Intranet. In certain applications it makes a lot of sense and is actually a rather slick application of resources.

I think the anger and bitterness that a lot of the folks here feel is because of their experiences with office managers/IT guys/corporate principals who don't have a clue - but want VOIP!

Come in to a guys office. It's already prewired with a CAT3 & a CAT 5E jack to each desk. He's got one floor in a building and no other space. He wants VOIP. Why? "Because it's better".

I started in this business before Interconnect was allowed. When you were finally allowed to put your own phones in you could have different colors! You could have MOH! You had more choices than just a monitor board, a plug board or a Stepper. You could OWN your own phones, pay them off, depreciate them and buy new technology when you wanted it. You could actually transfer outgoing calls! You didn't have to pay extra (and monthly!) for features that came free like wink-hold. And on and on and on.....

The folks on this board have built this industry up, sometimes fighting tooth and nail against a monolithic entity that pulled all kinds of dirty tricks trying to shut them down.

And they succeeded. They built an industry that is second to none. And now they see it starting to come unravelled by something that is arguably (at least for the moment) a niche product that is being touted as a "one size fits all" solution.

That's why they're pissed.


Sam

It is the "knowledge" arrogance of the IT world. I had an IT guy call last night during my wife's birthday dinner because he couldn't figure out how to patch a fiber connection. I'll run by Monday and hook up two fibers for him....at a charge. Give them some mumbo jumbo to prattle about and they do okay.....add sweat and they run and hide.

Now, again, an IPO would be a waste of resources for the majority of my market....a Comdial Executech that has worked for 20 years is considered "overkill". When they do buy new it is not ViOP. Their "IT" guy is their cousin Marvin's 12 year old pimple-faced AV geek.

A real horror story....IPOguy will love this one.
The contractor to install was a West Coast type, the deployment was over a month behind, said their in-house network wouldn't support the "new" system, change order for more cabling for a new "phone" infrastructure, (more $$$$) the Westy spent more time checking the typing pool than the trunk pool, got booted, and the contracted trainer was training the users for another brand/system, the receptionist was supposed to get "factory" training for three days and an on-site tech to assist her on the opening day and first week of service. Didn't happen. IT might know how to manage a network but not a system cut-over.

This local headquartered company just went VoIP .... a real step backwards.....now this location answers calls for all five branches, not just the one local HQ (look at the money saved!!!!!)....one call at a time, not the five or six at once like with the old TDM. The touch screen is always down....finally they put a "real phone" on the receptionists' desk, and it won't reset half the time. Dropping your best overseas customer five times doesn't make too many people happy. When the IT lady who I had warned got called into her boss' office, well, she still has a job....barely.

Would they do it again? Probably not. The cost of ownership went way up, not just the hardware but the networks and monthly costs. As an employee owned company the head shed has a lot of explaining to do to the stockholders.....the employees who have to use this system. It cut their bonuses and % of COL increases on their pay checks. Even the lowest paid janitor feels the cost of this mess in his paycheck every week.

This is the second time snake oil sales people sucked up the little work available other than the small (two - three person) office market around here....and the ones who get it are not local, not even to the metro area. Always some "Internet wonders".

Boy, do I feel better? No, but now maybe, just maybe, someone out there will think twice before jumping into something that could cost them their job or their company their business. Either way the welfare line begins here.

Ipofficeguy,

The cost of IP equipment puts it in roughly the same ballpark as new Merlin Magix. I say roughly because, for example, the cost of an Avaya 2420 is far above & beyond the cost of a Magix 4424LD+

Now compare the cost of IP hardware to Partner ACS and there is a difference.

Add in the cost of local loop charges and you've just priced IP service outside the small guy's reach, unless he goes with a service provider like Vonage which uses the public Internet to carry traffic.

My point is, if you are talking about a company with dozens of employees and/or multiple locations then, yes, a Managed Service application would be a good fit. That's not the case when dealing with small "mom & pop" shops who might have 1, 2 or 3 telephone lines.

The 2420 is also more expensive than the 5420 that looks just like it and is for IPO only. To be fair, the 4400 series phones are also compatible with IPO with the exception of the 4424LD+.

Loop charges are the same for for any system. VOIP services are already out there saving lots of people money. XO and Cbeyond and others offer a package of 6-8+ lines plus "flex" T-1 data service for less than the average LEC cost for the same thing. Those 6-8+ lines come to the customer via VOIP and terminate as standard analog lines or PRI to the customer equipment.

"mom and pop" shops have no business running a Magix OR an IPO was my point. When the IPO was first introduced to us Americans as an Avaya product, they were more expensive than what was out there. The price has dropped ever since. Now it is in the same price range as the Magix it was meant to replace.

For the small companies with just a few lines and phones, the Partner and other comparable key systems are the perfect fit. Yes Avaya is planning on dumping it soon but they are already planning for the replacement. The One-X quick edition. The dreaded VOIP machine. It already has about the same capacity as a Partner but so far the price isn't there yet. I feel pretty confident that they will get the price low enough in the future to be a viable replacement for the Partner.

The One-X, if I understand correctly, does not expand out as far as the Partner ACS and has a very basic auto attendant.

At this point, I'm willing to wrap up by simply agreeing to disagree.