more on The Great IP Debate

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Brad Templeton <brad () templetons com>
Date: July 13, 2004 12:28:37 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Subject: Re: [IP] The Great IP Debate


> I posted a similar response here about 2 years ago,
> but it bears repeating. VoIP, even though I used to
> be a fairly good architect of VoIP systems, really doesn't
> stack up to legacy circuit-switched circuits for voice.
>
> First of all, VoIP adds all of those headers. For a normal
> G.711 (64 Kbps) channel, you really need about 114 Kbps
> of bandwidth to handle the IP, UDP, RTP, etc. header info.

Dave, this post, while correct, reflects a common, and I feel wrong,
sentiment in the VoIP space which I call PoIP -- PSTN over IP.
We know the PSTN, so this is no surprise.

If VoIP is just to be PSTN over IP at a lower cost (or worse, POTS over 
IP as it
is in some cases) then it's boring are barely worth doing.  What's 
interesting
is new stuff.   The Global IP Sound codecs, found in Skype and some 
other
tools, for example, point out that talking about the quality of G.711 or
729 or other PSTN/Cellular codecs is the wrong path.

The write path is new user exeriences (and indeed, to reveal my own 
bias,
I am building a new user experience for the telephone myself.) which 
come
from having an IP network, as well as different and better sound.

Like the classic "disruptive technologies" described in The Innovator's
Dilemma, VoIP is supposed to be worse in some ways, and better in
ways you didn't even expect.  Vonage is a nice company but they are
largely just PoIP for now.  They are doomed if they try to remainPoIP 
forever
trying to have a lower price than the phone companies.

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/