Monday, April 10, 2006
PoIP?
While Jeff Pulver may be trying to reinvigorate his VON franchise by changing the V to Video, I think there is still much to be done with voice. Not that there isn't a lot of interesting work to be done with video, given its special data characteristics - it's just that we have still barely scratched the surface with voice over IP services.
Andrew Hansen used an interesting term - PoIP - in his comment on my weekend posting. Too many service providers - or just plain confused customers - seem to be using POTS over IP: Plain Old Telephone Service over Internet Protocol. Many customers are swapping out their phone lines or PBXs and just putting in VoIP technology without any change in the way they are doing business. If you are just going to use your new equipment the same old way as before, then I think you are wasting time and energy going through a change.
It might explain why the CRTC thinks that VoIP is the same as POTS and it has therefore been continuing to apply the same regulatory framework to VoIP as it has to POTS. In the eyes of the CRTC, it's just a different engine purring under the hood.
For all of the talk that VoIP transforms Voice into another computer application, the industry itself hasn't done a great job promoting new services with all sorts of new capabilities.
If all we are doing is selling VoIP because "it's cheaper" then we are wasting a lot of time and energy. There is a session at The 2006 Canadian Telecom Summit looking at Next Generation Voice and another talking to the leaders of today's VoIP service. Another session will include the heads of Consumer Services for all of Canada's leading carriers and yet another features the leaders of Business Services.
The Canadian Telecom Summit covers the full range of XoIP - Voice or Video - and looks at all of the issues, including Community Broadband outreach and dealing with the scourge of illegal content. It's the only conference you need to attend.
Andrew Hansen used an interesting term - PoIP - in his comment on my weekend posting. Too many service providers - or just plain confused customers - seem to be using POTS over IP: Plain Old Telephone Service over Internet Protocol. Many customers are swapping out their phone lines or PBXs and just putting in VoIP technology without any change in the way they are doing business. If you are just going to use your new equipment the same old way as before, then I think you are wasting time and energy going through a change.
It might explain why the CRTC thinks that VoIP is the same as POTS and it has therefore been continuing to apply the same regulatory framework to VoIP as it has to POTS. In the eyes of the CRTC, it's just a different engine purring under the hood.
For all of the talk that VoIP transforms Voice into another computer application, the industry itself hasn't done a great job promoting new services with all sorts of new capabilities.
If all we are doing is selling VoIP because "it's cheaper" then we are wasting a lot of time and energy. There is a session at The 2006 Canadian Telecom Summit looking at Next Generation Voice and another talking to the leaders of today's VoIP service. Another session will include the heads of Consumer Services for all of Canada's leading carriers and yet another features the leaders of Business Services.
The Canadian Telecom Summit covers the full range of XoIP - Voice or Video - and looks at all of the issues, including Community Broadband outreach and dealing with the scourge of illegal content. It's the only conference you need to attend.
Comments:
<< Home
I agree Mark, the CRTC's clearly bundles the term VoIP with traditional telephony, ergo e911 arguments - regulation etc., but how can you apply legislation written for something that was developed a hundred years ago, to a new form of communication and collaboration technologies.
Skype is a p2p nomadic communication technology that has a video, voice and text component, yet we don't have SkypeIN numbers in Canada as the way the CRTC dogma is written, "thou shalt provide 911 access if thou provides a phone number". This is beyond ludicrous. In the unfortunate event of a emergency, would I ever run to my PC, boot my computer, log into Skype, put on my headset, register with my local PSAP, then dial 911? There is no use case where anyone would ever do this, but still the legislation is there and it stifles Skype and other nomadic voice and collaboration technologies from competing and providing true VoIP features to people and business.
Also, credit where credit is due, PoIP - was coined by Brad Templeton, Chairman of the Board for the EFF - Electronic Frontier Foundation, the leading foundation protecting liberties and privacy in cyberspace.
http://ideas.4brad.com/archives/000113.html
Great blog by the way.
Skype is a p2p nomadic communication technology that has a video, voice and text component, yet we don't have SkypeIN numbers in Canada as the way the CRTC dogma is written, "thou shalt provide 911 access if thou provides a phone number". This is beyond ludicrous. In the unfortunate event of a emergency, would I ever run to my PC, boot my computer, log into Skype, put on my headset, register with my local PSAP, then dial 911? There is no use case where anyone would ever do this, but still the legislation is there and it stifles Skype and other nomadic voice and collaboration technologies from competing and providing true VoIP features to people and business.
Also, credit where credit is due, PoIP - was coined by Brad Templeton, Chairman of the Board for the EFF - Electronic Frontier Foundation, the leading foundation protecting liberties and privacy in cyberspace.
http://ideas.4brad.com/archives/000113.html
Great blog by the way.
I disagree Andrew. Mark's original point that many people are simply replacing their POTS with VOIP shows 911 service is needed. To receive calls, most folks (not Canadian Skype users however) leave their computers on at all times. Many are buying USB handsets that resemble traditional telephones. In an emergency, they may well run to the computer and try to dial 911. I agree with Mark that this approach to VOIP sells its potential short. And I agree with you the the CRTC should accommodate Skype in order to foster the innovation that Mark points out is missing.
well can you explain why some compagny like peopleline offer the service of voip in canada..even if they say that the 911 is not functional? no..seriously.. the CRTC din't really want an others like skype intrucduce themselfs in the north america that all.. want proof about that? well
http://www.peopleline.net/pstelco/faq.htm#serviceqa
make a search for 911...
Post a Comment
http://www.peopleline.net/pstelco/faq.htm#serviceqa
make a search for 911...
<< Home