08:42 06.05.2006 | All news from "Tech News and Articles"
Mini-white paper: Overcoming cultural challenges to the VoIP revolution
A few days ago, I took a phone interview for the local newspaper. The reporter, who was certainly no tech geek, seemedvery interested, and perhaps even excited, by the idea of Internet Telephony. He was happy to learn that, yes, Vonagereally can save you some serious dough on your monthly phone bill (so can Packet8 and a host of other providers).
As I expected, he questioned me about the quality of VoIP services. He was under the impression that VoIP-basedphone service didn't (and couldn't) sound as good as traditional phone service. Not surprisingly, he was takenaback when I revealed, at the conclusion of our twenty-minute call, that he'd been speaking to me via my VoIP phoneservice.
This got me thinking. We IP communications engineers, bloggers, and avant garde technology geeksreside on the cutting edge, confident in our favored technologies, certain that our ideas about the greatertechnological good will prevail.
But are we missing the mark? Are we not sensitive enough to the truechallenges facing our little revolution? How is the world going to be transformed into a place where the is nomore PSTN, and the global voice infrastructure is--exclusively--IP based?
To address these questions, I'vefashioned a list of the top ten issues that I see as counter-affecting the movement to an IP-based globalinfrastructure.
1. Disbelief about pricing and features
Consumers, especiallyfickle, middle-class consumers and those that are *ahem* older, seem to have a hard time believing that you canactually lower your voice service cost and get a more feature-complete service offering by switching to Voice overIP. We, as the thought leaders in this industry, can deal with these problems with better marketing, betterbrand alignment (why doesn't eBay slap its name up there next to the Skype logo?), and better product evangelism.
2. Uncertainty about security
Perception is reality. Even if the security of VoIP servicesis indeed somewhat better than that of traditional land-line services, it takes a lot to convince a skeptical consumerthat something new can actually be more secure than the tried and true. There has been a sort of inferredconnection between Voice over IP services and identity theft which I, as a networking guy, don't really *get*. It's easier to look over your shoulder at the supermarket checkout than it is to try to sniff your (encrypted)signaling packets from a MacGyver-type connection to the local cable company's data pedestal. But, like I said,perception is reality.
3. The question of E911 and government interference
This is more of a real problem than a purely perceptual one. Setting aside the lawsuits lodged against Vonage last yeardue to failed 911 calls, there needs to be an "out of court" and "out of Congress" consensus on thematter of E911. has taken steps toward this concensus. Butindustry-wide acceptance is still a ways off, and that's leaving Skype out of the equation. Regulating Skype intoE911 compliance will be a slippery affair, at best. So, the private sector needs a unified voice. That's about allpoliticians will listen to. Otherwise, the mandate that gets legislated willsuck.
4. Uninformed-ness about VoIP technology use
Getting back intothe realm of the perceived, there seems to be this idea that, in order to use Vonage or services like it, you need toconnect your phones to your computer, or somehow use your computer to facilitate calls--kind of like Skype orGizmo. The first person who expressed this misunderstanding to me was my mother. The second person was thereporter I spoke to on the phone. And I know I've heard it from others, even informed folks like the distance learningengineer at the local community college, whom I chatted with at a funeral a few weeks ago. Today's VoIP telephoneservice marketeers need to do a better job of making the point that all you need is broadband, and the ATA does all thework.
5. Difficulty in usage & hook up
Basic problems that disenchantmainstream consumers from VoIP telephone service will get worse as more and more people try Internet phoneservices. The two basic problems I'm thinking of are:
a. Some VoIP service providers have dial-plansthat force you to dial eleven digits even in situations when the call is in a local exchange and would ordinarily onlyrequire seven digits. Sounds minor, but this is a big deal. Let's not forget how finicky consumers are!
b. It's still in your home--or office--to an Internet phone provider. While some companies offer wirelessphone "systems" to address this issue (like Packet8 with their Uniden offering), the traditional Bells havethe upper-hand here. They have service technicians that can perform the hookups you need. I see this as a hugechallenge. As a networking guy and somebody who doesn't mind wires, electrical tape, and snippers, my whole house ishooked to VoIP, but what about everybody else?
6. Paranoid media coverage
This has surfaced only recently. The mainstream media, and even the technology media (to some degree) has gottencarried away with the idea of VoIP spam, what people are calling "SPIT'. Early on in my blogging forWeblogs Inc., I even got sucked into the hype. But potential (not actualized) problems such as SPIT are oftenflagged with such a that consumers get the jitters, and media recommends the "wait and see" approach. This isn't goodfor the revolution. Lesson to VoIP marketeers: communicate early and often with the mainstream media.
7. The issue of network neutrality
There's just not enough hours in the day to explore allangles of the . High-end content providers (like IPTV investors) want to divide the Internet into two or more serviceclasses--one for "fast" services like IP television, and one for "slow" services like the ordinaryweb. Sounds good, right? Well, not exactly. You see, the people who will soon be purveying IPTV (you guessed it--theBells) will be able to use this two-tier architecture to marginalize content providers who they see as competitors.They've already identified Google as one company they see as exercising too much control over content. Vonage andother VoIP providers aren't far behind and the black list. I stand for network neutrality (that is, keeping allapplications, regardless of vendor or type of traffic) in a single tier of service, with best-effort delivery. The telcos have floated the assertion that BitTorrent and other bandwidth hogs are in fact clogging the Internet, butthese ideas have outrightly dispelled as false by many people in the know. Today's bandwidth is plentiful, andtomorrow's bandwidth can be plentiful. The whole idea of a two-tiered Internet seems to me to illustrate the Bell'sdesire to control more of the Internet than they already do (which is the lion's share), as a means of boxing outchallenges to their revenue streams. Over time, I have come to believe that the answer to accomodating new,bandwidth-heavy services is to create more bandwidth on the Internet. I've said it before, and I'll say it again:bandwidth is not a resource for which there is a limited supply. All you need for more bandwidth is more fiber in theground. And this is arguably cheaper than trying to enforce multiple classes of service over the public Internet.
8. (Non-existant) Vendor interop
This is a problem created and nurtured by the VoIPindustry itself. Skype users can't call Packet8 users (unless they dial out through the PSTN---and what does that do forthe revolution?? nothing!), and Cisco CallManager VoIP systems, at least until recently, didn't work with Avaya phones.The end result? Limits on consumer use of available products and service. Unless you dominate the industry theway Apple dominates the digital music industry, it just doesn't work. Interoperability between products andservice is paramount to the transformation of the global voice network. Kudos to SIPPhone for equipping their Gizmo Project software with the ability to interact with other SIP providers'services. The rest of the industry should be following their example.
9. Bad enterprise attitudesabout infrastructure upgrades
A few days ago, I was talking to a top infrastructure executive atone of the largest manufacturing firms in the midwest. We got on the subject of transitioning his highly-distributedglobal network to a unified, or converged, footprint. This means combining his voice and data applications into asingle logical schema, using common network technologies (most notable, IP), to do everything on his network. Isuggested that he consider switching to VoIP. His response? "The wiring in our building is managed by the phonecompany, and we're not going to impede that relationship," or something very similar. Now, the parameters ofa voice convergence project may not actually be there in his firm, but his enterprise's attitude towardsprogress in IP communications was disappointing. Unfortunately, with the profit-motive ever in the mind of today'sdecision-making executives, many of whom are people who, yes, think that you need a PC to use Vonage, the negativeenterprise attitude towards VoIP is indeed the prevailing one. This has got to change. If the largestprivate networks in the world can't converge, how can the largest public ones?
10. Genuine qualityof service issues
Finally, we look at the challenge of quality of service. In an enterprisesetting, QoS is relatively easy to achieve, if the architects of the networked voice solution can convince the capitalspenders to purchase the right equipment in the right quantities. But, in residential scenarios, where serviceconsumers aren't "spending other people's money", QoS is not technically possible to guarantee. This isbecause the companies that provide network connectivity to the last mile, such as cable operators and DSL carriers,refuse to enforce QoS rules that would benefit their competitors in the VoIP industry--folks like Packet8, Vonage, andBroadvoice. One Canadian telco has even gone as far as charging extra for QoS guarantees. Absurd. Evenstill, there are certain things the larger independent VoIP providers could be doing to at least improve last-mileQoS. For one, they should start hockingbroadband routers that implement queuing, a common practice for improving voice quality on a one-hop link such asyour cable or DSL connection.
Ted Wallingford is an advanced networkingconsultant. His web site is .
http://voip.weblogsinc.com/
As I expected, he questioned me about the quality of VoIP services. He was under the impression that VoIP-basedphone service didn't (and couldn't) sound as good as traditional phone service. Not surprisingly, he was takenaback when I revealed, at the conclusion of our twenty-minute call, that he'd been speaking to me via my VoIP phoneservice.
This got me thinking. We IP communications engineers, bloggers, and avant garde technology geeksreside on the cutting edge, confident in our favored technologies, certain that our ideas about the greatertechnological good will prevail.
But are we missing the mark? Are we not sensitive enough to the truechallenges facing our little revolution? How is the world going to be transformed into a place where the is nomore PSTN, and the global voice infrastructure is--exclusively--IP based?
To address these questions, I'vefashioned a list of the top ten issues that I see as counter-affecting the movement to an IP-based globalinfrastructure.
1. Disbelief about pricing and features
Consumers, especiallyfickle, middle-class consumers and those that are *ahem* older, seem to have a hard time believing that you canactually lower your voice service cost and get a more feature-complete service offering by switching to Voice overIP. We, as the thought leaders in this industry, can deal with these problems with better marketing, betterbrand alignment (why doesn't eBay slap its name up there next to the Skype logo?), and better product evangelism.
2. Uncertainty about security
Perception is reality. Even if the security of VoIP servicesis indeed somewhat better than that of traditional land-line services, it takes a lot to convince a skeptical consumerthat something new can actually be more secure than the tried and true. There has been a sort of inferredconnection between Voice over IP services and identity theft which I, as a networking guy, don't really *get*. It's easier to look over your shoulder at the supermarket checkout than it is to try to sniff your (encrypted)signaling packets from a MacGyver-type connection to the local cable company's data pedestal. But, like I said,perception is reality.
3. The question of E911 and government interference
This is more of a real problem than a purely perceptual one. Setting aside the lawsuits lodged against Vonage last yeardue to failed 911 calls, there needs to be an "out of court" and "out of Congress" consensus on thematter of E911. has taken steps toward this concensus. Butindustry-wide acceptance is still a ways off, and that's leaving Skype out of the equation. Regulating Skype intoE911 compliance will be a slippery affair, at best. So, the private sector needs a unified voice. That's about allpoliticians will listen to. Otherwise, the mandate that gets legislated willsuck.
4. Uninformed-ness about VoIP technology use
Getting back intothe realm of the perceived, there seems to be this idea that, in order to use Vonage or services like it, you need toconnect your phones to your computer, or somehow use your computer to facilitate calls--kind of like Skype orGizmo. The first person who expressed this misunderstanding to me was my mother. The second person was thereporter I spoke to on the phone. And I know I've heard it from others, even informed folks like the distance learningengineer at the local community college, whom I chatted with at a funeral a few weeks ago. Today's VoIP telephoneservice marketeers need to do a better job of making the point that all you need is broadband, and the ATA does all thework.
5. Difficulty in usage & hook up
Basic problems that disenchantmainstream consumers from VoIP telephone service will get worse as more and more people try Internet phoneservices. The two basic problems I'm thinking of are:
a. Some VoIP service providers have dial-plansthat force you to dial eleven digits even in situations when the call is in a local exchange and would ordinarily onlyrequire seven digits. Sounds minor, but this is a big deal. Let's not forget how finicky consumers are!
b. It's still in your home--or office--to an Internet phone provider. While some companies offer wirelessphone "systems" to address this issue (like Packet8 with their Uniden offering), the traditional Bells havethe upper-hand here. They have service technicians that can perform the hookups you need. I see this as a hugechallenge. As a networking guy and somebody who doesn't mind wires, electrical tape, and snippers, my whole house ishooked to VoIP, but what about everybody else?
6. Paranoid media coverage
This has surfaced only recently. The mainstream media, and even the technology media (to some degree) has gottencarried away with the idea of VoIP spam, what people are calling "SPIT'. Early on in my blogging forWeblogs Inc., I even got sucked into the hype. But potential (not actualized) problems such as SPIT are oftenflagged with such a that consumers get the jitters, and media recommends the "wait and see" approach. This isn't goodfor the revolution. Lesson to VoIP marketeers: communicate early and often with the mainstream media.
7. The issue of network neutrality
There's just not enough hours in the day to explore allangles of the . High-end content providers (like IPTV investors) want to divide the Internet into two or more serviceclasses--one for "fast" services like IP television, and one for "slow" services like the ordinaryweb. Sounds good, right? Well, not exactly. You see, the people who will soon be purveying IPTV (you guessed it--theBells) will be able to use this two-tier architecture to marginalize content providers who they see as competitors.They've already identified Google as one company they see as exercising too much control over content. Vonage andother VoIP providers aren't far behind and the black list. I stand for network neutrality (that is, keeping allapplications, regardless of vendor or type of traffic) in a single tier of service, with best-effort delivery. The telcos have floated the assertion that BitTorrent and other bandwidth hogs are in fact clogging the Internet, butthese ideas have outrightly dispelled as false by many people in the know. Today's bandwidth is plentiful, andtomorrow's bandwidth can be plentiful. The whole idea of a two-tiered Internet seems to me to illustrate the Bell'sdesire to control more of the Internet than they already do (which is the lion's share), as a means of boxing outchallenges to their revenue streams. Over time, I have come to believe that the answer to accomodating new,bandwidth-heavy services is to create more bandwidth on the Internet. I've said it before, and I'll say it again:bandwidth is not a resource for which there is a limited supply. All you need for more bandwidth is more fiber in theground. And this is arguably cheaper than trying to enforce multiple classes of service over the public Internet.
8. (Non-existant) Vendor interop
This is a problem created and nurtured by the VoIPindustry itself. Skype users can't call Packet8 users (unless they dial out through the PSTN---and what does that do forthe revolution?? nothing!), and Cisco CallManager VoIP systems, at least until recently, didn't work with Avaya phones.The end result? Limits on consumer use of available products and service. Unless you dominate the industry theway Apple dominates the digital music industry, it just doesn't work. Interoperability between products andservice is paramount to the transformation of the global voice network. Kudos to SIPPhone for equipping their Gizmo Project software with the ability to interact with other SIP providers'services. The rest of the industry should be following their example.
9. Bad enterprise attitudesabout infrastructure upgrades
A few days ago, I was talking to a top infrastructure executive atone of the largest manufacturing firms in the midwest. We got on the subject of transitioning his highly-distributedglobal network to a unified, or converged, footprint. This means combining his voice and data applications into asingle logical schema, using common network technologies (most notable, IP), to do everything on his network. Isuggested that he consider switching to VoIP. His response? "The wiring in our building is managed by the phonecompany, and we're not going to impede that relationship," or something very similar. Now, the parameters ofa voice convergence project may not actually be there in his firm, but his enterprise's attitude towardsprogress in IP communications was disappointing. Unfortunately, with the profit-motive ever in the mind of today'sdecision-making executives, many of whom are people who, yes, think that you need a PC to use Vonage, the negativeenterprise attitude towards VoIP is indeed the prevailing one. This has got to change. If the largestprivate networks in the world can't converge, how can the largest public ones?
10. Genuine qualityof service issues
Finally, we look at the challenge of quality of service. In an enterprisesetting, QoS is relatively easy to achieve, if the architects of the networked voice solution can convince the capitalspenders to purchase the right equipment in the right quantities. But, in residential scenarios, where serviceconsumers aren't "spending other people's money", QoS is not technically possible to guarantee. This isbecause the companies that provide network connectivity to the last mile, such as cable operators and DSL carriers,refuse to enforce QoS rules that would benefit their competitors in the VoIP industry--folks like Packet8, Vonage, andBroadvoice. One Canadian telco has even gone as far as charging extra for QoS guarantees. Absurd. Evenstill, there are certain things the larger independent VoIP providers could be doing to at least improve last-mileQoS. For one, they should start hockingbroadband routers that implement queuing, a common practice for improving voice quality on a one-hop link such asyour cable or DSL connection.
Ted Wallingford is an advanced networkingconsultant. His web site is .
http://voip.weblogsinc.com/