--- Paul Vixie <paul@vix.com> wrote: <snip>
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 USA!)
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 $300!") because as long as something looks-like-a-phone, the POTS empire can use the NANP (or local equivilent) and 911 regulations (or local equivilent) to prevent newer more efficient carriers from making money from "voice".
Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but your implication seems to be "damn the 911, full steam ahead." That's great for optional voice (calls to Panama) but not so good for non-optional voice (to the fire dept).
the solution of course is to use computers rather than "phones" and to use domain names rather than "phone numbers".
fine by me - such a service would never be confused with POTS, and no one sensible would treat it as a reliable/robust service.
..., the public Internet has substantial jitter and high coast-to-coast latency, ...
just thinking out loud here, but which "coasts" do we mean when we talk about the "public internet"? my first thought was lisbon-to-sakhalin, rather than seattle-to-miami.
given that the public internet isn't even centered in let alone predominated by north america any more,
How do you measure this? According to Telegeography, London has been the city with the most international connections for about the past 5 or 6 years, but New York (& environs) still had the highest aggregate international bandwidth during that time. I would certainly say that North America is a disproportionate source and sink of traffic relative to population.
and that some of the best (and/or loudest) speakers at nanog (both on the mailing list and in person) are from outside north america, it seems to me that the "reform party" should be thinking of a new name. i'll happily turn ANOG.$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...) <snip>
(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 standard." David Barak Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise: http://www.listentothefranchise.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/