JmanA9

FCC Considers Moving Phone Network to IP

41 posts in this topic

Hi, I'm 12. What is a phone?

the thing that makes noise and when u pick it up you hear old guys offering you candy to come out side and play.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Though the E911 mandate got things rolling a couple years ago... one of the biggest hurdles I see in implementing ubiquitous IP telephony is the emergency/first responder services. That will be the most complex part to convert.

Overall, it's a great idea, but the devil is in the details.

Eventually we should use the old network only for emergency calls, just like they were supposed to do with the old analog tv spectrum.

And it will be no cost.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eventually we should use the old network only for emergency calls, just like they were supposed to do with the old analog tv spectrum.

And it will be no cost.

when were they supposed to use the old analog TV spectrum for only emergency calls?

most of that spectrum has been sold off to telephone companies, and will likely be the home for 4g cellular services like LTE and WiMAX....

so what are you saying the old POTS network should wire a cable pair to everyone's home, and give them hot line dialed phones to call 911 and no one else? and the maintenance of this copper infrastructure, and switching equiptment is not going to cost anything?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see this happening to an extent. The circuit switches will definitely be the last to go for emergency calls. I remember reading a Verizon tech bulletin in 2008 or so detailing that they'd finally gotten SS7 support for their 911 tandem somewhere in the New York area. In Telus parts of Canada, they use DMSes with an array of hardware terminals over RS-485 links of all things, and in a part of North Carolina I was in recently, they still have some kind of pre-non-digital ESS switch handling 911 calls.

I guess they take the phrase 'tried and true' seriously.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess they take the phrase 'tried and true' seriously.

I think from a consumer standpoint, it might be a hard sell to maintain the analog infrastructure. Taxes (the maintenance costs will have to come from somewhere, it won't be "free"), duplicity of systems, etc will be a damper. Depends on the breadth of the transitional period though. The bad economy the past 2 years has slowed VoIP adoption. I don't think the U.S. has hit 20% yet. However, that may change as the economy improves. Assuming the adoption rate does rise again, the lack of consumer interest in analog will add to the lack of motivation on the part of carriers to continue maintaining it. On the other hand, we'll probably see some trepidation the first time there is a high-profile emergency where a loss of life is directly attributed to bad E911 routing.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"The business model for legacy phone services is in a death spiral," AT&T said. "With an outdated product, falling revenues, and rising costs, the plain-old telephone service (POTS) business is unsustainable for the long run."

AT&T Butthurt.

Thought that was pertinent to the conversation. Discussion might be moot anyway in the long run. If AT&T wants out then most will follow.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

at least in my opinion, this sounds like the big jist of this whole push - posted by another user earlier in the thread..

Here's my cynical analysis of what this FCC notice really means: Nortel and Alcatel need to be able to sell new telephone switches to LECs. For LECs to be able to pay for these, the companies will either need to be AT&T-sized, or they'll need to go begging to the feds for funds with buzzwords like "digital divide". This notice is the FCC saying "OK, Nortel, Alcatel, Cisco, etc, let's hear the pitch." Said companies will then unveil grand plans for tearing out and replacing every piece of telecom gear from Key West to Barrow.

Edited by lucidphreak
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AT&T Butthurt

I'd have to agree with that assessment. The fact that we've seen a number of new players such as cable providers attempt to get their share of the residential landline market should be an indicator that there's still money left in it. Speaking of cable companies, they've had a similar mix of local copper/fiber infrastracture to maintain, but they're not crying about competing satellite or terrestrial broadcasts taking away their money.

Most businesses that expect to be taken seriously have a landline-ish contraption of some sort, whether it be POTS, a T1, or even a VoIP-based service, and 75% of American households is still a lot of people. Maybe I'm just in denial, but I think the real reason AT&T is having such a hard time with this all boils down to one word: price. Whenever I ask why someone has disposed of their landline completely in favor of VoIP or mobile, 80% of the time, their rationale isn't having "no real reason" to keep one around, it's the fact that they aren't willing to shell out the amount that's being asked of them for service. Not to mention that if the number of former-RBOC numbers ported to CLECs is an indication of anything, competitive carriers have a very big interest in business customers, and again, they get customers from RBOCs by offering cheaper service.

So yeah, someone call AT&T a wambulance.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

at least in my opinion, this sounds like the big jist of this whole push - posted by another user earlier in the thread..

Here's my cynical analysis of what this FCC notice really means: Nortel and Alcatel need to be able to sell new telephone switches to LECs. For LECs to be able to pay for these, the companies will either need to be AT&T-sized, or they'll need to go begging to the feds for funds with buzzwords like "digital divide". This notice is the FCC saying "OK, Nortel, Alcatel, Cisco, etc, let's hear the pitch." Said companies will then unveil grand plans for tearing out and replacing every piece of telecom gear from Key West to Barrow.

Eh?...not really. This thread has grown tremendously and includes a few mini-dramas but a lot of good juice was communicated. The FCC proposal, face value, is independent of the ATT news article I just posted. What flyer was saying was that to convert the telephony backbone from its current setup to all IP would be very expensive and would not be justified in the incremental efficiency, in his opinion (and somewhat of mine too), you would gain. That's why I also mentioned that this should be part of a program to upgrade the entire telephony network, including the local loop which as we all said or yelled at one another at one point in time, is the true bottleneck.

That is also another reason why I posted this article. I wanted to re-emphasize that Telephony either will die out like ATT is saying or will have to reinvent itself. They could reinvent themselves big if they massively upgrade the local loop and bring it up to broadband speeds. In fact, in the article ATT mentioned that it would like the funds to upgrade its broadband services (which is somewhat of an oddity since they broadband using DSL...still dependent on the old tech..hmmm..suspicious). Instead if America, through the infrastructure stimulus stemming from the response to the Great Recession, would follow through on making sure every American has "broadband" access as that FCC proposal reiterates, then they can kill two birds with one stone...upgrading telephony to the point that it is the most reliable of broadband methods and ensure that everyone has broadband since phone networks cover like 98-99% of the population. Right now broadband is composed of little fiefdoms dominated by the local broadband despot; very inefficient. So this would also accomplish what infrastructure, in general, is supposed to do...provide the best conduits for business, society, technology, culture, etc. so that the discoveries in those arenas dominate rather than the problems with the infrastructure.

Now would be a great time too as even our so-called "broadband" lags behind Asia and Europe...so even those have to be upgraded...lol...why not do it right this time?

(BTW...not attacking you...I know you were just expressing your opinion. This forum has been one of the most heated I've ever been in. Not looking to get into another flame war...lol...)

Edited by Phail_Saph
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So yeah, someone call AT&T a wambulance.

lol...do I detect a little Artie Lange here?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

is all of the locations that ATT is the RBOC 100% U-Verse FTTH ready?

seems kind of premature to be looking to close down and abandon the copper infrastructure if there is not a replacement already in place ready to pick up the slack.. otherwise you are bowing to the cable providers giving them more power to sign customers up, that may likely never return to you... so when everything switches over to IP, and you do not even own the infrastructure where is your revenue going to come from?

as of right now, businesses rely heavily on copper lines (POTS, DSL, T-1, and other data circuits)... cell towers rely on T-1 circuits... many residential customers rely on DSL and POTS...

i was nervous that i would have a hard time getting a job in the industry when i was let go from verizon several years ago... now as a tech for a CLEC this concerns me, since if the copper network goes away so does my job (at least my main job, i also do some VoIP contracts, but they use dryloop DSL circuits) if the copper network is shut down - all the CLECs are out of business, since FTTH is not deregulated...

what i think that they should do is not sell service directly to the subs, but just lease the lines to the CLECs and allow the CLECs to run drop wires, and do pair changes.. they would only be required to maintain any cable failures (even that could be contracted out) it would reduce there costs, and keep the copper infastructure available for those who still need/use it while they focus there capital on expanding FTTH coverage

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i was nervous that i would have a hard time getting a job in the industry when i was let go from verizon several years ago... now as a tech for a CLEC this concerns me, since if the copper network goes away so does my job (at least my main job, i also do some VoIP contracts, but they use dryloop DSL circuits) if the copper network is shut down - all the CLECs are out of business, since FTTH is not deregulated...

You think? I don't work in your industry so I don't have a clue how it would go down, but from my outside perspective they are still going to need to support a large interfacing setup of sorts as in the local loop or whatever they would call it after getting rid of copper. They wouldn't just pipe you into their backbone directly. So it seems like it would just be the same shiz but different and more advanced technology. They still need people to work the loop. I have a question: Do you guys get the 'feel' that you are in a dying industry?

as of right now, businesses rely heavily on copper lines (POTS, DSL, T-1, and other data circuits)... cell towers rely on T-1 circuits... many residential customers rely on DSL and POTS...

No doubt, but and more when I go to my customers they are going all VoIP. Businesses will have a separate copper setup for emergencies. In fact, the only time they really need copper, excluding emergencies, is for faxing and mail machine operations which typically require an analogue line and many times they don't even know about that when they upgrade. So the customer consciousness is already at the point of takeoff. Another question: Do you guys even talk about removing copper? Or is that like some kind of fantasy that the industry mulls over from time to time without any serious consideration?

The more I think about it the more redundant the whole setup is. You have two systems that can't get rid of each other because each setup has weaknesses that the other resolves so you have to carry both setups completely.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

since verizon fired me... i will not likely be able to be rehired by them to work outside plant.. the company i work for i am the only field tech (verizon started offering wire maintanace for CLECs last year, and are stepping on my job) verizon is also looking to lay off 2000 people in the near future.. the FTTH network will not need as many people to maintain it, since weather will not have as much of an effect on it...

i have not heard anything about removing the copper infastructure, although i do remember reading an article in telephony (now connected plannet) sometime last year about a rural phone provider selling off there copper infastructure because they were 100% FTTx ... if anything the copper network is worth something as scrap metal..

with FTTH, WiFi, VoIP, and DECT eventually there will no longer be a need for techs with my skills...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More interesting reading. Here is AT&T's response to the FCC's comments regarding the news article from up above. It puts things into perspective. I didn't follow the links from that article the first time and was just browsing the web now and came across it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

at least in my opinion, this sounds like the big jist of this whole push - posted by another user earlier in the thread..

Here's my cynical analysis of what this FCC notice really means: Nortel and Alcatel need to be able to sell new telephone switches to LECs. For LECs to be able to pay for these, the companies will either need to be AT&T-sized, or they'll need to go begging to the feds for funds with buzzwords like "digital divide". This notice is the FCC saying "OK, Nortel, Alcatel, Cisco, etc, let's hear the pitch." Said companies will then unveil grand plans for tearing out and replacing every piece of telecom gear from Key West to Barrow.

Eh?...not really. This thread has grown tremendously and includes a few mini-dramas but a lot of good juice was communicated. The FCC proposal, face value, is independent of the ATT news article I just posted. What flyer was saying was that to convert the telephony backbone from its current setup to all IP would be very expensive and would not be justified in the incremental efficiency, in his opinion (and somewhat of mine too), you would gain. That's why I also mentioned that this should be part of a program to upgrade the entire telephony network, including the local loop which as we all said or yelled at one another at one point in time, is the true bottleneck.

That is also another reason why I posted this article. I wanted to re-emphasize that Telephony either will die out like ATT is saying or will have to reinvent itself. They could reinvent themselves big if they massively upgrade the local loop and bring it up to broadband speeds. In fact, in the article ATT mentioned that it would like the funds to upgrade its broadband services (which is somewhat of an oddity since they broadband using DSL...still dependent on the old tech..hmmm..suspicious). Instead if America, through the infrastructure stimulus stemming from the response to the Great Recession, would follow through on making sure every American has "broadband" access as that FCC proposal reiterates, then they can kill two birds with one stone...upgrading telephony to the point that it is the most reliable of broadband methods and ensure that everyone has broadband since phone networks cover like 98-99% of the population. Right now broadband is composed of little fiefdoms dominated by the local broadband despot; very inefficient. So this would also accomplish what infrastructure, in general, is supposed to do...provide the best conduits for business, society, technology, culture, etc. so that the discoveries in those arenas dominate rather than the problems with the infrastructure.

Now would be a great time too as even our so-called "broadband" lags behind Asia and Europe...so even those have to be upgraded...lol...why not do it right this time?

(BTW...not attacking you...I know you were just expressing your opinion. This forum has been one of the most heated I've ever been in. Not looking to get into another flame war...lol...)

No attack taken, and I am certainly not in a position with any kind of inside information on the discussion outside of the intelligent (mostly) posts that have already been placed here.

But after reading the paragraph that I quoted, it sort of slapped me in the face that this could be the result of some bedtime story readings between the major telco's, the major hardware manufacturers, and the government - with a few "you owe me ones" thrown in for good measure.

That very well might not be the case - it just felt right enough to me to quote.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your instincts were right on. If you read the AT&T response they mention also the push towards IP telephony and mesh it with abandoning 'old' school telephony. So it looks like a nice bedtime story is staring to develop.

Here's another piece of the puzzle. Obama wants to include wireless access as part of the National Broadband agenda.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now