SMART Letter #77
Telephony Future Here Now
October 14, 2002
!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()
------------------------------------------------------------
SMART Letter #77 -- October 14, 2002
Copyright 2002 by David S. Isenberg
isen.com - "the end of the middle"
isen@isen.com -- http://isen.com/ -- 1-888-isen-com
------------------------------------------------------------
!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*()
CONTENTS
> Telephony Future Here Now
> An Even More Personal Wi-Fi Connection
> Smart Remarks from SMART People
+ Yuan Lee on Gilder's view of China
+ Adina Levin with more on the Chinese economy
+ Laurence Brothers on Pirates!
+ Craig Harrison has deja vu in a company meeting
+ Fred Goldstein on revisionists and the Telecom Act
+ Don Sledge on ways government could screw it all up
> Antidisembarrasmentarianism
+ *blush* -- it's Tauzin-Dingell, not Hollings-Dingell
+ *blush* -- the U.S. Congress
> If it's Funny it Must be True, by Scatt Oddams
> The isen.com trans-Pacific tour
> Conferences on my Calendar
> Copyright Notice, Administrivia
-------
TELEPHONY FUTURE HERE NOW by David S. Isenberg
The future of voice telephony has arrived. It is not
evenly distributed yet, but it won't be long. I heard it
at VON 2002 (Voice on the Net, www.von.com) in Atlanta this
week. I'm talking about a telephony program that runs in a
vanilla Compaq Ipaq palm-sized device with a vanilla
802.11b wireless connection to the vanilla, unmanaged,
public Internet. It uses plain old headphones and the
Ipaq's on-board microphone. It runs with Microsoft's
Pocket PC operating system.
It sounded great -- better than toll quality, better than
the public switched telephone network. There was no
telephone company in the loop (no dial tone, no service, no
features, no billing) beyond pure Internet connectivity.
In the test call I made from Atlanta to another device
running the software in San Francisco (about a dozen router
hops), the voice of the fellow at the other end was crystal
clear. There were no echoes and no audible glitches. The
delay was just noticeable to my fairly experienced ears.
This delay -- unlike other software-only Internet telephony
I've tried -- was not enough to interfere with the dynamics
of the conversation.
It sounded great, in part, because the telephony software
resolves 8 kHz of audio, versus 3 kHz for conventional
telephony. (In contrast, AT&T's TrueVoice project, in
which I participated, spent countless millions of network-
upgrade dollars and countless person-years of technical
effort to stretch the 3 kHz telephone spectrum by just a
few percent.)
According to Global IP Sound, the 15-person company that
produces the telephony program (www.globalipsound.com), the
program codes speech at a variable data rate, averaging
about 80 kbit/s. This is too fast a data rate for dial-up,
but would in principle work fine for most DSL and cable
modem hookups.
Global IP Sound has combined a lot of techniques to reduce
audio quality losses from Internet packet arrival-time
jitter, data errors and packet loss. They call this
combined effort "Edge QoS." (For this alone, I gotta love
'em.) According to standard Mean Opinion Score tests, the
data stream can endure 10% to 30% packet loss before speech
quality falls to the level of plain old telephony.
To me, it was a thrill to talk on the Ipaq and walk around
the VON exhibit floor only because I knew that there was
nothing special about the system -- except the software. I
could easily get used to it.
In principle, the telephony software could run on any
platform. Versions of it were running on several different
laptops and desktops at VON's Global IP Sound demo. The
version that does 8 kHz audio in 80 kbit/s is relatively
low-complexity, so it could even run in inexpensive
processors in telephone-like appliances.
But the integration of SIP with Global IP Sound's program
could be awesome. Indeed, Nortel has announced such an
effort (see http://tinyurl.com/1xc6). In June, 2001, I
wrote a White Paper for Microsoft on its Windows Messenger
SIP platform (see http://tinyurl.com/1xau). I really liked
the presence-based integrated communication application,
but in fairness, the voice demo I got ran over an internal
LAN. The voice quality problems that Global IP Sound has
solved on the wild, wooly, public Internet are hairy ones.
I wonder if Microsoft's voice coder could be so robust.
When I tried Microsoft's own Ipaq-plus-802.11
implementation six months ago at VON in Seattle, I was
intrigued by the possibilities, and I considered writing it
up for the SMART Letter, but long delays killed the
experience. Microsoft had no similar demo at this most
recent VON.
I have no business relationship with Global IP Sound. But
I knew co-founder Bas Kleijn when we were at Bell Labs. I
last saw Bas in 1996 in the Bell Labs Murray Hill parking
lot. He told me he was quitting to take a professorship in
Sweden, but he said nothing about founding a company or
inventing the future. Bas, congratulations, my hat is off!
The arrival of better-than-PSTN telephony brings to the
foreground issues that I've been raising for several years.
One speaker at VON said that the telcos were still making
more money from voice than from data, even though, by all
accounts, data traffic has surpassed voice traffic. The
Global IP Sound application has the potential to divert
even more high-profit minutes away from the voice business
model.
The incumbent telecom industry is in financial trouble
already, from buying equipment that has now been made
obsolete by technological advances. Robert Pepper, the
head of the U.S. FCC's Office of Plans and Policy, said at
VON that telephony has a lot of built-in cross-subsidies:
business subsidizes residential telephone service, long
distance subsidizes local telephony, and urban subsidizes
rural telephony. The FCC's conscious policy direction for
years has been to equalize these subsidies gradually.
Perhaps one could say that voice has been subsidizing data
too, but I prefer to think that the data market, because it
has arrived lately, has developed in a more market-based
way.
But any way we look at it, the success of Global IP Sound's
end-to-end telephony will speed the arrival of the future
and the telcos' demise.
-------
AN EVEN MORE PERSONAL WI-FI CONNECTION
by David S. Isenberg
I am old enough to remember when telephone answering
machines were an exception. When they first appeared, I
was miffed when I got an answering machine instead of plain
old ring or plain old busy. Then, gradually, answering
machines became popular enough to be expected gear: I was
miffed when the called party *didn't* have an answering
machine.
Wi-Fi (or 802.11b) is following this trajectory. I've
begun to expect Wi-Fi wireless Internet connectivity at
meetings. Today, not having Wi-Fi at your meeting is
impolite.
VON 2002 in Atlanta was the first conference that I've been
to where I've had Wi-Fi at the conference proper and in my
hotel. At the conference, it was free, supplied by
Pulver.com. In the hotel, it cost US$10.00 a night; the
supplier was V-Link -- www.vlinknet.com -- which is
gradually installing Wi-Fi in all Embassy Suites hotels.
While the hotel's Wi-Fi worked fine, some kind of billing
system glitch kept logging me off every few minutes. I
contacted the V-Link service number, and (surprise!) a
real, live person answered almost immediately. Plus he
wasn't yet-another-tier-one-put-you-on-hold-we-don't-
support-that droid, he actually knew what he was talking
about.
We were chitchatting while my machine rebooted, and I
discovered that he was V-Link's general-purpose technician
on call that night. I had interrupted his Wi-Fi
installation in an Embassy Suites in Missouri. Then he
asked if I ever brought my laptop on an Alaska cruise.
Bingo. I had met Brian Mathison three years before, at
Soapy's Internet Station in Ketchikan.
Now there are eight Soapy's Internet Stations, located
where cruise ships dock and at other up-scale travel nodes.
Clearly, V-Link understands where sweet spots exist that
make otherwise-outrageous fees like US$10.00 per day a
genuine deal. Even as the big telcos fail, I'm betting
that thousands of entrepreneurial companies like V-Link
will keep building the Internet revolution.
[I have no business relationship with V-Link except as a
satisfied customer, and it seems that I now have a friend
there, too.]
-------
SMART REMARKS FROM SMART PEOPLE:
Yuan Lee [Yuan.Lee@morganstanley.com] writes:
"Gilder's enthusiasm toward China is a bit late. The
market usually does not reward but instead punishes
the latecomers . . . It's now time to earn in China
not time to start learning."
[Yuan was also at Telecosm. He wants us to know that the
above is his personal opinion, not Morgan's, Stanley's,
Dean's, Witter's or Discover's. -- David I]
---
Adina Levin [alevin@alevin.com] writes:
"There are interesting signs that the glowing facade of
Chinese economic growth in southern manufacturing and
financial centers hides growing decay in the government
and the hinterlands.
"Have you seen this Foreign Affairs article
[http://tinyurl.com/1xfz], which talks about creeping
decay in Chinese governance? Also, here's an older
Economist article [http://tinyurl.com/1xg1] that talks
about Enron-sized flaws in the Chinese economic growth
numbers."
[Adina posts her blog at levin.blogspot.com. -- David I]
---
Laurence Brothers [laurence.brothers@verizon.com] writes:
"Pirates! If you don't mind the fact that they were
indiscriminate murderers, outlaws of the purest type,
sure they caused progress. So did influenza. If at
some point pirates actually had more weatherly vessels
than warships, they certainly used their maneuverability
to flee when they saw a warship's masts on the horizon.
I wonder if there are any historical examples of pirate
attacks on warships (not just on boats). I suppose
there must have been some, but few and far between.
"Certainly, navies followed the bigger-is-better
approach. However, it turned out that bigger *was*
better. Large armed merchants such as galleons and
Indiamen were almost immune to piracy. Had the English
decided in 1800 that frigates were much more effective
than ships of the line due to their lower cost and
higher speed and maneuverability, today Napoleon XV
would be deciding our telecom policy. Considering the
power of the modern carrier task group, I'd say that's
still the case today.
" I don't extend the naval analogy to the business world,
in which it is obvious that that large companies are
much slower, stodgier, and less efficient than small
ones."
[Bucky Fuller never said that pirates defeated royal
navies, only that they invented ways to outsail them and,
in so doing, they both (a) avoided being attacked and (b)
advanced the technology of sailing and technology
generally. And I never said that pirates were gentlemen or
that they were any more pleasant to be around than
influenza. In fact, I find it ironic that the same
industry that gave the pirate meme cutesy cartoon appeal
now wants to vilify its enemies as pirates. -- David I]
-------
Craig Harrison (company name withheld) writes:
"In a meeting yesterday there was a presentation by the
'Strategy Team' to the 'Network Deployment' team. They
talked about roadmaps, targets and strategies; they
discussed IP convergence, IPV6, 802.11a, Voice over IP,
IP telephony, and a host of other techno-terms. They
were describing the new network capabilities we should
be moving towards. As I listened to them (preferring to
stay on the perimeter of the discussion), I kept getting
this 'deja-vu-like' feeling that I've heard this before
. . . 75 SMART Letters later, they're describing the
Stupid Network to a tee. But I didn't dare tell those
people that their network was stupid -- I just didn't
feel like committing political suicide. The good news
is that they're getting it -- optimism exists in swirls
of frustration and gloomy fog that surrounds . . ."
[Craig, I am living proof that there is abundant life after
political suicide. But even though it worked for me, your
mileage may vary -- David I]
---
Fred Goldstein [fgoldstein@wn.net] sends a pointer to a
C|Net story he wrote which says, in part:
"The Telecom Act was a response to regulatory friction
that limited innovation. The old monopolies, saddled
with slow depreciation schedules, had little incentive
to disrupt their franchises with new services. But the
legislation created a more normal marketplace for local
services. Revisionists are just confusing the issue when
they take aim at the Telecom Act."
[see http://news.com.com/2010-1071-960404.html for the REST
of the story.]
---
Don Sledge [DSledge@FremontGroup.com] writes:
"When you say that we should run the connectivity as
a common good, I take it you mean some sort of a
monopoly owner, perhaps even the government. I'm a
pragmatist (primarily because I'm not smart enough to
think of original solutions) and I have had some
experience with the model of a common infrastructure and
competing content providers. I once had a lot to say
about a rather large carrier and how it operated. We
decided to organize the basic infrastructure into a
company with a common set of assets (the long haul
network including domestic facilities and trunk switches
and international facilities and switches.) Local
facilities and switches were left to local operating
companies, not exactly what you advocate but close.
This led to all sorts of debates like who decides on how
much to build? And since there is usually some demand
that's not going to be met who decides where the pain
points will be.
"Content providers had to forecast their requirements
months or even years in advance so the infrastructure
owner could build to meet their needs. Innovation was
introduced to the market when the infrastructure owner
desired to spend the capital not necessarily when the
users wanted it. As we know now this system tended
stifle innovation and inhibit new products and services
from being introduced. (Sort of the golden age for
pragmatist.) Since there was no end to end owner
service problems were frequently passed back and forth
between the content companies and the infrastructure
provider.
"I applaud the idea that someone wise and benevolent
would provide infrastructure where we need it, when we
need it and improve it and service it as the market
demands. Unfortunately the pragmatist in me says, 'Not
bloody likely.' Any imposed structure like this will
create its on set of problems.
"We need to develop the last mile -- as you know, this is
one of the problems that vexes me the most. But I'm
afraid we're just going to watch and wait as the market
sorts it out. The government process will inhibit
progress for a time but in the end the market will
provide the solution and is already doing so. There is
a fiber company here funded by private equity providing
infrastructure to a few thousand. There is a power
company there doing the same thing and in some cases
even city government is stepping in to build out the
infrastructure needed to make the city more competitive
for new businesses.
"Even the ILEC'S and some competitive carriers continue
to build or overbuild to provide broadband service.
Many of the incumbents use interim technology (defined
as anything that's not fiber.) But the increased speed
and usability is viewed as progress to the customer none
the less.
"The above is patch-worked at best but likely the only
way it will get done. Along the way we'll see
innovation and technological change that will create
different solutions for the last mile that will be less
than optimal. However, I believe that a mandated
connectivity solution would create a whole slew of new
problems an only lead to another break up in the future.
"[If you print this,] remember I'm a dumb-*ss old pole
climber not an essay writer or critical thinker."
[Don, for an old pole climber, you write good and think
good -- I bet you didn't grab both electric wires at the
same time more'n once.
I certainly agree that you have painted one scenario for
how a monopoly build-out can fail -- a very logical and
pragmatic scenario. I also agree that the city-here,
utility-there approach is a scenario that we see playing
out today. It is important that our laws permit cities
and utilities to continue to do this.
Two things have the potential to change some of the
squabbling you saw:
1) the infinite capacity of fiber, instantiated by
the ability to light a couple of miles of fiber
at a gigabit for about U.S. $2000-3000 capex.
2) the true end-to-end nature of IP. The idea that
the network stack does not depend on the telco,
that it sits in my device, right under my fingers,
and that any computer-literate high school kid can
hook up an IP LAN.
Once the fiber gets to my house, there's enough. Because
it has infinite capacity, there will be no squabbling for
more. If the endpoint owner wants more, she can re-light
her fiber or assigned wavelength with faster gear. But the
putative monopoly MUST stop at fibers or wavelengths. If
the monopoly tries to climb the value chain to enter the
user's network stack, they're done. Even lighting the
fiber could be going too far. The speed at which the fiber
runs should be between the user and the competitive service
provider.
So that's another scenario. -- David I]
-------
ANTIDISEMBARRASSMENTARIANISM
My Mistake:
In SMART Letter #76, I mis-named the bill before the
U.S. Congress that would free incumbent local telcos
from most competitive pressures. I called it the
Hollings-Dingell bill. It is really the Tauzin-Dingell
bill. I have corrected the online version of SMART
Letter #76 at http://isen.com/archives/021005.html
Senator Hollings actually opposed the Tauzin-Dingell
bill. He called it, "Blasphemy," in a February 2002
speech on the U.S. Senate floor. On one hand, Senator
Hollings might speak for network competition, but on the
other hand he has authored an anti-copying bill (named
SSSCA) that would cripple all network endpoints. Let me
propose a compromise: a network with no competition that
is not capable of carrying anything. I bet 100 U.S.
Senators would support that one.
More Congressional Embarrassment:
Speaking of the U.S. Congress, I am embarrassed and
ashamed that my own elected representatives voted in
favor of George Bush's unilateral desire to attack Iraq
on the eve of the isen.com trans-Pacific tour. How will
I be able to look citizens of other countries in the
eye without apologizing for my government? Fortunately,
the vote was not unanimous: 32% of the House and 40% of
the Senate voted against more war power for Bush. Some
pundits are worried about the effect of an attack on the
so-called "Arab Street." As the unjust basis for the
proposed attack becomes ever more obvious, I think the
"U.S. Street" could soon become an active site of
participatory democracy. May the eternal almighty
powers have mercy and forgiveness.
-------
IF IT'S FUNNY IT MUST BE TRUE
by Scatt Oddams
David,
Dan Gillmor pointed me to one that'll
make the milk come out of your nose:
http://rita.thegourmet.com/computers.html
Gotta go,
Scatt
-------
THE ISEN.COM TRANS-PACIFIC TOUR
[Note: Even though the route is now stable and the timing
is probably stable, not all of these dates or engagements
are confirmed at press time. I'd like to meet as many
SMART People as possible enroute -- if you're free to visit
(and especially if you have something constructive for me
to help with!) please send email -- David I]
+ WED 13 NOV TO SUN 17 NOV: India (schedule starts in
Madras, but mostly TBD)
+ TUE 19 NOV TO SAT 23 NOV: Tokyo (Glocom conference on
21 Nov, other events TBD).
+ MON 25 NOV AND TUE 26 NOV: Singapore, talk at Nanyang
Technological University.
+ WED 27 NOV AND THU 28 NOV: Melbourne, talk at Monash
University
+ FRI 29 NOV: Wellington NZ: CityLink.
+ SAT 30 NOV TO SUNDAY DEC 8: New Zealand, TBD.
-------
CONFERENCES ON MY CALENDAR
October 8-10, 2002, Atlanta GA. Fall VON. I'll be giving
an Industry Perspective talk at 10:45 AM on Thursday,
October 10, 2002. See http://www.von.com/
October 15-17, 2002, New Orleans LA. Fiber to the Home
Council Annual Conference. I'll be chairing a panel on
FTTH feasibility studies. http://www.ftthcouncil.org for
information.
October 22, 2002, Boulder CO. University of Colorado at
Boulder. I'll be speaking to Dale Hatfield's graduate
telecom seminar and guests, 4:00 to 5:20 PM. Contact
CourtneyCowgill@Earthlink.net for details.
October 23, 2002, Berkeley CA. University of California at
Berkeley. I'll be speaking to John Zysman's and Steve
Weber's class, "Governance of the e-conomy" and guests from
the Berkeley Roundtable on the International Economy.
Contact Genevieve Taylor [genktay@uclink.berkeley.edu] for
more information.
November 8, 2002, New York. (Note the correct date is
*not* Nov. 7!) Marconi Foundation Award Conference. Tim
Berners-Lee will get the Marconi Award. I'll be speaking
about the intelligence at the edge that makes the World
Wide Web possible on a panel led by fiber optic pioneer
Charles Kao; My co-panelists will include Andrew Viterbi,
Rashimi Doshi, Len Kleinrock and Tim Berners-Lee. For more
information, contact Darcy Gerbarg, 212-854-7676,
djg46@columbia.edu.
November 11, 2002 to December 8, 2002 -- isen.com trans-
Pacific Tour. See above.
December 9 - 10, Palo Alto CA. Supernova, a Kevin Werbach,
Jeff Pulver collaboration starring Sergey Brin of Google,
Doc Searls, Clay Shirky, and yours truly. No website
yet, but watch for the appearance of supernova2002.com or
contact Kevin Werbach, kwerb@werbach.com for more info.
-------
COPYRIGHT NOTICE: Redistribution of this document, or any
part of it, is permitted for non-commercial purposes,
provided that the two lines below are reproduced with it:
Copyright 2002 by David S. Isenberg
isen@isen.com -- http://isen.com/ -- 1-888-isen-com
-------
[There are two ways to join the SMART List, which gets you
the SMART Letter by email, weeks before it goes up on the
isen.com web site. The PREFERRED METHOD is to click on
http://isen.com/SMARTreqScript.html and supply the info
as indicated. The alternative method is to send a brief,
PERSONAL statement to isen@isen.com (put "SMART" in the
Subject field) saying who you are, what you do, maybe who
you work for, maybe how you see your work connecting to
mine, and why you are interested in joining
the SMART List.]
[to quit the SMART List, send a brief "unsubscribe"
message to isen@isen.com]
[for past SMART Letters, see
http://www.isen.com/archives/index.html]
[Policy on reader contributions: Write to me. I won't quote
you without your explicitly stated permission. If you're
writing to me for inclusion in the SMART Letter, *please*
say so. I'll probably edit your writing for brevity and
clarity. If you ask for anonymity, you'll get it. ]
*--------------------isen.com----------------------*
David S. Isenberg isen@isen.com
isen.com, inc. 888-isen-com
http://isen.com/ 203-661-4798
*--------------------isen.com----------------------*
-- The brains behind the Stupid Network --
*--------------------isen.com----------------------*