| [16:12:23] | <Display> | test |
| [16:16:59] | <kaminski> | new panel: Voice - Evslin, Odlyzko, Turner, Hofstatter |
| [16:19:26] | <kamman> | badwidth does not equal fiber - itxc has no irus, no fiber, no nothing but they have a network |
| [16:19:56] | <Shirky> | metcalfe´s law restated: its easier to count nodes than connections |
| [16:19:59] | <kamman> | itxc = smart network |
| [16:20:15] | <Shirky> | kamman -- how so? |
| [16:20:36] | <kamman> | bolivia was once a fantastically wealthy country - where all the spanish conquistadors silver came from |
| [16:21:14] | <Campbell> | test |
| [16:21:15] | <kamman> | problem was, they took all the $$ they earned on silver (and then tin mines) and spent it on nice furniture, not building productive wealth-generating assets |
| [16:22:23] | <kamman> | net result, bolivia has a fantastic quantity of insanely beautiful versailles like masions and the 2nd lowest gdp in the western hemisphere |
| [16:23:52] | <kamman> | shirky - itxc is smart boxes at the edge of a dumb network. on the other side of its smart boxes are dumb phones so intelligence is as distributed as it can be |
| [16:24:22] | <Petrovic> | is it obvious the fones are dumb? |
| [16:25:08] | <kamman> | if you hit a phone they don´t scream? (grin) phones do not have to be dumb, but they are today |
| [16:25:33] | <Campbell> | URL to download NIST time sync program to update your computer clock over the internet: http://www.boulder.nist.gov/timefreq/service/its.htm |
| [16:26:20] | <kamman> | "we will never be a 6 9´s service but that would be insanely expensive" sounds like the same issue as security - acceptable loss at acceptable cost |
| [16:26:36] | <Campbell> | I sen this out because the log time entries are about 7 minutes ahead of NIST |
| [16:27:12] | <Gillmor> | Time travel panel is next.. |
| [16:27:43] | <Michalski> | can you set the panel a year ahead? I´d be interested... |
| [16:27:57] | <Berry> |  |
| [16:28:20] | <bradner> | is it relevent that this panel is only 7 min ahead instead of further in teh future? |
| [16:28:32] | <Gillmor> | Done. Of course you´ll have to know if it worked.. |
| [16:28:46] | <Shirky> | kamman: have you seen isenberg´s "you can buy as many 9s as you need" argument? |
| [16:28:56] | <Gillmor> | that is you´ll have to wait to know.. |
| [16:29:02] | <Robles> | test |
| [16:29:15] | <kamman> | shirky - yes i have. even tried to explain it to investors. not a roaring success |
| [16:29:51] | <Robles> | I can apreciate that |
| [16:29:51] | <Gillmor> | YOu buy more 9s with redundancy? |
| [16:30:17] | <Michalski> | I´d like to buy a vowel... |
| [16:30:29] | <Shirky> | maybe we need to re-write odlyzko and isenberg´s ouevre as puppet shows to show investors |
| [16:31:06] | <Robles> | They would at least laugh. |
| [16:31:39] | <kamman> | 3g americans - remember that most countries price wireline minutes by the minute (not by the call like here) why does this matter? because 3g wireless voice can compete extremely well on a cost per minute basis |
| [16:31:41] | <Berry> | Isenberg´s argument is easy to explain. Buy tickets on multiple flights at the same time. Get on the one that´s on schedule. |
| [16:31:47] | <kaminski> | odlyzko essay 3g voice: http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/3g.accidental.success.txt |
| [16:32:04] | <bradner> | much business calls here are by the minute |
| [16:32:07] | <Shirky> | isenberg essay on buying 9s: http://www.isen.com/archives/020626.html |
| [16:32:41] | <kamman> | reason non-us usage is so low is that cell service is still bloody expensive. no bucket plans |
| [16:33:56] | <bradner> | yes |
| [16:35:22] | <kamman> | i like to explain the RBOC´s objection to isenberg´s argument by referencing monty python´s "every sperm is sacred" song... "Every packet is sacred, every packet is great. If a packet is wasted, God gets quite irate." |
| [16:37:36] | <Berry> | You can have any color as long as it´s 5 9´s |
| [16:38:28] | <kamman> | most of imode "data" revenues are really sms |
| [16:38:35] | <Shirky> | "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it" |
| [16:38:47] | <Shirky> | upton sinclair |
| [16:38:47] | <kamman> | hear hear dr pepper |
| [16:39:46] | <Shirky> | sms is a wasting asset. its amazing, if you talk to the cellphone guys, to see that the think of sms as a permanent, and permanently growing, revenue stream |
| [16:39:51] | <kamman> | wireless data guys keep wanting to make it a real-time protocol - but it should be astore and forward traffic model. fill in around the voice |
| [16:40:02] | <Shirky> | the think == they think |
| [16:40:08] | <Elin> | Cell phone + camera + video = useful technical support |
| [16:40:10] | <Berry> | how do we know poor DoCoMo voice quality isn´t driving use of SMS? |
| [16:40:11] | <Michalski> | hard to argue with growth trend lines |
| [16:40:18] | <kaminski> | abstract "Speech recognition in the real world: An Embedded Viewpoint: Jordan Cohen" http://www.clsp.jhu.edu/ws2001/seminars/cohen.shtml |
| [16:40:42] | <Michalski> | I´m a curmudgeon about video on cellphones, except for small groups of enthusiasts or small niche apps |
| [16:40:44] | <kamman> | sms is so popluar in europe because voice minutes are so expensive. in the us we talk to each other |
| [16:40:57] | <Shirky> | except that they indicate a secure high-margin multi-billion market |
| [16:41:09] | <Michalski> | ah, but IM is super popular in the US, Steve. it´s SMS on PCs, which we have more of |
| [16:41:11] | <Elin> | Michalski: I´ve got a weird thing on my computer, what do I do: LOOK! |
| [16:41:15] | <Shirky> | the job of capitalism is to find businesses wiht 60% gross margins, and to choke the living shit out of them |
| [16:41:34] | <Elin> | GoldenEggCo. |
| [16:43:26] | <kamman> | cost to move a phone from one desk to another desk in the same bldg = $50-$100 |
| [16:43:55] | <kamman> | sorry, that´s what your pbx maintenance guys will charge you |
| [16:44:08] | <bradner> | cost to move a ip phone from boston to tokyo = $0 (real case) |
| [16:45:02] | <Forster> | Right: inside cisco we´re mostly IP phones, and just carry them around |
| [16:45:08] | <kaminski> | BCR IP-PBXs: Ready And Waiting: http://www.bcr.com/bcrmag/2002/01/p29.asp |
| [16:45:17] | <thatcher> | Anyone have a reference for echo system.... |
| [16:45:42] | <Campbell> | LogNote: cas change T11-T12 |
| [16:45:44] | <Shirky> | when morgan stanley moved their HQ to a new building in times sq, they built the whole system on IP phones from scratch |
| [16:45:56] | <Michalski> | even as they move to IP, PBX vendors are protecting their traditional revenue model: proprietary handsystems |
| [16:46:35] | <kamman> | cost to buy of a standard executive desktop pbx phone $400, yes, that is $400 not $40. the benefits of lock-in |
| [16:46:47] | <bradner> | when will the basic cisco IP phone be SIP & server indpendent? |
| [16:47:23] | <Michalski> | so which vendor is going to sell PBXes with an open spec so others can create competitive handsets? |
| [16:47:31] | <Forster> | Don´t know...I think the basic cisco IP phone can do some SIP, but don´t really know |
| [16:47:46] | <kamman> | It was lehman who put the IP phones in. if you want a good assessment of ip phones from a large vendor starting with a "C" and ending with a "O" call anyone at Lehman in NYC and ask them what they think of the new phone system |
| [16:47:58] | <bradner> | microsoft announced a enterprise sip server last week |
| [16:48:26] | <thatcher> | WWP experience is that it takes a lot of work to deal with interoperability issues for voice gateways. |
| [16:48:42] | <thatcher> | Lots of bugs |
| [16:48:45] | <clark> | class action suit iin NY against cell phone cos for monopoly control over handset mfgrs |
| [16:49:06] | <Forster> | Yeah, we had various lousy service problems initially, but now they seem to pretty much just work |
| [16:49:22] | <Gritton> | it´s the problems that have delayed cable voip |
| [16:49:30] | <thatcher> | Can clearly be made to work. But, rarely right off the shelf. |
| [16:49:43] | <Shirky> | kamman, what are the complaints |
| [16:49:51] | <kamman> | actually the ex-PBX guys VOIP systems do work well especially in smaller, less complex environments. |
| [16:49:52] | <Forster> | Cable VoIP is all involved in varlous stuff; hard to say its one or two things |
| [16:50:32] | <Gritton> | yep but the interoperability problems were a big factor |
| [16:50:50] | <kamman> | shirky - outages (a couple minutes here and there) dropped calls, and absence of features you take for granted(e.g. being able to pick up on a call that is already off hook on someone elses phone) |
| [16:50:58] | <Weinberger> | test |
| [16:51:37] | <Weinberger> | test (sorry for the noise) |
| [16:52:04] | <Shirky> | weird. i´d expect it would be _easier_ to multicast calls |
| [16:52:44] | <clark> | http://cbeyond.com/ |
| [16:52:45] | <Michalski> | http://www.cbeyond.com ? |
| [16:52:50] | <Michalski> | heh |
| [16:53:12] | <Forster> | http://www.cbeyond.com/ |
| [16:53:13] | <kamman> | inter-tel (disclosure - I cover it , INTL, Sector Perform rating) has about 15% of the US small/med biz phone system mkt - has been selling a system fr several years thatis basically a dell server, a channel bank, and software-enables (ie. smart) desk sets |
| [16:53:48] | <Shirky> | is it better than the product offered by C****o? |
| [16:54:02] | <kamman> | shirky - not really a technology problem as much as building it into the system and getting it up and running in a voice context. |
| [16:54:36] | <thatcher> | Microsoft loves SIP also,  |
| [16:54:53] | <Elin> | New York University has one IT department: but the Voice Telephony people are in a different IT Group from the Telecom people. |
| [16:55:27] | <Elin> | voice telephony = VOIP. |
| [16:55:38] | <kamman> | also, in CIsco´s defense, my guess is that the problem has as much to do with how Lehman built out their netowrk and evolved it from there. worked fine when you put it in and the network appears to have degraded from there. |
| [16:55:56] | <Shirky> | media gateeway control http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/megaco-charter.html |
| [16:56:49] | <Shirky> | right, but if you put in the hands of mere mortals and falls apart, thats a problem |
| [16:58:02] | <kamman> | one other really cool feature - you can (today) take an IP phone home from work, plug it into your DSL/Cablemodem, and have work phone calls "ring" at home. THis is not pie in the sky, (normal) people do it today. not perfect (firewalls and NAT) cause problems, but... from |
| [16:58:14] | <kaminski> | megaco and MGCP: http://www.networkmagazine.com/article/NMG20001004S0013 |
| [16:58:33] | <Berry> | In large (and even medium) companies, that´s often the case--separate and competing telecom and IT depts. |
| [16:59:57] | <bradner> | re taking the ip phone home - the people at Harvard who do that say that it works as well as a physical line phone better than 95% of the time (the phone in tokyo calling back to boston worked as a local line 90% of the time) |
| [16:59:58] | <bradner> | . |
| [17:00:03] | <Beckemeyer> | Pingtel has an IP (SIP) phove that has a Java API phone: http://www.pingtel.com |
| [17:00:22] | <kamman> | actually i have seen the features in really good "ready for production" beta´s but its been hard to get much user interest |
| [17:01:02] | <kamman> | major problem- people donteven know about the features they already have on the phone - so its hard to sell them new features |
| [17:01:09] | <bradner> | no pure phone instrument company is going well  |
| [17:01:32] | <Forster> | To Kamman: Yes, we take phones home and then our work number rings at home |
| [17:01:53] | <thatcher> | What will it take to get phone number portability? |
| [17:01:55] | <kaminski> | USB VoIP Device with RJ11: http://www.ame-group.com/ipo11.htm |
| [17:01:58] | <Forster> | Also, it´s easy to do tandem (?) ringing, and bring a second phone home; then both ring |
| [17:02:30] | <Beckemeyer> | problem with Pingtel is that there are no public standard APIs, so "open" means Pingtel-only |
| [17:02:33] | <Forster> | Features on current phones are limited by the crummy user interface; cell phones have better UI´s |
| [17:02:44] | <kamman> | makretreality today is that people are buying IP phone systems more to future-proof their networks IN CASE anyone ever does develop a useful IP voiceapplication - not really buying the existing functionality and offerings |
| [17:03:59] | <bradner> | re tandem ringing - the hard part is to get the 2nd phone to stop ringing when you pick up the 1st one |
| [17:04:16] | <kamman> | Forster - that seems to be a huge selling point to people. DOn´t get me wrong, every distributor I have talked to re CSCO VOIP expect t see it make a major impact as it goes through some more product development cycles |
| [17:05:14] | <kamman> | little known fact - one of the biggest sales channels for pbx´s (and eventually IP phones) is/are the RBOCs |
| [17:05:48] | <Forster> | re tandem ringing: the ringing stops on one phone when the other is picked up |
| [17:06:26] | <kamman> | where doesSIP take off? people plugging a SIP phne into their cable modem when they get tired of their teenager runs up bills on the traditional system |
| [17:06:41] | <bradner> | re tandem ringing - its trickey to do with ip phones - took a lot of time in the stds effort |
| [17:06:44] | <Beckemeyer> | still need trunks into PSTN for those not on IP -- a long time. |
| [17:07:45] | <Forster> | Good points about the sales/support channels; |
| [17:08:08] | <bradner> | re trunks to pstn - yes but the local carrier does not need to provide that - anyone on the internet can |
| [17:08:41] | <Forster> | All those trunks are proliferating. Furthermore, digital modems with different firmware become VoIP gateways |
| [17:08:51] | <Michalski> | DID = direct inward dialing |
| [17:08:59] | <clark> | who pays, besides the banks, when the LECs default on their debt? |
| [17:09:01] | <kamman> | god, when i graduated college if I´d know Iwas going to know this much about PBX´s... |
| [17:09:36] | <Petrovic> | I don´t understand the usage of the term ´arbitrage´. help. |
| [17:09:58] | <Forster> | re: too much PBX stuff: Really! And I´ve tried to avoid it! |
| [17:10:09] | <Beckemeyer> | scott b, re PSTN, one end point has no IP, just POTS, they need the LEC no? |
| [17:10:54] | <Forster> | Beckemeyer: they don´t neccessarily need the LEC; they need a GW; ITXC, CBeyond, others could do it |
| [17:11:31] | <clark> | Petrovic: 1 : the nearly simultaneous purchase and sale of securities or foreign exchange in different markets in order to profit from price discrepancies |
| [17:11:33] | <Forster> | Beckemeyer: I guess whatever it is would be called a xLEC; CLEC or ILEC |
| [17:11:49] | <Elin> | Please check the polls ... we have a couple new ones... |
| [17:11:50] | <clark> | 2 : the purchase of the stock of a takeover target especially with a view to selling it profitably to the raider |
| [17:12:18] | <bradner> | re needing LECs - what forster said |
| [17:13:52] | <Beckemeyer> | I guess I´m talking about end points that have done nother, still have their old number, i.e. transition period. I think I get it. Thx. |
| [17:14:41] | <thatcher> | Reference to what Dave is talking about? Software? |
| [17:15:07] | <Forster> | And local number portability allows/requires keeping your local number if you move to a CLEC |
| [17:16:15] | <bradner> | but you still need to maintain at least a physical line to retain the number |
| [17:16:26] | <Michalski> | http://www.callwave.com |
| [17:16:34] | <Michalski> | Internet Call Waiting |
| [17:27:37] | <Elin> | ... |
| [17:27:39] | <Oristano> | and http://www.faxwave.com - get your faxes over e-mail - also from Callwave |
| [17:29:42] | <Elin> | |
| [17:29:43] | <Elin> | |
| [17:30:30] | <kamman> | why are we trying to solve the voice problem? is it broken? or is this a cost issue that has more to do with union wage rates and sustained monolopy price models? besides, basic voice is $10-$15 a month |
| [17:30:51] | <kamman> | international voice is another story |
| [17:30:57] | <clark> | it´s a problem because cost:convenience doesn´t match desire to talk |
| [17:31:14] | <Elin> | .. |
| [17:31:49] | <kamman> | clark - pls explain. with most people on all-you-can eat price plans (for local) there is no $$ limit on ability to talk (not my argument, belongs to odlyzko) |
| [17:32:01] | <Gritton> | the issue is what the true rate of service growth is ; if it´s really just voice and SMS, the growth rate is probably in the 10-20% range |
| [17:32:21] | <clark> | kamman: it´s not a $$ limit if you can´t time/space shift the ability to talk |
| [17:32:38] | <kamman> | agree - ne new demand for voice so no problem to solve |
| [17:32:50] | <clark> | I can´t get an all-you-can eat mobile plan yet, but would like one |
| [17:33:10] | <clark> | or all I can eat LD plan? |
| [17:33:25] | <thatcher> | There are wonderful new opportunities for function with IP phone. |
| [17:33:30] | <Gritton> | but what carriers need is someway to get service growth rates up to 50% or more so there is a problem |
| [17:33:47] | <Beckemeyer> | just duplicating the existing voice is not that interesting (as you say not broken)... |
| [17:34:31] | <Gritton> | agree with the premise but not your conclusion - key is broken for whom |
| [17:34:32] | <Beckemeyer> | key is more what can be done beyond existing |
| [17:34:39] | <Oristano> | My phone bill is broken... bringing it to $0 will fix it! |
| [17:34:59] | <clark> | I pay 30% taxes on my phone bill too, which would be nice to reduce |
| [17:35:21] | <kamman> | data has a growth rate well over 50%, problem is carrier doesnt have appropriate assets to sell data in high volumes at low cost (not their fault, they built their netowrk to carry low volume voice with high cost/quality) |
| [17:35:35] | <thatcher> | Love lower cost long distance (especially international) |
| [17:36:59] | <kamman> | how many people consider David Isenberg´s shirt slightly scary |
| [17:37:59] | <Oristano> |  |
| [17:38:01] | <Michalski> | very impatient crowd, eh? |
| [17:38:07] | <clark> | grrrr. |
| [17:39:21] | <Weinberger> | PC Poll: I bought a PC and I love it *and* I hate it. |
| [17:40:31] | <Campbell> | LogNote: cas T14 session 4b end at 6:30 |
