I think wireless and converged data over high speed links wil co-exist, not compete for same space n market. I can't see high-speed wireless out in the "WAN" of a cellular network anywhere down the road. Without that speed over wireless, we are stuck with being able to DL e-mails and web-pages at a slow, but decent rate. The high speed stuff will happed over wires for a while, and although I don't see PC's being used as TV's, I do forsee the PC being the digital gateway/servwer of the high-speed home where other devices like a TIVO work off of the gateway and provide TV services to the family and a phone will be a phone, just getting it's information form same gateway and the phone will provide the phone services for a family.
Our consulting side does see wireless devices with two bands - 802.b/a/g for use in hot spots and GSM/GRPS over the "WAN", and this is going to be the way of wireless for a while. While your at a hotspot, maybe a hotel or airport (or Starbuck now, which we helped developed for them) you can get high speeds and DL video, maybe play a java game with a buddy. Then you have to leave the area, and now you rely on GSM. You still have connectivity, but in a limited fashion. I work for a company that tests, writes, and demos the latest devices from that carriers, and so I get to play with them as well, and I have seen a lot of innovative devices, (right now I get a T-Mobile Pocket PC Phone Edition as my cell phone) and I love them, but what I'm seeing is not the devleopment of bandwidth over their networks, but the 2.5G network development, and the standardization of the network with 1 common signal. -- RFC 1149 Compliant. ""The Long and Winding Road"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > ""Steven A. Ridder"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > I always thought that the PSTN was based off of that fact that not all > > phones would be calling at once, and if they did, then some would get > > through while others wouldn't. > > CL: yes. true. however, decades ago the Bell folks knew and practiced the > optimum manner in which to provision such that you or I or any other > individual would experience dial tone almost all of the time. We know this > through the Ehrlang calcualtions. > > > >Then to ensure that important calls got > > through during these periods, there was the priority network that gov't > > officials have with their PINS, etc. (Can't remember the name, but > there's > > also an IETF working group working on the same thing.) > > CL good idea. having been through an earthquake or two, I'm quite familiar > with fast busy's during emergencies. nice to know there is a means for the > right people to be able to get through. > > > > > > I don't think that the Converged Network theory is reinventing the wheel > and > > is a dead end. I think the opposite is true. The TDM/PSTN world is dead > > (or dying) and that most calls are circuit-switched across ATM now. > > CL: different issue. the Bell network grew and matured because of regulation > that guaranteed return on capital. therefore it was in Bell's interest to > invest in capital - switches, lines, CO's. Since deregulation in 1984 it can > be argued that the appropriate investment has not been made in "the > network" - all that has happened is that the CLECs have cherry picked the > most concentrated and profitable areas while underinvesting in not so > profitable areas. I sometimes sign my messages TANSTAAFL - there ain't no > such thing as a free lunch. Right now, for all intents and purposes, the > internet is "free". What happens when people have to start paying for their > proportional share of services? Assuming the internet becomes the > replacement for the telco netowrk? > > CL: I'm not saying that there is room for improvement. There is no reason > that a PBX has to be larger than a couple of IBM mainframes. But I gotta > ask - is it really a good idea to make your PC into a telephone into a > television? > > > > Now if > > someone could just solve the last mile.... > > > > CL: oh boy. video on demand. OC192 to the television set. I can hardly wait. > > CL: much as I despise the idea, I go along with the school of thought that > wireless is the future, not voice and data converged. It's another one of > those "trekkie tech" things, but telcos continue to lose 10's of thousands > of lines per year to wireless, and most people just want to yak on the > phone, no matter where they are. Which is one more reason to telecommute. > > > > > -- > > > > RFC 1149 Compliant. > > > > > > > > ""The Long and Winding Road"" wrote in > > message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > ""Steven A. Ridder"" wrote in message > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > > I understand the technology and stand by whoever said what IP > > > telephony/VoIP > > > > isn't a bandwidth hungry app. It isn't. G.729, which can use as > little > > > as > > > > 8k with proper compresion, has nearly the same MOS score as G.711, > which > > > is > > > > toll quality. Even though it's not officially "toll quality" I > consider > > > it > > > > toll quality, as I can't tell the difference, and most people couldn't > > > > either. Even if using G.711, I can still use compression and VAD to > get > > > > down to 25K or so, which isn't bandwidth hungry in my book either. > > > > > > > > I think the apps that will be on a converged network in the future > will > > be > > > > bandwidth hungry, such as video. Voice isn't. > > > > > > > > > > CL: I don't think the issue is the bandwidth taken by one compressed > call. > > > The issue is poisson 99. I think that's how the telco guys call it. What > > > happens when a significant number of calls "must" go through - say > during > > an > > > emergency? > > > > > > CL: current telco networks are engineered such that you get dial tone > > 99.5% > > > of the time you go off hook, day or night, busy hour or not. the VoIP > > > netowork must not only operate at that kind of reliability, but must > > > tramsmit data simultaneously. > > > > > > CL: This rush to converged networks means not only reinventing what the > > > telcos have already done, but building out a whole new infrastructure as > > > well. There is at least one school of thought that calls this a dead > end. > > > > > > CL: one of the bad things that has come out of Microsoft is the attitude > > > that Mainframe computers are just PC's with a little bit more horsepower > > and > > > that the internet is just a bigger version of the Microsoft campus > > network, > > > with a few more hubs involved. I see one of the bad things about Cisco's > > > vision of converged networks is the attitude that the Telephone Network > is > > > nothing more than just the Cisco campus telephone network with a few > more > > > phones attached. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Joe A > > > > > To: 'Nathan Chessin'; 'Albert Lu'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > Sent: 10/14/02 11:52 AM > > > > > Subject: RE: Cisco ExecNet > > > > > > > > > > Maybe I should say IP Telephony, not VoIP. How many uncompressed, > > > > > toll-quality calls can you push out simultaneously over a T1??? > Have > > > > > you done the math? 24? Maybe 23 on a good day. Sure, if you use > > > > > compression you can squeeze in quite a bit more, but you can't deny > > that > > > > > IPT is bandwidth-hungry, with streaming MOH, voicemail audio > streams, > > > > > the calls themselves. Believe me, VoIP is absolutely a > > bandwidth-hungry > > > > > app. No one who understands the technology would deny that. > > > > > > > > > > Joe > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Nathan Chessin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > > Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 1:56 AM > > > > > To: 'Joe'; 'Albert Lu'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > Subject: RE: Cisco ExecNet > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Since when is VoIP a "bandwidth-hungry app" > > > > > > > > > > Nate > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > Behalf > > Of > > > > > > > > > > > Joe > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 8:42 PM > > > > > > To: 'Albert Lu'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > Subject: RE: Cisco ExecNet > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Technology isn't necessarily heading in that direction - Cisco is > > > > > > driving it there. Bottom line is this: Cisco is traditionally a > > > > > > router and switch manufacturer, and no one buys routers and > switches > > > > > > these days, at least not enough to provide continued growth for > > Cisco. > > > > > > Company infrastructures are already built, have been for > > > > > > years, and are > > > > > > running for the most part nowhere near capacity. These technology > > > > > > applications, besides generating hardware sales directly, will > also > > > > > > increase bandwidth consumption, thereby causing indirect > > > > > > hardware sales > > > > > > when customers upgrade their routers and switches to support the > new > > > > > > bandwidth-hungry apps like VoIP. If Cisco can drive the > customers' > > > > > > purchases in that direction, they win. > > > > > > > > > > > > My two cents. > > > > > > > > > > > > Joe > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On > > > > > > Behalf Of > > > > > > Albert Lu > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 8:16 AM > > > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > Subject: OT: Cisco ExecNet > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello Group, > > > > > > > > > > > > Has anyone checked out the Cisco ExecNet, which is basically > > thoughts > > > > > > about where technology is heading in the future from the VPs at > > Cisco. > > > > > > > > > > > > http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/tln/execnet/ > > > > > > > > > > > > >From what they are saying (specifically Mike Volpi), the > > > > > > direction for > > > > > > technology is heading towards: CDN, Security, Wireless, IP > > Telephony, > > > > > > VPN. Reegineering business processes to best utilise these > > > > > > technologies in order to improve productivity and reduce cost for > > > > > > enterprises. > > > > > > > > > > > > Does anyone have any comments about this, and where money > > > > > > will be spent > > > > > > in the future for technologies? > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > Albert Lu > > > > > > CCIE #8705 Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=55622&t=55573 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
