NN squad members may interested in this UK Ofcom (the nearest we have to an FCC) consultation on managing the consequences of BT slowing its investment in NGN. From an engineering perspective some may say slowing equates to a major failure, but either way it raises several questions for those interested in securing an open bit commons as envisaged by Bob Frankston and others.
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/ngndevelopments/summary/ >From a neutrality perpsective I would welcome some reaction to this notion of >a control layer referenced in paragraph 1.10 which seems unworkable, when all >that should be needed is a transport layer with known emergent properties. >The latter is the key to maintaining open and neutral networks going forward. The reasons for the slowing / failure are many. The plan to emulate all PSTN (POTS) features seamlessly over IP, so mass seamless migrations could occur was certainly one challenge too many. Either the telecomms engineers created a flawed design, or the disruptive nature of an IP NGN was too big to embrace in full. BT efforts to transfer all risk to its strategic box manufacturers (each designed in isolation) while having no definitive picture of the end to end service outcomes could be another factor, but I am guessing. In my opinion the attempt to emulate fully the PSTN was a mistake, and focus should be on delivering a transport layer where the properties permit VOIP to work as it needs to using the existing TCP/IP mechanisms. Comments and pearls of wisdom welcome, particularly on the need for a Telco controlled control layer. I assume all incumbents will struggle with these same issues, which begs the question as to how the transition to a bit commons will occur. Regards Mike Kiely _________________________________________________________________ Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail. http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d
