I find it amusing that:
1. Many assume one is able to get POTS everywhere
2. How some use the term POTS when in reality they're referring to VoIP
Pardon the length, but to make the point, here's one of many Canadian examples
some of us are intimately familiar with:
-Construction conglomerate starts up a CLEC
-Construction conglomerate doesn't permit ILEC into new subdivisions it's
building in the heart of ILEC's territory, instead all POTS infrastructure
including a new CO is built by its money-printing press...err, newly
registered CLEC, which begins providing voice and data there
-ILEC's mortal enemy, the local cableco, owns minor % of CLEC, and also
happens to serve this new subdivision with its cable-based products
-A year passes. VoIP over HFC...pardon me, Digital Cable Phone is introduced.
Cableco buys out remainder of CLEC.
-Cableco decides to throw out all the new equipment the CLEC has and begins
forced migrations of customers to its VoIP...sorry, IP Telephony service over
the cable network, refusing new POTS orders
-Cableco founder dies...oh wait, that's probably unrelated
Often MDUs (residential condominiums typically) here will create exclusive
agreements with cablecos and others to provide POTS (POTS look-alike is often
the result). But wait, cries the poor CLEC, what about my CRTC-given right of
access to buildings so I can do the same thing?
You don't always have a choice. You just can't get POTS in such cases. If a
change such as the one described happens, you simply have no choice but to
move. The question then is, is the sole alternative equally as reliable? That
seems to vary greatly on an individual basis.
If I'm just a user plugging in my 1980s Nortel phone into the same RJ-11 jack I
had 10 years ago, it still looks like POTS with the same 911 reliability to me,
right? Just because my provider runs the largest HFC network in the province,
has at most four hours of battery at the nodes and even less at an MTA, isn't a
LEC, doesn't have the ability to get anywhere close to interfacing with the
PSAP, relies on a third party to do all 911 prov for them, this party happens
to be a CLEC of questionable quality and possessing severely broken OSS,
doesn't mean that I'm not perfectly safe nor that I can't call this system
POTS, right?
How about CLECs who put up a CO in the field (and literally in a field!) and
have no clue on how to power it in such a way as to prevent 13 hour voice and
data outages? That reminds me I still need to request credit for that Sunday in
November. If you guys are on nanog and reading this, just send over the $, eh?
:)
So it can be argued both ways. Ultimately, it all comes down to marketing and
hype. With everything going to IP at both the core and edge (yes, I chose the
terms deliberately) and analogue-digital-analogue or TDM-IP-TDM-IP conversation
happening so many times, the terms POTS and VOIP are becoming nothing but
marketing speak open for abuse. Often, confused by marketing of the big boys,
the end users have no clue what they're using, especially when it's CPE-less
like VoIP-behind-POTS or hosted PBX or FTTB or cable or even things powered
by field equipment. A certain company here tells DSL folks they're on fibre and
another one emphasizes to staff to refer to their cable phone service as it's
not VoIP, it's IP telephony (I'm not kidding).
Regards,
--
Erik
Caneris
Tel: 647-723-6365
Fax: 647-723-5365
Toll-free: 1-866-827-0021
www.caneris.com
From: Chris Marlatt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 11:06 AM
To: Paul Stewart; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Telecom Collapse?
Paul Stewart wrote:
There's at least two cell phones in our house whenever the family is
home and I have neighbors within quick walking distance.
That's assuming they're not doing the same thing you are, are home, or
are willing to let you borrow their phone. You're assuming a lot. I find
it surprising that many people replying haven't kept a 911 only POTS line.
Regards,
Chris
