atcomsystems.ca/forum Forums VOIP Phones & IP PBX VoIP & Cloud Phones, Hosted PBX, General IP Phones VoIP vs TDM

Kumba,
We finally got you to play along!!

I forgot to tell you the customer requires BR & DR located off site in another time zone for no additional cost and if for any reason the power fails at his office, he needs his calls continued to be answered by the auto attendant and routing redirected to maybe his cell phones.

Oh and in a few weeks his call traffic is going to triple so he needs his voice channels turned up then and put back to normal a few weeks later plus he will need to borrow about 25 call center seats during that time but you can have them back when it is slow again.

James, you've been punked.

That just sounds like a typical phone call with a hosted customer. We get those a few times a week. Usually followed by promises of "all my friends" coming onboard our service as well.

And yup, just upgraded that pole to 30-feet.

Sorry Kumba. You are the moderator so you should know better. Anyway thanks for playing and I hope we can talk more in the future without the bashing please.

Everyone have a great cloudy day!

It's all in good spirit (I hope)

A lot of this conversation is focused on the customer side of the demarc, which makes sense considering that this is an interconnect forum. But the bigger picture of the future of the Public Switched Telephone System is also an issue, and may be the real determining factor in the end. Most readers remember the brief burst of news reports a few years back regarding the FCC request for input on eliminating the PSTN as we currently know it in favor of an all IP based system. "Eliminate" meant just that: No more POTS local loops, no more switched connections, no more Digital Hierarchy based on the DS0 building block, no more SS7.

Astute readers will be quick to point out that change in this area has been occurring from the "top down" for decades, with more and more long-distance PSTN traffic being shifted from high bitrate synchronous optical networks over to high bitrate optical networks that use ethernet. But the FCC request was going all the way with it: They were talking about having no POTS phone service connections at all. If every home and business in the country had only a "broadband" connection to the local CO, then the choice to use IP telephones would already be made for most people. They would buy a phone that plugs directly into the ethernet jack installed in their wall by the local phone company.

So will it happen? Well, therein lies the rub. An ethernet-only connection to the local CO is easy to provide in urban and suburban areas, but what about truly rural areas? The FCC's own offices are located in one of the most densely populated parts of the country, and one might wonder if FCC officials have ever done anything other than "fly over" the heartland. Here is a news flash: The Unites States is a big country. Really big. Many telephone subscribers in rural areas are located many tens of miles from the nearest CO or remote consolidation point - a distance that would be very expensive indeed to span with a medium capable of carrying broadband. The Universal Service Decree of the last century saw to it that these folks could have a PSTN connection, but no such decree exists for broadband. The US Department of Agriculture's RUS division [Rural Utility Service, formerly the Rural Electrification Administration] has made it clear for years that they will not provide loans for POTS-only construction projects, but this policy has had little [or no] beneficial effect: Small rural phone companies have seldom been able to develop a business plan which could show a profit [let alone break even] from providing a broadband connection to a few dozen customers spread out over hundreds or even thousands of square miles. Instead, such companies now have to "go it alone," with no backing from the RUS to maintain their POTS-only plants. One wonders just how the FCC "All IP Network" plan is supposed work in these areas.

One thing is for sure, we really do live in interesting times.

Jim Bennett
**************************************************
The future? Yeah, I've heard of that.

I sure like the way you think, Jim. Well said. Very well said.

OK Ed, I will bite

"Sorry, Walter (and you know that I love to bust your chops), but IP will only capture the market when it can address ALL scenarios, and anyone who understands our industry knows that this concept of reality is years away at best."

What scenario can TDM do, that IP cant?

I ask this not being a wise A$$, but rather to educate me.

Listen guys,
I hate this also and have sold against it successfully for many years, the tide has changed in my neck of the woods and I need to listen to what is being dictated from my customers.

I also see huge advantages to the end user and to us.

Back in the day (the older guys will get this) when a manual was called a "practice" not anyone could pick it up and run with it. We were protected and could earn our margins. That ship sailed many moons ago in my neck of the woods.

With the internet and the computer geeks eating off our plate I see where this game is going and am positioning myself to still be a player.

My next move is to be more involved and offer computer related services, if not, we will be done.

Years back, the telephone guy was your "go to person" for communications, this is not true today.
The shift has gone to the IT guy or "computer geek"

Right, wrong, better or worse, this is the reality in my neck of the woods I deal with.

In my world I have two options. Have a system that is IT friendly, or compete with the IT guy and his business.

I am doing both, I am tired of having the IT guy eating on my plate, time to eat at his plate!!

Just My 2C

Walter, can I assume that when you say TDM you are also including all conventional phone systems? If so, please allow me to reiterate the application that Ed and Coral Tech are talking about, that of the large campus-sized PBX.

Here is a diagram of a typical phone extension on a large PBX that one might find on a college campus, military base, large hospital complex, etc:

PBX switch > main distribution frame > miles of copper > protector block > inside wire > POTS phone

Now here is the same phone extension, on an all-IP system, using currently available equipment:

IP Phone "Switch" > [ethernet] > ethernet over SHDSL "C" card > MDF > miles of copper that may have to be upgraded to different cable in order to handle dozens or even hundreds of high-cap circuits on the same piece of PIC > SHDSL repeaters or extenders for longer runs > more copper that may need upgraded > protector block > ethernet over SHDSL "R" card > [ethernet] > inside wire that will need to be replaced with CAT5e or better > IP phone

Wow, that is one spicy meatball.

Jim
**************************************************
The future? Bring your checkbook.

....who ultimately has to contact the "Old Go-To Person" to find the answers he needs.

That's why we see so many of them here on this board as well as others.