Searching \ for '[EE] NZ Telecom plans to replace whole telephone n' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/pots/dtmf.htm?key=telephone
Search entire site for: 'NZ Telecom plans to replace whole telephone n'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[EE] NZ Telecom plans to replace whole telephone n'
2005\08\29@214426 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
[EE] NZ Telecom plans to replace whole telephone network with voice
over IP system

I've checked. It's not April the 1st.

This has got to be about the biggest telecommunications news in NZ in
the last decade or two - probably longer, and has implications for
charging, access, and the ability, or not, to remove Telecom's fingers
from one's communications throat. Once implemented it will be almost
impossible to escape the monopoly, which they are apparently being
allowed to create. To compete other players would need to implement a
parallel investment. The stated costs sound, far too low to me. $200
million is about $NZ50 / person  nationwide - about $US35. A bargain
to obtain a monopoly which will be untouchable by prior agreement. I
don't know how much of the proposed activities this cost is meant to
cover but it feels far too low to me.

       http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3392267a28,00.html

Depending on timing (not mentioned in the article) this could place NZ
near the forefront of telephony and IP communications. And attract the
attention of most of the world's hackers :-). Imagine the ability to
take out a whole country's telephone system with a suitably cunning
virus. I imagine that the timescale for rollout would be substantial.

This news is news to me, but I assume that this decision has been well
known in relevant circles for some while.



       Russell McMahon

2005\08\29@220932 by Brent Brown

picon face
> [EE] NZ Telecom plans to replace whole telephone network with voice
> over IP system....

Just finnished reading the article and was wondering what Russell would
have to say...

Like you say, stated cost sounds way too cheap. How on earth can anyone
make VoIP phone cheaper than a conventional one? No communications
during power outages could be a pain too.  Hope we don't have to wait for
our phones to re-boot between calls.

--
Brent Brown, Electronic Design Solutions
16 English Street, Hamilton 2001, New Zealand
Ph: +64 7 849 0069
Fax: +64 7 849 0071
Cell/txt: 027 433 4069
eMail:  spam_OUTbrent.brownTakeThisOuTspamclear.net.nz


2005\08\29@221849 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
On Aug 29, 2005, at 6:44 PM, Russell McMahon wrote:

> NZ Telecom plans to replace whole telephone network with
> voice over IP system

Cool.  Although I've been rather disenchanted with VoIP for a
while now.  (personally, and with no particular visibility into
cisco's VoIP side!)

> implications for charging, access, and the ability, or not, to
> remove Telecom's fingers from one's communications throat.

Yes.  Or not, as you said.

> The stated costs sound, far too low to me.

IP infrastructure can be MUCH cheaper than telco infrastructure.  I
remember
one of our marketing guys chortling about how much less expensive a
router port was than phone switch port, and immediately think "that's
until you add all the bells and whistles that telcos will demand."  And
that's the chief reason for my disillusionment - given new technology
capable of changing The Way Things Are Done, the interest instead is
on using it to do things the same old way.  (for instance, it's an
oft-cited anecdote in the US that it costs more to bill for phone
service
than to actually provide that service.  Yet any VoIP system you might
try to sell to a telco MUST support (probably by law) the same billing
capabilities.  And "lawful intercept."  And "911 capability."  And 5
nines
reliability on a per-box basis.  Grr.

It would take a smallish country with a monopolistic telco to throw
off the shackles of old technology.  And the temptation is SO strong
not to do so.  NZ has a chance; I hope they make it work.

> And attract the attention of most of the world's hackers :-).
> Imagine the ability to take out a whole country's telephone system
> with a suitably cunning virus.
>
Here, you confuse technology and implementation.  Implementing a VoIP
telephone network doesn't mean that the IP network has to be connected
to the public internet as a whole, and I don't think there is much
reason
to think that any particular IP network couldn't be made "as secure as
the current network supporting the telcos."  (telco networks get hacked,
too, you know...)

BillW

2005\08\29@222635 by Marc Nicholas

flavicon
face
Yeah, but even VoIP is better than tin cans and string! ;-)

-marc

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005, Russell McMahon wrote:

{Quote hidden}

> --

2005\08\29@234916 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>> And attract the attention of most of the world's hackers :-).
>> Imagine the ability to take out a whole country's telephone system
>> with a suitably cunning virus.
>>
> Here, you confuse technology and implementation.  Implementing a
> VoIP
> telephone network doesn't mean that the IP network has to be
> connected
> to the public internet as a whole, and I don't think there is much
> reason to think that any particular IP network couldn't be made "as
> secure as
> the current network supporting the telcos."  (telco networks get
> hacked,
> too, you know...)

Just wait and see :-)



       RM

2005\08\30@062001 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Brent,

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 14:07:27 +1200, Brent Brown wrote:

> > [EE] NZ Telecom plans to replace whole telephone network with voice
> > over IP system....
>
>...<
> Like you say, stated cost sounds way too cheap. How on earth can anyone
> make VoIP phone cheaper than a conventional one?

Currently standalone VoIP phones cost about three times the budget that Russell stated - if NZ's takeup of
this means that they plummet in price, that would be a Good Thing, but I have to say there aren't enough of
you to make that big an impact on the market!  

I would guess that rather than expect everyone to replace every phone, fax machine, modem, Set Top Box (not
sure if you have these, but some of them here use a phone line) etc, that they would install a box at the
master socket that does the POTS->VoIP conversion for the whole site, so all the existing equipment still
works.  There would be uproar from the punters otherwise (not to mention all the retailers who have stock of
suddenly-useless equipment).

> No communications during power outages could be a pain too.  

Not to mention terribly dangerous - how do you call the emergency services if an electrical fire has broken
out, cutting the power and setting fire to the house?  I'm sure it wouldn't be allowed here (there is a legal
requirement for carrying emergency calls which means that if a power cut stopped it happening, it isn't
allowed).

> Hope we don't have to wait for our phones to re-boot between calls.

Just keep your fingers crossed they don't adopt a phone that runs on Windows!

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2005\08\30@101624 by Dave Lag

picon face
William Chops Westfield wrote:
> Cool.  Although I've been rather disenchanted with VoIP for a
> while now.  (personally, and with no particular visibility into
> cisco's VoIP side!)
>
Expectations were always too high, too early.
IMHO-VOIP and the necessary QOS support has never been ubiquitous enough
to be of great value except as a transport medium. BUT but it is sexy
and captivates the venture cap crowd.

An article which to me captures the current state:
The Coming Death of Cheap VoIP
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1812887,00.asp


{Quote hidden}

You know what a carrier grade voice switch has in it's software as its
highest priority? Capture the billing record. Keep a current call intact
is important but not nearly so  :(

 And "lawful intercept."  And "911 capability."  And 5 nines
> reliability on a per-box basis.  Grr.

The redundancy of the network as a whole is substantial, the SS7
signaling is separated and redundant in itself. If you needed 911/999 to
save a life what price would you put on that?

{Quote hidden}

Almost all Telco/PTTs are also ISPs, the temptation is too great not to
merge the traffic, unless they have not fully implemented QOS.
Monopolistic and near monopolistic countries are likely to be better
secured, when potentially there are many handlers in the call path all
bets are off, smaller carriers tend to cut corners in my experience.

Dave

2005\08\30@112105 by Harold Hallikainen

face picon face
My VoIP phone has considerably more delay than a POTS phone. It's similar
to the delay on a cellphone. I wonder how many people will put up with
this "improvement."

On power IP phones, I wonder about powering adapters with DC on the local
loop? Or maybe putting batteries in all the adapters (which will be fun to
replace a few years out).

Harold

--
FCC Rules Updated Daily at http://www.hallikainen.com

2005\08\30@113528 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face

On Aug 30, 2005, at 3:19 AM, Howard Winter wrote:

> Currently standalone VoIP phones cost about three times the
> budget that Russell stated ...

But a VoIP phone is fundamentally simpler than a cell phone, for
instance, and cell phones are routinely 'free' here.  What does
the $50/person budget actually include?  It's entirely possible
that it's only "new infrastructure", and still requires that
each subscriber pay for their actual phone (either directly or
via their monthly payments...)

And you don't need a VoIP "phone" to do a VoIP based phone system.
You can do translation at the "central office" where there used
to be a phone switch...

BillW

2005\08\30@144159 by Peter

picon face

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005, Russell McMahon wrote:

> Depending on timing (not mentioned in the article) this could place NZ near
> the forefront of telephony and IP communications. And attract the attention
> of most of the world's hackers :-). Imagine the ability to take out a whole
> country's telephone system with a suitably cunning virus. I imagine that the
> timescale for rollout would be substantial.
>
> This news is news to me, but I assume that this decision has been well known
> in relevant circles for some while.

I do not know what you know about VoIP routing. From the little I know
(from hands-on experience), what they will achieve will be the exact
opposite of a monopoly. Once everyone has a IP phone proxies and tunnels
will grow like mushrooms as long as they will try to keep the prices
high. And there is NO way to lock down the internet for IP phones
because IP phones are port-agile.

Peter

2005\08\30@150033 by Peter

picon face


On Tue, 30 Aug 2005, Brent Brown wrote:

{Quote hidden}

You can communicate fine during power outages if the local routers have
backup power. The local loop will likely be DSL and that works through a
telco exchange which has batteries and backup power. If your IP phone
and router are plugged into an UPS then you will be able to talk when
power is out.

As to cost, all they have to do is discard all analog loop cards from
the exchanges and provide enough dslam ports (which are already mostly
there probably).

Peter

2005\08\30@151659 by Peter

picon face

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005, Howard Winter wrote:

> Brent,
>
> On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 14:07:27 +1200, Brent Brown wrote:
>
>>> [EE] NZ Telecom plans to replace whole telephone network with voice
>>> over IP system....
>>
>> ...<
>> Like you say, stated cost sounds way too cheap. How on earth can anyone
>> make VoIP phone cheaper than a conventional one?
>
> Currently standalone VoIP phones cost about three times the budget
> that Russell stated - if NZ's takeup of this means that they plummet
> in price, that would be a Good Thing, but I have to say there aren't
> enough of you to make that big an impact on the market!

I think that the budget was for the telco side of things. Of course the
users would pay rent on equipment so it's all about securing a loan to
finance it >;->

Peter

2005\08\30@200640 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Peter,

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 22:16:57 +0300 (IDT), Peter wrote:

>...<
> I think that the budget was for the telco side of things.

Errr - but are you suggesting that the customers pay for their side?  I can't imagine that going down very
well, especially since there isn't much advantage to the customer in going to VoIP except reduced cost.

> Of course the  users would pay rent on equipment so it's all about securing a loan to finance it >;->

Says who?  I don't know where you are, but here in the UK phones have been for sale for at least 20 years, and
almost nobody rents phones these days.  I don't know if the situation in New Zealand is similar, but they do
use BT-style sockets and wiring, but I believe it may be similar in selling phones.  And then there's other
devices that connect to phone lines, like fax machines, caller ID displays, answering machines, remote ringers
and so on, that would all become unusable overnight.

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2005\08\30@201446 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Bill,

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 08:35:22 -0700, William "Chops" Westfield wrote:

>
> On Aug 30, 2005, at 3:19 AM, Howard Winter wrote:
>
> > Currently standalone VoIP phones cost about three times the
> > budget that Russell stated ...
>
> But a VoIP phone is fundamentally simpler than a cell phone, for
> instance, and cell phones are routinely 'free' here.  

That's only because they're tied-in to a contract - you try buying them without a contract and you'll find
they're darned expensive ($hundreds).

> And you don't need a VoIP "phone" to do a VoIP based phone system.
> You can do translation at the "central office" where there used
> to be a phone switch...

But most of the telephone network is digital nowadays anyway - maybe not IP but the local loop is the only
thing that's guaranteed to be analogue, so if you leave that as it is there isn't much advantage to going VoIP
for the rest, swapping one digital system for another.

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2005\08\30@222253 by Ling SM

picon face

> But most of the telephone network is digital nowadays anyway - maybe not IP but the local loop is the only
> thing that's guaranteed to be analogue, so if you leave that as it is there isn't much advantage to going VoIP
> for the rest, swapping one digital system for another.

Except if Intel is successful in the Trial and in its push for WiMax,
the whole landscape will be transformed.  Cellphone, VoIP, POTS, etc do
not matters to those,  only the information (voice, words, video,music)
is relevant.

NZ will then be an ideal WiMax testbed.

Ling SM

2005\08\31@021356 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
On Aug 30, 2005, at 5:14 PM, Howard Winter wrote:
>>
>> But a VoIP phone is fundamentally simpler than a cell phone, for
>> instance, and cell phones are routinely 'free' here.
>
> That's only because they're tied-in to a contract...

And being tied into a contract is different that being tied into
a monopolistic telco exactly how?  (oh - with the contract I get
to switch every year or two and get a NEW free phone... :-)

> there isn't much advantage to going VoIP for the rest [backbone],
> swapping one digital system for another.
>
Sure there is.  Packet switching is much easier than the circuit
switching required by current phone technology, even if it IS digital.

BillW

2005\08\31@222235 by Peter

picon face

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005, Howard Winter wrote:

> Peter,
>
> On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 22:16:57 +0300 (IDT), Peter wrote:
>
>> ...<
>> I think that the budget was for the telco side of things.
>
> Errr - but are you suggesting that the customers pay for their side?
> I can't imagine that going down very well, especially since there
> isn't much advantage to the customer in going to VoIP except reduced
> cost.

You mean, they *weren't* paying for it until now ? ;-)

{Quote hidden}

No matter who owns the equipment, the telco has a fixed monthly fee for
'infrastructure'. The fee can be 50% of the cost of a phone line used
mainly for dsl (and voip over it real soon now).

Peter

2005\08\31@222457 by Peter
picon face


On Tue, 30 Aug 2005, William Chops Westfield wrote:

>> there isn't much advantage to going VoIP for the rest [backbone],
>> swapping one digital system for another.
>>
> Sure there is.  Packet switching is much easier than the circuit
> switching required by current phone technology, even if it IS digital.

But that is only because the reliability and latency requirements are
lower ?!

Peter


'[EE] NZ Telecom plans to replace whole telephone n'
2005\09\01@015027 by William Chops Westfield
face picon face

On Aug 31, 2005, at 7:24 PM, Peter wrote:
>>  Packet switching is much easier than the circuit switching
>> required by current phone technology, even if it IS digital.
>
> ...only because the reliability and latency requirements are lower ?!

Maybe.  I don't BELIEVE that's the case.  With packet switched
technology,
you can build a backbone infrastructure that is reliable (by most
possible definitions) in spite of individual components that are not
reliable (that's what TCP/IP was all about, though I doubt that most
modern networks are vert true to the ideal...) (And alas, this does
not stop would be customers from demanding the individual components
be extremely reliable as well, driving up the price.  But that's good
for our bottom line, IIRC, so I shouldn't complain too much!)

There is a lot of interest in latency/QoS for packet networks (again
driving up prices), but it's not clear to me to what extent that is
truly important, especially when it seems to be much easier to step
up bandwidth of packet links compared to TDM-style links (consider
ISDN vs DSL, for instance.  Or token ring vs ethernet (guaranteed
latency used to be a big selling point for 4mbit and 16mbit token
ring networks.  Ethernet was "too unpredictable."  And then came
100Mbit ethernet..))

BillW

2005\09\01@094012 by Dave Lag

picon face
William Chops Westfield wrote:

> There is a lot of interest in latency/QoS for packet networks (again
> driving up prices), but it's not clear to me to what extent that is
> truly important, especially when it seems to be much easier to step
> up bandwidth of packet links compared to TDM-style links (consider
> ISDN vs DSL, for instance.  Or token ring vs ethernet (guaranteed
> latency used to be a big selling point for 4mbit and 16mbit token
> ring networks.  Ethernet was "too unpredictable."  And then came
> 100Mbit ethernet..))
>
> BillW

Well, voice and latency/unpredictability don't mix.
Either you profile all your customers and size accordingly  or traffic
shape at the endpoints or keep separate networks at the transport level or ?
Bandwidth isn't free, otherwise our ISPs wouldn't be throttling all the
P2P packets :)

2005\09\01@120647 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face

On Sep 1, 2005, at 6:43 AM, Dave Lag wrote:

>> There is a lot of interest in latency/QoS for packet networks (again
>> driving up prices), but it's not clear to me to what extent that is
>> truly important

> Well, voice and latency/unpredictability don't mix.

not naively, anyway.  I sure wish more people were working on
intelligent
packetization of speech, for instance, so that packet boundries would
occur at the natural pauses in speech.  Like I complained before, too
much effort is being spent on duplicating the characteristics of the
existing infrastructure, rather than exploring the possibilities of
the new technology.  fer instance, Katrina hits and all the VoIP
infrastructure switches codecs and reduces bandwidth per call at
noticeable degradation in voice quality, but noticeable increase
in the call volume that can be handled...

> Either you profile all your customers and size accordingly or traffic
> shape at the endpoints or keep separate networks at the transport
> level or ?

Well, SOME of all the above, probably.  Currently, people seem to think
that they must do ALL of those (plus QoS) simultaneously...

>
> Bandwidth isn't free, otherwise our ISPs wouldn't be throttling
> all the P2P packets :)

A certain amount of bandwidth is nearly free.  Upgrading the devices
on the ends of your fiber is very inexpensive compared to installing
the fiber in the first place.  And the same CAT5 that I installed for
10baseT seems to be working pretty good at 1000Mbps these days, with
upgrades that were at worst "rather inexpensive" at the ends.

But the question isn't whether bandwidth is free; the question is
whether added bandwidth is cheaper than deploying services that make
the existing bandwidth more useful for low-latency protocols...

BillW

2005\09\01@154912 by Peter

picon face

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005, William Chops Westfield wrote:

> Maybe.  I don't BELIEVE that's the case.  With packet switched technology,
> you can build a backbone infrastructure that is reliable (by most
> possible definitions) in spite of individual components that are not
> reliable (that's what TCP/IP was all about, though I doubt that most
> modern networks are vert true to the ideal...) (And alas, this does
> not stop would be customers from demanding the individual components
> be extremely reliable as well, driving up the price.  But that's good
> for our bottom line, IIRC, so I shouldn't complain too much!)
>
> There is a lot of interest in latency/QoS for packet networks (again
> driving up prices), but it's not clear to me to what extent that is
> truly important, especially when it seems to be much easier to step
> up bandwidth of packet links compared to TDM-style links (consider
> ISDN vs DSL, for instance.  Or token ring vs ethernet (guaranteed
> latency used to be a big selling point for 4mbit and 16mbit token
> ring networks.  Ethernet was "too unpredictable."  And then came
> 100Mbit ethernet..))

Imho the present state of the art home networking is a dsl customer
using voip to another dsl customer using voip. This leads to delays of
the order of magnitude of one second per side all told (handset to
handset). This is way too long. Out of this, the ping time alone is
about 180msec best and 300msec average. Talking to someone with 1 second
delay precludes dialogue and requires iron discipline from the speaker
(you can hear your own voice as sidetone echo coming from the remote
with ~2 seconds of delay - this is extremely annoying and causes most
speakers to shut up when talking).

The 100Mbit ether is very nice but one should not forget that the first
segment of long haul for most people is 256kbit DSL uplink on a good day
with no network problems.

Peter

2005\09\01@162350 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
On Thu, 2005-09-01 at 22:49 +0300, Peter wrote:

> Imho the present state of the art home networking is a dsl customer
> using voip to another dsl customer using voip. This leads to delays of
> the order of magnitude of one second per side all told (handset to
> handset).

Sorry, but if you're latency is a 1 second delay there is something
wrong with your link, or your ISP has heavily oversubscribed.

> This is way too long. Out of this, the ping time alone is
> about 180msec best and 300msec average.

This is even more indication that there's something wrong with the link.
My MAX ping times to most locations on the continent was <40ms with DSL.
With cable it's about the same (although a little more variable).
Overseas it reaches the 150ms range, depending on destination.

> Talking to someone with 1 second
> delay precludes dialogue and requires iron discipline from the speaker
> (you can hear your own voice as sidetone echo coming from the remote
> with ~2 seconds of delay - this is extremely annoying and causes most
> speakers to shut up when talking).

Your experience with VOIP is either out of date, or you're referring to
an experience with a bargain basement VOIP provider.

I have Vonage and the voice delay is far less then that of a cell phone.
It's not quite landline, but it's far below the threshold of being
noticeable. So far my experience is that VOIP connections sound better
then cell phone calls, and often are indistinguishable from landline
calls. I've never heard any echo.

Only time I had an anomaly was when I purposely saturated my link, both
upload and download was maxed out. The VOIP call worked, but there were
"pops" every 15 seconds. That was the worst case and it was still
usable.

> The 100Mbit ether is very nice but one should not forget that the first
> segment of long haul for most people is 256kbit DSL uplink on a good day
> with no network problems.

VOIP runs at most at 90kbps, 256kbps is more then enough. Latency is FAR
more important then raw bandwidth (assuming you have at least 90kbps
upstream).

Today's VOIP is many magnitudes better then the VOIP of only a year ago.
All the complaints I've had against it are gone. VOIP is easily as good
as landline for voice quality, almost as good for latency.

I will never go back to the ripoff of landline service. TTYL


-----------------------------
Herbert's PIC Stuff:
http://repatch.dyndns.org:8383/pic_stuff/

2005\09\01@215329 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> Sorry, but if you're latency is a 1 second delay there is something
> wrong with your link, or your ISP has heavily oversubscribed.

>> This is way too long. Out of this, the ping time alone is
>> about 180msec best and 300msec average.

> This is even more indication that there's something wrong with the
> link.
> My MAX ping times to most locations on the continent was <40ms with
> DSL.
> With cable it's about the same (although a little more variable).
> Overseas it reaches the 150ms range, depending on destination.

min/max.avg 4 pings

196/200/197    Yahoo.com
195/244/208    Google.com
197/201/199    google.co.nz
196/199/197    english.aljazeera.net


49/61/52            my isp
blocked               XTRA Telecom NZ 600 lb gorilla everyone's
network provider
65/72/67            Maxnet - NZ small good ISP
59/88/72            IHUG NZ larger 'interesting' ISp
65/85/76            Slingshot - NZ cheap and cheerful ISP
63/66/84            My ISP's provider (smoke and mirrors)
61/64/62        http://www.abebooks.com

fwiw

Far end echo is not closely correlated with loop time. FEE is due to
hyvrid mismatch at a 2w/4w point.
Long delay calls are indeed very hard on 'normal' phone conversations.
I have had what I think was a 3 satellite link at one stage and an
awareness at both ends of what's happening and total discipline is
needed for a reasonable information exchange.




       RM



2005\09\02@010903 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>> Bandwidth isn't free, otherwise our ISPs wouldn't be throttling
>> all the P2P packets :)

Bandwidth "costs" as much as you can be persuaded to pay for it, even
when it's free :-)


           RM



2005\09\02@155824 by Peter

picon face

On Fri, 2 Sep 2005, Russell McMahon wrote:

> Far end echo is not closely correlated with loop time. FEE is due to
> hyvrid mismatch at a 2w/4w point. Long delay calls are indeed very
> hard on 'normal' phone conversations. I have had what I think was a 3
> satellite link at one stage and an awareness at both ends of what's
> happening and total discipline is needed for a reasonable information
> exchange.

There is no hybrid in voip/voip connections. The echo is due to earphone
audio getting into the microphone (with or without room echo and
reverberation). The correspondents very often use computers as
speakerphones (without the speakerphone mutex circuit).

Peter

2005\09\02@170122 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
On Fri, 2005-09-02 at 22:58 +0300, Peter wrote:
> There is no hybrid in voip/voip connections. The echo is due to earphone
> audio getting into the microphone (with or without room echo and
> reverberation). The correspondents very often use computers as
> speakerphones (without the speakerphone mutex circuit).

Actually that depends on what equipment you use.

In my case I have an ATA that has a standard telephony jack and an
ethernet jack, so there is most certainly a 2W/4W equivalent type of
conversion going on.

That said, I've never had echo issues with this setup. Echo issues
usually are reserved for lower quality VOIP providers or hardware.

TTYL


-----------------------------
Herbert's PIC Stuff:
http://repatch.dyndns.org:8383/pic_stuff/

2005\09\09@033032 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face
On Fri, Sep 02, 2005 at 10:58:22PM +0300, Peter wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2 Sep 2005, Russell McMahon wrote:
>
> >Far end echo is not closely correlated with loop time. FEE is due to
> >hyvrid mismatch at a 2w/4w point. Long delay calls are indeed very
> >hard on 'normal' phone conversations. I have had what I think was a 3
> >satellite link at one stage and an awareness at both ends of what's
> >happening and total discipline is needed for a reasonable information
> >exchange.
>
> There is no hybrid in voip/voip connections. The echo is due to earphone
> audio getting into the microphone (with or without room echo and
> reverberation). The correspondents very often use computers as
> speakerphones (without the speakerphone mutex circuit).

The CODEC encode/decode delay can really make this much much worse on
some VoIP hardware and certain CODEC's though.

Sometimes I think the hybrid was the more elegant design, when looking
at the mess made by patents and the various CODEC's.

--
Nate Duehr <.....nateKILLspamspam@spam@natetech.com>

2005\09\09@083846 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Peter wrote:

> Imho the present state of the art home networking is a dsl customer
> using voip to another dsl customer using voip. This leads to delays of
> the order of magnitude of one second per side all told (handset to
> handset). This is way too long. Out of this, the ping time alone is
> about 180msec best and 300msec average.

I don't get that sort of delay, with ping times of 250 to 350 ms from here
to the US.

> (you can hear your own voice as sidetone echo coming from the remote
> with ~2 seconds of delay - this is extremely annoying and causes most
> speakers to shut up when talking).

I also don't usually hear my own voice echoed back. It happens only every
once in a while -- but that can also happen when using a normal POTS phone
and a cheap calling card. It of course happens when I'm talking to someone
who is using a computer with loudspeakers rather than a headset; but that's
not really related to the transmission channel then, it's a simple audio
feedback at the other end, similar to a bad speakerphone.

I used to use Net2Phone, but they started to give me a real pain with
frequent disconnecting. Now I'm using BroadVoice and Skype. Not quite the
same quality as POTS, but a lot cheaper.

Gerhard

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2005 , 2006 only
- Today
- New search...