x
Optical/IP

RBOC VOIP Coming in 2004

The VOIP services market is gearing up for some big changes.

If you thought things weren't interesting already, consider this: RBOCs (regional Bell operating companies) are sketching out plans for VOIP services next year just as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is examining the potential for regulation in the market (see FCC Sets Date for VOIP Inquiry).

In the past couple of weeks all the Baby Bells have announced VOIP rollout plans for next year as they try to offset defections to competitors, especially to cable and wireless carriers (see Bells' Hell: VOIP?).

SBC Communications Inc. (NYSE: SBC) this week took the wraps off a new VOIP service aimed at businesses with up to 250 workers (see SBC Offers Hosted VOIP).

Dubbed PremierSERV Hosted IP Communication Service (HIPCS), it includes traditional telephone services as well as unified messaging, in which voice mail and email can be consolidated in a single inbox, and voice mail can be forwarded like email; find me/follow me, which enables employees to forward calls to a mobile phone, remote office, or another extension; click to call; and conferencing. A plug-and-play feature enables users to plug in their IP phones from anywhere in their networks.

Next up, speaking at the UBS AG global communications conference in New York this week, Verizon Communications Inc. (NYSE: VZ) vice chairman and president Lawrence T. Babbio spilled the beans on his company’s VOIP plans for next year.

Verizon intends to offer VOIP to its DSL home users in the second quarter of next year and to business customers later. The two-phase strategy begins with a consumer VOIP offering positioned as a second-line service for DSL users. Verizon will either outsource the service or build the application itself. It will offer several plans for local, long distance, and international calling, as well as free on-net calling. It will allow the user to manage features via the Web, including Web-based voicemail and address book integration. Phase two, beginning in the fourth quarter, 2004, will be a managed network VOIP service with QOS (quality of service), aimed at “work-at-home professionals and small businesses,” Babbio said.

BellSouth Corp. (NYSE: BLS) announced in October that it would start offering bundled VOIP services to small to midsized companies (see Nortel, BellSouth Team for VOIP).

And lastly, jumping on Vonage Holdings Corp.'s success beating the regulators in Minnesota last month, Qwest Communications International Inc. (NYSE: Q) announced it would launch a VOIP service in the same state (see Qwest Jumps Into VOIP Hotbed).

Table 1: RBOC Voice-Over-IP Plans
Launch date No. of markets Target customers Price
Qwest Pilot Dec. 2003 Minnesota Consumers, SMEs Not disclosed
SBC Available now 13 States SMEs $29-$39 per month
BellSouth Phased rollout starts 2004 9 States SMEs Not disclosed
Verizon 2Q04 (consumers)
4Q04 (businesses)
Nationwide DSL consumers,
home office
Not Disclosed


At first glance it looks as if this flurry of VOIP announcements by the RBOCs stems entirely from the decision made recently by the Minnesota court judge. The judge agreed to let Vonage offer telephony as an Internet data service, thereby freeing it from various taxes associated with traditional phone services.

But Stephen Kamman, analyst with CIBC World Markets, thinks the transition to VOIP services is not being driven by any sort of regulatory loophole in FCC or state efforts to deregulate data services. "In a nutshell, we expect carriers to buy VOIP on its own merits, not in order to escape the current voice-related regulatory regime,” he said in an investment note issued this week.

Of course, the paradox of all this is that RBOCs may be speeding the demise of their own voice business. But at the same time, VOIP offers them a less capital intensive method of deploying new services and revenue.

— Jo Maitland, Senior Editor, Boardwatch

dljvjbsl 12/4/2012 | 11:13:07 PM
re: RBOC VOIP Coming in 2004
Architecturally H.323 and SIP are almost isomorphic. If you think SIP does not contain POTS semantics, then can you explain why SIP has overlap dialing (cell phones don't have them!)?


The resemblance between the H.323 gatekeeper and he SIP proxy is only superficial. The SIP proxy with its registration and location functions has an entirely different purpose than the H.323 GK. SIP has developed its event service to create features and services that are beyond what is achievable with H.323.

SIP is about establishing relationships among parties and allowing them to create and manipulate the services that are specific to their needs.

H.323 extended the POTS model beyond any user need. Thick standards document on how to create features such as Call Forward on Busy for example, indicated to me anyway that this standards group did not understand what multimedia services are and how they are useful to customers.

The failure of NetMeeting proved that to me. I was told once seriously by product managemnent types that there was no need to develop multimedia features since that had already been accomplished by NetMeeting. I knew that wasn't so even then becasue I observed that no one was using NetMeeting. The company had supplied eveyone with NetMeeting, headphones and cameras. No one used any of it. All the video cameras that I saw had their lens caps firmly in place. No one could discern any practical use for it.

In answer to the issue of overlapped outpusing in SIP, this is a necessary function if SIP is to be gatewayed to the PSTN. A demonstration that SIP is fully capable of creating all necessary gateway functions is essential to its acceptance in the network. SIP has accomplished this with some exceptions.

The E911 issue is difficult for IP telephony with its lack of location information and the unwillingness of some IETF IP zealots to understand the necessity of obeying necessary legal and safety standards also makes this work difficult.
aswath 12/4/2012 | 11:13:07 PM
re: RBOC VOIP Coming in 2004 dljvjbsl:

Can you please clarify some of the points you make in Msg.#31? Just to make it explicit, I am not reopening 323 vs. SIP debate. It is over and nothing to be gained in continuing the debate. But it will be instructive for me to understand some of the points I might have missed. Thanks in advance.

Aswath

1. The SIP proxy with its registration and location functions has an entirely different purpose than the H.323 GK. I thought 323 also has registration function and can handle the services based on location information. Is that not true?

2. SIP has developed its event service to create features and services that are beyond what is achievable with H.323. In a recent presentation to FCC Henning also mentioned the event services. Why can't we define these event services in H.323? In what way this is different than trigger points in SS7? I am not talking about ease of development; but focusing on logical capabilities.

3. The failure of NetMeeting proved that to me. Is it 323's fault or that at that time people didn't have a need for multimedia and hence the lens caps were shut? Now that Windows Messenger supports SIP, how widespread is its use?

4. In answer to the issue of overlapped outpusing in SIP, this is a necessary function if SIP is to be gatewayed to the PSTN. I am assuming that the gateways interconnect to PSTN using ISDN PRI or SS7 trunks. If that is the case, the GW can send the addressing information to PSTN in en bloc mode. In the reverse direction, even if the address information comes in overlap sending mode, couldn't the GW accumulated the digits and send it to its SIP peer in enbloc mode? I thought the reason to have overlap sending is the desire to maintain the same user interface in the SIP end device as the ordinary phone.
aswath 12/4/2012 | 11:13:09 PM
re: RBOC VOIP Coming in 2004 H.323 failed and failed miserably because it attemtped to transfer the existing POTS semantics to a multimedia world.

It is not good form to talk ill of dead things. :-)

It has become a cliche to say that H.323 continues POTS semantics and that SIP does not. This may have been a good tactics during the protocol war days. But this is not honest evaluation. Architecturally H.323 and SIP are almost isomorphic. If you think SIP does not contain POTS semantics, then can you explain why SIP has overlap dialing (cell phones don't have them!)?

Aswath
itisi 12/4/2012 | 11:13:10 PM
re: RBOC VOIP Coming in 2004 PO:
Most VoIP development still declines to acknowledge the central importance of some sort of directory service, and directory interactions. It's often cited in terms of 'magic' control that the end user gains.
----
Go over to the ietf working groups on SIP, - I doubt if anything has gotten more attention than namespaces. Or was there something else you had in ming?
dljvjbsl 12/4/2012 | 11:13:10 PM
re: RBOC VOIP Coming in 2004
Hmm. Apparently something new has happened in VoIP since I last worked on it: VoIP is no longer addressing a device? Come on, people don't have IP addresses--devices do.


People do not have IP addresses they have SIP addresses. The proxy which is resolved by the SIP address will derermine which User Agent (i.e. end point device) to send the call to. This is the important thing about SIP. it is designed to handle personal (as in person) mobility.

H.323 failed and failed miserably because it attemtped to transfer the existing POTS semantics to a multimedia world. It is all about the connection of multimedia devices instead of the connecting of people.
PO 12/4/2012 | 11:13:11 PM
re: RBOC VOIP Coming in 2004 Hmm. Apparently something new has happened in VoIP since I last worked on it: VoIP is no longer addressing a device? Come on, people don't have IP addresses--devices do. And few people have been asking for a telephone with a (alphabetic) keyboard for 'dialing', instead of a (numeric) keypad.

Most VoIP development still declines to acknowledge the central importance of some sort of directory service, and directory interactions. It's often cited in terms of 'magic' control that the end user gains.

At least with RBOCs, all this infrastructure is known. VoIP can evolve as it should, one step at a time, instead of as some fantasies might suggest.
dljvjbsl 12/4/2012 | 11:13:19 PM
re: RBOC VOIP Coming in 2004
With POTS, you provide the network with the address of the person you are trying to talk to. You then talk to them. When you're done, you tell the network you're done talking with them


If you were right then this would not be Bunk. Complete, absolute, total bunk. In POTS, one does not enter the address of a person, one enters the address of a device. The local and distant devices will the be connected together. One emphatically does not enter the address of a person since a person is addressed at one of the multiple devices that he is accessible at.

IP telephony's model of operaiton is quite different from POTS as the the original poster wrote. This is its advantage.
dljvjbsl 12/4/2012 | 11:13:19 PM
re: RBOC VOIP Coming in 2004

You can layer whatever user interface you want on top. There won't be anything that you couldn't get on a top of the line ACD in 1985.


This statement is Bunk. Complete, absolute, total bunk. IP telephony offers services which are much different than ACD.
aswath 12/4/2012 | 11:13:19 PM
re: RBOC VOIP Coming in 2004 In POTS, one does not enter the address of a person, one enters the address of a device.

This is true in general; but the technology used by 800 number can be used to offer a personal number; some years back it was called 600 service, I think. Follow me service is a well established service in POTS. Much touted (in the SIP world) "forking" service is a patented and offered service in the POTS world.

From the point of view of service capability, the only advantage IP telephony has over POTS is "out-of-band" and message oriented signaling capability. Almost all of features discussed by IP telephony proponents has been/can be replicated in the POTS world.

Aswath
wise 12/4/2012 | 11:13:23 PM
re: RBOC VOIP Coming in 2004 I'm sorry, weren't we talking about RBOCs? The CLECs are almost completely out of the picture. Plus, 87% of users do want something that looks familiar.
alchemy 12/4/2012 | 11:13:23 PM
re: RBOC VOIP Coming in 2004 materialgirl writes:
A new paradigm will not happen without revolution. However VoIP grows, it will not look like POTS in any way, or it will not scale. Expect the unexpected, the chaotic, the most disruptive path.

Bunk. Complete, absolute, total bunk. With POTS, you provide the network with the address of the person you are trying to talk to. You then talk to them. When you're done, you tell the network you're done talking with them. That fundamental model ainna gonna change without some signficant genetic engineering to the end user. You can layer whatever user interface you want on top. There won't be anything that you couldn't get on a top of the line ACD in 1985.
dljvjbsl 12/4/2012 | 11:13:37 PM
re: RBOC VOIP Coming in 2004
VoIP has been held up by this problem. Media (or Trunking) Gateways are easy to create but they need a GǣsoftswitchGǥ or other controller that connects to the SS7 network. Despite their rich switching heritage, Alcatel, Lucent and Nortel have all failed to produce a carrier class GǣsoftswitchGǥ. Cisco bought a bunch of startups that claimed to have solved this problem, but none of them got approved by carriers and eventually, Cisco shut down development.


I agree with you that the traditional players have lost their creative drive. Their biggest problem is that they keep trying to develop softswitches. Softswitches have been around in many different guises for at least 25 years. No one wanted to buy the services that they provided then and no one appears to want them now.

I was surprised that no one has commented on the types of services that are discribed in the article. I cannot see subscribers being excited that they can use a web page to subscribe to various services. Unified messaging is another technology that has not been successful and yet it comes back time after time. No customer is going to pay to have their voice mails attached to their Emails.

The issue is not that the development of a signalling gateway for SS7 is difficult. COs now have gateways that interconnect any number of protocols to SS7. Creating a SIP/SS7 gateway would be a straightforward exercise. The real issue that causes the lack of success of softswitches is that they are a technology that solves no problems that any customer would want to pay for.


If VoIP is denopendent on softswitches for its success then it will go the way of 40g optical networking. It will be a technology that no customer would purchase since cone of them could find any use for it.
WiserNow 12/4/2012 | 11:13:39 PM
re: RBOC VOIP Coming in 2004 dljvjbsl wrote:

VoIP is not going to be held up by the lack of ability of Cisco, Nortel, Siemens, Alcatel, Lucent, Avaya etc. to implement the SS7 spec.
------------------------------------------
VoIP has been held up by this problem. Media (or Trunking) Gateways are easy to create but they need a GǣsoftswitchGǥ or other controller that connects to the SS7 network. Despite their rich switching heritage, Alcatel, Lucent and Nortel have all failed to produce a carrier class GǣsoftswitchGǥ. Cisco bought a bunch of startups that claimed to have solved this problem, but none of them got approved by carriers and eventually, Cisco shut down development.

The traditional switching players understand the problem space but they long ago lost the creative drive and energy to produce complex new products that are cost efficient. There have been many startups in this space, but it is a tough market for a startup.
Ringed? 12/4/2012 | 11:13:40 PM
re: RBOC VOIP Coming in 2004 Ironic that the failed 96 Telecom Act, WRT competitive access to the local loop is one of the key reasons why VoIP will continue to proliferate.

Everyone now knows the RBOC local loop has to
be bypassed and or leveraged whenever possible for any competitors to flourish. The same can be said for equipment vendors.

The local loop is being bypassed with VoIP over Cable (legacy voice too), VoIP over DSL :) and the latest assault to the RBOCGs precious loop, cellular service. Gotta love LNP. Granted SS7 is a workhorse but LNP does drastically increase SS7 traffic.

What will happen to the local loop? Could it be, that since the RBOCGs are last to market with VoIP that the coveted local loop will be relegated to providing the one-service VoIP opponents like to wave in the VoIP pundits faceGǪ E911 services :) Now that would be ironic.

Even more ironic will be that the RBOCGs will need to shed this copper plant to pay for pensions and high-dollar executives. And who will be the curator of this once precious local loop.

You Know it! Bobby Max!

Ringed?
dljvjbsl 12/4/2012 | 11:13:40 PM
re: RBOC VOIP Coming in 2004
That is where the problem lies. You therefore must have, somewhere, the ability to talk to the ss7 network. No owner of an ss7 stp will let anything but a few highly tested and proven signalling devices connect to it. WAY too many things can go wrong to risk it. That is what has hamstrung CISCO, et al for so long. They did not understand the intricacies of the PSTN, thinking it could not be that hard. Well, hate to break it to you, but after 10 years of VOIP, there are now only a few companies with products that any stp owner will let connect.


There are all sorts of trunking protocols No 5, No 6, Compelled MF, DX, SX, and so on forever. Everyone of these interconnects with SS7 and each other. Implementing trunking protocols on gateways is not rocket science. VoIP is not going to be held up by the lack of ability of Cisco, Nortel, Siemens, Alcatel, Lucent, Avaya etc. to implement the SS7 spec.

I've always regarded the IETF BellHead/BitHEad attitude to be bunch of nonsense. It doesn't look any better when advocated by someone from the telephony side.
opto 12/4/2012 | 11:13:41 PM
re: RBOC VOIP Coming in 2004 Shall I be a little more explicit?

If you make a call on the IP network to someone on the IP network, of course this is easy. No ss7 needed, for most types of calls. Operator services? can be done IP, but its not cost effective, so that will be circuit switched at some point. Emergency? Same issues.

If you make a call from the IP to a traditional circuit, you HAVE to touch the ss7 network. Period.

That is where the problem lies. You therefore must have, somewhere, the ability to talk to the ss7 network. No owner of an ss7 stp will let anything but a few highly tested and proven signalling devices connect to it. WAY too many things can go wrong to risk it. That is what has hamstrung CISCO, et al for so long. They did not understand the intricacies of the PSTN, thinking it could not be that hard. Well, hate to break it to you, but after 10 years of VOIP, there are now only a few companies with products that any stp owner will let connect.
opto 12/4/2012 | 11:13:42 PM
re: RBOC VOIP Coming in 2004 "How does what I typically think of as out-of-band signaling for calls get translated into the SS7 network from a VoIP network?"

http://www.syndeocorp.com/solu...

This provides a nice diagram at the bottom of the page. This is one version. My understanding is that Comcast considers these guys "carrier class", so I think they should be credible.

Basically, you need something to talk to the ss7 network for call setup/takedown, a signalling gateway, and something to carry the trunks or payload, a trunking gateway.
materialgirl 12/4/2012 | 11:13:42 PM
re: RBOC VOIP Coming in 2004 A new paradigm will not happen without revolution. However VoIP grows, it will not look like POTS in any way, or it will not scale. Expect the unexpected, the chaotic, the most disruptive path.
aswath 12/4/2012 | 11:13:46 PM
re: RBOC VOIP Coming in 2004 Messages 12 and 13 assume that the market will treat VoIP as an alternate to POTS (agreed that is how the service providers and vendors are playing it). Given the power, emergency and other operational deficiencies of the current VoIP architecture, it is conceivable that the market may decide to treat VoIP as an additional communication vehicle rather than a replacement of POTS. In that case, there is no need for a network-based mediating service provider. Such a scenario becomes much more likely if the regulation pulls the rug from under the feet of arbitrage market strategy.

Aswath
wise 12/4/2012 | 11:13:47 PM
re: RBOC VOIP Coming in 2004 Thanks for making the point about SS7. I keep wondering about what happens to E911 in a VoIP world? For DSL, I understand there is a fail-over capability. When the power goes out, the how-ever-many DSL lines fail-over to POTS, and the E911 information can still make it to the SS7 network. How does what I typically think of as out-of-band signaling for calls get translated into the SS7 network from a VoIP network?
opto 12/4/2012 | 11:13:47 PM
re: RBOC VOIP Coming in 2004 "there's no large VoIP platforms a la Class 5 required, it's merely about routers and bandwidth, the network likely to become distributed and flat."

True, but only for greenfield. Reality is much different. As long as you have to connect to ANY existing switched network, which will be true for everyone for at least, 0h, say 50 YEARS, then you will need an SS7 connection to it. You cannot do that with a flat network of CPE-based intelligence. Verizon agreeing to give everyone and his uncle IP access to their 600E's through the internet? Not going to happen. Ever. Yet that is the only way to avoid centralized processing of the new IP network.

Large enterprise, where you have a significant portion of traffic within the system, has proven VOIP first for that reason. Of course VOIP is migrating outward, but this will be a long, slow process. 5E's and DMS100's will be around for a very, very long time. And they will connect with DSC/Alcatel or Tekelec STP's for a very, very long time.

This has been, and always will be a fundamental design criteria: new networks must be backwards compatible. Sure, that fundamentally changes the value equation for a lot of innovative new technologies. But that's reality.
rjmcmahon 12/4/2012 | 11:13:52 PM
re: RBOC VOIP Coming in 2004 If the RBOC's are talking VOIP, Why are they doing so?

The trick a monopolist follows is to embrace and hijack threatening technologies. The RBOCs and cable cos used this technique with broadband. They propagated a belief that DSL and cable MODEMs provide for high speed access. Neither does, but the public is too ignorant to understand what's really going on.

A lesson we can choose to accept is that hijacking things will never enable a civilized society nor advance our industry. That we tolerate these hijackings suggests our society and our industry needs to be educated and freed from inept leadership.
Sisyphus 12/4/2012 | 11:13:53 PM
re: RBOC VOIP Coming in 2004
> .. Having attended the recent NGN conference
> in Boston, I can say with authority ..

Permit me to meet that statement with some skepticism, having attended almost every NGN conference since 1998... :-)

If the ILECs have a plan to replace the subsriber loop with 802.11x, I haven't seen it. 802.11x does seem to have some fundamental issues when it comes to that, in my opinion.

And why would the VoIP platforms have to be huge? If you do the conversion on the CPE, there's no large VoIP platforms a la Class 5 required, it's merely about routers and bandwidth, the network likely to become distributed and flat.
lastmile 12/4/2012 | 11:13:53 PM
re: RBOC VOIP Coming in 2004 Sometimes the non-tech guys (like me) confuse the hell out out of the highly qualified tech stalwarts. And in the midst of all the confusion Bobby Max posts garbage.
I would sincerely like to know what will happen to the Copper loop that that connects the consumer to the PSTN/POTS.
If the RBOC's are talking VOIP, Why are they doing so?
Their monopoy in the local Copper loop has been established for centuries then why the hell are they talking about VOIP?
My answer:
Competition. Skype,Vonage,8.8,Cable and a few others that I am unaware of. RBOB's never react till they are threatened for survival. Even a non-tech guy like me knows that.
My humble non-tech opinion.
lastmile 12/4/2012 | 11:13:54 PM
re: RBOC VOIP Coming in 2004 From BM.
"I do not see much future and profitability in yjr VoIP services. VoIP will never switch vircuit and packet switched network currently in use."

'yjr VoIP services' is something that I have never heard about. Even 'switch vircuit' is something new to me.

Is all this a new tech revolution that no one has heard about or is it the usual garbage from Dr. Dolitter.
BobbyMax 12/4/2012 | 11:13:54 PM
re: RBOC VOIP Coming in 2004 BellSouth is moving too quicly in the VOIP business.It is moving too quickly to provide VOIP services without any infrastucture planning, and economic and service model. BellSouth has also not paid enough attention to bundling of services/

I do not see much future and profitability in yjr VoIP services. VoIP will never switch vircuit and packet switched network currently in use.
kampar 12/4/2012 | 11:13:54 PM
re: RBOC VOIP Coming in 2004 >Can someone please explain what happens to POTS
>when VOIP becomes the main form of voice
>communication

Having attended the recent NGN conference in Boston, I can say with authority (because it was the subject of several presentations) that the world is moving steadfastly in the direction of 802.11x ... who needs POTS when there is a clear plan to move all network access traffic over the unlicensed spectrum? Free bandwidth for all (and you think i'm making this up ... several camps are quite seriously promoting this).

VoIP in the last mile needs an Ethernet transport to become reality ... hence the interest in Ethernet in the First Mile technologies ... forget fiber to the house, EFM is what the ILECs are really waiting to deploy to mess up the MSO's ... you only need FTTH (Fiber To The 'Hood) for this.

Before widespread IP phone ownership becomes viable, someone has to implement large scale VoIP platforms and services in the network first - personally I think that's coming, several companies have proven it can work in the lab and small scale implementations ... just waiting for real demand to drive deployment faster.

kampar
kampar 12/4/2012 | 11:13:54 PM
re: RBOC VOIP Coming in 2004 BobbyMax is moving too quicly in the message posting business. It is moving too quickly to provide an information service without any infrastucture planning, and economic and service model. BobbyMax has also not paid enough attention to bundling of dictionary and grammar.

I do not see much future and profitability in yjr BobbyMax services. BobbyMax will never switch from poor understanding of topics over packet network currently in use.
rjmcmahon 12/4/2012 | 11:13:58 PM
re: RBOC VOIP Coming in 2004 Can someone please explain what happens to POTS when VOIP becomes the main form of voice communication?

Audio connections will be improved by orders of magnitude and the cost per connection will decrease by orders of magnitude.
rjmcmahon 12/4/2012 | 11:13:58 PM
re: RBOC VOIP Coming in 2004 So the only source of revenue for the service providers is when they provide interconnection to PSTN; but then everybody is predicting that PSTN is a dying business.

The better model would shift the pendulum from gatekeeper fees to charging for value added services. Unfortunately, the status quo gatekeepers don't get that and they don't realize their inherited postions aren't helping. And it's worse because they are the ones hijacking things and writing all the rules and regulations which prohibit growth and advancement.

So what gives?

Looks to be more BS that doesn't help our industry, our economy, nor our country. Sad that we let it happen.
aswath 12/4/2012 | 11:13:59 PM
re: RBOC VOIP Coming in 2004 Analyst Kamman expects that carriers will buy VoIP on its merits. I am of the opinion that the merits of VoIP as a business for the service providers are not fully understood. All service providers either offer unlimited calling to other subscribers for free or for a nominal fee. Since the subscribers need broadband and an always on internet connection a service provider is not needed to mediate on-net sessions. So the only source of revenue for the service providers is when they provide interconnection to PSTN; but then everybody is predicting that PSTN is a dying business. So what gives?

Aswath
lastmile 12/4/2012 | 11:14:01 PM
re: RBOC VOIP Coming in 2004 Skype, Vonage, 8.8, Cable Co's and a host of other established names have a remarkable say in VOIP. The RBOC's feature only when they are attacked!
DSL is a good example. They would never have invested in DSL had it not been for startup competitors who upset their balance of existence.
Can someone please explain what happens to POTS when VOIP becomes the main form of voice communication?
HOME
Sign In
SEARCH
CLOSE
MORE
CLOSE