& cplSiteName &
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View        ADD A COMMENT
<<   <   Page 29 / 31   >   >>
fgoldstein
fgoldstein
12/5/2012 | 1:51:25 AM
re: Pradeep Sindhu, Juniper Networks
I did read the Mumford article and indeed it was painful; there was so much fluff and, as technonerd said, really no new services.

So what if old services are provisioned in a new way? That's behind the scenes. End users don't give a goat's bzadeh about how services are provisioned, so long as they work. Believe me, when I replaced a step-by-step (type 701) PBX with a brand-new all-digital one (Rolm LCBX), I was surprised by all the negative reaction I got! Of course I was a young propellerhead at the time. I was wowed by the technology. But the end users missed the red hold button on their phones, and having the secretarial call coverage from the old Call Directors. Electronic sets with caller ID (this was 1979!) were a cute gimmick, but people liked the old user interface. Eventually, more keyset-like elecrtronic sets became more common.

Back in the same time frame, DEC built a corporate network with worldwide "8 + 7-digit" dialing. One big phone system. Sure, it used analog tie lines. But it worked nicely. What additional benefit would come from doing it over IP? Maybe cost savings (maybe not). More number portability, perhaps, but I suppose that can be done in TDM too now -- it's certainly standard in the PSTN. Phone calls are phone calls.
dljvjbsl
dljvjbsl
12/5/2012 | 1:51:24 AM
re: Pradeep Sindhu, Juniper Networks

I am not sure whether there are any technical difficulties in allowing a subscriber's logic to run in SCP. Feature interaction may be a big hinderence. Also, it is not clear how far a VoIP service provider will allow a subscriber's CPL scripts to run in their SIP proxy. Time will tell, I suppose.


In my opinion, there is a distinction here that has to be maintained if we are to make sense of what is going on in the network. The AIN and the SIP network were designed to entirely different principles.

The AIN was designed for the efficient provisioning of services across a network. The use of an SCP allows for the sharing of well-tested, vendor-independent features across the network. Services are offered on the large scale.

SIP on the other hand was designed so that services specific to the user may be offered. user-specific features may be designed in CPL and run on the SIP proxy. CPL was designed so that errors in it would not adversely affect the user or cause the overall operation of the proxy to become unstable. Services are offered on the samll scale.

These are two incompatible design principles which offer differing advantages. The types of services enabled by the AIN are entirely different than the services offered by SIP. It is possible that an SCP could be programmed to act like a SIP proxy. However this would be just the same as inventing SIP. The features are different and act on different types of information.

With the development of SIP, there is an opportunity for entirely new types of services than were possible with AIN. The issue of whether these are better than AIN servicesis of course another issue. In my opinion they offer new types of value that the AIN can just not compete with.
dljvjbsl
dljvjbsl
12/5/2012 | 1:51:24 AM
re: Pradeep Sindhu, Juniper Networks

I did read the Mumford article and indeed it was painful; there was so much fluff and, as technonerd said, really no new services.


Except for the new services that were there and the description of the advantages that will guide convergence.


Back in the same time frame, DEC built a corporate network with worldwide "8 + 7-digit" dialing. One big phone system. Sure, it used analog tie lines. But it worked nicely. What additional benefit would come from doing it over IP? Maybe cost savings (maybe not). More number portability, perhaps, but I suppose that can be done in TDM too now -- it's certainly standard in the PSTN. Phone calls are phone calls.


Back in that time,
people were sending memos in interoffice mail, calls were being announced on loud speakers, messages were being taken on pink slips of paper,
long distance was expensive and not to be used firvolously,
telephones were big things that sat on desks,
management was so expensive that numbers were not portable even within enterprises,
...

And with all of that the sun rose in the east as it does today and people went about their business as they do today.

However with the widespread development of digital systems,
long distance prices collapsed,
Email arose and changed the tenor of office interaction,
people learned to hide behind voice mail, telephones became small and sit in people's pockets,
messages are sent via PDAs, ...

The way people communicate and interact has undergone so much change that it is a matter of sociological investigation. And yest with all of this, the sun still rises in eh east.
dljvjbsl
dljvjbsl
12/5/2012 | 1:51:23 AM
re: Pradeep Sindhu, Juniper Networks
technonerd -- posting 283 offers an explanation of one of the points that Mumford made in his article. Like it or not, this is a technological possibility whose implications are working themselves out in the netowrk. Mumford was very specific in identifying how this will affect services offered by telecom systems and the value that will drive customers to buy them.
mr zippy
mr zippy
12/5/2012 | 1:51:23 AM
re: Pradeep Sindhu, Juniper Networks
I answered a question with a rhetorical question. I hope you understand the difference.

I'm pretty sure I do.

However, you seemed to be suggesting that the technology was inadequate, as a generalisation, yet in the example I think you were referring to, it wasn't being used correctly, which is nothing to do with the type of technology being used.

Phone systems can fail too if they are misconfigured or misarchitected.

PO
PO
12/5/2012 | 1:51:23 AM
re: Pradeep Sindhu, Juniper Networks
Except for the new services that were there and the description of the advantages that will guide convergence.

I think some are suggesting that cellphones are really nothing new: I've got a cordless phone & base station in my home. And PDAs aren't really new, are they: I've carried a notepad for years. And sending a picture on my cellphone is nothing new: Kodak & Land developed their technologies a century ago.

Digital switching is nothing new: crossbars did the job for years. And VoIP is nothing new: people have been communicating since the start of time.

Some see revolution ahead of them; others read about it in the history books.

But how did a Juniper interview devolve into yet another VoIP discussion?
Tony Li
Tony Li
12/5/2012 | 1:51:22 AM
re: Pradeep Sindhu, Juniper Networks
Back in the same time frame, DEC built a corporate network with worldwide "8 + 7-digit" dialing. One big phone system. Sure, it used analog tie lines. But it worked nicely. What additional benefit would come from doing it over IP? Maybe cost savings (maybe not).
------------

Perhaps we could have avoided Phase V.

;-)

Tony
technonerd
technonerd
12/5/2012 | 1:51:21 AM
re: Pradeep Sindhu, Juniper Networks
Mumford was very specific in identifying how this will affect services offered by telecom systems and the value that will drive customers to buy them.
Mumford's article was just one more example of the sludge that propellerheads have been pumping out for years. He promoted the services. He described them in terms of sweeping generalities that meant nothing. He didn't identify a single new service, and you know it. Now when will you climb out of this tangle of lies and admit what every single other poster in this thread knows?
technonerd
technonerd
12/5/2012 | 1:51:21 AM
re: Pradeep Sindhu, Juniper Networks
Phone systems can fail too if they are misconfigured or misarchitected.
Don't you guys EVER get tired of telling users that any problems with an IP system or application is their own fault?
technonerd
technonerd
12/5/2012 | 1:51:21 AM
re: Pradeep Sindhu, Juniper Networks
Except for the new services that were there and the description of the advantages that will guide convergence.
So are you now admitting (finally) that Mumford's article didn't mention one, single, solitary new service to be newly enabled? If so, why did you lie before, and why did you try to evade your lie by calling into question my intelligence?

I know why: This is the way today's propellerheads do things. Somewhere along the line, American engineers who were once paragons of telling it like it is have been trained to lie on command like trained monkeys. It has now become so ingrained that no one even has to tell you when to lie; you pick up the cues instinctively, and blurt out the lies in response.


The way people communicate and interact has undergone so much change that it is a matter of sociological investigation.
A phone call is still a phone call. Sit on a 911 desk or staff a suicide hotline for an evening and figure it out. People pick up the phone, punch out the numbers and the damn thing better work or someone might die. Not that you would give a rat's ass if it happened. The only thing you Californians care about is whether your options are in the money.
<<   <   Page 29 / 31   >   >>


Featured Video
Upcoming Live Events
November 5, 2019, London, England
November 7, 2019, London, UK
November 14, 2019, Maritim Hotel, Berlin
December 3-5, 2019, Vienna, Austria
December 3, 2019, New York, New York
March 16-18, 2020, Embassy Suites, Denver, Colorado
May 18-20, 2020, Irving Convention Center, Dallas, TX
All Upcoming Live Events