January 2005 Archives

VoIP Equipment gets expensive so when you can win $25,000 worth of it it makes sense to slow down and pay attention. TMC teamed up with Quintum to sponsor this giveaway. We sent this e-mail today on how you can win:

This is your last chance to have Quintum Technologies, Inc. and TMC's INTERNET TELEPHONY magazine make your VoIP project a $25,000 reality!

The possibilities are endless - imagine how many offices, call centers or Internet cafes you can VoIP-enable with $25,000 worth of Tenor MultiPath switches!

All entries must be postmarked no later than January 31, 2005. We will be awarding a GRAND PRIZE of $25,000 in FREE Quintum Tenor MultiPath switch and gateway products to the company with the most innovative application of VoIP.

All entries will be judged on originality, creativity and feasibility.

So, if you want to lead your company toward converged networks with the highest possible voice quality and 100% reliability, go to: http://www.quintum.com/main/voipcontest/index.html and tell us how you'd like to use VoIP on your network and why. Perhaps you will see your VoIP Tenor implementation become a reality with $25,000 in FREE Tenor MultiPath Switches!

Don't miss this chance to win up to $25,000 in FREE Quintum Tenor MultiPath Gateways.

Sincerely,

The INTERNET TELEPHONY TEAM
203-852-6800 ext. 139

Recently I discussed Volo Communications going after Level 3's old customers. Now Nuvio is using this approach:

NUVIO ANNOUNCES SPECIAL HOSTED IP-PBX OFFERING FOR LEVEL 3 PARTNERS

Overland Park, Kan., January 31, 2005 -- Nuvio Corporation, a leading provider of Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), today announced an offering specifically for Level 3 partners that were selling the company’s (3)Tone Business product, its wholesale hosted-PBX service, which will be phased out in June.  Nuvio is providing a package that allows Level 3’s partners to switch to its NuvioCentrex service, the company’s full-featured hosted IP-PBX solution, offering the same terms and conditions granted by Level 3, along with one month’s free service.  Recently, Level 3 announced it is eliminating its (3)Tone Business currently sold by approximately 100 phone companies and resellers, who provide voice services over the Internet.

Nuvio can seamlessly convert the partner companies of Level 3 to its VoIP network overnight.  With no down time or capital investment requirement, Nuvio is the smart choice for carriers and resellers seeking a smooth transition.  The company’s offering provides an alternative option for Level 3’s partners, who are currently delivering VoIP services to their customers and profiting from an exploding market.  Nuvio also supports “bring your own device” (BYOD) to allow customers and partners to make use of select currently installed hardware from other providers. Nuvio will waive all activation fees, and also offers discounted plan prices for customers bringing their own equipment.

“Through our nationwide network and resources, we are in an ideal position to support the VoIP needs of Level 3’s partners and to make their transition effortless,” commented Jason Talley, president and CEO of Nuvio Corporation.  “We welcome those that were affected by the announcement and are committed to helping them bring high-quality VoIP services to their customers.  By delivering reliable, scalable services coupled with superior customer support, Nuvio allows partners to capitalize on this market segment.” 

NuvioCentrex, specially designed to meet the low-cost needs of the small business market, is available through the company’s nationwide “Powered by Nuvio” Total Package private-label partner program.  The comprehensive program offers service providers a variety of options including developing a branded Web site, private-label billing, referrals coordination, technology support and marketing materials.   

If you are an ISP, Network Integrator, or UNE-P reseller interested in partnering with Nuvio to bring IP Centrex solutions to the small businesses in your market, please visit http://www.nuvio.com/partners.php for more information or call 866-GO-NUVIO.

It is obvious that telecom pricing is in a declining state. Credit VoIP and wireless carriers for this. Many analysts say consolidation is necessary in a market with declining pricing. Motley Fool has an interesting article about why the SBC/AT&T merger doesn't make sense. The author argues that two companies that aren't doing great shouldn't combine as they will make even less money. There may be some logic here.

The flipside to this argument is that CallVantage could be the white knight of AT&T and by investing even more into VoIP, AT&T can more quickly become a global provider of VoIP and possible be the largest VoIP provider worldwide. Are there inherent advantages to being an ILEC as well? Perhaps. Imagine the kind of deals you could make with other service providers around the world... You give me favorable rates terminating on your network and  will do the same.

Are there legal issues here? Possibly but there seem to be inherent advantages in being able to terminate calls in your own area which in SBC's case is the east and west coasts. Will Vonage get a fair shake selling into SBC/AT&T territories? We will have to wait and see.

In summary, perhaps the article gets it wrong. There are tremendous synergies in being able to sell broadband around the US and also VoIP with a globally recognized brand. We are talking about what could become a telecom mega-giant. Will the government allow it? Possibly... We will see. But from an investment perspective, if VoIP keeps growing worldwide at such an incredible pace, having the AT&T CallVantage name to sell isn't such a bad proposition.

I had a chance to speak with Gary Morgenstern over at AT&T and I am told that during the conference calls I missed today there were some nice comments made by SBC management about CallVantage. Gary in no way implied the brand would stay or not but was just passing this along to me. There has been speculation that the AT&T brand might disappear and while it is too premature to dispel such rumors, receiving compliments on CallVantage in an SBC/AT&T conference call is a good sign. Personally I believe the CallVantage brand  is very strong and it would be a shame to see it go. It has potential worldwide appeal as does the AT&T name.

Of course the AT&T global brand is the reason for this merger as well as AT&T's lucrative business accounts according to the WSJ so logic tells you the CallVantage products will be around for a while to come.

Coincidentally, AT&T's Senior Vice President of Internet Telephony, Cathy Martine will be keynoting Internet Telephony Conference & Expo this month in Miami. I am looking forward to her perspective on the AT&T/SBC merger and what it means to AT&T and the broader VoIP market as a whole.

Many in the VoIP industry are sick and tired of having to deal with every state wanting to tax, regulate, and/or kill VoIP. It is ridiculous. Really. I have long advocated taxing all broadband connections and not discriminating between what applications run on such pipes. Seriously, how could it be possible to tax VoIP only and not IM and e-mail? After all these forms of communications are equivalent. It is obvious that the old system of taxing telecom won't go with us into the VoIP world.

So when I read a CNET article titled Congress proposes tax on all Net, data connections, I smiled. I didn't smile because I enjoy paying tax but because perhaps once and for all we will have a way to for the government to recoup all the tax revenue they will lose due to VoIP. They are going to get it one way or another. There is no reason to even consider fighting it. So I embrace it. Bring on the broadband tax, then be done with it. Please don't try to tax every cool new application that comes down the pike. Once you tax broadband you are done, finished, it is over. Please include this in the bill so VCs don't have to worry three years from now that conferencing over IP is subject to a luxury tax.

I mention all of this because under consideration is taxing VoIP and specifically p2p networks like Skype. Within the article is a quote from James Maule who teaches tax law at Villanova University where he says that extreme taxation options make the less extreme options more palatable. Is taxing Skype calls extreme? I would label it as impossible. Most of the calls on the network are free. How do you tax something that is free anyway? Worse, how do you tax something that is free and no one can track? Does the FBI need to conduct phone audits to make sure we all pay our VoIP taxes?

If my suggestions are implemented, from his point onward entrepreneurs can spend their time innovating without the fear of the regulatory cloud that looms over the head of VoIP VCs and companies. Let's put an end to the fear of taxing everything in sight by taxing broadband only and not the applications that run over these pipes.

Linksys put out a press release for the London market touting new VoIP hardware. One of these devices is the WRT54GP2 which is a 802.11G router with 2 phone ports and the other is the RT31P2 which is a plain router with 2 phone ports. Without question, this is the exact sort of announcement that the VoIP market needs. I say this because having VoIP and WiFi used to mean having 2 devices which means 2 layers of NAT and 2 administrative interfaces. Worse, trying to troubleshoot network problems with two routers makes it at least twice as difficult. Having a single device should alleviate much of these problems and also allow customers to easily open up the firewall to a specific device on the network. With CallVantage service this is not an easy task as the WiFi router is behind the telephony adapter.

An impressive array of features are available in these new products as well:

- Supports SIP (Session Initiation Protocol)
- Web based configuration through a built-in web server
- Supports DTMF tone detection and generation
- Supports multiple voice compression methods G.711, G.726 G.729 and
G.723.1
- Supports FSK Caller ID, DTMF Caller ID and FSK VMWI
- Supports echo cancellation and VAD (Voice Activity Detection)
- Password protected access and configuration
- Supports auto-provisioning with remote firmware upgrade

As the release points out the RT31P2 is available already through Vonage and the other products in the line will be available at retail locations. I have always wondered when VoIP would be considered mainstream and I am beginning to think that when a company like Linksys, such a huge player in the consumer networking market starts to include VoIP and SIP support in their products across the entire line of wireless and wired products, we have arrived as an industry. The mainstream press coverage is obviously another indicator as well.

The question becomes, "What's next?" Will Skype take over the telephony world? Is this the future? Is Skype the reason for the SBC AT&T merger as BusinessWeek suggests or will it just be a single player in a  world where all service providers allow free p2p calls as Vonage's Jeff Citron suggests?

VoIP Inc. is a conglomerate in VoIP. They are in retail, wholesale, wireless and business communications systems. If you really want insight into the future of VoIP, you would do well to get these insights from the CEO of such a company. I recently had a chance to conduct an interview with Steven Ivester the CEO of VoIP, Inc.

What do you see happening with the FCC and VoIP in the next 12 months?

Well, that's a good question given the news of the last few weeks. With Chairman Powell's resignation, we're waiting to see who will fill the position, and if they will be as forward-thinking with their rulings. I hope that the FCC will continue with their fairly hands-off approach, which makes the most sense. This industry is still gathering momentum, and any regulatory overtures now would confuse the market, so I hope they remain consistent with their previous track.

What do you see happening with state appeals such as California to regulate VoIP?

I would see those as being struck down. It is by nature impossible to determine where a user is in reference to voice over IP, so state-based taxation is a fairly meaningless gesture. If states try to tie phone numbers or company HQ locations to taxation, then companies will migrate quickly to states that are more friendly, or will at least move their services to those states. It's clear that VoIP is by it's design something that falls into interstate (Federal) communications rules: it has no physical components, it is completely portable, it layers on top of another network (the Internet.)

Do you think VoIP should be regulated? How? Why?

VoIP will require regulation when it is expected to deliver the same services as standard telephony. When I say "require", I mean through burden of law, and not through voluntary subscription to industry standards. There will be devices or services that will never be mistaken for standard telephony, and it is unreasonable that even though they may use VoIP protocols that they should fall into the same law set as household "lifeline" phones. The prototypical example is the question of: "Should I have federal regulations on using my video game console if I talk to other game players on it?" Clearly, the answer to this is "No" but the definition of what is "telephony" and what is not is key here.

Aren't many p2p VoIP providers impossible to regulate?

Yes, it is impossible from a technical perspective. There are administrative methods to regulate technology though. We could move to a system like China has where we have paid censors and spies who inform on their fellow citizens for using unauthorized communications methods. Somehow, I don't see the citizens of the United States being so thrilled about that concept.

What about taxation of VoIP and the USF. Will all VoIP providers have to pay these soon?

USF is a difficult proposition. As a nation, we've decided that all households should have "telephone service" at a reasonable rate. The FCC has notably excluded packet-based services (aka: the Internet) from being eligible for subsidy. So, we're left with an obvious gap now that telephone-like services are being delivered over physical wires (or frequencies) that were not traditionally used for telephony services. What, exactly, is it that these USF subsidies should cover? And who, exactly, should be paying the taxes? Our opinion is that the public good is best served by delivery of the wires or frequencies to the household, and that some mechanism should be subsidized to deliver "data" to the end user. If that is in the form of a phone, that's fine - but it also could be in the form of a computer. We have left the rural and poor populations of the nation out of the Internet. Re-design of the USF model is required to both solve this inequity, as well as remove the USF fees from the services delivered over the wire.

If USF were applied to VoIP, it would be clear to show that this would make no sense by imagining how USF fees would be charged to companies which were based overseas. Good luck getting a VoIP provider in France to pay you USF fees. Good luck in keeping the VoIP companies currently based in the US from migrating offshore to avoid the huge taxes (and they would be huge - costs for calling are dropping to unheard-of levels; the USF tax may be one of the largest single parts of the bill.) The only thing that can easily be taxed is the physical method by which bits enter the residence. This method is the "natural monopoly" and is what requires the tax burden, not the patterns of data that flow over the media.

If you want to hear more from Steven Ivester, please read his commentary Pitfalls in Government Controls Over VoIP or arrange to meet him at Internet Telephony Conference & Expo in Miami in February.

While I watch the historic election in Iraq I wonder to myself if we realize the same thing is happening in the communications world. VoIP providers are really providing democratic communications by bypassing the "monarchies" of incumbent phone companies throughout the world. Even with deregulation, if you didn't own the pipes you couldn't really get full access to customers. Sure, wireless networks allow ways around this limitation but many of these companies are still owned by incumbents.

Using IP as transport means VoIP is telephony that transcends normal regulation allowing it to actually free us from having to deal with a few large companies to provide our long-distance service.

But does this analogy between democracy in Iraq and in communications hold true beyond just allowing every citizen a "voice?" The answer may be yes in more ways than you think. You see just as there are terrorists trying to sabotage the elections in Iraq, I have been told there are incumbent phone companies experimenting with killing VoIP service on their networks. In this case I hear Qwest may be blocking Skype and Net2Phone VoIP access. I don't have Qwest service and cannot verify this claim but I have written about the potential for a few broadband providers to block VoIP service in the past. This is why I have made such a fuss over the FCC ensuring more broadband competition.

I am very interested in the topic of VoIP service being blocked on incumbent networks so if you hear of this happening please drop me a line or at least post a reply to this entry. Hopefully we will reach a point where the US is as eager to spread democratizing VoIP technology as it is eager to spread democracy itself.

Mesh networks make a great deal of sense to me. The ability to drop wireless nodes into any environment and set up a fully functioning network is something that seems so logical that  I can't imagine doing it any other way. Here is a release from a company that claims to have made a mesh networking breakthrough via the use of three radios.

Release:

MeshDynamics Offers Industry’s First Three-Radio Mesh Network Solution

Structured Mesh Solutions Enable Dense City-Wide WiFi and VoIP Networks

SANTA CLARA, Calif. – January 31, 2005 – MeshDynamics, the technology leader for wireless mesh network architectures, today announced the availability of an innovative mesh networking solution that yields greater than a 50x bandwidth improvement over traditional mesh networks.  The MD-300 family of 3-Radio Structured Mesh software and systems features a unique multi-radio, multi-channel backhaul (relay) path with automatic channel selection, providing a significant performance improvement for VoIP and mobile data applications, including Public Safety networks.

 ”We believe that multi-radio mesh nodes are going to become the norm over time,” said Craig J. Mathias, a Principal with the wireless and mobile advisory firm Farpoint Group (Ashland, MA). “Multiple radios are the best way to deal with latency, congestion, and the provisioning of additional capacity as metro-scale meshes grow. The latency and congestion issues become particularly important as voice traffic assumes a larger role in mesh-based networks.”

With one radio to relay packets through the mesh, a conventional mesh node can’t send and receive data at the same time.  In addition, all mesh radios share the same spectrum in conventional mesh, causing even more degradation when traffic is high.  MeshDynamics’ 3-radio Structured Mesh employs a (patent pending) set of algorithms that uses 2-radios per backhaul path per node (both 802.11a) as well as separate service radios (typically 802.11b/g) – all on different spectrum – eliminating both problems.  Unlike conventional mesh, Structured Mesh nodes automatically form a tree, analogous to the structure of a conventional wired switch stack and with similar routing table structures.  This technology development was enabled by discarding the original military peer-to-peer mesh paradigm where all mesh radios are on the same channel.  One key was viewing the problem as a distributed control system for managing spectrum, as opposed to simply solving a routing problem.  The other key was realizing that in a modern city-wide mesh, most paths lead to the Internet.

"With significant growth in city-wide WiFi HotZones, high bandwidth mesh networks become critical," said Amy Cravens, Senior Analyst, customer & service provider markets, at Scottsdale, Arizona-based market analyst firm In-Stat.  "A fundamentally new approach is required in mesh in order to achieve the performance that city-wide deployments require.  Employing a three-radio approach, such as MeshDynamics has developed, will enable delivery of VoIP and mobile data on a city-wide scale."

MeshDynamics CEO Bob Osann sees VoIP as the ‘killer application’ for mesh networking. “When compared with cellular, Structured Mesh solutions offer more than a 100x advantage in cost-per-minute-per-user when supporting dense VoIP.  Compared with conventional mesh solutions, our cost-per-Kb-per-user exceeds 10x for an entire deployment, given realistic traffic levels.”

MeshDynamics’ 3-radio Structured Mesh products are successfully operating at beta site RCGI in Pennsylvania and at a startup OEM in Texas still in stealth mode.  Wireless ISP Softcom will soon deploy Structured Mesh systems for the city of Galt near Sacramento, California.  Kevin Triplett, CEO of Softcom said “We see Structured Mesh as the key to offering higher performance than DSL and Cable while providing ubiquitous WiFi for VoIP.”  MeshDynamics 3-radio systems are also operating successfully at a USAF base where they are being evaluated for next generation battlefield communications, according to Osann.  Additional customers for the MD-300 will be announced in the second quarter of 2005.

About Mesh Networking and VoIP
A wireless mesh network is an array of nodes that relay packets from one to another, essentially increasing the range of the network.  Each transfer is called a “hop”.  Unfortunately in conventional mesh networks, performance decreases with each hop.  Conventional meshes use only one radio channel (frequency) for multi-hop communications.  Radio, by its nature, is a shared medium, which means that the resulting contention is compounded hop-to-hop, resulting in architectures that work well with light traffic loading but will “choke” themselves when simultaneous traffic becomes heavy.  VoIP creates this type of heavy traffic due to its continuous nature.  The backhaul (relay) path through the mesh must carry enormous numbers of packets to support dense city-wide VoIP.  Only a multi-radio, multi-channel architecture like Structured Mesh will be able to handle the loading when the number of simultaneous VoIP and data users gets large.
 
Pricing and Availability

Complete MD-300 systems are available within four weeks after receipt of order and are priced at $3900 in quantity 1-24.  An MD-350 3-radio mesh module (complete with software but without antennas) is priced at $2900 in similar quantities.  Structured Mesh software is also available for license to OEMs and resellers, as well as wireless Internet Service Providers who wish to construct their own APs based on MeshDynamics’ reference designs.  Software Licenses start with a $45,000 for a 100 license engagement package that includes training, with individual licenses costing $450 in quantity 101-499, and $300 at the 1,000 quantity level.

About MeshDynamics

Founded in 2002, MeshDynamics is a privately held company offering software and systems for high performance wireless mesh networking applications.  The Company’s MeshControl software enables a unique multi-radio, multi-channel backhaul path with vastly superior bandwidth and latency over multiple hops, providing the best price/performance solution for dense City-wide VoIP and mobile data.  MeshDynamics has offices in both Santa Clara, CA and Pune, India.   For more information, please visit www.MeshDynamics.com, call 408-373-7700, or write to info@meshdynamics.com.
 

A basic article on VoIP that is a good primer.

Many of us have heard the rumors about the Google browser that is supposed to be delivered and it seems that now is the best time for Google to come out with such a software product. Other browsers such as FireFox are beginning to take share from IE and the worst part about all of this for Microsoft is that it isn't because of the features, it is because of the security. In fact if anything, people seem to be happy switching to a browser with less features as long as it is fast and more secure.

How does Microsoft compete with products that are gaining share by losing the feature war? This is the most counter-intuitive war Microsoft has ever had to face. MS can't counter by giving the browser away for free as they already did this to get rid of Netscape. What is left, a stripped down, feature-free highly secure version of the IE browser?

Soon Microsoft will try to bild a better search and will try to increase their sales of pay-per-click ads as well. Google with their rumored browser and Microsoft may have to actually pay users to use their browser and/or search. The could probably afford to do it as well. Woulnd't that be a twist on the browser wars. I wonder if it will ever happen. Time will tell. Here is a good article on the topic.

Motorola has placed India amongst the four ‘top target markets’ along with the United States, China and Western Europe for setting up wireless broadband infrastructure for telecom operators according to the Indian web site Business Standard.

According to the article:

Motorola’s system can perform in high and low-density environments in the presence of external interference. Also, the sixty degree antennae beam delivers up to six plus Mbps of effective throughput with connectivity to a maximum of 200 subscribers per access point (AP), and it enables the delivery of broadband access to multiple locations from a single AP, Stipati said, adding that return of investment was possible in six to twelve months.

The company was offering the infrastructure to Indian operators at $8,000 per base tower and $250 per subscriber module, said Avinash Bector, regional channel manager, Asia Pacific Region, Motorola - canopy.

WiMAX growth seems better outside of the US. I worry about its future within this country. In order for the technology to take off the FCC will have to help make it feasible and inexpensive to provide service. Frequencies need allocatingand the regulatory environment needs to favor broadband competition. Right now the FCC has not fostered the competitive broadband environment we need in the DSL market but they have made it possible to provide broadband over power lines. Hopefully they will see WiMAX as an essential technology for the US to lead in and champion it like it has VoIP in the past. Om Malik just blogged a negative WiMAX piece as I wrote this andi thought it worth sharing.

I just learned about this from Cybertelecom. May be of interest.

FEDERAL FUNDING OPPORTUNITY FY 2005

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Federal Agency Name: National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), Department of Commerce

Funding Opportunity Title: Public Telecommunications Facilities Program (PTFP)

Announcement Type: Initial Announcement-Notice of Availability of Funds

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 11.550. Public Telecommunications Facilities Program

Program Authority: 47 U.S.C. 390-393, 397

Dates: Completed applications must be received at the Public Telecommunications Facilities Program office no later than 6:00 p.m., EST, Tuesday, March 1, 2005.

Funding Opportunity Description: The Public Telecommunications Facilities Program (PTFP) assists, through matching grants, in the planning and construction of public telecommunications facilities in order to:

1.     extend delivery of services to as many citizens as possible by the most cost-effective means, including use of broadcast and non-broadcast technologies;

2.     increase public telecommunications services and facilities available to, operated by, and controlled by minorities and women;

3.     strengthen the capability of existing public TV and radio stations to provide public telecommunications services to the public.

Amount to be Awarded: $19.8 million; approximately 100 awards.

Funding Instrument: Grant

Eligible Applicants: To apply for and receive a PTFP Construction or Planning Grant, an applicant must be: (a) a public or noncommercial educational broadcast station; (b) a noncommercial telecommunications entity; (c) a system of public telecommunications entities; (d) a non-profit foundation, corporation, institution, or association organized primarily for educational or cultural purposes; or (e) a state, local, or Indian tribal government (or agency thereof), or a political or special purpose subdivision of a state.

Cost Sharing: Cost sharing is required.

Limitation on Number of Applications