June 2009 Archives

We welcome and encourage reader response to stories and commentary in our magazines and on our sites. Here is a letter received from Paul E. Jones Chair, H.323 and H.325 Experts' Groups, regarding a recent article on SIP

Editor, Customer Interaction Solutions

I felt compelled to comment on the second page of your most recent article: S(L)Ipping IP Into The Contact Center (May 2009) http://flq.us/uZ
 
"[SIP] is gradually displacing H.323, which is an older protocol used to deliver voice over an IP network.

* They are the same age
* H.323 was designed for videoconferencing and multimedia, not "voice"
 
"SIP has several advantages over H.323, including scalability, ease of integration, and ease of management."

* Scalability is debatable, as we can build a massively scalable H.323 network, and we have

* "Ease of integration"...with what?  Perhaps it might be easier to integrate a half-baked SIP solution with another half-baked solution?  A fully-robust solution is a lot of work, regardless of protocol

* Ease of management?  Apparently the person who made this claim is entirely ignorant of the capability negotiation issues with SIP, the fact there is no means of accurately directing calls toward gateway devices to ensure calls do not fail on overloads, etc.  Poor management is actually something H.323 and SIP have in common, but there is absolutely nothing better in SIP.
 
"SIP has also helped lower product costs because it has made the components more interoperable through the common standard. Tom Fisher, Director of Systems Engineering for Interactive Intelligence points to an IP endpoint written to H.323 in 2001 that sold for $900, which has been superseded by one done in SIP in 2008 for $120."

* H.323 and SIP phones made in China run on exactly the same cheap hardware

* There were H.323 endpoints in 2001 that retailed for less than $150, though videoconferencing equipment was generally more expensive; in general, videoconferencing equipment is more expensive due to hardware costs that have nothing to do with the protocol employed
 
What bothers me is that SIP and H.323 are both now 13 years old (counting from the initial date of draft publication).  Even if they were a couple of years apart, the fact remains that SIP is "ancient" by all accounts.  Just how old was the "old" SS7 network when SIP was introduced in draft form in February 1996?  I believe it was 16 years old, though I might be mistaken.
 
The point is that, while SIP is a workable protocol for VoIP applications, it has a lot of problems.  It is better in some respects than H.323, but is worse in some respects than H.323.  To this point, SIP has done very little to propel the market forward: what propelled the market was the notion of VoIP, accelerated by H.323, and now slowly progressing forward with a mix of SIP and H.323 being deployed.  While it is true that there is a slow migration to SIP-based networks, most deployments have been little islands, not unlike the little H.323 islands.  Carriers around the world are trying to pull together some sort of interoperable SIP-based network (which they have failed to do thus far due to equipment interoperability issues and missing "stuff" to make carrier networks robust).  But the sad thing is that what they will deliver when they're done is nothing more than the PSTN over IP.  Have you looked at IMS?  It's a complex mess.
 
The big question is: do we need that?  Look at Skype.  It works for me, and they are basically a global "carrier".  One can put voice on just about any device and various companies can provide interworking through SBC devices in the back-end.  Perhaps it's SIP, or perhaps it's proprietary glue.  It matters very little to the end user, since a "call is a call".
 
What is worth looking out for is a new way of communicating, like being able to use a plurality of devices in parallel.  For example, wouldn't it be nice to use a headset to place a call (perhaps connected to a phone), the phone is talking to a mobile device in your hand.  The mobile device is also talking to your PC, so when you join a conference bridge, a notification is transmitted to your PC to let you join a web collaboration session: all without having to do a thing, really.  Oh, and during the call, perhaps you can transmit a file from your PC to the person(s) you're talking to, because there is an app on your PC that knows about your active call and transmits the file as a part of the session.  Now, that's cool.  But, it's not SIP.  It's a new kind of XML-based protocol that we're working on at the ITU right now called H.325 (or, "AMS", not to be confused with IMS).
 
I have no idea whether H.325 will ever prove to be a market success, but I would really like to see articles that do not continue to convey the same misleading (and I doubt it's deliberately misleading) statements.  The world really is not better with SIP.  In the words of an associate from in the VoIP industry, "SIP sucks.  It really sucks.  But, it's what we have."  And, there's a lot of truth in those words.

Don't let my comments suggest that SIP will fail. I suspect it will succeed. After all, what other options are there? Enterprises need something and carriers need something. But, SIP has long been over-sold as something that will enable all kinds of new applications. I strongly believe in the power of IP-based multimedia communications and SIP will play an important role; it's just over-sold and has been for so many years.

Yours truly,

Paul E. Jones
Chair, H.323 and H.325 Experts' Groups

Here we go again...another gang of skels abusing telemarketing and robocalling i.e. automated dialers calling to connive money out of consumers including those with cell numbers and who have gone to the trouble to place their numbers on Do Not Call lists (DNC).
.
As reported June 12 on TMCnet The Better Business Bureau reports that American and Canadian consumers have been sounding off to the organization in both countries and on the U.S. side to U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) about incessant automated telemarketing calls promising to lower interest rates on their credit cards.  Not only are the calls a nuisance and violate U.S. and Canadian DNC laws, but some companies behind the calls it says are ripping off consumers by charging large up-front fees to negotiate lower interest rates with credit card companies. Something consumers can do on their own for free.

I feel sorry for not only for the consumers--as one I too get the ghost calls and I don't pick up unless I know the number but they are a pain in the backside because the phones rings nonetheless--but for at least some of the agents, supervisors, and staff who have to make and program them. Those that know it's wrong but if it is a choice between that and not feeding their families and losing their homes, well...This is a tough economy and to survive people may be faced with taking jobs and handle tasks that are unpleasant and shady.

These types of stories have been giving telemarketing, and automated dialers, both excellent methods and tools when deployed effectively and ethically, a bad rap. The same with e-mail marketing that has been abused by too many outfits a.k.a. spam.

And it isn't the fraudsters and the gray area outfits such as reportedly some of the extended warranty companies that are the problem either. Too many legitimate businesses such as most recently the satellite TV firms that have been the subject of action by FTC have reportedly been bending the ethic and rules.

These continuing instances call to question the assertion by businesses and business organizations that self-regulation is the answer. Not when anyone can buy a dialer, hire/put together a telemarketing operation, and create e-mail marketing programs and spam-spewing botnets. What is the worst a self-regulatory program can do? Throw out a member? Sue them for dues?

The American Teleservices Association devised some 11 years ago a program called TeleWatch aimed at creating a 'mark' for ethical telemarketers aimed at having a similar effect of creating trust as the 'UL' for Underwriters Laboratories and 'CSA' for Canadian Standards Association on appliances. Yet despite the fanfare, the backing of leading teleservices firms and supportive publicity from the trade media (including this writer) TeleWatch quickly died. As one longtime industry professional told me: "Many of the ATA members did not like being told what to do."

There is also in retrospect a 'who cares?' factor. A company that says that they belong to a trade association and proclaims that they comply with the X standards is likely to get the twirling finger from five 9s of consumers. Not so a firm says their products pass rigorous safety testing by well-respected organizations.

Canada has had one of the most effective, stringent, and thorough self-regulatory programs there is, organized and conducted by the Canadian Marketing Association. Even with that Canada's federal Conservative minority government has had to strengthen telemarketing laws, including creating a national DNC, and has put forward legislation, with the backing of the Opposition Liberals, to go after spam, phishing, ID theft, botnets, and spyware.

This is not to say that self-regulation doesn't have value. Any means that trade organizations can devise to ensure that their members stay within the laws and adopt best practices are 'five wins' for consumers/customers, companies, the industries, regulators i.e. smaller caseloads, and taxpayers. The ATA's Self-Regulatory Organization is to be commended for that reason.

The legislation that the teleservices industry has fought against has had the positive effect of quashing or at least drawing attention to some but not all of the bad practices carried out by legitimate outfits. When the Federal Trade Commission took action against Comcast for failing to implement a Telemarketing Sales Rule-compliant DNC program that would have identified and led to correcting problems at internal call centers and third-party telemarketing vendors and promptly corrected them, Comcast says it has been doing just that. Comcast agreed to pay $900,000 to settle the FTC's claims; the FTC order contains standard record-keeping and monitoring provisions to ensure Comcast's compliance with its terms.

"Comcast fully supports all Do-Not-Call regulations and we are committed to preventing unwanted telemarketing calls," said Sena Fitzmaurice, Senior Director Corporate Communications and Government Affairs carried by the American Teleservices Association in a regulatory newswire to its members. "The FTC found our compliance with the national Registry to be 99.85 percent and chose not to pursue any claim against Comcast in that area...Since the period under review we have further strengthened our policies and procedures to prevent unwanted telemarketing calls."

Unfortunately existing laws and regulations do not seem stringent enough to get the attention of enough shady and legitimate marketers alike. A fine here, some bad publicity there: call it the cost of doing business is the attitude that too many outfits have. The risk is that lawmakers may get fed up enough to make telemarketing opt-in, ban all marketing calls to wireless devices (which as they supplant residential landlines mean a ban on telemarketing, period), extend that to charities (leaving political purposes alone, of course) and outlaw autodialers for any reason.

Instead legislators and regulators--and here is where the teleservices and direct marketing industry should be leading the charge--should start treating what has largely been civil matters and call and vigorously prosecute these issues for what they are. Namely harassment and trespassing in the case of DNC and autodial abuse, and break-and-enter, theft, and possession of burglary tools for hacking, creating botnets, and owning those toolkits. For without that that specter even banning telemarketing would have little effect.

Making individuals realize that they could be trading their blue business suits for pink jumpsuits and Rolexes for electronic monitoring devices would get their attention faster than any blather from the alphabet soup of federal and state agencies. It sends the message that these acts aren't being tolerated, and the consequences are unfunny. Having a criminal record, even if the penalties are minimal and the debt has been paid, will make life in this post 9-11 age from a getting a job or a client to running a red light or leaving or entering the country an ordeal for those found guilty and for their dependents.

We do live in a global village: a community where for it to function requires a degree of trust between its members to enable them, and us, to get along and make that community work. When that trust is broken action must be taken to identify and punish the violators, setting them as examples to discourage others from contemplating the same acts.

When the rights of consumers/customers to be free of fraud and to enjoy their property without trespass and theft are as respected and acted on when it occurs electronically (phone, fax, e-mail, online) as when it happens in-person then perhaps there will be much fewer such incidents with telemarketing and other electronic marketing forms. Shrinking back this specter of illegitimacy will permit companies and nonprofits alike to use these means effectively with true freedom through increased trust by contacted parties,who in turn will be happy to do business via these channels again.