VoIP is Dead! - Or is It?
If you haven't already, I suggest that you read the following posts, which represent a perspective on the industry with some mild debate on the state of VoIP.
Telecosm - Ike Elliott, VoIP is Dead. Long Live VoIP
New Telephony - Kelly M. Teal, Worst of 2007: VoIP
Unified Communications - Ken Camp, A Brief Look at 2007 - The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Conversationware - Matt Lamber, VoIP is plumbing
Digital Common Sense - Ken Camp, More on VoIP as Plumbing
FierceVoIP - VoIP crusader recants
Saunderslog.com - Alec Saunders, End of standalone IP telephony? Hogwash!
Jeff Pulver Blog - 2008: The Year VoIP is Disruptive (Again)
The postings and ensuing conversations are interesting and varied. Everything from VoIP is dead, to VoIP is just plumbing, to 2008 will be the best year yet for VoIP. Why should there be such a divergence of opinion among industry veterans? In my view, much of the debate and disagreement is related to what has become a pet peeve of mine, which is DEFINITION! We can't even begin to come close to a consensus on the subject unless we know precisely what it is we are discussing.
Many within the IP Communications business, would insist that the definitions for VoIP, IP Telephony and Unified Communications are well understood and clearly defined. However, I am convinced, that the general public, even technical savvy folks, are confused about the technology, its definitions, vendor strategies and how it all comes together to solve business problems. This is not just a matter of opinion. I've had many discussions with customers including those from medium size enterprise, government, large integrators and service providers, and all of them struggle to define the terms, and to understand the technology and its tangible benefits.
While endless debates on exact definitions are not productive, it's time we move past the marketing hype and techno babble and come to some agreement on some common definitions. Until then, how can we possibly hope to quantify market growth or business benefits?
The common use of the term Unified Communications to describe everything under the Sun is responsible for much of the confusion. For example, I've read many growth projections for Unified Communications but in my view, the numbers are meaningless without a precise definition. After all what's included in the projections? Is the integration of communications with business applications such as CRM and ERP included? What about video conferencing, audio conferencing, mobility, or good old IP Telephony?
What follows are the descriptions I use to describe VoIP, IP Telephony and Unified Communications, all of which I consider to be part of IP Communications.
VoIP
In the strictest definition, Voice over Internet Protocol, can be defined as the method by which analogue voice is digitized, transported from a source to a destination over an IP network, and converted back to analogue. Based on this definition, it is a mature and well-proven technology and can be considered a plumbing aspect of IP Telephony and Unified Communications. Other plumbing components could include the network infrastructure, QoS, ISDN circuits and other services responsible for the transport of voice. Based on this definition, VoIP is dead in terms of innovation or any new impact on the IP Communications industry. Therefore the term VoIP, should not even be part of a business conversation with an enterprise customer about the benefits of UC. It is merely an enabler and is irrelevant.
However, we all know that VoIP is used to describe much more than just voice transport. It has become the de facto definition for nearly all IP-based consumer voice services such as Vonage and Skype among many others. Based on this broader definition, VoIP is alive and well and in fact, we are still early in its evolution!
I prefer to use the term IP Telephony to describe voice services which utilize VoIP as the transport mechanisms. However, I always make a point of making a distinction between Consumer IP Telephony and Enterprise-Class IP Telephony. The former is based on best-effort delivery mechanisms while the latter is based on voice transport across a secure infrastructure with QoS enabled delivery.
IP Telephony
I replaced the term VoIP with IP Telephony in my vocabulary approximately 8 years ago when it became apparent to me, that IP-based voice, was not just about point-to-point links designed to provide enterprise with toll bypass services. IP Telephony describes all of the system components (hardware & software) that combine to produce business-class voice services.
The components may include:
- Call signaling and control
- Media services
- Media Gateways (for connection to the PSTN)
- Messaging
- Conferencing
- Advanced features (Like Find-Me / Follow-Me)
- Automatic Call Distribution
An IP Telephony system will typically use VoIP as its transport mechanism but will usually also, utilize traditional TDM or analogue circuits for voice transport.
Unified Communications
The ubiquitous use of this term and all of the associated hype is responsible for much of the current confusion and ambiguity related to IP-based Communications. I don't know the context under which the term "Unified Communications" was originally conceived, but it's virtually impossible to find a concise and precise definition of what it describes today. Part of the confusion stems from the fact that IP Telephony and IP-PBX systems were suddenly renamed to Unified Communication systems. In many instances, the change happened literally overnight even if there was no change whatsoever in functionality.
I recently wrote a post on the subject. While I wait for a better definition that I can share with my customers, I came up with:
Unified Communications is part of the continuing evolution of IP Communications technology which automates and unifies all forms of human and device communications in context and with a common experience.
I realize it is a somewhat simplistic definition, but I believe it does an adequate job of describing UC as a framework or system. VoIP, IP Telephony, Mobility, Communications Enabled Business Processes, Mashups, Contact Centres, Collaboration, Presence, Filtering are all components or attributes which may, or may not be, part of a Unified Communications system.
Conclusion
The industry as a whole will benefit if its influencers move away from the hype and technical jargon, towards consensus on definitions and quantifiable descriptions of the business benefits of IP Communications.
Rick McCharles
IP Communications Consultant
RIC Services
Stumble It!
Rick -
This is a very interesting article that poses a lot of fascinating questions about where VOIP and similar technologies are headed. I'm actually working with oovoo, a free video conferencing tool (much like skype), so I can tell you first hand that the market is alive and well. It's just changing and evolving and will probably to continue to change and evolve, just like the way that the telephone industry has changed and morphed over the past fifty years or so.
It'll be very interesting to see where it goes.
Good stuff Rick. Nothing like a debate to advance understanding and cut through the issues.
Definition is the major discussion point, I agree wholeheartedly.
Saying Unified Communications is like saying Unified Vehicles...what's the point of the name....it's supposed to aid understanding...and differentiate. It doesn't. I've devoted a lot of time and thought on the subject. The point becomes clear when thinking about the original 'unified' technology - unified messaging. It's all about the user....what does it 'look' like.
A clarification: I don't think VOIP is dead, I just don't think it matters, as a user. It only ever meant that I could talk to someone, and I could do that before with TDM. It drove prices down to the point where it doesn't matter. IPT doesn't deliver much more for companies than TDM used to. You can have UC on TDM for example.
Software does matter though.
Like having to comment anonymously because Moveable Type isn't registering me.
Thanks for the comment Matt.
Like you, I have also devoted a lot of thought to the subject. For a while, I thought maybe that I was the only one that didn't get it!
As I stated in a previous post on the subject, to say that one is "implementing unified communications" is in my view, as meaningless as saying that one is "implementing information technology".
I hope we see more debate on the subject. I think it's healthy.
By the way, thanks for pointing out the registration issue, which is now fixed.
Rick