April 2011 Archives
It appears that TELUS and Shaw have decided to implement UBB later this year. Once again the justification is being spun as fairness. The average user should not have to subsidize the very small minority of Internet usage hogs. It’s the same excuse that Bell used to convince the CRTC to allow UBB to be forced on to Bell’s Internet wholesale customers (currently under review).
The problem with that spin is that its just not true. The fact is that the majority of Internet users are morphing into heavy users. It’s not because we’ve all suddenly decided to download copyrighted movies and music. Rather our Internet consumption is going up because of the rich content that is now available. It has nothing to do with being greedy Internet pigs. Business and consumers are simply making the most of the resource and we are all (as individuals and society as a whole) benefiting as a result.
In my view the
reason Canada’s large ISPs want UBB is to maximize
profits and to protect dying business models. However, UBB threatens to
stifle innovation and to leave Canadians at a competitive disadvantage.
There’s no stopping the
evolution of the Internet and its countless benefits. It will continue to create
and change business models with or without Canadians’ participation.
If you’re concerned about this issue, stay informed and get involved.
Rick McCharles
Stumble It!
One of the most popular posts in my blog was an article I wrote on SIP Trunking in November of 2007. In the post, I listed the differences and advantages of SIP Trunking over PRI. I also indicated that there would be “very few, if any, new PRI circuit deployments in Canadian urban locations, within five years”.
Well, it appears that at least in Canada, I may have to add another five years before my prediction becomes reality (even that may be too optimistic). In the US, there has been healthy market growth and there are many service providers. In Canada, the adoption of SIP Trunking has been minimal. Why? For the same reason that Canadians pay among the highest rates for mobile phone and broadband Internet services: a lack of competition.
The Incumbents have been reluctant to roll out SIP Trunking since these services would cannibalize their highly profitable traditional PRI revenues. More SIP Trunking service providers are beginning to emerge and by the end of 2011, all of the Incumbents will be offering some form of the services. However, I don’t expect to see aggressive pricing any time soon which will further limit Canadian market growth.
While the immediate recurring cost savings may not be dramatic when compared to traditional PSTN circuits, Canadian enterprises should still consider the benefits associated with SIP Trunking. Here is the comparison from my original article with some updates:
|
|
PRI |
IP Trunks |
|
Circuits & Hardware |
Physical connections: Each circuit requires physical connection and costly
termination hardware. |
Connections are virtual: Number of available trunks is a function of available
bandwidth, not physical termination hardware or circuits. Depending on your requirements and the type of service
offering, Session Border Controllers (SBC) may be required for security. SBCs
can be a significant cost consideration. |
|
Scale / Growth |
Scaling up requires the installation of new circuits and additional
termination hardware at specific increments. In the case of PRI the increment
is 23 voice channels. |
Scales up or down easily and quickly (a software
configuration change) and can offer automatic and on-demand burst
capabilities. While the technology accommodates these advantages not all
service offerings will provide them. |
|
Backup / Redundancy |
Providing sufficient backup circuits to remote sites in an
IPT-distributed architecture can negatively impact the ROI. Only way to accommodate loss of hardware or facility where
PRI’s terminate is to build-in excess capacity with associated cost impact. |
Automatic IP re-routing capabilities allow practical
geographic distribution of PSTN connectivity to sites with limited or network
redundancy. Can be designed to retain PSTN reachability and capacity
in the event of the loss of terminating hardware (or even an entire office
location) without the need to build in excess capacity. |
|
Cost |
Cost is usually per circuit per month. If you require one, or a few, more voice channels than the
fixed increment, the cost model for PRI is inefficient. |
A variety of pricing models (i.e. usage based) are likely
to emerge, including on-demand capacity. Relative to PRI circuits
and the associated supporting hardware, IP Trunking costs are likely to be
significantly lower. Unfortunately, in Canada the pricing models have not been
compelling to date. However, competition is increasing so hopefully that will
begin to change soon. |
|
Capacity Planning |
Additional capacity must be planned well in advance since
considerable lead time may be required for the ordering and installation of
new circuits and termination hardware. |
While capacity planning is still important, adding
additional capacity can be as simple as a software change. Additionally,
providers are likely to offer burst capabilities to accommodate brief periods
of higher than anticipated utilization. |
|
Disaster Recovery / Business
Continuity |
While possible, diverting calls to alternate locations can
be complex and expensive. Diversity across service providers is usually cost
prohibitive. |
The technology allows for automatic call rerouting to
pre-defined locations should the location go offline (a huge business
continuity benefit). Can accommodate diversity across service providers much
like is done today with Internet access via BGP. |
Stumble It!
