Recently in Industry Perspective Category
Now, the focus will shift back towards the financial aspects of the takeover. Market conditions have changed considerably since the initial conditions of the deal were put together. The odds that all of the original players who are putting up the cash and financing the debt will proceed with the original terms are slim. Look for many more twists and turns before this deal finally closes.
Stumble It!
A Net Neutrality Rally on Parliament Hill is planned for May 27th.
The early list of participants includes:
Michael Geist - http://www.michaelgeist.ca/
Charlie Angus - http://www.charlieangus.net/
CIPPIC - http://www.cippic.ca
Campaign for Democratic Media - http://www.democraticmedia.ca
TekSavvy Solutions - http://www.teksavvy.com
National Union of Public and General Employees - http://www.nupge.ca
National Capital Freenet - http://www.ncf.ca
For those of you interested in learning more about Net Neutrality, why Canadians are concerned, and what action you can take visit Campaign for Democratic Media!.
In a truly competitive market, consumer demand would influence the quality and cost of Internet services. If Internet Service Providers introduced traffic shaping or volume based pricing models, competitors would offer an alternative to which consumers would switch. The ISPs would have no choice but to modify their anti-competitive practices. Unfortunately, that is not the situation we are have in Canada. For many Canadians there are few, and in many situations, no alternatives. Canadian society allows monopolies because the benefits usually outweigh the resulting lack of choice. In return, the monopolies have a responsibility to consider the wishes of their Canadian consumers. If ISPs arrogantly flaunt consumer demand, then it is the responsibility of regulators to prevent the monopolies from imposing anti-competitive and anti-innovative tactics.
Stumble It!
Michael Geist speaking this week at the Spectrum 20/20 conference on the subjects of competition in the Canadian wireless market and the upcoming Canadian copyright regulations.
Stumble It!
The Calgary Herald printed an article today commenting on
the events that may have contributed to the death of a
As I have pointed out many times here previously, having 911
calls redirected to call centre has the potential of compromising the efficacy
of the response. This is especially true when one considers that the person
accepting the call almost certainly does not have the experience and training
of a 911 operator.
The article points out that Canadian VoIP service providers opposed
regulations that would have forced them to have direct connections to 911 call
centres. I’m not convinced that’s entirely correct. If memory serves me
(someone please correct me if I’m wrong), 911 centres themselves were opposed to
direct connections from VoIP providers that could not guarantee that the
provided address of the 911 caller was accurate.
Also, while I agree that VoIP based 911 calls should go
directly to a 911 dispatch centre, it may not have made any difference in this
case. Direct connection or not, the address in the database was wrong. Perhaps
a 911 operator would have handled the situation better, perhaps not.
The fact is that with nomadic VoIP services, there is no
fool proof way (that I know of) of ensuring that the location information
associated with a 911 call will always be correct. I’ve given this subject a
lot of thought over the years because I have always been troubled by the
potential consequences. There are ways of addressing the problem, at least
partly, but none of them are perfect or for that matter, practical.
What follows are various methods of associating a caller
with a location:
Physical Connection
The telephony device is bound to a physical location. That’s
the situation with a POTS line; the regular telephone service from your
telephone company. The telephone is connected to a pair of wires which the
telephone company can accurately associate with an address and the address
never changes. In some cases a VoIP provider can use the same method but only
if they control the entire infrastructure associated with the service which is
the case with most cable companies.
Heartbeat
A VoIP provider can monitor the end device and detect a
possible change in location. If the device goes out of service and then comes
back into service with a different IP address, then it may indicate that the
device has been moved. The key word is “may” since there are many situations
where this could occur even if the device had not been moved. Still, the
service provider could configure the service so that under this circumstance, the
telephony user must confirm their address before the service is restored. There
are many problems with this approach including the scenario where a caller
connects a previously disconnected device and attempts to make a 911 call.
Insisting that the caller first confirm the address before the telephony
service is restored is not sensible in this circumstance!
Global Positioning
Systems
Imbed GPS receivers in the telephony devices. Besides the
fact that other components would be required to associate the GPS coordinates
with physical addresses this approach is not practical for at least two
reasons. The first is the cost associated with the GPS receivers. One can argue
that cost should not be a factor when it comes to public safety but the fact
remains that VoIP services will not exist if the economics don’t make sense.
The second problem with this approach is that GPS receivers simply don’t work
very well indoors. In fact in many situations they will be completely non
functional.
Conclusion
The death of this child is tragic. The fact that a
shortcoming of VoIP service may have played a role is also very troubling. It’s
not the first event of its kind and sadly, it likely won’t be the last.
However, the answer is not to shut down VoIP service providers - although I
suspect the Telcos would be in favour of that option!
I’m sure a practical solution will eventually emerge. In the meantime if you are VoIP customer ensure that the address information on file with your provider is accurate. Do it now!
Note:The 911 challenges discussed above relate to nomadic and residential VoIP or Internet Telephony services. When it comes to IP Telephony services for business, all of the E911 concerns can, and are routinely addressed satisfactorily.
Stumble It!
The effect of this change is just as serious as the anti-competitive, anti-choice, anti-innovative tactics of traffic shaping already being employed by Rogers and Bell. Traffic shaping and usage based billing models allow the service providers to inhibit services that are competitive to their own. And make no mistake, if unhindered they will do just that!
Once the mechanism are in place it will be easy for them to protect themselves from competing and innovative new services. If one was to advise service providers on how to limit competition, the following would be great suggestions:
- Are consumers choosing Internet Telephony services such as Vonage and Skype instead of your own? Randomly drop some of the competitors' packets. Problem solved!
- Are consumers listening to online radio broadcasts instead of your radio stations? No problem, just interfere with the audio stream. Problem solved!
- Are consumers dropping your TV service in favour of watching custom Internet video, based on their content and schedule preferences? We can't have that, now can we? Just introduce usage based billing. After the consumer gets a few $1,000 invoices the problem will be solved!
- Consumers complaining about your practices? Just tell them that it's for their own good. After all there is an "evil" 5% of Internet users that want to use the Internet for more than casual Web browsing and email. So you're real and noble intention, is that you want to protect the 95% of "good" Internet users. Problem solved!
- Don't mention the fact that for years, you've been reaping the profits of selling your services based on bandwidth that the vast majority of subscribers never used.
- Don't mention either that you realized that the demand for bandwidth was increasing but you chose to maximize profits instead of reinvesting in infrastructure.
- And finally, start inserting your own content into other unrelated Internet content and display it to your remaining "good" users to reinforce the message that you are in control of the Internet.
If a consumer calls to complain about your anti-competitive tactics do the following:
Immediately place the caller on hold while you laugh uncontrollably. After 30 minutes have passed and you have regained your composure, tell the caller that you will transfer the call to the complaints department and "accidentally" disconnect the call. Once the silly consumer calls back in, inform the complainer that in Canada, consumers have few if any alternative providers to choose from and that Bell and Rogers ensure that the same anti-competitive practices are imposed onto their competitors. Then sarcastically ask if you should transfer the call to the cancellation department.
If you care about the future of the Internet, your freedom to choose, innovation, competitiveness and affordability, I urge you to act now:
Contact the CRTC
Find and contact your Member of Parliament
Stumble It!
Canadians must keep up the pressure on service providers and government. I am cautious on regulatory interference but the lack of Net Neutrality has the potential of seriously limiting innovation, competitiveness, consumer choice and Canada's ability to effectively compete in the global marketplace. If consumer pressure and impending lawsuits are not successfull, then government must step in and force service providers to treat all traffic equally.
Stumble It!
The Calgary Herald is reporting that a toddler has died, and that delays in the response to a 911 call (initially made using a VoIP service) may have been a contributing factor in the child’s death. The Herald is reporting that 40 minutes passed from the time the original call was placed until emergency crews arrived. A 911 call was later placed from a neighbour’s home and emergency crews arrived within six minutes of that call.
My thoughts and condolences go out to the child’s family. What a tragic and sad event!
I will attempt to follow the story as investigators work to discover what may have gone wrong in the process. In the meantime I will not speculate on the circumstances surrounding this tragedy but I would like to make a few comments on residential VoIP based services in general.
What follows in an excerpt from an article I wrote previously on the risks associated with residential VoIP services:
Emergencies
Yes, it’s true that most VoIP
providers have E911 capabilities. However, in many instances, unlike your POTS
(Plain Old Telephone Service) service, your call does not terminate directly in
the E911 PSAP. Instead, it is directed to a call centre first, which in my
view, could potentially compromise the efficacy of the response. In addition,
as others have pointed out, unless your ATA has, or is plugged into, a backup
power supply, your VoIP service will be non-functional in a power outage. Even,
with ATA backup power, a power interruption might bring down the network
through which your VoIP service is delivered. Sure, most cable companies do
have UPS to protect their trunk and distribution amplifiers but the capacity
may be very limited which means that an extended and widespread outage will
almost certainly result in your VoIP service going down. In addition, the
reliability of the backup power is dependent on diligent maintenance, which is
a non-trivial and expensive challenge. My
In addition to the potential risks in the above excerpt, with many Internet Telephony Services, it is essential that the customer completes an address form so that the correct relationship between the assigned telephone number and the customer’s address is on record at the service provider. It should also be pointed out that with many free Internet Telephony services, that there is no mechanism for associating the origin of a 911 call with an address.
Since writing the article on the risks of residential VoIP services, I have discontinued my POTS line. However, I have done so with a full understanding of the risks.
In my view, residential VoIP providers do not provide sufficient information to consumers regarding the risks associated with depending on a VoIP service as a primary line. In fact, many of the VoIP providers promote the service in a way that would lead consumers to believe that when it comes to service reliability and E911, that their services is equivalent to POTS, which they are not.
Whether you are currently a VoIP subscriber or are considering discontinuing your POTS line and replacing it with a VoIP service, I urge you to read my article on the potential risks before you make your decision
If you need help to assess the risks, please leave a comment here and I will do my best to provide you with factual information.
Stumble It!
As part of a continuing series on Office Communications
Server 2007, this article will discuss the product's native telephony
capabilities.
As I've asserted many times, Unified Communications (UC) is an architecture
that may include many functional components, enablers and features. Presence,
Unified Messaging, Click-to-Dial, Simultaneous Ring, and mobility are just some
of the attributes that are often associated with UC. All of those play an
important role in UC but the core functional component of UC remains telephony.
In the context of this article, telephony refers to all of the features and
functionality associated with an enterprise-class business voice service.
Modern telephony services are now IP-based, either in the form of a
premise-based IP-PBX, a hosted IP Telephony service or various hybrid models.
When Microsoft announced the release of OCS in the fall of 2007 there were many
who claimed that it signaled the end of the PBX and that IP-PBX vendors such as
Cisco, Avaya, Nortel, NEC, Siemens, Mitel and others would be seriously
impacted by Microsoft's entry into the VoIP market. OCS does have VoIP
capabilities, but for most medium to large enterprise, the product's native
telephony features and functionally is inadequate. OCS can integrate with
IP-PBXs to provide the telephony requirements necessary for business. However,
the integration is not elegant (in most cases it must be done via media
gateways) and other than basic telephony features such as call origination and
transfer, the bulk of the enterprise telephony functionality will be provided
by the PBX; not OCS.
What follows is a partial list of telephony features and functionality required
(or expected) by most medium and large enterprise that are not available from a
standalone OCS solution:
E911
E911(as a telephony feature) refers to the ability of a telephony system to accurately identify the
location of the 911 caller and to accurately deliver that information to the
correct emergency dispatch location. That can be tricky in the world of IP
Telephony since IP Phones can easily be moved from one location to another.
However, there are proven and reliable ways to address the challenge. While
there are a variety of approaches, all major IP Telephony vendors have E911
functionality natively or have integrated 3rd party products into their
solutions.
In some cases, it is acceptable to have one or more analogue circuits to
provide E911 functionality. Also, an IP-PBX system installed in a small office
may not require E911 functionality if it is connected to the PSTN directly
since the telephone company would take care of the 911 location and routing
functionality.
However, in any large enterprise environment, E911 functionality is mandatory.
I've heard the argument that whether E911 functionality is required or not is
based on regulatory requirements for the location in question: nonsense! A
telephony architect or implementer has a moral responsibility to ensure that a
caller can place an emergency call when needed and that the call will be routed
to the correct location with the correct information.
SIP Trunking
IP Trunking, commonly referred to as SIP Trunking (since SIP has become the de facto
signaling protocol), is a relatively new method of connecting IP Telephony
systems to the PSTN. Traditionally, and still the most common approach, IP
Telephony systems are connected to the PSTN via Media Gateways. These devices
also known as IP Gateways, PSTN Gateways or VoIP Gateways, convert VoIP from
the IP Telephony system to ISDN or analogue circuits from the PSTN.
IP Trunking has many advantages, over the gateway approach including the fact
that it can improve the quality of voice calls by reducing, or eliminating,
conversions from one audio encapsulation method to another. Other advantages
are cost, eliminating points of failure, maintenance and other advantages which
I have listed in one of my previous articles on the subject.
Remote Survivability
Remote Survivability refers to the ability of a site, geographically separated
from centralized call control or PSTN connectivity or both, to remain
functional even if the site becomes isolated from the rest of the telephony
system. For example, if the network link between a branch office and the IP-PBX,
located at a company's head office is severed, the branch office may have a
requirement for telephony services to remain functional. The level of required
functionality will be dictated by the business requirements. IP-PBX vendors use a variety of methods
to provide remote survivability to their IP Telephony solutions which involves
distributing some, or all call processing functionality and PSTN connectivity.
Music on Hold
Most enterprises expect their telephony systems to play music, or some other
source of audio, to callers when placed on hold or when a call is transferred.
It is a basic functional component of any legacy or IP-PBX. In fact, most
enterprise systems support Music on Hold from a variety of sources and in some
cases, custom audio announcements whose content may be based on geographic
location or other criteria.
Hunt Groups
A common feature of a PBX is the ability to have incoming calls directed to a
queue where calls will be answered by agents based on a variety of criteria
including but not limited to first available agent, least busy agent, round
robin and others.
Attendant Console
While becoming less popular, many organizations still require that a live
person process all incoming calls for an organization or an enterprise
department. An Attendant Console will usually support many incoming calls and
will provide the attendant with visual and audio prompts and queues to aid in
the efficient processing of calls.
Admission Control
Admission Control allows a telephony system to refuse call attempts or to redirect
calls when it detects that insufficient network resources are available to
provide a quality voice path. I've heard Microsoft representatives make claims
that Call Admission Control is not required, but for the reasons discussed in
this previous article, I disagree.
Standards
One of the benefits IP Telephony systems is that many vendors support industry
standards such as SIP for signaling, and CODECS such as G.711 and G.729. While
not perfect, interoperability among vendors has been steadily improving for the
last several years. As a result it is now possible, for example to install an
IP-PBX from one vendor and select lower cost IP Phones from a different
vendor. Not so with Microsoft since they have chosen to implement their own
spin on SIP and have chosen their own proprietary CODEC called RTAudio. To date,
the only supported OCS phones are a model by Nortel/LG and a model by Polycom.
Neither phone supports LLDP-MED, a link discovery protocol that can play an important role with respect to VLAN, DHCP and Power over Ethernet configuration. The proprietary nature of the product also excludes the possibility of using 3rd party softphones such as the very popular X-Lite.
Geographic Diversity
A benefit for many large organizations deploying IP Telephony is that the
any-to-any nature of IP networks allows IP Telephony systems to be designed
with a high degree of redundancy by separating the call control functions
geographically. The business continuity benefits of such architecture can be
very compelling. OCS does not support geographic diversity.
Conclusion
I remember when Cisco first got into the telephony market approximately 10
years ago. Relative to the features and functionality available from TDM-based PBXs
(not to mention service quality and reliability), their product had minimal
functionality. As a result, it took many years of product development for their
IP Telephony product to move beyond the early adopters and into the mainstream
marketplace we see today.
Microsoft will, I am confident, continually improve their telephony
capabilities, but like Cisco, it won't happen overnight. Meanwhile, the IP-PBX
will remain alive and well for quite some time. And while Microsoft adds
telephony features to OCS, the PBX vendors will continue to evolve and improve
their own products; both from a telephony and an overall UC perspective.
The PBX is alive and well. And while it will continue to evolve, the PBX and
its leading vendors won't be disappearing any time soon.
Rick McCharles
Unified Communications Practice Principal
RIC Services,
Stumble It!
In my continuing attempts to provide some clarity for my clients and to hopefully achieve some level of industry consensus, I offer the following:
Let's start with dispelling some misconceptions. Unified Communications is NOT:
- VoIP
- SIP or SIP Trunking
- Unified Messaging
- Presence
- Click-to-Dial
- Mobility
- Fixed to Mobile Convergence
- IP Telephony
- IP-PBX
- IP Phones
- Softphones
- Analogue phones
- Instant Messaging
- An Icon That Display Availability Status
Definition of Unified Communications
An evolving communications technology architecture which automates and unifies all forms of human and device communications in context, and with a common experience. Its purpose is to optimize business processes and enhance human communications by reducing latency, managing flows, and eliminating device and media dependencies.
I appreciate that a five word definition would be easier to remember but it would not be accurate nor would it do UC justice with respect to its features and benefits. So while the definition is a little wordy, it conveys the complexity and tremendous benefits of UC which I hope to articulate as I dissect the definition in what follows:
Evolving
UC didn't begin with the emergence of the term a couple of years ago. UC has been evolving for many years. In fact, many of the concepts and functionality associated with UC such as simultaneous ring existed even before IP began to impact voice communications. Presence, a core and important component of a UC Architecture was part of some very early IP Telephony systems and has been around even longer in the form of Online / Offline Buddy status of Instant Messaging applications. UC will continue to increase its business value and enhance communications of all forms as it continues to evolve.
Architecture
UC is made up of multiple components. The applications, enablers and functionality listed earlier such as IP Telephony, Unified Messaging and Instant Messaging may all be parts of UC system. It also has an underlying design, purpose and structure; all of which in part, validate the architecture label.
Unifies
At the heart of UC is of course its unifying characteristics. A Unified Communications Architecture has the ability to unify communications of all forms including applications, machines and devices, voice, video, text, languages, as well as the old and the new. More details follow on the unification attributes and benefits.
Context
UC brings context into the world of communications. Context can be in a form that is already familiar to us such as "who's calling" with Caller ID. But UC can also provide context in other forms such as:
- What are you doing now? Communications is tailored according to your activities. For example, you may choose a small specific list of individuals that are allowed to contact you when your scheduling application detects that you are in a meeting.
- The device that you're using or the device in use by the person you are contacting. For example, the system could convert your text message to a voice message if the person you are calling, is currently using a voice device not capable of accepting text messages.
- Intelligent context-driven menus that provide prompts that are relevant to the device and in context with the communications event. For example when placing a voice call, the system could present the user with the option of leaving a text message instead of a voice message if the call is not answered.
Optimize Business Processes
In business, technology's purpose is to solve business problems. UC's ability to integrate communications with business applications, processes and workflows has the potential of producing tremendous business value. A well designed UC architecture can:
- Enable communications, in whatever form is appropriate, between different applications, applications and people, and just about any type of device or sensor you can imagine.
- Reduce human latency issues by automatically initiating communications whenever a workflow is stalled as it awaits human intervention or action.
While still in its early stages UC, through the use of standard protocols such as SIP, SIMPLE, SOAP and XML, is slowly being integrated into business applications such as CRM, ERP and HR. A basic integration example would be a supply-chain application that upon detecting an impeding inventory shortage, would automatically schedule and then initiate a conference call with all of the parties required to solve the problem.
For business, these integration capabilities are UC's most compelling benefits. For that reason, many CIO's and IT Directors are now incorporating UC into their long term IT strategy.
Enhance Human Communications
Imagine a future where you don't give a second thought about where the person you are attempting to contact might be, what communication device they are able (or prefer to use), and where phone numbers are irrelevant.
UC is about communications, not technology and devices. And for humans it promises to simplify the way in which we communicate. While still evolving UC will allow communications to become less device dependent and more people centric.
UC is moving towards a future where people will have a single identify (their name: not a phone number) across all communication devices and applications.
UC can empower users by giving them a great deal of granular control over why, when, and where they choose to communicate and with whom. For example a Doctor could elect to only allow certain individuals to contact her on weekends and perhaps refuse all calls while in the operating room.
UC can also bridge demographic gaps based on age, culture and language. One of many examples is where an interpreting application converts from one language to another in real time. That may sound like the stuff of Star Trek, but that kind of functionality is being built into systems today.
Reduce Latency & Manage Flows
Latency reduction was discussed earlier in the context of business processes. But UC can reduce latency in other ways. For example, First Contact Resolution refers to the ability of a UC system to establish a communications session with the first available person based on role or expertise.
UC can also seamlessly manage media and communication modes. An IM session that segues into a telephone conversation and then later into a multi party video conference would be one example.
Simultaneous and Sequential Ring is a common feature and significant benefit of UC where the system rings multiple devices and automatically detects which device answers the call and establishes the communications path.
Eliminate Media & Device Dependencies
One of the benefits of UC is that it has the potential of abstracting away the device and technology characteristics of how we communicate. Why should a user be concerned about which device the party being contacted is using? After all, the caller is attempting to call a person, not a device. Let the UC system take care of figuring out the mechanisms by which the called party will be notified of the call request.
Conclusion
You may have noticed that, when describing UC's features and benefits, that I qualify many of my statements with "potential, may, can, promises, etc". I temper the potential benefits because while many of the features and benefits are available today, many more are still evolving. More importantly, business requirements must be well understood and a Unified Communications Architecture must be intelligently designed and implemented in order to realize and maximize its potential benefits.
There's a lot of hype and confusion about Unified Communications. I am passionate about the industry, the innovation that will result, its potential to enhance the way we communicate and its business value. However, its important to separate hype from reality and to establish some level of consensus on what defines Unified Communications. I hope this article has helped in that regard.
Rick McCharles
Unified Communications Practice Principal
RIC Services, Toronto, Ontario Canada
Stumble It!
OCS is a Unified Communications (UC) product that integrates with Microsoft applications. It provides voice, presence, web/audio/video conferencing and integration with messaging systems. OCS can also integrate with PBXs, both TDM and IP-PBX. The introduction of OCS in the fall of 2007 created a lot of market hype and in my view, confusion. Microsoft marketing did a great job of capturing media attention and giving the impression that OCS was a revolutionary new communications technology and that enterprise communications, from that point forward, would be transformed forever. So effective was the marketing campaign, that some large organizations halted their VoIP migration planning in order to consider how OCS might alter their strategy.
The intent of this article and more that will follow, is to separate hype from reality so that you can make informed decisions about UC and how OCS should fit into your UC strategy. This first in this series of OCS articles discusses the topics of Call Admission Control (CAC) and Quality of Service (QoS).
Call Admission Control and Quality of Service – Short Tutorial
In the context of telephony, CAC refers to a telephony system's ability to decide whether a call request should be allowed or not. In the world of IP Telephony, VoIP is the common method of transporting voice. Analogue voice is converted to a digital from, encapsulated in IP packets, and then transported across a data network. A data network is made of a series of network links all of which have limits with respect to the amount of data they can carry at any give time. When a network link is oversubscribed, devices responsible for sending the data across the links will randomly drop data, which is what they are designed to do.
Quality of Service (QoS) mechanisms can be designed into networks to ensure that during periods of congestion, certain types of data will get priority over others. In IP Telephony implementations, voice and telephony-signaling data packets are marked with a priority label that informs routers that, in the event of congestion, that they should give priority to the telephony packets. However, if the amount of prioritized traffic exceeds a links capacity, then the router has no choice but to randomly drop even this high priority traffic. If the high priority traffic is telephone conversations then the quality of all calls will be affected, not just the call that exceeded the links capacity. This is where CAC steps in to avoid this situation.
CAC approaches vary but in all cases it consists of the system not allowing more calls than a resource can support. The most robust method will, in real-time, discover the available bandwidth available across the entire path of a proposed new call, then decide if the call should be allowed, and reserve the resource for the duration of the call. If insufficient resources are available the system can refuse the call or send the call across a backup path (like a PSTN gateway). More basic systems require a human to configure the system in advance with the maximum number of calls that should be allowed across a particular network path regardless of how much of the resource is available at the time of the call request.
Some of the arguments that I've heard, usually from vendors that don't support CAC, is that a network can be engineered in advance so that the over subscription problem never occurs (design for worst case). For a number of reasons, that approach is not practical in large enterprise environments. For one thing, bandwidth is not free. Second large IP networks are often designed so that automatic rerouting can occur during failures. In many instances the backup links will have less bandwidth than the primary links. So, a system designed to allow a certain number of calls based on a primary link's bandwidth could over subscribe a backup link.
OCS Support for QoS and CAC
While OCS does support marking voice payload packets for priority network treatment (DiffServ through DSCP) that functionality is not enabled by default. OCS has no Call Admission Control functionality. Microsoft claims that QoS and CAC are not required to ensure voice quality in an OCS environment. Microsoft uses a proprietary CODEC called RTAudio. The RTAudio codec is designed to detect network congestion or quality issues and to modify its bandwidth requirement accordingly. Also, the CODEC has an algorithm that allows it to send multiple duplicate packets to increase the probability that packets will arrive at their destination when network problems are encountered. As a result Microsoft argues that QoS and CAC are not required.
In my view, that logic is fine for Internet Telephony solutions. That is, if you’re transporting voice traffic across the Internet, then a CODEC that modifies its data usage and sends multiple copies of packets, makes sense. When transporting VoIP across the Internet, QoS markings will be ignored. In addition, there is no practical way of detecting in advance of call setup whether sufficient bandwidth is available along the entire call path. Even if one could determine that in advance, there is no way of ensuring that the desirable network conditions will persist for the duration of the call. And, if the fact that your throwing more packets at the problem, adversely affects other Internet traffic, who cares? One has little or no control of network conditions of random source and destination paths across the Internet. So it makes sense to use whatever means are at your disposal to ensure that your traffic gets through, and there is no point in employing mechanisms that won't make any difference.
But that logic does not fly in enterprise class telephony environments. First, while it is true that the RTAudio CODEC adjusts its bandwidth usage based on network conditions, it does not accomplish this instantaneously and therefore voice quality may be affected during the transition period since the algorithm starts with the assumption that there are no network issues. Secondly, while the CODEC can reduce its bandwidth usage, it does not reduce it to zero. When not using redundancy, the CODEC can reduce its consumption from 45Kb/s to 15Kb/s. Additionally, redundancy (sending multiple packet copies) may exacerbate a network congestion issue and potentially adversely affect competing enterprise traffic.
Additionally, what if WAN link is heavily congested? Should the system continue to process all requests across that link, even if the RTAudio CODEC is not able to compensate sufficiently to ensure adequate quality? With no CAC capability, this is exactly what OCS would do in that situation. Also, what if the business requirements dictate that a high fidelity CODEC is mandatory? The OCS approach would not be able to meet this requirement under congested network conditions. A properly engineered QoS solution with associated CAC however, could.
Conclusion
An IP Telephony solution, including OCS, when deployed in a typical large enterprise environment, cannot practically guarantee consistent voice quality without incorporating QoS and CAC mechanisms, end of story.
Notice, I did qualify the above statement with the word “practically”. It’s possible to engineer almost any technology deployment, no matter how deficient the technology may be, if one is free to ignore practical constraints such as business requirements, cost, manageability and scalability.
Rick McCharles
Unified Communications Practice Principal
RIC Services, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Stumble It!
