In response to my post on one of Telio’s claim, Martin posted a comment that in my opinion lists why some of the claims against PSTN are justified. Since my response is a bit long to be a reply comment I am posting it as an entry. If you consider this post to be argumentative, please bear with me. I feel that it is important to discuss this point and reach a common understanding.
Let me reproduce Martin’s comment for ease of reference:
Technically, yes ... but if we take "PSTN" to be the wider system, including the pricing models, interconnect, settlement, etc -- then we can see that progress is basically impossible. How to get consensual agreement on a new feature being deployed? There's no possibility of incremental exploration of features that impact 2 calling parties, for example. A Vonage, Skype or PhoneGnome do allow such innovation (although not all choose to execute on it). Also, VoIP does make it technically simpler to unbundle the components of the service (e.g. select your own voicemail) - it's just a different URI in the config file, not a software update to a thousand switches needing a ton of systems management.That said, it is amazing how feeble the telcos have been in improving the voice product, even when in vigorous competition (e.g. in cellular).
The comment does point out that "step-child treatment" is meted out to PSTN by current thought leaders: “it might be technically feasible to do something in PSTN but business processes will not allow it”; “it may not be happening in VoIP, but it is technically feasible”. There is another instance of difference in how PSTN and VoIP are evaluated: in the case of VoIP, it is tacitly assumed that we will be using an "inexpensive" consumer device apart from a monthly charge; but PSTN will have to assume the old "12+1" button phone and any indication of monthly charge will be considered highway robbery.
One can justifiably characterize PSTN attempts in adding services to be feeble. Let us first tip our hat to ADSI phones and Verizon’s iobi. But then having done that, let us without even a pause challenge VoIP providers to deploy meaningful, differentiating services – not just the usual “do not disturb”s.
So I implore you to be true advocates of the end consumers by: 1. not discarding a technology that can still deliver useful value; 2. insisting on VoIP to deliver what can be done, rather than being satisfied that it can do it; 3. intolerantly complaining when an intermediary is introduced, especially by a member of the VoIP industry who is at the same time espousing “intelligence at the end” credo.
Posted by aswath at June 4, 2006 09:41 AM
OK, here goes...
First, I agree that there's far more to be technically wrung out of the PSTN -- although I'm dubious we'll see much of it. iobi was probably the last gasp, bar the FMC bust of activity that most users won't care about very much. Delivering a bit of goodness to lots of people is every bit as honorable as delivering a ton to a small set of folk.
The problems of the PSTN run deep. By bolting connectivity to service, operators tend to be geographically aligned. My wife and her parents don't get the same service provider because they don't life in the same country. A market-aligned provider will be able to target new functionality to people who have some need in common. The PSTN is more like a set of supermarkets -- the first catering to people who came in Toyotas or Lexuses, the second for Fords, Volvos and Jaguars, etc. The users don't have enough in common to make any one new feature have enough mass appeal.
Also, the moment any new feature requires any new sort of signalling or media, or involves a 3rd party, it's game over for innovation from the edge. The examples listed are pretty much all you'll ever see. We've mined out the technical envelope of pure 'edge innovation' for the PSTN.
That's probably why so many of us seceeded at the first chance to Skype, which gave us more of the functions we wanted in one simple, integrated, free package.
Posted by: Martin Geddes at June 4, 2006 01:51 PM