From: gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net   
      
   On 5/29/22 2:51 PM, Bill Horne wrote:   
   > Why would the bells hate the Internet?   
      
   I don't /know/ why.  But I have a few speculations:   
      
     - Not Invented Here (bells)   
     - Bells tended to be EXTREMELY /circuit/ switched, which is   
       diametrically opposed to /packet/ switched.   
     - Bet on the wrong horse.   
     - Had to double down on any of the above.   
      
   > To be sure, their business model was built around central offices   
   > which each served a rate center, but how could they have predicted   
   > and/or anticipated the development of VoIP? Did Mother Bell see /any/   
   > data transmission method as a threat? Why?   
      
   I think it would be rather naive to think that /nobody/ saw the   
   possibility of the Internet making things over a disparate distance   
   equal cost to access vs the distance based billing of local vs long   
   distance.   
      
   > I wonder why? What was so different between the business models of   
   > the 1990's and those of the 2020's that Centrex would no longer   
   > be a cost-saver for firms which chose to use it?   
      
   I don't know of /any/ /single/ ILEC employee ever talking about   
   Centrex.  I think they had decided that Centrex was an unwanted step   
   child by the 2000s when I was working on phone systems (PBXs / KSUs /   
   ""Smart (read: dumb) phones / multi-line POTS).  If I had known about   
   Centrex and the pricing would have been acceptable, I probably would   
   have done more with it.   
      
   > Granted, the Coronavirus has caused a reexamination of work-at-home as   
   > a viable real-estate strategy, but I think the /time/ spent on dialing,   
   > connecting, and suffering with the shortcomings of cellular calls,   
   > like picket-fencing, fading, disconnecting, and - last but far from   
   > least - being easily tapped by anyone with an antenna ana a few items   
   > of listening equipment.   
      
   I don't do enough on cell to be able to comment.  But I can say that   
   my recent messing with ISDN vs POTS in my house, the call connection   
   speed of ISDN is -- in a word -- /amazing/ to me compared to POTS.   
      
   > I'm afraid comparing IP-based telephony to ISDN PRI links is the   
   > ultimate race-to-the-bottom in voice communicaiton. As far as I can   
   > tell, the only thing that makes SIP or VoIP or /any/ Internet-based   
   > real-time service - don't forget streaming video - viable is a surplus   
   > of bandwidth which will, inevitably, decline as paid-prioritization   
   > methods and equpment take hold.   
      
   I think that VoIP /across/ /the/ /Internet/ is a questionable idea at   
   best.  I also think that VoIP technology across the LAN is a very good   
   technology.  Especially if you have the LAN switches that can isolate   
   & prioritize VoIP.   
      
   With this in mind, both ISDN PRI and VoIP are communications protocols   
   which imply an underlying network.  The former seems to be a vertical   
   market while the latter seems to be used ~> abused for anything and   
   everything.   
      
   I'm aware of some larger SIP trunks, which have supplanted ISDN PRI   
   trunks, that are using dedicated access circuits.  As such the   
   dedication means that there will always be sufficient bandwidth.   
      
   --   
   Grant. . . .   
   unix || die   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)