IP Convergence: Beyond VoIP, Beyond Cost Savings

Monday I had the pleasure of re-connecting with a former professor of mine, Nolan Bowie. He was gracious enough to allow me to guest lecture his class which focuses on the future of communications media and the intersection with public policy. I was honored to be asked to share my experiences and insights with such a diverse and eclectic group of truly gifted students.

It was extremely refreshing to engage with Professor Bowie whose ideas are both provocative and conventional at the same time. His ideas are provocative because they challenge the established interests in fundamental ways. But his ideas are conventional because they simply take established policy in one area and apply it in another. For example, just putting the label “national security” on something can dramatically change the way people address a concern. If economic competitiveness is a matter of national security and broadband deployment is a critical component of economic competitiveness, then massive government investment in broadband infrastructure doesn’t seem all that radical, and in fact seems down right conventional.

One of the reasons I was eager to guest lecture was to put forth the idea that the regulatory decision-making process is an obstacle to competition and that these future policy makers at the JFK School of Government need to consider how the decision making process impacts competitors and their service offerings. I have authored a paper on this topic which I will present at the 17th Biennial Conference of the International Telecommunications Society in Montreal on June 25th. (The paper should be on their website after May 5th for those of you interested in reading it.)

My day started with a 7am flight, followed by a soon to be customer visit,  I then presented a
IPv6 state-of-the-union  perspective at a Futurenet panel discussion along with John Curran Chairman of ARRIN,  and Todd Underwood of NANOG. And ended the day with the Massnetcomms 2008 award dinner.

The highlight of my day was at the award dinner, I had the pleasure of meeting Dr. Vanu Bose (he is the son of the founder of Bose) who was honored with the most innovative product of the year.  Vanu has developed a software controlled radio that can operate across many deployed mobile standards .  Instead of fork lifting hardware,  you change the software and mobile operators can efficiently rollout new wireless protocols.  Kinda like adding a new application on your PC.

I think everyone has at least one horror story about navigating through an Interactive Voice Recognition (IVR) menu over the phone.  You know what I am referring to...those “Press one for this, press two for that”.   One example of the miserable part about these systems is when you have to listen through the entire thing only to find out that the option you need isn’t an option at all –OR- when someone (usually my kids) talks to you during the recording and you miss some options (most likely the one that you needed!), so you have to listen to the entire announcement again.  This, my friends, is IVR hell.  Well I just stumbled upon a company that is addressing IVR hell head on, and with a whole bunch of ingenuity mind you…

Fonolo has created a novel concept.  They have transcribed the menu prompts of the major destinations – meaning they created a visual tree of the IVR menu structure, and you can navigate it online via clicking through the options.  Then you input all the information necessary.  Once all the inputs are registered by Fonolo from you, then Fonolo will place the call and automatically get you to the point that you need to be in the IVR menu.  This point may end up being on hold for a human, but just think of all the time you have saved just getting to that point.


Adam "voiploser" Uzelac

DISCLAIMER: The comments here are mine only. They don't necessarily reflect intelligence, refined thoughts, or anything that the reader should take too seriously. Should the reader expect a polished thought process in the content addressed here, then a strong dose of medication should be prescribed to address that misconception.

Click here for the SIP 4.0 IETF Draft!

Be sure to note date of posting...

Adam "voiploser" Uzelac

DISCLAIMER: The comments here are mine only. They don't necessarily reflect intelligence, refined thoughts, or anything that the reader should take too seriously. Should the reader expect a polished thought process in the content addressed here, then a strong dose of medication should be prescribed to address that misconception.

Of the more interesting developments that are emerging as SIP  technologies and products mature is the changing context that Enterprises’ IT organizations operate in.  Historically, telecommunications has been defined and provided to the marketplace by Service Providers like Global Crossing, Level 3, BT, etc.  The requirements needed to formulate an offering were provided by SPs to the manufacturers of the platforms (Cisco, Juniper, etc).  Things are changing rapidly on this front though.   Enterprises in some cases are bigger in many aspects of the definition than some smaller traditionally defined Service Providers.  In my humble opinion, this warrants of new definition of the Enterprise.  The Enterprise is the newest category of a Service Provider. 

With regards to SIP, there is ample evidence of its adoption in the Enterprise marketplace and vendors that have catered directly to Enterprises have taken heed.  As examples, see Microsoft’s, Siemens’, Cisco’s, Avaya’s adoption of SIP in their product portfolios.

The impact of this is an overall decentralization of the Enterprise communications environment that leads to a more collaborative workforce.  If you need some examples, think of the IM communications in support of standard telephony and email infrastructures.  Nowadays in our MS OCS/Exchange environment at Global Crossing, when I read an email – I not only have the ability to reply, but IM or click to call in response. This is all handled via a single user interface.  This form of collaboration is _NOT_ dependant on the traditional services that Global Crossing provides. (with the exception of the underlying IP transport), but rather the infrastructure is supported by our internal IT department.  By the way, this is all decentralization is enabled with SIP.

Adam “voiploser” Uzelac

DISCLAIMER: The comments here are mine only. They don’t necessarily reflect intelligence, refined thoughts, or anything that the reader should take too seriously. Should the reader expect a polished thought process in the content addressed here, then a strong dose of medication should be prescribed to address that misconception.

The release of ”The Diverse and Exploding Digital Universe”, a report produced by IDC and sponsored by EMC, is fascinating on several levels. First, the fact that someone is trying to quantify the digital universe is an interesting and welcome exercise. Second, the extent to which the size of the digital universe is consumer generated is gratifying. Third, the extent to which enterprises exercise control over digital content is disconcerting. Fourth, the growth of your “digital shadow” as IDC calls it is more than disconcerting. And fifth, you realize after reading the report that we have not developed any coherent public policy to govern the digital universe.

To the first point, putting aside the obvious self interest EMC has in publicizing the extent of digital storage, it is a very useful exercise to capture the growth of the digital universe. Information is the key to successful management and studies such as these add to our understanding of the broader trends and dynamics taking place in the digital universe.

The second point and third points are in reaction to this statement in particular –

"While 70% or more of the digital universe is created,
captured, or replicated by individuals — consumers and
desk and information workers toiling far away from the
datacenter — enterprises, at some point in time, have
responsibility or liability for 85%."

It is great to see that individuals are the primary generators of digital content and that the production of digital content is not concentrated in the hands of the few. This makes sense since the tools required to generate digital content are much more democratic than the tools of the last century. Today someone with a computer, web camera and an iPod can create halfway decent content. Add in an actual video camera and some editing and mixing software and you can pretty much create high-quality content that used to require full-blown production studios. Now you can simply upload that content to the Internet whereas in the past you had to either be a broadcaster, publisher or movie distributor.

The scary part is that 85% of that content falls under the control of enterprises at some point. While for the most part these enterprises have refrained from exerting control over the content there have been cases where they have tried. The good news is those attempts largely failed. The bad news is they only failed because they became public and public opinion was quickly marshaled against the efforts. That is not a sustainable process in the long term and soon enough the public is going to grow tired of these spontaneous crusades.

Where things start to get scary is the notion of a “digital shadow”. As defined in the IDC report, your digital shadow consists of “digital images of you on a surveillance camera and records in banking, brokerage, retail, airline, telephone, and medical databases. It is information about Web searches and general backup data. It is copies of hospital scans. In other words, it is information about you in cyberspace. Your digital shadow, if you will.”

IDC estimates that your digital shadow comprises roughly half of your digital footprint. In other words, half of your digital footprint consists of content you created and half consists of information about you that is collected from a multitude of sources. It is this latter aspect, and particularly the ability to aggregate that information, that really scares me whether such aggregation is performed by enterprises or government.

Which brings me to my last point. There is no coherent public policy governing the generation, transfer, use, and disposal of digital information. European regulators have made some attempts in this area, most notably with the Directive 95/46/EC on the protection of personal data as well as Directive 2006/24/EC on the “retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC.” Nothing comparable exists in the U.S. unless you count the disclosure statutes of numerous states.

What concerns me is that the approach of the U.S. government is to encourage enterprises to establish their own policies that they will enforce through the control they exert over 85% of the consumer-generated content. These policies will serve the enterprises well and give them access to a treasure-trove of personal information that they can do with largely as they please especially if they share it with law enforcement. This Administration’s efforts to collect calling data and credit card data attest to that.

But what about consumers? Don’t they have a right to this information? Indeed, don’t they have a property right in their information? In the United States we allow citizens to kill an intruder in our home. Shouldn’t we have some equivalent right (albeit less severe) for intruders into our digital “home”? What we are seeing develop is an information gap between what enterprises know about their customers versus what customers know about enterprises. A similar gap is widening between what the government knows about you and you about your government. That gap has to be closed and the quickest and most complete way to do that is to acknowledge the property interest that individuals have in their digital information. Once acknowledged, we can then begin to apply traditional property law and policies and close the information gap that is widening all too fast.

I had the opportunity to present the latest message from Global Crossing in support of Unified Communications.  On March 27th, I attended a panel discussion at Sun Microsystem's Boston campus for masnetcomms.org and on March 28th I presented at a Global Crossing VoIP seminar in Cleveland.

My massnetcomms presentation was focused on the technology enablers (Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP), XML, Service Oriented Architecture, Price performance of general purpose computers , Software As a Service model, Network Convergence (IP and access),  Protocol Convergence (SIP)) that have created the opportunity for Unified Communication adoption.  Unified communications is not a new concept, it’s about 10 years old and really never took off.  The early UC models were all hardware centric with specialized devices and lacked seamless integration into your desktop.  However today,  companies like Microsoft have taken a software only architecture that leverages their installed base of email (exchange) and identity (Active Directory) into realizing a seamless experience on my desktop.

In Cleveland,  I shifted the discussion to a more network centric message and highlighted our internal IT success in deploying Microsoft OCS . Global Crossing’s internal IT team began the road to Unified Communications in 2003 when we deployed Cisco VoIP handsets . 

The 2003 VoIP deployment was an important milestone in that both the network (LAN, WAN) and operations (Voice vs. Network team)  had to come together and provide a reliable and consistent transport for Voice, Video and Data. This is an excellent example of IP convergence providing a solid foundation for our subsequent deployment of Unified Communications. 

In 2005 Global Crossing deployed Live Communications System (LCS)  (LCS is the predecessor to Office Communications System (OCS) ) and in 2006 our first deployment in support of Microsoft OCS beta.  Global Crossing was one of 72 companies supporting the beta and tap phases of OCS  and in October 2007 supported Microsoft with their OCS  launch in San Francisco.

What we are experiencing is that not only can OCS provide unparalleled  integration into our desktop environments, but more importantly business transformation as it is now embedded into our workflow, sales portals and company directory.  We are able to work more efficiently , with better communications which will add to a better customer experience.

But the deployment of Unified Communications didn’t start in 2005 when we deployed LCS, it actually started in 2003 when we began deployment of a converged network.

At both presentations the message reasonated with other industry leaders and customers. Clearly IP and network convergence provides the foundation for a successful deployment of Unified Communications.

While visiting with several individuals a few weeks ago at the Ziff Davis Unified Communications Summit in Seattle, WA I noticed that some people hadn't yet realized the power of one aspect to the overall value of unified communications which relates to presence awareness. That is leveraging presence not just in instant messaging but in other communication vehicles can play an important role in transforming your business impact as an IT organization. As a result I thought I would dedicate this post to help create ideas around things that can be done to assist in helping IT in leading the way.

Here at Global Crossing in an attempt to leverage this core components of Unified Communications in an ongoing effort to incorporate the advantages of collaborative, converged services within our enterprise we've transformed internal applications from static non presence aware to anticipatory engaged communication tools that are supporting contextual collaboration with presence-awareness throughout the enterprise. In this instance presence-awareness (whether someone is available in simple terms and how to contact) is utilizing capabilities including chat, computer-based telephony, conferencing, IP video, and e-mail across tools that leveraged across the enterprise drive in principle more efficacy from consumption and corresponding execution. In fact it is my opinion that since presence has been embedded into our application infrastructure to enhance our collaborative capabilities it is natural to see transformational improvements occur around our "quality of experience" associated to the overall user experience. This is so because enabling enhanced customer experience truly enables the IT organization to drive one more component to our IT organizations transformational success in enabling the business to not only "react" but be proactive by achieving extensibility required within the distribution transparency model required for execution. Said another way the fact that presence awareness has been integrated into our application infrastructure means this action will further enhance our agility to enhance operational efficiency by allowing application "pivots" to be present thus accelerating communication by eliminating in some instances serial cognitive task execution.

As the industry landscape continues to evolve there are a few constants that will remain the same: (1) increasing business demands require more innovative, transformational capabilities between employees, partners and customers and (2) continually driving operational velocity reductions around the cost basis of delivering information technology services is imperative. It is commonly believed by many vendors such as Avaya, Cisco, Intel, Nortel and Siemens as well as software developers such as IBM and Microsoft that presence technology will continue to become an increasingly important tool at driving traditional costs out by attacking the serial nature of traditional work execution thus increasing operational efficiency.

So why is presence so important to Unified Communication services? Presence is important because it can become the intelligent communication application for converged IP communication services such as those demonstrated by our IT organization at Global Crossing. Determining where a user is and how best to reach them in our case by leveraging presence enabled applications that have been integrated into our infrastructure with the "glue" to increase the overall value of our converged IP services brought to the table and help realize substantial business transformation value.Said another way presence-aware applications offered on a converged IP communication service help evolve traditional serial actions of quickly determining and thus engaging with employees regardless of location, modality or scheduling which allows our globally dispersed users to communicate and collaborate in real time providing productivity in a truly global and mobile workforce environment. Combined converged IP communication services with presence technology provide for accelerated collaboration between our employees, partners and customers by knocking down the walls of traditional serial communications and by accelerating communication through anticipatory engagement.

Presence is the value.

The impact of the Open Source movement on VoIP is strong and continues....

Some of the tools that we use and/or tested with here at GC are included, for example SER, Asterisk and one that's not on the list SIPP.

Top 50 Open Source VoIP Apps

Adam "voiploser" Uzelac

DISCLAIMER: The comments here are mine only. They don't necessarily reflect intelligence, refined thoughts, or anything that the reader should take too seriously. Should the reader expect a polished thought process in the content addressed here, then a strong dose of medication should be prescribed to address that misconception.

With the release of ”Networked Nation: Broadband in America 2007”, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (“NTIA”) takes credit for largely achieving President Bush’s 2004 goal of “universal, affordable broadband access for all Americans.” Not to be too cynical, but NTIA’s claim is akin to Hank Morgan’s claim that he caused the solar eclipse in Mark Twain’s A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court.

First, the methodology by which NTIA reaches its conclusion is spurious at best. But I shouldn’t be too harsh on NTIA since they are simply following the FCC’s methods. You see, NTIA makes it claim because “broadband service was available in 99 percent of the nation’s zip codes, encompassing 99 percent of the nation’s population.” If one person in a zip code has broadband service, the FCC counts the entire zip code as having broadband access. So by this methodology it isn’t too hard to claim success.

Second, increased broadband penetration was inevitable and would have occurred regardless of public policy. Broadband penetration occurred at a rate that surpassed all previous consumer electronics. In a September 2007 survey, Pew Internet found that broadband was adopted by a majority of consumers faster than other technologies. Broadband took 10 years to break 50% adoption, followed by the CD Player at 10.5 years, the VCR at 14 years, cell phones took 15 years, color TVs took 18 years, as did the personal computer.

So was this adoption due to Administration policy or because consumers know a good thing when they see one?

Third, this Administration considers bandwidth speeds of 200 kbs to constitute “broadband.” 200 kbs may be “Rubenesque” among narrowband speeds, but it hardly counts as broadband, especially when you consider the speeds available around the world. And when you look at actual speeds that U.S. consumers enjoy, the picture is even grimmer. The Communications Workers of America (an obviously self-interested source) produced a report last year showing the median download speed in the United States is 1.9 Mbps, compared with 61 Mbps in Japan, 45 Mbps in South Korea, 21 Mbps in Finland, 18 Mbps in Sweden, and 7.6 Mbps in Canada. And of course U.S. consumers pay far more per megabit than residents in these other countries. According to the OECD, the average price per advertised Mbit/s of connectivity in the OECD is USD $18. Japan, France, Sweden, Korea and Finland have the least expensive offers per Mbit/s
o Japan: USD $0.13
o France : USD $0.33
o Sweden: USD $0.35
o Korea: USD $0.38
o Finland: USD $0.42

So what exactly is there for this Administration to take credit for? Did their policies stimulate broadband penetration, increase broadband speeds, and reduce broadband prices or like Hank Morgan are they simply taking credit for a phenomenon that was already happening over which they had no influence?