I came across some very kind passages regarding my book, Switching to VoIP.  This first one contrasts my book with the VoIP for Dummies book. He also mentions “Asterisk: The Future of Telephony”, for which I provided O’Reilly a technical review. That’s an awesome book, too.

This book is focused on the key elements of telephony and the migration to VOIP – primarily as a cost saving measure. The first 2/3 of the book deal with the VOIP technology – as an adjunct to and eventual replacement for traditional (legacy) telephony. By the 2/3 point, the author is talking about cost analysis, benefits and justification.

I would more likely title this book “VOIP for management”. This is not a put-down or insult, as the book’s primary objective is to educate the mostly non-technical person on what VOIP is, and how it might best fit into an existing picture, and one moving forward.

Being primarily technical myself, this book was good as a preliminary introduction to a subject that I wasn’t familiar with – but I immediately moved on to the O’Reilly books on the subject – “Switching to VOIP” by Ted Wallingford and “Asterisk” (Leif Madsen, et al). Someone who is responsible for managing such a transition would find it much more useful than I did.

Also, Tech PRose was kind enough to add Signal Noise as a favorite telecom blog.

A patent I worked on about three years ago, issued to an intellectual property investment firm named C2, has been the subject of a successful lobbying effort by the EFF (the essential left-wing of the Internet power structure).  The patent covers Voice over IP technology, and references transport and signaling methods for a telephone system that runs congruently with a data network.

This patent, and several like it, weren’t necessarily held by inventors, as I learned a years back, is not at all uncommon.  Patent investors, who are typically intellectual property attorneys, underwrite the investments in patents like the C2 one, and then derive income from their ownership over the patent certificate, either by licensing technology, by selling the patent, or by suing for damages on infringement of the patent inclusive of the intellectual property.

I know this particular patent and the family of about two dozen dangerously similar patents because I was retained by a San Francisco law firm for about six months trying to help them sort the patents out and translate them into plain-English for some white-haired, Harvard-educated attorney (or judge) to understand.  I still have a copy of the patent sitting in my drawer.

The real problem with this family of patents, which’ve been issued to everybody from C2 to Verizon to Joe Six Pack, is that they all overlap significantly in terms of the processes or inventions they describe.  What’s worse, they all describe the same essential process of packetizing audible information and transmitting over a non-circuit-switched network.  Indeed, these patents aren’t just similar. When you boil them down to their essentials, they’re largely identical.

And this is one problem the Electronic Frontier Foundation is fighting.  If the Patent and Trademark Office is Issuing patents that cover the same process or technology theory to different parties at roughly the same time (all of these patents were either pending or granted from 1988 until roughly 2003), it really makes you wonder if the patent review teams at PTO are operating in independent vacuums, or if the processes described really are too technical for the PTO to comprehend.

The EFF would probably say that the PTO hasn’t been particularly effective since The Flying Nun was popular.  And, to the degree I find it practical, I agree with the EFF.  But I disagree with their operating theory that patent law is more flawed than effective because it stifles innovation.  The GNU/Open Source movement is the shrill cry of software populism, and I appreciate that deeply, even if I don’t believe software “wants to be free”. Haha.

And for all its heroism, Open Source is also the linchpin of poor quality assurance, the opposite thinking of service level agreements, and the lasting symbol of a sort of techno-hippyism that has lost its way while the corporate world, where all this technology is utilized, took GNU’s good ideas and left its mission behind.   That is, for every stifled innovation credited to the PTO, I can name two that occurred because of ownership of intellectual property by motivate, equipped organizations like Microsoft and IBM.   The EFF and the Open Source community are less equipped and less motivated to innovate because their feet aren’t being held to the bottom line fire.

The PTO just needs to get better at understanding inventions.  My idea, put them in the hands of motivated companies that can do something with them, and get the attorneys out of the patent investment business.  If they want to profit from innovation, let them buy stock like the rest of us.

It’s no secret Ma Bell isn’t happy with “upstarts” like Google Voice elbowing into their turf. The VoIP FUD machine, fueled by the telecom industry’s status quo, has been running on full blast for the last ten years, even to the extent that, until recently anyway, I was willing to concede that Ma Bell had won.

Now that AT&T has begun to ring the FCC about it’s dissatisfaction with certain players whose VoIP apps have gained momentum–chief among them Google Voice–the overwhelming debate between players in the Internet and telecom fields is now an out-front, obvious affair.  This is due, I suppose, to Google’s use of very frank, conversational techniques–like blogging–in defending its policy positions and in describing its products or advances.

Ultimately, Google is arguing that AT&T would like the FCC to regulate that all VoIP apps that originate or terminate calls on the PSTN–Skype and Google Voice, both mentioned in Google’s rebuttle–be treated like phone lines, and idea that Google and I both agree is silly.

I vote for getting rid of the term “phone line” altogether.  Where the app can’t be separated from the transport (as in a phone line), leave the existing regulations (and taxes) in place.  But as that paradigm dies, so should the regulations intended to take advantage of its popularity.

Truphone announced its Truphone Anywhere application for Android mobile handsets, including the recently released G1 phone. The application is available now as a download on the Android Market in the U.K. and the U.S.

To coincide with T-Mobile’s announcement earlier this week of the availability of the G1 mobile phone in March 2009, a German version of Truphone Anywhere for Android is available and will be the first native language multi-communications application in the Android Market in Germany and Austria when it launches at CeBIT 2009.

As well as being able to make low-cost international voice calls, Truphone customers can also easily instant-message their friends across a variety of networks including MSN, Yahoo!, Google Talk and Twitter from within one Android application. Customers can also call friends anywhere in the world on Google Talk for the price of a local call, and similarly will soon will be able to instant-message and call their friends on Skype.

Truphone is also available on the Apple iPhone, the Apple iPod touch, Blackberry and Nokia devices.

Luca posted a great blog today, about how Skype has a way to become a social networking powerhouse, a la Facebook.  Interestingly, it was on Facebook that I saw Luca’s tweet about the new post:

All that above together with the new features introduced with Skype 2.8 for Mac made me wonder: can Skype ever become the next big thing in the field of “social networking” rather than “only” the most popular VoIP service ever? Let’s try to analyze how far Skype is from this “big picture”.

Users are not certainly a problem for Skype. With over 200M users (not active, but downloads), it’s not far from the huge 150M active users of Facebook. What Facebook is missing at this time is a powerful desktop client. Despite the world of consumer services is moving to the “cloud”, having an always on client on your PC has many benefits, such as being always available and experiencing a realtime interaction with your friends.

I don’t know if a desktop client is the best place to do social activity management.  The browser is good for what’s it’s good for: rich browsing experiences.  But I don’t want to change the form factor of the IM client just to accomodate a feed list or yet another messaging utility.  Skype needs to stay in the same size and shape it has now: on the right side of my screen, occupying maybe 10% of my real estate.

Plus, the other thing that’s cool about Facebook is that nothing has to be immediate.  The realtime nature of Skype conversations is precisely why I’d sometimes rather communicate on Facebook, or e-mail, etc.  But please read Luca’s post, as it is a really cool idea that warrants deeper inspection.

It’s been well over a year since I last ran Skype on my  MacBook Pro. This screen-sharing feature has got me fired up.  I’ve got the beta downloading now, and since I’m fed up with Gizmo Project (which would be the far superior solution if it just stayed running on the Macs and myself my employees), I might be making the switch back to Skype.

The blogosphere, at least around my blogroll, has had an amazing bout of introspection over the last several days.  First, we had well-informed pal Alec Saunders declaring VoIP dead, in a manner of speaking.  Perhaps in reality, the death of VoIP is symbolic of a passage from the top-of-mind, as Ken Camp, a VoIP knowledge pioneer, pointed out by calling VoIP “plumbing”.  It’s not the exciting thing it used to be.

I mean, do you know anybody who gets hot and bothered about plumbing?

Jeff Pulver, whose own motions to transform his flagship VON expo and publishing operation into a “more than voice” effort seemed to indicate, two years ago, that VoIP has lost its sex appeal.

Is that death? Maybe not, but in this neck of the woods, something is dead when people quit talking about it.  Here in Cleveland, nobody was ever really talking about VoIP, except the partial players like Cisco VARs, and even they had to be careful not to call it “VoIP”.

Interestingly, there’s an obvious correlation between this death and Om Malik’s rant about the pigsty of mediocrity in which the U.S. business world now sits.  This is the best piece Om has EVER written, no question.  And it has almost nothing to do with VoIP technology. Instead, it deals with today’s craptacularly perfect storm of of crummy debt, bad business decisions, over-reaching government and under-achieving American companies.

The mediocrity and “it’s good enough” attitude has been at the heart of VoIP disappearing from the excitement radar.  Early pure-plays didn’t innovate useful services when the window of opportunity was open. Vonage didn’t offer an open soft phone, just as Skype never made a SIP proxy available to their users. Two huge mistakes.  But there’s more.

The cable companies insisted on bundling data, TV, and phone service, and then didn’t differentiate their phone service from that of the existing LECs.  So, not only couldn’t you get dedicated data service and choose your own voice provider, but you also got stuck with substandard phone service to boot.

Equipment makers insisted on asinine licensing structures (are you reading this, Cisco and Avaya?) for the privilege of using their “good enough” solutions, while scrappy, VoIP-only startups were sidelined by the general lack of decent broadband access.

It’s like all the elements of the telecom industry revolution were there–just at the wrong times. Broadband became pervasive, and just as it was getting unbundled (thanks Congress), the competing network operators went belly up, so ASPs and hosted voice providers, having sunk millions and millions into excellent new offerings, had no way to get their services to the masses.

Those that did survive did so because some insider bank gave them a loan to keep the engine running just a little longer, and then a little longer, and then a little longer. And when banker keeps pumping non-revenue dollars into out a cash-losing business, the banker eventually comes for his money. When the banker can’t collect, the treasury secretary buys his debt.  When the treasury secretary loses all his money, he prints more.

Then, suddenly, a gallon of milk costs $20.

That’s mediocrity from start to finish.

Is it a cliche to quote and abuse T.S. Eliot’s poetry?

This is the way the VoIP world ends
Not with a bang, but a whimper

Pulver pretty-much said this two years ago: VoIP is dead.  It became the “draw commodity” I hoped it wouldn’t, due to its promise and unique ability to transform the state of the telecom world.  But the politics of the device makers, carriers, and regulators proved to much, and VoIP became just another “more of the same” transport mechanism. It’s there if you need it–there if you need to draw on it, but not uniquely compelling.

Here are the ten things that prove VoIP is dead:

1. Vonage still hasn’t turned the corner. Further burying themselves in debt (what bank took THAT risk in this crummy credit market, seriously?), there’s just no way out for the pure-play provider.

2. Alec Saunders declared VoIP dead and he has some good reasons why.  (OK, Jeff Pulver, we’ll believe you next time.)

3. Everywhere you look, former VoIP honchos are turning to social media applications as a focus area–from Jeff Pulver to Ken Camp to myself. It’s a trend. Social media is where the opportunity for innovation in unified communications still exists.

4. End-to-end VoIP is never going to be a reality, at least not not under the current competitive structure for telephone companies.

5. VoIP is a tool of application delivery. It does not differentiate the service the way it used to.

6. VoIP companies offering really cool features should’ve made deals to make those features a part of pure-play companies’ service.  This would’ve compelled adoption and brought both types of companies closer to the black. Instead, we saw no joint ventures between pureplays like BroadVoice and “oh that’s neat” players like TalkPlus.   The result–VoIP pure plays were no different from the bundled phone service provided by cablecos and telcos, and the public couldn’t see what the big deal about VoIP was.

7. I stopped consulting on business VoIP some time this year.  In most of the United States, the demand for VoIP in the SMB sector is just not there (despite all the manufactured hype about it).

8. Hosted VoIP PBX as a business model died on the vine. It’s probably not going to get much bigger than it is today. This isn’t the hosted players’ faults–it’s the fault of our sorry North American telecom infrastructure.

9. VoIP today is an infrastructure networking skill, no longer demanding the high pay of years past. Get a Cisco certification in voice and you might have some sort of earning premium, but with the slow-down, I doubt it.  Bottom line is, like ethernet and TCP/IP, if you don’t understand unified communications and you claim to be a network engineer, you’re screwed.

10. Cisco’s vision of unified communications sucks and they’ve foisted it upon the business world, scaring many SMBs away from VoIP altogether and elbowing open technologies like SIP out of the large business space.

  • Viagra ordre
  • Cialis en ligne
  • Levitra en ligne
  • Propecia acheter
  • Viagra acheter
  • Acheter cialis
  • Ordre levitra
  • Ordre propecia
  • En ligne viagra
  • Vente cialis
  • Levitra bon marche
  • Propecia en ligne
  • Viagra online
  • Buy cialis
  • Order Levitra
  • Buy propecia
  • Buy viagra
  • Cheap cialis
  • Cheap Levitra
  • propecia online
  • Viagra prescription
  • Cialis online
  • Buy Levitra
  • Order propecia