[e2e] Skype and congestion collapse.

Cannara cannara at attglobal.net
Tue Mar 15 09:09:07 PST 2005


I've no quibble with that logic at all.  I'm just pointing out that the hype
from vendors of VoIP has often covered up very important features of the wired
infrastructure that we've had for over 100 years -- 911, independent power,
etc.  Buffer transfer by packets allows any app to be done over any network,
so Skype, or any networked app that's existed for a couple of decades now,
already demonstrated the possibilities of cheap packet intercommunication.  A
local university received the full-court press to go to VoIP from a renowned
vendor and fortunately made a better informed, less restrictive choice.  

We have to remember that things like Skype are effective, cool and cute, but
in real environments, limited effectiveness isn't enough and legal issues, in
fact, arise on what services must be provided.  That's really what I'm raising
-- there's nothing much new about Skype, or any other popularly- available
networked app, except that now everyone has personal computers, PDAs, iPods,
yadda, yadda, most with roaming wireless capability.  Heck, I wrote an email
program in BTI Basic that ran for a whole year among 10 schools here, in
1977.  Not a single msg lost.  :]

Alex

Tschofenig Hannes wrote:
> 
> i hope that we will be able to develop building blocks for an emergency
> solution that also work in a p2p alike environment.
> 
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: Lars-Erik Jonsson (LU/EAB)
> > [mailto:lars-erik.jonsson at ericsson.com]
> > Gesendet: Dienstag, 15. März 2005 02:24
> > An: Alex Cannara; end2end-interest at postel.org
> > Betreff: Re: [e2e] Skype and congestion collapse.
> >
> >
> > Alex,
> >
> > People love Skype and other IP applications because
> > they do not have to pay for things they did not ask
> > for. VoIP is not POTS, and by using VoIP the user
> > can choose what kind of voice application he wants
> > to use, instead of being forced to pay for a complex
> > solution with "features" he did not ask for.
> >
> > Consider the following text from the Skype end user
> > license agreement:
> >  "No Emergency Calls: by entering into this Agreement
> >  You acknowledge and agree that the Skype Software
> >  does not and does not intend to support or carry
> >  emergency calls."
> > To me, this is a very positive thing, as I know how
> > complicated and thus expensive it (by nature) is to
> > promise anything else, and I am not willing to pay
> > for that.
> >
> > To some players on the market, it is of course a
> > threat that people now have the freedom to choose,
> > and that can cause panic in the walled gardens. But
> > personally I think this is good for communications,
> > and also for the communications industry (at least
> > for those who see opportunities instead of threats).
> >
> > Cheers,
> > /L-E
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: end2end-interest-bounces at postel.org
> > > [mailto:end2end-interest-bounces at postel.org]On Behalf Of
> > Alex Cannara
> > > Sent: den 14 mars 2005 22:59
> > > To: end2end-interest at postel.org
> > > Subject: Re: [e2e] Skype and congestion collapse.
> > >
> > >
> > > Ok Lars, rely on telepathy when your boss falls down the
> > > stairs, or your wife
> > > starts delivering while visiting your office, both during a
> > > power outage.
> > > Yeah, try that!  :]
> > >
> > > Alex
> > >
> > > Lars-Erik Jonsson (LU/EAB) wrote:
> > >
> > > >>And, just think, every Cisco VoIP switch has to have a
> > > >>fixed geographical location and a POTS line, if its
> > > >>users want to have a 911 call ...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > And who said the user wanted his Voice application to
> > > > be an emergency line, and pay for the cost of that?
> > > >
> > > > /L-E


More information about the end2end-interest mailing list