cmarlatt at rxsec.com
Thu Dec 4 15:50:26 CST 2008
Erik (Caneris) wrote:
> So it can be argued both ways. Ultimately, it all comes down to marketing and hype. With everything going to IP at both the core and edge (yes, I chose the terms deliberately) and analogue-digital-analogue or TDM-IP-TDM-IP conversation happening so many times, the terms "POTS" and "VOIP" are becoming nothing but marketing speak open for abuse. Often, confused by marketing of the "big boys", the end users have no clue what they're using, especially when it's CPE-less like VoIP-behind-POTS or "hosted PBX" or FTTB or cable or even things powered by field equipment. A certain company here tells DSL folks they're on fibre and another one emphasizes to staff to refer to their cable phone service as "it's not VoIP, it's IP telephony" (I'm not kidding).
None of the above matters if the supposed POTS lines has a greater
availability over the true VOIP phone you use via your residential
internet service. If "they" can trick the customer by providing the
"analogue-digital-analogue" service so well that the customer doesn't
realize it then the originating comment that started this tangent is
moot. They are providing a reliable E911 service over IP.
If they're not providing a more reliable service than we're back to the
same point. E911 over ip (and VOIP) are generally less reliable than
More information about the NANOG