« September 2005 | Main | November 2005 »
They have also opened up a Wiki to enable direct feedback and discussion of the draft.
Given all the FUD about VoIP security, this is hopefully a good first start to classify and prioritize the actual threats to VoIP deployments.
Rich Tehrani has proclaimed that 2006 will be the "Year of VoIP Peering", it looks like he may not have to wait until 2006 to see a huge jump in efforts to directly link VoIP networks together.
Neustar, best known for managing the PSTN number database, has announced a new join effort with Equinix, TELEHOUSE, and the Amsterdam Internet Exchange to build a SIP-based peering exchange.
In addition, Sphere Communications and BroadSoft announced today at IT Expo an agreement to enable Sphere's customers to directly peer via SIP with providers running BroadSoft's call management platform. Finally, FiberNet announced today a new "carrier-grade platform for VoIP" peering. FiberNet will host its peering point in NYC.
About a year ago or so my colleague Dan Golding set up a mailing list for the discussion of VoIP peering. After a brief initial burst of activity, the list has been almost dormant for the last six months or so. I think that's about to change. (To subscribe, send a message to "voip-peering-request@psg.com" with "subscribe" in the message body, an archive is available as well at http://psg.com/lists/voip-peering")
All these announcements show a growing level of interest in VoIP peering, and with it perhaps the next phase of IP communications is rapidly approaching, where VoIP-to-VoIP calls replace PSTN trunks, offering significant potential for lower costs, as well as the opportunity to piggy-back additional services such as instant messaging and presence.
Skype's blog has published the results of an external review of Skype's security architecture. The report can be downloaded at http://www.skype.com/security/files/2005-031%20security%20evaluation.pdf
It's on my list of things to read next week as my next projects involve writing reports on VoIP Security and Skype (as separate topics).
I'm quoted in a SearchEnterpriseVoice.com article by Andrew Hickey on Skype's potential in the enterprise. In the past I've been unsuccessful at arranging a briefing with Skype about their enterprise product plans, and its interesting to note that Skype didn't return calls to the author of this story.
My guess has been that they want to be careful about leaking anything out to the industry. However, with recent annoumcents that GoRemote will be bundling Skype with its mobile worker service (along with previous announcements of a similar arrangement with FiberLink), it seems that Skype's enterprise strategy is emerging.
I plan to write a report on Skype for the enterprise next quarter. Stay tuned...
This is the funniest thing I've seen on the web in a long time. Anyone who has flown in the last four years ought to check this out. Interestingly enough, the author is a law professor.
C-Net among others report that Microsoft and Yahoo have reached an agreement to establish interconnectivity between their IM networks, enabling sharing of presence as well as instant message & voice chats between users of both services.
Obviously this is good news for users of both Yahoo & MSN messenger services. It likely also puts pressure on AOL to join their network, finally tearing down the walls between IM services. I suppose the question is where does this leave Skype, though Skype has always positioned itself more as a telephony service with IM than as an IM service with telephony.
Alec Saunders wraps up the reaction in the blogosphere.
Indystar.com reports on the incompatibility between home alarm systems and VoIP services such as CallVantage and Vonage, noting that most home alarm systems do not support VoIP and will require you to maintain a traditional POTS line, or subscribe to an expensive cellular service so that the system can call the security company in case of an alarm.
There are multiple issue here, one is the way alarm systems can take over a phone line if necessary, cutting off any in-progress phone calls so that they can dial out to the service center. The second issue is backup power. Unless residences have backup power for home routers, ATA's and cable/DSL modems, a loss of power will mean that alarm systems can't phone home in case of emergency. Third, the tones that an alarm system sends over the phone line may not always be properly carried by VoIP. Finally, there may be other incompatabilities having to do with how systems are configured, and specific requirements of some older systems.
Then of course there is the issue of reliability of the VoIP service itself.
While some folks have had success getting their alarm system to work over VoIP, VoIP is generally not supported by alarm companies and users must be willing to accept the risk of using a non-supported solution (See this discussion at broadbandreports.com for examples of user attempts to use VoIP with thier home alarm systems)
The National Burglar & Fire Alarm Association (NBFAA) an industry trade group, has already issued a sample letter (pdf) for customers who are considering VoIP services, and they are urging members to develop plans to support residential VoIP services. It has also facilitated discussions between alarm system companies and VoIP service providers (See: Coming to Terms with What VoIP Means For The Alarm Industry - SecurityInfoWatch.com)
As I noted several months ago, the inability for VoIP services to support my home alarm system is the primary reason why I'm still relying on POTS for my home. VoIP just won't save me any money if I still need to maintain some sort of service for my alarm system.
In addition, I wonder how long it will be before an unsuspecting consumer who thinks they are just buying a "broadband phone service" without understanding the limitations of such a service, will suffer a loss and file a lawsuit against the VoIP vendor, much as we saw with regard to 911 service issues in the last few months.
Hopefully the E-911 issues have awakened VoIP vendors to the need to educate their customers about these sorts of things before the government decides to get itself involved.
(Originally Posted on VoIPLoop.com - 10/5/05)
The folks at Wiley Publishing were kind enough to send me a preview copy of Timothy Kelly's "VoIP for Dummies" to review. This got me thinking, is VoIP still a mystery?
Last week's Newsweek had a story about the eBay acquisition of Skype in which they quote a Harris poll showing that only 13% of the public knew what VoIP was (10% thought it was a Vodka). So despite all the media and vendor hype, the vast majority of the public has no idea what VoIP is. If they don't know what it is, it becomes next to impossible for anyone to market a service on the basis that it's VoIP, which is why residential services are often marketed simply as lower-cost broadband-based replacements for existing telephone services. Of course, since folks don't understand what VoIP is, they aren't aware of the limitations (e.g. QoS/E-911), thus we get things like federal mandates to cut off VoIP users who don't sign letters stating that they understand 911 limitations.
So what does the lack of awareness of VoIP mean for enterprises? It likely means that enterprise users aren't aware of the real value of VoIP, and thus aren't asking for VoIP-enabled services such as presence, unified messaging, and softphone capabilities as much as they probably ought to be. It likely explains why I continually find that large enterprises are way behind where I expected them to be in their VoIP deployments, and why saving money continues to be the primary justification for deployment rather than new applications and improved user experience.
Thus there continues to be a need for end-user education of not only what VoIP is, but what IP communications can enable in general. Things like presence, unified communications that integrate IM, voice, video and conferencing. The benefits of VoIP need to be sold, not as just a like-for-like replacement of existing telephony systems, but as a new platform for the enablement of advanced IP communications. The IT departments and those responsible for voice services likely understand these capabilities, but absent a strong demand from end-users, service deployment will continue to be slow in coming.
Ars Technica reports on a patent battle between Research In Motion and NTP that may cause RIM to be forced to shutdown it's blackberry-based service.
I wonder how many of the lawyers involved in this case are blackberry users?
While I've generally been disappointed in the podcasts that I've sampled, there is one that has become a "must listen to" for me, Joe Dion's Fly With Me podcast. Joe is a co-pilot with a major U.S. carrier and his blog shares stories of life in the air. For those of us who spend far more time than we want to inside a metal tube hurtling through the air at 500+ MPH, Joe's blog gives us some fascinating insight into the lives of those who are responsible for getting us to where we are going.
