RE: [EFM] On the Worship of Speed
Given the opportunity, I will still use a wire line phone over a wireless
phone any time. When I am traveling in an automobile, wire line is not
available, so I use a wireless phone and put up with the relatively poor
reliability. When I am traveling, I will even use my wireless phone as a
low speed modem to link to my ISP to find a local wire line number that I
can use. Needless to say, I personally use the wireless phone only because
I have to.
At 01:41 PM 1/24/2002 -0800, O'Mahony, Barry wrote:
>Just to play devil's advocate here, the fastest growing segment of the
>telephony market, namely mobile telephony, apparently has little trouble
>selling in service to customers, despite long, "poor" latency.
>Of course the argument goes that the "advantage factor" of mobility
>counteracts the reduction on perceived voice qulaity in people's minds.
>Maybe so. But I bring it up to point out that there is some quesiton, in
>some quarters, as to how well a test subject's responses in a MOS testing
>scenario correlate to what they're actually willing to pay for.
>Hillsboro, OR, USA
>tel: +1 (503) 264-8579
>Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 8:06 PM
>To: rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; FEffenberger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
>Subject: RE: [EFM] On the Worship of Speed
>DSL uses ATM.
>Also, DSL typically leaves the existing POTS service undisturbed,
>and is most often a data-only service.
>If you are talking of VoIP, then the answer to your question is "Poorly".
>The slop in the network is hidden by intensive processing on both ends
>of the network. Echo-cancellers and error concealment. And, of course,
>no guarantee of performance. Of all people, I shouldn't have to convince
>you of the problems of trying to sell such a service to customers.
>From: Roy Bynum [mailto:rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 10:00 PM
>To: FEffenberger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; carlosal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
>Subject: Re: [EFM] On the Worship of Speed
>How does it work on 128kb DSL links with PPOE today?
>At 09:38 PM 1/23/2002 -0500, FEffenberger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: