Canadian Telco Telus Moves All Call Traffic to the Net

justice0x1 writes "An article on the Tornonto Star about Canada's Telus making a large scale motion to move all call trafic over to IP caught my eye today. 'Telus will become the first dominant phone carrier in North America to make the risky transition, a move much talked about and which Telus will make happen on a dramatic scale.' Since I work in the Telus Internet Service department, it will be interesting to see exactly how this new technology fares. Seems almost premature to me, but I guess it's all or nothing with telecomunications these days; you need to get an edge on the competition somehow. Why not start by moving youre entire long distance network over to IP?"

Comments

Let's Call Mom!!!

[yoey]

Hi, mom? How're you doing? All is well wi....

Bandwidth?

[Anonymous Coward]

What kind of bandwidth would this require?

Re:Bandwidth?

[PerlGuru]

I use Vonage VOIP for my home phone and they require 90kbps both ways in their default config. They have an option to reduce the call quality, and thus the size. 90kbs is about 2/3rds the way to standard phone quality comming from cell phone quality, if that makes since to you.

Re:Bandwidth?

[AmunRa]

In europe, traditional circuit-switched telephone networks use channelised E1s, which basically have 15 64kbit/s data channels, along with a 64kbit/s control channel, giving a 2Mbit/s channel.

Using H.323 (the main VoIP standard) you can choose from a number of compression codecs, from 32kbits upwards, although there exists a couple of codecs which sound pretty good (coparable to a average analogue phone line) at 64kbit/s, to you can make the transition without effecting you capacity.

I was involved in some trials here in the UK, and (IIRC) we were using about 90kbits, and that was _crystal clear_ - the thing you most notice is that when no-one is talking, it is actually *silent* - you don't realise it until you try VoIP howe much noise is in a normal analog call.

This is fact one of the advantages of VoIP, you can have in effect variable bitrate encoding, as if no-one is talking, then you don't have any data to encode!

Re:Bandwidth?

[jcdr]

Nope!

E1 is 30 B channels at 64kbits/s + 1 D channel at 64kbits/s for signalisation plus 1 synchronisation and misc operator stuff at 64kbits/s. So E1 is 32*64k=2048Mbits/s.

Some operators have services for 10, 12, 15, 20 or 24 channels depending of the offert but this is simply a limit of concurrent B channels open in a 30 B channles capacity E1 line.

Re:Bandwidth?

[RovingSlug]

the thing you most notice is that when no-one is talking, it is actually *silent* - you don't realise it until you try VoIP howe much noise is in a normal analog call.

The background white noise in an analog phone call is artificially inserted ("comfort" noise). Studies showed users were not comfortable with a "dead" line, where the static reassures them the connection is still active.

New error messages

[wiggys]

"Sorry, but your call could not be connected at this time due to a 404 error. Please reconfigure your phone line and try again."

Re:New error messages

[muonzoo]

That's not just funny, it's in the SIP [a common VoIP protocol] spec! :

RFC 3261 Section 21.4.5 clearly states:

21.4.5 404 Not Found

The server has definitive information that the user does not exist at
the domain specified in the Request-URI. This status is also
returned if the domain in the Request-URI does not match any of the
domains handled by the recipient of the request.

I see them every day at work if I misdial from my Cisco 7960.

Made me laugh the first time; now it just makes me cry. :-)

And So we move closer to integrated communication

[SkArcher]

Turnabout is fair play it seems. No more than 5 years ago, I was using a phone line to access the internet. Soon i'll be using the internet to make telephone calls.

Not the public Internet (I hope)

[Zarhan]

It should be noted that altough everything is transporter over IP, they are (probably :)) not transferring their voice over public Internet and it is not even connected to Internet in any way.

It's still a private network, they are just shifting to a more generic and cost-effective infrastructure. So I suppose you still can not slashdot the phone network..

Re:Not the public Internet (I hope)

[Realistic_Dragon]

So I suppose you still can not slashdot the phone network.

My sister has been trying to DoS the phone network through overuse for many years now, so far to no effect.

Re:Not the public Internet (I hope)

[n3k5]

I very much doubt that they'll route calls over the public internet.

You _doubt_ it, your parent says _probably_ not. Well, they're _definitely_ not connected to the Internet in any way, which becomes apparent if you just read the first few paragrphs of the article. The /. headline says something different, of course. Great job, timothy!

A matter of time

[RosCabezas]

In fact it was just a matter of time. At last, telcos are realizing that technology is a helper and not a foe. Probably 3rd generation as designed is not going to generate the expected revenue and some side paths need to be found.

I wonder

[mericet]

I wonder how much bandwidth they are going to allocate to a phone call once it's pure VoIP? and will it change according to load? what will be the effect on modem/fax data?

Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to have to yell at my roommates to get off the phone and stop hogging the phone line.

Now I'll have to yell at them to get off the phone and stop hogging the bandwidth.

Re:IP != The Net

[8282now]

Just because it's VoIP, it doesn't mean it has to flow over the "public" IP network. They can simply point the VoIP over their own network and still see massive savings.

For the VoIP/PSTN imparied, VoIP traffic can be optimized (that's compressed) down to 8K (or more, but a cost of clarity) as opposed to 56K for traditional circuit switched telephony traffic.
And yes I have worked with the technology.

not 'to the net'

[delmoi]

Dude, using IP dosn't mean they are transfering call trafic over the general internet. I really doubt they are going to give each phone line a real IP address rather then a 'local' one.

It would be pretty cool if they did. Imagine an RFC standard phone protocol that was implemented on lots of telephone like devices. In conjunction with DHCP you could have an internet phone that worked as simply as a regular phone. And you could talk to anyone with a PC and/or another phone (maybe by typing in the IP address? :P probably not).

Well, I can dream, can't I? (or is this not that far off? I know you can buy IP phones today, but I don't think that they can work with both the general internet and the general phone system)

Having read a little deeper

[SkArcher]

The benefits, however, are enormous and noticeable, particularly on a carrier's balance sheet. Telus stands to substantially lower its operating and capital costs with the new infrastructure, and will be in a position to offer customers new business services that can combine voice, video and data. "We literally have three infrastructures," says Pathak, explaining that separate networks exist today to carry phone calls, Internet and data services, and video. "The goal is to merge into one simple platform.

So their ultimate plan is to have Video, Phone and Data linked into the same system? An Extreme bandwidth use, but one that would raise some hopes of breaking down the current 'methods of communication' fragmentation and simply leaving us with one single, integrated, communications method.

Now that raises all sorts of possibilities in terms of remote conferencing, especially as the younger, technically proficient generations move into higher echelons of the decision making process in government and corporations.

Any ideas on what OS is used to control this?

"normal" call ?

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

In fact, the quality of the transmission was so good, so much like being there, that Telus engineers added a bit of noise to make the call sound, well, more normal.

They should drop calls and overcharge customers too to complete the picture.

Having worked for Telus

[Frederique Coq-Bloqu]

a bit outside of Québec City (I no longer work for them), I would say this is a generally good move. Most of the equipment, at least in Québec is shoddy stuff late 1950s. Needs constant maintainence. I can definitely see why they're upgrading.

Spam

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

By treating voices and video like any other piece of data, such as e-mail

Soon Canadians will be getting enlarge-your-penis and invest-in-nigeria phone calls.

Dude! I got this chick's number! 127.0.0.1!

[gatesh8r]

I'm going to have to call her later on. She's like, into Lord of the Rings and other geeky stuff. BTW, what's Linux???

Death of Alaxander Gram Bell's invention

[zakezuke]

Remarkably enough, telephone technology hasn't really changed all that much since it's invention. the infrastructure has changed vastly, but for the most part, you can still use a first generation telephone over copper, with the exception of the cellular model. This is probally why it's no great shock to me that mobile phones are the first to actually experiment with adapting.

My first reaction to this move to tcp/ip based voice communication is great, dispite the fact that the telephone it self has a remarkable level of simplisity to it. Speaker, amp, microphone, even without a touch tone generator most networks i'm familar with still permit the rotery system, a call can be placed by touching wires together in that rythmic fasion.

So what is there to be gained by TCP/IP transport for telephone use, assuming we are talking about the classic land line as well as the mobile, a great deal i'd say. Fax machines for one thing will no longer be barred by that pesky 9600/14000 bandwidth issue, color faxing can be an option. A "mobile" could in theory be jacked into a land line and calls can be recieved regardless of reception, eliminating the need for features like call forwarding. A push to upgrade to this cheeper form of transport could push the telcos to actually upgrade way out of the way regions to this new digital system, so even Farmer Joe miles away from the CO could get reliable network access. Let alone the boom to the deaf community.. even with present mobile text and instent messaging it has practicaly rendered ye old TDD terminal obsolete.

But... there is a major downside. It puts control of network access back to the telcos, well not like they don't have it already. We create a dependence on high technology, requiring all homes being essentally wired for network. We also create a dependence on power, not that classic telephone doesn't take a bit of juice, but imagine if everyone's house had additional DA converters, and essentally hubs rather then splitters. Privacy could be made a think of the past, as packet sniffers could be employed to actually track specific people without the physical access that is presently required.

But I'm leaning more tward the side of the fact that there is just so much crap I want rendered obsolete, and a level of digital intrigration I would like to achieve. I no longer want to be barred by the limits of dialup service being the only thing that can be actived on demand, I want phones to be TCP/IP ready.

And yes... I want mobile phones to actually provide high speed internet and I want it everywhere! And if this means I can't use my circa 1970's phone that I bought specificly to be compatable with my first acustic(sp) modem and so be it.

Re:And So we move closer to integrated communicati

[SEWilco]

"Dear Sir,

I am writing this letter to request ISP service from you. After that is completed, I will be able to telephone you to arrange a domain transfer.

Incidentally, do you know to whom I can write to arrange for water service so I can watch CNN?"

Hold the phone.

[FreeLinux]

As a few posts have already descibed, VoIP is not the same as voice over the internet. The VoIP that Telus is using is actually being carried over dedicated data circuits which offer, not only high speed (OC-12 +), but also end to end Quality of Service control. Indeed, these dedicated data circuits may well carry some internet traffic as well, but Telus is able to run the voice traffic at a higher priority than the less time sensitive data.

In fact, this is already being done by several carriers including Sprint, MCI, Intermedia, Verizon and probably others.

I have also installed numerous private networks utilizing Nortel or Cisco equipment to carry VoIP over dedicated private networks, usually frame-relay WANs. These VoIP calls are 100% reliable and are perfectly clear.

In two cases standard internet connections (cable, xDSL, frame-relay) were used to carry calls between several different offices in the United States, Canada, Europe and Mexico. These connections are not always as clear as those running on private WANs but, they have proven to be 98% reliable and are indistinguishable from regular land lines, in terms of clarity, 85% of the time.

Re:Bandwidth - ITU recommends G723.1 - 6.3kb/s

[fact0r]

VoIP Standards are all made by ITU-T.

The most widely used VoIP protocol is H.323. H323 allows negotiation of a compression CoDec. The base (worst) codec which must be supported is G.711 (64kb/s - this is what goes down an ISDN line - this is regarded as lossless digital encoding).

Latency is dealt with by using QoS. I make calls from Australia to Europe through a VoIP carrier at a cost of about 3cents/minute. The round trip delay appears less than 0.2 seconds. The recommended CoDec is G.723.1 which is 5.3 or 6.3 kb/s (switches dependent on complexity I believe). This CoDec gives speech quality better than a mobile network will give you.

The bandwidth is only required in the direction of speech - when there is silence going the other way the bandwidth drops to near zero (just comfort noise generation and control signals send down the line). Comfort noise generation is done by a funny little algorithm that tells the other end the type of "silence" (static) to produce.

Tornonto

[Apostata]

Meanwhile, in hockey news, the Ananheim Mighty Ducks face the Newn Jersney Devils.

(I see the upcoming pot de-regulation is having it's effect)

Re:I guarantee this will fail

[EQ]

Try learning more modern stuff than whatever antiquated VoIP crap your company was using.

As an example, I was working with VoIP stuff 3 years ago with Cisco, T-Mobile and Level 3: we had a project that took a GSM signal, put it onto a local (in building only) network, and from there to VoIP and onto the Cisco Call Manager system. This allowed the cell phone to be your internal company phone extension while on campus, but automatically switch back when off campus. We faced many of the same problems you cited but all were solved by the end of the "beta" test.

Also we deployed a nation-wide softswitch infrastraucture that allowed us to hook Cisco VoIP phones at any point in the network and make toll-quality calls out from the main PBX back in Broomfield. This saved the company from having to drag a copper pair to each and every little regeneration site onthe fiber right of way, which is not an inconsiderable amount of cash when you figure the extent of Level 3's network.

Update your knowledge base. IP is starting to be picked up now that the private IP networks Like Level 3, Genuity, plus parts of AT&T and Sprint have worked out the problems. Draft Martini (Read the IETF documents) has been delivering standard phone services like ATM and FR over IP for a year. And Level 3, where I used to work, has had an all IP infrastructure for several years now, using the old XCom (Now VIPER) sofswitch. Want to know where those cheap long distance calling cards are coming from? They probably travel over Level 3's all IP network, converting at the edges on the softswitched architecture. And a good percentage of Worldcom/MCI long distance moves on Level 3's all IP network as well.

Secondly, the VoIP mentioned here is primarily in the backhaul, behind the CO switches (RTFA again!). For Inter and Intra-LATA carriage, VoIP is highly reliable, and much less expensive than the TDM stuff.

As for the "silence", RTFA. Seriously, they solved this one a long time ago with a little echo back on the reciever side, as well as "comfort noise" from the IP switch. This technique goes back several years.

Seriously, you need to learn more - and RTFA, because you are "mistaken about a great many thing"....