Sprint Moves Phone Network to IP

Ryan Barrett writes "Sprint announced that it has 'begun transforming its telephone network so voice calls are transmitted in packets.' AP article here. Combined with a recent /. story about Telus doing the same thing, this sets an interesting precedent. Many telcos already use packet-switching to handle a significant chunk of their calls. Is this the beginning of the end for circuit-switched networks?"

Comments

Telus Calls Sprint

[yoey]

Hello, Sprint? This is Telus. You stole our idea you son-of-a-bit....

Ouch, now I have to remember IP addresses too

[infonography]

I am so gonna miss the (555) 123 4567 type numbers. Will you have to use the * key to make the dots in the quads?

Reminds me of that old Dogbert Joke about having a Tilde in the phone number. I wonder how long it will be till them move to IPv6, won't that be a joy to dial.

Re:Ouch, now I have to remember IP addresses too

[Ryan Amos]

Well, that's what we have DNS for, isn't it? :) You could easily rig up a service like DNS (say, .phone) and have (country).(areacode).(exchange).(number).phone just like we have now. For IPV6, I'd imagine you have to. The human brain gets really confused when numbers get longer than 7 or 8 digits; as in you start transposing digits, forgetting parts, etc unless you can come up with a mnemonic device to remember them with. So I think it's safe to say it'd have to closely resemble the system we have today. At least from an end-user perspective.

Re:Ouch, now I have to remember IP addresses too

[miu]

No need. E.164 number and DNS

More like the middle of the end

[tgma]

The beginning of the end started when the equipment manufacturers started producing boxes that allowed VoIP calls to have the same quality as circuit-switched ones. We all probably make a lot more IP calls than we are aware of.

The quicker companies do this, the better it will be for their margins - this news from Sprint probably doesn't mean much for their users, but their shareholders should be happy. The cost of carrying VoIP is much lower, which is what allows those calling card companies to stay in business.

Re:More like the middle of the end

[otmar]

I doubt that Sprint will be able to keep charging their users the old rate. The savings will be passed on to the customers sooner or later.

There is a really good article on the economics invoved by Clay Shirky. Recommended reading.

/ol

Re:More like the middle of the end

[lynx_user_abroad]

Yes, but...

There is a really good article on the economics invoved by Clay Shirky.

However, there's a new component here: the "legislative" layer.

In the ZapMail scenario, individual businesses could replace the FedEx service simply by buying a fax machine; but that's only because of FCC rules which a) demanded that common carriers (the phone companies) could not discriminate against different users of the network, and b) allow any non-destructive device to be connected to the Public Switched Network. In other words, the fax machine revolution was sparked by FCC rules which created an open and equal (Lessig would call it "flat and end-to-end") network on top of which others could build and innovate.

However, the FCC has chosen a different path with "broadband" these days. The FCC has already begun to rule (and appears ready to go whole hog with more rulings) that companies which provide broadband services own their network. If we were replaying ZapMail today, that means the phone companies would be allowed to prevent individual businesses from using their network to transfer documents via fax. Customers who wanted to deliver a document would have to use either an authorized corporate partner (in this case, FedEx) or the services of the telephone company itself.

We're already seeing manifestations of this in the Internet today; Most ISP's won't allow individuals to use port 25 (SMTP) so if you want to send email, you have to use the server provided by the ISP. That service is no longer available to customers, even the ones who have already bought equipment capable of sending and receiving email direrctly.

Consider AOL's position concerning mailing lists: If you want to provide a mailing list (free or fee) service to AOL subscribers, you must either a) run your list from an "approved" (read: corporate partner) server, or b) trudge through a lengthly approval process to get your mailing list onto the "whitelisted" list. It's not a far stretch to see the day when there will be a fee to mailing list managers in order to service AOL subscribers, and that will be the end of the free mailing list.

So, the next thing to fail will be the "free" services currently offered on the Internet.

We're already seeing pressure on major business sites to get an AOL keyword associated with their site. For all I know, getting that keyword cost money. If it doesn't already, it soon will. When that starts to happen, I wonder if Slashdot will be pulling in enough revenue to maintain contact with it's AOL customers, or if Slashdot will become another site AOL subscribers have to jump through hoops (or pay and extra "access" fee) to access?

Will we see a day when on-line gamers will be required to use only the "service provider approved" gaming server, because ports to other servers are blocked? Isn't Microsoft doing something like this already on MSN requiring a Passport to access their Gaming server?

Will we soon see the day when trying to access any "terrorist" news site (like Al Jazerra) will be impossible, and accessing any "liberal" (read: non-corporate/administration partner) news site will be slow and unreliable at best? And if you're trying to get to the campaign web site of the non-incumbent candidate, well, you can just forget it.

There's more at work here than just simple economics. Without on open networking layer as we had with the PSN, there won't be the kind of telecommunications revolution we say after the AT&T breakup in 1984.

Not IP

[NeuroKoan]

The article didn't state that Sprint was switching to an IP based network, just a packet switched network. Is this actually going to use IP? A quick google search brought up no mention of IP (but I'm also lazy, so I only read the first page of links).

Re:Not IP

[hughk]

Modern switches can talk IP. They are essentially just computers with some specialised I/O. Switches can talk to each other locally via a LAN and they can send long distance traffic via a variety of WAN connections. IP6 has been preferred for a while between switching centres because of the QoS support. The lower layer is generally ATM.

A friend who used to work for Nortel (didn't many) mentioned this. Worldcom did most of their long distance stuff on top of IP6.

Re:Not IP

[cfulmer]

So, I'm a very recent ex-nortel person who did a lot of packet stuff. If I recall correctly, Sprint's network is an ATM one, either AAL1 or AAL2. AAL5 is IP-over-ATM, and isn't as common.

Note that in general, these are all behind-the-scenes private networks. You will still be circuit-switched to a point (inside your local office, typically). Then there'll be a TDM-to-packet gateway which converts your circuit-switched connection into ATM (or IP).

From an IP point of view, one of the side effects of this is that you don't need a seperate IP address for every phone, or even a seperate address for every house. All you need is an IP address/port number combination for each end of an active call in any given network. (And there are ways of getting around that restriction too.) Since these are all private networks cut off from the internet, IPV4 provides more than enough addresses.

Packet telephony all the way to the home, at least from the telcos, is some ways off. You'd either have to have a gateway inside your house to which you connect all your legacy phones, or you'd replace all the phones with IP phones. As you can probably see, there's a lot of inertia behind that *not* happening -- try convincing your great uncle Bert that he needs to replace all the phones in his house.

Let me guess

[botzi]

..will make it cheaper for Sprint to grow its network..
, unfortunately, monthly fees will rise with 25% due to the *better* services that'll be provided....;o)...

IPV6

[termos]

Call me on 3ffe:0501:0008:0000:0260:97ff:fe40:efab, see you soon.

Re:IPV6

[Anonymous Coward]

hmm, so much for easy to remember phone numbers like 1-800-CARPETS.

Now it'll be 1-800-I-DONT-HAVE-A-FLOOR-U-INSENSITIVE-CLOD

Re:IPV6

[c_g_hills]

I tried calling you, but the host appears to be down..
Pinging 3ffe:501:8:0:260:97ff:fe40:efab from 2001:630:1c0:1:201:2ff:fea9:9ae0 with 32 bytes of data:

Destination host unreachable.
Destination host unreachable.
Destination host unreachable.
Destination host unreachable.

8 149 ms 149 ms 149 ms 2001:200:0:6c04::1
9 281 ms 279 ms 287 ms pc1.notemachi.wide.ad.jp [2001:200:0:6c01:290:27ff:fe3a:d8]
10 277 ms 276 ms 277 ms pc6.otemachi.wide.ad.jp [2001:200:0:1800::9c4:0]
11 Destination host unreachable.

Circuit Switching will still be around...

[krystal_blade]

I really can't see an end to circuit switched networks any time soon. The switch to Packeted data is fine for most commercial traffic, but there are a few areas that will continue to require "locked in" circuits as opposed to packet buffering systems.

There is a lot of value in the use of packetized data. More "lines" over fewer trunks is just one of them, and for your average, everyday user, they will not notice the difference.

On the other hand, certain timing based encryption schemes will have to remain on locked in circuits to function. The latency caused through the use of packet buffering regardless of how slight, may be enough to cause a "handshake" failure, or just spew unintelligable garbage.

Of course, as encryption systems become more and more robust the need for "hard lines" will start to dissipate.

I for one welcome our new packetized telephone overlords...

krystal_blade

Re:Lets face it

[Alioth]

The network will still be switched at a local level, I suspect (even if the future telephone exchange, instead of switching analogue circuits, works more like an Ethernet switch). With so much copper going from the home/office to the exchange, it's likely to continue to be in use for the last mile for some time to come.

Trunk switching has been multiplexed for decades already. Previously, it might have been multiplexed by FDMA (frequency division), and now it looks like they are moving to IP based (or similar) to route calls through exchanges. The end user won't notice the difference. It's unlikely that the call routing will be done over the public Internet.

The trunk network can already run out of capacity - you do not now have dedicated bandwitdth and never had dedicated bandwidth over the trunk network (ever got the 'All circuits are busy' message?) A packet based trunk network is no less secure than the existing trunk networks. Packet switching != routing over the public internet.

Damn!

[HornyBastard77]

If they get rid of dedicated circuits then how am I going to get out of the Matrix anymore?

beginning of the end for circuit-switched networks

[evilviper]

It seems that technology moves in cycles...

"Serial is slow, let's move to parallel."
"Now parallel is slow, let's go to serial."

It all started with central, time-sharing systems, then switched to distributed computing when the technology permitted, and there now a trend torwards centralized administration again.

Batch processing was popular, then on-line processing replaced it, now many things are going back to batch processing because of the time/cost advantages it provides.

It seems that as technologies disappear, even newer technologies come along that remind everyone of the (still) very valid why they were using the older technologies in the first place.

Just wait, in 5-10 years, CRTs will be popular once again, and I suppose circuit switching will probably find a new foothold as well.

About Freaking time

[zakezuke]

Part of my major complaint in the 21century is the fact that modem technology has not really improved a whole hell of alot. Sure we have Cable and xDSL service if you are lucky enough to live near a place where they saw fit to actually upgrade.

When I see stuff like this, I get this warm happy feeling inside when it seems like it's actually a *good* idea to actually upgrade from our old vintage phone system to something that can do a hell of alot more useful things. Datapackets can be uniquely identified as "voice" "fax" or "data", which could in theory make a whole slew of things possible...

Though it makes me wonder, if the telcos are going for packet based voice communications, why the hell would I bother placing a long distance call through them when I can use VoIP software. Don't get me wrong, i'll all for the idea digital packet based phone service, if for nothing else but making all phones with that service high speed internet ready.

But will this benefit the consumer ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice idea and all that but how will the consumer benefit from this ? will we get lower call charges or will the CEO just get another 5million on his paypacket ?

Re:But will this benefit the consumer ?

[zakezuke]

Consumer benifits....

1. One phone number for multi devices (I think this was covered in the article).

2. Phone numbers not tied to physical location, but rather device or authentication. Would be most nifty for mobiles to go landline. (this was covered)

3. Multi communication... end users could in theory have two telephones, and place two calls on the same line. No further need for an alarm wire from your telco.

4. No D/A loss when you copy your CD over your phone.

5. Everyone is highspeed internet ready... in theory you need 32Kbit for decent voice, perhaps 64K / 128K bit just to be safe. Pay more money to throttle you up to internet speeds... no more waiting for low paid installers.

6. Networked appliances no longer need "internet access" but rather phone access, and no gay ass 300 baud modems in your digital cable box.

Re:But will this benefit the consumer ?

[blastedtokyo]

Not so fast. This is Sprint's long distance network. If your local telco's still using tin cans, it's not going to enable any of this. What it does mean is that the next time there's a SQL Slammer or other bug clogging the web, you're phone service is down too. I bet they're getting funded by corporate IT and helpdesk staff.

It'll never work

[cordsie]

What happens if voice IP traffic gets mixed with, say, a few Quake deathmatch packets? What happens if a bot starts taking railgun shots at bits of your conversation with your Mother? Or if a L33T D00D pulls down the grid for an entire city with a strategically placed rocket? I want answers, damn it!

Re:IP?

[pe1rxq]

Part of what you are describing is called virtual circuit switching in which a 'circuit' is established over a packet switched network. In real circuit switching there is a dedicated electrical circuit between the two endpoints, which indeed can be both digital and analogue.
TDM is sort of a strange thing in that there is no real electrical circuit but you do get a dedicated time slot on the line. ATM definitly is packet switched.
Guaranteeing bandwith (QoS) is not hard at all, the routers simply need a table of active circuits.
Only packets for those circuits and in only a certain amount get through.

Jeroen

Wiretapping

[Anonymous Coward]

The really fun thing about this means that any router can be told to simply copy every packet in a particular conversation to law enforcement.

Re:Wiretapping

[miu]

The really fun thing about this means that any router can be told to simply copy every packet in a particular conversation to law enforcement.

That is sort of the point of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act .

That particular battle was fought and lost 9 years ago.

Re:Lets face it

[Alioth]

Add to this that a traditional switched network gets really noise after a few switches and digital networks will....

This kind of switching hasn't been done for years. Electronic phone exchanges have existed for decades, and digital phone exchanges (at least where I live) have made up the entire network for over 10 years.

The electromechanical exchanges did manage to hang on into the early 1990s in many places though. Good old Strowger. (An excellent site about the phone network in days gone by is Light Straw. If you are ever in a position to visit the London Science Museum, they have a good-sized portion of a Strowger phone exchange that you can play with - makes lovely clattering noises!)

Packet Switched Voice is not the Internet

[Detritus]

Although they will probably use IP to transport voice data between their switches, that does not mean that any of the data will travel over the public Internet or that the end users will use IP. All this does is change the design of the subnet used to transport voice data in between toll switches, not the interface between the toll switch and the end user.

And in the UK

[Zog The Undeniable]

British Telecom's main fibre optic backbone is a packet-switched network. It's only the "last mile" that's truly circuit switched these days. We have a fairly modern telephone system in the UK, only hampered by stupid area codes based on centres of population rather than numbers of people as in the US (so the big towns such as London, Bristol, Reading and Leicester ran out of numbers quickly and had to have their codes changed). To be fair, no-one anticipated fax machines and data connections when the coding system was decided.

Re:The USA is Dying

[Anonymous Coward]

It is official -- Slashdot is now reporting that circuit switching is dying.

One more crippling bombshell crushed the already beleaguered circuit-switching community when slashdot.com community didn't care that the use of circuit switches has dropped yet again. Coming on the heels of a recent Usenet survey which plainly states that circuit switches are boring, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Circuit switch use is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by falling dead last in the recent Cowboy Neal polls.

You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict circuit switching's future. The hand writing is on the wall: Circuit switching faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for circuit switching because it is dying. Things are looking very bad for circuit switching. As many of us are already aware, the circuit switch continues to lose relevence. Red ink flows like a river of blood.

Fact: Nobody cares Timmy.

Not IP but ATM

[geirt]

The Sprint Press Release states that they are going to use ATM, not IP.

Some questions/observations

[whovian]

1. This is only going to help drive down cell phone prices, helping to make land lines obsolete once again. (This was likely to happen eventually anyway, right?) If the article is right and you can forward your conversations to any IP address (at an extra cost), the primary advantage cells have are mobility, such is the case now. Until, that is, when you think about wireless solutions and VoIP. Mmmmm...DHCP + VoIP :)

2. A brief search of the web suggests VoIP can be more secure than traditional telephony. To what extent will government fight this? Effectively having an SSH tunnel to the other caller wouldn't be appreciated by the gov't given the present modus operandi of the US.

3. VoIP is certainly a logical progression, and I don't see the big telcos going out of business soon. Where I live, there are just a few DSL providers but only one company (SBC) owns all the wires into the area. Their only real competitor is cable TV whom they are fighting tooth and nail to gain marketshare. I imagine access to wireless frequencies has very little competition (think: 802.11), but will there need to be legislation to keeping it open?

Re:beginning of the end for circuit-switched netwo

[w1r3sp33d]

The first telco wiring was bundles of copper lines, one pair per phone call (anyone see that picture of San Fran circa 1930 where you nearly couldn't see the water through the lines?) The second phase of telco life was TDM, one wire pair=one T1 with 24 paths and a path was created on the fly across one of these "channels." Now packet switching city to city is really the current answer, I don't see us going back to installing thousands of miles of copper in a city or installing TDM technology anywhere but to the doorstep.

I have been installing VOIP, VOFR, and IP Telephony for years now for many businesses, I have lots of 99.999% uptime systems, no complaints in almost two years for quality of voice, I can't believe /.ers are amazed and puzzled by such simple things as a forty year old idea being used by a carrier. I guess /. isn't what it used to be.

Re:IP?! Or ATM? Or something else?

[richard_willey]

I beg to differ.

Voice over IP is already standard part of corporate IT. It is rapidly leaking into the consumer space.

Historically, Big Dumb Pipes have continually displaced managed bandwidth type systems. Voice over IP is just the latest example.

I did a consulting project for Qualcomm as part of my classwork last semester studying whether 802.11b has the potential to disrupt CDMA networks. People might find the paper interesting, since it indirectly addresses many of the same issues.

http://web.mit.edu/~rwilley/www/Qualcomm.pdf

Re:Already going on .... elsewhere

[uspsguy]

Gee! Isn't it amazing that countries that don't have an infrastructure would be building one using current technology and a country that has a huge, solid, working one would be a little slower to convert to something new. Because the US was an "early addopter" of telephone technology, we're a little slower upgrading but we've been talking all over the country for a loooong time.

Background info

[vestus]

See Nortel UEMG9000 for info.
I used to work on this, and can say that its quite a robust system. Runs about 8000 POTS lines or 2000 xDSL, and also supports DS1 and TDM lines. Backbone is OC3 ATM with other options available. VOIP should be done now/soon but I don't believe Sprint went that route. The system has Echo Cancellation and all the other required perks to ensure good quality.
Used to.. Anyone need an embedded driver dev in RTP?