Slashdot Mirror


BT Plans Move To IP Telephony, Starting Next Year

pure_equanimity writes "The BBC have published an article saying that BT are planning to migrate from a PSTN to an IP network, a move to cost 3bn. They say that broadband will become ubiquitous, with customers having the ability to plug any device in to get access. They also say that current cheap broadband products will more than likely not be viable in five years time. They plan to start rolling out in 2006, and cover the vast majority of customers by 2009."

228 comments

  1. Wow - That's unexpected by Nurgled · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This was the last thing I expected from BT after their faffing about with getting DSL sorted out a few years back. This should be interesting...

    Too bad I'm not a BT customer. I wonder what will become of all of the mini-telcos which currently hang off BT's network.

    1. Re:Wow - That's unexpected by doofusclam · · Score: 1

      Nothing - according to BT the changes should be invisible. They have to be, else there's any amount of old kit that may go wrong.

    2. Re:Wow - That's unexpected by iserlohn · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Definitely, considering how expensive ADSL and broadband in general is in the UK, and the stranglehold BT has on providing wholesale ASDL in the market.

      The only reason they are doing this most likely to tap into the mobile and other new markets, and it looks like a risky investment. No-one knows what the market would be like 2 years down the road, let alone 5 years.

    3. Re:Wow - That's unexpected by AliasTheRoot · · Score: 1

      Is broadband expensive in the UK? I didn't notice. I thought 25 per month for 1mbit was Á(onable.

    4. Re:Wow - That's unexpected by AliasTheRoot · · Score: 1

      not sure what happened there, typed reasonable

    5. Re:Wow - That's unexpected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's obviously data corruption on your ultra-cheap broadband ;)

    6. Re:Wow - That's unexpected by iserlohn · · Score: 3, Interesting

      25/mth is quite good in the UK actually, but 25 pounds = 45 USD. You could probably get 1.5mbs with a good provider in the US for $35, and in Canada for less than $25 ($20 USD). In Japan and HK, you get 10+mbs for around $20 USD.

      Telewest has just increase it's bandwidth by 50% though (no change in the plan price though). 512->768k, 1.0->1.5m etc. It's great and probably a good deal if you want 1mbs and don't have bulldog in your area.

    7. Re:Wow - That's unexpected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would kill for UK prices. Here I pay 50€ for a 256kps/128kbps ADSL line.

    8. Re:Wow - That's unexpected by Chep · · Score: 2, Informative

      Where are you locked in, Greece?

      Here the urban (unbundled) rate is 29.90€ for 5M/384k (TV-DSL and VoIP off) or 2M/384k (TV-DSL and VoIP on), and you can find providers starting at 12.99€/month for 512/128.

      Outside of cities (non-unbundled rate), of course, the standard France Telecom gouging comes back, and prices are between 29.90€ for 1024/128 and 35€ for 512/128 (depending on the ISP, the base carrier being always FT).

    9. Re:Wow - That's unexpected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      25/mth is quite good in the UK actually
      Central Point do a 2meg line for 35/month. I would appreciate it if someone can tell me what the catch is because I have to say, it looks very tempting.
    10. Re:Wow - That's unexpected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Don't worry


      Here, in Spain, until nowadays, you have from 39 euro/month for 256/128Kbps to 139 euro/month for 2M/300Kbps.


      And now the ISPs says that they give us twice the velocity for the same prize :-/


      We have, in Spain, the most expensive broadband in the f***ing world!!!

    11. Re:Wow - That's unexpected by sql*kitten · · Score: 1

      Definitely, considering how expensive ADSL and broadband in general is in the UK

      Wha?? 20-25 squids a month, free setup and a free (admittedly probably fairly crap) USB modem with most providers is not "expensive"! Hell, I can't see how anyone who can afford a PC can't afford ADSL!

    12. Re:Wow - That's unexpected by iserlohn · · Score: 1

      Check adslguide.org.uk for any user reviews.

  2. So... by macshune · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "They also say that current cheap broadband products will more than likely not be viable in five years time. They plan to start rolling out in 2006, and cover the vast majority of customers by 2009."

    So they are gonna hook customers up right before the prices go up? I thought prices would go down as time marches on? What about all that "dark fiber"?

    1. Re:So... by Tooky · · Score: 4, Informative

      So they are gonna hook customers up right before the prices go up? I thought prices would go down as time marches on? What about all that "dark fiber"?

      Reading the article I took it to mean that cheap broadband IP telephony products would be unviable in 5 years time, not broadband internet per se.

    2. Re:So... by Znork · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Indeed, that's what they say. However, as ip telephony can be expected to use a miniscule fraction of the bandwidth on a broadband connection, and IP telephony service isnt that expensive to set up, they'd have to figure out a way to lock you in, easiest by controlling and raising the price on your broadband as it would be much harder to control and overcharge for IP telephony service.

    3. Re:So... by AllUsernamesAreGone · · Score: 4, Funny

      This is BT. Control and Overcharge are their middle names. Actually their full name is Bastard Control Crumbling Infrastructure Bad Support Incompetent Overcharge Telecom. They shorten it to BT so they can fit it on the trucks and use the cover name "British Telecom".

      They'd have no problems at all in controlling or overcharging for IPT, especially with the Toothless Wonder regulator (whose best threats seem to be things like "Oh, go on, please drop your prices, pretty please with a picture of Tony on the top"... although anything with a picture of President Blair on it is probably a serious threat now I think about it..)

  3. PSTN? by OverlordQ · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'll admit I had to look this one up, if ya woulda said POTS, I would of known right off the bat.

    Public Switched Telephone Network btw.

    --
    Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    1. Re:PSTN? by Nurgled · · Score: 1

      British terminology, my friend. :)

    2. Re:PSTN? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      PSTN is defined in the BBC news article. However, it was apparently easier for the parent to look up PSTN (presumably a Google search or similar) than it was to RTFA. A get Informative +4 for it.

    3. Re:PSTN? by PowerBert · · Score: 3, Funny

      Rubbish!

      Back in my day PSTN was "Packet Switched Telephone Network". It was called that because it used packet switching to route information. Whoever heard of Public switching?

      Public switching:

      1. An outdated communications protocol used before IP on the original internet in 1500BC. It was slow by todays standards, had no means of error checking and could not gaurentee delivery. It's still used today, but only at childrens parties where it is more often referred to as Chinese whispers.

      2. A method for routing humans around the world. It is used mostly at airports and train stations to route people to their destination via the most efficient link. Two people may travel to the same destination, but be switched through different routes. As a result people may arrive in a different order. Unfortunately the protocol has no method for reordering people, which is why the Airtours REP protocol is often used in conjunction with this network.

    4. Re:PSTN? by stoborrobots · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's a Switched Telephone Network for Public use... as opposed to Private Automatic Branch eXchange...

      "Public Switching"... Heh!

    5. Re:PSTN? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "Public". Right. What is it that makes people think they have to post to every damn topic? We've got someone who knows squat about telephony, who looks up the acronym and gets it wrong, then idiot moderators give him a "4, Informative" for (a) displaying ignorance, (b) displaying an ability to look something up and remember it incorrectly, (c) adding pointless noise to the thread.

      Jeez, what's this need people have to boast that they're stumbling around in the foothills of the learning curve?

    6. Re:PSTN? by Alioth · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, PSTN does stand for Public Switched Telephone Network - the public bit meaning not private (as in PABX - Private Automatic Branch eXchange).

      Packet switching on telephone networks is a relatively new thing (compared to the history of automatic telephone switching). Until 20 years ago, most telephone switching was still done by electromechanical machines (google for Strowger Telephone Exchange) - huge rooms full of physical switches (uniselectors, bidirectional selectors) and relays which moved and clattered as subscribers dialed telephone numbers; the tones (such as ringing, number unobtainable, engaged etc) generated by a motor-driven machine. If you go to the London Science Museum, they have part of one of these exchanges you can play with.
      Trunk calls were routed using analogue frequency division multiplexing rather than packet switching. Signalling between mechanical telephone exchanges was done at voice frequencies (for example, the famous 2600Hz tone - in Britain, the frequency was different and it was known as 2VF - if you listen to some Radio 4 radio plays you'll find the sound engineers still like inserting the 'pip' sound when someone answers a call which you heard when the 2VF signalling wasn't quite fully supressed from reaching the subscriber's phone. These 'pip' sounds probably disappeared from the public network 20 years ago but the sound engys at the BBC seem to like them).

    7. Re:PSTN? by Some+Bitch · · Score: 3, Informative

      I suggest you do a little checking then I believe you will find an apology is in order. The P in PSTN is "Public" and always has been.

      "packet switched telephone network" gives 61 results on Google (all from idiots).

      "Public switched telephone network" gives around 119000 results.

      I rest my case.

    8. Re:PSTN? by Some+Bitch · · Score: 1

      Bollocks. See my post here.

    9. Re:PSTN? by DudeG · · Score: 1

      You know, every time I heard that 'pip' I wondered why they put it in, as I'd never heard it on a real phone.

      Cheers!

    10. Re:PSTN? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I vaguely remember a similar thing growing up in Australia. Or maybe I have just listened to too many radio plays.

    11. Re:PSTN? by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
      As others have pointed out, it's "Public" not "Packet". It's circuit switched.

      The reason for the acronym isn't to describe a standard, it's to describe a network. The PSTN is essentially to POTS and ISDN what The Internet is to TCP/IP.

      I hope that helps,

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    12. Re:PSTN? by Alioth · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sometimes they even put the old 'purring' dialtone into modern radio plays! The last Strowger exchange in Britain disappeared in the early 90s, the purring dialtone hasn't been on the public phone network since then. They also sometimes have the dialtone come back when the remote caller hangs up - in reality, you get the NU (number unobtainable - beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep) when the remote end hangs up if they were the person who calls you, if you were the caller, the line doesn't clear down until you replace the handset or a timeout period is reached.

      Actually, there's some website out there with a recording of the demo of 2VF signalling. It is _so_ quintessentially British. You can probably find it by Googling.

      Actually, that's a neat trick. If you call someone and are having an argument, and they hang up on you, don't put the phone down. If they pick it up again (probably to call and whine at one of their girl friends about what a nasty man you are) you'll still be there :-)

    13. Re:PSTN? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not to mention that the PSTN also uses circuit switching, not just packet switching.

    14. Re:PSTN? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Public switching != Public commuting

  4. Yea... by Deltan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Good Luck with that BT. There are tons of people out there with old rotary phones still, utilizing pulse dialing. They're not going to get some old lady to change her pots phone for some fancy IP phone.

    1. Re:Yea... by Tranzig · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't how things happen there but many elderly switched to ISDN here a couple years ago, only because they were persuaded by the ads. They don't know Internet at all, and their only reason for swiching was: ``They said it's faster''.

    2. Re:Yea... by Zog+The+Undeniable · · Score: 4, Informative

      All BT's exchanges have been System X (digital) for a few years now, but pulse-dialling still works in software, should you want it. The main reason some people still have dial phones is that they were hardwired to the wall, and it's an offence to get anyone but BT to install a modern plug-in wall box. At a cost.

      --
      When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
    3. Re:Yea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well, actually, I still use pulse dialling, on a 20 year old cheap plug-in phone. And I'll resist having to shell out for a new phone as long as I possibly can; I hardly use the phone at all, (less than 1 hour per quarter, and that's WAY up from a year ago) and don't need any of the extra cost BT "services" that you can get with a tone dialler.

      On the other hand, I do have an ADSL modem/router....

    4. Re:Yea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My parents had an old phone hardwired into the wall. They switched to Telecential (who were then bought up by NTL), but they had to call BT and ask them to physically remove the BT phone line to the house before BT would take away the old phone!
      The pain involved in getting NTL to disconnect their phone service when they moved house a few years later is another story...

    5. Re:Yea... by NotWulfen · · Score: 1

      POTS > IP Telephony bridge in the NID... :)

    6. Re:Yea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ..it's an offence to get anyone but BT to install a modern plug-in wall box. At a cost.

      BT provided free conversion to any customer that wanted it for over 15 years. All they had to do was ask. Eventually so few people were asking that BT finally said "Well, you've all had your chance and it's costing us too much money to keep doing it for free. You'll have to pay now" 15 years is plenty of time for everyone to have their socket replaced.

    7. Re:Yea... by curator_thew · · Score: 4, Informative

      "They're not going to get some old lady to change her pots phone for some fancy IP phone"

      Did you comprehend the article? This is more about their internal network, rather than the customer equipment.

      They will convert their entire internal network into VOIP, so even if you have an old analog POTS line, your calls will be VOIP'd between exchanges.

      Naturally, once they have a native internal VOIP network, then they're in a better position to offer interesting VOIP services directly to the customer. But a vast majority of customers will still be using analog POTS.

      It's hardly surprising: if they don't do this then they will fall behind in offering the kinds of innovative services that upstart VOIP vendors can offer. It also makes for better service integration and interoperation with future 4G technologies, etc.

    8. Re:Yea... by mccalli · · Score: 1
      Eventually so few people were asking that BT finally said "Well, you've all had your chance and it's costing us too much money to keep doing it for free. You'll have to pay now"

      That doesn't make sense - it was costing them money to never do something because no-one was asking for it...?

      I still have a pulse-dialling phone by the way. But that's because it's nearly 90 years old and has been updated to work on the modern lines. It's not my main phone, but I'm not parting with it any time soon either.

      Cheers,
      Ian

    9. Re:Yea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, BT provided the conversion for free. This cost them a lot of money and engineers time but the trade off was that they could then sell more equipment and digital services to those customers, and make the money back plus profit. They could have an engineer doing nowt but travelling an area doing socket conversions and make money still, no problems. But when there isn't enough conversions to be done, they start to loose money. The number of conversions is low and the number of extra services they could sell to those who were converting was small; the customers who found all those features useful had converted long ago. So BT were doing free conversions for customer from whom they couldn't make any significant revenue from. So they started to charge for the conversions.

    10. Re:Yea... by caramelcarrot · · Score: 1

      Besides, will dial up modems still work despite lossy compression? Is this a way to force people over to dsl/cable? It may be more than just old grannies with archaic phones.

    11. Re:Yea... by David+Horn · · Score: 1

      No, it's not an offence to install your own equipment.

      I installed a second line myself (BT just switched it on down at the exchange) and after I acccidentally demolished the current routing box into the house (don't ask...) I got a new one free of charge. I just found a BT van and asked the driver for the stuff when he was on his lunch break.

      Besides, all the boxes (master and slave) are available at any DIY shop - if it's an offence to install them, why are they for sale? Hell, most even have the official BT logo on.

      At least in the UK, installing stuff to do with phone lines is ridiculously easy - you only have two wires, and as it's AC, they work either way round. Only issue is that it hurts if you touch the bare ends.

      I'm sure if you dug up the line leading into your house you're probably on dodgy legal ground, but you can do what you like to it within reason once it's in the house. Of course, if you don't have a basic grasp of electrical components and how to use the tools for the telephone sockets, you're perhaps not best equipped to fiddle.

      --
      PocketGamer.org - For the gamer on the go!
    12. Re:Yea... by a5cii · · Score: 2, Informative

      This isn't the case.

      BT still use System X, System Y and UXD5B exchanges.

      System X (digital) is the newest, has most available select services - call barring, divert and so on - supports ADSL

      System Y (digital) is the second newest, has a lot of available select services - call barring, divert and so on but certain select services have different configuration options - supports ADSL

      UXD5B (analogue) is the oldest still in use on the Public BT Network, customers cannot get diverts put on when their line is broken with this kind of exchange, a lot of select services arent available. - does not support ADSL

      Its 4.15pm and i am off to work, call 151 and maybe ill chat to you - 151 BT faults

    13. Re:Yea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "No, it's not an offence to install your own equipment."

      It is to install the terminating master box on the end of the BT wire. That's the reason that the master has a breakout with standard 'slice' connectors for any extensions that you choose to install.

      "if it's an offence to install them, why are they for sale?"

      Market forces and a tacit admission that not a lot of people go to court over it. However, if you shag the exchange you can expect them to chuck the book at you.

      They tried with me, until I claimed that a lightning strike was seen nearby. Shorting the wires probably didn't help.

    14. Re:Yea... by sloshr · · Score: 1

      The US gov't seems to think everyones going to switch to HDTV - implied deadlines and everything. Why not the phone system?

  5. rims? by narkotix · · Score: 3, Interesting

    do people in britain (and other countries) suffer from the RIM syndrome? ie being on a remote integrated multiplexor? or even being pairgained? If its common over there, does that mean BT will be ugprading all their exchanges?

    --
    We played dungeons and dragons for 3 hours.....then i was slain by an elf
    1. Re:rims? by natd · · Score: 2, Funny
      Even worse. Lookup Milton Keynes.

      --
      Only big ligs use sigs.
    2. Re:rims? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.bb4mk.org/
      im assuming thats the right one?

    3. Re:rims? by Brie+and+gherkins · · Score: 3, Funny

      WTFAYBOA?

      Good God man, what the blazes?

      I have phone, I plug in wall, I call my mamma. No thankyou multiplexor pargainer, not today, Goodbye!

      --
      If I promise to be a good boy can I have some better karma?
    4. Re:rims? by Dogers · · Score: 3, Informative

      I can only assume you mean DAC's? Where a cable is split into effectively 2 seperate lines (limiting your modem dialup to 28k, no matter what)

      Yes, they use it a lot here, but I dont think its an exchange limitation (generally anyway) - it seems to be more of a local box/cabling thing.. when we had an extra 3 lines put in the engineer said if we got 1 more, BT would have to upgrade the cable from the exchange to the subbox, then to our house! He also mumbled something about that probably helping them justify updating the exchange to DSL as well, but being students at the time, we couldnt afford the "chance" of DSL for the cost of another line :(

      --
      I am a viral sig. Please copy me and help me spread. Thank you.
    5. Re:rims? by narkotix · · Score: 1
      I can only assume you mean DAC's? Where a cable is split into effectively 2 seperate lines (limiting your modem dialup to 28k, no matter what)

      exactly right but telco's have a tendency to split one actual line into two so you and your neighbour get 1 line each to save running 2 separate lines.

      --
      We played dungeons and dragons for 3 hours.....then i was slain by an elf
    6. Re:rims? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you mean DACS?

      AFAIK this is where there arent enough pairs to give each customer their own, so they share one pair. the alalog signal is digitised in the DACS, multiplexed down one pair then de-multiplexed at the exchange.

      Very bad for people wanting to use modems on their line!

    7. Re:rims? by Ewan · · Score: 1

      It's more common in the UK if you get a 2nd phone line installed instead - at that point you just get a splitter installed not a 2nd line.

      Ewan

    8. Re:rims? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dont you mean OMGLOLWTFBBQ?

    9. Re:rims? by squaretorus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      My new house suffers from this, but a quick hour on the phone to BT persuaded them that this 'sucked' and that upgrading my line was a 'good idea' so that I could get broadband.

      For anyone in a similar position, heres how I did it. Remember at all times that the person you are talking to is a thick bastard who couldnt get a real job and hates his/her life and just wants to go home.

      Is my phoneline split? I can only get 28Kbps on my dial up! Can I get broadband - I know my exchange is enabled.
      "Your line fails the test sir - you cant get broadband"
      "But is my line split? I beleive I read that if your line is split BT has to replace it if you order broadband on an enabled exchange"
      "I dont think thats right sir - where did you see that?"
      "In flight magazine probably - BA"
      "I'll ask my supervisor"
      "Hello - supervisor here - you have a line issue"
      "I want a new line because I suspect its shared and I want broadband and you have to change the line" ...
      to cut a long story short (well - okay - lonng) I just repeated this about 2 dozen times until they booked me an engineer to replace the line. I dont think its true - but these guys just want an easy life so hassle them into giving you the line. Oh - but remember - when they say "where did you read it" say "Fortune" or "In flight magazine" not "/."

    10. Re:rims? by smellystudent · · Score: 1

      DACs also kill ADSL connectivity. BT had to remove one to allow a client to get ADSL service. Took them three bloody months, during which time they managed to cut off the ISDN lines twice.

      --
      Predictive text is shiv!
    11. Re:rims? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Actually I'm not all that surprised. Depending on the department they probably did not have enough information from your account to tell you if you had a DAC on the line. Telesales have a script-driven system called GT-X which has no access to your customer account (It's all batch). 150 customer service are slightly better SMART system, but it still isn't smart enough to provide detailed line setup information.

      Remember at all times that the person you are talking to is a thick bastard who couldnt get a real job and hates his/her life..

      If you mean telesales, yeah you're probably right. Bunch of script monkeys who used to sell the entire range of digital services to little old ladies who didn't want them. If you mean 150 then fuck you, I used to do that job and the vast majority of the people there knew their stuff.

      ..and just wants to go home.

      You got that bit right though.

    12. Re:rims? by jadel · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is quite common in Australia. Basically a pair gain allows one copper pair to multiplex multiple conversations (commonly two, but it may be more) allowing more phones to be connected without having to drag more copper through the conduits to peoples houses. A rim is a different device, basically a miniature exchange that connects via fibre optic cable to the main exchange building to avoid having to drag each individual copper pair all the way back.
      Being on either device basically guarentees that you will be unable to get ADSL, although Telstra the company that owns the phone lines will now attempt to transpose over to plain copper if they are cajoled enough.
      For more information on the Australian broadband experience have a look at whirlpool.

    13. Re:rims? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea, I get all my tech knowledge from Fortune and in flight magazines. What the hell?

    14. Re:rims? by squaretorus · · Score: 1

      Just in case you actually check you AC contributions I might as well explain. Some people need broadband for business. Business magazines tell you how to get broadband when its not easy. Business users tend to be happy to pay for shit, and to write complaining letters, so DTS (dopey telsales staff) are more likely to beleive them.

    15. Re:rims? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      For more information on the Australian broadband experience have a look at whirlpool.
      Please don't.

      As a technical employee of our lumbering telco behemoth, with 20 years experience in both exchange/switching/transmission/CAN technologies and computer networking, I can tell you that nobody hates Telstra more than I do.

      But Whirlpool is populated almost entirely by juvenile whinging clueless fucknuts...

      Oh, and RIMS work two ways : integrated, where the RU is basically a local switching stage hanging off a group stage; and non-integrated, where they work as digital line extenders - the line comes out of the local switching stage at the exchange as analogue POTS, into POTS EU cards at the RIM exchange end panel, converted to digital and transmitted to the RU, then converted back to analogue for distribution locally.

      Which is why your 56K modem won't do much better than ~28k over a non-integrated RIM panel.

      Most of the RIMS that went in in the Big Rush of the 90's were all non-integrated, maybe a few with a single integrated panel. Towards the end they were mostly integrated, with one or two non-integrated panels (required for some services and extras e.g. private lines, continuously-monitored security alarms, etc.). But the damage was already done...

      Today, around here (Brisbane, Qld Metro) at least, most RIMS seem to have a "minumux" installed where there was spare panel space - basically, a CMUX "DSLAM" located at the RU - giving ADSL capabilities to customers on the RIM.

      (Oh, and don't ever try to bullshit a real Telstra technician on your technical knowledge by talking about "DSLAM"s - here's they're known by their equipment types (CMUXs or ASAMs). Real technicians will laugh at you behind their back; clueless technicians - basically, non-technical lines staff given the title of "Communications Technician" in a magic-beans pay negotiation a few years ago - will go "Huh? Wha'?"...)

      Posted anonymously for obvious reasons. Guess I really am a coward, huh?
  6. cheap 'international' effect calls by kefa · · Score: 1

    Does this mean we can look forward to delay effects normally associated with international calls when making local calls?

    1. Re:cheap 'international' effect calls by Alioth · · Score: 1

      No. Carrier grade VOIP will be a bit better implemented than cheap consumer grade VOIP.

  7. So what numbers will we use by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 0

    Im having trouble remembering peoples seven digit numbers. What happens when your telephone number is 153.127.879.946. What happens if it's IPv6!! P.S. This isn't meant to be funny. I'm dead serious.

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
    1. Re:So what numbers will we use by Inda · · Score: 1

      Forgive me if I don't get the technology right here.

      We don't remember IP address for websites at the moment. We use DNS. Would the same not be true for your example?

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    2. Re:So what numbers will we use by mrchaotica · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, everyone will just register a .phone domain for themselves, so you can just call them by name.

      God help you if you're John Smith!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    3. Re:So what numbers will we use by ciroknight · · Score: 3, Informative

      Most likely they'll continue to use phone numbers. It's too much of an investment to try to change the number system, and on top of that, it'd be much harder for a traditional telephone to call an IP number.

      Basically, they're turning the voice data into packets and then sending the packets across their network, improving the effeciency of their lines. There's been a lot of discussion about this lately actually. Either way, I wish the american phone companies would get on the ball...

      --
      "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
    4. Re:So what numbers will we use by ZombieEngineer · · Score: 5, Funny
      When you go to IPv6, it makes it nigh impossible for sales people to cold call your unlisted IP address.

      ZombieEngineer

    5. Re:So what numbers will we use by HappyClown · · Score: 1
      There's no reason why they can't map existing phone numbers to an IP address. In fact it's almost certain that this is what will happen - consider the expense to (and outcry from!) local businesses if they all had to change their signs, business cards, advertisments, ...

      Over time there's the possibility of moving towards other IDs such as domain names or what have you. Raw IPs aren't likely to ever be visible to anyone but the nerds.

    6. Re:So what numbers will we use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come on, man. Two last parts of ip numbers are impossible. Sure you got the right tel. no? ;)

      hannu

    7. Re:So what numbers will we use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come on, man. The two latter parts are out of domain for ip-numbers. Are you sure, You've got the right telephone number? ;)

      hannu

    8. Re:So what numbers will we use by WarwickRyan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The backend is going to be IP based you fool. So we'll still have telephone numbers etc, but BT will route all of the call data via IP. So, basically, they'll reduce the already tiny operating costs even more, whilst attempting to bump up the cost of xDSL even further. They'll probably argue along the lines of "Mr X uses much more bandwidth now so we have to charge more". The excess bandwidth being Mr X's telephone calls, which he is already paying for.

    9. Re:So what numbers will we use by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      My concern was less over the form of the number than its size.

      I had read that companies in the states gave out 10 digit phone numbers to their VOIP customers.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    10. Re:So what numbers will we use by ErichTheWebGuy · · Score: 1

      I had read that companies in the states gave out 10 digit phone numbers to their VOIP customers.

      I (along with the rest of my company) use VoIP phones. We all have 7 digit direct dial numbers. If someone from outside the local area code wants to call, of course they must use 10 digits.

      The exceptions are in some major metro areas, like Denver, CO. There, all dialing, both local and long distance, is 10 digit, both PSTN and VoIP.

      --
      bash: rtfm: command not found
    11. Re:So what numbers will we use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      consider the expense to (and outcry from!) local businesses if they all had to change their signs, business cards, advertisments, ...

      Hah! You'd be shocked at how often the numbers do change here. Nearly fifteen years ago the area codes for London were split into two. Then about ten years ago all of the area codes changed, and some areas got brand new area codes. The London codes changed again. Then a couple of years ago the codes changed again for some areas, and instead of every U.K area code starting with 01, they added 02xx codes as well. London changed again.

      Area codes in the U.K are a fucking pain in the ass, and doubly so if you live in London. I thought the old system of 01xxx was fine, and made a lot of sense, but then they decided that 999 possible area codes in the 01xxx range wasn't enough and they needed an extra 999 codes in the 02xxx range, and just in case the 03xxx range is reserved for yet more area codes. Should the United Kingdom ever require 2,997 area codes I guess we'll be glad, but I can't see it happening somehow.

    12. Re:So what numbers will we use by eyeye · · Score: 2, Insightful

      UK people already have 11 digit telephone numbers (more or less) so that would be an improvement!

      I dont trust BT to make a success of this as they are total shite at dealing with internet technologies.

      --
      Bush and Blair ate my sig!
    13. Re:So what numbers will we use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      No way there are enough IPv4 adresses for this. Perhaps BT can get enough addresses, meybe even the next telco who tries to do this, but globally this is not a solution.

      Now if they used IPv6... perhaps this will be the "killer app" for IPv6?

    14. Re:So what numbers will we use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't realise that BT have done this many, many times already. A few years ago saw "phONE day" [sic] when all area codes that began with a zero, which was the vast majority, were changed to 01 because of all the new fax machines and ISDN lines that required numbers. My Portsmouth number went from 0705 to 01705. This happened across the land with signwriters, printers etc. cashing in.

      Then, a few years later BT announce that there are still not enough numbers so Portsmouth was changed from 01705 to 023 with 92 in front of every local number. Southampton was ALSO given 023 but with 80 in front of the local numbers, rather than their own area code which they had originally (01703).

      Currently some cities have three digits,
      Large areas have four (Newcastle, Gateshead, Sunderland and the surrounding area all share 0191)
      Other towns and cities have the traditional five digits.

      It's a mess so don't expect BT to worry about the cost of printing new letterheads. It never stopped them before.

    15. Re:So what numbers will we use by sploxx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, and I *really, really* hope they have made provisions to switch to IPv6 or are doing everything on top of IPv6.

      It would be a pain in the a** to update all the people's IP telephones from IPv4 to IPv6 (If it would be possible at all). And that would hamper the spread of IPv6 alot.

      They are brave enough to switch to IP, hopefully they're also brave enough to switch to IPv6.

    16. Re:So what numbers will we use by PaulGrimshaw · · Score: 1

      Yep... until you start getting spam bots searching for your webphone... then you will need a spamphoneassasin type thing.. whole can of worms.

    17. Re:So what numbers will we use by kunudo · · Score: 1

      You haven't looked up how much bandwidth voip uses, have you? For example, ventrilo, one popular voip app, uses about 6k/sec when talking, but ~0 when there's no talk. Acheived courtesy of the GSM codec. Or 0 when it's not connected. You don't sit on the phone 24/7 do you? If so, I'd suspect that you are allready paying quite a lot.

    18. Re:So what numbers will we use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nonono, it will all be much more complicated than this.
      As somebody said higher in the thread, the UK telephone network is not like other networks. It's only a few years (10? 15?) since they introduced standard area codes. Before that *each telephone area used its own sets of prefixes to contact any other area*. So calling Leeds from Bradford might have used 0123 as an area code, but from Sheffield it could have been 0456! This is why UK telephone numbers used to be given in the form of "Maidstone 789456" rather than anything sensible.
      So what we can expect is different IP numbers from different exchanges... :-)

    19. Re:So what numbers will we use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't realise that BT have done this..

      BT are not responsible for it, you need to blame the old OFTEL regulatory body, who are now part of OFCOM. BT may be shit in a lot of respects but you can't shit on them for this, too.

    20. Re:So what numbers will we use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And all the poor John Smiths gets hassled and interrogated every time they books a flight these days. Seriously.

    21. Re:So what numbers will we use by WarwickRyan · · Score: 1

      "Joe Bloggs" only use around 6k/sec on their xDSL connection, so overall an average line will see an 15-20% increase in usage.

      Though around the time the network is rolled out Video On Demand may be mass market, which would reduce that a lot - but BT do mention videoconferencing in addition to vanilla calls...

    22. Re:So what numbers will we use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      slightly off-topic, but the most common name is actually 'Mohammed'.

    23. Re:So what numbers will we use by PMuse · · Score: 1

      Im having trouble remembering peoples seven digit numbers. What happens when your telephone number is . . . IPv6!!

      Prediction: most of us will live to see the death of the phone number in general usage.

      The notion that a person should have to remember an almost-random 10-digit string of numbers to speak to the person they wish to speak to is merely a relic of old, limited technology. It is a relic that will go away. Why should the system not handle tracking down and locating our recipient for us?

      Cellular networks now locate recipient's cell phones when the recipient is travelling and route the call. Many phones and some cellular company central systems now use limited amounts of voice recognition. DNS now translates names to numbers. This change will come in our lifetimes. Phone numbers will be regarded as a crutch between the era of human operators placing all calls and the era of "Computer, where is Mr. Riker?"

      At present, I know of no comprehensive effort to do this, but the necessary technologies are quickly falling into place. Sure, there are problems like disambiguation, but they aren't unsolvable.

      --
      "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
    24. Re:So what numbers will we use by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      In England?!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    25. Re:So what numbers will we use by muzthe42nd · · Score: 0

      Have you been to England? The Daily Mail keeps telling us that we're going to be over run by all those asylum seekrs...

      --
      Pfft - Sorry, what?
    26. Re:So what numbers will we use by tengwar · · Score: 1
      They are brave enough to switch to IP, hopefully they're also brave enough to switch to IPv6.

      BT Exact offers a free IPv6 tunnel-broker service which I've found useful, so yes, I think they probably will use IPv6 internally.

  8. Charge by the MB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You can bet their charging scheme will change to p/minute to p/MB of data. That way they can cash in on all the "free" telephony.

    1. Re:Charge by the MB by Brie+and+gherkins · · Score: 3, Funny

      I personally enjoy spending incalcuable amounts of money for telephony. I have a 200+ special, but only on the same network, 25p peak unless I call my grandmother after texting twice in which case it's 17p per minute, unless I'm in the lounge when there's a leisure discount. Coupled with a supersaver from Virgin, Wannabeatelco, provided that I prefix 17 digits to the number then I can get additional discounts. Do you remember walking to the red phonebox and waiting, striking up a conversation with others in the queue, 5p pieces in hand? Simple and tangible is good

      --
      If I promise to be a good boy can I have some better karma?
    2. Re:Charge by the MB by Gorgeous+Si · · Score: 1

      You can bet their charging scheme will change to p/minute to p/MB of data.

      Sounds like the future of phreaking will be changing the bitrate on your phone!

  9. Cheap broadband products by funkytwig · · Score: 3, Informative

    "cheap broadband products will more than likely not be viable in five years time"

    BT don't do any cheap broadband products, only expensive overpriced ones :-)

    1. Re:Cheap broadband products by loveaxelrod · · Score: 1

      They do a few cheap overpriced ones too

  10. bandwidth capacity? by Ubi_NL · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Does anyone have an idea how all this phone traffic is going to affect the load on the entire internet? I assume it's UDP but stil... I have the feeling the backbone routers are busy enough already with all the other traffic

    --

    If an experiment works, something has gone wrong.
    1. Re:bandwidth capacity? by tokachu(k) · · Score: 3, Informative

      Uncompressed telephone-qualtiy audio as PCM takes up 64 kbps (8 KB/s), just like an ISDN channel.

      It will certainly not be as bad, load-wise, as installing high-speed Internet access.

    2. Re:bandwidth capacity? by Nurgled · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I imagine that the majority of phone call traffic will never leave BT's network, since the uptake of IP telephony in the rest of the world is still quite small.

      Even if similar moves are made in other countries, I'm sure BT have some connections that could keep it local until it hits the remote exchange.

    3. Re:bandwidth capacity? by Babbster · · Score: 1

      Installing high-speed Internet access isn't what puts stress on the overall system. It's the use of that access which can potentially cause troubles.

    4. Re:bandwidth capacity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's an internal network.. it doesn't touch the Internet. I swear, whenever anyone sees the term VOIP, they immediately think "OMG.. calls over the Internet!".

  11. UK is temporatily unavailable. by Big+Nothing · · Score: 4, Funny

    Phone service to the UK is temporatily unavailable due to the Sasser.Q virus. Please try again later.

    --
    SIG: TAKE OFF EVERY 'CAPTAIN'!!
    1. Re:UK is temporatily unavailable. by Nodatadj · · Score: 1

      Yey, no more telesales calls from outsourced call-centres in India at 8am

  12. Powersource? by sirdude · · Score: 2, Interesting

    From what I understand, currently phones work when there's a power outage because the current copper line network always has a mild voltage in it.. Just wondering if that will change if the phones are connected via a fibre network..

    1. Re:Powersource? by Dogers · · Score: 1

      something along the lines of power over ethernet might be in line :)

      --
      I am a viral sig. Please copy me and help me spread. Thank you.
    2. Re:Powersource? by Baricom · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...currently phones work when there's a power outage because the current copper line network always has a mild voltage in it.

      They work because the phone company has backup power - batteries and generators. See How Stuff Works.

      However, you bring up an interesting point about fiber - unlike copper, you need to provide power for the devices on either end. From the article:

      We anticipate that millions of people will use the phone in the same way...

      This makes me think that the VOIP network may have copper wiring along the last mile, meaning it's very similar to how most phone companies are set up today. Nothing new to see here.

      More on how the telephone network works (fascinating stuff) can be found here.

    3. Re:Powersource? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Don't worry. The government will restore your conversation from their backups as soon as power is restored :/

    4. Re:Powersource? by NotWulfen · · Score: 3, Informative

      That mild voltage is supplied by the central office via huge banks of batteries supplying a 48V DC feed.

      Since a lot of COs and switching centers already have this massive infrastructure for supplying DC power most (if not all) internetworking equipment can be obtained in DC power supply versions.

      So yes, the equipment at the CO will stay up through a power outage because it'll still be powered by those 48V batteries, equipment at the customer end is a completely different thing... but unless it's a full FTTH solution there are options for getting power to the CPE, like power over ethernet (if they use an ethernet last mile), and iirc there are power distribution solutions for coax if they decide to go that route.

    5. Re:Powersource? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have always worried about moving off of POTS lines for this very reason. There are government regulations which say that a phone company must provide uninterrupted emergency services, such as 911, etc. When you move off of a centrally powered system (current CO setup) to one where phones are connected via some IP infrastructure, you are now putting responsibility for availability of emergency services into the phone manufacturers (ie. backup batteries, etc.) and god forbid -- the end user.

  13. The Skype Telephone by Beautyon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    When Skype come out with their telephone kit that plugs straight into the new BT network will BT cut off people trying to use another handset? They might, but they wont get away with it.

    This is going to be the biggest revolution in telephony the UK has ever seen. Whilst a Skype handset might not connect you to phones that are not on their network, if enough people use it, it could supplant the BT network and destroy their business.

    I wonder how they are going to charge for the service, obviously line rental, which will be the minimum they will be able to collect from each user, but taking into consideration the ease with which people will be able to switch providers, their churn rate will be very high indeed.

    Basically, they are going to spend 3 billion to put themselvs out of business. Great!

    --
    ATH0 Bitcoin: 1DnwFLXczVZV8kLJbMYoheUrpqHesjxrSi
    1. Re:The Skype Telephone by mrbill1234 · · Score: 1

      Easy, they'll charge by the Megabyte.

    2. Re:The Skype Telephone by spacefight · · Score: 1

      You can use the Skype Handset just with any kind of broadband internet connection, it doesn't matter what the underlying medium is (telephone wire, cable etc) and what it's based on.

    3. Re:The Skype Telephone by Oakey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't see the big deal about Skype, to me it just appears to be like any other Instant Messaging service, no? I can do exactly the same thing with MSN, although according to the site they say MSN's audio quality is lower.

      However, as I said, it seems nothing more than another IM client, and you can bet your ass MS will go right ahead and implement a similar thing into Messenger.

      --
      "Dre don't get as high as me.... I'm Cheech and Chong" - Snoop Dogg
    4. Re:The Skype Telephone by onion2k · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Basically, they are going to spend 3 billion to put themselvs out of business. Great!

      Wrong. They've realised that things like Skype will put them out of business if they don't move on, so they're shifting away from traditional voice comms and entirely into data comms. They'll change their pricing accordingly too, probably to a charge based on the amount of data you use rather than an amount of time.

      Its the old style voice telcos that are going to be disappearing.

    5. Re:The Skype Telephone by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      if you can use that skype without buying a data connection, then they might lose... ...which is basically why they're doing these investments, to not go out of business and to be better prepared for providing that data connection.

      -

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    6. Re:The Skype Telephone by sploxx · · Score: 1

      I'm really interested if there will be different fees for traffic with different QoS. Because you don't want to have your phone's VoIP stream compete with the neighbours p2p streaming app.

      It is neccessary to implement QoS here, I think. And it *must* be differently priced. Else, everyone would set the QoS fields leading to a tragedy of the commons.

    7. Re:The Skype Telephone by Beautyon · · Score: 1

      based on the amount of data you use rather than an amount of time.

      So this spells the eventual end of unmetered broadband from BT. Which means that when this happens, any other ISP that offers unmetered broadband will eat up BTs business. Why should anyone pay for a per gig broadband account with BT when they can pay the same money for an unlimited account from another ISP AND get Skype/VOIP for telephony as well?

      --
      ATH0 Bitcoin: 1DnwFLXczVZV8kLJbMYoheUrpqHesjxrSi
    8. Re:The Skype Telephone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The big thing about Skype is that people can use it without needing a deep understanding of IP protocols and routers. I played with a few other VOIP products, and just about got them working from home to work after opening holes and jumping through hoops, but no way would I have been able to get friends and family using them.

      Skype works through pretty much every firewall configuration without tweaking. Your mum could install it and can use it without needing your help.

      This makes the difference between an interesting bit of technology and a real world product.

    9. Re:The Skype Telephone by Jon+Peterson · · Score: 1

      Err, because it would be cheaper?

      I dislike subsidising people who download hundreds of megs everyday. I don't want to pay for someone elses pr0n/mp3/vids collection, or to subsidise some kid who plays CS for 4 hours a night while downloading wareZ in the background.

      My bandwith use is remarkably consistent. If the price structure results in my monthly bill being 90% or less of what it is now, I'll take it, thanks.

      --
      ----- .sig: file not found
    10. Re:The Skype Telephone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a severe lack of "other ISPs" in the UK. Nearly all of them use BT's IPStream/DataStream services - BT hikes the prices, everyone gets it.

      Apart from one or two like Bulldog, and the cablecos - and Telewest at least have said that they don't think the current unmetered business model is going to last, and I seem to remember NTL trying download caps last year.

    11. Re:The Skype Telephone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a former BT employee, I can verify that this project have considerable resources, and is going to happen.

      Currently most of BT's revenue comes from the standard voice communications arena, but the growth there is very poor. In contrast data provides less revenue, but has huge growth and huge potential.

      With the advent of VoIP technology, and the fact that routers and switches etc cost considerably less than traditional telephony switches, BT have realised that they will soon be facing direct competition in the voice market from competitors whose kit is much less expensive to purchase and maintain.

      In addition, BT already have a small IP network along with the PSTN and about a hundred other types of legacy network. If they can convert the entire network to IP, and encapsulate the existing services in the IP network, they can significantly reduce their fixed costs.

      The big advantage BT have is that they have the resources and budget available to undertake this kind of project.

      A big point that must be realised is that this project (21CN) is mainly concerned with the underlying network (i.e. from the exchange to the backbone). Thus users simply won't notice any difference (hopefully). It will however give BT a significant capability to provide new IP services directly to customers.

  14. Letters by Brie+and+gherkins · · Score: 1

    You remember surely.... and I would like to see the telegram - only in designated sub post offices on a Wednesday afternoon. Does VOIP mean I'll have to convey my lusty conversations via Deepak in Delhi with that lovely poor quality distortion that I'm at a loss to describe. "Dear, he is saying that he is - weooooeeoosd - with you"

    --
    If I promise to be a good boy can I have some better karma?
  15. Those dates won't be in base 10 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Those without any experience of BT, especially as business customers should know that 2026 will be the more likely date. It is still a glacially slow behemoth that acts with sniffy surprise when expected permit competition in the marketplace.

    1. Re:Those dates won't be in base 10 by VdG · · Score: 1

      I don't entirely agree.

      BT have acted very slowly on DSL and local-loop unbundling, but that's because they didn't want to make it easy for their competitors, not because they were incapable of doing it. (Not helped by OfTel being so wimpish.)

      They have some fairly smart people working for them so I think there's a fair chance of of them succeeding with a project that they actually want to do.

    2. Re:Those dates won't be in base 10 by inetuid · · Score: 1

      Having seen the BT spin presentation it's not quite as exciting as it sounds, but I do have confidence that they will do it when they say. As the previous poster said, they have smart people and can move quickly when they want to.

  16. Who the f*ck is BT? ;-) by DaneelGiskard · · Score: 0

    Ok...

    Me: Reading /. news, ask myself who is BT (What does the abbreviation mean?)?
    Me: Clicking on story link...they only use BT..damnit...
    Me: Clicking on press relase...no mention what BT means
    Me: Clicking on company logo to get to their homepage - no mention what BT means
    Me: Fireing up google ... typing in BT
    Google:
    BT.com Homepage ... first six months. Plus, order online and receive a 20 bill credit.
    Find out more Find out more about BT Mobile Plan, At home for ...
    www.bt.com/ - 29k - 8 Jun 2004 - Cached - Similar pages - Stock quotes: BTY

    Ok...I give up. What does BT mean? British Telecom or something?

    *sigh*

    1. Re:Who the f*ck is BT? ;-) by Brie+and+gherkins · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yes old chum. Try taking The Times for a few weeks, you'll soon understand what the Empire is about.

      --
      If I promise to be a good boy can I have some better karma?
    2. Re:Who the f*ck is BT? ;-) by maubp · · Score: 1
      Ok...I give up. What does BT mean? British Telecom or something?
      Yes, or at least it used to be.
    3. Re:Who the f*ck is BT? ;-) by Conor+Turton · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, it is British Telecom. Originally it was public owned and was the only telco in the UK with the exception of Kingston Communications, a Hull City coucil run telco only available to the residents of Kingston Upon Hull. B.T was then privatised. It is the largest Telco in the UK. With the exception of a few cable companies operating in limited areas and Kingston Communications, B.T still owns most of the telephone exchanges in the UK and if you want to provide a DSL/Phone service you have to do it over their lines.

      --
      Conor "You're not married,you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart
    4. Re:Who the f*ck is BT? ;-) by l-ascorbic · · Score: 3, Informative

      BT is BT. Sure, officially they are British Telecommunications plc, but it's not like you'd bother looking up what AT&T stood for, when all you needed to know was "it's a big telco".

    5. Re:Who the f*ck is BT? ;-) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They used to be called British Telecom - they were spun off from the Post Office in 1981. They became a plc when privatised in 1984, then became just plain BT (with the letters officially not standing for anything) in a corporate rebranding in 1991. (From their company timeline)

    6. Re:Who the f*ck is BT? ;-) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh for christs sake...
      Americans...

      It is by far the hughest telecom company in the UK, it runs most household phones and all phone boxes.
      So their website is like that cause all potential customers have known about them since they were born.

    7. Re:Who the f*ck is BT? ;-) by barnzi · · Score: 1

      BT == Bloody Tyrants
      (or something more unpleasant)

      My phone line from BT has a fault that causes POTS modems connected to it to die after 2-3 months service.

      Slightly cheesed that BT was nuking my (BABT/BT approved) modems, I ring up their fault helpline and complain. The response: "BT is not required to provide a telephone line fit for data-communications to residential customers." WTF? They will still sell you internet access, but apparently they don't have to provide it!

      --

      Official threat to Homeland Security
      University of Surrey - http://www.surrey.ac.uk

    8. Re:Who the f*ck is BT? ;-) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It actually stands for Brighton City football club.

    9. Re:Who the f*ck is BT? ;-) by DaneelGiskard · · Score: 1

      I'm from Austria ;-)

      Actually I realized it is the British Telecom, I just wanted to point out that not everyone in the world might know what BT stands for...

    10. Re:Who the f*ck is BT? ;-) by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      They're OBVIOUSLY referring to Brian Transeau of international DJ fame.

      Duh.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    11. Re:Who the f*ck is BT? ;-) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BT are the idiots who tried to enforce a patent on hyperlinks and lost.

    12. Re:Who the f*ck is BT? ;-) by cybergibbons · · Score: 2, Informative

      Connect up a fax machine - if that blows up, then you can get somewhere as BT need to provide at least a 4800 or 9600 bps (can't remember which) fax connection can be established.

    13. Re:Who the f*ck is BT? ;-) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice job beating Bristol City and getting Danny Wilson the sack by the way. Bloody City supporters.

    14. Re:Who the f*ck is BT? ;-) by the+real+darkskye · · Score: 1

      British Telecom, or Bloody Typical if you've ever had to deal with their customer support.

      --
      Music is everybody's possession.
      It's only publishers who think that people own it.
      Fuck Beta
      ~John Lenno
    15. Re:Who the f*ck is BT? ;-) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeh, they only call it BT now cause its worldwide company :)

    16. Re:Who the f*ck is BT? ;-) by I+confirm+I'm+not+a · · Score: 1

      And there was me thinking that the original poster just hadn't updated from the Good Old Days of the GPO!

      (GPO = General Post Office, the fore-runner of British Telecom and the Royal Mail. Factoid: Tommy Flowers, the engineer who built Colossus, was a GPO employee)

      --
      This is where the serious fun begins.
    17. Re:Who the f*ck is BT? ;-) by Paul+Jakma · · Score: 1

      Arent BT one of the largest telco's in the world? They merged with some US telco a good few years ago didnt they? MCI or somesuch, i cant remember.

      And have bought various other smaller telco's around the world. Eg, British Telecom are the only other telco providing local-loop in Ireland other than the former state-owned monopoly, Errorcon^WEircom, by virtue of having bought Esat (former irish telco, now owned by BT obviously. Called EsatBT - but no doubt name will change fully over to BT in time).

      --
      I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
    18. Re:Who the f*ck is BT? ;-) by nojomofo · · Score: 1

      I think that (from the Slashdot submission), it must not be British Telecom. See:

      ...saying that BT are planning....

      Clearly, whatever BT that we're talking about here happens to be a plural entity, whereas British Telecom is a single company (and should use the sinuglar "is" rather than "are"). So, maybe it's "British Twits" who are planning on using VOIP, or "Boring Tarts" or even "Big Testicles", but surely not "British Telecom".

    19. Re:Who the f*ck is BT? ;-) by Alan+Shield · · Score: 1
      Clearly, whatever BT that we're talking about here happens to be a plural entity, whereas British Telecom is a single company (and should use the sinuglar "is" rather than "are").

      But it's British Telecom, so 'are' is correct. Use of 'is' is an American thing.

    20. Re:Who the f*ck is BT? ;-) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      American Telephone & Telegraph of course...

    21. Re:Who the f*ck is BT? ;-) by nojomofo · · Score: 1

      Maybe you're joking and I don't get it....

      I just don't understand this. As far as I know, the British conjugate the verb "to be" the same way we do here in the states: I am, you are, he is, she is, is is, we are, they are. So a single entity (like British Telecom) should be conjugated as "is". Do brits really use "are" in this case"? Why?

  17. background info by dncsky1530 · · Score: 3, Informative

    This might help:
    The public switched telephone network (PSTN) is the concatenation of the world's public circuit-switched telephone networks, in much the same way that the Internet is the concatenation of the world's public IP-based packet-switched networks. Originally a network of fixed-line analog telephone systems, the PSTN is now almost entirely digital, and now includes mobile as well as fixed telephones.

  18. Grreat...but by Lorhk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It fills me with dread to hear this news. I'm living in an area where BT have still not yet managed to install a DSL network. To hear that they've got more plans when they haven't even finished their old broadband roll out after god knows how many years seems plain stupid. It makes me angry.

    1. Re:Grreat...but by Conor+Turton · · Score: 1
      REad www.adslguide.org.uk

      BT plans to have a 99.6% broadband rollout by next summer so you should be convered. They're also trialling >5km ADSL connections (up to 11km AFAIK) in Milton Keynes and if the trial is successful it should sort out the problems of those living in the back of beyond although speeds may be limited to 256k but its still better than dialup.

      --
      Conor "You're not married,you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart
  19. Not going to happen... by MancDiceman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is a fairy tale dreamt up for investors, and you can expect within 2 years an announcement that it's all much harder than expected.

    The UK phone network is not a simple beast, and not like any other phone network in the world. I suspect they're putting down the plan and hoping that they can start angling for some government "investment" to replace the absolute crud we have in place at the moment.

    I would advise caution however, when BT announce anything at all. Remember this is the company who announced "universal" broadband 15 years ago and sat on the technology when it became available until they were effectively bullied into it.

    1. Re:Not going to happen... by elleomea · · Score: 2, Interesting

      To be fair this is also the company that wanted to roll out fibre connections to every home in the UK, but were stopped by Thatcher.

  20. they should patent their method by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they should patent their method of implementation....

    and then slashdot would have a field day critcising it

    brainless uninventive loserssssssssssssss

    From your friendly patent attorney

  21. As usual... by dj245 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The press conference sounds like this is a very good thing. However, Voip for an entire country is a really bad idea. My personal experience with consisted of dropped calls, bad connections, lag, and echos. Not to mention the week of one-way voice, where people could hear me but I couldn't hear them; which finally gave me no choice but to cancel the service.

    The technology for this just isn't ready. The internet wasn't designed for having all these low-latency desiring services tacked onto it, and not everyone has a 50ms ping. What worries me about this is that the brits don't seem to have a choice in the matter, and are being shepherded into this under the guise of "new technology, newer is better".

    The sad truth is the individual pieces work ok, but put the ISP, the routers, the voip boxes together, and you've got one hell of a mess.

    --
    Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    1. Re:As usual... by Xrikcus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But it's a very different thing trying to use VOIP over the internet itself, general public data networks with little by way of service guarantees, and converting a managed telecom backbone network to use IP.

    2. Re:As usual... by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      meh.

      It's going to work when done properly, they'll own the whole network so they can make it work properly. They won't be dependant on other people having their networks working.. like when using the internet itself.

      .

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    3. Re:As usual... by AliasTheRoot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Who said they were using the Internet to provide the backbone for their IP network?

  22. Its not just the network , its IP itself by Viol8 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The Internet Protocol was originally designed for non realtime applications. In the last few decades it has been shoehorned into various realtime applications , IP telephony being one, online games being another. And it sort of works. But not very well without a HELL of a lot of high end hardware to help it along. Some things are best left to propriatary protocols , they do one thing and they do it well. Speech is one of these things that would be better served with one of these (and in fact a lot are used). I simply don't understand this headlong rush into using IP for everything , its a general purpose protocol for sure but this means its a jack of all trades master of none. Isn't it time that companies who should know what they are doing ignore all the hype and bandwagons with fairly flat tyres from the startups desperate to flog VOIP to stay afloat and use their expertese to design something for the 21st century , not use an overworked protocol from the 1970s?

    1. Re:Its not just the network , its IP itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Telecom Italia (the incumbent operator in Italy and 5th in the world) has already done it in 2002, transforming their old PSTN to a fully VoIP transit network carried over a managed IP optical backbone.
      Nowadays the 100% of calls between Rome and Milan (the two major cities in Italy) and the 50% of all international calls are VoIP.

      It is a very well known business case in the VoIP industry.
      For example, look at:
      http://www.convergedigest.com/Bandwidth/newne twork sarticle.asp?ID=5191

    2. Re:Its not just the network , its IP itself by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      I'n not saying it can't be done , I'm just saying why use IP when there are far more appropriate technologies to use for realtime voice calls.

    3. Re:Its not just the network , its IP itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It looks as if BT is going to run IPv6. At least they are real high on it any how. http://www.ipv6.bt.com

      IPv6 has built-in ways of dealing with QOS (quality of sevice) issues and is rather a cool beastie. (At least the little I understand of it.) At a presentation I remember a slide that compaired the number of IPv6 addresses to the area of the Earth's surface. It can to several hundred (maybe even K) per square yard.

      It does not matter to the Nerwork what protocol you use. Once your packet hits their edge router it is all on their 'hands'; so the Network can give a rats ass about what protocol it's transporting.

      As for BT and "a HELL of a lot of high end hardware". From another presentantion (to the Cisco Users Group of Northern Colorado (usa)) concerning and Router Managment Solution SW package: BT has over 300,000 Cisco routers, (as of like a year ago). This is BEFORE they perform this upgrade their core Network. Technically they are building the Core of their VOIP Network and will have to graft the existing data network onto it.

      This is cool shit! Are they hiring Cisco Geeks yet? Because nobody is here in NoCo...

  23. Re:Acquirement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Feeding the trolls... I know...

    But really - it's "Acquisition"!

  24. An opportunity for you to be proved right by Andy+Smith · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What I think would be interesting is if people who are familiar with the technology would explain how this changeover could be done in such a way as to have (a) the most negative impact on consumers and (b) the most unfairly anti-competitive impact on the telecoms industry.

    Then in six years we can look back at this thread and see if that's how BT did it.

  25. Obvious one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All your phones are belong to us

  26. It's a nice idea... by Singletoned · · Score: 1

    It really is a nice idea, but the concept of BT managing to do anything in a timely (or even successful) manner is entirely incomprehensable.

    It took them ten years to get to the current stage of broadband, and that hardly involved much work. This won't be completed until around 2099.

    1. Re:It's a nice idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      your sig - its called greenwich university student accomodation :)

    2. Re:It's a nice idea... by Alioth · · Score: 2, Interesting

      BT have done it before. They moved from a mostly mechanically switched local exchange network (all the old Strowgers) and old-school electronic exchanges to System X/System Y digital exchanges for the entire country in approximately ten years. This was a phenomenal amount of work.

      The reason broadband has taken so long is that it doesn't make them much money. The reason they managed to switch the entire network, trunk routes and all, from analogue and mechanical switching to an all digital network is this: it took 25 engineers to keep a single 10,000 line Strowger exchange operating, and six System X echanges can be kept running by a single engineer. If it makes economic sense, BT can move fast enough. If changing their infrastructure to IP will make them/save them enough money, they will do it.

    3. Re:It's a nice idea... by Singletoned · · Score: 1

      Wow, thanks. That's pretty near to me and I have considered doing a degree in Maths there.

      I'll look into it.

  27. Actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    the majority of BT users rent their phones for an annual cost that is far greater than buying one.. check out the House of Lords report. So it should be easy for BT to send them a new one, because they already own the rented one.

    1. Re:Actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which decade are you living in? To my knowlege the only phones BT rent are payphones, or old phones which are still hardwired and the customer wants to keep them. In all my time working at BT across several departments, including order fullfilment and billing, I saw one customer with a rented phone. BT certainly don't provide any new rental phones; all they do is push new handsets for sale only.

    2. Re:Actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
    3. Re:Actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fair do's. They're certainly not encouraging it.

  28. Regulator approval by WarwickRyan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's worth pointing out that this may not be a done deal.

    In the UK the telecoms industry has until recently been regulated by an organisation called Oftel. They have recently been replaced by a much broader regulator called Ofcom (http://www.ofcom.org.uk/).

    Their job is to try and ensure that the communications industry as a whole remains competitive. Which generally involves keeping BT on a short leash.

    This is the first major announcement from BT since Ofcom came into existence, so they may want attempt to use this as an opportunity to stamp their authority on BT. Though if Oftel is anything to go by they'll probably be BT's lapdogs..

  29. Cheap? by FrostedWheat · · Score: 3, Funny

    They also say that current cheap broadband products will more than likely not be viable in five years time

    BT have cheap broadband products? Yikes, they've kept that well hidden!

    1. Re:Cheap? by larien · · Score: 1

      Read the article; what is actually said is that current products that use broadband (e.g. VOIP providers) will probably not be viable in 5 years time. The /. article is badly worded and misleading, IMO.

  30. Will this be going to IPV6 or IPV4? by Afty0r · · Score: 4, Insightful

    One of these would be extremely good for the UK and very forward thinking, the other would be investing money in a technology already straining to bursting point...

    And on another note, how cool will it be to have links like <a href="phonecall:phone.mydomain.com">Phone Me!</a> on websites - how long until we have that I wonder?

    1. Re:Will this be going to IPV6 or IPV4? by Viol8 · · Score: 4, Funny

      "how cool will it be to have links "

      About as cool as the sun. Thats just what you'd need , loads of phone calls from people who "just want to ring for a laugh" or people who click accidentaly or people who phone up to tell you your page sucks whereas if they had to actually dial the number they might not bother. Still , it'll probably happen. Every crap idea ends up in browsers eventually.

    2. Re:Will this be going to IPV6 or IPV4? by _Pablo · · Score: 1

      Imagine all the Stephen Hawking sounding phone spam...the horror! The horror!

      --
      $2B OR NOT $2B = $FF
    3. Re:Will this be going to IPV6 or IPV4? by blowdart · · Score: 1
      And within 5 minutes of updating your page your first call will be along the lines of

      ring, ring

      you: Hello

      static

      you: Hello

      *click*

      caller: Hello pause

      caller: <dalekVoice>0 1 7 3 4 5 1 1 1 1 1 </dalekVoice>

      caller: Can't satisfy your woman? Press 1 to order viagra. Press 2 to order a flesh light. Press 3 to

      you: hangup

      Repeat every 10 minutes

    4. Re:Will this be going to IPV6 or IPV4? by MancDiceman · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't be cool at all. You'd get spammed. Heavily. Take a web spider, an MP3 of my advert, set it off crawling over the web, and all of a sudden you're getting phone calls at 6am telling you that my Nigerian cousin really needs your assistance getting some money out of the country.

      You've also got to remember VoIP != Voice over the Internet. The two networks may never meet.

    5. Re:Will this be going to IPV6 or IPV4? by smallfries · · Score: 1

      Is your name Marvin by any chance and do you have a brain the size of a planet? I'm sure that you should be in filming somewhere rather than posting...

      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
    6. Re:Will this be going to IPV6 or IPV4? by burns210 · · Score: 1

      "And on another note, how cool will it be to have links like Phone Me! on websites - how long until we have that I wonder?"

      Isn't Spam in my Inbox bad enough? Why move it to my phone as well?

    7. Re:Will this be going to IPV6 or IPV4? by zsau · · Score: 1

      It won't be compulsory though.

      --
      Look out!
  31. Dont Believe BT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Given that BT developed DSL technology, yet were among the last to implement it. And if you compare the league of DSLed countries, the UKL lags behind lots of countries.

    BT have a poor record of finishing anything they start.

    They also have a record of pricing products to produce maximum profits. (witness ADSL costs, ISDN costs .. dont even try to look at SDSL costs).

  32. MPLS by Epeeist · · Score: 1

    I expect that they will be using MPLS technology. This would allow them to tag voice traffic and improve its QoS.

    This will, of course, only work on networks that they run, so expect poor QoS if you have to make calls that cross networks, such as international calls.

  33. This is more than just IP Telephony by Tooky · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The article briefly mentions converging land line and mobile services. Tie that in with recent articles about bluephone and BT OpenZone and things start to look very interesting for telephony in the uk!

  34. BT coward.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    I work for BT and have known about this for a few weeks now, seems like a move in the right direction

    1000 people will have it tested in the south of England in 2005 I belive

    Now they just have to start offering good internet and phone products to win customers back ;)

  35. Fears people have. by TheRealJFM · · Score: 2, Informative

    BT (British Telecom) used to be a public subsiduary of the British post office (I believe). However, despite the fact it is its own company, it is *heavily* regulated by Ofcom, the telecom regulator. Basicly, about 90% of UK broadband providers provide ADSL (Asymectrical DSL - meaning faster Dl that Ul) from BTs network. This wasn't the case but Ofcom forced BT to allow other networks to run on the network at low cost, and also forced BT to allow very cheap rates for commercial isps to offer unlimited 56k dialup. Whatever network BT develop will be available to all comers, no matter which company, and this is assured by both UK monopoly law and Ofcom. However, I think the benefits for the UK will be huge, and everyone should benefit from that, not just BT. Think about it, a fibre based network running over the entire country, and if you RTFA you will see they are talking about linking in wit the 3rd generation mobile phone network (already IP based obviously), meaning you could have a single number for mobile, internet and "standard" phone. I think this has been in BT's pipeline for a long time, and I personally think it will be a good thing, provided Ofcom keep up to their end of the bargain. Oh, one thing though. Will it be encrypted, or will it be "tap friendly"?

    --
    Joseph Farthing
    http://josephfarthing.com
    1. Re:Fears people have. by Mdalek · · Score: 1


      So if it wasn't for ofcom, we would all have sdsl? Nonsense

    2. Re:Fears people have. by pond0123 · · Score: 1
      I agree it's a nice vision in theory. Unfortunately, if you RTFA you'll see:

      Despite speculation about the benefits of a ubiquitous fibre network, BT has no plans to lay it throughout the UK, concentrating instead on areas where new houses are being built.

      So nice idea though it might be, we won't all be running on a countrywide fast fibre network at all.

      Anyway, if you're supposed to just be able to plug a computer straight into the hole in the wall and get broadband access, that means (1) "wild" internet traffic must be present on the network, so it's not some closed, safe, virus-free thing, (2) bandwidth for VOIP will be reduced if I'm using the same connection for other data, and therefore (3) unless there's some remarkable new QOS stuff handling all of those disparate comms protocols being carried over the grand new TCP/IP network, it simply won't work properly.

      It's right in line with the IT industry as a whole's approach to upgrades, mind you: make it bigger than it used to be, more complex than it used to be, slower than it used to be, and less reliable than it used to be. Can't wait ;)

    3. Re:Fears people have. by julesh · · Score: 1

      (1) "wild" internet traffic must be present on the network, so it's not some closed, safe, virus-free thing

      It would probably be tunneled as far as the router where it leaves BT's private network. I doubt they'd let you route to arbitrary destinations on it.

      unless there's some remarkable new QOS stuff handling all of those disparate comms protocols being carried over the grand new TCP/IP network, it simply won't work properly.

      QOS works fines for a regulated network where you control all the hardware. Its only when you start talking to other people that it all breaks down.

      Note also that BT would be able to sense network load in particular areas and refuse traffic that would overload it (eg by giving an engaged tone).

    4. Re:Fears people have. by TheRealJFM · · Score: 1

      Well, lets look at the case studies.

      Remember Redhotant? they were a relatively big provider that tried to offer unmetered dialup access to compete with the fledgling BT intiatives. They took out a full commercial licence on an 0800 number, and users had to pay up front to connect to the network because of the huge costs the company had to pay to stay online.

      However, they couldn't afford the costs BT inflicted upon them and went bust.

      Around this time Freeserve (now Wannado) started campaigning to allow cheap access for connections through BTs lines. After a long time it was agreed that what BT charged was unfair, and they had to allow other ISPs to use their network at a lower cost.

      Now, where as Redhotant went bust, really tiny groups like uklinux.net and Freeola can offer ADSL and Dialup connections, where as before it would be impossible.

      Similar things happened with Telephone providers.

      Also, what about Directory Enquiries. Ofcom recently forced BT to allow other directory enquiries businesses to run on its network, spawning a huge number of 118 XXX numbers.

      Thus, more competition was allowed into the marketplace. More confusion, yes, but more competition.

      So, why should a new network prevent old broadband suppliers and phone operators switching to it? They are entitled competition on the current network by law, and that wont change.

      --
      Joseph Farthing
      http://josephfarthing.com
    5. Re:Fears people have. by TheRealJFM · · Score: 1

      the current 3G cell network here (where its implemented) is fast and reliable. thats based on IP. Whats the problem?

      --
      Joseph Farthing
      http://josephfarthing.com
  36. Official name is simply 'BT', not British Telecom by blorg · · Score: 3, Informative

    ...they changed the trading name from British Telecom to 'BT' in 1991 and the corporate name to BT Group plc in 2000. You will find it hard to actually even find a reference to 'British Telecom' on bt.com.

  37. seems quite late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    2006/2009 seems quite late to me.
    Here in Switzerland the biggest cable-TV and also one of the biggest internet-providers, Cablecom announced the immediate start of IP-Telephony just a week ago. Available for most people here.

    Prices are quite good as well, since you don't have to pay anything for phone calls after 7pm and even before it's cheaper than what other phone companies offer (Swisscom e.g. is more than 50% more expensive for the average user)

  38. Re:Acquirement by teh+Wang · · Score: 0

    Nobody expects the Spanish Acquisition.

  39. WTFAYBOA by King_of_Prussia · · Score: 1

    I assume the acronym means "what the fuck are you bleating on about".

    --

    Making the moon less necessary since 1998.

  40. Asterisk... Penguins always fly ahead of the curve by D4C5CE · · Score: 1
    For those who can't wait for BT,
    Asterisk is a complete PBX in software. It runs on Linux and provides all of the features you would expect from a PBX and more. Asterisk does voice over IP in three protocols, and can interoperate with almost all standards-based telephony equipment using relatively inexpensive hardware.

    Asterisk provides Voicemail services with Directory, Call Conferencing, Interactive Voice Response, Call Queuing. It has support for three-way calling, caller ID services, ADSI, SIP and H.323 (as both client and gateway). [...]

    Asterisk needs no additional hardware for Voice over IP. [...]

    Asterisk not only supports traditional phone equipment, it enhances them with additional capabilities.

    Using the Inter-Asterisk eXchange (IAX) Voice over IP protocol, Asterisk merges voice and data traffic seamlessly across disparate networks. While using Packet Voice, it is possible to send data such as URL information and images in-line with voice traffic, allowing advanced integration of information.

    Just in case anyone actually likes to read German ;-), Asterisk has recently been covered by c't in this article (60 Eurocents).
  41. Core Network by davetza · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think a lot of people including the press are missing the point here. The main thing here is not VoIP or fibre it is that BT are going to be migrating all of their services onto ONE IP network off of there existing PSTN, ATM and IP networks.

    Obviously while this will eventually have implications for end users (BT are talking of a broadband dialtone) the main benefits will be a big cost saving for BT and the ability to quickly deploy new services onto the network.

  42. Clarification by alex_tibbles · · Score: 1

    Quoth the poster: "They also say that current cheap broadband products will more than likely not be viable in five years time."

    This means:
    "Mr Beal hinted, however, that the cheap broadband telephony deals available at the moment may not continue." (from bbc article).
    NOT that broadband itself is going to get more expensive...

  43. Utter rubbish... by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 2, Informative

    Uh, you're post is complete and utter rubbish. STD (area) codes have always been specific to an area, dependent on where you're calling and never where you're calling from.

    The reason why people would give out the name of the area that they lived in is that, back in the days when the system was set up when overlaying the alphabet onto the digits 0-9 had more significance in the UK, part of the name would correspond to the area code. In fact, the area codes themselves derived from the place names.

    This area coding was taken so seriously that in some instances people wrote to the Post Office (because that's who ran the telephone system back then) to demand that their area codes were changed so that the numbers corresponded to more affluent places. For example, people living in the suburb of Anytown would rather have an area code refering to the posher neighbouring suburb of Sometown, so they'd petition for that area code to apply to them too. In many instances, because people in Anytown were reluctant to have a phone installed and answer the phone "Anytown 1212" (or whatever their number was) this held up uptake of telephony services to the point where the Post Office acquiesced and gave people the Sometown area code (or a derivation of it) that they wanted.

    I learnt all this almost 15 years ago from a BT engineer of 20 years experience. Ask any older BT engineer and they'll confirm this for you.

    --

    "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    1. Re:Utter rubbish... by tengwar · · Score: 1
      Grandparent is not entirely accurate in the example given, but is basically correct. Fifteen years ago, white page telephone directories gave telephone numbers as the local number preceded by the name of the exchange. To get the dialing code for that exchange, one had to use a smaller book. This was because you would use a different code for nearby exchanges. I'm hesitant to call the codes STD (subscriber trunk dialing), as I'm not sure that trunk dialing was involved, and unlike grandparent's example, I don't think that the "semilocal" codes ever began with 0 - nevertheless the effect was that the area codes did depend on where you were dialing from.

      FWIW, IAATE (mobile, rather than fixed)

  44. Sensible switch-over by Julian+Morrison · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Right now, phones pay for broadband.

    Once the public gets seriously into VOIP, which they will, phones are going byebye. So broadband will have to pay for itself.

    Only sensible, really.

  45. What's this? by AmbyVoc · · Score: 1

    Bittorrent going into telephony?

    I want to participate..
    Where's the link to the seed?

    --
    - Voice of Ambience -
  46. Check out your connection... by fiji · · Score: 2, Informative

    [I posted this to the other VoIP thread, but it is a useful tool]

    You can simulate a VoIP call and get the MOS voice quality score. So if you want to see how your Wireless setup fares, visit testyourvoip.com.

    Even if you don't care about VoIP, it is a useful test of the latency and bandwidth of your connection. VoIP is pretty sensitive to late packets so this tool highlights connectivity problems.

    -ben

  47. EU Elections by T-Kir · · Score: 1

    although anything with a picture of President Blair on it is probably a serious threat now I think about it...

    Would that allude to the lack of Tony Blairs photo and signature on the Labour EU campaign leaflets... not that he is a liability or anything (mind with the government 'spin' they'd still come up with an excuse for that one).

    --
    Are you local? There's nothing for you here!
  48. Damn, now how will I get my anime? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And why would BitTorrent want to...oh.

  49. roads by smallguy78 · · Score: 2, Funny

    BT will spend around 3bn on the project - more than the annual spend on Britain's main roads

    By about 2.9bn judging from our motorways

    --
    Nothing costs nothing
    1. Re:roads by garyok · · Score: 1
      BT will spend around 3bn on the project - more than the annual spend on Britain's main roads

      By about 2.9bn judging from our motorways

      Leaving 10,000,000 for jeans that expose the workman's crack for every guy on site and 90,000,000 on NHS psychiatric treatments for those traumatised by the sight of acres of flabby, hairy arse flesh. Isn't it nice when the sums come out right?
      --
      One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors - Plato
  50. Re:Asterisk... Penguins always fly ahead of the cu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yeah, but does it run Linux? ;)

  51. Not as good as it seems... by ratb3rt · · Score: 2, Informative

    Apparently, no matter how successful the fibre trials are, only new builds or big business will get fibre from the exchange. No good for 99% of the population....

  52. Its not a 3 Billion investment by Sunil+Sood · · Score: 1


    But a 3 Billion pound scheme per year for 3/4 years.. making a total of about 10 billion (or 18/19 billion USD)

    1. Re:Its not a 3 Billion investment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if that's really 10 billion pounds, that translates to 18 or 19 trillion USD.

      Quick math/language lesson:
      UK:
      1,000,000 = 1 million
      1,000,000,000 = 1 thousand million
      1,000,000,000,000 = 1 billion

      US:
      1,000,000 = 1 million
      1,000,000,000 = 1 billion
      1,000,000,000,000 = 1 trillion

  53. Damn slashcode, Firefox and Win1252 by Chep · · Score: 1

    ... and their stupid encoding for € (and slashcode for not TALKING and UNDERSTANDING UTF-8 properly, the way things should be)

    damn, damn

  54. Too early? by justkarl · · Score: 1

    When I read the headline, I thought it was this BT. Can you say music production nerd? This isn't the first time this has happened to me with the BT's. Especially on this site.

  55. Out of business? by ShepyNCL · · Score: 3, Insightful

    BT seem to be gearing up for something, or reacting to something. Its strange for them to have such a flurry of activity as they have had of late, normally they are quite the epitome of corporate dawdling on products and issues.

    Seems that they are wanting to seriously get themselves some press time, and in my opinion are using some clever marketing to do so.

    Look at the ammount of new services / announcements / products they are kicking out the door at the moment listed on El Reg.

    In my opinion, this is nothing short of marketing genius. Anyone who cries out against the obvious censorship issues risks being labelled. It pushes this kind of activity under ground. so who does this really protect? the only real benefit i see from this is accidental visiting of sites, from bad links, spam or whatever. It certainly wont stop any actual people wishing to view child pornography from getting to it.

    BT have made an unprecedented movement to block this content, thereby championing themselves with many different groups of society (churches, parents, police, etc etc) - but the same fanfare that has delighted these groups has warned any of the sickos that actually want to view this content that they cant use BT services to get their kicks. OK then, so they go elsewhere. No one would continue to use a service they know can not suit their needs, as underground or sick as those needs may be, they will simply move to another provider that doesnt block in this way.

    Marketing genius - Champion yourselves with lots of the country, by actually bringing little to no benefit to them or anyone else.

    Then sharp on the heels of this announcement, tell the people who you have just delighted that you are going to be saving them a lot of money soon by changing the infrastructure of your network etc and routing your calls using VOIP. Thinking of leaving BT? They seem to be keen to impress and promise lots, all within a week. something strange is going on, i just cant figure out what, heh.

  56. Italy already carries 80% of phone calls as data by optical-damage · · Score: 4, Informative

    Telecom Italia already carries 80% of its national backbone telephone calls on an IP based network infrastructure, and something like 40% of their international calls.

    This is the back-end of the service, multiplexing together thousands of calls over high speed (2.5 and 10Gb/second) network links. The network also uses class of service and many other configuration setups to ensure a consistent quality of service for the traffic flow. You can be sure everything will be massively resilient. In addition this traffic won't traverse the public Internet at all, but will be on a private network (though gatewayed to the Internet for connectivity to other services). This will allow BT to guarantee they wont be hit by Internet related issues like congestion, black-hole routing and so on. Dont compare this service to public Internet VoIP, its NOTHING like it.

    Personally I think this is a fantastic move, and will really help the UK take advantage of up and coming technologies over the next decade.

    PS there is already an Internet standard to map IP addresses to public phone numbers, and there is also work on integrating VoIP into the DNS infrastructure!

  57. Britain speaking to Britain by midgley · · Score: 1
    I think the IP traffic will mostly stay within the country because most of us spend most time talking to our familes and friends, who by no conicidence live in the same country as us.

    Gateways on the networks are no big deal, but I have been very impressed by how TCP/IP has become a generic way of networking. Even to Mars I gather.

    However, few of us have relatives on Mars, yet.

    1. Re:Britain speaking to Britain by Nurgled · · Score: 1

      Well, if it was all IP I imagine all calls would cost the same. Billing by destination would become tricky. In this case, I certainly would start calling my friends in the US and in Europe more often. The only reason I don't call them now is that it costs a lot and calling cards require separate purchase and some setup effort.

      I'm planning to get an IP phone myself soon, though, so I won't be waiting for BT! :)

  58. My Rant by EnempE · · Score: 1
    I am sick of people who have used a dodgy freeware version of something rubbishing the whole concept.

    Do you think this change in back end hardware is going to be actually just the internet ?

    Dont Be so secular,

    Telcos can pull voip off be cause they control all the boxes, wires and protocols in the system. Mrs smith will use her old telephone into an A/D converter at the exchange, quite a lot like it is now!

    Do you all honestly think that the BT network still has clacker board relays to connect your call?

    I don't think they will get it done smoothly simply because they are a big clunky organisation, not because it cant be done.

    Besides all that, someone has to buy those BFG Cisco routers dont they!