Slashdot Mirror


British Telecom Plans to Ditch POTS Network

Samurai Cat! writes "Yahoo news has a story up regarding British Telecom's plans to scrap their traditional circuit-switched telecom network in favor of an IP-based system." Their press release has more information.

138 comments

  1. this is a dupe by timecop · · Score: 3, Informative

    posted like 3 days ago.

    1. Re:this is a dupe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      TO THE IDIOT WHO MODDED THIS DOWN:
      Three posts below this is the same thing modded +5 informative.
      Oh, and how can FP be redundant?

      Thank you.

    2. Re:this is a dupe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Oh, and how can FP be redundant?

      Anything is redundant when it's posted by a known troll. Check his homepage.

    3. Re:this is a dupe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only is it a dupe but BT announced this oh, about three to four months ago in the VoIP press.

    4. Re:this is a dupe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I KNOW HE IS A TROLL, SO AM I YOU FUCKTARD
      Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
      Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

    5. Re:this is a dupe by smallfries · · Score: 1

      At least its a new an improved dupe. Half the posts the last time around were complaining about calling it a PSTN network instead of POTS. It's almost as if the editors kindof listened ....

      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
  2. super-DUPEr by dewpac · · Score: 3, Informative

    http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/09/190247 &mode=thread&tid=126&tid=137&tid=187&tid=2 15

    Only 2 days ago!

    1. Re:super-DUPEr by Hungus · · Score: 5, Funny

      Its not a dupe, its the echo coming back across the transatlantic lines from the original article.

      --
      Bad Panda! No Bamboo for you! In matters of importance ACs will not be responded to. Want to say something critical,OK
    2. Re:super-DUPEr by madprof · · Score: 5, Funny

      64 bytes from www.slashdot.org (66.35.250.151): icmp_seq=1 ttl=1 week time=2 days

    3. Re:super-DUPEr by musicon · · Score: 1

      Yea, it almost makes you wonder if the "on duty editor" is even checking their mail...

    4. Re:super-DUPEr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And also if slashdot readers have anything better to do..

    5. Re:super-DUPEr by jerde · · Score: 1

      Yea, it almost makes you wonder if the "on duty editor" is even checking their mail...

      Or if the editors ever, oh, I dunno... READ SLASHDOT!?

      Dupes are such a simple problem... as any of us lowly readers know: we recognize them immediately, because we read /. every day. Should that be an obvious requirement for being an editor?

      Sigh.

      - Peter

      --
      INsigNIFICANT
  3. clone by FS1 · · Score: 0, Redundant
    --
    A Fatal OE Exception has occurred, Sig will now reboot.
    1. Re:clone by Atario · · Score: 4, Funny
      clone (Score:1, Redundant)
      by FS1 (636716) on 05:01 PM -- Friday June 11 2004 (#9403544)
      dupe
      I wish I could pick which moderations to metamoderate -- and that I could metamoderate anything I wanted to "Funny". 'Cause that is funny. Clone -- Redundant -- Dupe. Perfect.
      --
      "A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
    2. Re:clone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In soviet russia, Beowulf Cluster of .sigs imagines YOU!

    3. Re:clone by Flumph · · Score: 1

      Would there be a metametamoderate option, so someone could label you as "easily amused"?

      Hey Pot, you're black!

      Kettle :)

  4. Hope they're using QoS by mfearby · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We've got ip-tel at work and it's a right bitch at times - almost like talking to someone over on a mobile. There's nothing worse than having the beginnings and endings of someone's speech cut off!

    Even with QoS, ip-tel is over rated. "It should do that"... yeah, right!

    1. Re:Hope they're using QoS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What speed is your network running at? I'm fortunate enough to be in a research institute with pervasive gigabit networking. People very occasionally complain about glitchy video conference calls when the network is heavily loaded, but audio is "solved" as far as we're concerned...

    2. Re:Hope they're using QoS by mfearby · · Score: 1

      Gigabit between buildings on site, 100mb switches in each building. Either 2mb or 10mb between each site (mostly 2mb). Heavily used by people surfing the 'net and the odd video conference. I personally don't think this is enough...

    3. Re:Hope they're using QoS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      One thing that kills is people idiotically spawning several point-to-point tools for conferences - get native multicast working, and use multicast-enabled tools.

    4. Re:Hope they're using QoS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We use IP Telephony extensively over international leased lines and have absolutely no problem, and we're using it for critical customer-facing systems.

      VoIP is great when things are configured correctly... problem is QoS is like a chain - one weak link in the path of a packet and the whole thing is useless. Priority queueing doesn't help much if you have serialization delays or duplex misconfigurations - there are an awful lot of components to ensuring good QoS.

      Just like with network security, you don't want to trust QoS configurations to a novice.

    5. Re:Hope they're using QoS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least you don't use the same line than Slashdot, their VoIP based discussions are shifted 2 days sometimes.

    6. Re:Hope they're using QoS by nounderscores · · Score: 1

      Can't you route around? I thought that if the company is buying gigabit switches and routers you might as well get some redundancy built in to your network instead of going the old star topology.

      After all, Saddam Hussein put is entire military C3I aparatus onto his dedicated POTS telephone network. American spy planes just followed the cables... and we all know how that ended.

      TCP/IP has automatic route around capability built into that layer, so why not use it? You might even get a bigger discount buying more equipment.

  5. IPv6 I hope... by Supp0rtLinux · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Considering the "impending doom" we keep hearing about of the lack of available IPv4 numbers... one can only hope they intend to roll out their new network with IPv6. Heck, even a few class A's and NAT'ing each one to 254 usable addresses wouldn't help them...

    1. Re:IPv6 I hope... by I+confirm+I'm+not+a · · Score: 1

      The network is internal, not part of the Internet, so IPv4 should do - but the way Britain seems to change phone-numbering in order to cram a few more million phone users in...maybe IPv6 isn't that unreasonable!

      --
      This is where the serious fun begins.
    2. Re:IPv6 I hope... by Feyr · · Score: 5, Informative

      make that clear, there is absolutely NO shortage of ipv4 addresses.

      i just received the APNIC (asia pacific) address report for this week. here's a few fun numbers:

      60% of the allocated ipv4 space has been allocated (yes you hear it right, 60%). that leaves us with 40% still to allocate. 40% of 32 bits. now:
      2**32 = 4 294 967 296
      4 294 967 296 * 0.4 = 1717986920
      that's 1.7 billions address NOT ALLOCATED

      but here's the kick, only 50% of that allocated 60% (30% of the total) are advertised (that means routable on the internet), which in turn mean much less than that are actually used (advertised does not mean it is in use)

    3. Re:IPv6 I hope... by Feyr · · Score: 1

      forgot to mention, the report is by APNIC, but it covers the whole internet, not just their portion

    4. Re:IPv6 I hope... by aka-ed · · Score: 1

      The other 50% of the advertised allotment are being used to hold my pants up. Believe me, you don;t want 'em.

      --
      I survived the Dick Cheney Presidency 7 to 9 AM 7-21-07
    5. Re:IPv6 I hope... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why stop there each class A could be turned in to a "class B" nat... which could than be turned in to a "class c" nat...

    6. Re:IPv6 I hope... by Steffan · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, it's not 1.7 billion addresses. Because of the way the address space is allocated, not every potential address is available, and that's before you take into account things like CIDR (classless interdomain routing not this)

    7. Re:IPv6 I hope... by Feyr · · Score: 1

      reguardless, they're still addresses, even if they're not all useable. but yes, there is a small percentage you could take off that 1.7 billions, that's still a lot of addresses to allocate :)

    8. Re:IPv6 I hope... by Dolda2000 · · Score: 5, Informative
      That may well be, but lack of addresses is not the primary problem. The problem is that these available addresses are scattered all over the address space which makes routing much harder for each new address block that gets allocated.

      That's the greatest promise of IPv6 - ISPs will no longer have to divide their customers over a couple of hundred individual address blocks spread over distant areas of the IPv4 space - it's kinda like running defrag over the address space, only that this time it won't become fragmented again after just a little extra use.

    9. Re:IPv6 I hope... by Feyr · · Score: 1

      ipv6 has issues. mostly policy issues but that's pretty major IMHO

      according to ARIN, under ipv6 you can no longer get allocated addresses for your own use. unless you're a big isp (tier 1) that plan to allocate addresses yourself (and lots of them).

      that means the small isp that currently has a /20 (or lower) get to renumber all of their servers if they ever want to switch to another upstream provider, which means you're pretty much fucked if your current ISP goes under or tries to screw you over (yes it happened to me). trust me, renumbering involve more than just setting a new IP address on the server, it's a HUGE pain in the ass. the older your network is, the more of a pain it is

      i understand the why of that policy (to prevent fragmentation), but it's still annoying

    10. Re:IPv6 I hope... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Most people talk gloom and doom when they dont understand what is going on. If you buy into the hype that someday your underwear is going to be internet-aware along with your toaster, than no, there arent enough addresses.

      However, such a case is as unlikely as having moving walkways on every city street and robots throwing out our trash; it is a rosy, unrealistic picture about a future that will never exist, because technology doesnt always widely replace the most basic (and therefore most reliable) of things.

      Few people use an electric toothbrush or water pick. Heck, most people dont even use electric shavers. The few places technology has conquered are mainly cooking and cleaning- most people DO own vaccuum cleaners, gas/electric ovens, and microwave ovens, because they are clearly superior to what they are replacing. Lets not forget air conditioning or heaters either!

      If the techological solution is either equal in performance or wildly expensive, it will never be more than a gadget or niche product. Low tech is always the most reliable way to go, if not the easiest. Thus, a future of internet-aware appliances, undergarments, and dog toys seems highly unlikely.

      Also, since solutions like NAT are becoming used almost exclusively (not only for convenience but security), it makes it even more intelligent to limit internet-facing addresses. I would imagine the single largest demand for IP addresses would be home users, but since home networks are becoming more and more popular (as well as wireless networks), even this is trimming down demand.

      Anyway, it seems less and less like doom and gloom the longer we go. IPv4 will be around for quite some time, not even taking into account the difficulty of upgrading almost all the routers in the world to be compliant with a new version of IP (and the next upgrade may not even be to IPv6).

    11. Re:IPv6 I hope... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I'm sure they'll still be using their own internal network for phone calls, routing over the public internet would throw reliability and quality-of-service out the door. In fact, switching to IP may do that anyhow if they aren't careful, as internet routing systems, capacity control, hardware, redundancy etc. are far less reliable than the systems used on telephone networks.

      Running out of addresses is not one of the things that is going to be a problem. The addresses used by circuit-switched digital telephone systems are much smaller than IPv4 addresses.

    12. Re:IPv6 I hope... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's debunk this from the bottom up...

      1. If it's advertised but "not used" we can't re-use it because it's already advertised. How about if the phone company disconnects your phone because you're not making enough calls and they want the number back? Not going to happen, right.

      2a. If it's allocated but not advertised that may mean, among other things that it's in use but not visible on the greater public network. That does NOT necessarily mean it's inappropriate to use public addresses, there may be private routes between multiple organisations using those agreed addresses. An IPv6 draft in progress on collision avoiding private numbering might ensure that the same isn't necessary on IPv6.

      [Yeah, they could use 10.0.0.0/8, or a part of it, but which part, and who decides?]

      2b. Even if the allocation isn't advertised, that's no indication of how long its been dormant or whether it will be activated. A future where you lose your entire address space because it takes "too long" to repair some storm damage and get your prefix back on the air would, I think you agree, suck.

      3. 60% allocation is pretty dense for an internetwork. Though growth may be slowing, in part due to horrible network-breaking technology like NAT, and pressure from registries to reduce allocation ratios (increasing administrative overheads) there's no sign that it will stop short of 3 billion addresses, and if it passes 3 billion we're in a lot of trouble because a lot of the remaining space is neither available to nor suitable for internetwork unicast traffic, which is what ordinary hosts want.

      This is a VoIP topic, so let me point out that if everyone wants an IP address (and they all seem to want phones as we see in every developing nation) we don't have enough...

      I watched a phone sized device (actually a PDA, but that's just for the bigger screen) playing video over mobile IP the other week. The user can move from one WLAN system to another, reachable using their home address and automatically using an optimal route for packets once a session is established. This works today, with the right hardware, in a year or two you'll see show-offs using it at work, by the end of the decade "everyone" will want one. But if they all own one, where do the extra addresses come from? IPv6.

    13. Re:IPv6 I hope... by miquels · · Score: 1

      Current policy at RIPE and ARIN is that every ISP can get IPv6 addresses just as easy as IPv4. Just ask and you'll get a /32. Recommended allocation to customers is a /48 (yes, 65536 64-bit subnets - 281474976710656 times the complete IPv4 address space for each enduser).

      Customers need to renumber when moving ISPs, but ISPs themselves get their own static space.

      And renumbering for endusers isn't that complicated either - only the subnet changes, you can keep the address in the /64 the same.

      --
      Living is a horizontal fall
    14. Re:IPv6 I hope... by Feyr · · Score: 1

      that's right but their definition of ISP is limited. for them an ISP is an entity that will make sub allocations to other entities.

      i currently work for an "ISP" that is too small to ever need to do sub allocations, but big enough that renumbering would involve about 2 months of work (with appropriate notifications to customers)

      here's the appropriate entry in the policy:

      5.1.1. Initial allocation criteria

      a) be an LIR;

      b) not be an end site;

      c) plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organizations to which it will assign /48s, by advertising that connectivity through its single aggregated address allocation; and

      d) have a plan for making at least 200 /48 assignments to other organizations within two years.

    15. Re:IPv6 I hope... by john_uy · · Score: 1
      contrary to popular beliefs, the ipv4 address space is not going to be depleted in the near term (as the values from the parent.) but using ipv6 in voip will greatly ease its deployment.


      1. ipv6 has qos built in. it will be needed for them to prioritize voice calls.

      2. it will be much easier to subnet the network by assigning an ip address for each device and a subnet for each part of the network. assinging it in ipv4 will be much difficult. for example, a /8 will give you 16.8m possible addresses. if you were a telephone company, you will have billions of telephone numbers being used (a 7 digit will yield 9,999,999 numbers and with multiple area codes will automatically balloon it to billions. so your 1.7b will only be good for two prefix (that is if you will map an ip address for each device per number.) if all telephone numbers in our country right now will be assigned an equivalent ip address, we cannot map all numbers in ipv4 because we have 10 of billions of phone numbers in use. conserving ip address by using nat - how can you connect to the other party directly since the other device is not unique?

      3. aggregation, it will be much simple to manage the new network compared probably to the complex pots and new ss7 systems.


      some comments though. the allocated ip is different from assigned ip. you can allocate a big chunk to an isp and it will assign it to customers. also, not all assigned ip addresses are advertised. most ix are assigned a /24 and they are usually not advertised (you cannot reach most 198.32.x.x networks being used for exchange points.)


      if i were bt, ipv6 will be a requirement!

      --
      Live your life each day as if it was your last.
  6. Ignoring the fact that this is a dupe... by James+A.+S.+Joyce · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...I have only two questions.

    1. What are the odds of this actually being pulled off?
    2. How much will this effect me, a regular dialup and telephone user of British Telecom?

    1. Re:Ignoring the fact that this is a dupe... by Feyr · · Score: 3, Interesting

      it won't. BT is actually late at that game, i seem to recall AT&T Canada switching their whole network to IP based last year

    2. Re:Ignoring the fact that this is a dupe... by dinodrac · · Score: 5, Informative

      >1. What are the odds of this actually being pulled off?

      Its quite possible. Major long distance carriers already do this. There are some technical issues, but they can be addressed, and VoIP uses bandwidth way more efficiently than a circuit switched network, so long term, the cost benefits do appear to be there.

      >2. How much will this effect me, a regular dialup and telephone user of British Telecom?

      As a voice user, there may be initial problems with echo, garbled voice, and delay if BT doesn't do their homework. Those problems can usually be quickly alieviated in most cases by properly employing the QoS features typically provided by high end routers.
      A bigger issue is high speed modem use over VoIP, particularly if low bitrate codecs are used. Its possible that they could effectively cripple dialup ISPs without affecting voice quality in any perceptable way.. I don't know how the british communications regulations work, but here in the US, telcos can (with very few exceptions) do whatever they want to the lines so long as voice quality isn't affected (although they do have to support 9600bps data rates, who wants to surf at that speed.) Hopefully, they will keep in mind modem users, but they may decide this is a good time to force customers into broadband.

    3. Re:Ignoring the fact that this is a dupe... by dplong · · Score: 4, Informative
      It shouldn't effect you at all. BT is replacing their network, not the local loop ("The switch-over will be seamless from the customer's perspective..."). IOW, you will still use your old analogue phone, and the copper wires will still connect your phone to the End Office, but from there on it will be all VoIP. A truly "end to end IP (Internet Protocol) based network," where you have VoIP phones everywhere, will take many decades to implement.

      VoIP isn't as exotic as people may think--you've been using it for several years on most long-distance calls for at least part of the circuit. And all of this traffic is H.323 and not SIP.

    4. Re:Ignoring the fact that this is a dupe... by nulleffect · · Score: 3, Informative

      Telus, which operates local phone service in B.C. and Alberta and cell phone service nationwide, started switching over to VoIP last year and now carries most of long-distance callls between major cities over the Internet.

    5. Re:Ignoring the fact that this is a dupe... by mikael · · Score: 4, Informative

      1. What are the odds of this actually being pulled off?

      It shouldn't be that difficult. BT's telephone network is based on System X (and it's competitor System Y). The national network is completely digital. Each customer line would be analog (unless you have ISDN) until the local exchange, where the signal would be converted into 64 Kbits digital. Advances in technology allowed a single circuit board (A4 sized) to handle up to 4 customer lines, so the entire telephone exchange for a small village could be inside a shed. BT would probably start with upgrading the national network, then do a local exchange trial in London, and then roll out across the country.

      2. How much will this effect me, a regular dialup and telephone user of British Telecom?

      You probably wouldn't notice anything. For each exchange, they would do a gradual switch over. They'd start by adding the new links using IP packets, test them, then allow customer calls to use them, and finally disable the old system.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    6. Re:Ignoring the fact that this is a dupe... by dplong · · Score: 1

      BTW, just found out that BT will be using SIP (interoperability be damned) because it wants mobile integration.

    7. Re:Ignoring the fact that this is a dupe... by Knackered · · Score: 3, Interesting
      ...they may decide this is a good time to force customers into broadband.


      "Force" users onto broadband? Ha! I have a few relatives in the UK who would love to get broadband, and who would pay for it if it could be got for any reasonable price, but BT has dragged their heels and imposed ridiculous trigger levels for exchanges (sometimes requiring almost as many signatures as there are households). Their recent announcement that all exchanges will be converted to support DSL is way over-due; they have dragged their feet on this issue for ages (just read the Register's on-going coverage hinting that OfCom were getting more and more pissed-off with BT). This should have been a matter of policy.

      Even now, after the announcement, the more remote relatives will have to wait more than a year to have their exchanges upgraded. The only other options are prohibitively expensive (satellite uplink, there is no cable service in most of the Scottish Highlands).
      --
      a.
    8. Re:Ignoring the fact that this is a dupe... by Jorkapp · · Score: 1

      BT is actually late at that game, i seem to recall AT&T Canada...

      The Brits are behind?
      BLAME CANADA! BLAME CANADA!

      --
      Frink: Nice try floyd, but you were designed for scrubbing, and scrubbing is what you shall do.
    9. Re:Ignoring the fact that this is a dupe... by superpeach · · Score: 1

      (although they do have to support 9600bps data rates, who wants to surf at that speed.)

      I think it only has to be 2400bps here (UK), at least thats what I remember being told and what this suggests on page 11 (pdf), but I didnt read all of it :)

    10. Re:Ignoring the fact that this is a dupe... by fpedraza · · Score: 3, Informative

      "here in the US, telcos can (with very few exceptions) do whatever they want to the lines so long as voice quality isn't affected"

      Some comment about this, ETSI SS7 ISUP (it's probably similar in the U.S) has basically three bearer capabilities:

      - Circuit switched data: bits exactly the same in both ends
      - 3.1 Khz: spectrum quality in this band is not affected by transit and processing in the network.
      - Speech: voice inteligibility guaranteed.

      The central office asks for 3.1K when a POTS line calls and the network does it's best to guarantee 3.1K. However in very long distance calls it's not always possible, because of the echo cancellers and stuff. Faxes and modems send an echo canceler disable tone, but I ignore if this works always/sometimes/...

      ISDN terminals can themselves ask for whatever they need, but the network can provide or refuse the capability depending on all the transit switches involved in the call being able to provide it.

      Mobile phones always use Speech.

      And about VoIP, I heard Lucent dropped it's softswitch project because it just didn't work. more info anyone?

    11. Re:Ignoring the fact that this is a dupe... by jmv · · Score: 1

      so long as voice quality isn't affected (although they do have to support 9600bps data rates, who wants to surf at that speed.)

      Believe me, there isn't a *single* low bit-rate speech codec that would allow 9600 bps rate rate. The reason is simple. Low bit-rate codecs are in the order of 8000 bps, so handling 9600 bps signals would be like being able to compress any type of signal/data. That's mathematically impossible. Even then, I'd even doubt one of these codecs would even be able to carry 300 bps modem signals reliably (they're just not designed for that). ...and BTW, I think I know a bit what I'm talking about (see sig).

    12. Re:Ignoring the fact that this is a dupe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's 19,600 they have to support iirc, although from a customer service and image point of view they'd probably help you out even more than that.

    13. Re:Ignoring the fact that this is a dupe... by a5cii · · Score: 1

      at BT we are advised that if a customer has less than 28000bps connection then we should put them in for an overnight gain increase

      if the gain increase does nothing we offer the customer an engineer out to check the line from the pole to their house, their sockets, junctionboxes and the rest

  7. Fresh Meat! by Tackhead · · Score: 5, Funny
    Well, we've Slashdotted damn near everything else on the planet (as well as several things off the planet). Taking on an entire country's phone system, complete with big fat pipes and uber-routers that do QoS management for 20 million people is just the next logical step.

    Bring it on, BT! The power of a national telephone monopoly is insignificant compared to the power of the Slashdot effect!

    1. Re:Fresh Meat! by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 1

      Speaking of which, is there access to the IP network on which the VoIP will run? It'd make a nice WAN with reasonable latency for BT customers only, and text messaging over landline may be a worthwhile idea for them....besides, it'd be fun to explore.

    2. Re:Fresh Meat! by sepluv · · Score: 1

      You alread can text msg over landlines in the UK. A lot of new phones have that functionality. AFAIK it is just the same as a normal phone call but with special beeps (like modems or fax machines).

      --
      Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
      [This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
  8. And in America... by Supp0rtLinux · · Score: 2, Funny

    when asked if the U.S. would like to do something similar, Bush replied, "Asia makes all the cool cell phone advancements, Europe wants to can POTS and truly enter the digital era, and we have Microsoft. Why would we want to change anything?"

    self-mod: -2 for flamebait, +2 anti-M$, result mod=0

    1. Re:And in America... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Europe wants to can POTS and truly enter the digital era

      Look at how packet switched networks work. Then consider a voice connection:

      1)Analog source and destination
      2)EXTREMELY Delay sensitive
      3)Cost of nodes on each end must be dirt cheap
      4)Bandwidth must be guaranteed
      5)When noise is unavoidable, the world's most sophisticated DSP is between your ears.

    2. Re:And in America... by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 1

      And whatever he had to say on this would be inaccurate at best. Trust me, TPTB want you *off* of pots and onto VOIP. If you don't see that, you have not been paying attention.

      --
      You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
  9. cereal box by goats_in_boats · · Score: 5, Funny

    so, like what, i need a 2.4GHz whistle for that?

    1. Re:cereal box by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mod parent up.

  10. yeah, it's a dupe. by mkavanagh2 · · Score: 2, Informative

    what it doesn't mention in the summary at least is that BT are also moving to fiber in their new developments, especially in areas like around london; while the move from POTS won't directly affect users, the move to fiber will make the intarweb a whole fuckload faster for those who are lucky enough to get it.

    unfortunately they will not be moving already laid lines to fiber for any time in the forseeable future.

    1. Re:yeah, it's a dupe. by natd · · Score: 1

      Conversely, for those who have already got their phone via fibre - they are left out of the ADSL boom.

      --
      Only big ligs use sigs.
    2. Re:yeah, it's a dupe. by Stween · · Score: 1

      ... although I seem to recall that little factoid gets overlooked because there really aren't that many homes in the UK connected via fibre.

  11. Dupe of URL by Iggowanna · · Score: 2, Funny

    Dupe, dupe, dupe.
    Dupe of URL.
    Dupe, dupe, dupe of URL.
    Dupe, dupe, dupe of URL.
    Dupe, dupe, dupe of URL.

    (Think Duke of Earl)

    Be nice when modding me. I know it's lame.

    1. Re:Dupe of URL by Highlander · · Score: 1

      I find Dupe of URL amusing, this is only the 2nd time I've seen it, and the first time was 3 minutes in a Fark thread.

      H

  12. Good idea but by NIK282000 · · Score: 0

    What happens when it gets hacked? Its inevitable that some "haxor" is gonna try to DoS the whole thing or maby even make the "phone virus". Gotta take the good with the bad.

    --
    Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
    1. Re:Good idea but by madbastd · · Score: 1
      What happens when it gets hacked? Its inevitable that some "haxor" is gonna try to DoS the whole thing
      That will be difficult. As another poster pointed out, this will be a private IP network disconnected from the Internet.
      or maby even make the "phone virus". Gotta take the good with the bad.
      What would the virus infect? Aside from some network management workstations (typically running some flavour of *NIX), almost all of the equipment on the network will be either dedicated VOIP hardware or routers, both of which are designed not to have users' processes running on them, and so are very robust to viruses.
    2. Re:Good idea but by sirdude · · Score: 1

      Ever heard of phreaking? Besides this will be an isolated network..

  13. Every time I see this I read it as by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    British Telecom Plans to Ditch POS Network.

    1. Re:Every time I see this I read it as by Tokerat · · Score: 1


      The funny thing is we DID just see this and read it.

      --
      CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
    2. Re:Every time I see this I read it as by dangil · · Score: 1

      I read the POTS all right.. but as in yidich ... that means idiot...

  14. Good.. by dustinbarbour · · Score: 1

    I love innovation.

  15. POTS or......POTUS? by BWJones · · Score: 2, Funny

    They wanna ditch their POTS while I wanna ditch our POTUS! :-)

    --
    Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    1. Re:POTS or......POTUS? by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 1

      Well, when something's a POS that's what you do...

      (And I'm not referring to POTS.)

      --

      "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    2. Re:POTS or......POTUS? by Kalak451 · · Score: 1

      Time to Karma Whore!

      POTUS = President Of The United States

      I learned this from the first episode of "The West Wing." Is this common knowledge outside of that show?

    3. Re:POTS or......POTUS? by dvk · · Score: 1

      Well, it it a common knowledge among people who have an actual understanding of politics. Most of whom apparently aren't the type who posts comments like the grandparent of this :)

      --
      "The right to figure things out for yourself is the only true freedom everyone shares. Go use it"-R.A.Heinlein
  16. Holy Shit Batman by Supp0rtLinux · · Score: 1

    Quick Robin... throw me the bat-dupe

  17. Re:Duh-dupe, duh-dupe, duh-dupe-duh-dupe-duh-dupe! by LoocSiMit · · Score: 1, Funny
    This is the 873rd "dupe" post.

    Am I the only one to see the irony?

    --
    Intellectual Property
    Intellectual: of the mind
    Property: that over which one has control
  18. If the exchanges are going to be rebuilt then.. by t_allardyce · · Score: 2, Insightful

    While they're at it can they just give us all built-in broadband net access? free? if thats not worth paying taxes than fuck knows what is. Most people would use it, probably more than some other things tax goes to (ive never had a go with the parliamentary hooker!).

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    1. Re:If the exchanges are going to be rebuilt then.. by kid-noodle · · Score: 1

      Dream on, BT is a private company now (Tah Conservative government).

      And even when they where funded by our taxes, they still wouldn't give us a decent service. Granted, it was better, but still not any good.

      --
      fortune -o
    2. Re:If the exchanges are going to be rebuilt then.. by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

      What i mean is the government says "hey hey, all yo dudes who are re-fitting your exchanges, heres some dosh, go and stick in the shit to make the broadband and do be scrimping and going spending all that cash on coke!"

      Actually that would work for the trains too: "Hey bitches, you best be fixin up them rails good, you think yo got an easy ride just because you're private? fuck that hoe, you still working for queen and country and you best buck up your ideas and stop slacking! else ER gonna come round and be bustin your asses all over da floor! shiat you sell out maintenance to the cheapest contracter? fuck that bitch you be doin a proper job now else yo muma gonna be tied to dem tracks y'all!

      --
      This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    3. Re:If the exchanges are going to be rebuilt then.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Diebold: Its like paying a pedophile to look after your kids!

      Well in the UK, we have postal voting - thats where one guy gets to post the votes for a whole neighbourhood!

    4. Re:If the exchanges are going to be rebuilt then.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think Diebolds worse.. 1 company, 1 party affiliation, millions of dollars in 'gifts', either that or they are just total idiots.

  19. Break-up of ATT by dlmarti · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Ever since the original break-up of ATT inovation in
    our Telco industry has ground to a halt.

    I'm glad at least some country is reaping the benefits of technology.

  20. Damn tokers by DrMrLordX · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's nice to see that the UK is finally kicking its POTS habit.

  21. yes, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...do you think that's better than a girl in tiny see through panties from James?

  22. bah by syrinx · · Score: 1

    I'd like to see my cell phone provider ditch its POS network..

    --
    Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
  23. new recording... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    "We're sorry, the number you are calling is currently experiencing a distributed denial of service attack. Please try your call again..."

    Even worse if you were calling 911 or 999 or similar number...

    on an aside if you want to know the emergency numbers for different countries check out:

    http://www.911dispatch.com/web_graphic/graphic1. ht ml

    nice graphic shows emergency numbers from around the world.

  24. BT = British Telecom by SlimFastForYou · · Score: 0

    I had suspected BT stood for British Telecom (last article), but I could not find the words "British Telecom" on the article (the first time this was posted, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3791319.stm) . I could not even find out what BT stood for on the company's page (www.bt.com).

    Its probably just me tho =).

    1. Re:BT = British Telecom by lovswr · · Score: 1

      You know I work for Bt (the Global part based in the states). Andy is betting the whole company on ICT!

    2. Re:BT = British Telecom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A Telecom company is betting its future on Infomration Communication Technology? Novel!

    3. Re:BT = British Telecom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BT dropped its name British Telecom some years ago when they moved to the "piper" logo from the old yellow T with two .'s making up the right hand side of the T

      so British Telecom doesnt exist its just years of legacy and common naming which have kept it in existance.

    4. Re:BT = British Telecom by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
      Andy is betting the whole company on ICT!

      I thought ICT changed its name to ICL in the late 1960's

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
  25. ping by kanishka · · Score: 1

    so people will start saying ping instead of hello...that would be cool

    1. Re:ping by Art+Tatum · · Score: 1

      Well, the person calling will say "ping." The person answering will obviously reply with a "pong."

  26. isn't that a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sigfault?

  27. It's in the math! by czephyr · · Score: 0

    Look. Change is good and that means that something has to move over. Old technology is very important because folks like you and me can change any system from one state to another and still keep a job. I=MV Think to the positive: we'll be able to transfer data faster (maybe) than we used to. European phone systems have been out-dated for a while, granted, they have approached VOIP nicely, they (the Europeans) like the fact that those old circuits are still hard to get at as far as hackeing is concerned. The web is a dangerous thing that must be paid attention to. IMHO

    --
    Sincerely, Czephyr
  28. actually sorta on-topic... ok, it's a stretch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    An elderly lady phoned her telephone company to report that her telephone failed to ring when her friends called - and that on the few occasions when it did ring, her pet dog always moaned right before the phone rang. The telephone repairman proceeded to the scene, curious to see this psychic dog or senile elderly lady.

    He climbed a nearby telephone pole, hooked in his test set, and dialed the subscriber's house. The phone didn't ring right away, but then the dog moaned loudly and the telephone began to ring.

    Climbing down from the pole, the telephone repairman found:

    1. The dog was tied to the telephone system's ground wire via a steel chain and collar.
    2. The wire connection to the ground rod was loose.
    3. The dog was receiving 90 volts of signaling current when the phone number was called.
    4. After a couple of such jolts, the dog would start moaning and then urinate on himself and the ground.
    5. The wet ground would complete the circuit, thus causing the phone to ring.

    1. Re:actually sorta on-topic... ok, it's a stretch by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      This is a great story, but I think it's an urban legend. Suspicious, I did a little searching and got this; do a text search on "urinate" to get the right part.

      Yeah, I know. What a spoilsport.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    2. Re:actually sorta on-topic... ok, it's a stretch by swillden · · Score: 1

      On the page you linked, the story is listed at "Tb", which means "Believed true, but not conclusively proven".

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    3. Re:actually sorta on-topic... ok, it's a stretch by Blorgo · · Score: 1

      This just goes to show, there occasionaly IS a problem that can be solved by pissing and moaning.

  29. Lifeline POTS by green+pizza · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Despite my UPSes, I still find it reassuring that I can pick up my telephone at any time and get a dial tone. If I'm away from home for 5 days, and the power has been out the whole time, I can still come home and pick up the phone, expecting it to work.

    I live in a rural area where the power co-op often doesn't know about outages until someone reports them. I'm at the end of a line, and I've had outages that have only affected me.

    It's also nice to know that in an emergency, someone can come into my house and make an emergency call. It's also nice to know that I could probably make a call from another farmhouse too.

    Cell phone coverage is awful here. We have three competiting technologies with very few towers each. Hooray for lack of standards in rual America! Thankfully we do have 1 MBit "Reach" (Paradyne Hotwire MVL) SDSL! :) I can't complain about 768/768 that works fine 8 miles from the telco shed.

    Now, I don't mind if telcos upgrade their aging first-generation DS1 and DS3 gear for the longhaul trunks. But where I live that's already been done. Lots of fibre connecting the hick towns, gotta love RTC grants!

    1. Re:Lifeline POTS by scottj · · Score: 1
      Thankfully we do have 1 MBit "Reach" (Paradyne Hotwire MVL) SDSL! :) I can't complain about 768/768 that works fine 8 miles from the telco shed.
      I live in Austin, Texas, approximately 2 miles from the center of the city, and I can't get anything close to this from a DSL connection. I get great cable modem service, but DSL would be 256K downstream at best. It often seems that America has forgotten the urban areas lately.
      --
      .-.--
  30. Insider corrections by satguy · · Score: 2, Insightful
    BT, like Telus in Canada (and many other tier 1 PSTN carriers), are simply converting their internal circuit-switched (DS1-DS3, T1-T4) fat pipes (microwave/fibre links) to a more bandwidth-efficient packet-switched transport and routing methodology.

    The links in question are completely internal within the PSTN, and the change will be invisible to ordinary home or business subscribers - the same provision for the last mile to subscribers (POTS, Centrex, CAS or ISDN T1/E1, whatever) will remain in service for the foreseeable future.

    Those services are provided by the CO ("Central Office") switch, and it takes a while to depreciate a PSTN CO's DMS-1000 or similar switch (up to 17 years in Canada, I believe), and that switch is viewed by the beancounters as "the multi-million-dollar machine that prints money", so you can probably guess their opinion of forklift upgrades ;).

    The change to a packet-switched PSTN network backbone will improve bandwidth usage on long-haul and other fat pipes between Central Offices (cities/states/countries), reducing the need for further infrastructure builds (saving more trees, for those so inclined), and should sooner, rather than later, help make the provision of "gee-whiz" new services more economical and available for end users.

  31. But that's not the interesting bit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The interesting bit, which I'm shocked to see has gone unnoticed, is that the underlying network will actually be converted to MPLS, not IP.

    Yes, this does mean IP will run on top, but the cool "new" technology is actually beneath the surface. As far as I know, this will be the first widescale roll-out of MPLS.

    Maybe BT thought the truth would be too technical.

  32. modem speeds by adolf · · Score: 3, Interesting

    For a company the size of BT, I see the following scenario as being faily likely:

    BT switch detects modem/fax carrier.

    BT switch toggles from rather-compressed g.723 to uncompressed 64kbps g.711 . g.711 is is either aLaw or uLaw, depending on pond-sidedness, just like ISDN, and also just like things are switched "normally" today.

    Modem communication happens normally; BT writes off increased bandwidth (vs. g.723 voice) by saying to themselves "Well, at least that one g.711 modem call didn't cost us any more line capacity than it did before, and we got to packet-switch it instead of channelize it. Cool."

    Everyone's happy. And your modem doesn't even know the difference.

    1. Re:modem speeds by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 1

      Why not...

      BT detects modem/fax carrier after dial.

      BT connects one modem from a modem pool at each side's local office.

      Modem demodulates incoming data and sends it over IP (this is VoIP, after all). Modem on other end modulates IP data and sends it over a short, more reliable connection.

      Data can be compressed over the IP network, and the modem gets a high-quality line to the local office instead of the longer loop to the other modem. BT has decreased bandwith use, since it's sending raw data, not encoded modemsong.

      Everyone's happy (as long as BT uses IPSec or somesuch and doesn't log the data). And your modem knows the difference...through the higher connection speed.

    2. Re:modem speeds by adolf · · Score: 1

      That'll never fly.

      You're paying BT to complete a phone call for you, not act as an ISP. When I dial a modem, I want to talk to the fucking modem that I dialed, not some reasonable-facsimile-thereof. Maybe I intend to whistle a Bell 212a carrier as part of an art project and record it with my nifty voice modem, maybe I want to yell at a housemate through the modem speaker, maybe I want my credit card transaction to happen as fast as possible rather than waiting for two handshakes to complete instead of just one. Whatever the case, I want to make a phone call, not just transfer some data. And, besides, BT has no business keeping track of which numbers have modems answering, let alone treating them differently.

      No, sir. A more general solution, as I've outlined above, is in order. There's nothing to track or configure on an ongoing basis. No weird latency or flow control issues due to mismatched connection speeds. No new problems popping up from old customer equipment.

      It's simple. Switch encounters a modem carrier (or, more likely, highly-noncompressible information) and changes codecs, while nobody is the wiser.

      'Sides, the whole idea of extraneous modems died in the 90s, at BT's own hand, when they stopped offering Tymnet's outdial capability.

  33. So why VoIP? by Lars+T. · · Score: 2, Insightful

    VoIP makes sense when you have access to an IP network (Internet or Intranet). But when you want to packet switch telephony over a dedicate network, why the hell use IP instead of ATM?

    --

    Lars T.

    To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    1. Re:So why VoIP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's ATM? Seriously, ATM was a very bad idea from the moment it was invented. It post dates a better idea, IP. You are living on the marketing of yesteryear, you were `sold' a bill of goods, much like ISDN. Compare DSL. DSL works, solved a problem people want solved. ISDN, well, it was a bad idea from almost from the very start. What killed it, was the decision to not offer a good price for it. I suspect the only reason why we have DSL is because of cable modems.

    2. Re:So why VoIP? by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      ISDN was a bad idea - in America, because the US carriers fucked it up. And ATM is a very good idea if you use it for things were IP sucks, and oh does it suck for many things. Sure, ATM for LAN is almost always a bad idea, but there are things beyond LAN.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

  34. I think they're trying to avoid using the name by Trepidity · · Score: 1

    They seem to have basically renamed themselves to BT, and don't use British Telecom anymore. Sort of like how British Petroleum officially changed their name to bp (all-lowercase), and Silicon Graphics, Incorporated uses the name sgi as a primary name, not just an acronym.

    1. Re:I think they're trying to avoid using the name by SlimFastForYou · · Score: 1

      I suppose it's like AT&T. Hardly anyone calls them American Telephone and Telegraph (or something very similar if i messed up). But then again, American Telephone and Telegraph is somewhat of a mouthfull to say as opposed to other company names with one or two syllables ("Microsoft", "Apple", "Mandrake", "Novell", "SCO").

  35. Dammit by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

    I had my preferences set to ignore "stories" by this retard michael. How did that get reset?

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  36. -1, Try Harder by Gothmolly · · Score: 0, Troll

    "We have three competiting technologies with very few towers each. Hooray for lack of standards in rual America!"
    That's a pathetic attempt at a troll, maybe you should take a nap, have a meal, and try again. You'll get it eventually.

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    1. Re:-1, Try Harder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      comparing profiles, i think you are the troll.

  37. Telcos and Broadband by Insipid+Trunculance · · Score: 1

    A bit off the Topic

    Since we are discussing BT ,i am sure people are aware that Over the last 2-3 months we have had a price war going on.Even though the rates have crawled to 20 a month and under,a closer reading of the smallprint revelas most of these are either restricted on speed or have monthly download limits and sometimes both.

    what is the situation in worldwide,as in US,Canada,Japan,S Korea and Europe.What are the usual charges per month and how good is the service?

    --
    Wanted : A Signature.
  38. What's BT doing with there current network.. by NoMercy · · Score: 1

    Routing lots and lots of seperate IP channels, the number of ADSL customers in the UK is vast, and yet every single one has his or her data connection routed over BT's network to there ISP...

    Naturally it would be more efficient to off-load that data onto the internet before routing it accross there networks, definately could be a plus for P2P applications if they started using hop-count as a way of discriminating against peers, but the removal of low latancy circuit switched technology might cause more problems for people playing quake3 or other FPS's which desire really low latancies.

  39. Re: Break-up of AT&T by some+guy+I+know · · Score: 1
    Ever since the original break-up of ATT inovation in our Telco industry has ground to a halt.
    While I beleive that the government had no business breaking up AT&T, I must take issue with your statement.
    Here are some counter-examples to your claim:
    • Cellphones.
    • Widely-available DSL.
    • Collect calls without human-operator assistance.
    • Digital-quality vocal communications.
    • High(er)-speed modem connections.
    --
    Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
  40. Please learn how to make links. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Please learn how to make links.
    <a href="http://www.911dispatch.com/web_graphic/graph ic1.html">emergency numbers for different countries</a>
    (without any spaces put there by Slashdot) yields: emergency numbers for different countries
  41. Re: Break-up of AT&T by dlmarti · · Score: 1

    I understand your point, but...

    1. Cellphones, the US cellphone technology lags the rest of the world by 5-10 years.

    2. Widely-available DSL?, only in Urban and some suburban areas. Other technologies exist with better range.

    3. Collect calls without human-operator assistance.
    Okay.

    4. Modem speeds? When was the last time they changed 10 years ago?

    Prior to the break of AT&T they had proposed a nationwide rollout of Fiber, think where we would be with that.

  42. Yes, but ... by some+guy+I+know · · Score: 1

    I wasn't arguing whether we're better off or worse off than before, or than the rest of the world.
    I was simply pointing out that innovation has occured since the breakup.

    As to your particular points:
    Cellphones did not exist prior to the breakup, IIRC.
    Neither did DSL (or, if it did, it was not available to individuals. I don't think that even the now-largely-obsolete ISDN was available to ordinary households).
    Modem speeds at the time of the breakup (in the late '70s/early '80s, much more than 10 years ago) were either 1200 or 2400.

    --
    Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana