I think how reliable the internet needs to be depends on what you want to
use it for: if you want to call an ambulance you DON'T use the internet, if
you want to transfer money from one account to another you DO use the
internet. In other words right now it's good for things that are important
but not critical from an immediate action standpoint. If it can wait until
tomorrow use the internet otherwise pick up the phone and dial.
I can count on one hand the number of times I've had problems with my
landline in my entire life but I can count on two hands the number of
problems I've had with my internet connection in one year. If we ever want
the internet to grow from being a handy medium for exchanging data to the
converged, all-encompassing communications medium then it needs to go from
"Mom, the internet's down again!" to "Dude, my internet connection went down
yesterday, that ever happen to you before?". For that to happen there has to
be more accountability in the industry.
-GP
In article <578F3C8F6DD3D411850600508BF320CA03A60E64@aries-exch1.uk.eu.corp.vizzavi.
, "Pendergrass, Greg" <Greg.Pendergrass@vodafone.com> writes
if you want to call an ambulance you DON'T use the internet
And you also need a way to persuade the Ambulance Service not to terminate their calls via VoIP, or send dispatch instructions via public-IP over GSM (or whatever) to their vehicles.
Or the IP bits need to be assured as "good enough" that it doesn't matter.
It's perhaps three years since I heard that there was real possibility of some of the above. That stable door may be more open than you think.
Roland Perry wrote:
In article <578F3C8F6DD3D411850600508BF320CA03A60E64@aries-exch1.uk.eu.corp.vizzavi.
>, "Pendergrass, Greg" <Greg.Pendergrass@vodafone.com> writes
if you want to call an ambulance you DON'T use the internet
And you also need a way to persuade the Ambulance Service not to terminate their calls via VoIP, or send dispatch instructions via public-IP over GSM (or whatever) to their vehicles.
I think we will need also to make it illegal (to control the liability
issues) to need emergency assistance in a place whose only link
is via "public-IP". (I hear that there are places in Papua New Guinea
that are being brought "on-line" where everything (EVERYthing) else is
stone-age-standard.)
We often can't get the owners of the fiber to 'fess up to the actual
physical path, when we're trying to build out diversity.
What makes you think the Ambulance Service will have the competency
to have any *clue* where their dial tone actually comes from and goes to?
In article <403E2047.1080502@cox.net>, "Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr." <LarrySheldon@cox.net> writes
I think we will need also to make it illegal (to control the liability
issues) to need emergency assistance in a place whose only link
is via "public-IP".
This is an interesting issue, and one which is currently being debated in the UK (where a newly reformed regulator is taking a fresh look at VoIP)[1]. Most end users that I've discussed it with (geeks to a man) say it's not society's problem if they (the geeks) choose to limit their availability of emergency assistance[2], when buying a new toy like VoIP (and throwing away their POTS). I'm not sure that I entirely agree. Less well informed users probably need someone making that decision for them. (Just call me "Nanny".)
[1] Should VoIP include 911/999 service, and how does one resolve the various geographic location issues associated with this.
[2] By, for example, having no 911/999 service available *at all* from their chosen provider, and relying on a mobile phone or a neighbour with POTS.
In article <200402261652.i1QGq3ln018676@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu writes
We often can't get the owners of the fiber to 'fess up to the actual
physical path, when we're trying to build out diversity.
What makes you think the Ambulance Service will have the competency
to have any *clue* where their dial tone actually comes from and goes to?
You need a Regulator[tm] which insists that the Ambulance Service demonstrates that they understand these issues, or revoke their licence. A bit like you do for the wetware behind the steering wheel (or the life support system in the back).
This seems to me to have very little to do with network reliability, and
far more to do with feedback.
When sending somebody e-mail you assume they'll probably check their
e-mail and receive the message eventually, but you have no idea if they'll
get it right away, or if they'll notice it along with all the other
e-mail they get. When phoning somebody, you know right away whether they
answer, and you know right away how they respond to whatever you have to
say.
If you really need to get in touch with somebody right now, do you call
their presumably more reliable land line, or their presumably less
reliable cell phone?
-Steve
I don't post much as I'm mostly on here to learn and have little I
can contribute, but...
While following all the discussions, I wonder if there's too many
people here that work at large highly redundant facilities and live in
expensive areas with new circuits. I don't believe the rest of the world
has such high expectations. I live in a typical USA '70s era neighborhood
and have (this year) had nearly 2 full days without power (not counting that
nationwide blackout thing, and not even guessing how many 1-2 hour power
losses), 4 or 5 days without dialtone (multiple episodes lasting over a day
each, also suffering static on the line everytime it rains), and had the
cable modem down for 3 days straight (was up MOST of the time the power was
out. As a side note, tried a BRI, but cancelled after the phone company
couldn't keep it up more than 50% of the time). We're used to it, that's
just life in this city. Cell phone coverage is good in the cities, however
the stretches in between, the cell phone is just a paper weight. Just last
night, we had 2 T-1s down for 5.5 hours here at work (I must say though,
reliability at work has GREATLY improved the last couple of years!)... I
can go on and on about this, but won't as this whole thing is really
stretching the limits of "network related" now 
Thus spake "Steve Gibbard" <scg@gibbard.org>
When sending somebody e-mail you assume they'll probably check their
e-mail and receive the message eventually, but you have no idea if they'll
get it right away, or if they'll notice it along with all the other e-mail
they get.
When phoning somebody, you know right away whether they answer,
and you know right away how they respond to whatever you have to say.
In theory, that's a job for DSN.
If you really need to get in touch with somebody right now, do you call
their presumably more reliable land line, or their presumably less
reliable cell phone?
I think this was intended as rhetorical, but I'll bite... If I want to
reach someone _right now_, I call their cell phone, because the odds are
significantly higher they'll be near it.
E911 is a mess even for non-mobile users in a single office building. Full
compliance, at least with my state's regulations, requires phone numbers be
localized to within a 100ft2 space. This means a VoIP system must be able
to automatically trace a user's IP address, MAC address, physical port,
cable run, and at least portion of a floor -- not to mention figuring out
what the correct telco circuit to route the 911 call out, which obviously
varies depending on where the user happens to be sitting.
S
Stephen Sprunk "Stupid people surround themselves with smart
CCIE #3723 people. Smart people surround themselves with
K5SSS smart people who disagree with them." --Aaron Sorkin