RE: Internet vs. Telephone company

It's a partial solution and expensive to implement. The data calls still
have to go through at least the first voice switch.

But it would be nice to receive packets rather than switched circuits
and avoid the cost of building so many dial POPs, if the price is right.

--Kent

~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~
Kent W. England Six Sigma Networks
1655 Landquist Drive, Suite 100 Voice/Fax: 619.632.8400
Encinitas, CA 92024 kwe@6SigmaNets.com
   Technical Expertise for PacBell NAP and PacBell Internet Services

Check out a product called 'Internet Thruway" that routes a call based
on the Called Number. The idea is for telcos to implement this product
as a back-end to their access network so calls being made to a Thruway
provider never reach the voice network. It is instead sent (via IP and
L2F) directly to the ISP's network. SBC is already committed to
deploying this in parts of Texas.

It's a partial solution and expensive to implement. The data calls still
have to go through at least the first voice switch.

But it would be nice to receive packets rather than switched circuits
and avoid the cost of building so many dial POPs, if the price is right.

They're also looking at deploying it in parts of Missouri. IMHO, the cost
is perfect (at least in MO), but I'm leery of the telcos having that much
control over the network. Also, I hear L2TP is better than L2F, but
haven't read the drafts.

Anyone want to back me up on this line of questioning?

Timothy

And the telcos have no control of the network now? Let's see....if
Ameritech is doing repair on voice equipment, and some ham-handed tech who
just started yesterday destroys one (or more) of our DS-1's....no more
connectivity to that customer, or possibly (if he hits enough of them) to
anyone. I agree that it would really be nice to have 100% control over
things, since unless you do you can't really and truly PROMISE any kind of
reliability.

P.S: I'm not implying that Ameritech (or any other telco) is
incompetent....only that there *IS* an unavoidable danger of service
disruption by accident.