<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_03_1318218</id>
	<title>FCC Preparing Transition To VoIP Telephone Network</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1259847960000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>mantis2009 writes <i>"The US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) published a <a href="http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs\_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2517A1.pdf">request for public comment</a> (PDF) on an upcoming transition from the decades-old circuit-based Public Switched Telephone Network to a new system run entirely with Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) technology.  This is perhaps the most serious indication to date that the legacy telephone system will, in the near future, reach the end of its life.  This public commenting phase represents a very early stage in what will undoubtedly be a very complex transition that makes this year's bumpy switch from analog to digital television look relatively easy."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>mantis2009 writes " The US Federal Communications Commission ( FCC ) published a request for public comment ( PDF ) on an upcoming transition from the decades-old circuit-based Public Switched Telephone Network to a new system run entirely with Voice over Internet Protocol ( VoIP ) technology .
This is perhaps the most serious indication to date that the legacy telephone system will , in the near future , reach the end of its life .
This public commenting phase represents a very early stage in what will undoubtedly be a very complex transition that makes this year 's bumpy switch from analog to digital television look relatively easy .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>mantis2009 writes "The US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) published a request for public comment (PDF) on an upcoming transition from the decades-old circuit-based Public Switched Telephone Network to a new system run entirely with Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) technology.
This is perhaps the most serious indication to date that the legacy telephone system will, in the near future, reach the end of its life.
This public commenting phase represents a very early stage in what will undoubtedly be a very complex transition that makes this year's bumpy switch from analog to digital television look relatively easy.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30310420</id>
	<title>What needs transitioning first</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259857020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Assuming that this is not VoIP to the home, but rather everything between the last miles, there's still some transitioning to be done.  Mainly anything that is data over the phone, e.g. fax machines, alarm systems, and dial up networking.  This requires some physical and procedural upgrades.</p><p>There are far too many legal and medical industries that won't accept a scan/pdf over email and insist on a fax for some simple forms.  Heck, even Ameritrade asked me to fax in a form or to mail it in, you'd think they could setup a web page for updating personal data.</p><p>All of the major alarm companies that offer support over an IP line have a VoIP box to continue working with the older hardware.  Switching to IP would allow 2 way communication, greater scalability, lower hardware costs, etc, but I've yet to see one do this.</p><p>Dial up networking is still used by not just the rural areas, but also things like credit card transactions that are performed over the stand alone readers.</p><p>All of these will need to be transitioned off of voice technology or updated to work reliably over a VoIP based connection.  Personally I'll be happy to see the death of the fax machine and an upgrade of alarm systems, but I think we are stuck with some devices for rural locations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Assuming that this is not VoIP to the home , but rather everything between the last miles , there 's still some transitioning to be done .
Mainly anything that is data over the phone , e.g .
fax machines , alarm systems , and dial up networking .
This requires some physical and procedural upgrades.There are far too many legal and medical industries that wo n't accept a scan/pdf over email and insist on a fax for some simple forms .
Heck , even Ameritrade asked me to fax in a form or to mail it in , you 'd think they could setup a web page for updating personal data.All of the major alarm companies that offer support over an IP line have a VoIP box to continue working with the older hardware .
Switching to IP would allow 2 way communication , greater scalability , lower hardware costs , etc , but I 've yet to see one do this.Dial up networking is still used by not just the rural areas , but also things like credit card transactions that are performed over the stand alone readers.All of these will need to be transitioned off of voice technology or updated to work reliably over a VoIP based connection .
Personally I 'll be happy to see the death of the fax machine and an upgrade of alarm systems , but I think we are stuck with some devices for rural locations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Assuming that this is not VoIP to the home, but rather everything between the last miles, there's still some transitioning to be done.
Mainly anything that is data over the phone, e.g.
fax machines, alarm systems, and dial up networking.
This requires some physical and procedural upgrades.There are far too many legal and medical industries that won't accept a scan/pdf over email and insist on a fax for some simple forms.
Heck, even Ameritrade asked me to fax in a form or to mail it in, you'd think they could setup a web page for updating personal data.All of the major alarm companies that offer support over an IP line have a VoIP box to continue working with the older hardware.
Switching to IP would allow 2 way communication, greater scalability, lower hardware costs, etc, but I've yet to see one do this.Dial up networking is still used by not just the rural areas, but also things like credit card transactions that are performed over the stand alone readers.All of these will need to be transitioned off of voice technology or updated to work reliably over a VoIP based connection.
Personally I'll be happy to see the death of the fax machine and an upgrade of alarm systems, but I think we are stuck with some devices for rural locations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30314664</id>
	<title>Re:POTS is Powered!</title>
	<author>hitmark</author>
	<datestamp>1259871960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ethernet can carry power:<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PoE" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PoE</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ethernet can carry power : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PoE [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ethernet can carry power:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PoE [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30310564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30310224</id>
	<title>In short? Yes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259856060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have Vonage service and have an alarm system with a modem and it works fine. Vonage in fact supports up to 56K modems AFAIK.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have Vonage service and have an alarm system with a modem and it works fine .
Vonage in fact supports up to 56K modems AFAIK .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have Vonage service and have an alarm system with a modem and it works fine.
Vonage in fact supports up to 56K modems AFAIK.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30313372</id>
	<title>Not really difficult at all...</title>
	<author>jhfry</author>
	<datestamp>1259866980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unlike the Digital Television Transition, VOIP based telephony can be done in pieces, there is no need to force a consumer to upgrade, nor does there need to be a concrete deadline as there is no "future use" like there was with the freed TV bandwidth.</p><p>Also, the technology is well understood and requires little investment in R&amp;D for anyone migrating to it... while I can only imagine the demands put on broadcaster's engineers during the digital transition.  Not to mention that many (most?) businesses have stopped buying traditional switches in favor of VOIP.</p><p>Saying this will be MORE difficult than the Digital Television Transition is like saying it was difficult to transition from horse and buggy to the automobile.  Sure, the transition took time, and the infrastructure had to be upgraded to allow the automobile's advantages to really shine, but it didn't need to happen overnight as the two technologies could co-exist quite nicely.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unlike the Digital Television Transition , VOIP based telephony can be done in pieces , there is no need to force a consumer to upgrade , nor does there need to be a concrete deadline as there is no " future use " like there was with the freed TV bandwidth.Also , the technology is well understood and requires little investment in R&amp;D for anyone migrating to it... while I can only imagine the demands put on broadcaster 's engineers during the digital transition .
Not to mention that many ( most ?
) businesses have stopped buying traditional switches in favor of VOIP.Saying this will be MORE difficult than the Digital Television Transition is like saying it was difficult to transition from horse and buggy to the automobile .
Sure , the transition took time , and the infrastructure had to be upgraded to allow the automobile 's advantages to really shine , but it did n't need to happen overnight as the two technologies could co-exist quite nicely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unlike the Digital Television Transition, VOIP based telephony can be done in pieces, there is no need to force a consumer to upgrade, nor does there need to be a concrete deadline as there is no "future use" like there was with the freed TV bandwidth.Also, the technology is well understood and requires little investment in R&amp;D for anyone migrating to it... while I can only imagine the demands put on broadcaster's engineers during the digital transition.
Not to mention that many (most?
) businesses have stopped buying traditional switches in favor of VOIP.Saying this will be MORE difficult than the Digital Television Transition is like saying it was difficult to transition from horse and buggy to the automobile.
Sure, the transition took time, and the infrastructure had to be upgraded to allow the automobile's advantages to really shine, but it didn't need to happen overnight as the two technologies could co-exist quite nicely.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30313386</id>
	<title>Re:ONLY if they set stricter ISP service standards</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259867040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a replacement for POTS using VoIP, not Voice over INTERNET.  Further, the calls will terminate at your local NOC directly, not go out multiple hops through your firewall, then your ISP, then their external connection, then the the backbone, then to a phone company's network, possibly a 3rd party carrier depending on where your ISP's headend is, and finally to your local NOC to place a local call....</p><p>The SIP connections would have nothing to do with your internet connection, and would work in most cases even if you lost that connection (as it would optionall be a seperate connection)  Of cource low cost central providers like Vonage would still operate, but the call quality and reliability would be designed like a business class VoIP network, not like a centrex style hosted solution which has questionable quality and reliability.</p><p>Keep in mind, to replace POTS, the government and emergency services require at least as reliable of a system in emergencies.  The only thing that should stop calls are massive power outages (affecting multiple square miles or more), or actual down lines.  Such systems do exist, and SIP terminals cost about $100 each today.</p><p>this is also a 15-25 year plan, not something they'll slap in over a few years.  The DTV transition started being discussed in 1988 and became an actionable task in 1992, with a formal plan in 1996, finally completed 13 years later...  This process will take longer...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a replacement for POTS using VoIP , not Voice over INTERNET .
Further , the calls will terminate at your local NOC directly , not go out multiple hops through your firewall , then your ISP , then their external connection , then the the backbone , then to a phone company 's network , possibly a 3rd party carrier depending on where your ISP 's headend is , and finally to your local NOC to place a local call....The SIP connections would have nothing to do with your internet connection , and would work in most cases even if you lost that connection ( as it would optionall be a seperate connection ) Of cource low cost central providers like Vonage would still operate , but the call quality and reliability would be designed like a business class VoIP network , not like a centrex style hosted solution which has questionable quality and reliability.Keep in mind , to replace POTS , the government and emergency services require at least as reliable of a system in emergencies .
The only thing that should stop calls are massive power outages ( affecting multiple square miles or more ) , or actual down lines .
Such systems do exist , and SIP terminals cost about $ 100 each today.this is also a 15-25 year plan , not something they 'll slap in over a few years .
The DTV transition started being discussed in 1988 and became an actionable task in 1992 , with a formal plan in 1996 , finally completed 13 years later... This process will take longer.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a replacement for POTS using VoIP, not Voice over INTERNET.
Further, the calls will terminate at your local NOC directly, not go out multiple hops through your firewall, then your ISP, then their external connection, then the the backbone, then to a phone company's network, possibly a 3rd party carrier depending on where your ISP's headend is, and finally to your local NOC to place a local call....The SIP connections would have nothing to do with your internet connection, and would work in most cases even if you lost that connection (as it would optionall be a seperate connection)  Of cource low cost central providers like Vonage would still operate, but the call quality and reliability would be designed like a business class VoIP network, not like a centrex style hosted solution which has questionable quality and reliability.Keep in mind, to replace POTS, the government and emergency services require at least as reliable of a system in emergencies.
The only thing that should stop calls are massive power outages (affecting multiple square miles or more), or actual down lines.
Such systems do exist, and SIP terminals cost about $100 each today.this is also a 15-25 year plan, not something they'll slap in over a few years.
The DTV transition started being discussed in 1988 and became an actionable task in 1992, with a formal plan in 1996, finally completed 13 years later...  This process will take longer...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30310028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30310476</id>
	<title>Re:The nice thing about POTS...</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1259857320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sticking a battery in new phones doesn't seem horrifically complicated.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sticking a battery in new phones does n't seem horrifically complicated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sticking a battery in new phones doesn't seem horrifically complicated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30310172</id>
	<title>Re:Dial-up is all there is some places...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259855700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who said it has to go all the way to YOUR house to be deployed? I see this old type type of tech redeployed, Translators and Transcoders. A VOIP setup will only push broadband access out to you in the sticks that much faster.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who said it has to go all the way to YOUR house to be deployed ?
I see this old type type of tech redeployed , Translators and Transcoders .
A VOIP setup will only push broadband access out to you in the sticks that much faster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who said it has to go all the way to YOUR house to be deployed?
I see this old type type of tech redeployed, Translators and Transcoders.
A VOIP setup will only push broadband access out to you in the sticks that much faster.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30310564</id>
	<title>Re:POTS is Powered!</title>
	<author>eln</author>
	<datestamp>1259857560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's powered, but it's powered through the phone line.  The telephone company has lots of battery backups and generators in their central offices so that the phone service stays on even if your electricity goes out.  This can be a vital link to have in an emergency, and until they can figure out how to make VoIP similarly resistant to power outages, I'd rather keep POTS around.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's powered , but it 's powered through the phone line .
The telephone company has lots of battery backups and generators in their central offices so that the phone service stays on even if your electricity goes out .
This can be a vital link to have in an emergency , and until they can figure out how to make VoIP similarly resistant to power outages , I 'd rather keep POTS around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's powered, but it's powered through the phone line.
The telephone company has lots of battery backups and generators in their central offices so that the phone service stays on even if your electricity goes out.
This can be a vital link to have in an emergency, and until they can figure out how to make VoIP similarly resistant to power outages, I'd rather keep POTS around.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30310050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30311698</id>
	<title>Re:Voicing This Problem Now</title>
	<author>JSBiff</author>
	<datestamp>1259861520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's an idea. Why not selling some pure-IP (ethernet) credit card machines? I can see an argument for security (not running credit card transaction data over the public Internet, even encrypted, there is a chance that someone might break the encryption). I suppose that would be a good reason. Although, if this FCC plan goes through, it sounds like even the 'dialup' devices will still be having their data routed over the Internet. Hmmm.</p><p>I wonder if Telcos could setup seperate 'high security' networks for different industries, where from your place of business, the Internet and financial transactions are maybe on the same wire, but once it gets to the Telco switching equipment, the financial network traffic is split to a seperate physical/logical network, which is isolated from the public Internet?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's an idea .
Why not selling some pure-IP ( ethernet ) credit card machines ?
I can see an argument for security ( not running credit card transaction data over the public Internet , even encrypted , there is a chance that someone might break the encryption ) .
I suppose that would be a good reason .
Although , if this FCC plan goes through , it sounds like even the 'dialup ' devices will still be having their data routed over the Internet .
Hmmm.I wonder if Telcos could setup seperate 'high security ' networks for different industries , where from your place of business , the Internet and financial transactions are maybe on the same wire , but once it gets to the Telco switching equipment , the financial network traffic is split to a seperate physical/logical network , which is isolated from the public Internet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's an idea.
Why not selling some pure-IP (ethernet) credit card machines?
I can see an argument for security (not running credit card transaction data over the public Internet, even encrypted, there is a chance that someone might break the encryption).
I suppose that would be a good reason.
Although, if this FCC plan goes through, it sounds like even the 'dialup' devices will still be having their data routed over the Internet.
Hmmm.I wonder if Telcos could setup seperate 'high security' networks for different industries, where from your place of business, the Internet and financial transactions are maybe on the same wire, but once it gets to the Telco switching equipment, the financial network traffic is split to a seperate physical/logical network, which is isolated from the public Internet?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30310066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309614</id>
	<title>Re:Dial-up is all there is some places...</title>
	<author>jibster</author>
	<datestamp>1259852100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't think you need to have BB to do VOIP, afterall if you have enough bandwidth to do voice, you have enough bandwidth to do voice (over ip.)

I think your mistake is in assuming they mean any change in the physical infrastructure when in actual fact they only intend to change the protocall operating on that infrastructure.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think you need to have BB to do VOIP , afterall if you have enough bandwidth to do voice , you have enough bandwidth to do voice ( over ip .
) I think your mistake is in assuming they mean any change in the physical infrastructure when in actual fact they only intend to change the protocall operating on that infrastructure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think you need to have BB to do VOIP, afterall if you have enough bandwidth to do voice, you have enough bandwidth to do voice (over ip.
)

I think your mistake is in assuming they mean any change in the physical infrastructure when in actual fact they only intend to change the protocall operating on that infrastructure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30312850</id>
	<title>VOIP is a trap</title>
	<author>cdrguru</author>
	<datestamp>1259865180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>VOIP is a race to the bottom, especially for the millions of people on DSL connections.  Vonage and their ilk are squeezing the profit out of the phone system while still relying on the phone system for making the connections.  Without paying for it.</p><p>The end result of this is when the subscriber base falls below some minimum point the physical plant is simply going to be unmaintained.  Nobody left to work on it and fix stuff.  This might last for a couple of years, but once they stop maintenance it is pretty much over.  Nobody is going to step in and take over the physical plant, even by government mandate.  There is no profit in it at that point and would just be pointless to continue.</p><p>DSL becomes a thing of the past overnight.  Vonage and their ilk are pretty much left out in the cold, because they rely on the phone network to operate - you didn't think they set up an independent network did you?  Do you believe Vonage and similar companies are paying enough to the existing telco folk to maintain the physical plant and the reason the "standard" telco rates are higher is simply because they are greedy?</p><p>VOIP companies are paying state-mandated rates for connections which were plucked out of some state legislator's behind.  The relevance of these rates to what real costs are is nonexistent.  But today there are still enough PSTN subscribers to keep things going.  Not for much longer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>VOIP is a race to the bottom , especially for the millions of people on DSL connections .
Vonage and their ilk are squeezing the profit out of the phone system while still relying on the phone system for making the connections .
Without paying for it.The end result of this is when the subscriber base falls below some minimum point the physical plant is simply going to be unmaintained .
Nobody left to work on it and fix stuff .
This might last for a couple of years , but once they stop maintenance it is pretty much over .
Nobody is going to step in and take over the physical plant , even by government mandate .
There is no profit in it at that point and would just be pointless to continue.DSL becomes a thing of the past overnight .
Vonage and their ilk are pretty much left out in the cold , because they rely on the phone network to operate - you did n't think they set up an independent network did you ?
Do you believe Vonage and similar companies are paying enough to the existing telco folk to maintain the physical plant and the reason the " standard " telco rates are higher is simply because they are greedy ? VOIP companies are paying state-mandated rates for connections which were plucked out of some state legislator 's behind .
The relevance of these rates to what real costs are is nonexistent .
But today there are still enough PSTN subscribers to keep things going .
Not for much longer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>VOIP is a race to the bottom, especially for the millions of people on DSL connections.
Vonage and their ilk are squeezing the profit out of the phone system while still relying on the phone system for making the connections.
Without paying for it.The end result of this is when the subscriber base falls below some minimum point the physical plant is simply going to be unmaintained.
Nobody left to work on it and fix stuff.
This might last for a couple of years, but once they stop maintenance it is pretty much over.
Nobody is going to step in and take over the physical plant, even by government mandate.
There is no profit in it at that point and would just be pointless to continue.DSL becomes a thing of the past overnight.
Vonage and their ilk are pretty much left out in the cold, because they rely on the phone network to operate - you didn't think they set up an independent network did you?
Do you believe Vonage and similar companies are paying enough to the existing telco folk to maintain the physical plant and the reason the "standard" telco rates are higher is simply because they are greedy?VOIP companies are paying state-mandated rates for connections which were plucked out of some state legislator's behind.
The relevance of these rates to what real costs are is nonexistent.
But today there are still enough PSTN subscribers to keep things going.
Not for much longer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30312022</id>
	<title>this seems silly for the FCC to push VoIP</title>
	<author>Dan667</author>
	<datestamp>1259862480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Broadband is not yet everywhere and certainly not cheap.  If they focus on that then VoIP will just happen on it's own.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Broadband is not yet everywhere and certainly not cheap .
If they focus on that then VoIP will just happen on it 's own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Broadband is not yet everywhere and certainly not cheap.
If they focus on that then VoIP will just happen on it's own.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30313016</id>
	<title>Re:What needs transitioning first</title>
	<author>cdrguru</author>
	<datestamp>1259865660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most of these devices can work over VOIP with some lessened reliability.</p><p>Unfortunately, I don't think there will be a nice clean transition.  When the number of analog PSTN subscribers falls below a certain point, the phone network is going to switch over to being maintained on idle - hope nothing breaks because there isn't anyone left to work on it.</p><p>This won't affect long distance trunks, but will certainly affect the millions of miles of copper in the ground and on the poles connecting homes and offices to the telephone CO.  DSL, of course, becomes unusable overnight.</p><p>I do not think there is much of a way back once the subscriber minimum is reached.  Nobody is going to step up and say they want to take over the maintenance of the physical plant for the few subscribers that are left - there is no money in it.  And the phone company will have moved on or gone bankrupt.  Some government agency might try to pressure, say SBC, into continuing to maintain the lines in exchange for being able to continue to have high-value fiber trunks, but I don't think it will work out that way.</p><p>My guess is the PSTN is over in less than 10 years.  Every landline subscriber that drops service is just another nail in the coffin.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of these devices can work over VOIP with some lessened reliability.Unfortunately , I do n't think there will be a nice clean transition .
When the number of analog PSTN subscribers falls below a certain point , the phone network is going to switch over to being maintained on idle - hope nothing breaks because there is n't anyone left to work on it.This wo n't affect long distance trunks , but will certainly affect the millions of miles of copper in the ground and on the poles connecting homes and offices to the telephone CO. DSL , of course , becomes unusable overnight.I do not think there is much of a way back once the subscriber minimum is reached .
Nobody is going to step up and say they want to take over the maintenance of the physical plant for the few subscribers that are left - there is no money in it .
And the phone company will have moved on or gone bankrupt .
Some government agency might try to pressure , say SBC , into continuing to maintain the lines in exchange for being able to continue to have high-value fiber trunks , but I do n't think it will work out that way.My guess is the PSTN is over in less than 10 years .
Every landline subscriber that drops service is just another nail in the coffin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of these devices can work over VOIP with some lessened reliability.Unfortunately, I don't think there will be a nice clean transition.
When the number of analog PSTN subscribers falls below a certain point, the phone network is going to switch over to being maintained on idle - hope nothing breaks because there isn't anyone left to work on it.This won't affect long distance trunks, but will certainly affect the millions of miles of copper in the ground and on the poles connecting homes and offices to the telephone CO.  DSL, of course, becomes unusable overnight.I do not think there is much of a way back once the subscriber minimum is reached.
Nobody is going to step up and say they want to take over the maintenance of the physical plant for the few subscribers that are left - there is no money in it.
And the phone company will have moved on or gone bankrupt.
Some government agency might try to pressure, say SBC, into continuing to maintain the lines in exchange for being able to continue to have high-value fiber trunks, but I don't think it will work out that way.My guess is the PSTN is over in less than 10 years.
Every landline subscriber that drops service is just another nail in the coffin.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30310420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30310222</id>
	<title>Re:Dial-up is all there is some places...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259856060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The death of dial-up has been greatly exaggerated. No broadband available where I am in NY, within 50 miles of Syracuse.</p><p>Dave</p></div><p>Where the hell do you live in the Syracuse area that doesn't have broadband?  I don't believe that this is going to even affect you.  It sounds to me, unless I missed something here, that the inter CO communication (read TRUNKS) are going to become all VoIP.  This makes sense to leverage, for example, a T1 - normally you can have 23 calls on it.  With the VoIP tech you will be able to, theoretically, shove many more times that amount over it with packetized voice, rather than circuit switching.</p><p>The real trick here will be keeping customers happy with keeping fax working as reliably as it does (if you've ever tried to get fax machines working on VoIP, you'll know the pain in making it work) and keeping the voice quality up.  Compression kills quality, yet it will have to be compressed due to the higher quality codecs actually using more than 1 channel worth of data on a T1.</p><p>So my point being, don't worry about your POTS line going away in your lifetime.  Hell I don't think we'll see IPv4 going away anytime soon either for that matter...</p><p>Tl;dr - Wont affect boondock people, CO to CO / CO to Branch switches will use VoIP.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The death of dial-up has been greatly exaggerated .
No broadband available where I am in NY , within 50 miles of Syracuse.DaveWhere the hell do you live in the Syracuse area that does n't have broadband ?
I do n't believe that this is going to even affect you .
It sounds to me , unless I missed something here , that the inter CO communication ( read TRUNKS ) are going to become all VoIP .
This makes sense to leverage , for example , a T1 - normally you can have 23 calls on it .
With the VoIP tech you will be able to , theoretically , shove many more times that amount over it with packetized voice , rather than circuit switching.The real trick here will be keeping customers happy with keeping fax working as reliably as it does ( if you 've ever tried to get fax machines working on VoIP , you 'll know the pain in making it work ) and keeping the voice quality up .
Compression kills quality , yet it will have to be compressed due to the higher quality codecs actually using more than 1 channel worth of data on a T1.So my point being , do n't worry about your POTS line going away in your lifetime .
Hell I do n't think we 'll see IPv4 going away anytime soon either for that matter...Tl ; dr - Wont affect boondock people , CO to CO / CO to Branch switches will use VoIP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The death of dial-up has been greatly exaggerated.
No broadband available where I am in NY, within 50 miles of Syracuse.DaveWhere the hell do you live in the Syracuse area that doesn't have broadband?
I don't believe that this is going to even affect you.
It sounds to me, unless I missed something here, that the inter CO communication (read TRUNKS) are going to become all VoIP.
This makes sense to leverage, for example, a T1 - normally you can have 23 calls on it.
With the VoIP tech you will be able to, theoretically, shove many more times that amount over it with packetized voice, rather than circuit switching.The real trick here will be keeping customers happy with keeping fax working as reliably as it does (if you've ever tried to get fax machines working on VoIP, you'll know the pain in making it work) and keeping the voice quality up.
Compression kills quality, yet it will have to be compressed due to the higher quality codecs actually using more than 1 channel worth of data on a T1.So my point being, don't worry about your POTS line going away in your lifetime.
Hell I don't think we'll see IPv4 going away anytime soon either for that matter...Tl;dr - Wont affect boondock people, CO to CO / CO to Branch switches will use VoIP.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30310068</id>
	<title>Bureaucracy forever</title>
	<author>dazedNconfuzed</author>
	<datestamp>1259855280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This move ensures the FCC keeps itself well-funded despite the technology moving well beyond the bureaucracy's purpose. VoIP was desirable in part because it was free of FCC oversight/abuse; threatened with being marginalized into oblivion (at least regarding phone service), the FCC now has a plan to assert control over such growing liberties.</p><p>Kinda like the "rural electrification project" which, despite having succeeded in its goal and thus eliminated its purpose for existence, now receives greater funding than ever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This move ensures the FCC keeps itself well-funded despite the technology moving well beyond the bureaucracy 's purpose .
VoIP was desirable in part because it was free of FCC oversight/abuse ; threatened with being marginalized into oblivion ( at least regarding phone service ) , the FCC now has a plan to assert control over such growing liberties.Kinda like the " rural electrification project " which , despite having succeeded in its goal and thus eliminated its purpose for existence , now receives greater funding than ever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This move ensures the FCC keeps itself well-funded despite the technology moving well beyond the bureaucracy's purpose.
VoIP was desirable in part because it was free of FCC oversight/abuse; threatened with being marginalized into oblivion (at least regarding phone service), the FCC now has a plan to assert control over such growing liberties.Kinda like the "rural electrification project" which, despite having succeeded in its goal and thus eliminated its purpose for existence, now receives greater funding than ever.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30322874</id>
	<title>Re:Dial-up is all there is some places...</title>
	<author>tekshogun</author>
	<datestamp>1259936460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is perfect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is perfect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is perfect.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309832</id>
	<title>Re:Dial-up is all there is some places...</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1259853900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Paragraph 1 of the attached PDF:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>In the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (&ldquo;Recovery Act&rdquo;), Congress directed<br>the Commission to create a national broadband plan by February 17, 2010, that seeks to &ldquo;ensure that all<br>people of the United States have access to broadband capability and  establish[es] benchmarks for<br>meeting that goal.&rdquo;1 Among other things, the Commission is to provide &ldquo;an analysis of the most effective<br>and efficient mechanism for ensuring broadband access by all people of the United States&rdquo;2 and &ldquo;a<br>detailed strategy for achieving affordability of such service and maximum utilization of broadband<br>infrastructure and service by the public.&rdquo;</p></div><p>In other words, they are looking to take your "no broadband available" location and make it a "broadband available" location.  At the same time, they are looking to make the transition as cost-effective as possible so they will run whatever wires it takes to give you broadband but at the same time they are looking to eliminate duplicate services (running a nationwide-to-every-American PSTN network *AND* a nationwide-to-every-American Broadband Internet connection).  They may even be able to use your existing copper to give you a good Internet connection.</p><p>Needless to say, but I'll say it anyway, any conversion of your actual home telephone to VoIP would occur (if it ever did at all) well AFTER you had sufficient high-speed Internet to support it.  The FCC isn't going to convert everyone to VoIP today, disconnect massive numbers of remote customers who lack broadband, then figure out how to connect to all the outlying areas later.</p><p>In fact, I imagine a lot of what they are going to do is sponsor/mandate DSL implementations, including some sort of repeater technology to break the "local loop distance" barrier and give every American household that has a POTS phone line today access to DSL tomorrow.</p><p>There's a very good chance your existing telco will still be allowed to use the voice portion of your copper to send you POTS telephone service just like you are used to today, though many of them will probably want to become pure-play Internet/DSL providers and give you a VoIP box for your phone (but most will probably make that an Analog adapter so you can still use your existing phone) - that way they can use the entire available frequency band on your copper wires to give you the best Internet speed possible, rather than having to have data in one set of frequencies and voice in another.  It also greatly simplifies the gear they have to maintain.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Paragraph 1 of the attached PDF : In the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (    Recovery Act    ) , Congress directedthe Commission to create a national broadband plan by February 17 , 2010 , that seeks to    ensure that allpeople of the United States have access to broadband capability and establish [ es ] benchmarks formeeting that goal.    1 Among other things , the Commission is to provide    an analysis of the most effectiveand efficient mechanism for ensuring broadband access by all people of the United States    2 and    adetailed strategy for achieving affordability of such service and maximum utilization of broadbandinfrastructure and service by the public.    In other words , they are looking to take your " no broadband available " location and make it a " broadband available " location .
At the same time , they are looking to make the transition as cost-effective as possible so they will run whatever wires it takes to give you broadband but at the same time they are looking to eliminate duplicate services ( running a nationwide-to-every-American PSTN network * AND * a nationwide-to-every-American Broadband Internet connection ) .
They may even be able to use your existing copper to give you a good Internet connection.Needless to say , but I 'll say it anyway , any conversion of your actual home telephone to VoIP would occur ( if it ever did at all ) well AFTER you had sufficient high-speed Internet to support it .
The FCC is n't going to convert everyone to VoIP today , disconnect massive numbers of remote customers who lack broadband , then figure out how to connect to all the outlying areas later.In fact , I imagine a lot of what they are going to do is sponsor/mandate DSL implementations , including some sort of repeater technology to break the " local loop distance " barrier and give every American household that has a POTS phone line today access to DSL tomorrow.There 's a very good chance your existing telco will still be allowed to use the voice portion of your copper to send you POTS telephone service just like you are used to today , though many of them will probably want to become pure-play Internet/DSL providers and give you a VoIP box for your phone ( but most will probably make that an Analog adapter so you can still use your existing phone ) - that way they can use the entire available frequency band on your copper wires to give you the best Internet speed possible , rather than having to have data in one set of frequencies and voice in another .
It also greatly simplifies the gear they have to maintain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Paragraph 1 of the attached PDF:In the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (“Recovery Act”), Congress directedthe Commission to create a national broadband plan by February 17, 2010, that seeks to “ensure that allpeople of the United States have access to broadband capability and  establish[es] benchmarks formeeting that goal.”1 Among other things, the Commission is to provide “an analysis of the most effectiveand efficient mechanism for ensuring broadband access by all people of the United States”2 and “adetailed strategy for achieving affordability of such service and maximum utilization of broadbandinfrastructure and service by the public.”In other words, they are looking to take your "no broadband available" location and make it a "broadband available" location.
At the same time, they are looking to make the transition as cost-effective as possible so they will run whatever wires it takes to give you broadband but at the same time they are looking to eliminate duplicate services (running a nationwide-to-every-American PSTN network *AND* a nationwide-to-every-American Broadband Internet connection).
They may even be able to use your existing copper to give you a good Internet connection.Needless to say, but I'll say it anyway, any conversion of your actual home telephone to VoIP would occur (if it ever did at all) well AFTER you had sufficient high-speed Internet to support it.
The FCC isn't going to convert everyone to VoIP today, disconnect massive numbers of remote customers who lack broadband, then figure out how to connect to all the outlying areas later.In fact, I imagine a lot of what they are going to do is sponsor/mandate DSL implementations, including some sort of repeater technology to break the "local loop distance" barrier and give every American household that has a POTS phone line today access to DSL tomorrow.There's a very good chance your existing telco will still be allowed to use the voice portion of your copper to send you POTS telephone service just like you are used to today, though many of them will probably want to become pure-play Internet/DSL providers and give you a VoIP box for your phone (but most will probably make that an Analog adapter so you can still use your existing phone) - that way they can use the entire available frequency band on your copper wires to give you the best Internet speed possible, rather than having to have data in one set of frequencies and voice in another.
It also greatly simplifies the gear they have to maintain.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30311566</id>
	<title>Here's my suggestion, FCC</title>
	<author>ckaminski</author>
	<datestamp>1259861160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>IPv6 and enforcement against ISPs who chose to prevent users from running their own services.</htmltext>
<tokenext>IPv6 and enforcement against ISPs who chose to prevent users from running their own services .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IPv6 and enforcement against ISPs who chose to prevent users from running their own services.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30311178</id>
	<title>wow slashdot users are narrow minded</title>
	<author>D-R0C</author>
	<datestamp>1259859900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Same arguments over and over about how great POTS is....

VOIP is fun and flexible.   Sure it has disadvantages but these are being worked on.   It also has some huge advantages which make it more than a worthwhile effort.

I thought this was a site for forward thinking technology minded people.   When I see comments like the ones on this article it makes me wonder.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Same arguments over and over about how great POTS is... . VOIP is fun and flexible .
Sure it has disadvantages but these are being worked on .
It also has some huge advantages which make it more than a worthwhile effort .
I thought this was a site for forward thinking technology minded people .
When I see comments like the ones on this article it makes me wonder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same arguments over and over about how great POTS is....

VOIP is fun and flexible.
Sure it has disadvantages but these are being worked on.
It also has some huge advantages which make it more than a worthwhile effort.
I thought this was a site for forward thinking technology minded people.
When I see comments like the ones on this article it makes me wonder.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30314878</id>
	<title>for those slashdot readers</title>
	<author>nimbius</author>
	<datestamp>1259872920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>who are glassy eyes and bated breath, let me clarify this article:

FCC is preparing to transition to a proprietary, vendor endorsed and ma bell developed network of
deep packet inspecting, transfer throttling, backdoor laden, expensive and locked-in protocols that bear not the slightest resemblance to, yet insist they are, VoIP as we know it today.<br> <br>
oh but how can i be so certain?....turn on your HDMI television.<br> <br>
we're shuffling deck-chairs here folks.  if im right, youll continue to see the same players.  if im wrong, you might hear a few words from companies like digium, who for 2-3 years now have done nothing but shown the world they are the fastest wakeup call for an industry that hasn't changed in 80 years.</htmltext>
<tokenext>who are glassy eyes and bated breath , let me clarify this article : FCC is preparing to transition to a proprietary , vendor endorsed and ma bell developed network of deep packet inspecting , transfer throttling , backdoor laden , expensive and locked-in protocols that bear not the slightest resemblance to , yet insist they are , VoIP as we know it today .
oh but how can i be so certain ? ....turn on your HDMI television .
we 're shuffling deck-chairs here folks .
if im right , youll continue to see the same players .
if im wrong , you might hear a few words from companies like digium , who for 2-3 years now have done nothing but shown the world they are the fastest wakeup call for an industry that has n't changed in 80 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>who are glassy eyes and bated breath, let me clarify this article:

FCC is preparing to transition to a proprietary, vendor endorsed and ma bell developed network of
deep packet inspecting, transfer throttling, backdoor laden, expensive and locked-in protocols that bear not the slightest resemblance to, yet insist they are, VoIP as we know it today.
oh but how can i be so certain?....turn on your HDMI television.
we're shuffling deck-chairs here folks.
if im right, youll continue to see the same players.
if im wrong, you might hear a few words from companies like digium, who for 2-3 years now have done nothing but shown the world they are the fastest wakeup call for an industry that hasn't changed in 80 years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30310576</id>
	<title>Re:Dial-up is all there is some places...</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1259857620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>&gt;&gt;&gt;you want the same line to carry the same traffic, plus internet traffic, plus ip headers, plus voip/tcp/udp/whateverp headers. And you think you'll get something decent? Good luck with that.   </b></p><p>Yes.  The analog phone line is limited from 0 to 4000 hertz bandwidth.  It's worse quality than AM radio (~10,000 hertz).  If you do VOIP over a dialup modem, you can use digital compression equal to 48k AAC+SBR and achieve FM quality (0-to-15,000 hertz).  So yes it's more efficient and it also sounds better.</p><p>Aside-</p><p>Yes 48k AAC+SBR can sound as good as FM radio - <a href="http://yp.shoutcast.com/sbin/tunein-station.pls?id=520194" title="shoutcast.com" rel="nofollow">http://yp.shoutcast.com/sbin/tunein-station.pls?id=520194</a> [shoutcast.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; you want the same line to carry the same traffic , plus internet traffic , plus ip headers , plus voip/tcp/udp/whateverp headers .
And you think you 'll get something decent ?
Good luck with that .
Yes. The analog phone line is limited from 0 to 4000 hertz bandwidth .
It 's worse quality than AM radio ( ~ 10,000 hertz ) .
If you do VOIP over a dialup modem , you can use digital compression equal to 48k AAC + SBR and achieve FM quality ( 0-to-15,000 hertz ) .
So yes it 's more efficient and it also sounds better.Aside-Yes 48k AAC + SBR can sound as good as FM radio - http : //yp.shoutcast.com/sbin/tunein-station.pls ? id = 520194 [ shoutcast.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;you want the same line to carry the same traffic, plus internet traffic, plus ip headers, plus voip/tcp/udp/whateverp headers.
And you think you'll get something decent?
Good luck with that.
Yes.  The analog phone line is limited from 0 to 4000 hertz bandwidth.
It's worse quality than AM radio (~10,000 hertz).
If you do VOIP over a dialup modem, you can use digital compression equal to 48k AAC+SBR and achieve FM quality (0-to-15,000 hertz).
So yes it's more efficient and it also sounds better.Aside-Yes 48k AAC+SBR can sound as good as FM radio - http://yp.shoutcast.com/sbin/tunein-station.pls?id=520194 [shoutcast.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30311426</id>
	<title>How do the Telcos fare?</title>
	<author>jonespg</author>
	<datestamp>1259860740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm curious what people have to say about how the Telcos will fare with such a move.  In my limited understanding that would mean increased competition and thus faster errosion of their customer base, though they still have to maintain the extensive infrastructure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm curious what people have to say about how the Telcos will fare with such a move .
In my limited understanding that would mean increased competition and thus faster errosion of their customer base , though they still have to maintain the extensive infrastructure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm curious what people have to say about how the Telcos will fare with such a move.
In my limited understanding that would mean increased competition and thus faster errosion of their customer base, though they still have to maintain the extensive infrastructure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30310240</id>
	<title>VOIP is a bad term to use here</title>
	<author>NoNeeeed</author>
	<datestamp>1259856120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This isn't about getting rid of your phone and giving you a software phone, it's about ripping out the core of the phone network and it's fundamentally circuit switched systems, and replacing them with IP based packet switched systems.</p><p>You'll still be able to plug a plain old telephone into the socket and make a call.</p><p>This is the same idea as British Telecom's current <a href="http://www.btplc.com/21CN/Thetechnologyofthenetwork/21CNtechnologyintheUK/21CNtechnologyintheUK.htm" title="btplc.com">21st Century Network project</a> [btplc.com].  When your line terminates at the exchange, it no longer connects to a circuit switched system, but to a packet switched network.  For the end user, nothing much changes.</p><p>This is a massive project but most of us end users will see and hear few differences.  In theory it should allow the phone companies to do more interesting things with their networks, and may help improve broadband coverage/speed (although that remains to be seen).  It massively simplifies their infrastructure by carrying all traffic over a single packet switched network, rather than multiple circuit switched systems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't about getting rid of your phone and giving you a software phone , it 's about ripping out the core of the phone network and it 's fundamentally circuit switched systems , and replacing them with IP based packet switched systems.You 'll still be able to plug a plain old telephone into the socket and make a call.This is the same idea as British Telecom 's current 21st Century Network project [ btplc.com ] .
When your line terminates at the exchange , it no longer connects to a circuit switched system , but to a packet switched network .
For the end user , nothing much changes.This is a massive project but most of us end users will see and hear few differences .
In theory it should allow the phone companies to do more interesting things with their networks , and may help improve broadband coverage/speed ( although that remains to be seen ) .
It massively simplifies their infrastructure by carrying all traffic over a single packet switched network , rather than multiple circuit switched systems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't about getting rid of your phone and giving you a software phone, it's about ripping out the core of the phone network and it's fundamentally circuit switched systems, and replacing them with IP based packet switched systems.You'll still be able to plug a plain old telephone into the socket and make a call.This is the same idea as British Telecom's current 21st Century Network project [btplc.com].
When your line terminates at the exchange, it no longer connects to a circuit switched system, but to a packet switched network.
For the end user, nothing much changes.This is a massive project but most of us end users will see and hear few differences.
In theory it should allow the phone companies to do more interesting things with their networks, and may help improve broadband coverage/speed (although that remains to be seen).
It massively simplifies their infrastructure by carrying all traffic over a single packet switched network, rather than multiple circuit switched systems.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30313416</id>
	<title>Re:The nice thing about POTS...</title>
	<author>kaladorn</author>
	<datestamp>1259867100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Correction: Does not require *customer supplied* power. POTS does require power. Either that or the phone company has done some neat things with the laws of physics!</p><p>This matters insofar as if you lose your POTS line, you're out of comission. In a number of disasters the world over in the last few years, cell networks have stood up when POTS networks were problematic. Sometimes call volumes will flood a cell network, but the distributed nature of the cell towers makes it hard to kill them all in most disasters.</p><p>Don't get me wrong, I still get a chuckle when you get the old connect noise from a model and kids today look puzzled and have no idea what the noise is...</p><p>POTS and cellular and VOIP (in the PSTN or in the customer premise) all have their place.</p><p>POTS doesn't have the same 911 issues that VOIP-Internet does and VOIP-Internet is usually disclaimered all over the place about not using it for 911 because of this. Additionally, VOIP-Internet availability is usually tied to your local access (cable, DSL, whatever) and that does NOT have the same sort of reliability your POTS system has.</p><p>In all my life, all the different places I lived, I can count on 2 or 3 fingers the number of times I picked up a POTS phone and had issues connecting out to somewhere.</p><p>Cellular, it's probably that many times a day as I move around. VOIP-Internet, about 1/month there is some interfering downtime with my cable connection to the net.</p><p>Of course, if the go phone-company VOIP to the customer premise with the kind of gear and network management that will give us the same sorts of uptime you actually achieve with POTS, then that won't be so bad. But that's not going to be your normal DSL or cable line unless there's a big change in there SLAs and networks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Correction : Does not require * customer supplied * power .
POTS does require power .
Either that or the phone company has done some neat things with the laws of physics ! This matters insofar as if you lose your POTS line , you 're out of comission .
In a number of disasters the world over in the last few years , cell networks have stood up when POTS networks were problematic .
Sometimes call volumes will flood a cell network , but the distributed nature of the cell towers makes it hard to kill them all in most disasters.Do n't get me wrong , I still get a chuckle when you get the old connect noise from a model and kids today look puzzled and have no idea what the noise is...POTS and cellular and VOIP ( in the PSTN or in the customer premise ) all have their place.POTS does n't have the same 911 issues that VOIP-Internet does and VOIP-Internet is usually disclaimered all over the place about not using it for 911 because of this .
Additionally , VOIP-Internet availability is usually tied to your local access ( cable , DSL , whatever ) and that does NOT have the same sort of reliability your POTS system has.In all my life , all the different places I lived , I can count on 2 or 3 fingers the number of times I picked up a POTS phone and had issues connecting out to somewhere.Cellular , it 's probably that many times a day as I move around .
VOIP-Internet , about 1/month there is some interfering downtime with my cable connection to the net.Of course , if the go phone-company VOIP to the customer premise with the kind of gear and network management that will give us the same sorts of uptime you actually achieve with POTS , then that wo n't be so bad .
But that 's not going to be your normal DSL or cable line unless there 's a big change in there SLAs and networks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Correction: Does not require *customer supplied* power.
POTS does require power.
Either that or the phone company has done some neat things with the laws of physics!This matters insofar as if you lose your POTS line, you're out of comission.
In a number of disasters the world over in the last few years, cell networks have stood up when POTS networks were problematic.
Sometimes call volumes will flood a cell network, but the distributed nature of the cell towers makes it hard to kill them all in most disasters.Don't get me wrong, I still get a chuckle when you get the old connect noise from a model and kids today look puzzled and have no idea what the noise is...POTS and cellular and VOIP (in the PSTN or in the customer premise) all have their place.POTS doesn't have the same 911 issues that VOIP-Internet does and VOIP-Internet is usually disclaimered all over the place about not using it for 911 because of this.
Additionally, VOIP-Internet availability is usually tied to your local access (cable, DSL, whatever) and that does NOT have the same sort of reliability your POTS system has.In all my life, all the different places I lived, I can count on 2 or 3 fingers the number of times I picked up a POTS phone and had issues connecting out to somewhere.Cellular, it's probably that many times a day as I move around.
VOIP-Internet, about 1/month there is some interfering downtime with my cable connection to the net.Of course, if the go phone-company VOIP to the customer premise with the kind of gear and network management that will give us the same sorts of uptime you actually achieve with POTS, then that won't be so bad.
But that's not going to be your normal DSL or cable line unless there's a big change in there SLAs and networks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30312974</id>
	<title>Re:The nice thing about POTS...</title>
	<author>Sandbags</author>
	<datestamp>1259865540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Me, I just put the base station, modem, and VoIP device on an old APC1000.  My 5 handsets run nearly 5 days each on standby with about 10 hours talk time.  The UPS can run the 3 devices for about a day if i leave it on, but turning it off when not home would extend that to several days at least.</p><p>Naturally, upstream connectivity would have to exist, but the kind of storms that take out DSL around here take out POTS anyway (nothing you can do about wide area power failure, all the lines here are underground and not storm effected themselves).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Me , I just put the base station , modem , and VoIP device on an old APC1000 .
My 5 handsets run nearly 5 days each on standby with about 10 hours talk time .
The UPS can run the 3 devices for about a day if i leave it on , but turning it off when not home would extend that to several days at least.Naturally , upstream connectivity would have to exist , but the kind of storms that take out DSL around here take out POTS anyway ( nothing you can do about wide area power failure , all the lines here are underground and not storm effected themselves ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Me, I just put the base station, modem, and VoIP device on an old APC1000.
My 5 handsets run nearly 5 days each on standby with about 10 hours talk time.
The UPS can run the 3 devices for about a day if i leave it on, but turning it off when not home would extend that to several days at least.Naturally, upstream connectivity would have to exist, but the kind of storms that take out DSL around here take out POTS anyway (nothing you can do about wide area power failure, all the lines here are underground and not storm effected themselves).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30310066</id>
	<title>Voicing This Problem Now</title>
	<author>gers0667</author>
	<datestamp>1259855280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can throw away your dial-up credit card machines then.  We are starting to see telcos switch to SIP trunking.  Credit Card machines are very sensitive, even more so than fax, which causes them to flake out across a SIP trunk.  We already can't sell dial-up terminals to people using DSL or VoIP (Vonage, Time Warner) because the terminals just can't handle it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can throw away your dial-up credit card machines then .
We are starting to see telcos switch to SIP trunking .
Credit Card machines are very sensitive , even more so than fax , which causes them to flake out across a SIP trunk .
We already ca n't sell dial-up terminals to people using DSL or VoIP ( Vonage , Time Warner ) because the terminals just ca n't handle it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can throw away your dial-up credit card machines then.
We are starting to see telcos switch to SIP trunking.
Credit Card machines are very sensitive, even more so than fax, which causes them to flake out across a SIP trunk.
We already can't sell dial-up terminals to people using DSL or VoIP (Vonage, Time Warner) because the terminals just can't handle it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30310156</id>
	<title>Re:The nice thing about POTS...</title>
	<author>bareman</author>
	<datestamp>1259855640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>no power need be supplied at the user end, but, as you know if anyone's dialed your number while you were working on the wires, there's plenty of juice (~90V ring voltage) there to make you say Ouch!!!.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>no power need be supplied at the user end , but , as you know if anyone 's dialed your number while you were working on the wires , there 's plenty of juice ( ~ 90V ring voltage ) there to make you say Ouch ! !
! .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no power need be supplied at the user end, but, as you know if anyone's dialed your number while you were working on the wires, there's plenty of juice (~90V ring voltage) there to make you say Ouch!!
!.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30313622</id>
	<title>RTFA Moderation</title>
	<author>wtbname</author>
	<datestamp>1259867880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For shits sake, we need a READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE moderation point, -5. -10 !</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For shits sake , we need a READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE moderation point , -5 .
-10 !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For shits sake, we need a READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE moderation point, -5.
-10 !</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309704</id>
	<title>The nice thing about POTS...</title>
	<author>Peter Simpson</author>
	<datestamp>1259852880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...is that the user terminal (the phone) is totally passive - no power needed, it's a totally dumb terminal, and very robust (at least, if it's a Western Electric product!).  The POTS system is the result of some careful design and decades of improvements to increase reliability.  That's not to say that there aren't benefits to be had from VOIP, just that we should think carefully before deciding that everyone will be converted to VOIP.</p><p>Disclaimer: In addition to my nifty 2.4G multiple handset cordless phones with built-in caller ID and voicemail, I have two POTS phones which work fine when the power goes out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...is that the user terminal ( the phone ) is totally passive - no power needed , it 's a totally dumb terminal , and very robust ( at least , if it 's a Western Electric product ! ) .
The POTS system is the result of some careful design and decades of improvements to increase reliability .
That 's not to say that there are n't benefits to be had from VOIP , just that we should think carefully before deciding that everyone will be converted to VOIP.Disclaimer : In addition to my nifty 2.4G multiple handset cordless phones with built-in caller ID and voicemail , I have two POTS phones which work fine when the power goes out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...is that the user terminal (the phone) is totally passive - no power needed, it's a totally dumb terminal, and very robust (at least, if it's a Western Electric product!).
The POTS system is the result of some careful design and decades of improvements to increase reliability.
That's not to say that there aren't benefits to be had from VOIP, just that we should think carefully before deciding that everyone will be converted to VOIP.Disclaimer: In addition to my nifty 2.4G multiple handset cordless phones with built-in caller ID and voicemail, I have two POTS phones which work fine when the power goes out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30311836</id>
	<title>Whence Common Carrier?</title>
	<author>Bob9113</author>
	<datestamp>1259861880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Data transmission is not subject to common carrier, and it is looking like even if something called "net neutrality" does go through, it will have lots of fun lawyerisms in it like "reasonable". If we replace POTS with VOIP, are we going to carry common carrier over, or will the ISPs and backbones be allowed to "reasonably" manage your telephone calls?</p><p>IMO, bring common carrier over to data networks. I like it because it uses a natural stick: Want to engage in biased gatekeeping? Fine, but you are liable for what travels on your network. Don't want to be liable? Fine, but you can't engage in biased gatekeeping. Yes, you can charge more for more pipe, but you can only engage in bias if you accept legal liability for everything you carry. Simple.</p><p>I think it fundamentally makes sense too. Essentially what it is saying is: If you think you are smart enough to distinguish content that is healthy for your network from that which is not, you had better be able to demonstrate that you really believe in your ability to distinguish content. That you believe it strongly enough that you are willing to take legal responsibility if you fail to distinguish content that is legal from that which is not. Until you truly believe that you can distinguish legal from illegal, you cannot be trusted with inhibiting free speech based on your supposed ability to distinguish network-unhealthy from network-healthy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Data transmission is not subject to common carrier , and it is looking like even if something called " net neutrality " does go through , it will have lots of fun lawyerisms in it like " reasonable " .
If we replace POTS with VOIP , are we going to carry common carrier over , or will the ISPs and backbones be allowed to " reasonably " manage your telephone calls ? IMO , bring common carrier over to data networks .
I like it because it uses a natural stick : Want to engage in biased gatekeeping ?
Fine , but you are liable for what travels on your network .
Do n't want to be liable ?
Fine , but you ca n't engage in biased gatekeeping .
Yes , you can charge more for more pipe , but you can only engage in bias if you accept legal liability for everything you carry .
Simple.I think it fundamentally makes sense too .
Essentially what it is saying is : If you think you are smart enough to distinguish content that is healthy for your network from that which is not , you had better be able to demonstrate that you really believe in your ability to distinguish content .
That you believe it strongly enough that you are willing to take legal responsibility if you fail to distinguish content that is legal from that which is not .
Until you truly believe that you can distinguish legal from illegal , you can not be trusted with inhibiting free speech based on your supposed ability to distinguish network-unhealthy from network-healthy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Data transmission is not subject to common carrier, and it is looking like even if something called "net neutrality" does go through, it will have lots of fun lawyerisms in it like "reasonable".
If we replace POTS with VOIP, are we going to carry common carrier over, or will the ISPs and backbones be allowed to "reasonably" manage your telephone calls?IMO, bring common carrier over to data networks.
I like it because it uses a natural stick: Want to engage in biased gatekeeping?
Fine, but you are liable for what travels on your network.
Don't want to be liable?
Fine, but you can't engage in biased gatekeeping.
Yes, you can charge more for more pipe, but you can only engage in bias if you accept legal liability for everything you carry.
Simple.I think it fundamentally makes sense too.
Essentially what it is saying is: If you think you are smart enough to distinguish content that is healthy for your network from that which is not, you had better be able to demonstrate that you really believe in your ability to distinguish content.
That you believe it strongly enough that you are willing to take legal responsibility if you fail to distinguish content that is legal from that which is not.
Until you truly believe that you can distinguish legal from illegal, you cannot be trusted with inhibiting free speech based on your supposed ability to distinguish network-unhealthy from network-healthy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30318096</id>
	<title>Re:The nice thing about POTS...</title>
	<author>unitron</author>
	<datestamp>1259841600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't believe there's any reason, for example, that Coaxial cables couldn't be manufactured such that, in addition to the current center conductor and outer conductor (which carry the data signal), they would have additional 'rings' of outer conductors designed to carry some DC power for powering phones and other devices.</p></div><p>Not necessarily necessary.  There's something called "phantom power". You can have direct current and alternating current on the same wire,adding them together at one end and splitting them off from each other at the other end.  The two wires inside the cable that connects a POTS telephone to the phone company's central office carry both voice (audio is a form of alternating current) and the direct current necessary to power said phone.  That's one version of phantom power.  Another is when you mount a pre-amplifier on a television antenna and feed the direct current it needs up to it over the same co-ax that runs to your television receiver.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't believe there 's any reason , for example , that Coaxial cables could n't be manufactured such that , in addition to the current center conductor and outer conductor ( which carry the data signal ) , they would have additional 'rings ' of outer conductors designed to carry some DC power for powering phones and other devices.Not necessarily necessary .
There 's something called " phantom power " .
You can have direct current and alternating current on the same wire,adding them together at one end and splitting them off from each other at the other end .
The two wires inside the cable that connects a POTS telephone to the phone company 's central office carry both voice ( audio is a form of alternating current ) and the direct current necessary to power said phone .
That 's one version of phantom power .
Another is when you mount a pre-amplifier on a television antenna and feed the direct current it needs up to it over the same co-ax that runs to your television receiver .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't believe there's any reason, for example, that Coaxial cables couldn't be manufactured such that, in addition to the current center conductor and outer conductor (which carry the data signal), they would have additional 'rings' of outer conductors designed to carry some DC power for powering phones and other devices.Not necessarily necessary.
There's something called "phantom power".
You can have direct current and alternating current on the same wire,adding them together at one end and splitting them off from each other at the other end.
The two wires inside the cable that connects a POTS telephone to the phone company's central office carry both voice (audio is a form of alternating current) and the direct current necessary to power said phone.
That's one version of phantom power.
Another is when you mount a pre-amplifier on a television antenna and feed the direct current it needs up to it over the same co-ax that runs to your television receiver.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30311174</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309644</id>
	<title>Re:Dial-up is all there is some places...</title>
	<author>olsmeister</author>
	<datestamp>1259852340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The dial-up network was extended to areas that otherwise would never have been profitable to build by placing an adder on long distance charges and putting that money into a Universal Service Fund, whiched help offset the up-front costs of serving rural areas.

Doing something similar for broadband in this day and age would bring howls of rage.

I suspect there are some parts of the country which just are not serviceable without some type of large footprint (cheap) wireless solution.  (My parents also happen to live in one, in rural Michigan).  Perhaps this is where the white space parts of the recently freed analog TV spectrum will help.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The dial-up network was extended to areas that otherwise would never have been profitable to build by placing an adder on long distance charges and putting that money into a Universal Service Fund , whiched help offset the up-front costs of serving rural areas .
Doing something similar for broadband in this day and age would bring howls of rage .
I suspect there are some parts of the country which just are not serviceable without some type of large footprint ( cheap ) wireless solution .
( My parents also happen to live in one , in rural Michigan ) .
Perhaps this is where the white space parts of the recently freed analog TV spectrum will help .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The dial-up network was extended to areas that otherwise would never have been profitable to build by placing an adder on long distance charges and putting that money into a Universal Service Fund, whiched help offset the up-front costs of serving rural areas.
Doing something similar for broadband in this day and age would bring howls of rage.
I suspect there are some parts of the country which just are not serviceable without some type of large footprint (cheap) wireless solution.
(My parents also happen to live in one, in rural Michigan).
Perhaps this is where the white space parts of the recently freed analog TV spectrum will help.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30313978</id>
	<title>Not too keen about this</title>
	<author>ThatsNotPudding</author>
	<datestamp>1259869140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Based on personal experiences in Natural/Otherwise disasters, the first thing to go is cell phone networks; very close runner-up: Cable TV / Broadband; usually last to go: POTS with its separate power and cabling system.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Based on personal experiences in Natural/Otherwise disasters , the first thing to go is cell phone networks ; very close runner-up : Cable TV / Broadband ; usually last to go : POTS with its separate power and cabling system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Based on personal experiences in Natural/Otherwise disasters, the first thing to go is cell phone networks; very close runner-up: Cable TV / Broadband; usually last to go: POTS with its separate power and cabling system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309784</id>
	<title>Re:Dial-up is all there is some places...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259853600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But can you do dial-up over VOIP?</p><p>I mean, sure, you'd think that if the phone network was IP-based, you'd be able to get general Internet access through it, too. Is that really the case, though?</p><p>First issue, is this VOIP-to-the-home, or just VOIP-to-the-switch-box? A logical first step would be to switch over to VOIP just before the last-mile, to allow people to keep their existing phones - which (I think) would kill dial-up and faxes. A later second step would be to move the final transition point to the telephone box at the house.</p><p>And even if it is running VOIP all the way to the home, you have to assume that the telco will allow people to connect to the Internet via their network. This is something regulation can solve (by forcing the issue), but still, that means new equipment. And most likely new fees. And quite possibly a loss of choice over ISP.</p><p>So there will have to be some concession to people still using dial-up - especially if they're not planning on moving the entire network to VOIP all at once.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But can you do dial-up over VOIP ? I mean , sure , you 'd think that if the phone network was IP-based , you 'd be able to get general Internet access through it , too .
Is that really the case , though ? First issue , is this VOIP-to-the-home , or just VOIP-to-the-switch-box ?
A logical first step would be to switch over to VOIP just before the last-mile , to allow people to keep their existing phones - which ( I think ) would kill dial-up and faxes .
A later second step would be to move the final transition point to the telephone box at the house.And even if it is running VOIP all the way to the home , you have to assume that the telco will allow people to connect to the Internet via their network .
This is something regulation can solve ( by forcing the issue ) , but still , that means new equipment .
And most likely new fees .
And quite possibly a loss of choice over ISP.So there will have to be some concession to people still using dial-up - especially if they 're not planning on moving the entire network to VOIP all at once .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But can you do dial-up over VOIP?I mean, sure, you'd think that if the phone network was IP-based, you'd be able to get general Internet access through it, too.
Is that really the case, though?First issue, is this VOIP-to-the-home, or just VOIP-to-the-switch-box?
A logical first step would be to switch over to VOIP just before the last-mile, to allow people to keep their existing phones - which (I think) would kill dial-up and faxes.
A later second step would be to move the final transition point to the telephone box at the house.And even if it is running VOIP all the way to the home, you have to assume that the telco will allow people to connect to the Internet via their network.
This is something regulation can solve (by forcing the issue), but still, that means new equipment.
And most likely new fees.
And quite possibly a loss of choice over ISP.So there will have to be some concession to people still using dial-up - especially if they're not planning on moving the entire network to VOIP all at once.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30312356</id>
	<title>Re:ONLY if they set stricter ISP service standards</title>
	<author>King\_TJ</author>
	<datestamp>1259863440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think some of the other people posting here hit on the most likely scenario<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....  If VoIP ever becomes the "standard" for voice telephony, it's highly improbable they'd just run it over your ISP of choice, as you do with VoIP today.</p><p>Part of the "secret" to achieving rock solid reliability is to control the entire infrastructure the technology runs on.  AT&amp;T does that now with POTS, and they won't want to give a big part of that up if things transition over to VoIP.</p><p>So what would probably happen is, they'd provide you with VoIP that only happens on the "back end", in their central offices.  You'd use the same phones and it would give the appearance of being the plain old telephone service you've had all along.  They wouldn't expect you to maintain a "terminal adapter" that has to be properly configured and piggybacked off of your router or cable/DSL/satellite modem or what-not.</p><p>With this arrangement, they'd take care of having redundant Internet connections to/from their central offices, and ensure that your calls still go through, regardless of what happens to your own personal Internet broadband connection at home.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think some of the other people posting here hit on the most likely scenario .... If VoIP ever becomes the " standard " for voice telephony , it 's highly improbable they 'd just run it over your ISP of choice , as you do with VoIP today.Part of the " secret " to achieving rock solid reliability is to control the entire infrastructure the technology runs on .
AT&amp;T does that now with POTS , and they wo n't want to give a big part of that up if things transition over to VoIP.So what would probably happen is , they 'd provide you with VoIP that only happens on the " back end " , in their central offices .
You 'd use the same phones and it would give the appearance of being the plain old telephone service you 've had all along .
They would n't expect you to maintain a " terminal adapter " that has to be properly configured and piggybacked off of your router or cable/DSL/satellite modem or what-not.With this arrangement , they 'd take care of having redundant Internet connections to/from their central offices , and ensure that your calls still go through , regardless of what happens to your own personal Internet broadband connection at home .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think some of the other people posting here hit on the most likely scenario ....  If VoIP ever becomes the "standard" for voice telephony, it's highly improbable they'd just run it over your ISP of choice, as you do with VoIP today.Part of the "secret" to achieving rock solid reliability is to control the entire infrastructure the technology runs on.
AT&amp;T does that now with POTS, and they won't want to give a big part of that up if things transition over to VoIP.So what would probably happen is, they'd provide you with VoIP that only happens on the "back end", in their central offices.
You'd use the same phones and it would give the appearance of being the plain old telephone service you've had all along.
They wouldn't expect you to maintain a "terminal adapter" that has to be properly configured and piggybacked off of your router or cable/DSL/satellite modem or what-not.With this arrangement, they'd take care of having redundant Internet connections to/from their central offices, and ensure that your calls still go through, regardless of what happens to your own personal Internet broadband connection at home.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30310028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30310216</id>
	<title>mod 3Own</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259856000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>[amazingkreskin.com] bunch of gay neg8os LUBRICATION. YOU Documents like a</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ amazingkreskin.com ] bunch of gay neg8os LUBRICATION .
YOU Documents like a</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[amazingkreskin.com] bunch of gay neg8os LUBRICATION.
YOU Documents like a</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30313218</id>
	<title>many TVs went dark</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259866380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many people can't afford all this new stuff. They just do without. The USA is about to be further polarized into haves and have-nots. The shift to digital TV caused lots of old TVs to be tossed. Many people no longer have TV in their homes, if they still have homes.</p><p>The shift to VoIP from circuit based telephony will make us even more vulnerable to power outages. After a major hurricane or ice storm, old timey telephones are one of the few things that work. To maintain service, everyone will have to have a damn generator.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many people ca n't afford all this new stuff .
They just do without .
The USA is about to be further polarized into haves and have-nots .
The shift to digital TV caused lots of old TVs to be tossed .
Many people no longer have TV in their homes , if they still have homes.The shift to VoIP from circuit based telephony will make us even more vulnerable to power outages .
After a major hurricane or ice storm , old timey telephones are one of the few things that work .
To maintain service , everyone will have to have a damn generator .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many people can't afford all this new stuff.
They just do without.
The USA is about to be further polarized into haves and have-nots.
The shift to digital TV caused lots of old TVs to be tossed.
Many people no longer have TV in their homes, if they still have homes.The shift to VoIP from circuit based telephony will make us even more vulnerable to power outages.
After a major hurricane or ice storm, old timey telephones are one of the few things that work.
To maintain service, everyone will have to have a damn generator.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30310074</id>
	<title>Re:Dial-up is all there is some places...</title>
	<author>DrPepper</author>
	<datestamp>1259855280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think a lot of people have missed the point on this. As I read it, the proposal is to replace the core infrastructure with VoIP based technology - ie. the circuits between exchanges. Existing POTS lines will still be used back to users to terminate calls. This is already in progress in the UK - <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BT\_21CN" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BT\_21CN</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think a lot of people have missed the point on this .
As I read it , the proposal is to replace the core infrastructure with VoIP based technology - ie .
the circuits between exchanges .
Existing POTS lines will still be used back to users to terminate calls .
This is already in progress in the UK - http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BT \ _21CN [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think a lot of people have missed the point on this.
As I read it, the proposal is to replace the core infrastructure with VoIP based technology - ie.
the circuits between exchanges.
Existing POTS lines will still be used back to users to terminate calls.
This is already in progress in the UK - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BT\_21CN [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309750</id>
	<title>Re:Dial-up is all there is some places...</title>
	<author>sxeraverx</author>
	<datestamp>1259853240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, let me get this straight. You want to do voice, over ip, over voice. And you think that's more efficient? The frequency bands for phone lines were selected so you could group as many of them together as you could and still have something that sounds like voice. That's what gave us 56k. Now, you want the same line to carry the same traffic, plus internet traffic, plus ip headers, plus voip/tcp/udp/whateverp headers. And you think you'll get something decent? Good luck with that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , let me get this straight .
You want to do voice , over ip , over voice .
And you think that 's more efficient ?
The frequency bands for phone lines were selected so you could group as many of them together as you could and still have something that sounds like voice .
That 's what gave us 56k .
Now , you want the same line to carry the same traffic , plus internet traffic , plus ip headers , plus voip/tcp/udp/whateverp headers .
And you think you 'll get something decent ?
Good luck with that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, let me get this straight.
You want to do voice, over ip, over voice.
And you think that's more efficient?
The frequency bands for phone lines were selected so you could group as many of them together as you could and still have something that sounds like voice.
That's what gave us 56k.
Now, you want the same line to carry the same traffic, plus internet traffic, plus ip headers, plus voip/tcp/udp/whateverp headers.
And you think you'll get something decent?
Good luck with that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30310364</id>
	<title>Re:Dial-up is all there is some places...</title>
	<author>Z00L00K</author>
	<datestamp>1259856720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It may be that they run VoIP to your closest exchange and keep the analogue lines to your house.</p><p>But then it comes down to the encoders used what real bandwidth you get for dial up modems and faxes.</p><p>A much more important factor here is that if telephony starts to go over an IP network instead will that traffic be legally protected against wiretapping and other actions?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It may be that they run VoIP to your closest exchange and keep the analogue lines to your house.But then it comes down to the encoders used what real bandwidth you get for dial up modems and faxes.A much more important factor here is that if telephony starts to go over an IP network instead will that traffic be legally protected against wiretapping and other actions ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It may be that they run VoIP to your closest exchange and keep the analogue lines to your house.But then it comes down to the encoders used what real bandwidth you get for dial up modems and faxes.A much more important factor here is that if telephony starts to go over an IP network instead will that traffic be legally protected against wiretapping and other actions?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30312772</id>
	<title>Please leave my POTS line alone</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259864820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Circut switched does not *LAG* or produce annoying artifacts when there is not enough bandwidth.</p><p>They work when the power goes out.  I've been through multiple hurricans where the lights were out for over a week with down trees resting on power lines right in front of the house.  Never once lost dialtone or the ability to make calls.</p><p>You can have as many phones as you want share and participate in a single line. VoIP is like cable companies requiring you to buy boxes for each TV.</p><p>They don't use god aweful codecs which are laggy or  sound like crap in an effort to save bandwidth.</p><p>The telco network is trust worthy enough for normal communications. VoIP in terms of broadband or cringe Internet routed traffic essentially clobbers trust without requiring everyone to deploy end to end crypto key/management which is a pain and will undoubetly attract draconian LEA inspired legislation.</p><p>Why break something that isn't broke?  No telcom core network is circut switched anymore and for gods sake the telecoms are responsible for transport of most Internet traffic so its not like we're talking stone-aged technology (up to the last mile anyway)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Circut switched does not * LAG * or produce annoying artifacts when there is not enough bandwidth.They work when the power goes out .
I 've been through multiple hurricans where the lights were out for over a week with down trees resting on power lines right in front of the house .
Never once lost dialtone or the ability to make calls.You can have as many phones as you want share and participate in a single line .
VoIP is like cable companies requiring you to buy boxes for each TV.They do n't use god aweful codecs which are laggy or sound like crap in an effort to save bandwidth.The telco network is trust worthy enough for normal communications .
VoIP in terms of broadband or cringe Internet routed traffic essentially clobbers trust without requiring everyone to deploy end to end crypto key/management which is a pain and will undoubetly attract draconian LEA inspired legislation.Why break something that is n't broke ?
No telcom core network is circut switched anymore and for gods sake the telecoms are responsible for transport of most Internet traffic so its not like we 're talking stone-aged technology ( up to the last mile anyway )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Circut switched does not *LAG* or produce annoying artifacts when there is not enough bandwidth.They work when the power goes out.
I've been through multiple hurricans where the lights were out for over a week with down trees resting on power lines right in front of the house.
Never once lost dialtone or the ability to make calls.You can have as many phones as you want share and participate in a single line.
VoIP is like cable companies requiring you to buy boxes for each TV.They don't use god aweful codecs which are laggy or  sound like crap in an effort to save bandwidth.The telco network is trust worthy enough for normal communications.
VoIP in terms of broadband or cringe Internet routed traffic essentially clobbers trust without requiring everyone to deploy end to end crypto key/management which is a pain and will undoubetly attract draconian LEA inspired legislation.Why break something that isn't broke?
No telcom core network is circut switched anymore and for gods sake the telecoms are responsible for transport of most Internet traffic so its not like we're talking stone-aged technology (up to the last mile anyway)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30312408</id>
	<title>Re:Dial-up is all there is some places...</title>
	<author>Belial6</author>
	<datestamp>1259863560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I run faxes over Vonage VIOP periodically, and my satellite reciever runs it's modem over it as well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I run faxes over Vonage VIOP periodically , and my satellite reciever runs it 's modem over it as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I run faxes over Vonage VIOP periodically, and my satellite reciever runs it's modem over it as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30310354</id>
	<title>Wonder what bit rate?</title>
	<author>chrysrobyn</author>
	<datestamp>1259856660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder what bit rate we can push through the copper at most houses in rural America?  My father-in-law's old house used to get very bad static on the line when it rained, but voice was still audible.  Would this VOIP be capable of service, or does that house require new wiring?  Anything requiring a lot of people to change the wires in their walls is going to face some serious problems.  I bet new hardware in the field could get 64kbit or maybe 128kbit digital without much problem.  If you're not worried about a computer talking on the line at the same time, that is way more than sufficient.  Since the FCC solicitation seems to suggest they're using this as a way to force wider broadband deployment, 256kbit might be the minimum for a connection intended to share with a computer, although I'd hesitate to call that "broadband".</p><p>I bet we could help with the reliability of VOIP by putting cheap NiMH batteries in each VOIP device (one per house, at the pedestal? or each device needs its own?).  Enough capacity to last a few hours on standby and maybe 15 or 20 minutes of talk time would cover emergencies.</p><p>I think it would be very interesting to be on a technical committee to write a new standard to cover bidirectional communication on low quality twisted pair.  There would be interesting coupling challenges with using one wire for send and the other for receive, but using a current sense methodology on a differential signal has its own ugliness too.  It would be cheating to take turns every 10-100ms using a training sequence, but there would be power and signal benefits to weigh against the increase in latency and cut in available bandwidth (and if each device gets its own CODEC, having more than 3 people on the phone may have ludicrous latencies).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder what bit rate we can push through the copper at most houses in rural America ?
My father-in-law 's old house used to get very bad static on the line when it rained , but voice was still audible .
Would this VOIP be capable of service , or does that house require new wiring ?
Anything requiring a lot of people to change the wires in their walls is going to face some serious problems .
I bet new hardware in the field could get 64kbit or maybe 128kbit digital without much problem .
If you 're not worried about a computer talking on the line at the same time , that is way more than sufficient .
Since the FCC solicitation seems to suggest they 're using this as a way to force wider broadband deployment , 256kbit might be the minimum for a connection intended to share with a computer , although I 'd hesitate to call that " broadband " .I bet we could help with the reliability of VOIP by putting cheap NiMH batteries in each VOIP device ( one per house , at the pedestal ?
or each device needs its own ? ) .
Enough capacity to last a few hours on standby and maybe 15 or 20 minutes of talk time would cover emergencies.I think it would be very interesting to be on a technical committee to write a new standard to cover bidirectional communication on low quality twisted pair .
There would be interesting coupling challenges with using one wire for send and the other for receive , but using a current sense methodology on a differential signal has its own ugliness too .
It would be cheating to take turns every 10-100ms using a training sequence , but there would be power and signal benefits to weigh against the increase in latency and cut in available bandwidth ( and if each device gets its own CODEC , having more than 3 people on the phone may have ludicrous latencies ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder what bit rate we can push through the copper at most houses in rural America?
My father-in-law's old house used to get very bad static on the line when it rained, but voice was still audible.
Would this VOIP be capable of service, or does that house require new wiring?
Anything requiring a lot of people to change the wires in their walls is going to face some serious problems.
I bet new hardware in the field could get 64kbit or maybe 128kbit digital without much problem.
If you're not worried about a computer talking on the line at the same time, that is way more than sufficient.
Since the FCC solicitation seems to suggest they're using this as a way to force wider broadband deployment, 256kbit might be the minimum for a connection intended to share with a computer, although I'd hesitate to call that "broadband".I bet we could help with the reliability of VOIP by putting cheap NiMH batteries in each VOIP device (one per house, at the pedestal?
or each device needs its own?).
Enough capacity to last a few hours on standby and maybe 15 or 20 minutes of talk time would cover emergencies.I think it would be very interesting to be on a technical committee to write a new standard to cover bidirectional communication on low quality twisted pair.
There would be interesting coupling challenges with using one wire for send and the other for receive, but using a current sense methodology on a differential signal has its own ugliness too.
It would be cheating to take turns every 10-100ms using a training sequence, but there would be power and signal benefits to weigh against the increase in latency and cut in available bandwidth (and if each device gets its own CODEC, having more than 3 people on the phone may have ludicrous latencies).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30311174</id>
	<title>Re:The nice thing about POTS...</title>
	<author>JSBiff</author>
	<datestamp>1259859840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As some other posters have mentioned, I suspect what the FCC has in mind, at least initially, is only to begin to replace the 'backend' infrastructure connecting phone companies together. I don't think users will see a change to the "last mile" for a long, long time. As you said, it's simple, robust, and the equipment that end-users have to buy is cheap (most phones cost less than $150, some as cheap as like $10).  I expect that what we'll see (and I believe most phone cos, basically already do this) is that your 'analog' telephone line, when it reaches the phone office, is connected to what amounts to an ATA (analog telephone adapter) which then digitizes the voice and sends it on digitally (I think all of the major nationals in the U.S.A. like AT&amp;T, Verizon, Sprint, etc do this, and have since about 1985 or something). I think this mostly is about changing the digital protocols which the phone companies use to interconnect to each other (not sure about that, but that seems to be the most logical assumption; guess time will tell).</p><p>I *could* potentially see at some point in the future, going all IP, even to the last mile (if they do this, they should start mandating the use of IPv6 for last mile connections, seems like). But, in order to do this, we need to rethink broadband cabling a little bit. What I mean by that is, with the exception of DSL-over-twisted-pair, none of the currently deployed  broadband technologies supports running power alongside the data lines.</p><p>It seems to me (and has seemed this way for a number of years), that the FCC could provide a truly useful bit of regulation by coming up with a standard for "Communications power) that all digital communications lines are required (at some point, obviously there will be a transition period - possibly quite lengthy) to carry.</p><p>I don't believe there's any reason, for example, that Coaxial cables couldn't be manufactured such that, in addition to the current center conductor and outer conductor (which carry the data signal), they would have additional 'rings' of outer conductors designed to carry some DC power for powering phones and other devices. Since telephone lines have already been carrying such power for years, I imagine the 'standard' for power would be the same as is used on telephone lines (although, perhaps, maybe it would be appropriate to think about higher voltage/amperage for modern devices).</p><p>Fiber optic cables could maybe have some conductor rings constructed coaxially around the optical waveguide in the 'center' of the optical coax, or maybe you just run some conductors alongside of the fiber without bothering to construct them coaxially - have them bonded together with insulator, like normal 3-conductor power cords are, or something.</p><p>Basically, the biggest complaint I hear with regards to the idea of replacing analog telephony in the home with digital telephony is that people are afraid the phone won't work if there's no power. Why not provide some useful power along with the data line? Is that really such a hard engineering problem? Heck, once the broadband connection enters the home, we already have Power-over-Ethernet as a standard, so the power from the ISP can just go into your Ethernet switch and power the switch and any telephony equipment attached to the switch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As some other posters have mentioned , I suspect what the FCC has in mind , at least initially , is only to begin to replace the 'backend ' infrastructure connecting phone companies together .
I do n't think users will see a change to the " last mile " for a long , long time .
As you said , it 's simple , robust , and the equipment that end-users have to buy is cheap ( most phones cost less than $ 150 , some as cheap as like $ 10 ) .
I expect that what we 'll see ( and I believe most phone cos , basically already do this ) is that your 'analog ' telephone line , when it reaches the phone office , is connected to what amounts to an ATA ( analog telephone adapter ) which then digitizes the voice and sends it on digitally ( I think all of the major nationals in the U.S.A. like AT&amp;T , Verizon , Sprint , etc do this , and have since about 1985 or something ) .
I think this mostly is about changing the digital protocols which the phone companies use to interconnect to each other ( not sure about that , but that seems to be the most logical assumption ; guess time will tell ) .I * could * potentially see at some point in the future , going all IP , even to the last mile ( if they do this , they should start mandating the use of IPv6 for last mile connections , seems like ) .
But , in order to do this , we need to rethink broadband cabling a little bit .
What I mean by that is , with the exception of DSL-over-twisted-pair , none of the currently deployed broadband technologies supports running power alongside the data lines.It seems to me ( and has seemed this way for a number of years ) , that the FCC could provide a truly useful bit of regulation by coming up with a standard for " Communications power ) that all digital communications lines are required ( at some point , obviously there will be a transition period - possibly quite lengthy ) to carry.I do n't believe there 's any reason , for example , that Coaxial cables could n't be manufactured such that , in addition to the current center conductor and outer conductor ( which carry the data signal ) , they would have additional 'rings ' of outer conductors designed to carry some DC power for powering phones and other devices .
Since telephone lines have already been carrying such power for years , I imagine the 'standard ' for power would be the same as is used on telephone lines ( although , perhaps , maybe it would be appropriate to think about higher voltage/amperage for modern devices ) .Fiber optic cables could maybe have some conductor rings constructed coaxially around the optical waveguide in the 'center ' of the optical coax , or maybe you just run some conductors alongside of the fiber without bothering to construct them coaxially - have them bonded together with insulator , like normal 3-conductor power cords are , or something.Basically , the biggest complaint I hear with regards to the idea of replacing analog telephony in the home with digital telephony is that people are afraid the phone wo n't work if there 's no power .
Why not provide some useful power along with the data line ?
Is that really such a hard engineering problem ?
Heck , once the broadband connection enters the home , we already have Power-over-Ethernet as a standard , so the power from the ISP can just go into your Ethernet switch and power the switch and any telephony equipment attached to the switch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As some other posters have mentioned, I suspect what the FCC has in mind, at least initially, is only to begin to replace the 'backend' infrastructure connecting phone companies together.
I don't think users will see a change to the "last mile" for a long, long time.
As you said, it's simple, robust, and the equipment that end-users have to buy is cheap (most phones cost less than $150, some as cheap as like $10).
I expect that what we'll see (and I believe most phone cos, basically already do this) is that your 'analog' telephone line, when it reaches the phone office, is connected to what amounts to an ATA (analog telephone adapter) which then digitizes the voice and sends it on digitally (I think all of the major nationals in the U.S.A. like AT&amp;T, Verizon, Sprint, etc do this, and have since about 1985 or something).
I think this mostly is about changing the digital protocols which the phone companies use to interconnect to each other (not sure about that, but that seems to be the most logical assumption; guess time will tell).I *could* potentially see at some point in the future, going all IP, even to the last mile (if they do this, they should start mandating the use of IPv6 for last mile connections, seems like).
But, in order to do this, we need to rethink broadband cabling a little bit.
What I mean by that is, with the exception of DSL-over-twisted-pair, none of the currently deployed  broadband technologies supports running power alongside the data lines.It seems to me (and has seemed this way for a number of years), that the FCC could provide a truly useful bit of regulation by coming up with a standard for "Communications power) that all digital communications lines are required (at some point, obviously there will be a transition period - possibly quite lengthy) to carry.I don't believe there's any reason, for example, that Coaxial cables couldn't be manufactured such that, in addition to the current center conductor and outer conductor (which carry the data signal), they would have additional 'rings' of outer conductors designed to carry some DC power for powering phones and other devices.
Since telephone lines have already been carrying such power for years, I imagine the 'standard' for power would be the same as is used on telephone lines (although, perhaps, maybe it would be appropriate to think about higher voltage/amperage for modern devices).Fiber optic cables could maybe have some conductor rings constructed coaxially around the optical waveguide in the 'center' of the optical coax, or maybe you just run some conductors alongside of the fiber without bothering to construct them coaxially - have them bonded together with insulator, like normal 3-conductor power cords are, or something.Basically, the biggest complaint I hear with regards to the idea of replacing analog telephony in the home with digital telephony is that people are afraid the phone won't work if there's no power.
Why not provide some useful power along with the data line?
Is that really such a hard engineering problem?
Heck, once the broadband connection enters the home, we already have Power-over-Ethernet as a standard, so the power from the ISP can just go into your Ethernet switch and power the switch and any telephony equipment attached to the switch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30314332</id>
	<title>Re:The nice thing about POTS...</title>
	<author>kimvette</author>
	<datestamp>1259870640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I don't believe there's any reason, for example, that Coaxial cables couldn't be manufactured such that, in addition to the current center conductor and outer conductor (which carry the data signal), they would have additional 'rings' of outer conductors designed to carry some DC power for powering phones and other devices.</p></div></blockquote><p>There is "siamesed" coax - RG-59 and RG-6 with 18/2 conductors running alongside in a separate jacket.  There isn't any real reason that what you propose couldn't be done with existing RG-59 and RG-6 cable; it's (relatively) cheap to manufacture, splice, and so forth.  What you seem to be proposing is multiple rings of jackets, which would be far, far more expensive to manufacture, HUGELY increase the mass of the conductor (don't forget each layer will be progressively larger and heavier, and would also reduce flexibility). It would also be a pain in the neck to splice, not to mention time consuming. If anything, twisted pair would be the way to go as it would be cheaper and in most cases should offer decent noise rejection.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't believe there 's any reason , for example , that Coaxial cables could n't be manufactured such that , in addition to the current center conductor and outer conductor ( which carry the data signal ) , they would have additional 'rings ' of outer conductors designed to carry some DC power for powering phones and other devices.There is " siamesed " coax - RG-59 and RG-6 with 18/2 conductors running alongside in a separate jacket .
There is n't any real reason that what you propose could n't be done with existing RG-59 and RG-6 cable ; it 's ( relatively ) cheap to manufacture , splice , and so forth .
What you seem to be proposing is multiple rings of jackets , which would be far , far more expensive to manufacture , HUGELY increase the mass of the conductor ( do n't forget each layer will be progressively larger and heavier , and would also reduce flexibility ) .
It would also be a pain in the neck to splice , not to mention time consuming .
If anything , twisted pair would be the way to go as it would be cheaper and in most cases should offer decent noise rejection .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't believe there's any reason, for example, that Coaxial cables couldn't be manufactured such that, in addition to the current center conductor and outer conductor (which carry the data signal), they would have additional 'rings' of outer conductors designed to carry some DC power for powering phones and other devices.There is "siamesed" coax - RG-59 and RG-6 with 18/2 conductors running alongside in a separate jacket.
There isn't any real reason that what you propose couldn't be done with existing RG-59 and RG-6 cable; it's (relatively) cheap to manufacture, splice, and so forth.
What you seem to be proposing is multiple rings of jackets, which would be far, far more expensive to manufacture, HUGELY increase the mass of the conductor (don't forget each layer will be progressively larger and heavier, and would also reduce flexibility).
It would also be a pain in the neck to splice, not to mention time consuming.
If anything, twisted pair would be the way to go as it would be cheaper and in most cases should offer decent noise rejection.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30311174</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30312682</id>
	<title>Re:Voicing This Problem Now</title>
	<author>chriscappuccio</author>
	<datestamp>1259864520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's funny because my VoIP customers have very little problem with credit-card machines over RTP/G.711u-law.  If you are using a compressed codec, good luck.  But for data protocols, credit card machines have been one of the more reliable data items on our VoIP network.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's funny because my VoIP customers have very little problem with credit-card machines over RTP/G.711u-law .
If you are using a compressed codec , good luck .
But for data protocols , credit card machines have been one of the more reliable data items on our VoIP network .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's funny because my VoIP customers have very little problem with credit-card machines over RTP/G.711u-law.
If you are using a compressed codec, good luck.
But for data protocols, credit card machines have been one of the more reliable data items on our VoIP network.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30310066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30310504</id>
	<title>WTF?</title>
	<author>anonieuweling</author>
	<datestamp>1259857380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are you implying the network is analog to the core? Is this because of the funding of the `foreign policies`?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you implying the network is analog to the core ?
Is this because of the funding of the ` foreign policies ` ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you implying the network is analog to the core?
Is this because of the funding of the `foreign policies`?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30312354</id>
	<title>Guess that they're going to...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259863440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... throw out the 99.999\% uptime clause then as no battery backup system currently used for end-users would've survived the great black in the NE.  I only had phone service since I had a very old touch tone phone that needed no external power other than that provided by the phone system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... throw out the 99.999 \ % uptime clause then as no battery backup system currently used for end-users would 've survived the great black in the NE .
I only had phone service since I had a very old touch tone phone that needed no external power other than that provided by the phone system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... throw out the 99.999\% uptime clause then as no battery backup system currently used for end-users would've survived the great black in the NE.
I only had phone service since I had a very old touch tone phone that needed no external power other than that provided by the phone system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30310050</id>
	<title>POTS is Powered!</title>
	<author>mcrbids</author>
	<datestamp>1259855160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>POTS works over low voltage DC. As I recall, it's somewhere in the vicinity of 48 volts, but don't quote me on that. It's entirely feasible to have a cheap, dedicated VOIP chip that runs on 48 volts and draws perhaps 50 to 100 miliamps of current - well within the normal range of today's POTS power draw.</p><p>VOIP doesn't have to be VOInternet. They coul just as easily have a dedicated IP network for telephony, then run something like PPPO&#200; or VPN to gateway to the public Internet and do away with separate SL MODEMs.</p><p>You'd still probably need a long distance plan, even though the point of one is technically idiotic.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>POTS works over low voltage DC .
As I recall , it 's somewhere in the vicinity of 48 volts , but do n't quote me on that .
It 's entirely feasible to have a cheap , dedicated VOIP chip that runs on 48 volts and draws perhaps 50 to 100 miliamps of current - well within the normal range of today 's POTS power draw.VOIP does n't have to be VOInternet .
They coul just as easily have a dedicated IP network for telephony , then run something like PPPO   or VPN to gateway to the public Internet and do away with separate SL MODEMs.You 'd still probably need a long distance plan , even though the point of one is technically idiotic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>POTS works over low voltage DC.
As I recall, it's somewhere in the vicinity of 48 volts, but don't quote me on that.
It's entirely feasible to have a cheap, dedicated VOIP chip that runs on 48 volts and draws perhaps 50 to 100 miliamps of current - well within the normal range of today's POTS power draw.VOIP doesn't have to be VOInternet.
They coul just as easily have a dedicated IP network for telephony, then run something like PPPOÈ or VPN to gateway to the public Internet and do away with separate SL MODEMs.You'd still probably need a long distance plan, even though the point of one is technically idiotic.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30310028</id>
	<title>ONLY if they set stricter ISP service standards!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259855100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right now, when internet goes down, even in corporate settings, it can take up to a freakin WEEK to get it back.. and that's just in every-day non-disaster type situations.</p><p>If the phone service goes out (that's a BIG if, i've only seen it happen 3 times in my entire life) it's never down for more than 3 hours.</p><p>Until they bring internet up to this level of reliability, I don't want to see it behind the one device in my whole house which is capable of summoning paramedics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right now , when internet goes down , even in corporate settings , it can take up to a freakin WEEK to get it back.. and that 's just in every-day non-disaster type situations.If the phone service goes out ( that 's a BIG if , i 've only seen it happen 3 times in my entire life ) it 's never down for more than 3 hours.Until they bring internet up to this level of reliability , I do n't want to see it behind the one device in my whole house which is capable of summoning paramedics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right now, when internet goes down, even in corporate settings, it can take up to a freakin WEEK to get it back.. and that's just in every-day non-disaster type situations.If the phone service goes out (that's a BIG if, i've only seen it happen 3 times in my entire life) it's never down for more than 3 hours.Until they bring internet up to this level of reliability, I don't want to see it behind the one device in my whole house which is capable of summoning paramedics.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30311048</id>
	<title>PLEASE READ THE REQUEST FOR PUBLIC COMMENT</title>
	<author>McDiesel</author>
	<datestamp>1259859480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is NOT about a transition to a VOIP based network. This is about providing universal broadband access. To quote from the FCC Public Notice:<blockquote><div><p>In the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 ("Recovery Act"), Congress directed
the Commission to create a national broadband plan by February 17, 2010, that seeks to "ensure that all
people of the United States have access to broadband capability and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... establish[es] benchmarks for
meeting that goal."1 Among other things, the Commission is to provide "an analysis of the most effective
and efficient mechanism for ensuring broadband access by all people of the United States"2 and "a
detailed strategy for achieving affordability of such service and maximum utilization of broadband
infrastructure and service by the public."</p></div></blockquote><p>
The point of this move by the FCC is to respond to a mandate from the Congress of the United States to move from an obsolete model of providing universal dial tone on the POTS network to provide universal broadband access. The FCC is asking for comment for their proposal that once universal broadband access is delivered, would we really need POTS lines for anything other than Neo and Morpheus to come and visit us? Or should they provide two expensive subsidized networks? Should rural network subscribers (such as myself) have TWO expensive subsidized networks, a subsidized broadband access and a subsidized POTS access? Or could the broadband access be delivered in such a way that the services we enjoy with POTS (911 calls, calls to grandma, faxes, ability to tunnel through the POTS network to other network providers) be effectively delivered with a standardized national broadband infrastructure?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is NOT about a transition to a VOIP based network .
This is about providing universal broadband access .
To quote from the FCC Public Notice : In the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 ( " Recovery Act " ) , Congress directed the Commission to create a national broadband plan by February 17 , 2010 , that seeks to " ensure that all people of the United States have access to broadband capability and ... establish [ es ] benchmarks for meeting that goal .
" 1 Among other things , the Commission is to provide " an analysis of the most effective and efficient mechanism for ensuring broadband access by all people of the United States " 2 and " a detailed strategy for achieving affordability of such service and maximum utilization of broadband infrastructure and service by the public .
" The point of this move by the FCC is to respond to a mandate from the Congress of the United States to move from an obsolete model of providing universal dial tone on the POTS network to provide universal broadband access .
The FCC is asking for comment for their proposal that once universal broadband access is delivered , would we really need POTS lines for anything other than Neo and Morpheus to come and visit us ?
Or should they provide two expensive subsidized networks ?
Should rural network subscribers ( such as myself ) have TWO expensive subsidized networks , a subsidized broadband access and a subsidized POTS access ?
Or could the broadband access be delivered in such a way that the services we enjoy with POTS ( 911 calls , calls to grandma , faxes , ability to tunnel through the POTS network to other network providers ) be effectively delivered with a standardized national broadband infrastructure ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is NOT about a transition to a VOIP based network.
This is about providing universal broadband access.
To quote from the FCC Public Notice:In the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 ("Recovery Act"), Congress directed
the Commission to create a national broadband plan by February 17, 2010, that seeks to "ensure that all
people of the United States have access to broadband capability and ... establish[es] benchmarks for
meeting that goal.
"1 Among other things, the Commission is to provide "an analysis of the most effective
and efficient mechanism for ensuring broadband access by all people of the United States"2 and "a
detailed strategy for achieving affordability of such service and maximum utilization of broadband
infrastructure and service by the public.
"
The point of this move by the FCC is to respond to a mandate from the Congress of the United States to move from an obsolete model of providing universal dial tone on the POTS network to provide universal broadband access.
The FCC is asking for comment for their proposal that once universal broadband access is delivered, would we really need POTS lines for anything other than Neo and Morpheus to come and visit us?
Or should they provide two expensive subsidized networks?
Should rural network subscribers (such as myself) have TWO expensive subsidized networks, a subsidized broadband access and a subsidized POTS access?
Or could the broadband access be delivered in such a way that the services we enjoy with POTS (911 calls, calls to grandma, faxes, ability to tunnel through the POTS network to other network providers) be effectively delivered with a standardized national broadband infrastructure?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30326822</id>
	<title>Re:VOIP is a trap</title>
	<author>lee317</author>
	<datestamp>1259955540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What are you talking about?  For every DSL customer using VoIP there is a cable modem customer.  As DSL becomes a thing of the past there will be a new technology available to you (read cable, wireless cellular) to connect to the net.  The demise of DSL doesn't have much to do with Vonage and their "ilk," it has to do with the price gauging that Verizon and ATT have been doing for decades (remember the $2,000 phone rental over 50 years?)</htmltext>
<tokenext>What are you talking about ?
For every DSL customer using VoIP there is a cable modem customer .
As DSL becomes a thing of the past there will be a new technology available to you ( read cable , wireless cellular ) to connect to the net .
The demise of DSL does n't have much to do with Vonage and their " ilk , " it has to do with the price gauging that Verizon and ATT have been doing for decades ( remember the $ 2,000 phone rental over 50 years ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What are you talking about?
For every DSL customer using VoIP there is a cable modem customer.
As DSL becomes a thing of the past there will be a new technology available to you (read cable, wireless cellular) to connect to the net.
The demise of DSL doesn't have much to do with Vonage and their "ilk," it has to do with the price gauging that Verizon and ATT have been doing for decades (remember the $2,000 phone rental over 50 years?
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30312850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30310868</id>
	<title>IPT, huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259858760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I used to be the sysadmin for a public high school with about 170 phones and 40 trunk lines. The phone system: a Meridian Option 11C, every single phone line home-run into one room in the basement.</p><p>Pain in the ass to manage? Not if it's well documented. There were a few reasons to love it:</p><p>- Public schools tend to survive on peanuts, especially in IT and infrastructure. The building LAN was all fiber, installed in 1994 when it was the "hot thing", so unless it was re-wired with Cat 5e, you could forget about PoE. The phone wiring installed in 1994 was Cat 3, with most runs exceeding 100 m, so that was useless for Ethernet too.</p><p>- Here's the biggie: the PBX in the basement had a nice, heavy UPS and was on the generator circuit; rock-solid reliability. Even in brand-new and renovated school facilities, the LAN racks weren't on the generator circuit--and sure as hell didn't have UPSs.</p><p>- For that matter, in said new and renovated buildings, I wound up having to deploy 5-port switches all over the place for rooms with more equipment than ports. Yes, I know you can get PoE switches, but they're useless in a power failure.</p><p>In the name of safety, the intercom and PBX absolutely had to keep running through a power failure. The Intercom was a refrigerator-sized cabinet with a giant amplifier and every speaker home-run into it, plugged into a generator-served outlet--again, very reliable. No UPS needed there, since the intercom booted in seconds--the PBX needed a UPS since Meridian Mail took 20 minutes to boot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to be the sysadmin for a public high school with about 170 phones and 40 trunk lines .
The phone system : a Meridian Option 11C , every single phone line home-run into one room in the basement.Pain in the ass to manage ?
Not if it 's well documented .
There were a few reasons to love it : - Public schools tend to survive on peanuts , especially in IT and infrastructure .
The building LAN was all fiber , installed in 1994 when it was the " hot thing " , so unless it was re-wired with Cat 5e , you could forget about PoE .
The phone wiring installed in 1994 was Cat 3 , with most runs exceeding 100 m , so that was useless for Ethernet too.- Here 's the biggie : the PBX in the basement had a nice , heavy UPS and was on the generator circuit ; rock-solid reliability .
Even in brand-new and renovated school facilities , the LAN racks were n't on the generator circuit--and sure as hell did n't have UPSs.- For that matter , in said new and renovated buildings , I wound up having to deploy 5-port switches all over the place for rooms with more equipment than ports .
Yes , I know you can get PoE switches , but they 're useless in a power failure.In the name of safety , the intercom and PBX absolutely had to keep running through a power failure .
The Intercom was a refrigerator-sized cabinet with a giant amplifier and every speaker home-run into it , plugged into a generator-served outlet--again , very reliable .
No UPS needed there , since the intercom booted in seconds--the PBX needed a UPS since Meridian Mail took 20 minutes to boot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to be the sysadmin for a public high school with about 170 phones and 40 trunk lines.
The phone system: a Meridian Option 11C, every single phone line home-run into one room in the basement.Pain in the ass to manage?
Not if it's well documented.
There were a few reasons to love it:- Public schools tend to survive on peanuts, especially in IT and infrastructure.
The building LAN was all fiber, installed in 1994 when it was the "hot thing", so unless it was re-wired with Cat 5e, you could forget about PoE.
The phone wiring installed in 1994 was Cat 3, with most runs exceeding 100 m, so that was useless for Ethernet too.- Here's the biggie: the PBX in the basement had a nice, heavy UPS and was on the generator circuit; rock-solid reliability.
Even in brand-new and renovated school facilities, the LAN racks weren't on the generator circuit--and sure as hell didn't have UPSs.- For that matter, in said new and renovated buildings, I wound up having to deploy 5-port switches all over the place for rooms with more equipment than ports.
Yes, I know you can get PoE switches, but they're useless in a power failure.In the name of safety, the intercom and PBX absolutely had to keep running through a power failure.
The Intercom was a refrigerator-sized cabinet with a giant amplifier and every speaker home-run into it, plugged into a generator-served outlet--again, very reliable.
No UPS needed there, since the intercom booted in seconds--the PBX needed a UPS since Meridian Mail took 20 minutes to boot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30311270</id>
	<title>Re:Dial-up is all there is some places...</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1259860200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;I suspect there are some parts of the country which just are not serviceable without some type of large footprint (cheap) wireless solution.</p><p>I disagree.  They could just use the existing phone lines to carry DSL to rural homes.  At 1000 kbit/s DSL can extend 5 miles away from the central office.  More distant homes could use a combination Fiber-to-Neighborhood DSLAM to provide the connection to various clusters of homes.</p><p>And as for the USF, I'd support the idea so long as it had a 10-year-sunset.  None of that bullshit where we are paying a Spanish-American War Tax a century after the war ended.  Taxes need to disappear after they are no longer needed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; I suspect there are some parts of the country which just are not serviceable without some type of large footprint ( cheap ) wireless solution.I disagree .
They could just use the existing phone lines to carry DSL to rural homes .
At 1000 kbit/s DSL can extend 5 miles away from the central office .
More distant homes could use a combination Fiber-to-Neighborhood DSLAM to provide the connection to various clusters of homes.And as for the USF , I 'd support the idea so long as it had a 10-year-sunset .
None of that bullshit where we are paying a Spanish-American War Tax a century after the war ended .
Taxes need to disappear after they are no longer needed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;I suspect there are some parts of the country which just are not serviceable without some type of large footprint (cheap) wireless solution.I disagree.
They could just use the existing phone lines to carry DSL to rural homes.
At 1000 kbit/s DSL can extend 5 miles away from the central office.
More distant homes could use a combination Fiber-to-Neighborhood DSLAM to provide the connection to various clusters of homes.And as for the USF, I'd support the idea so long as it had a 10-year-sunset.
None of that bullshit where we are paying a Spanish-American War Tax a century after the war ended.
Taxes need to disappear after they are no longer needed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30314304</id>
	<title>Re:POTS is Powered!</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1259870520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;you purchase a long distance service separately from a local phone service.</p><p>It didn't used to be that way.  It used to be like Europe where you would buy a phone, and it came with Bell Telephone service, both local and long-distance.</p><p>But then during President Carter's term that Bell Monopoly was broken-up, so now you have two companies - one for the local hookup and one for long distance.  IMHO it's better because it gives you freedom of choice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; you purchase a long distance service separately from a local phone service.It did n't used to be that way .
It used to be like Europe where you would buy a phone , and it came with Bell Telephone service , both local and long-distance.But then during President Carter 's term that Bell Monopoly was broken-up , so now you have two companies - one for the local hookup and one for long distance .
IMHO it 's better because it gives you freedom of choice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;you purchase a long distance service separately from a local phone service.It didn't used to be that way.
It used to be like Europe where you would buy a phone, and it came with Bell Telephone service, both local and long-distance.But then during President Carter's term that Bell Monopoly was broken-up, so now you have two companies - one for the local hookup and one for long distance.
IMHO it's better because it gives you freedom of choice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30310624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30326782</id>
	<title>VoIP at the CO not the home</title>
	<author>lee317</author>
	<datestamp>1259955240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the original poster failed to recognize that this is not about getting a Vonage MTA or Comcast VoIP in every house.   It is about converting the technology in the Central Offices (CO) of legacy phone systems to VoIP for efficiency.  The end user will probably not notice any change when s/he picks up the same phone at the end of a copper line.  It is just that the call will become a digital IP packed in the CO and sent through a private IP network to its destination rather than over the old PSTN.

This is probably the best version of VoIP.  Imagine not having to reset your MTA or worry about your Internet connection when you want to make a call!  Maybe Ma Bell can even lower the prices if she is using VoIP to be competitive with Vonage and others.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the original poster failed to recognize that this is not about getting a Vonage MTA or Comcast VoIP in every house .
It is about converting the technology in the Central Offices ( CO ) of legacy phone systems to VoIP for efficiency .
The end user will probably not notice any change when s/he picks up the same phone at the end of a copper line .
It is just that the call will become a digital IP packed in the CO and sent through a private IP network to its destination rather than over the old PSTN .
This is probably the best version of VoIP .
Imagine not having to reset your MTA or worry about your Internet connection when you want to make a call !
Maybe Ma Bell can even lower the prices if she is using VoIP to be competitive with Vonage and others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the original poster failed to recognize that this is not about getting a Vonage MTA or Comcast VoIP in every house.
It is about converting the technology in the Central Offices (CO) of legacy phone systems to VoIP for efficiency.
The end user will probably not notice any change when s/he picks up the same phone at the end of a copper line.
It is just that the call will become a digital IP packed in the CO and sent through a private IP network to its destination rather than over the old PSTN.
This is probably the best version of VoIP.
Imagine not having to reset your MTA or worry about your Internet connection when you want to make a call!
Maybe Ma Bell can even lower the prices if she is using VoIP to be competitive with Vonage and others.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309552</id>
	<title>Dial-up is all there is some places...</title>
	<author>BubbaDave</author>
	<datestamp>1259851680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The death of dial-up has been greatly exaggerated. No broadband available where I am in NY, within 50 miles of Syracuse.</p><p>Dave</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The death of dial-up has been greatly exaggerated .
No broadband available where I am in NY , within 50 miles of Syracuse.Dave</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The death of dial-up has been greatly exaggerated.
No broadband available where I am in NY, within 50 miles of Syracuse.Dave</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30314386</id>
	<title>Re:many TVs went dark</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259870820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And can you quote some actual numbers with references to back up this claim that many people threw out old TVs without replacing them or threw them out instead of getting a converter box?</p><p>Can you prove or even cite some professional (with reference) saying that VOIP based telephony, when it is the standard, will be less reliable than our current circuit-switched network?</p><p>You speakers of woe and naysayers always look to the worst, and attempt to sell us on your worst case scenario based on either current trends (current VOIP requires we have an internet connection, so you assume this will require everybody have internet in order to have phone) or nothing at all (if so many TVs were discarded instead of either attached to a digital converter box or replaced, you should be able to provide a link to some sort of reference for this).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And can you quote some actual numbers with references to back up this claim that many people threw out old TVs without replacing them or threw them out instead of getting a converter box ? Can you prove or even cite some professional ( with reference ) saying that VOIP based telephony , when it is the standard , will be less reliable than our current circuit-switched network ? You speakers of woe and naysayers always look to the worst , and attempt to sell us on your worst case scenario based on either current trends ( current VOIP requires we have an internet connection , so you assume this will require everybody have internet in order to have phone ) or nothing at all ( if so many TVs were discarded instead of either attached to a digital converter box or replaced , you should be able to provide a link to some sort of reference for this ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And can you quote some actual numbers with references to back up this claim that many people threw out old TVs without replacing them or threw them out instead of getting a converter box?Can you prove or even cite some professional (with reference) saying that VOIP based telephony, when it is the standard, will be less reliable than our current circuit-switched network?You speakers of woe and naysayers always look to the worst, and attempt to sell us on your worst case scenario based on either current trends (current VOIP requires we have an internet connection, so you assume this will require everybody have internet in order to have phone) or nothing at all (if so many TVs were discarded instead of either attached to a digital converter box or replaced, you should be able to provide a link to some sort of reference for this).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30313218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30310198</id>
	<title>Re:Dial-up is all there is some places...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259855880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think there's anything more tragically hilarious than getting dialup access through VoIP.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think there 's anything more tragically hilarious than getting dialup access through VoIP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think there's anything more tragically hilarious than getting dialup access through VoIP.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30310624</id>
	<title>Re:POTS is Powered!</title>
	<author>Cimexus</author>
	<datestamp>1259857800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hehe that's always one thing that's mystified me about the US, and something I didn't actually realise until quite a few months of living there. That you purchase a long distance service separately from a local phone service.</p><p>A totally alien concept to most of the world where if you buy a phone service from a company, you can pick up the receiver and dial any other phone on Earth.</p><p>It initially confused the hell out of me when I visited a friend's place and he couldn't call someone who lived 50 miles away because "he didn't have long distance". I couldn't imagine only being able to call people locally<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... surely almost everyone has relatives/friends that live in a different area? (Also 'local' in the US seems to be a much smaller area than in my home country!)</p><p>But yeah - a shift to VoIP for the entire phone network should render such distinctions obsolete (although as you say, I'm sure the telcos will still try to figure out a way to charge you for it!)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hehe that 's always one thing that 's mystified me about the US , and something I did n't actually realise until quite a few months of living there .
That you purchase a long distance service separately from a local phone service.A totally alien concept to most of the world where if you buy a phone service from a company , you can pick up the receiver and dial any other phone on Earth.It initially confused the hell out of me when I visited a friend 's place and he could n't call someone who lived 50 miles away because " he did n't have long distance " .
I could n't imagine only being able to call people locally ... surely almost everyone has relatives/friends that live in a different area ?
( Also 'local ' in the US seems to be a much smaller area than in my home country !
) But yeah - a shift to VoIP for the entire phone network should render such distinctions obsolete ( although as you say , I 'm sure the telcos will still try to figure out a way to charge you for it !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hehe that's always one thing that's mystified me about the US, and something I didn't actually realise until quite a few months of living there.
That you purchase a long distance service separately from a local phone service.A totally alien concept to most of the world where if you buy a phone service from a company, you can pick up the receiver and dial any other phone on Earth.It initially confused the hell out of me when I visited a friend's place and he couldn't call someone who lived 50 miles away because "he didn't have long distance".
I couldn't imagine only being able to call people locally ... surely almost everyone has relatives/friends that live in a different area?
(Also 'local' in the US seems to be a much smaller area than in my home country!
)But yeah - a shift to VoIP for the entire phone network should render such distinctions obsolete (although as you say, I'm sure the telcos will still try to figure out a way to charge you for it!
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30310050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30312278</id>
	<title>Re:Dial-up is all there is some places...</title>
	<author>Sique</author>
	<datestamp>1259863200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A logical first step would be to switch over to VOIP just before the last-mile, to allow people to keep their existing phones - which (I think) would kill dial-up and faxes.</p></div><p>No, it doesn't. If the actual voice encoding is for instance G.711, it works fine with Fax and Dial-Up. Alternatively one could use T.38 for Fax.</p><p>Disclaimer: I install VoIP switches for a living.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A logical first step would be to switch over to VOIP just before the last-mile , to allow people to keep their existing phones - which ( I think ) would kill dial-up and faxes.No , it does n't .
If the actual voice encoding is for instance G.711 , it works fine with Fax and Dial-Up .
Alternatively one could use T.38 for Fax.Disclaimer : I install VoIP switches for a living .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A logical first step would be to switch over to VOIP just before the last-mile, to allow people to keep their existing phones - which (I think) would kill dial-up and faxes.No, it doesn't.
If the actual voice encoding is for instance G.711, it works fine with Fax and Dial-Up.
Alternatively one could use T.38 for Fax.Disclaimer: I install VoIP switches for a living.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30311776</id>
	<title>Re:Dial-up is all there is some places...</title>
	<author>izm</author>
	<datestamp>1259861760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Converting the existing POTS network to an IP network (even for voice) is far more complicated than you make it out to be. The main reason its tougher is SIGNAL DEGREDATION OVER DISTANCE.</p><p>Every wire carrying an electrical signal over distance is subject to signal attenuation due to electromagnetic forces interfering with the signal (e.g. other cables, electrical wires, etc). This is why you can only run a cat-5e ~1500 feet before you need to insert a repeater. The way the phone company got around this for serving POTS to far points is by inserting load coils at strategic points to boost the signal enough to go where it needed to go. That said, load coils are not suitable when carrying anything other than voice. This is why DSL availability is limited to places close to the CO, or places with a heavy business presence (as there are usually satellite distribution facilities from which your DSL can originate). Additionally, telephone cables typically contain several hundred to several thousand pairs, each serving a client. The shielding for a pair towards the outside of a cable is far less than the shielding for a pair towards the core of the cable. Not all pairs in a cable are even viable for DSL.</p><p>To make this happen, the phone company needs to substantially increase the presence of fiber EVERYWHERE: This is similar to the way cable does it, in that fiber is usually run to every street, and the "last mile" is carried over RG6, which in turn is branched off of for every customer. There would of course be other implications for using the existing infrastructure for the last-mile, and last-mile really means something more like "last couple of feet".</p><p>In summary, this isn't happening any time soon since it involves substantial investment in the existing infrastructure. While FTTP is promissing, it still has a long way to go.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Converting the existing POTS network to an IP network ( even for voice ) is far more complicated than you make it out to be .
The main reason its tougher is SIGNAL DEGREDATION OVER DISTANCE.Every wire carrying an electrical signal over distance is subject to signal attenuation due to electromagnetic forces interfering with the signal ( e.g .
other cables , electrical wires , etc ) .
This is why you can only run a cat-5e ~ 1500 feet before you need to insert a repeater .
The way the phone company got around this for serving POTS to far points is by inserting load coils at strategic points to boost the signal enough to go where it needed to go .
That said , load coils are not suitable when carrying anything other than voice .
This is why DSL availability is limited to places close to the CO , or places with a heavy business presence ( as there are usually satellite distribution facilities from which your DSL can originate ) .
Additionally , telephone cables typically contain several hundred to several thousand pairs , each serving a client .
The shielding for a pair towards the outside of a cable is far less than the shielding for a pair towards the core of the cable .
Not all pairs in a cable are even viable for DSL.To make this happen , the phone company needs to substantially increase the presence of fiber EVERYWHERE : This is similar to the way cable does it , in that fiber is usually run to every street , and the " last mile " is carried over RG6 , which in turn is branched off of for every customer .
There would of course be other implications for using the existing infrastructure for the last-mile , and last-mile really means something more like " last couple of feet " .In summary , this is n't happening any time soon since it involves substantial investment in the existing infrastructure .
While FTTP is promissing , it still has a long way to go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Converting the existing POTS network to an IP network (even for voice) is far more complicated than you make it out to be.
The main reason its tougher is SIGNAL DEGREDATION OVER DISTANCE.Every wire carrying an electrical signal over distance is subject to signal attenuation due to electromagnetic forces interfering with the signal (e.g.
other cables, electrical wires, etc).
This is why you can only run a cat-5e ~1500 feet before you need to insert a repeater.
The way the phone company got around this for serving POTS to far points is by inserting load coils at strategic points to boost the signal enough to go where it needed to go.
That said, load coils are not suitable when carrying anything other than voice.
This is why DSL availability is limited to places close to the CO, or places with a heavy business presence (as there are usually satellite distribution facilities from which your DSL can originate).
Additionally, telephone cables typically contain several hundred to several thousand pairs, each serving a client.
The shielding for a pair towards the outside of a cable is far less than the shielding for a pair towards the core of the cable.
Not all pairs in a cable are even viable for DSL.To make this happen, the phone company needs to substantially increase the presence of fiber EVERYWHERE: This is similar to the way cable does it, in that fiber is usually run to every street, and the "last mile" is carried over RG6, which in turn is branched off of for every customer.
There would of course be other implications for using the existing infrastructure for the last-mile, and last-mile really means something more like "last couple of feet".In summary, this isn't happening any time soon since it involves substantial investment in the existing infrastructure.
While FTTP is promissing, it still has a long way to go.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30310652</id>
	<title>VoIP is old news</title>
	<author>acoustix</author>
	<datestamp>1259857980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People act as if this were something new.  The long distance carriers have been using VoIP technology since the mid 90s.  Almost all LD calls over the last 5-8 years use IP at some point.  However, I'm pretty confident that POTS will outlive me and I'm 31.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People act as if this were something new .
The long distance carriers have been using VoIP technology since the mid 90s .
Almost all LD calls over the last 5-8 years use IP at some point .
However , I 'm pretty confident that POTS will outlive me and I 'm 31 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People act as if this were something new.
The long distance carriers have been using VoIP technology since the mid 90s.
Almost all LD calls over the last 5-8 years use IP at some point.
However, I'm pretty confident that POTS will outlive me and I'm 31.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30310114</id>
	<title>So... It already happened in Canada</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259855520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For all intensive purposes, this has already happened in Canada. Despite what Bell Canada would have you believe, they are 100\% VOIP. And where Bell is going to try and take over Telus [Not the other way around as people think], they most likely are 100\% VOIP as well. Cable companies are "Digital" so, they are VOIP too...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For all intensive purposes , this has already happened in Canada .
Despite what Bell Canada would have you believe , they are 100 \ % VOIP .
And where Bell is going to try and take over Telus [ Not the other way around as people think ] , they most likely are 100 \ % VOIP as well .
Cable companies are " Digital " so , they are VOIP too.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For all intensive purposes, this has already happened in Canada.
Despite what Bell Canada would have you believe, they are 100\% VOIP.
And where Bell is going to try and take over Telus [Not the other way around as people think], they most likely are 100\% VOIP as well.
Cable companies are "Digital" so, they are VOIP too...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309976</id>
	<title>Re:Dial-up is all there is some places...</title>
	<author>Silfax</author>
	<datestamp>1259854800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>First issue, is this VOIP-to-the-home, or just VOIP-to-the-switch-box? A logical first step would be to switch over to VOIP just before the last-mile, to allow people to keep their existing phones - which (I think) would kill dial-up and faxes. A later second step would be to move the final transition point to the telephone box at the house.</p></div><p>
Most like it would be voip to just before the last mile for existing service areas. New development would probably be voip direct to the home.

<br> <br>
home-&gt;pots-&gt;magic voip switch-&gt;network-&gt;magic voip switch-&gt;pots-&gt;other phone
<br> <br>
otherwise the infrastructure  changes would be massive</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>First issue , is this VOIP-to-the-home , or just VOIP-to-the-switch-box ?
A logical first step would be to switch over to VOIP just before the last-mile , to allow people to keep their existing phones - which ( I think ) would kill dial-up and faxes .
A later second step would be to move the final transition point to the telephone box at the house .
Most like it would be voip to just before the last mile for existing service areas .
New development would probably be voip direct to the home .
home- &gt; pots- &gt; magic voip switch- &gt; network- &gt; magic voip switch- &gt; pots- &gt; other phone otherwise the infrastructure changes would be massive</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First issue, is this VOIP-to-the-home, or just VOIP-to-the-switch-box?
A logical first step would be to switch over to VOIP just before the last-mile, to allow people to keep their existing phones - which (I think) would kill dial-up and faxes.
A later second step would be to move the final transition point to the telephone box at the house.
Most like it would be voip to just before the last mile for existing service areas.
New development would probably be voip direct to the home.
home-&gt;pots-&gt;magic voip switch-&gt;network-&gt;magic voip switch-&gt;pots-&gt;other phone
 
otherwise the infrastructure  changes would be massive
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30314016</id>
	<title>Technology vs Regulation</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1259869320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This could be an interesting fight.
</p><p>Technically, a switch to VoIP (whatever that really is) could be a good thing for both the customer and telco. But currently, digital telephone service, as provided by cable companies, over telco fiber to the home systems, or wireless broadband providers falls into a different regulatory regime than POTS. And I anticipate that the sellers of these services will fight to keep it that way.
</p><p>In reality, your voice telephone service is becoming more digital as time goes by. Although the addressing and packet switching functions are separate from the IP networking, they often travel over the same infrastructure (fiber, pipes, tubes, whatever) and capacity is dynamically allocated between the two functions by the operators as needed. The transition to the copper loop typically occurs at the central office, but sometimes in a cabinet in your neighborhood. In the near future, in areas served by fiber to the home, its conceivable that your copper loop will terminate inside the little box (the NID) on the side of your house and, from that point on, travel right along with broadband, digital TV and telephone, etc.
</p><p>What will keep all of this from happening is the legal status that POTS and "digital" services have. Actual digital telephone service (VoIP from Skype, Vonnage, FiOS telephone service, etc.) are subject to different and fewer regulations than copper loops. And the big players in this business will fight to keep it this way. In my neighborhood Verizon has just finished installing a FiOS system. And they are peppering everyone with adverts to switch to their new digital telephone service (and TV and broadband in the bundle). They are also planning on selling off their POTS infrastructure to a local telephone company. Once they are out of the POTS business, issues like universal service, long distance and regulated rates no longer apply to them. This is their (4) ???? just before (5) Profit!.
</p><p>If the FCC steps in and begins applying standards of reliability, universal access and others to broadband similar to what POTS has today, most of the infrastructure would switch to digital technology quite rapidly, with the holdouts for the copper loop service transitioned to an interface at the curb. But that will never happen so long as the digital 'last mile' remains unregulated. No company (either the fiber operator or some third party purchasing wholesale digital access) could provide regulated service on unregulated infrastructure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This could be an interesting fight .
Technically , a switch to VoIP ( whatever that really is ) could be a good thing for both the customer and telco .
But currently , digital telephone service , as provided by cable companies , over telco fiber to the home systems , or wireless broadband providers falls into a different regulatory regime than POTS .
And I anticipate that the sellers of these services will fight to keep it that way .
In reality , your voice telephone service is becoming more digital as time goes by .
Although the addressing and packet switching functions are separate from the IP networking , they often travel over the same infrastructure ( fiber , pipes , tubes , whatever ) and capacity is dynamically allocated between the two functions by the operators as needed .
The transition to the copper loop typically occurs at the central office , but sometimes in a cabinet in your neighborhood .
In the near future , in areas served by fiber to the home , its conceivable that your copper loop will terminate inside the little box ( the NID ) on the side of your house and , from that point on , travel right along with broadband , digital TV and telephone , etc .
What will keep all of this from happening is the legal status that POTS and " digital " services have .
Actual digital telephone service ( VoIP from Skype , Vonnage , FiOS telephone service , etc .
) are subject to different and fewer regulations than copper loops .
And the big players in this business will fight to keep it this way .
In my neighborhood Verizon has just finished installing a FiOS system .
And they are peppering everyone with adverts to switch to their new digital telephone service ( and TV and broadband in the bundle ) .
They are also planning on selling off their POTS infrastructure to a local telephone company .
Once they are out of the POTS business , issues like universal service , long distance and regulated rates no longer apply to them .
This is their ( 4 ) ? ? ? ?
just before ( 5 ) Profit ! .
If the FCC steps in and begins applying standards of reliability , universal access and others to broadband similar to what POTS has today , most of the infrastructure would switch to digital technology quite rapidly , with the holdouts for the copper loop service transitioned to an interface at the curb .
But that will never happen so long as the digital 'last mile ' remains unregulated .
No company ( either the fiber operator or some third party purchasing wholesale digital access ) could provide regulated service on unregulated infrastructure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This could be an interesting fight.
Technically, a switch to VoIP (whatever that really is) could be a good thing for both the customer and telco.
But currently, digital telephone service, as provided by cable companies, over telco fiber to the home systems, or wireless broadband providers falls into a different regulatory regime than POTS.
And I anticipate that the sellers of these services will fight to keep it that way.
In reality, your voice telephone service is becoming more digital as time goes by.
Although the addressing and packet switching functions are separate from the IP networking, they often travel over the same infrastructure (fiber, pipes, tubes, whatever) and capacity is dynamically allocated between the two functions by the operators as needed.
The transition to the copper loop typically occurs at the central office, but sometimes in a cabinet in your neighborhood.
In the near future, in areas served by fiber to the home, its conceivable that your copper loop will terminate inside the little box (the NID) on the side of your house and, from that point on, travel right along with broadband, digital TV and telephone, etc.
What will keep all of this from happening is the legal status that POTS and "digital" services have.
Actual digital telephone service (VoIP from Skype, Vonnage, FiOS telephone service, etc.
) are subject to different and fewer regulations than copper loops.
And the big players in this business will fight to keep it this way.
In my neighborhood Verizon has just finished installing a FiOS system.
And they are peppering everyone with adverts to switch to their new digital telephone service (and TV and broadband in the bundle).
They are also planning on selling off their POTS infrastructure to a local telephone company.
Once they are out of the POTS business, issues like universal service, long distance and regulated rates no longer apply to them.
This is their (4) ????
just before (5) Profit!.
If the FCC steps in and begins applying standards of reliability, universal access and others to broadband similar to what POTS has today, most of the infrastructure would switch to digital technology quite rapidly, with the holdouts for the copper loop service transitioned to an interface at the curb.
But that will never happen so long as the digital 'last mile' remains unregulated.
No company (either the fiber operator or some third party purchasing wholesale digital access) could provide regulated service on unregulated infrastructure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30321210</id>
	<title>When did the FCC become...</title>
	<author>NateTech</author>
	<datestamp>1259865720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... the Federal Agency in charge of pipe dreams?</p><p>First the failed auction of spectrum to try to convince companies that already have national networks, to build another one.</p><p>Now the desire to drop a well-engineered system for one that's barely manageable and doesn't cover where the original does.</p><p>Are there any real engineers left at the FCC who have any say in this silliness?  Any that the FCC Commissioners actually listen to?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... the Federal Agency in charge of pipe dreams ? First the failed auction of spectrum to try to convince companies that already have national networks , to build another one.Now the desire to drop a well-engineered system for one that 's barely manageable and does n't cover where the original does.Are there any real engineers left at the FCC who have any say in this silliness ?
Any that the FCC Commissioners actually listen to ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... the Federal Agency in charge of pipe dreams?First the failed auction of spectrum to try to convince companies that already have national networks, to build another one.Now the desire to drop a well-engineered system for one that's barely manageable and doesn't cover where the original does.Are there any real engineers left at the FCC who have any say in this silliness?
Any that the FCC Commissioners actually listen to?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1318218_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30312356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30310028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1318218_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30314664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30310564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30310050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1318218_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30312408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1318218_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30311270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1318218_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30310224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1318218_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30318096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30311174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1318218_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30310074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1318218_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30310172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1318218_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30311776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1318218_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30310476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1318218_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1318218_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30310198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1318218_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30314304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30310624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30310050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1318218_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30326822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30312850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1318218_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30310576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1318218_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30322874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1318218_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30310222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1318218_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30314332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30311174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1318218_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30312682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30310066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1318218_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30310156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1318218_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30312974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1318218_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30313416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1318218_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1318218_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30310364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1318218_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30311698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30310066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1318218_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30314386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30313218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1318218_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30313386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30310028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1318218_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30312278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1318218_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30313016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30310420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_1318218.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30311836
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_1318218.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30310420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30313016
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_1318218.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309552
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309614
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30322874
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309750
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30310576
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30311776
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309784
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309976
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30310364
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30312408
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30312278
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30310224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309832
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30310222
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309704
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30310476
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30310050
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30310624
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30314304
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30310564
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30314664
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30313416
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30312974
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30311174
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30314332
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30318096
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30310156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30310198
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30310172
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30309644
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30311270
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30310074
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_1318218.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30312850
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30326822
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_1318218.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30311426
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_1318218.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30313218
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30314386
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_1318218.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30310066
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30311698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30312682
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_1318218.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30310068
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_1318218.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30310028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30313386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30312356
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_1318218.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30310240
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_1318218.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1318218.30311048
</commentlist>
</conversation>
