Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

RE: [EFM] On the Worship of Speed




Just to play devil's advocate here, the fastest growing segment of the
telephony market, namely mobile telephony, apparently has little trouble
selling in service to customers, despite long, "poor" latency.

Of course the argument goes that the "advantage factor" of mobility
counteracts the reduction on perceived voice qulaity in people's minds.
Maybe so.  But I bring it up to point out that there is some quesiton, in
some quarters, as to how well a test subject's responses in a MOS testing
scenario correlate to what they're actually willing to pay for.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Barry O'Mahony
Intel Labs
Hillsboro, OR, USA
tel: +1 (503) 264-8579
barry.omahony@xxxxxxxxx
barry.omahony@xxxxxxxxxxxx
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-----Original Message-----
From: FEffenberger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:FEffenberger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 8:06 PM
To: rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; FEffenberger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
carlosal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; joey.chou@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
Subject: RE: [EFM] On the Worship of Speed



DSL uses ATM.  

Also, DSL typically leaves the existing POTS service undisturbed, 
and is most often a data-only service.  

If you are talking of VoIP, then the answer to your question is "Poorly".
The slop in the network is hidden by intensive processing on both ends 
of the network.  Echo-cancellers and error concealment.  And, of course, 
no guarantee of performance.  Of all people, I shouldn't have to convince 
you of the problems of trying to sell such a service to customers.  

Sincerely,
Frank

-----Original Message-----
From: Roy Bynum [mailto:rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 10:00 PM
To: FEffenberger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; carlosal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
joey.chou@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
Subject: Re: [EFM] On the Worship of Speed



Frank,

How does it work on 128kb DSL links with PPOE today?

Thank you,
Roy Bynum

At 09:38 PM 1/23/2002 -0500, FEffenberger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: