convergence through solution interoperability case study of integrated telecommunication design

7/23/2019 Convergence Through Solution Interoperability Case Study of Integrated Telecommunication Design

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/convergence-through-solution-interoperability-case-study-of-integrated-telecommunication 1/20

11

2 0 0 2 THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS REVIEW

Convergence in the Information Technology and

Telecommunications World: Separating Reality From

Hype

Dr. Thomas B. Fowler

Today the term “convergence” has many meanings and, as a result, often leads to confusion. In the

telecommunications world, convergence has come to mean a moving towards the use of one medium as

opposed to many. There are many drivers for convergence, but perhaps the most significant is a vision

of the future: a more elegant world where everything is simpler. Convergence promises a “clean slate”

approach, in which everything (or at least many things) can be reengineered to provide better, more

flexible service to the user. However, promises often collide with reality. A careful analysis of

convergence discloses that there are actually four separate types of convergence, each with a different

history and prognosis. Today one type of convergence, namely convergence of everything on Internet

Protocol (IP) networks, is all the rage. But such convergence of all services over one protocol, which

has been tried in the past in various forms, has a decidedly checkered history. To gain perspective on the

convergence issue, the four types of convergence and their histories are examined, along with arguments pro and con, and the business case. A rollout schedule is presented, together with the implications of

convergence for government and industry.

The Many Meanings of “Conver-

gence” and its Checkered History in

Telecommunications

“Convergence” is a term often used in today’stelecommunications environment, brandished as

the wave of the future, promising many benefits.However, in most cases, its meaning is far fromclear; and, worse yet, the term is oftenunderstood in different senses by speaker andauditor. What meanings does the term have? Towhat extent is convergence a reality and thefuture of information technology (IT) andtelecommunications, and to what extent is ithype?

The Definition of “Convergence”

The dictionary definition of “convergence”

provides a starting point for the analyses of this paper: “the act of converging and esp. movingtoward union or uniformity.” [1] In thetelecommunications world, this meaning fitswell—convergence has come to mean a movingtowards the use of one medium as opposed tomany. There are many drivers for convergence, but perhaps the most significant is a vision of thefuture: a more elegant world where everything is

simpler. Most telecommunications services (andmuch of the associated equipment) that we havetoday are a function of technological limitationsexisting at the time of their development andintroduction. For example, telephony utilizesanalog electronics restricted to an audiospectrum of ~200 to 3000 Hz; today’s NationalTelevision Standards Committee (NTSC) analogcolor television is poor by modern digitalstandards, but the best that could becommercially produced in the 1940s; and evendigital data services such as T1 and T3 haveroots deep in the voice telephony infrastructure,as multiples of the 64 Kbps digitized voicechannels. Convergence promises a “clean slate”approach, in which everything (or at least manythings) can be reengineered to provide better,more flexible service to the user.

Viewed from a business rather than a technology

standpoint, convergence relates to the productsand services that can be offered to customers:

Factors such as technologicalinnovation, changes in the market, anddevelopments in regulatory reform areall serving to create an entirely new,overlapping marketplace for basicservices such as telecommunications,



12

THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS REVIEW 2 0 0 2

electric, gas, etc. These factors havefurther propelled companies to enterinto strategic alliances, joint ventures,and in some cases, mergers, whichenables them to offer a menu of productoptions to customers and to operatetheir systems more efficiently. This iscommonly referred to as ‘convergence.’[2]

However, convergence can occur on severallevels, as we shall see; and often these levels arenot distinguished, or are confused by the speakeror auditor. Convergence can occur in four majorcategories, which roughly correspond to layers orsets of layers in the Open Systems Interconnect(OSI) network model. [3] The categories aretransport (comprising the physical layer),switching (comprising the data link and network layers), and applications (comprising the

application layer). Convergence can also occur between telecommunications and IT.

Of course, practically any two things can be saidto “converge” in the broadest sense; but ameaningful discussion requires that the scope belimited to the most important aspects. Thedefinition here means that some so-called typesof convergence, such as convergence in thecontent industry itself, e.g., the Time-Warner/AOL merger, are beyond the scope ofthis paper.

Briefly, the categories of convergence may bedescribed as follows.

• Transport: The same physical pipes (opticalfiber, microwave, copper) and transporttechnology (usually Synchronous Optical Network [SONET]) carry multiple services,usually of different customers, e.g., multipleT1 or T3 links. Convergence at this level is primarily used by carriers to provision theirinfrastructure; it is largely transparent tousers as they continue to see and pay forseparate services. It has been in widespreaduse since the 1960s and continues to expand.

Increasingly, it is used for local access aswell, reducing the customer’s overalltelecommunications bill.

• Switching: The same cable plant carriesdifferent types of traffic, and doesappropriate switching. Content and presen-tation to the user is unchanged, with the possible exception of new features.

Historically, this has been the layer aboutwhich most discussion has centered. Thedistinction between services becomes lessdistinct or disappears entirely under networklayer convergence; in the extreme case(talked about but far from commercialrealization) users see a bit pipe, and servicesare defined by end-user equipment. At the present time, Internet Protocol (IP), aswitching technology, is envisioned as thecommon medium for all (or many) types oftelecommunications traffic, especially voiceand Internet traffic.

• Application (Content): The same end-userdevice or type of device and networkhandles and delivers all content; the userdoes not have separate network interfacedevices (e.g., television receiver, radio,VCR, computer, etc.). This very directlyaffects the end user. To some extent, the

Internet is already providing convergence atthis level. Wireless and wireline con-vergence, often spoken of, is anotherexample.

• Telecommunications/IT: There is also afourth meaning of convergence that will beconsidered here, which refers to blurring ofthe distinction between telecommunications

and information processing . Examples areuse of Applications Service Providers(ASPs) and network computing. The salientcharacteristic of telecommunications/ITconvergence is that traditionally separate

functions —historically provided by differentmanufacturers or venues—are now availablethrough one source.

These four types of convergence are progressinglargely independently. They are showndiagrammatically in Figure 1.

Some History to Put Matters in Perspective

Convergence at the transport level has been areality at least since the 1960s, when thetelephone system began its conversion to a

digital infrastructure, and the first T-carrierservices became available. The Bell Systemcould (and did) unilaterally impose this systemon the country because it was a monopoly thatdid not have to deal with competing ideas, norworry about interoperability with legacyequipment (other than its own). Work in thisarea has continued, and now optical technologyforms the basis for physical layer convergence.



13


Application

(e.g., Music, Video

Over Internet)

Telecommunications/IT

(e.g., Application Service

Provider [ASP], Network

Computing)

Switching

(e.g., Voice over

Internet Protocol [VoIP])

Transport

(e.g., Multiplexed

Channels)

Reflects

Increasing Visibility

to User—Closer to

Edge

Content Business

Application

(e.g., Music, Video

Over Internet)




Computing)

Switching

(e.g., Voice over


Transport

(e.g., Multiplexed

Channels)

Reflects


to User—Closer to

Edge

Content Business

Application

(e.g., Music, Video

Over Internet)




Computing)

Switching

(e.g., Voice over


Transport

(e.g., Multiplexed

Channels)

Reflects


to User—Closer to

Edge

Content Business

Figure 1. Levels of Convergence in Telecommunications

Convergence at the switching level is a differentstory, however. This type of convergence is notreally a new idea; it has surfaced many times inthe past, and is often promoted as a panacea fortelecommunications problems. In the past, it hasgone by the name of “integration,” but the idea isthe same. The following 1991 quotation from

Jerry Lucas, of Telestrategies, which wasremarkably prescient, illustrates the situationwell:

Every six or seven years an integratedsolution appears. Based on newdevelopments in digital technology, it’ssupposed to revolutionize the waynetworking is accomplished. In 1975,Satellite Business Systems came upwith “the one”—a digital controllerwith satellite access for integratedvoice, data, and video; it was supposedto change the way corporations

network. In 1982, the telecommuni-cations industry was presented with “theone”—the digital voice/data PublicBranch Exchange (PBX), a singleswitch on the customer’s premises thatwould handle all on-premises services.In 1988, the Regional Bell OperatingCompanies (RBOCs) presented us withnarrowband Integrated Services Digital

Network (ISDN), “the one” access forvoice, data, and graphics via a digitallocal loop. Now they’re talking abouthow, in 1995, we’ll have BroadbandIntegrated Services Digital Network(BISDN), “the one” solution for voice,data, and multimedia via a single

digitized fiber pipe. [4] [acronymsdefined]

Of course, BISDN did not pan out either as thedesired integrated or converged solution, thoughit found a niche. Why did all of theseapproaches fail to deliver on their overarching promises? Lucas attributes it to problems withthe “one size fits all” approach:

Even though billions of dollars wereinvested, “the one” solutions didn’twork because they couldn’t perform as

well as single-application access

solutions. Yes, integrated solutions areelegant, but they are technologies insearch of an application . . . [5] [italicsadded]

This lesson is one that, it seems, thetelecommunications industry has difficultylearning. Technological elegance is fine, but itmust translate into mundane things such asreliability and performance. There is a hurdle to



14


be surmounted by any converged or integratedsolution: the fact that the existing infrastructureis in place and works quite well, is cost-effective, people know how to use it, and they arecomfortable with it. Switched voice service, forexample, has been engineered and perfected toan extremely high degree; the equipment and theoverall system are exceeding reliable— something people now take for granted andindeed expect. Daily or weekly rebooting of theoffice telephone system because of crashes is notacceptable, regardless of the other benefits itmay bring.

Lucas’ words were prophetic: in 1998—exactlyseven years after Lucas’ remarks—Sprintannounced its Integrated On-Demand (ION)service, with much fanfare. This, too, wassupposed to revolutionize corporate networking by the elimination of multiple independent

networks; but, alas, Sprint pulled the plug on itin 2001, after spending $4 to $5 billion andgaining only 4,000 customers. Consider thefollowing description of the ION networkconcept:

In order for a company to successfullycompete in today’s environment, it musthave peerless access to networkservices, without artificial bandwidthconstraints, cumbersome networkinterfaces or the limiting complexity ofmultiple, isolated network type fordifferent network needs. What is neededis a single, integrated networkcapability that offers unique support fornew business applications on astandardized platform without bandwidth constraints. Sprint ION, TheIntegrated on Demand Network, is sucha solution. Sprint ION is a breakthroughtechnology that lets the user attachsimultaneous voice, data, video,Internet/Intranet and fax applicationsdirectly to the high-speed backbonenetwork over a single connectionthrough a proprietary hub. Supporting

local as well as long distance telephony(or voice and data services), Sprint IONcan eliminate the need for multiplevoice and data networks . . . the SprintION approach supports . . . businessneeds with application specific Qualityof Service (QoS) and bandwidth ondemand. [6]

So how could this concept fail? What wentwrong? Spring cited the difficulties inengineering a paradigm shift and well asdeploying new technology:

It was no secret that Sprint was having problems with its Integrated On-

demand Network. The Net Economy first reported on the provider’s ION problems back in June, when FredHarris, VP of design at Sprint told us,“In almost three years we have tried todo what the telephony industry took 100years to do. It’s far more problematicthan we anticipated.”

From interoperability difficulties between softswitches and mediagateways to snail-paced customerservice, poor connections for voiceservices and spotty data connections,

ION’s troubles continued to mount. [7]

The fact that Sprint attributes its failure withION to non-technological problems as well astechnological problems is an extremelyimportant lesson.

Nonetheless, this history of failures at theswitching level should not obscure the fact thatconvergence has been remarkably successful atthe transport level, and that it is proceeding at theapplication level; nor should it blind decision-makers and others to the fact that convergencewill, in all likelihood, come to dominate thetelecommunications arena, even if the timeframeis uncertain. There were, to be sure, decades offailures of heavier-than-air craft before theWright brothers figured out how to do it.

The pie-in-the-sky mentality persists, however,despite documented problems with convergenceand all types of integrated solutions. Some evengo far beyond the convergence discussed in this paper, and envision convergence of gas, water,electricity, telecommunications, and who knowswhat else:

In the future, there will be no energyindustry or telecommunications industryin any sense relative to the consumer. .there will be a flowing content industry,anything that flows through pipes andwires, and there will be a conduitindustry, moving a product from pointA to point B with maximum efficiency.[8]



15


Pundits can make such statements with impunity, but decision-makers who must put theirorganizations and hard capital on the line need to be more cautious. In a recent article, two seniorconsultants at A. D. Little advise networkmanagers to “slow the mad rush to IP,” becauseit is not “the universal network solution, and the problem comes with attempting to extend its usefor functions beyond those for which its design isreasonably well suited.” They observe that:

IP can run over almost anything, be itGigabit Ethernet or a low-speed mobileradio channel . . . [but] that’s not thesame as running IP under everything,which may add complexity and costwith little or no benefit. [9]

These analysts cite some of the well-known problems and limitations of IP, namely its lossynature, the perennial problem of QoS, and

complexities associated with using such protocols as Multi-Protocol Label Switching(MPLS) to “fix” IP. They contrast theselimitations with the “relative simplicity” ofrunning non-data traffic over AsynchronousTransfer Mode (ATM) and frame relay—at leastthe former of which was designed to handle it.Others agree that convergence may beoverhyped:

And yet, for all the souped-up processing power that’s flowed fromMoore’s Law, and despite the increasesin available, affordable bandwidth,convergence seems as elusive as ever . .And while the industry has proved thatit can jam multiple functions into allkinds of chassis—from IADs to routersto CO switches—most “God-boxes” failin the marketplace. Now, increasingly,I’m hearing that, perhaps, those products should fail. Not becausethey’re not technically sophisticated, but because once a converged solutionis in place, that’s it: There’s onetechnology and, most likely, one or avery limited number of vendors, even

though the marketplace repeatedlyshows a preference—indeed, a need— for more rather then fewer choices inequipment and vendors. [10]

This suggests that caution should be exercised,and that a “wait and see” attitude may be themost prudent. Some readers may wish to draw a

parallel with office software packages in the1980s. In those days, Lotus introduced its“Symphony” package, a single program thatintegrated major office functions into one program—word processing, spreadsheet, anddatabase. Symphony was widely touted as thefuture of office suites. However, it never reallysucceeded, and today we are back to separateoffice programs that can share data and somefunctionality, but which also work (and can be purchased) by themselves.

Drivers Behind Convergence

Perhaps a brief review of what it takes to makeany technology successful in today’s marketplace is in order. A technology solution must beable to do at least one of the following, and, inmany cases, more than one:

• Provide lower total cost than alternatives, orequivalently, better Return on Investment(ROI)

• Solve a problem vexing potential purchasers(i.e., not just be “nice to have”)

• Enable new, required functionality

• Significantly improve productivity andquality of work performed

• Make life so much easier that users willwant it in preference to what they now have

A convergence solution will succeed only in themeasure that it satisfies one or more of theseobjectives. Accordingly, a number of keydrivers for convergence has been and continuesto be touted. They have changed little over the past 25 years.

Lower Cost

If a new technology is to gain any recognitionand market share, it must promise somesavings—the more the better. Convergence atthe physical layer has long since delivered on its promises: provisioning, operation, and main-tenance of individual T-carrier lines by stringing

copper wire point-to-point for each would be prohibitively expensive; whereas such servicecan be economically delivered by means of themultiplexed infrastructure built over the lastdecades. [11] At other levels, the jury is still out.Savings can be difficult to calculate in manycases, especially at the application and tele-

communications/IT convergence levels.



16


Simplified Provisioning

Provisioning of telecommunications servicesinvolves physical installation, checkout, andmonitoring of inside cabling, interface equip-ment, switching equipment, and, in some cases,outside cabling and even entire buildings, as wellas its configuration to deliver services to users.Convergence promises to deliver benefits in thisarea at all levels. At the transport or physicallevel, it allows a reduction in the number of physical cables that must be laid. At theswitching level, convergence promises tosimplify provisioning by reducing the number ofcable plants needed within a building. At theapplication level, convergence means that onlyone medium, e.g., the Internet, is required todeliver content, so that users need not provisionseparate cable TV plants, antennas, and satellitedishes. Finally, convergence of telecommuni-

cations and IT implies that users can accomplishtheir data processing goals with a minimum ofseparate equipment and suppliers.

Easier Management

Separate networks and associated cable plantsmeans that managers have to coordinate datafrom multiple sources in order to determine howwell service is being delivered. They must alsoconcern themselves with growth, which mayinvolve replacement of several large pieces ofequipment such as PBXs. By combining

multiple systems and networks (e.g., telephonyand Local Area Network [LAN] or MetropolitanArea Network [MAN]), management oftelecommunications services can (in theory) besimplified. Of course, if the combined systemshave reliability or other problems, managementmay be made more complex and difficult.

Less Maintenance

Reduction in the number of cable plantsrequired, whether inside a building, in a MAN,or in a WAN, generally means a reduction in the

maintenance required. It can also mean easierupgrades as demand grows, and as the need to provision new services arises. Once again,reliability of the single plant must exceed that ofthe plants it replaces.

Fewer User Interfaces

By employing a single cable plant with appro- priate switching, fewer separate user interfaces

are required. The ultimate goal is a single typeof plug in the wall, which supplies raw bandwidth on demand, much as today allelectrical devices plug into a standard receptacleand draw whatever current they require. Buteven if that never materializes, the fact thatcomputers and telephones can share the same jack simplifies connections and reduces thenumber of different jacks required. At anotherlevel, shared interface hardware reduces costs forequipment manufacturers; those savings areultimately passed on to consumers. Indeed, thelow cost of modern Ethernet hardware is theresult of production of Ethernet components on amassive scale.

More Rapid Provisioning

Rapid provisioning capability is also a functionof the level of convergence attained. Whenseparate wires were necessary for every service, provisioning was very slow, as, indeed, it still iswhen a new cable of any type must be put in place by a Telecommunications Company(Telco) or an Interexchange Carrier (IXC).When existing cabling can carry new signals, provisioning is much faster. And when existingcabling and switching can allow new services to be engineered and deployed without the need toadd either cable or switching equipment, ormodify such equipment, provisioning can beextremely fast.

Improved Service

In theory, service quality will improve whenfewer components are involved in its pro-visioning and maintenance. In practice, thisremains to be demonstrated, especially in light ofthe exceedingly high reliability of moderntelephone equipment and networks.

New Services

Design, implementation, and provisioning ofnew services will be faster as convergence

becomes a reality and problems are ironed out.Use of IP as the common switching technology,in particular, allows new telephone services to bedeployed easily in Voice over Internet Protocol(VoIP) networks. New data services can also bedefined rapidly, freeing users from dependenceon fixed service types such as T1, T3, and soforth. Clearly, as more switching intelligenceresides in user equipment, the need for fixed



17


services such as T1 will decrease, in favor ofguarantees on packet delivery.

Simplification of User’s Life

New technologies are a hard sell unless users can perceive tangible benefits. Users do not respondto “technological elegance,” but to concreteimprovements and documentable savings.Replacing something such as the modern PlainOld Telephone Service (POTS) is not easy because it is familiar, exceedingly reliable, easyto use, and meets users’ perceived needs.Converged solutions have foundered in the past because telecommunications executives did notthink things through from the user’s standpoint,and the converged solutions did not work betterand cheaper than existing and more familiartechnologies and/or did not induce users to preferthem. Benefits of convergence are summarized

in Table 1.

Impediments to Convergence

However, no technology is perfect! Impedi-ments to convergence have, obviously, beenunderestimated or indeed been unrecognized inmany cases, leading to project failure. Ingeneral, the impediments have their roots in thefailure to recognize how deeply engrainedcurrent services are in the business environment,regulatory arena, and user mentality.

Inertia Needed to Change Infrastructure

The existing telecommunications infrastructurerepresents a considerable investment in time,materiel, and effort. Much of it, such as theswitched voice system, is highly optimized, with

billing and other support systems that are the product of thousands of man-years of work,reflecting experience gained over many years ofcustomer interaction. The cost per unit ofservice typically is also very low. Any newtechnology faces significant hurdles insofar as itmust be able to offer as much or more in the wayof service quality, at lower prices. In addition,much existing infrastructure was designed with along service life, on the order of 8 years or moretypically, in many cases already full amortized.With 90 million PBX and key telephone stationsin use, having an estimated value of $100 billion,[12] it will be difficult to make a business case to justify ripping that equipment out and replacingit with new equipment of unproven reliabilityand lifespan. As one commentator puts it, “. . .given the realistic options available, it’s hard toenvision any CFO saying ‘even though the present system is fulfilling our needs, we have to

switch to the latest technology.’ ” [13] For newconstruction (“Greenfield”), however, the choicemay be more difficult. As another commentatorhas noted,

An installed system [PBX] that is five,eight, or even 10 years old still supports most of today’s feature/functionrequirements, and many recent PBX performance enhancements are pro-vided using external application servers.[14]

Regulatory

The present structure of the telecommunicationsindustry is the result of the history oftechnological developments, starting with thefirst crude telephones in the 19th Century, butalso the regulatory structure erected over top of

Type of Convergence

Cited Advantages Transport

Level

Switching

Level

Application

Level

Merging of IT and

Telecommunications

Lower Cost


Easier Management

Less Maintenance Fewer User Interfaces


Improved Service

New Services


Table 1. Comparison of Principal Benefits for the Four Types of Telecommunications Convergence



18


the industry. Whatever may be said of thisstructure, it has served a purpose and has beenresponsible for the ubiquity of the telephone inthe United States. Convergence represents athreat to this regulatory system and the benefits ithas brought; however, some feel that thisstructure has outlived its usefulness:

Underlying the network convergenceenvironment is the pending demise ofthe massive governmental regulatoryregime—a legacy of redundant andsometimes inconsistent regulatoryschema, that has spawned and nurturedthe disparate network industries . . .Regulators of the industries thatcomprise network convergence, at alllevels of government, are thus presentlyundergoing a radical change in theirviews on regulation, as governments

seek to realize the opportunities andovercome the challenges in the networkconvergence era. [15]

Ripping out and replacing such a complexinfrastructure, one which is now almostsymbiotic with the industry, will not prove to beeasy: too many special interests are at stake, toomany individual regulatory bodies involved, andtoo many issues with political, economic, andsocial ramifications will arise. Rapid change isunlikely, even if change is inevitable. [16]

Business/Economic Case in Near Term

To sell converged solutions such as IP PBXs, a business case must be made. A valid comparison must be one based on a life cycle, andinclude installation, operations and maintenance,and savings accruing from the use of theconverged technology. For IP PBXs, thisusually means reduced long distance costs.However, actual comparisons are difficult tomake because the IP PBXs are so new, and it isdifficult to quantify some of the benefits claimedfor the new technology, especially since there issuch limited experience with it. Incremental cost

to upgrade PBXs to IP telephony are on the orderof $500 to $1,000 per station. [17] Some pro-IPPBX pundits argue that large cost savings are aslam-dunk because initial costs are lower ($300 per port versus $400 to $1,000), withmaintenance costs much lower for the IP PBX.Others believe that this type of estimate fails totake into account important extra costs,especially the costs of a LAN/WAN upgrade,

that may be necessary, and the higher cost of IPtelephones:

There can be hidden costs for specialsignaling cards, memory upgrades,license fees, and, most importantly, theLAN/WAN infrastructure to support IP-

based voice at an acceptable QoS andreliability levels. For example, even thelowest priced IP phones are moreexpensive than the average analog/digital telephone. Add in costs forhigher port circuit cards, license fees, power, potential PBS common control(hardware and software) and LANupgrades can produce a bottom line costthat is 25 to 100 percent higher than anon-IP station. [18]

In addition, the MTBF for conventional PBXs ison the order of 10 to 20 years, whereas that of IP

PBXs is at present unknown but likely to be lessthan 1 to 2 years. The elements of the costs ofthe two solutions may be compared as shown inTable 2.

Human Factors

This is the “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” arena.The public at large, or at least the public which isto be the audience for any new type ofconvergence, has to be convinced that it is intheir interest to make the switch. Technology purveyors and pundits may be convinced; but it

is the customer who makes the purchasingdecision. Historically, major shifts in technologyfor the general public require one or moregenerations to take hold, for a number ofreasons. [19] This length of time is frequentlyunderestimated by planners. There is an inherentconservatism in the way most businessesoperate:

The problem facing service providersthese days is that the environment is souneasy that the only services carrierscan count on appealing to customers arethe ones they are already offering. That

means, of course, the old standards,such as private line, frame relay, andATM . . . If service providers havemade anything clear in the past year orso it is that all talk of next-generationtechnology adoption begins and endswith the understanding that nothing newgoes in the network unless it preserves



19


IP PBX Conventional PBX

Direct Costs PBX per station $300 $400 to $1,000

User equipment perstation

$200 to $300$250 to $1,000$50 for analog phones

Monthly maintenanceand operations

May be 0, if done byin-house personnel

~$1,000, depends onsize

Indirect Costs Upgrade cable plant $0 to $10,000s N/ARetrain employees $100s per employee N/A

Training for main-tenance and ops staff

$10,000s N/A

Hiring of additionalstaff

May be necessary tomaintain QoS

0

Equipment upgrades $0 to $10,000s 0

Licenses, fees $0 to $10,000s 0

Backup/recoverycapability

$0 to $10,000sUsually included inmaintenance agreement

Table 2. Cost Comparison of IP PBX and conventional PBX Solutions

existing services. The fallout from this policy is that any IP-based service thatrequires customers to replace existinggear or alter their service interface inany manner is left waiting in the wings.[20]

On a more immediate level, there are other problems that have been pointed out: [21]

• Station users (end users) hate to learn newinstruments (phones)

• System managers hate training staff in new

administration and maintenance skills• Data staff (who are presumed to be the

operators and maintainers of IP PBXs) havea different mind-set when it comes to QoS,reliability, and acceptable downtime than dotelephone people

Protocol, Standards, and Compatibility Issues

Ethernet has been phenomenally successful inlarge part because of its open standards.Ethernet equipment is now “plug and play,” andcomponents from multiple vendors can be mixed

with little fear that they will not work welltogether. And if a given vendor goes out of business, substitute equipment from othervendors can generally be found with littledifficulty. However, in some converged ser-vices, such as VoIP, the market has notstabilized, and standards and compatibilityremain as potential problems:

We all know that the Public SwitchedTelephone Network (PSTN) works.Most of us know that VoIP works. Butthe convergence of the two is beingdelayed by a near-religious debateamong industry insiders . . . At the heartof the controversy is an either/or choice between the H.323 and SessionInitiation Protocols (SIPs) . . . Fighting protocol wars at this stage of the gamedoes nothing for either the H.323 or theSIP factions, and it casts doubt anduncertainty over customer perceptions

of VoIP and converged services. In amarket with billions of dollars at stake,equipment suppliers and service providers should be doing all they canto fully integrate both of these protocols . . . [22]

The same author goes on to say, “Customersdon’t want to have to make a choice betweentechnologies [one of which might go away], nordo they want the complexity of multiple[incompatible] systems.” [23] And they do notwant to be tied to any particular vendor’s products, or risk purchasing a system that will

have to be junked prematurely because it is or becomes incompatible with other equipment theenterprise needs or must interact with. [24]

Clash of Cultures

IT and telecommunications staff tend to view theworld in quite different ways, and this “clash of



20


cultures” can be a significant impediment toconvergence, especially at the switching level, but also at the applications delivery level as well.As one observer puts it:

The problem arises because tele-communications and IT take polar

views of how a network should run.The telecommunications staffers, prac-ticed in service-level agreements andoutsourcing, believe data networks areinherently unstable and not fit forcarrying voice traffic. Down the hall,IT managers tend toward a technicalview of networking, driven by new products and faster packet rates. Theysee the voice world as a proprietary onein which innovation happens in painfully slow increments. Now thetwo are being asked to pool their

resources to create one network thatsupports both philosophies . . . [25]

Clearly, reliability—proven reliability—is of thehighest importance to telecommunications staff;new solutions must be proven before they areacceptable. But the IT world is geared toinnovation and short life cycle products.Because of the rapid advances in technology,including processing speed, memory, and bulkstorage, IT will assume risks and accept lowerreliability in return for better performance andnew capabilities. For the same reason, they arealso willing to accept frequent system crashes

and software glitches—something unacceptablein the telecommunications world. “Tele-communications managers feel their prioritieswill be lost to a data-like approach in whichupgrades to data hardware and new applicationsrule over reliability and detailed service-levelagreements with carriers.” [26] In addition, ITstaff are not used to thinking about the overallservice delivery picture. This can lead to seriousmiscalculation of savings accruing to convergedsolutions such as VoIP:

Many IT departments, for example,don’t realize that by implementing

VoIP, their traditional phone callingvolume will drop, and lower volumecould mean a rise in price from the phone company. That rise in cost couldoffset the savings of VoIP, [Lisa]Allocca [an analyst at Renaissance,Inc.] said. “The data world hasn’t eventhought about this. They’re not versedin selling services; they sell products.”

“Data networks are not designed withdisaster recovery proactively,” saidBruce Johnston, a former tele-communications manager and nowCEO of security consultancy VGS, Inc.,in Hollywood, Florida. “When I was atelecommunications manager, one ofour stores was destroyed in the Northridge [Calif.] earthquake. Frommy laptop across the country, I reroutedvoice services in a minute. I've neverseen that with data networks.” [27]

Despite these issues, however, mosttelecommunications staff, often referred to as“Bell heads,” recognize the inevitability of sometype of convergence, due to the economies ofscale associated with provisioning and main-taining large networks and the rapidly falling price of data hardware. But they are also keenly

aware of the need to provide extremely highlevels of reliability and availability to theircustomers, and will resist convergence untilthose standards can be met.

Need to Interoperate With Existing

Infrastructure and Applications

No new solution will be acceptable if it does notinteroperate with existing systems andapplications. Since forklift upgrades may not befeasible or possible in many cases, newintegrated technology, such as VoIP, must becapable of interoperating with existing systemsand equipment. This will complicate the design,manufacture, installation, and maintenance ofsuch solutions. A recent article suggests that upto $130 billion was wasted over the past twoyears, in part because of incompatibilities withexisting hardware and software. [28]

Unproven Reliability and Availability

“Talk is cheap,” as the saying goes, and in thecase of major technology changes, CIOs andCEOs want to have some proof that a newsystem will perform at levels equal to or

exceeding the existing system. That proof is notso easy to give in the case of data networks,especially if they are to be used for voice. Datanetworks typically operate with 99 percent to99.8 percent reliability, versus 99.999 percent forvoice networks. This means 18 to 88 hoursdowntime per year, versus 40 minutes—asignificant difference for many enterprises.Table 3, the analogue of Table 1, compares



21


Type of Convergence

Impediments Transport

Level

Switching

Level

Application

Level

Merging of IT and

Telecommunications

Inertia Needed to ChangeInfrastructure

Regulatory Issues

Business/Economic Case in NearTerm

Human Factors

Protocol, Standards, andCompatibility Issues

Clash of Cultures

Need to Interoperate withExisting Infrastructure andApplications

Unproven Reliability andAvailability

ImpedimentsTable 3. Comparison of Principal Impediments Affecting

the Four Types of Telecommunications Convergence

levels of convergence with respect to theimpediments discussed. An overview of thedrivers behind convergence, and theimpediments to it, is given in Figure 2.

Detailed Discussion of Convergence

Transport Level

Convergence at the transport level is wellestablished, having been implemented in the

1960s when digitization of the telephone systemwas begun. At the present time, there are severalefforts to address the problems and inefficienciesof using SONET technology for data trans-mission. Other issues include the deployment ofall-optical networks (replacing the existingelectronic and electro-optical systems such asSONET), and which technology will dominatethe MAN.

While all-optical networks remain the goal,optical switching remains a difficult technologyarea. At the present time, there are a number ofapproaches, including wavelength-only switches,MicroElectro Mechanical Systems (MEMS), and photonic switches. The number of vendorsoffering each has shrunk, as a function of fallingdemand (or demand that never materialized).Development continues, however, and viable products will eventually emerge.

Regarding the Metro area issue, there are three broad approaches: [29]

• Improve current method; use SONET andDense Wavelength Division Multiplexing(DWDM) for transport, overlaid with Ether-net, IP, or ATM, and enhance SONET’s datacarrying capability

• Use Resilient Packet Ring (RPR), a newInstitute of Electrical and ElectronicsEngineers (IEEE) standard blending Ether-net and SONET

• Enhance Ethernet with carrier-class capabilities

Which of these will emerge victorious is not yetclear; however, the history of convergence at thetransport level suggests that the outcome will besuccessful and widely accepted.

User Impact

User impact of convergence at this level isindirect, and occurs primarily in the form oflower costs over time, as the infrastructure benefits from the improved efficiencies of higher bandwidth and better utilization. Users areunaware of whether their data travels over

SONET rings, all-optical networks, or hard-wired electrical connections (rare). For mostusers, convergence at this level is not an issue; itis only important for those who have specialrequirements and who wish to build their ownwide area networks. Users are impacted moredirectly when transport is an issue between their premises and the carrier’s Point of Presence(POP). Economies can be realized in some cases



22


Lower Cost


Easier Management

Less Maintenance



Improved Services

New Services


Inertia Needed to

Change Infrastructure

Regulatory Issues

Business / Economic

Case in Near Term

Human Factors

Protocols, Standards, and

Compatibility Issues

Clash of Cultures

Need to Interoperate WithExisting Infrastructure and

Capabilities

Unproved Reliability and

Availability

Convergence

Drivers Impediments

Lower Cost


Easier Management

Less Maintenance



Improved Services

New Services


Inertia Needed to


Regulatory Issues

Business / Economic

Case in Near Term

Human Factors



Clash of Cultures


Capabilities


Availability

Convergence

Drivers Impediments

Lower Cost


Easier Management

Less Maintenance



Improved Services

New Services


Lower Cost


Easier Management

Less Maintenance



Improved Services

New Services


Inertia Needed to


Regulatory Issues

Business / Economic

Case in Near Term

Human Factors



Clash of Cultures


Capabilities


Availability

Convergence

Drivers Impediments

Figure 2. Convergence Caught Between Powerful Forces

by integrating several services on the same physical pipe. The technology to do this is

similar to that used for long-haul transport, butmay not be feasible to implement because of themuch smaller scale involved in accessintegration.

Switching Level

Nowadays convergence at the switching leveltends to be understood as VoIP, or telephonyover data circuits. In reality, it is much broaderthan that, comprising not only voice, but alsoaudio, video, specialized graphics, and gaming.Voice (in the form of telephony) poses some

unique problems because of the need tointerconnect seamlessly with the PSTN, andrelated issues due to the regulation, taxation, andsubsidization of the PSTN. Nonethelesstelephony is an especially tempting target because it can be carved up into domains that canthen be attacked piecemeal—with the office building PBX the prime candidate. Technologyissues associated with convergence at this levelvary with the type of traffic to be integrated, but

they usually center on latency, packet loss rate, jitter, and protocols to assure QoS.

Progress to Date

Today, “convergence” tends to be focused onVoIP, a current “hot” technology. VoIP is atechnology that utilizes IP packet networks tocarry voice traffic. It is intended to enable a blending of voice and data networks, withimportant benefits. When people think of voiceand IP, they tend to think about using theircomputer to make long distance calls over theInternet. This can be done, albeit in a ratherclumsy fashion, usually with mediocre to poor

quality, and with marginal (if any) per-minutesavings. However, the real advantages of VoIPlie elsewhere, assuming that it can overcome all problems and demonstrate the kind of reliability people have come to expect of telecommuni-cations services. VoIP promises the following:

• Enhanced features and quality, includinghigh-fidelity audio



23


• Simplified wiring

• Integrated service delivery

• Much smaller and more compact switchingequipment

• Reduced cost (up to 90 percent)

• Better circuit utilization

The driving force behind VoIP is the enormous power and flexibility of packet networks, which,in turn, is the result of massive economies ofscale in the manufacture of IP equipment and inassociated software development. Althoughlittle known to the general public, voice switchesat all levels, from small office PBXs to largecentral office carrier-class switches such asESS5, are special-purpose computers, with verycomplex programs driving them. In addition,most require separate circuit boards, known as“line cards,” for each telephone unit. VoIPreplaces the line cards with a network interface,and simplifies wiring because individualtelephones are on a LAN, rather than requiringseparate cables to the local switch. The switchitself can be an ordinary personal computer (PC)in many cases, rather than a special-purposecomputer. The same lines that carry data trafficcan also carry voice traffic, eliminating the needto install and maintain two separate cable plants.The following quotation from Syndeo Cor- poration illustrates much current thinking:

The real definition of convergence isstraightforward. In a converged net-

work environment, a user’s voicenetwork should work in the samemanner as his or her data network andvice versa. In other words, the way auser performs actions with familiartools in the data world should notchange as voice services are added intoan IP . . . [30]

In a similar vein, the National SecurityTelecommunications Advisory Committee(NSTAC) defines “convergence” as:

Convergence is a 3-year to 5-year period of evolution in the publicnetwork (PN) during which traditionalcircuit-switched networks and IP-baseddata networks coexist and interoperateto enable end-to-end transmission ofvoice communications until packet- based networks subsume circuit-switched networks. [31]

However, in its discussion of the NextGeneration Network (NGN), NSTAC is less precise:

The Next Generation Network is a public, broadband, diverse, and scalable packet-based network evolving from the

public switched telephone network(PSTN), Advanced Intelligent Network(AIN), and Internet. The NGN ischaracterized by a core fabric enablingnetwork connectivity and transport with periphery-based service intelligence.[32]

Already much of the modern networkinfrastructure is packet-based, utilizing as it doesATM as a switching technology. The importantquestion is if, and when, IP will assume the roleas the dominant packet technology.

In the meantime, however, vendors are designingand building VoIP systems, since they can bedeployed locally independently of largerinfrastructure problems. Equipment is availablefrom many manufacturers including Avaya,3COM, Alcatel, Cisco, Shorline, Siemens,Sphere, and Vertical Networks. Other manu-facturers offer IP-enabled PBXs, which mixVoIP and traditional analog telephones. Cost per port averages about $514, according to recentstudies. Larger central office systems are alsounder development by major vendors. VoIP stillsuffers from growing pains, principally in the

form of incompatibilities among vendor products. However, most vendors believe thatthese difficulties will be overcome in the 2002timeframe, as they must for VoIP to becomedominant in the voice arena. It is estimated that by 2005, 33 percent of the Fortune 1000 voicetraffic will be IP-based, up from 1 percent in2000. A recent report by Cisco suggests a veryhigh growth rate (though Cisco is not adisinterested party). Figure 3 illustrates Cisco’s position:

A number of events could accelerate the

adoption of converged networks and VoIP in particular: [33]

• Building a new network and services suite;

GovNet is one such example of a

“Greenfield” approach

• Building or relocating to a new office



24


42 %

In the Next 1 – 2 Years

19 %In the

Next 2 – 3 Years

13 %

3+ Years

26 %

In Process of Migrating to a

Converged Network

Source: “The Strategic and Financial Justifications for Convergence: A Cisco White Paper”

42 %


19 %In the

Next 2 – 3 Years

13 %

3+ Years

26 %


Converged Network

42 %


19 %In the

Next 2 – 3 Years

13 %

3+ Years

26 %


Converged Network

Source: “The Strategic and Financial Justifications for Convergence: A Cisco White Paper”

Figure 3. Rate of Convergence (Global 200 Companies)

• Performing major upgrades or expansions to

either network capacity or business

applications

Of course, the impediments to successfulimplementation of converged solutions such asVoIP remain.

Trends/Future

It is clear that VoIP has some distance to go inorder to become a viable alternative toconventional voice systems. In a recentnewsletter, Jeff Pulver listed 14 majoropportunities for the Voice over Network (VON)industry in 2002: [34]

1. Solutions which help IP communicationstraverse Network Address Translations(NATs) and Firewalls

2. Commission on Accreditation for LawEnforcement Agencies (CALEA) consultinginside of the IP communications industry

3. Mergers and Acquisitions Groups, but onlythose with an intimate understanding andknowledge of the IP communicationsindustry

4. IP-based PBXs, NextGen Call Centers andother Enterprise applications which supportvoice

5. SIP Application Development, Consulting,and Integration Services companies

6. Innovative “Applications” which takeadvantage of end-to-end IP networks (notsure if this is an ASP or a systems integratorfor service providers)

7. Presence Management and InstantMessaging solutions

8. SIP support in IP Telephony BillingSystems

9. The Class Six Distributed Call Agent

10. Voice XML tools and services11. Broadband Home appliances that work

(including Home Gateways)12. Products that bridge together Mobile

Networks, the PSTN, and the Net13. VoIP Directory Services14. VoIP Management Tools with QoS

measurements

What is interesting about this list is not so muchhow important these opportunities are—clearlythey are very important; rather, it is that the listshows that VON and VoIP are not yet maturetechnologies. They are developing, but are notas yet prepared to take over the world, as items1, 4, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14, in particular,show.

Application Level

Convergence at the application level refers todelivery of information or entertainment frommultiple sources (data, graphics, audio, andvideo) over the same physical pipe and userequipment. The Internet and corporate Intranetsare the primary venue for convergence at thislevel. The Internet already allows for trans-

mission of text, printed matter facsimiles (e.g., inAdobe Acrobat format), graphics, streamingaudio, MP3 audio, streaming video, and gaming.Ten years ago, all of these would perforce havecome through different channels—e.g., physicalmail delivery, over-the-air radio, physical CDs ortapes, over-the-air or cable TV. While theInternet has not yet displaced the local videostore or the television, it is definitely moving in



25


that direction, and only the limited bandwidth tothe home stands in the way. The Internet hasmade inroads in the audio delivery area, so muchso that music-sharing Web sites, such as Napsterand its various clones and imitators, have become the focus of major lawsuits andconstitutional disputes. In the enterprise, desk-top videoconferencing over the Intranet, and longdistance videoconferencing over VPN channels,are becoming the norm. Intellectual propertyrights (IPR) issues are likely to be the limitingfactor for many of these applications. [35]

Trends/Future

The continuing build-out of infrastructure in theUnited States will result in increased broadbandto the home, which will fuel convergence in theapplications area. As a new generation grows upwith broadband and “always on” as a way of life,

convergence will receive even more support.This will be an evolutionary, rather than arevolutionary, process; but it is not likely that thelocal video store will still be around in 2015.Initiative to ensure broadband (100 Mbps) to themajority of homes in the United States by 2010,if realized, may speed up these trends (as well asmany at the other levels of convergence).


Convergence of IT and telecommunications portends great changes in business and industry,

as well as the ways in which users carry out theirtasks. It also promises, of course, manyadvantages. Pinning down its exact meaning,however, can be difficult. Clearly, however, theessence of this type of convergence is a vision ofthe network, such as the Internet, as a vastresource to do any type of data processing chore.In the broadest sense, any instance of accessing aremote database can be thought of asconvergence of IT and telecommunications.Other examples of the convergence of IT andtelecommunications include the following.

• Application Service Providers (ASPs): IT- based processing units that offload specifictasks from Web sites, such as finding nearbystores, taking orders, and answering queries.After a spectacular start, ASPs have fallenon hard times lately, with the future of theindustry unclear. Though some ASPs have been successful, e.g., Portera and Appshop,several major telecommunications companies have pulled the plug on their ASP

units, including Qwest Communications(Apptimum) and Cable & Wireless (a-Services). Another ASP, Usinternet-working, sold its assets to Bain Capital inhopes of staying out of bankruptcy court. Inaddition, the ASP Industry Consortium willcease to exist as an independent agency, to be folded in with the Computer TechnologyIndustry Association, after losing 300 of its700 members over the past year. As onecommentator has put it:

“But even ASPs that got it right aresuffering from a general distrust ofthe business model now. I doubtthat companies burned by ASPsthat have gone belly-up are outsinging the praises of the software-as-service model. And that’sexactly what it will take for the

outsourcing model to succeed— happy customers that can convincewary prospects to give the service atry.” [36]

• Java applets and related downloadableapplications: Programs which replace purchased software on user machines, evenincluding complete office suites. Appli-cations are merely “leased” on an as-needed basis. Use of Java applets to performcomputation has been successful, but has notyet reached the scale originally envisioned.At one point, several years ago, Corel was

planning to release a Java version of itsoffice suite, and even gave demonstrations(which were appalling slow). The projectwas later abandoned. Whether such grand projects will be attempted in the future isuncertain, as the size of typical application programs seems to grow in tandem withavailable bandwidth, so that long downloadtimes are not diminishing.

• Unified messaging/Personal Digital Assis-tants (PDAs): Applications that simplify lifefor users by enabling a single mailbox forvoice mail, fax, and e-mail. Often integrated

with a handheld device such as a PDA. Asuse of PDAs continues to grow, and higherspeed wireless links become more commonand less expensive, unified messaging will probably continue to grow as well.Integrated PDAs and phones are beginningto appear, and may prove to be a catalyst tomove this type of convergence swiftlyalong.



26


• Network or grid computing: Use of sparecomputing capacity on machines around theInternet (or other network) to performcomputing tasks. Users agree to donate theirspare cycles, and run special software thatallows programs to be downloaded to their

machines. Network computing or “gridcomputing” is perhaps the ultimate inIT/telecommunications integration. It seeksto utilize spare cycles wherever they may beavailable on a network to create, in effect, a“virtual supercomputer.” Indeed, gridcomputing was born in laboratories, with thespecific goal of functioning as a low-costalternative to expensive supercomputers. Ithas remained a largely academic exerciseuntil recently, with no commercial models.Perhaps the best-known use of it to date isthe SETI@Home project, which distributessets of radiotelescope data to those who are

willing to volunteer spare cycles on theirhome (or other) machines. [37] Theobjective is to detect intelligent life signalsusing special screen saver software.

However, some are now eyeing commercialapplications. [38] Proponents are saying thatin a decade or so, the grid model willmigrate to the Internet, where (in theory) itwill make available a global computingcapability of low cost and enormouscapacity. Some even go further with pie-in-the-sky predictions of free computers.

Compaq, IBM, Platform Computing, andSun Microsystems are pushing the concept.Mike Nelson of IBM believes that in thefuture, computing cycles will be like ACcurrent cycles:

With good security and accountingmechanisms companies are goingto be billed for the cycles they usewithout even knowing where on thegrid they come from. In a fewyears, computing cycles will bedelivered like electricity is today.You pay the electric bill every

month without ever wonderingwhich generating plant it camefrom. [39]

Perhaps; but this will depend to aconsiderable extent on the relative price oflocal central processing units (CPU) cycles(PCs) and CPU cycles over the network, andthe nature of the work to be done. There

are, moreover, four major tasks that gridcomputing must accomplish, all of themdifficult: [40]

1. Discover available resources, monitorthem, and allocate and reallocate work

2. Protect long distance interactions from

compromise and disruption3. Monitor network status4. Initiate and manage communication

among nodes

In addition, there is the serious problem ofspeed-of-light delays in signal propagation,roughly 1 nanosecond per foot. Such delays(coupled with the delays likely to beincurred as a process must be swapped fromone machine to another) will severely limitthe applicability of grid computing to manyreal-time tasks, especially those that aretightly coupled. [41] Nor do all tasks lend

themselves readily to decomposition, as theSETI@Home task cited above. And, last butnot least, there is the fact that considerable processing power must be devoted to suchoverhead tasks such as XML processing (tomake data more “self-disclosing”) and todealing with security issues, including dataintegrity. Until these problems are solved,there will be no worldwide market for CPUcycles. Furthermore, given the current rateof processor speed growth and memoryavailability, the need for “spare cycles” maysignificantly diminish over the timeframe

(10 years) envisioned for grid computing to be commercialized.

• End-to-end (or desktop-to-desktop) pro-visioning of applications: Users areunaware of where or how data is processed,or where it resides. At the present time, thisis still in the conceptual stage, but is relatedto Network Computing (above) and FullService Outsourcing (below).

• Full Service Outsourcing (FSO): An FSOcompany “takes projects from cradle tograve.” [42] This is the latest version ofclassic outsourcing. Typically, the decision

to outsource is “made for some combinationof three basic motivations: to save money,reduce fixed costs, or reduce time to market.Companies save money by outsourcingoperations for which they don’t havesufficient internal expertise and the cost of building that expertise outweighs the benefits.” [43]



27


Trends/Future

Integration of IT and telecommunications isanother type of convergence that will proceed inan evolutionary rather than a revolutionarymanner. It will continue to be fueled by thegrowth of remote data stores accessible online, by the increasing power of communicationsdevices, and by the needs and expectations ofusers to interact with the remote data—in short, by the growth of convergence at the applicationlevel. Grid computing, in particular, remains problematic as a commercial venture.

Convergence Timeline

Based on the technological projections, buttaking into account impediments, a forecast can be ventured on the rollout of convergedsolutions. The rollout is shown graphically inFigure 4.

Transport

• Large-scale conversion to all-optical net-works: 2006 onwards

• Replacement of SONET with IP over photons or other technology: 2010?

Switching

• IP PBXs in new and refurbished buildings:

2003 onwards• IP PBXs in large corporate environments:

2005 onwards

• VoIP in homes: beginning in 2005

• Large-scale replacement of Telco CO andlast mile infrastructure: 2010-2020

Application

• Video to home (gradually replacingvideocassette rental): 2005 onwards

• Broadband becomes dominant source ofentertainment (content) delivery: 2012?

Integration of IT/Telecommunications

• Integrated messaging: 2003 onwards

• End-to-end services: steady growth from2002 onwards

2001 2005 2010 2015 2020

End-to-End Services

ASPs Used to Outsource IP Needs

Integrated Messaging

IP PBX in New and Refurbished Buildings

Downloaded Applications ?

Net (Broadband) Video Replaces VHS

Large-Scale Conversion to All-Optical Networks

IP PBX Common in Large Corporate Environments

Grid Computing in the Enterprise ?

VoIP Appears in Homes

Replacement of SONET with IP over Photons ?

Large-Scale Replacement of CO and Last MileInfrastructure

Broadband Dominant Source of Entertainment

Grid Computing Commercialized, on Internet ?

2001 2005 2010 2015 2020

End-to-End Services














2005 2010 2015 2020

End-to-End Services














Figure 4. Expected Rollout Sequence for Convergence



28


• Downloaded applications replacing local programs: uncertain to happen, but not before 2005

• Network (grid) computing: primarilyresearch tool until 2006, when it may become common in enterprises, 2012

commercial offering on Internet

Conclusions

Impact of Convergence

It is best to view convergence from the broadest possible perspective, recognizing thattechnology, economics, human factors, legalquestions, and regulatory pressures will combineto open certain paths, but close off others.Excessive focus on technological capabilitiesalone will distort one’s overall view of therealities of the situation, and may lead toexpensive and embarrassing project failures.Convergence will impact industry, users and thegeneral public, and the government in somewhatdifferent ways, which are reviewed in thissection.

Industry

Convergence is likely to continue to spreadthroughout industry in an evolutionary fashion,as a solid business case can be made for it.Forklift upgrades and major reorganizations toaccommodate new technology are much less

likely to occur over the next 5 years or so than inthe late 1990s, when the dot.com phenomenonwas at its zenith, and anything new promoted byyoung firms financed by venture capital seemedlike the wave of the future. The general impactof the business cycle undoubtedly will dictatemany upgrade or replacement schedules.Telecommunications carriers will be mostconcerned with the transport and switchinglevels of convergence, while enterprises utilizingtelecommunications will likely be most affected by higher levels: switching, application, andIT/telecommunications integration. VoIP will

continue to make inroads, as will IP-basedvideoconferencing. The Internet and corporateIntranets utilizing the same technology will growin importance in part because of their ability todeliver the content of multiple media.Telecommunications/IT convergence will growas well, though perhaps more slowly thanenvisioned at the height of the dot.com mania.

Users/General Public

One of the drivers behind convergence is that ofuser convenience, and that applies especially inthe application (content) delivery area. Thegeneral public will be less interested in theesoterica of technology than in the immediate benefits they can see. The Internet has become a prime source of information, entertainment, andshopping, and will be able to deliver more(higher bandwidth) content as the build out ofthe broadband infrastructure continues. But,first, IPR issues must be resolved.

Government

Government IT and telecommunications needswill parallel those of industry to a considerableextent, especially knowledge-based enterprises.Convergence at the transport level will impact

government most directly in the access area. Atthe switching level, VoIP and, in general, use ofIP to handle all types of traffic over governmentnetworks (such as GovNet) will likely grow,though replacement of current infrastructure willnot in general provide a good ROI. Convergenceat the application level will continue and willmean rising expectations on the part of thegeneral public for government services. In thefuture, this could mean even the ability of acitizen to have a videoconference with agovernment representative about benefits orother matters. However, in the near term,

improved access to personal benefits and relatedinformation will be a major growth area. Similarremarks apply to convergence at the level ofIT/telecommunications integration, especiallygiven the large databases that governmentagencies, such as the Social SecurityAdministration (SSA) and the Health CareFinancial Administration (HCFA), utilize.

Lessons Learned

If there is one important lesson to be learnedfrom the past with regard to convergence, it is, to

quote Augustus Caesar, festina lente, “Makehaste slowly.” The history of convergence (andthe billions of dollars lost) suggests that cautionshould be exercised in any area wherecommitment of significant capital is involved. Itis best, in this case, to be a market followerrather than a market leader. Had the GeneralServices Administration (GSA), for example, jumped on the ION bandwagon in 1998, its



29


reputation would have been badly tarnished bythe ensuing collapse of the project—and IONwas a well-funded initiative by a major service provider, utilizing established technology, notthe brainchild of a dot.com startup. The “cuttingedge” is really the “bleeding edge” in this case, ifexperience is any guide. The principle problemis not the availability or capability of technologyand technological equipment, but the business,legal, regulatory, and human factors issues thatmust be successfully dealt with. Generally, the process of dealing with these issues takes muchmore time than that needed for technologydevelopment, and is much more difficult thantechnology proponents realize or are willing toacknowledge.

References and Notes

1. Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary,Merriam-Webster, Inc., Springfield, MA, p. 286, 1985.

2. Consumer Energy Council of AmericaResearch Foundation (CECA/RF) Con-vergence Forum (CECA/RF ConvergenceForum), Case Study: Regulatory Con-vergence, http://www.cecarf.org/projects/

convergence/cs-regulatory.html. 3. Knight, Fred, BCR_Online, November 27,

2001.4. Lucas, Jerry, Telestrategies Insight , p. 16,

June 1991.5. Ibid .

6. Techguide.com, “Sprint Integrated On-Demand Network (ION),” White Paper,Executive Summary, techguide.zdnet.com/

titles/ionint.shtml .7. Miller, Elizabeth Starr and Tim

Kridel, “Sprint Gives ION, MMDSthe Boot,” The Net Economy,http://www.theneteconomy.com/article/

0,3658,s%253D902%2526a%253D16715,

00. asp?kc=NENKT0109KTX1K0000435. 8. Malloy, Ken, Senior Consultant, Hagler

Bailly, International Consulting Firm forEnergy and Telecommunications Industries,

quoted in Jamie Wimberly, “The NewWorld ,” Diamond Weekly, July 12, 1997,http://www.cecarf.org/press/articles/

dw071297.html.9. Goldstein, Fred and Art Solomon, Business

Communications Review, February 2002.10. Knight, Fred, “Unconventional Wisdom,”

BCR eWeekly, Issue 6, January 15, 2002;

and Ian Angus, “Who Put the Con inConvergence,” Business Communications

Review, March 2002.11. This refers to long-haul transmission; access

can still pose problems because it mayrequire individual wires.

12. Thompson, Jim, “VoIP: The QuietRevolution,” Boardwatch, Vol. 15, No. 7, p. 50, June 2001.

13. Kuehn, Richard A., “IP-PBXs—More ThanTechnical Hurdles to Overcome,” BusinessCommunications Review, Vol. 31, No. 4, p. 82, April 1, 2002.

14. Sulkin, Allan, “Migrating PBXs to IPTelephony: Industry Trend or Event,”

Business Communications Review, Vol. 31, No. 4, p. 68, April 1, 2001.

15. Lipschitz, Benjamin, “Regulatory Treatmentof Network Convergence: Opportunities andChallenges in the Digital Era,” Media Law

& Policy, Volume VII, No. 1, p. 14ff, Fall,1998, http://www.cmcnyls.edu/Public/MLP/lipscf98.htm.

16. Ibid .17. Sulkin, Allan, “Migrating PBXs to IP

Telephony: Industry Trend or Event,” Business Communications Review, Vol. 31, No. 4, p. 68, April 1, 2001.

18. Ibid. 19. Fowler, Thomas, “The Productivity

Paradox: Where Has All the Money Gone?,”The Telecommunications Review, Vol. 6, pp.29–38, Mitretek Systems, 1995.

20. McGarvey, Joe, “Danke Shoen, Baby,” Data Packet , Vol. 2, No. 125, November 14,2001, www.theneteconomy.com.

21. Sulkin, Allan, op. cit. 22. Hettick, Larry, “Protocol Wars Threaten

VOIP Future,” BCR’s VOICE 2001, p. 64,September 2001.

23. Hettick, Larry, “Protocol Wars ThreatenVOIP Future,” BCR’s VOICE 2001, p. 67,September, 2001.

24. Technology Advisory Report: Convergence, p. 17, Mitretek Systems, December 2002.

25. Berinato, Scott and John Rendleman, “IT,

Telecom Cultures Clash,” PC Week Online,May 22, 1998.26. Ibid .27. Ibid. 28. Hopkins, J. and M. Kessler, “Companies

Squander Billions on Tech,” USA Today,May 19, 2002, http://www.usatoday.com/

life/cyber/ tech/2002/05/20/too-tech.htm.



30

29. McGarvey, Joe, “Data Packet,” The Net

Economy, Vol. 2, No. 134 (Optical Networking Letter), December 5, 2001.

30. Syndeo Corporation, “The Coming of TrueConvergence: Why Service Providers CanFinally Turn Out the Lights on the OldPublic Switched Telephone Network,”www.iec.org , Web ProForum Tutorials, notdated.

31. NSTAC Convergence Task (CTF) ForceReport, June 2001.

32. Ibid. 33. Ibid .34. Pulver, Jeff, “The Pulver Report,”

December 17, 2001.35. Fowler, Thomas, “The Impact of

Technology on Intellectual PropertyRights,” The Telecommunications Review,Vol. 12, pp. 33–49, Mitretek Systems, 2001.

36. Bushaus, Dawn, “ASP Deaths

Continue,” The Net Economy,www.theneteconomy.com/print_article/0,36 68,a%253D19267,00.asp.

37. Fixmer, Rob, “Girding for Grids,” eWeek ,January 7, 2002, http://www.eweek.com/

print_article/0,3688,a%253D20795,00.asp. 38. Ibid .39. Quoted in Fixmer, op. cit .40. Coffee, Peter, “The Paradox of Grid

Computing,” eWeek , January 7, 2002,http://www.eweek.com/print_article/0,3668,

a%253D20799,00.asp.

41. Lee, Craig and James Stepanek, “On FutureGlobal Grid Communication Performance,”Tenth Heterogeneous Computing Workshop,April 23, 2001.

42. Landgrave, Tim, “Who Said FullService Was Out of Style?,” Tech

Republic, December 10, 2001,http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/

stories/main/0,14179,2829062,00.html. 43. Landgrave, op. cit.

A B O U T T H E A U T H O R

Dr. Thomas B. Fowler is a Senior Principal Engineer at

Mitretek Systems. He joined Mitretek in 1973 and has

worked on computer-aided education systems, air traffic

control, information systems, and telecommunications

systems. He is currently involved in planning the next generation of government telecommunications and

forecasting telecommunications trends and usage

patterns. He also teaches mathematics and physics

courses at Christendom College and does independent

research on the application of systems concepts to

problems in engineering, public policy, and biology. He

has a B.A. degree in Philosophy and a B.S. degree in

Electrical Engineering from the University of Maryland,

an M.S. degree in Electrical Engineering from Columbia

University, and an Sc.D. degree in Systems and Control

Theory from George Washington University.

E-mail: [email protected]

convergence through solution interoperability case study of integrated telecommunication design

Documents