RE: Peering Presentation

["Steve Heap" <sheap@rfidexchange.com>]

Ron

Yes... But there are a couple of potential differences that will make this
several or "many" years into the future. The first is the interface - email
is something you do on your PC, which has a good interface for generating
and reading email. When people started using it, this seemed the natural
interface.

Voice calls have used a telephone for years, and continue to do so - through
mobile and PDA type voice handsets. That interface is unlikely to change for
many people - hence a service that is "bought" from someone and maintains
the status quo will seem very logical. Buying the service will continue to
be the norm.

The other aspect is the % of calls that go to publicly accessible VoIP
end-users. If Verizon change the technology of their network to VoIP, but
the customer doesn't know or care (perhaps they get a better rate/reduced
monthly charge). All calls to that customer will require a payment to
Verizon (in my view). Hence, the move away from "PSTN" type charging will be
much further in the future than the % of VoIP end users would suggest.

Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-voip-peering@psg.com [mailto:owner-voip-peering@psg.com] On
Behalf Of Ron Dallmeier
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 2:10 AM
To: 'VoIP Peering'
Subject: RE: Peering Presentation



I agree with what you are saying.

Again I will draw a comparison to email. Many individuals and even smaller
companies are not interested in running their own email servers. ISPs that
bundle VOIP packages with access will be a common method. But they will not
be free to charge whatever they think the market will bare. Instead,
competition will drive the price down to near cost. With the exception of
interim fees related to PSTN gateways, costs are not very high.

VOIP will not be a new source of revenue for existing telcos but a more
efficient way to deliver voice. It will clearly errode existing revenue.

How important is email to most of us? I would say 'very important'. If I had
to, I would pay a lot of money to maintain this communication. But I do not
have to because it is so efficient that it costs so little. It is either not
worth accounting for, or it can be covered by advertising revenue.

I think that VOIP will follow this trend. Sure, people are prepared to pay
$20 to send and recieve voice calls. But if the Internet ends up making this
very efficient, another provider will compete at $15, then $10, then $5,
then virtually free.

...Ron


>
> I follow the logic, but I also think it is a long way off!  Two 
> reasons - I think the major market gain in the US (and maybe in other 
> countries) will be
> via a combined service from a broadband IP provider who will bundle
> internet, TV and voice if they can. They will also make the VoIP address
> invisible to the outside world if they can, and use rationale about
> security, QoS etc. Most voice customers don't care one way or the other.
> Then they can continue to extract a payment to access that customer -
> perfectly logical behavior from their perspective. As long as the cost per
> month stays pretty low - say less than $20 for all services, most people
> will think it isn't worth the hassle to do anything else.  I could
> probably
> work out how to set my own VoIP to VoIP calls up ( I used Skype for a time
> to call people in the UK), but with my combined service from Lingo being
> $19.99 including Europe, it isn't worth the hassle to get a headset out.
>
> Steve


--
To unsubscribe send a message to voip-peering-request@psg.com with the word
'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. An archive is at
<http://psg.com/lists/voip-peering/>.


--
To unsubscribe send a message to voip-peering-request@psg.com with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
An archive is at <http://psg.com/lists/voip-peering/>.