What is ITU-T Recommendation H.323? Why have the worlds largest carriers deployed and continue to deploy H.323? H.323 is the first and remains the most powerful international multimedia communications protocol standard, bringing the convergence of voice, video, and data. Built for the packet-based network, H.323 has found a strong home in IP networks, making it the leader in VoIP.
As with other carrier-grade communication protocols, H.323 is a standard published by the International Telecommunications Union. It was approved by the world governments as the international standard for voice, video, and data conferencing, defining how devices such as computers, telephones, mobile phones, PDAs, wireless phones, video conferencing systems, etc., communicate to bring a whole new experience to the user.
H.323 borrows from both the traditional PSTN protocols and the Internet-related standards. By leveraging from both circuit-switched and packet-switched protocol standards, H.323 is able to smoothly integrate with the PSTN, while at the same time send multimedia communications over such mediums as the Internet.
H.323 originated in the mid-'90s as a logical extension of the circuit-switched multimedia conferencing work being done within the ITU-T. Because of this heritage, H.323 interoperates well with a very large installed base of video conferencing equipment. However, H.323 introduced much more capability than was introduced by previous protocols. It brought with it the ability to integrate with the Internet and the World Wide Web (WWW), as well as interface with the PSTN, to provide a range of applications from wholesale transit of voice, pre-paid calling card services, residential voice/video services, enterprise voice/video services, and much more. With H.323, users at remote locations are able to hold a video call and edit a document together-in real-time over the Internet-using their personal computers. Not only that, but H.323 allows the users to customize their phones or phone services, locate users, transfer a call, or perform any number of other tasks by using an HTTP interface between the H.323 client and a server on the network. H.323 fully embraces the power of the Internet.
From the outset, designers of H.323 wanted to create a protocol that would serve well as the Next Generation Network protocol. H.323 significantly lowers the cost of communications and facilitates the rapid creation of many new kinds of services that were never before possible. In addition, H.323 enables endpoints to perform tasks that were previously only possible for centralized servers to perform. H.323 breaks away from the "old technology" model and introduces an intelligent endpoint capable of initiating and accepting calls without dependency on centralized network elements. However, recognizing the business requirements for centralized control in the service provider and enterprise markets, H.323 also allows for centralized control over the endpoint when desired. The level or extent to which a carrier or enterprise wishes to exert control is entirely up to them.
Wednesday, March 09, 2005
Tuesday, March 08, 2005
What Do You Want the Internet To Be?
During the Internet boom of the late 1990s, Nortel Networks ran an advertising campaign that featured as its slogan, "what do you want the Internet to be?". The implications were obvious - the Internet was a technology of unlimited possibility that could be whatever we wanted it to be.
More than five years later, Nortel's vision is becoming reality. The Internet has become so essential to the every day lives of millions of people - a pillar of communication, information, entertainment, education, and commerce - that at times it seems as if the Internet really is anything we want it to be.
Notwithstanding the Internet's remarkable potential, there are dark clouds on the horizon. There are some who see a very differing Internet. Theirs is an Internet with ubiquitous surveillance featuring real-time capabilities to monitor online activities. It is an Internet that views third party applications such as Vonage's Voice-over-IP service as parasitic. It is an Internet in which virtually all content should come at a price, even when that content has been made freely available. It is an Internet that would seek to cut off subscriber access based on mere allegations of wrongdoing, without due process or oversight from a judge or jury.
This disturbing vision of the Internet is not fantasy. It is based on real policy proposals being considered by the Canadian government today.
Leading the way is the federal government's "lawful access" initiative. While the term lawful access sounds innocuous, the program, which dates back to 2002, represents law enforcement's desire to re-make Canada's networks to allow for lawful interception of private communications.
If lawful access becomes reality, Canada's telecommunications service providers (TSPs) will be required to refit their networks to allow for real-time interception of communications, to have the capability of simultaneously intercepting multiple transmissions, and to provide detailed subscriber information to law enforcement authorities without a court order within 72 hours.
Moreover, Canada's TSPs will be subject to inspections and required to provide the government with reports on the technical capabilities of their networks. All of these activities will be shrouded in secrecy with TSPs facing fines of up to $500,000 or sentences of up to five years in jail for failing to keep the data collection confidential.
All of these changes come at an enormous cost - both financially (hundreds of millions of dollars in new technology) and to our personal privacy. While some changes may be needed for security purposes, the government has yet to make the case for why the current set of powers, which include cybercrime and wiretapping provisions, are insufficient. Moreover, there has been no evidence provided that this approach is the least privacy invasive alternative.
Refitting the network is not limited to government initiatives. In recent weeks it has become apparent that the network providers themselves may seek to interfere with the free flow of data. For example, Vonage (the leading independent Voice-over-IP provider) recently filed a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission in the U.S. alleging that an unnamed Internet service provider was blocking its service. Last week, the ISP agreed to stop and to pay a fine to the FCC.
In a less publicized incident, the Communications Commission of Kenya last week ordered the state-owned Telkom Kenya to restore service to Sema VoIP, another Voice-over-IP provider which is backed by Canadian-based BMT North America. The Commission warned Telkom Kenya against taking similar action in the future.
The issue raised by these cases is not new. Observers have long feared that ISPs would succumb to economic self-interest, engaging in "packet preferencing" by blocking or slowing data coming from competing sites or services. While ISPs are quick to argue that they want merely to serve as intermediaries without regard for what traverses their networks, as they offer competing Internet phone services, music download services, and other value-added content, there will be a clear temptation to create a home network advantage.
In fact, at the CRTC hearings into VoIP last fall, the parent company of at least one major ISP gave every indication that it did not view third party services favourably. Quebecor, which owns Videotron, told the Commission that services such as Vonage contributed nothing to the development of facilities-based competition and that "the service provider's VoIP-based service is totally parasitic on the local access facilities of other carriers."
As the leading Canadian ISPs roll out their own VoIP services, many may look at competing services in the same way and seek to limit the use of their network. Stopping such interference requires a strong CRTC, yet with Industry Minister David Emerson's planned review of Canada's telecommunications law, some industry experts fear that Canada is heading in the opposite direction.
The Minister of Industry, together with Liza Frulla, his Canadian Heritage counterpart, are also reportedly about to finalize new rules that may reshape the availability of Internet content to educational institutions. Acting on the recommendation of a parliamentary committee that was chaired by Toronto MP Sarmite Bulte, the government may soon unveil a new "extended license" that would require schools to pay millions of dollars for content that is currently freely available on the Internet.
While the committee recommendation excluded payment for content that is publicly available, it adopted the narrowest possible definition of publicly available, limiting it to only those works that are not technologically or password protected and which contain an explicit notice that the material can be used without prior payment or permission.
Moreover, those same ministers are also contemplating a new system that would allow content owners to file a complaint with an ISP if one of their subscribers has allegedly posted infringing content. Canada's rules for child pornography still require a court order before content is removed, yet if the Canadian Recording Industry Association and other well-funded interests gets their way, the ISP will respond to a mere allegation of copyright infringement by "kicking the subscriber off the system."
With Canada conceivably ready to adopt rules that make it far easier to remove an allegedly infringing song than to remove dangerous child pornography from a new fee-based, surveillance-ready, packet preferenced Internet, it is difficult to overstate how out of touch our Internet policy process has become. Is this really what we want our Internet to be?
More than five years later, Nortel's vision is becoming reality. The Internet has become so essential to the every day lives of millions of people - a pillar of communication, information, entertainment, education, and commerce - that at times it seems as if the Internet really is anything we want it to be.
Notwithstanding the Internet's remarkable potential, there are dark clouds on the horizon. There are some who see a very differing Internet. Theirs is an Internet with ubiquitous surveillance featuring real-time capabilities to monitor online activities. It is an Internet that views third party applications such as Vonage's Voice-over-IP service as parasitic. It is an Internet in which virtually all content should come at a price, even when that content has been made freely available. It is an Internet that would seek to cut off subscriber access based on mere allegations of wrongdoing, without due process or oversight from a judge or jury.
This disturbing vision of the Internet is not fantasy. It is based on real policy proposals being considered by the Canadian government today.
Leading the way is the federal government's "lawful access" initiative. While the term lawful access sounds innocuous, the program, which dates back to 2002, represents law enforcement's desire to re-make Canada's networks to allow for lawful interception of private communications.
If lawful access becomes reality, Canada's telecommunications service providers (TSPs) will be required to refit their networks to allow for real-time interception of communications, to have the capability of simultaneously intercepting multiple transmissions, and to provide detailed subscriber information to law enforcement authorities without a court order within 72 hours.
Moreover, Canada's TSPs will be subject to inspections and required to provide the government with reports on the technical capabilities of their networks. All of these activities will be shrouded in secrecy with TSPs facing fines of up to $500,000 or sentences of up to five years in jail for failing to keep the data collection confidential.
All of these changes come at an enormous cost - both financially (hundreds of millions of dollars in new technology) and to our personal privacy. While some changes may be needed for security purposes, the government has yet to make the case for why the current set of powers, which include cybercrime and wiretapping provisions, are insufficient. Moreover, there has been no evidence provided that this approach is the least privacy invasive alternative.
Refitting the network is not limited to government initiatives. In recent weeks it has become apparent that the network providers themselves may seek to interfere with the free flow of data. For example, Vonage (the leading independent Voice-over-IP provider) recently filed a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission in the U.S. alleging that an unnamed Internet service provider was blocking its service. Last week, the ISP agreed to stop and to pay a fine to the FCC.
In a less publicized incident, the Communications Commission of Kenya last week ordered the state-owned Telkom Kenya to restore service to Sema VoIP, another Voice-over-IP provider which is backed by Canadian-based BMT North America. The Commission warned Telkom Kenya against taking similar action in the future.
The issue raised by these cases is not new. Observers have long feared that ISPs would succumb to economic self-interest, engaging in "packet preferencing" by blocking or slowing data coming from competing sites or services. While ISPs are quick to argue that they want merely to serve as intermediaries without regard for what traverses their networks, as they offer competing Internet phone services, music download services, and other value-added content, there will be a clear temptation to create a home network advantage.
In fact, at the CRTC hearings into VoIP last fall, the parent company of at least one major ISP gave every indication that it did not view third party services favourably. Quebecor, which owns Videotron, told the Commission that services such as Vonage contributed nothing to the development of facilities-based competition and that "the service provider's VoIP-based service is totally parasitic on the local access facilities of other carriers."
As the leading Canadian ISPs roll out their own VoIP services, many may look at competing services in the same way and seek to limit the use of their network. Stopping such interference requires a strong CRTC, yet with Industry Minister David Emerson's planned review of Canada's telecommunications law, some industry experts fear that Canada is heading in the opposite direction.
The Minister of Industry, together with Liza Frulla, his Canadian Heritage counterpart, are also reportedly about to finalize new rules that may reshape the availability of Internet content to educational institutions. Acting on the recommendation of a parliamentary committee that was chaired by Toronto MP Sarmite Bulte, the government may soon unveil a new "extended license" that would require schools to pay millions of dollars for content that is currently freely available on the Internet.
While the committee recommendation excluded payment for content that is publicly available, it adopted the narrowest possible definition of publicly available, limiting it to only those works that are not technologically or password protected and which contain an explicit notice that the material can be used without prior payment or permission.
Moreover, those same ministers are also contemplating a new system that would allow content owners to file a complaint with an ISP if one of their subscribers has allegedly posted infringing content. Canada's rules for child pornography still require a court order before content is removed, yet if the Canadian Recording Industry Association and other well-funded interests gets their way, the ISP will respond to a mere allegation of copyright infringement by "kicking the subscriber off the system."
With Canada conceivably ready to adopt rules that make it far easier to remove an allegedly infringing song than to remove dangerous child pornography from a new fee-based, surveillance-ready, packet preferenced Internet, it is difficult to overstate how out of touch our Internet policy process has become. Is this really what we want our Internet to be?
Sunday, March 06, 2005
Lying
If you ask 100 people if it is right to revere a man because he is an an aristocrat or a member of the royal family they will answer it is plain silly, but 90% of them will go on bowing their heads and breathing heavily in the presence of such a person.
Seeing the irrationality of a belief does not mean that people can-or will ever try to-get rid of it.
Religion may be a bunch of fairy tales but fairy tales too are basic necessities.
Religion may be bunk but it makes many people more understanding, wiser, more tolerant, more broad minded and happier than they would be without it.(or it should)
It gives meaning to many lives and as we are reluctant to accept the idea that life has no special meaning, we should be grateful for the gift.
There are the mad bigots of the Ayatollah type, there are the hypocrites who make a good living as workers in the church industry and there are of course, the honest believers for whom religion is the true meaning of life.
But it is not the true believers who keep the churches powerful, it is the vast army of non-believers who help to preserve the churches' strength.
Religions may be true or untrue, but the need for religious belief is certainly real for many people.
Lies too can be a need. For many reasons, the most important being not to acknowledge the truth.
Seeing the irrationality of a belief does not mean that people can-or will ever try to-get rid of it.
Religion may be a bunch of fairy tales but fairy tales too are basic necessities.
Religion may be bunk but it makes many people more understanding, wiser, more tolerant, more broad minded and happier than they would be without it.(or it should)
It gives meaning to many lives and as we are reluctant to accept the idea that life has no special meaning, we should be grateful for the gift.
There are the mad bigots of the Ayatollah type, there are the hypocrites who make a good living as workers in the church industry and there are of course, the honest believers for whom religion is the true meaning of life.
But it is not the true believers who keep the churches powerful, it is the vast army of non-believers who help to preserve the churches' strength.
Religions may be true or untrue, but the need for religious belief is certainly real for many people.
Lies too can be a need. For many reasons, the most important being not to acknowledge the truth.
Thursday, March 03, 2005
To see if something is possible is trying to imagine it in our mind's eye.
Most people live with a bag over their head.
They treat sight as a convenient method of avoiding bumping into things or watching television.
Another symptom of bagged head is fixed view.
Most people's lives are like sitting facing forwards on a train where everything rushes past in a blur, instead of sitting with their back to the engine in visual comfort to let the landscape scroll by.
Looking is giving direction to one's sight.
Most of us, faced with a scene, look at it rather than look into it.
What you see and what you notice aren't the same thing.
They treat sight as a convenient method of avoiding bumping into things or watching television.
Another symptom of bagged head is fixed view.
Most people's lives are like sitting facing forwards on a train where everything rushes past in a blur, instead of sitting with their back to the engine in visual comfort to let the landscape scroll by.
Looking is giving direction to one's sight.
Most of us, faced with a scene, look at it rather than look into it.
What you see and what you notice aren't the same thing.
Tuesday, March 01, 2005
The "visual society"
Our society will pass to history under many definitions, let's hope not "the third world war's".
But the one that in my opinion most reflects it, is the definition "visual society".
We are falling back to a kind of primitive stage.
History teaches us that in the past when a nation reached great progress and big goals, then it began the downhill phase.
We saw it in the Middle East, in Egypt, in Greece and in the Roman Empire.
With great luxury availability there comes a kind of relaxation, laziness, a willingness to live more on the past than on the future.
And this is exactly what our Old world is going through.
A degeneration in culture, in interest, a passivity in working.
We want always to work less and less and to earn more and more.
That is what we are used to.
We are more prone to visualize than to think.
Because it is easier, because it is more immediate, because we are lazy.
And also because we have been used to.
To have it the easy way. Whatever it can be.
The easiest it is the easiest it sells.
The more idiotic it is the more customers you find.
The more customers you can find, the more revenue you make.
A picture is worth one thousand words, that anyway most people wouldn't read.
A picture is immediate, a picture is something everybody can understand.
A picture reaches the mass while many words don't.
patrizia@worldonip.com
http://woip.blogspot.com
http://www.worldonip.com
http://www.easymediabroadcast.com
But the one that in my opinion most reflects it, is the definition "visual society".
We are falling back to a kind of primitive stage.
History teaches us that in the past when a nation reached great progress and big goals, then it began the downhill phase.
We saw it in the Middle East, in Egypt, in Greece and in the Roman Empire.
With great luxury availability there comes a kind of relaxation, laziness, a willingness to live more on the past than on the future.
And this is exactly what our Old world is going through.
A degeneration in culture, in interest, a passivity in working.
We want always to work less and less and to earn more and more.
That is what we are used to.
We are more prone to visualize than to think.
Because it is easier, because it is more immediate, because we are lazy.
And also because we have been used to.
To have it the easy way. Whatever it can be.
The easiest it is the easiest it sells.
The more idiotic it is the more customers you find.
The more customers you can find, the more revenue you make.
A picture is worth one thousand words, that anyway most people wouldn't read.
A picture is immediate, a picture is something everybody can understand.
A picture reaches the mass while many words don't.
patrizia@worldonip.com
http://woip.blogspot.com
http://www.worldonip.com
http://www.easymediabroadcast.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Stumble It!