« Light Reading Takes Note of Jonathan Askin at NCTA 2005 | Main | Mikey from PulverRadio Recommends nimiq as a podcasting client »
April 05, 2005
Some Thoughts from Jonathan Askin at the National Cable Show (triggered in response to a Light Reading account of his presentation on VoIP Marketing):
"For an industry that doesn't want to admit that it provides VoIP service, but rather offers voice service using some unknown technology, there sure was a lot of discussion about VoIP at the National Cable Show. I guess you can't have a tech show these days without devoting a lot of time to the technological, operational, and policy issues surrounding VoIP. But, all I really heard at the Cable show was that IP is simply a technology that will allow cable to deliver cheaper primary line replacement services -- nothing more.
Light Reading gave an interesting account of my presentation on VoIP marketing, a subject about which I, admittedly, know next to nothing. In fact, I fast forward through every commercial, block every pop-up and avert my eyes from every banner ad. All I really know about marketing is the little Bait-and-Switch" that Jeff and I perpetrated on the Cable Show audience, by promising Jeff and delivering me. (The only thing I know less about is IP engineering, the subject of my next talk on Friday in Milan.) I am hopeful that, due to the language barrier and my extensive use of untranslatable American idioms, the Italian engineers will assume I know what I'm talking about. Did I mention that I am only Jeff's lawyer, not his Marketing or Technology Officer.
In any event, I think Light Reading got one important distinction (between cable marketing on the one hand and ILEC and stand-alone VoIP marketing on the other hand) completely backwards. I, in no way, indicated that the ILECs were the ones embracing the term "telephony" or that the cable companies shun the term "Telephony." I probably said the opposite. It is the cable companies who seem to be embracing the term "telephony" and avoiding any references to "IP" in marketing their voice services. I warned that the cablecos should be careful in framing their service offerings as "telephony". If you offer a telephone service, equivalent to that of the traditional phone companies, you dare/beg regulators to regulate you like a traditional phone company. I suspect that is why we in the VoIP community (perhaps the Bells included) prefer to call our services "IP-based communications" rather than "IP telephony" or similar red flag terms that might signal that we are offering telephony. The cable products have names like "Digital Phone" and generally refrain from any mention of "IP". The cable companies services are generally geographically-fixed, perhaps so it is easier to guarantee the quality of service and the social goals that have generally been expected of the phone company. The ILECs, when they offer VoIP, genuinely seem to differentiate the service from their traditional offerings, including the desire to offer mobility. To me, that is what IP is all about -- dramatically improving the ways in which we communicate.
Light Reading accurately reported that the cablecos are disinclined to use the term "IP" in their market efforts. Perhaps Covad expected too much knowledge from the potential consumer, but I do find it unfortunate that the cablecos don't want to tout the advantages of IP-based communications. The cablecos are the new players in voice -- shouldn't they openly embrace the new technology and flag for consumers how radically superior the technology makes their offering over traditional telephony? The cablecos seem almost embarrassed that they are using a different technology than that used by traditional voice providers. I guess the logic is that there might be some reluctance by a consumer to switch from the tried-and-true telephone provider to an unknown provider using an unknown technology, but there is also a way to embrace the new technology and tout its benefits without scaring off consumers. I find it unfortunate that the cablecos are not joining us as IP evangelists.
While it might be true that the average consumer couldn't care less what sort of technology is being used to deliver the voice service, mere replication of POTS-grade service and functionality, sells us all short by denying consumers the full promise of an IP-based offering. I guess it's true that the cable companies want to offer the triple play of voice, video and data services to folks accustomed to traditional telephone service and the only way to win them over is to come as close as possible to replicating the voice service they have always received from the telephone company. And the only way to lure such consumers to an untried provider of voice is to offer an easy transition with as few differences as possible. But it would be most unfortunate if that is all the cable-delivered IP-based communications becomes. If that's all America wanted, competing providers for tired POTS-equivalent services, we might as well have stuck with the UNE-P competitive model and let the IXCs resell POTS at a 5% discount off the Bell price.
Finally, I'm getting increasingly more curious as to why the cablecos refrain from offering nomadic voice services. Someone speculated that, perhaps, the cable companies don't want to face the prospect that they might some day compete against one another out of region. But the nomadic capabilities of IP-based communications is one of its greatest assets and is inevitable. Hell, the main reason I haven't switched to a cable modem at home is because my DSL provider offers me out-of-region dialup. If cable offered me that ability, the truth is I probably would have switched to cable. After all, they do offer a naked broadband pipe without compelling me to take their POTS-replacement voice product."
Posted by jeff on April 5, 2005 10:22 PM | Permalink
Additional resources: #140conf events | Watch the Jeff Pulver Show | Jeff's Qik Videos