Telstra today said it did not believe Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) telephony could deliver sufficient reliability and quality to enable the telco to launch a VoIP service to consumers, despite revealing plans to launch a VoIP service to small businesses, including those with staff working from home.

The telco remains one of Australia’s only major broadband providers without its own consumer-grade VoIP service, with major competitors iiNet, Internode and TPG all having long sold VoIP as an add-on option to broadband (with the first iiNet service being launched half a decade ago in 2005) and even Optus launching VoIP services over its HFC cable network, for example.

Today, Telstra launched a new integrated telecommunications package aimed at small business, featuring as its centrepiece a VoIP offering using a Cisco integrated router. To ensure the service provides an acceptable level of quality, Telstra has pledged to spend part of a $600 million package on upgrading equipment in its telephone exchanges with Broadsoft hardware to support quality of service (QoS) techniques to prioritise voice traffic.

At a launch event this morning, Telstra chief executive David Thodey was asked whether Telstra would extend its SME VoIP platform to consumers, given the hundreds of thousands of end users now using VoIP services in Australia through rival providers. “We are continuing to review bringing the product to market,” he said. “As we think the product is mature enough, and has enough technical backup, we’ll bring that product to market.”

However, the executive didn’t appear to believe a Telstra VoIP offering would appear soon, noting that although the technology had been in place for half a decade now, “we don’t think the quality and reliability is there. We could bring it to the market tomorrow, but we don’t want to,” he said.

Telstra’s small business chief Deena Shiff said Telstra’s ‘voice over broadband’ solution was qualitatively different from iiNet’s consumer-grade VoIP, as Telstra was investing to build quality of service into its exchanges – whereas iiNet’s solution relied only on QoS embedded in its routers on users’ premises.

“They don’t give you an end to end quality experience,” she said. Shiff emphasised that Telstra’s solution was “not VoIP”, but instead described it as “digital voice”, stressing that the high definition of the audio set the Telstra solution apart.

iiNet is being invited to respond to Telstra’s statements.

In a broader sense, the unveiling of Telstra’s new ‘Digital Business’ offering this morning represents an attempt by the company to provide an integrated telecommunications package for Australian small businesses. The company’s solution will use a Cisco SRP527W router, Cisco handsets and integration with fixed and mobile broadband, as well as email and other services, to provide an all-in-one package.

Image credit: Carl Dwyer (photographer’s website), Creative Commons

Related posts:

1. We’ve got 170,000 VoIP customers, iiNet tells Telstra
2. Why Telstra is wrong on VoIP (by Simon Hackett)
3. Why I’m ditching VoIP for the PSTN
4. TPG may buy iiNet, Telstra tells staff
5. Foxtel on T-Box lands 27 June

Tweet

1. EricInAdelaide
   Posted 02/05/2011 at 1:56 pm | Permalink | Reply

   “Telstra’s small business chief Deena Shiff said Telstra’s ‘voice over broadband’ solution was qualitatively different from iiNet’s consumer-grade VoIP, as Telstra was investing to build quality of service into its exchanges – whereas iiNet’s solution relied only on QoS embedded in its routers on users’ premises.”

   Yes, and what about the others…. “major competitors iiNet, Internode and TPG”? “…and even Optus launching VoIP services over its HFC cable network”?

   Maybe we can get Deena do write a VoIP review/comparison article for Delimiter?

   • Renai LeMay
     Posted 02/05/2011 at 2:02 pm | Permalink | Reply

     To be honest, Shiff seemed more across the technical details this morning than I expected her to be — although not as much as would be ideal.

2. Fictillius
   Posted 02/05/2011 at 2:02 pm | Permalink | Reply

   Well of course they are going to say that. They aren’t going to say they are just joining everyone else.

3. Me again
   Posted 02/05/2011 at 2:04 pm | Permalink | Reply

   “…We could bring it to the market tomorrow, but we don’t want to.”

   Which should continue to be read as:
   “We could bring it to the market tomorrow, but we don’t want to cannibalize those juicy PSTN rates on millions of home phones lines”.

   Fair call by Thodey!

4. moldor
   Posted 02/05/2011 at 2:17 pm | Permalink | Reply

   Interesting comment that “Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) telephony could deliver sufficient reliability and quality to enable the telco to launch a VoIP service to consumers”

   I’ve been using VoIP from both my home phone line (via Exetel) and my iPhone (again, via Exetel) for the past 4+ years and rarely if ever had problems – certainly no more than the PSTN service.

5. SMan
   Posted 02/05/2011 at 2:53 pm | Permalink | Reply

   They obviously don’t feel threatened enough in that part of the market yet.
   And when you call for support and get patched through to their call centre in India, how is that done, VoIP?

6. deteego
   Posted 02/05/2011 at 5:56 pm | Permalink | Reply

   No Shit Shirlock

   VOIP requires QoS on every layer of network (at a minimum) to provide the same reliability of service that PSTN provides.

   This is what happens when you use VOIP packet switched network, but hell if they manage to resurrect ISDN maybe VOIP will break through

7. deteego
   Posted 02/05/2011 at 5:57 pm | Permalink | Reply

   No Shit Shirlock

   VOIP requires QoS on every layer of network (at a minimum) to provide the same reliability of service that PSTN provides.

   This is what happens when you use VOIP packet switched network.

   • RS
     Posted 02/05/2011 at 8:21 pm | Permalink | Reply

     Very disrespectful and uncalled for first sentence deteego…

     BTW it’s Sherlock…!

     • deteego
       Posted 02/05/2011 at 11:18 pm | Permalink | Reply

       Do you honestly have a compulsion to comment on everything I say, even though you are not saying anything constructive?

       Its like being stalked by an internet troll

       • Michael Wyres
         Posted 03/05/2011 at 10:42 am | Permalink | Reply

         Pot, meet kettle.

     • toshP300
       Posted 02/05/2011 at 11:36 pm | Permalink | Reply

       flashback: http://whrl.pl/RcwDk4

       dejavu….

8. RS
   Posted 03/05/2011 at 6:25 am | Permalink | Reply

   @deteego… since you asked, only when you are wrong… so yes! LOL…

   @toshP300, wow, I see what you mean… another can spell Sherlock (still no prize, sorry Mark).

   But even after all that I note, he took no notice (rather telling) and still spells Sherlock wrong…FYI – I would not call him mate without [sic] …or something like ‘and I say that with all sincerity”… but I can see how those not too switched on could be confused!

   Now are you guys ready to debate the actual issues warts and all or wanting to make it personal (but of course whinge when I do likewise)?

   • BC
     Posted 04/05/2011 at 9:30 pm | Permalink | Reply

     “…FYI – I would not call him mate without [sic] …or something like ‘and I say that with all sincerity”… but I can see how those not too switched on could be confused!”

     …and if you were a bit more switched on, you’d look up “sic” in the dictionary and find out what it actually means before demonstrating your ignorance here and elsewhere on the internet. Okay, I’ll assume you are not bright enough to do that, so I’ll do it for you. If you are quoting someone, “(sic)” follows something like a spelling mistake to indicate that you have copied the original verbatim and that the error is not your own. Clearly, your command of the language is as weak as your technical skills.

     Now, to the topic at hand. The article is a little confused and there is no way to tell whether that confusion comes from the source or is in the reporting. VoIP is becoming a bit of a confused term. It literally refers to any technique that involves using IP to transport voice calls. Pretty obvious really, although the term is often used to refer more specifically to transporting voice over the internet as distinct from other means. While all voice on internet is VoIP, not all VoIP is over the internet. The alternative VoIP implementation to the internet uses a separate IP network. I suspect that Deena Shiff it attempting to draw out this distinction.

     QoS is needed end to end to make VoIP work properly. The suggestion is that those such as iiNet are sending voice over the internet (I am not 100% certain whether this is true) and if so, there is no way they can implement QoS end to end as they do not control the infrastructure end to end. Telstra also has a VoIP service, however they seem to be reluctant to call it that due to the association of the term with voice over internet. I understand that Telstra’s VoIP service is carried over their own internal IP network that they do control and has been QoS enabled end to end. That said, the “digital voice” term, while technically correct, pretty much covers anything including ISDN and yes, PSTN as well.

     So, if you are using the voice over internet version of VoIP, QoS will be limited to the access network under your ISP’s control, so you can expect problems. If you are using VoIP from a carrier that carries the calls over its own QoS enabled IP network, there should be no problem. When comparing VoIP with VoIP, make sure you are comparing apples with apples and oranges with oranges.

     • RS
       Posted 04/05/2011 at 10:06 pm | Permalink | Reply

       @BC… go your hardest tiger…! Are you bating me on behalf of your buddies I was replying to?

       Err… yes, it follows a mistake to show the error is not one’s own! It can also be used in reply to mock another…or just for ***ts and giggles…!

       Umm, obviously if you had even minimal comprehension skills, you would indeed comprehend that I was not quoting anyone and just why I used [sic] in relation to the word mate, when referring to someone who clearly isn’t, my mate…eh mate [sic]…?

       As for sincerity I stand corrected – I inadvertently omitted “in” as I intended to write “insincerity”…! Thanks for highlighting my typo…!

       Anyway, class dismissed…back to BC where you clearly belong…!

       • BC
         Posted 05/05/2011 at 10:18 pm | Permalink | Reply

         1. These guys are not my buddies. I don’t known them and don’t necessarily agree with anything they are saying. My gripe is soley with you and your pig-headed and abusive nature that you splatter here and elsewhere on the internet. For you to take offence at a comment from someone else is the height of hypocrisy.
         2. The word ‘sic’ does have one meaning and one meaning only. I understand your misuse and did for some time gain a degree of enjoyment watching you make a complete idiot of yourself through your repeated misuse, but it did start to get a little boring after a while. Unilaterraly giving it a new meaning doesn’t make it right, especially while in the process of correcting someone else’s spelling mistake.

         • RS
           Posted 05/05/2011 at 11:32 pm | Permalink | Reply

           BC

           1. Obviously the hypocrisy of “your OWN pig-headed and abusive nature that you splatter here” has gone completely over your own (pig) head.

           2. Yes it has one meaning… for those who have trouble counting past one…!

           • RS
             Posted 07/05/2011 at 2:04 pm | Permalink | Reply

             Since you initiated this… just to finalise, BC (as I strangely note no further reply from you)?

             Seems you have finally realised that you are indeed 100% incorrect, because there are many more uses of [sic] than just one! No need to apologise…

             As I said above and I quote – “I WAS NOT QUOTING ANYONE”.

             ENTER… (one of many uses) SELF-SICCING…

             “While chiefly used in text that is not one’s own, occasionally, a sic is included by a writer after his or her own word(s) to note that the language has been chosen deliberately, especially where a reader may naturally doubt the writer’s intentions…!

             Will that be all mate [sic]?

9. wintermute000
   Posted 03/05/2011 at 9:04 am | Permalink | Reply

   Its not that VOIP is not reliable
   Its that its definitely a bit more unreliable than PSTN and more complex, and that the bean counters have calculated that if they replace every granny and mom+pop PSTN with VOIP the increase in faults will incur costs that do not balance out the profits.
   needless to say too that many PSTN users are not interested in having VOIP grade QoS guaranteed internet service (any paying for it).

10. Matthew
    Posted 03/05/2011 at 9:14 am | Permalink | Reply

    If they sold voip services to consumers they would have to admit that exchange and rim congession is a problem.

    • Michael Wyres
      Posted 03/05/2011 at 10:43 am | Permalink | Reply

      Ha…that’s not entirely the problem, but is an interesting (and correct) point.

    • deteego
      Posted 03/05/2011 at 1:47 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Honestly this is just a case of shooting the messenger

      Even though Telstra obviously have a conflict of interest in heavily promoting VOIP (even though they do provide business VOIP solutions, so that isn’t entirely true), really the issue is that a packet switched (which VOIP is built ontop of) has no guarantee of quality of connection, unlike circuit switched networks like ISDN or old phone system

      So as a turnaround you have to implement QoS on every single layer of the network (from the edge, to the ISPS and all the way down to the network core), integrate all of those QoS layers (and there are even more problems after this)

      You get what you pay for, one of the major reasons PSTN is so expensive is because of the circuit switching required (and is one of the reasons why packet switching won over circuit switching in the 80′s when internet was starting to expand substantially), but its the only way you can guarantee X bits down your pipe all the way to your destination

11. Dread
    Posted 03/05/2011 at 3:56 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Maybe we might see a bit more alleged ‘reliability’ if we had decent upload rates instead of the extortionate pricing Telstra are still gouging people for such as 1mb – 4mb up/down accounts…..

12. ozimarco
    Posted 03/05/2011 at 8:30 pm | Permalink | Reply

    As usual, Telstra will hang on to the old technology for as long as they can make make money from it. We have been using VoIP since 2005 and find it just as reliable as PSTN. As a migrant family, it has saved us many thousands of dollars in overseas call costs.

13. TFK
    Posted 03/05/2011 at 8:59 pm | Permalink | Reply

    I have used VoIP for around 4 years without problem, however, Telstra may have a genuine concern over the reliability when you consider that a small number of their lines have a guarantee of reliability and fast repair for customers with life threatening illnesses. They might not think that VoIP fits the bill for these customers.

14. Sniper
    Posted 03/05/2011 at 11:54 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Telstra have it wrong because IF the infrastructure is kept up to spec then VOIP works very well.
    It is when the supporting infrastructure suffers congestion that there is a problem, which can make the VOIP unusable.
    IF Telstra released a consumer level voip product, then it would be required to maintain the infrastructure at a much higher level then Telstra current does and/or is even willing to do.
    I use VOIP to keep in daily touch with family and to contact friends, which without VOIP would have to be done over STD. The monthly cost difference between STD and VOIP is $70 (std) $5 [voip], even the dumbest can work out WHY Telstra wont bring in a consumer voice product.
    They would loose millions in the call cost drop alone, and as well as that, suffer a massive increase in operating costs.of the infrastructure.

15. Mark Chatel
    Posted 04/05/2011 at 4:08 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Been using voip for many years and rarely had a problem.
    But talking about reliable Telstra’s billing is as unreliable as you can get.