Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

VoIP As a Solution To Rural Broadband

Posted by kdawson on Fri May 23, 2008 10:41 AM
from the tell-it-to-the-rbocs dept.
boyko.at.netqos recommends his article up at Network Performance Daily, which notes the recent reports that up to 30% of households do not have a landline telephone, preferring a VoIP or cell-phone based solution. What to do with the miles of last-mile phone line infrastructure already in place in almost all the homes across the country? Maybe there's a solution to rural broadband by using the high-reliability frequencies reserved for voice purely for data — and using VoIP to make phone calls. From the article: "Repurposing the broadband of 0-25kHz would result in... speeds of around 14.4 kBytes/s (or 115.9 kbits/s) upload and 28.8 kBytes/s (231.3 kbits/s) download. That's not much of a speed boost. Still, if you've been plodding along on a '56.6k' modem, at speeds of 7.2kBytes/s, this would be like an oasis in the desert. And what about those phone calls? Well, if you make the same phone calls with VoIP that you were with the standard 0-4kHz landline, it would only take about 20.8kbits/s using the G.723.1 codec — that still leaves you with 80% of your broadband capacity when on the phone — and 100% of your broadband when you're off it." Only the US FCC calls 231K "broadband," but as noted it does beat dialup.
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by E IS mC(Square) (721736) on Friday May 23 2008, @10:52AM (#23518422) Journal
    Not to be pedantic (and I understand the general drift of the article), but from wikipedia: "... the US FCC used 200 kbit/s in their definition until march 19th 2008 after which it was scaled up to require a minimum of 768 kbit/s to be defined as broadband and at that time the FCC introduced new tiers in their definition as follows: 1) 200kbit/s to 768kbit/s ("first generation data"); 2) 768kbit/s to 1.5Mbit/s ("basic broadband"); 3) 1.5Mbit/s to 3 Mbit/s; 4) 3Mbit/s to 6 Mbit/s; and 5) 6Mbit/s and above." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadband_Internet_access [wikipedia.org]
    • yes, yes. shallow and pedantic.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 23 2008, @11:15AM (#23518772)
      "Broadband" isn't a data transmission speed, not anymore than "cable", "modem" or "DSL" are transmission speeds.

      Here's a real definition of broadband:

      broadÂband adjective

      1. of, pertaining to, or responsive to a continuous, wide range of frequencies.

      2. pertaining to or denoting a type of high-speed data transmission in which the bandwidth is shared by more than one simultaneous signal.

      [definition] [reference.com]

      Hence: "the broadband of 0-25kHz" mentioned in the article.
      • Hear! Hear!

        Why were they allowed take a well-defined technical term and re-purpose it as meaningless marketing drivel?

        This mis-use of 'broadband' also has repurcussions for other terms. There are many people who thuink that baseband or narrowband means 'slower then broadband'. I'd love to see a public broadband link that comes close to the speed of my baseband network.
        • by jc42 (318812) on Friday May 23 2008, @11:57AM (#23519364) Homepage Journal
          Why were they allowed take a well-defined technical term and re-purpose it as meaningless marketing drivel?

          The main reason is called the First Amendment. ;-) It permits anyone to misuse any term they like for any reason.

          In this case, they're just Doing What Marketing Does. They use whatever words are effective in selling what they're selling. They figured out that to the public that has no clue about such technical terms, "broadband" just means "faster". So they adopted it as a marketing term.

          It's nothing at all unique to Internet marketing. The same approach is used everywhere that it works. People have been complaining about marketers' misuse of words since marketing came into existence back in prehistory. There's no way we're going to change this, short of educating the public about the actual definition of the terms. And considering the general public contempt for geeky stuff that requires education, that's not going to happen any time soon.

          (This misuse isn't nearly as agregious as the use of "quantum" to mean "large", when the technical definition is more like "the smallest difference possible". I'm sure others here have their favorite misuses of technical terms. ;-)

          • Yes, but isn't the FCC a technical certification or standards body, not a marketing group? (I'm not from the US, so don't shout too loud if I'm wrong!) Why are they 'defining' 'broadband' in this way?
          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            For the purposes of this post bandwidth is defined in the traditional sense of the range of frequencies availible for your transmission.

            ALL real world mediums are analog. Signals reflect off discontinuities. Noise gets added and higher frequencies get attenuated. Your channel may be all the usable bandwidth of a cable or it may be only a subset of it but it is still most certainly a meaningfull figure. A differential pair has a limited bandwidth just like any other cable (it has good noise immunitiy though
      • Words can have different definitions in different usages. Welcome to the English Language.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        "Broadband" isn't a data transmission speed, not anymore than "cable", "modem" or "DSL" are transmission speeds.

        You're right; it isn't a speed, it's a bandwidth (a broad bandwidth).

        1. of, pertaining to, or responsive to a continuous, wide range of frequencies.

        Note the use of the word wide (i.e. broad) in that definition.

        Hence: "the broadband of 0-25kHz" mentioned in the article.

        This is the part I have a problem with. While "broad" and "narrow" are somewhat relative terms, broadband is typically band

    • ...And then there is the "general public" definition of broadband, which is usually just "anything that is not dial-up".

      This is largely due to
      a) The fact that they largely neither know nor care what a Mbit/s is
      b) Have been subject to TV advertising for so long that they just know that they need to "buy a broadband to make the Internet in their PC go fast"

  • Sounds cheaper (Score:4, Interesting)

    by esocid (946821) on Friday May 23 2008, @10:52AM (#23518432) Journal
    And better than satellite since it shouldn't degrade when the weather isn't perfect. That was the main complaint of people I know who live in the boonies and have to go with satellite (note that those people don't require low latency).
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Not only that, but my brother is a dial-up user and while he does comment on my connection being faster than his when he's over, the most common "OMG teh coolness!" thing he likes about my connection: it doesn't tie up the phone line.

      Seriously, most rural people are not technophiles. I'd suspect that 256kb/s download would be just fine if they also got to free up their telephone line.
      • I think it depends on what your goal is. If your goal is just to make it slightly easier for people in the boonies to surf the web and use the phone, then OK, this is probably a fine solution. But I think it's kind of a half-assed solution if your goal is to bring next-generation infrastructure to the United States, and if you think that high-speed internet is one of those things, like telephones, mail, water, and electricity, that we ought to make a serious effort to bring to everyone in the United States.
      • I live in a town of 2000 people and thank the Lord every day that I have 7Mbit/3Mbit cable!
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          Then your definition of "rural" is a bit looser than mine. When I spoke about my broker earlier: his closest neighbor is 6 miles away ;). There is no "town" to speak of.
        • by Amouth (879122) on Friday May 23 2008, @11:09AM (#23518686)
          i don't think "YouTube is still a painful experience" is due in any respect to your connection speed - it has alot more to do with the content and people who comment there.
    • if you dont "cheap out" and get the basic package satellite does not degrade when it's cloudy or rains.

      I upgraded to a 2 meter dish and only when it's a insane downpour does my HD and SD tv signals drop out. and I know that works for the sat internet as well. we had 4 of them at headends at comcast in the late 90's. I had connectivity unless it was raining insanely hard (hurricane hard)
    • But it can degrade when the weather isn't perfect (or at least during a thunderstorm). My DSL connection has gone out a couple times during a storm (although the connection obviously wasn't very strong to begin with).
      Certainly the signal quality would degrade, but probably not as much as a minidsh connection.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Actually, the ground expanding and contracting, the copper or aluminum conductors getting wet, cards hitting poles in bad conditions, and winds blowing down lines off of above-ground poles (or the poles falling over, trees breaking in the wind or under the weight of ice and falling on lines) is a huge problem for electricity out in the country, let alone telephone service.

      My parents go without power at least 18 hours a year, and they're only 7 miles from the closest town, with no two houses along their road
  • That was much like the overall premise and promise of ISDN BRI - "high speed" digital access over voice grade plant, which failed miserably due to a number of technical, political, and corporate reasons.

    Granted, the OP's proposal is somewhat different, as I assume he was referring to using DSL-like technology in the full voice band. But, there are also limitations on how much data can be carried in a given amount of spectrum using various modulation and encoding schemes.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      There is a missing item to consider. Much of the infrastructure that exists, even in rural USA is that there are more than one pair of copper to most homes. Ma Bell wanted to see you two phone lines at one time, so the possibility of DSL grade equipment that bridges two network connections could in fact provide a quite reasonable ride for your bits.

      In fact, if the RBOCs sold that bundled with VoIP, I'm certain that it would be bought up handily. I know that some of my family would do so if reasonably priced
    • Re:Much like ISDN... (Score:4, Informative)

      by Amouth (879122) on Friday May 23 2008, @11:13AM (#23518740)
      isdn BRI didn't fail do to technical or political reasons..

      it failed to become main stream because durring the time frame where it would have been the first broadband that could be delivered anywhere - the phone company priced it out of existance for nearly any home user.

      yes the first gen did have anissue of requiring f1 pairs.. (2 at that).. but they later changed it so it could use a single pair and also be routed accross fiber nodes..

      pricing is what killed it (well more of a still birth).. but functionaly it was great (i used one for many years)
        • where i work we wanted to get a business cable line for mutiple reasons.. but the guy who oringaly build the building didn't have them run any cable lines to the building.. so TW wanted us to pay for it (>10k).. we ended up bonding several PRI's.. sure the montly cost is more.. but overall it is better solution..

    • IDSL is an ISDN-flavored DSL version. It uses the ISDN modulation to send bits over the wire, but with a full-time DSLAM connection as opposed to ISDN switched calling.
      It gets 144kbps - ISDN has two 64kbps B channels and a 16kbps D channel, and is typically used for a 128kbps bonded circuit.


      The big advantage of IDSL is distance - it typically gets about 30,000 feet, compared to about 18000 for most DSL flavors.

      • I loved ISDN when I lived in TN. It turns out that the big horror of dial-up isn't the bandwidth, it's the high latency. You cut that latency down to nil, and everything feels a lot faster. Plus, it's very nice to be able to use the phoneline and the connection simultaneously.
  • by eln (21727) on Friday May 23 2008, @10:54AM (#23518464) Homepage
    Seems silly to spend all that time and money trying to get the FCC to change its regulations when this situation seems tailor made for a good RFC 1149 [ietf.org] implementation. Latency is still an issue with such a setup, but bandwidth can be virtually unlimited if you have the resources.
    • Unfortunately, in rural areas, RFC 1149 datagram carriers may be actively destroyed for human sustenance. This would further increase latency, and could pose a significant security hole. In such network regions, packet sniffers tend to be numerous and very active, working on four-pronged mobility structures, and may occasionally carry fleas.

      However, within this modality, the risk of VoIP being unscrupulously wiretapped is already very low, so I wouldn't worry about it too much.

  • Sounds nice but,try to get the telco's to implement it in areas that they deem unprofitable without an act of congress. The best solution for broadband in the boonies as I see it would be broadband over powerlines.
    • Powerlines? Have you looked into it? the hash this produces in the radio spectum is unbelievable. It disrupts communication...and...opens a security can of worms you have not even considered. Putting the net on power always struck me as similar to using the water line to carry the sewer waste; after all, sharring a pipe is not that difficult and it already goes into the home...then the FCC can sell the sewer pipe ....
  • by Endo13 (1000782) on Friday May 23 2008, @10:56AM (#23518500)
    It actually sounds like a good idea. Sure, it's not as fast as broadband, but it's still a good five times faster than dialup. And ten times faster than a lot of people get in those rural areas where no wired broadband is available.
      • ADSL degrades too fast over distance. A technology that's got to reach people out in the sticks so far that even ISDN won't reach, has to have a lot more resilience.
  • but-- even when these lines were laid, weren't they laid in duplicate/quad sets to the homes?

    I know they have BUNDLES to boxes at endpoints.. why not use multiple lines for those who really need to be in the woods and need more speed?
  • Isn't the problem with rural DSL not so much signal strenght as much as that the telephone companies arn't terribly interested in putting down DSLAMs in the middle of nowhere?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_subscriber_line [wikipedia.org]

    Also I suspect that data has higher quality requirements then just voice, small differences in the frequencies won't affect what you hear much but I'll mess up your loss ratio for data.
  • 911 with VoiP?

    And before someone says it - a lot of rural people don't depend on 911 anyway, I know (because of distance), but a lot of people us city folk would consider "rural" DO depend on 911.

    And how do you IMPLEMENT this?
    get every phone line set up for VoiP and train people, and then flick a switch one day? Do you stagger it so you move a chunk of people over to data, cap their speeds, and then move some more people? There WILL be holdouts - medical equipment, old credit card / check readers should w
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      911 works on VOIP -they call it e911. It works as long as your provider has your address. Many providers have it, including Acanac ( http://www.acanac.com/Phones.htm [acanac.com] )
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      Couldn't you just make a special model voip phone that could force the line to switch back to some kind of basic phone service?

      It might be a little hard to set up but it would a pretty good back up.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      100% of the 911 scare was generated by the incumbent phone carriers. They have fought tooth and nail for the privilege of making 911 fail on VOIP phones. In some places they have won, and have been allowed to cripple 911. In other places they have lost, and they are not allowed to cripple 911. Besides, the whole 911 fear mongering is lame anyway. Most people spend HUGE amounts of time in places that have no better 911 capabilities than what are available in the places that the incumbent phone companies
  • Just use ISDN (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Animats (122034) on Friday May 23 2008, @11:11AM (#23518714) Homepage

    This is what ISDN is good for. It's not very demanding of loop quality, and you get uncompressed digital voice, plus modest data capability.

    ISDN voice handsets are common in Europe. The Swiss PTT likes them. European practice is to power them from the central office, so you don't need power at the subscriber end. US practice is to power ISDN gear from the subscriber end, which makes them unreliable as a primary phone connection. There's no fundamental reason, though, why central office power for ISDN can't be used in the US. The gear is available.

    The problem is that many rural lines have analog repeaters out on poles somewhere, and those are't compatible with DSL, ISDN, or much of anything else. See Rural Telephony Workshop Report. [rural.org].

    • As a former ISDN user, I'd like to agree.. Except for the reliability statements. ISDN powered at the subscriber side is no different than my current Fios setup, which is also powered at my side. The Real reason that ISDN isn't more popular in the rural areas is that most of the time it is priced in a really silly price-range. $200 install costs and more than $100/month are not uncommon at all.
  • This could provide some competition to the cable and telco companies. It would give the little man an alternative when they try to bend us over.
    • No, this is not competition for the telcos. This is a way for the telcos to provide something better than dialup to customers who cant get anything else (DSL, cable etc)
  • Sounds like IDSL (Score:3, Informative)

    by rickkas7 (983760) on Friday May 23 2008, @11:18AM (#23518818)
    This sounds pretty much like IDSL. The problem has never been technological - the problem is getting your telephone company to implement it at a price that's reasonable. Instead of breaking up the low frequencies into two 64 Kbit/sec ISDN BRI channels and one 16 Kbits/sec D channel for signaling, IDSL just uses all 144 Kbits/sec (symmetric) for data. The suggestion is asymmetric ISDN based broadband, but that's a minor difference. ISDN goes much longer distances than ADSL or SDSL due to the lower frequencies. In the early 1990s I had ISDN and it worked fine, except the phone company charged $ 250 a month for unlimited 128 Kbits/sec. Great technology (at the time), but insane pricing.
  • I always thought the bandwith for dialup was stuck at 28.8kbs and the 58.6kbs modem speed was do to hardware/software compression built in the modem. Thus reaching an estimate peak speed of 58.6kbs.
    Now if we took these lines and gave people parallel connection then we may get some speed performance.
  • so ... (Score:4, Funny)

    by B3ryllium (571199) on Friday May 23 2008, @11:23AM (#23518886) Homepage
    It's going to be Voice over IP over Voice? VoIPoV?
  • There isn't too much information in the article, particularly what problems may be encountered. The amount of data that can be delivered will vary greatly due to certain technical considerations. Politically, giving everyone in rural areas the 'same lousy service' is a minefield.

    The outside cable plant and distance to the central office is everything:

    * "Wires on poles" can degrade bandwidth 10x or more, particularly if there is industrial or broadcast interference. Modern underground cable plant can provide several Mbit/s up to 30km or so.

    * Loading coils, commonly used in the past to maintain 600 or 900 ohm line impedance, limit the bandwidth of the lines to not mush more than 4kHz. They must be removed which is allot of tedious labour. Once removed, POTS may not work properly. Since some lines will need them and others definitely not, this gives a great excuse to 'take forever' to install the service.

    * COTS DSL-modem/routers, common in many areas, may not work on large runs. Slightly modified units can put out greater signal and have better echo cancellation. This looks like a lock-in and higher prices. Higher transmission levels, lower received levels and longer runs invite crosstalk in a big way. It may be that many systems start out really good, but quickly degrade as more subscribers are added.

    * Some rural cable-plant is "hollow-sounding" with voice and will simply not work with DSL. I'm no expert on US rural phone systems, but its fair to say most will get the pitiful 256kbit/s rate. This is what can be achieved with above-ground cable-plant at 30km in a city environment. The actual case I use example is Buenos Aries.

    Any cable-plant that doesn't support 25kHz should be recycled! Otherwise, most will probably do much better, so limiting service to below 256kbit/s is deceptive. All told, there are a number of technical hurdles, which can be overcome, but the politics will go on forever.

    This isn't a nice comparison to make, but in England there is more 'broadband' (there is a somewhat higher standard to the definition there) in the country than the city. Of course, like most of Europe, all wires are underground.

                     
  • Until recently moving off to college, I have lived in a rural area. For the four years of living in this area, I used ISDN for data only, while also having two separate landlines for voice-only use. Let me tell you, for the price of the line installation, monthly line fees, monthly per-dial fees, and shoddy service with a very low cap, ISDN is not worth it. It exceeded $100 per month. I've just recently switched to Sprint EVDO for data service, and the quality is amazing. In spite of having virtually n
  • I think he's overestimating the quality of our rural landlines quite a a bit.. Where I grew up in Maine for instance, to this day, the best you can get out of dial up is 24.4kbit, and we don't have cable.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't your line have to be AT LEAST capable of 56k (or 53333, whatever) in order to handle DSL? Something about the distance to a central office or something? Wouldn't that affect most of rural America?
    My little podunk town can't be the only one out there with no broad
  • Power goes out. Landlines still work. Weather gets crappy. Landlines still work. Not much that can fail on the user's end. Start tossing VoIP in the picture and you're adding a whole bunch of equipment that has lot of ways to fail.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      I'm not sure about the math, but when I was working on my Master's degree, an old tech from Bell labs told us that the reason DSL can't go very far is that load coils are placed in the copper lines to prevent capacitance over long distances. These coils also had the effect of wiping out everything but ~300 - ~3300 Hz. DSL's range is limited because the frequencies it uses can't reach past these load coils. Once that distance is reached, the only thing left is the 3-4 kHz that is required for a single voi