IP telephony with MULTILINE - a step backwards

Yes, there are probably still some hurdles with multiple numbers in IP telephony.

However, if there are recurring problems, I would always contact the hotline so that these deficiencies can be recorded in order to improve. The best thing would be for the hotline to send you a contact address via email where you could fill out a kind of list of defects.

I’m really sorry that you are not satisfied and that there are problems with your Anschluss. You’ve already contacted the hotline and that’s a good thing.

Please make a local backup (not in Kundencenter) of the Internet box settings. And then a reset. The Internet box must then be reconfigured and all numbers should be reprovisioned. Please wait for some time (maybe an hour) and then check whether everything works. Now you can restore the local backup. Please check whether everything still works afterwards.

The Combox signaling will remain this way at least until the end of 2015. We are also renewing the Combox system, but that will take some time as it needs to be very well prepared.

We already have several thousand multiline customers and if the system had fundamental problems, as you suspect, then we would have major problems on the customer front, which we don’t have. My experience, including here in the forum, shows that 99% of all cases can be solved and were isolated cases. Of course, it can always happen that something is fundamentally wrong. If you get stuck with your problem, please feel free to contact me via private message. I’ll have it checked then. But please give your support colleagues a chance to work on your problem first.

Yes, I have also switched from ISDN to IP telephony HD-Phone Rousseau 310 with Centro Grande for a month. Swisscom technicians had not connected the base station directly to the Centro Grande. If 2 people call at the same time. a telephone conversation was always aborted. According to the hotline, the base station must be connected directly to the Centro Grande, which I then did. Things have gotten better since then. Now a new problem. Very often, after ringing once, the caller is redirected to Combox, even though it is not set that way. Does anyone have a similar problem?

Did you use the Netgear switch supported by Swisscom or another switch?

yes, I have the Netgear Switch

Hi Esthi,

I don’t think this is a switch problem. I have 2 base stations each running over several switches, one of which:

- Internetbox->Netgearswitch GS105E->Asus RT-AC66U->Netgear Switch GS108E->Base station Rousseau

and the other

- Internetbox->Netgearswitch GS105E->NetgearGS108->AirportExreme->Base station Rousseau

Result: runs smoothly like this.

But the Swisscom TV2 box is connected directly to the Internet box, so it doesn’t run through a switch at all. Since you have now connected the base station directly to the router and it doesn’t really work any better that way, I would turn my attention to the router. I have the new Internet box, maybe that’s why? Have you ever reset and re-equipped your Centro?

Greetings, Thomas

Hi Thomas
I just received an internet box from Swisscom and connected it. Let’s see if the problem is fixed. But I heard from a technician that he suspected that my problem was with the phone and not with the router, since I don’t have any problems with the Internet or TV. He thinks I should change the phone. But now I hope that it works with the Internet box.
Greetings Esthi

---

@Anonymous wrote:

I’m really sorry that you are not satisfied and that there are problems with your Anschluss. You’ve already contacted the hotline and that’s a good thing.

The Combox signaling will remain this way at least until the end of 2015. We are also renewing the Combox system, but that will take some time as it needs to be very well prepared.

We already have several thousand multiline customers and if the system had fundamental problems, as you suspect, then we would have major problems on the customer front, which we don’t have. My experience, including here in the forum, shows that 99% of all cases can be solved and were isolated cases.

---

There is nothing to sugarcoat, dear Swisscom. The problems listed here exist

Actually, I was able to observe this with various Multilne customers / IP customers. That is

the reason why I haven’t had anything changed yet.

It’s just that most multiline customers with only 3 numbers don’t have number division

per device and therefore do not criticize these ‘peculiarities’. The new technology

It may be much cheaper for Swisscom, but the reliability is the same

previous ISDN can no longer be compared.

---

@joewied wrote:

---

---

……

The new technology may be significantly cheaper for Swisscom, but the reliability can no longer be compared with the previous ISDN.

---

It is completely normal that a new technology like All-IP initially has teething problems and disadvantages compared to tried and tested technology. This was no different when ISDN was introduced. Back then, people fought for years and invested a lot until they reached the level of the old analog technology.

However, Swisscom is not introducing ALL-IP for cost reasons, but because a) there will soon no longer be any supply companies for the old analogue and ISDN equipment that can guarantee spare parts and support because the systems will soon be end-of-live and b) because you With All-IP, we can offer new, modern services that customers are clamoring for and would move on to competitors if they didn’t receive them from Swisscom.

---

@hed wrote:

---

@joewied wrote:

---

---

…..

The new technology may be significantly cheaper for Swisscom, but the reliability can no longer be compared with the previous ISDN.

---

>It is completely normal that a new technology like All-IP has teething problems at the beginning and also disadvantages compared to old, tried-and-tested technology. This was no different when ISDN was introduced. Back then, people fought for years and invested a lot until they reached the level of the old analogue technology.

This statement is incorrect in several ways because before ISDN was launched it had been in operation for years

preceded by Swissnet. And because the main problem was the length of the last mile.

It should be said that in some cases Swissnet was not connected directly to a postal mailing list, but rather

at a headquarters of a developed company, like it was for me.

ISDN was far ahead of its time and is technically ahead of IP telephony. (see also

Voice quality etc.). It is true that the first NTs from Alcatel caused some problems, but that was no longer the case with the Siemens devices.

>However, Swisscom is not introducing ALL-IP for cost reasons but because a) it is for the old analog and

This statement is not true… at least that’s what I can judge from my Swisscom time. Carsten Schloter

was aware that he could only offer Swisscom top quality at more competitive prices

Market will be able to lead successfully.

>ISDN equipment soon there will no longer be any delivery companies that guarantee spare parts and support because they

Analogue equipment will probably still be available for sale in 10 years! And why won’t it happen soon?

Provide more ISDN equipment. Right, because you opt for the cheaper, less innovative way of IP telephony

decided. Anyone who knows something about telephony knows what exactly is behind ISDN.

>because with All-IP you can offer new, modern services that customers are crying out for and when they want it

The service actually doesn’t depend solely on the technology, at least not if you use ISDN

IP compares. Strictly speaking, ISDN’s protocols are better than IP, which has no prioritization and virtually no correction procedures. IP was not explicitly developed for telecommunications, but rather for Lan/Wan communication from servers and PCs. As I said, VoIP telephony makes telephony/data communication cheaper because you can use standard components. That’s it.

>not received from Swisscom would migrate to the competitors.

do them anyway if the price and quality are right for the end user. Swisscom still lives from its former monopoly position, which has so far only been regulated and not really abolished. Strictly speaking, Swisscom still has a significant market share in terms of last mile.

Since Swisscom, as a local provider, is largely limited to Switzerland, it will be in the long run anyway

it will be difficult to retain these market shares. That is the reason why Swisscom will be in the future

sees us as a full-service supplier. They already tried this in the IT sector around 20 years ago, maybe it will work this time, where outsourcing has already celebrated some notable successes. But that’s another story.

---

Despite Multiline, I can’t assign the number to any device on my Internet box.
I’ve had ISDN for 20 years but now I’m 10 steps back!
No connection with Outlook
No table devices (except analogue ones, which cannot be used internally)
No possibility to use commercially available VoIP devices.
it looks like a big pile of crafts!!
not very Swisscom Like

---

@Blue-Power wrote:
Despite having Multiline, I can’t assign the number to any device on my Internet box.
I’ve had ISDN for 20 years but now I’m 10 steps back!
No connection with Outlook
No table devices (except analogue ones, which cannot be used internally)
No possibility to use commercially available VoIP devices.
it looks like a big pile of crafts!!
not very Swisscom Like

---

100% agree - and on top of that, passing on the call internally to another device (i.e. a desk telephone) has also fallen by the wayside.

---

@joewied wrote:

---

@hed wrote:

---

@joewied wrote:

---

---

…..

The new technology may be significantly cheaper for Swisscom, but the reliability can no longer be compared with the previous ISDN.

---

>It is completely normal that a new technology like All-IP initially has teething problems and disadvantages compared to tried and tested technology. This was no different when ISDN was introduced. Back then, people fought for years and invested a lot until they reached the level of the old analog technology.

-> This statement is incorrect in several ways because before ISDN was launched, Swissnet had been in operation for years.

--> Since 1995, the industry has been developing and testing VoIP together with providers worldwide; Swisscom implemented the first VoIP solutions for customers in 2001. Around 10 years ago, the further development of VoIP towards ALL-IP began. That’s probably long enough, right? However, it is not possible to predict all the problems that arise in the field during a mass roll-out.

->And because the main problem was the length of the last mile. It should be said that in some cases Swissnet was not connected directly to a mailing list, but to a central office of an established company, as was the case with me. It is true that the first NT’s from Alcatel caused some problems, but that was the latest This is no longer the case with Siemens devices.

--> For the end customer it is irrelevant where the problems lie. The fact is that even with ISDN it took years until all the problems were under control end-to-end.

-> ISDN was far ahead of its time and is technically ahead of IP telephony. (see also voice quality etc.).

--> With HD audio, the voice quality via IP is better than with ISDN. Of course, this would also be possible with ISDN, but with a few exceptions, the industry has not built any HD audio devices for ISDN. With IP phones, however, things are different. I don’t deny that ISDN has advantages over IP-Tel in other respects.

>However, Swisscom is not introducing ALL-IP for cost reasons but because a) there will soon no longer be any delivery companies that can guarantee spare parts and support for the old analogue and ISDN equipment

->Analog equipment will probably still be available for sale in 10 years!

--> Sorry, but you don’t seem to understand the seriousness of the situation at all! I’m not talking about analogue devices but about the exchange centers (EWSD, AXE, S12) which are end-of-life. And you can’t buy those anymore or only the successors of them and those are the VoIP/ALL-IP platforms. Without support and spare parts from the manufacturers (Siemens, Ericson, Alcatel), it would probably be grossly negligent if Swisscom continued to rely on this technology and the systems behind it.

->And why will there soon be no more ISDN equipment? That’s right, because they opted for the cheaper, less innovative route of IP telephony. Anyone who knows something about telephony knows what exactly is behind ISDN.

--> This is a chicken and egg question. Ultimately, however, it was not the providers who wanted to move away from ISDN, but rather the industry no longer saw a future in it and therefore switched developments to VoIP/ALL-IP. The providers are second to last in the chain and, like the end customers, have to follow suit, for better or for worse. But there were/are also a lot of end customers (especially in the business customer area) who approached the providers themselves and explicitly demanded a switch to modern IP technology, among other things because their internal communication solutions had long since switched to IP (e.g. MS-Lync, Cisco CUCM, VoIP PBX from various manufacturers)

>Because with All-IP you can offer new, modern services that customers are crying out for and when they want it

->The service is actually not solely dependent on the technology, at least not when you compare ISDN with IP. Strictly speaking, ISDN’s protocols are better than IP, which has no prioritization and virtually no correction procedures.

--> TCP/IP or UDP/IP does have several prioritization procedures, i.e. QoS (802.1p/q COS in Layer 2 and IP-Prec or DSCP in Layer 3). And the correction procedures are regulated in the higher layers, among other things, as part of the codec algorithm.

>IP was not explicitly developed for telecommunications, but rather for Lan/Wan communication from servers and PCs. As I said, VoIP telephony makes telephony/data communication cheaper because you can use standard components. That’s it.

-> Yes, IP was originally developed for data communication, but time did not stand still here either and this was further developed for real-time communication (among other things by defining suitable QoS procedures and introducing new protocols (RTP, RTCP, SIP,…) And what’s to say that communication is becoming cheaper and cheaper thanks to IP? Ultimately, customers are also putting pressure on prices, regardless of whether the quality is going down but unfortunately ever longer and more in Switzerland too.

not received from Swisscom would migrate to the competitors.

>they do it anyway if the price and quality are right for the end user. Swisscom still lives from its former monopoly position, which has so far only been regulated and not really abolished. Strictly speaking, Swisscom still has a significant market share in terms of last mile. Since Swisscom, as a local provider, is largely limited to Switzerland, it will be difficult to retain this market share in the long term anyway. This is the reason why Swisscom sees itself as a full-service supplier in the future. They already tried this in the IT sector around 20 years ago, maybe it will work this time, where outsourcing has already celebrated some notable successes. But that’s another story.

-> Competitors also have no choice but to switch to IP because they too are dependent on what the industry offers for communication platforms. And competitors also still have problems with this technology. However, if you look at the forums there, it seems that they are much larger than Swisscom.

It’s also not really useful to discuss which technology is the best. The fact is that every era has its technology. And it is actually the case that, depending on how you look at it or how it is weighted, there are always regressions. What matters is whether the disadvantages or advantages outweigh everything and everyone.

---

---

---

@hed wrote:

--> Since 1995, the industry has been developing and testing VoIP together with providers worldwide; Swisscom implemented the first VoIP solutions for customers in 2001. Around 10 years ago, the further development of VoIP towards ALL-IP began. That’s probably long enough, right? However, one cannot foresee all the problems that arise in the field during a mass roll-out.

Good for Swisscom. The fact is that SCIS introduced Voip internally in 2004 and the project

The first thing I had to do was reset it because nothing was working anymore! A new attempt was then made

undertaken six months later, which, with some compromises, remained in use.

Strictly speaking, ISDN and Voip are not actually mutually exclusive because they are connected in parallel

the same cables can be routed. But that makes no sense for cost reasons.

It should also be said that the first Swissnet-1 projects were put into operation in 1988

successful. At least for me it was extremely stable from the start.

--> For the end customer it is irrelevant where the problems lie. The fact is that even with ISDN it took years until all the problems were under control end-to-end.

This situation cannot be compared because the problems with ISDN were different and there are none

There were performance restrictions. For a long time, Swisscom had logistical problems with the procurement of

enough NT’s. But it should also be said that the NT’s are usually installed by a concessionaire

had to be.

-> ISDN was far ahead of its time and is technically ahead of IP telephony. (see also voice quality etc.).

--> With HD audio, the voice quality via IP is better than with ISDN. Of course, this would also be possible with ISDN, but with a few exceptions, the industry has not built any HD audio devices for ISDN. With IP phones, however, things are different. I don’t deny that ISDN has advantages over IP-Tel in other respects.

You can’t say that… because digital is digital… and even though ISDN is at 2× 64kbit or in the frequencies

was limited from 300Hz to 3400Hz, these properties were available in any case. This is at

DSL communication is simply not guaranteed. It is also wrong to compare ISDN with IP because they are different things. IP is a protocol and ISDN is a communication technology that you can use at best

DSL can compare. What good is HD audio to an end user if communication stalls due to lack of prioritization? As I said, I’m not questioning data communication but rather the fact that

that pure data communication is only suitable to a limited extent for voice (and actually films). This is also the reason why other technologies were used in the first project phases (e.g. ATM).

->Analog equipment will probably still be available for sale in 10 years!

--> I’m not talking about analogue devices but about the exchange centers (EWSD, AXE, S12) which are end-of-life.

Then write that too! My statement is also correct in this regard. There are other communication technologies,

the protocol is a different story. And that’s where we come to the costs.

And you can no longer buy those or only the successors of them and they would probably be grossly negligent if Swisscom continued to rely on this technology and the systems behind it.

That’s true, but it’s not about a ‘Swisscom mistake’ but about what the market is doing. And fundamentally, the providers are the technology drivers and not the manufacturers. Alcatel would like to continue

pushed its proprietary systems further.

->And why will there soon be no more ISDN equipment? That’s right, because they opted for the cheaper, less innovative route of IP telephony. Anyone who knows something about telephony knows what exactly is behind ISDN.

--> This is a chicken and egg question. Ultimately, however, it was not the providers who wanted to move away from ISDN, but rather the industry no longer saw a future in it and therefore switched developments to VoIP/ALL-IP.

I have a different opinion… at least who the industry represents… I think people have recognized that

Voice data is just data and you forget that you need the right QoS for it.

The providers are second to last in the chain and, like the end customers, have to follow suit, for better or for worse. But there were/are also a lot of end customers (especially in the business customer area) who approached the providers themselves and explicitly demanded a switch to modern IP technology, among other things because their internal communication solutions had long since switched to IP (e.g. MS-Lync, Cisco CUCM, VoIP PBX from various manufacturers)

But what is also possible without any problems via a gateway function in the headquarters… Finally

Swisscom does not yet support SIP telephony, for obvious reasons.

--> TCP/IP or UDP/IP does have several prioritization procedures, i.e. QoS (802.1p/q COS in Layer 2 and IP-Prec or DSCP in Layer 3). And the correction procedures are regulated in the higher layers, among other things, as part of the codec algorithm.

You know very well that prioritization on the TCP layer basically occurs too late. What use is it,

if for a 25kHz transmission a bandwidth of 10Mbit is not enough to transmit without errors.

Also, codec error corrections are of very little use if the transmission interference/dropouts are too great?

Strictly speaking, the prioritization would have to be done at the lowest level like with ISDN or ATM (via channels), then you really have guaranteed bandwidth (at least for sound and video).

>IP was not explicitly developed for telecommunications, but rather for Lan / Wan communication from servers and PCs. As I said, VoIP telephony makes telephony/data communication cheaper because you can use standard components. That’s it.

-> Yes, IP was originally developed for data communication, but time did not stand still here either and it was further developed for real-time communication (among other things by defining suitable QoS procedures

and yet the compromises remain… TCP is TCP and Ethernet remains Ethernet and collisions remain

Colosseums 🙂 You can’t get rid of them with any addition to the protocol. The problem simply becomes more common with higher bandwidth

Volume defused.

and introduction of new protocols (RTP, RTCP, SIP,…).

But all components in the WAN and LAN must also support this correctly and correctly

be configured. And as I said, if there is nothing left to ‘distribute’, then even the most prioritized one will fail

Service…

Stinginess is cool

You’re right, and I’m sticking with John Rushkin’s statement:

http://www.iposs.de/1/gesetz-der-witschaft/

With this in mind, I hope that the end customer also understands this.

-> Competitors also have no choice but to switch to IP because they too are dependent on what the industry offers for communication platforms. And competitors also still have problems with this technology. However, if you look at the forums there, it seems that they are much larger than Swisscom.

Strictly speaking, it’s not about IP at all, but about the quality of the overall infrastructure and

As is well known, Swisscom is usually found there… It’s not just the end customers who rely on it

but also the competitors!

It is also not really useful to discuss which technology is the best. The fact is that every era has its technology. And it is actually the case that, depending on how you look at it or how it is weighted, there are always regressions. What matters is whether the disadvantages or advantages outweigh everything and everyone.

We don’t want to deteriorate, that would probably be the wrong intention! And like the advantages and disadvantages

are to be weighted, the end users also have a say. At least I’m happy with DSL

and as long as I can make telephony over ISDN, then I’ll do that. And if I want it cheaper,

Then I use SIP / Voip, which doesn’t cost anything. It’s cool that I’ve had the choice so far.

-> Since 1995, the industry has been developing and testing VoIP together with providers worldwide; Swisscom implemented the first VoIP solutions for customers in 2001. Around 10 years ago, the further development of VoIP towards ALL-IP began. That’s probably long enough, right? However, one cannot foresee all the problems that arise in the field during a mass roll-out.

Good for Swisscom. The fact is that SCIS introduced Voip internally in 2004 and the project

The first thing I had to do was reset it because nothing was working anymore! A new attempt was then made

undertaken six months later, which, with some compromises, remained in use.

Strictly speaking, ISDN and Voip are not actually mutually exclusive because they are connected in parallel

the same cables can be routed. But that makes no sense for cost reasons.

It should also be said that the first Swissnet-1 projects were put into operation in 1988

successful. At least for me it was extremely stable from the start.

--> It’s nice that ISDN worked well for you right from the start. I witnessed the introduction of Swissnet-1 and 2 on the front lines. Believe me, there were some customers who switched back to analog out of frustration. It was also not unusual for the manufacturer’s specialists to have to be flown in for support due to major problems. But 20 years later you see a lot of things through rose-colored glasses and dream of the good old days…

ISDN was far ahead of its time and is technically ahead of IP telephony. (see also voice quality etc.).

-> With HD audio, the voice quality via IP is better than with ISDN. Of course, this would also be possible with ISDN, but with a few exceptions, the industry has not built any HD audio devices for ISDN. With IP phones, however, things are different. I don’t deny that ISDN has advantages over IP-Tel in other respects.

You can’t say that… because digital is digital… and although ISDN was limited to 2× 64kbit or in the frequencies from 300Hz to 3400Hz, these properties were available in any case. This is not guaranteed with DSL communication. It is also wrong to compare ISDN with IP because they are different things. IP is a protocol and ISDN is a communication technology that can at best be compared with DSL. What good is HD audio to an end user if communication stalls due to lack of prioritization? As I said, I’m not questioning data communication but rather the fact that pure data communication is only partially suitable for voice (and actually films). This is also the reason why other technologies were used in the first project phases (e.g. ATM).

--> Before digitization takes place, the frequency range is cut with filters. With codec G.711 (standard codec for ISDN) it ends at 3400 Hz, with HD audio, for example with codec G.722, the analog bandwidth goes up to 7 kHz. That’s a huge audible difference. Sure, the G.722 codec was already around during the ISDN era, but was hardly used by the device manufacturers.

--> That’s right, ISDN shouldn’t be compared with IP, but even less with DSL transmission technology. The ISDN service can best be compared with the All-IP service, and that brings us back to the topic.

--> Thanks to end-to-end prioritization, nothing stalls as long as everything is dimensioned and configured correctly. VoIP has the highest priority (TOS 5 or DSCP 46) and “displaces” all other lower priority data in terms of bandwidth. Of course, the prerequisite is that VoIP does not overbook the maximum available bandwidth. Of course, this is and remains a compromise compared to the old systems with dedicated physical lines or TDM time slots per call, if you compare the effort, benefits, flexibility, scalability, open global standards, and much more, depending on the weighting the compromise is the better cards.

Analogue equipment will probably still be available for sale in 10 years!

-> I’m not talking about analogue devices but about the exchange centers (EWSD, AXE, S12) which are end-of-life.

Then write that too! My statement is also correct in this regard. There would be other communication technologies, the protocol is a different story. And that’s where we come to the costs.

--> Yes, there are other better technologies, but Swisscom has to use what the world market offers and certainly cannot go any extra mile or even influence the world market.

-> And you can no longer buy those or only the successors of them and they would probably be grossly negligent if Swisscom continued to rely on this technology and the systems behind it.

That’s true, but it’s not about a ‘Swisscom mistake’ but about what the market is doing. And fundamentally, the providers are the technology drivers and not the manufacturers. Alcatel would like to continue

pushed its proprietary systems further.

--> If the largest providers push the technology in one direction, little Switzerland has no choice but to go along with it. Alcatel probably wouldn’t have continued because of the Swiss market. Speaking of proprietary systems… that was exactly the death of many manufacturers.

And why will there soon be no more ISDN equipment? That’s right, because they opted for the cheaper, less innovative route of IP telephony. Anyone who knows something about telephony knows what exactly is behind ISDN.

-> This is a chicken and egg question. Ultimately, however, it was not the providers who wanted to move away from ISDN, but rather the industry no longer saw a future in it and therefore switched developments to VoIP/ALL-IP.

I have a different opinion… at least who the industry represents… I think people have recognized that

Voice data is just data and you forget that you need the right QoS for it.

--> See above, as long as QoS end-to-end is correctly dimensioned and configured/implemented, with VoIP you can achieve voice quality at ISDN level or with G.722 even better than ISDN. The fact that the majority of networks (mostly in the house on the LAN) are not or incorrectly configured for VoIP cannot be blamed on technology. The biggest source of errors in VoIP is layer 8, i.e. people.

-> The providers are second to last in the chain and, like the end customers, have to follow suit, for better or for worse. But there were/are also a lot of end customers (especially in the business customer area) who approached the providers themselves and explicitly demanded a switch to modern IP technology, among other things because their internal communication solutions had long since switched to IP (e.g. MS-Lync, Cisco CUCM, VoIP PBX from various manufacturers)

But what is also possible without any problems via a gateway function in the headquarters… Finally

Swisscom does not yet support SIP telephony, for obvious reasons.

--> In the business customer sector, Swisscom has long supported SIP, but you also deal with customers who know what they are doing. In the private customer segment it is a different matter. If everyone has any no-name pseudo SIP tel. If it were attached to the Internet box, the need for support at the help desk would probably explode. Sure, I’m also for open systems and markets. Here, Swisscom could at most certify a range of different SIP devices together with the manufacturers for operation on the Internet box and publish the lists.

-> TCP/IP or UDP/IP does have several prioritization procedures, i.e. QoS (802.1p/q COS in Layer 2 and IP-Prec or DSCP in Layer 3). And the correction procedures are regulated in the higher layers, among other things, as part of the codec algorithm.

You know very well that prioritization on the TCP layer basically occurs too late. What’s the use if a bandwidth of 10Mbit isn’t enough for a 25kHz transmission to be error-free. Also, codec error corrections are of very little use if the transmission interference/dropouts are too great? Strictly speaking, the prioritization would have to be done at the lowest level like with ISDN or ATM (via channels), then you really have guaranteed bandwidth (at least for sound and video).

--> See also above. A guaranteed bandwidth for VoIP can be easily achieved with QoS TOS5 or DSCP 46. All other data transfers with low priority then only receive the remaining bandwidth that is not currently required by VoIP. This works great, I deal with it every day and also do the corresponding E2E quality and load tests. I don’t know what your calculation example is supposed to do with 25 kHz and 10 Mbit. 1 voice channel with codec G.711 / 20ms packet size of net 64kbps requires around 90 kbps gross via UDP/IP or, for simplicity, 100 kbps as a thumb value. Dimensioned in this way and secured using suitable QoS procedures, there are no disruptions. I did long-term measurements across Switzerland where fewer than 100 packets were lost during calls lasting 7×24 hours. Even a loss of 1% (as long as there are no bursts >3 packets) is uncritical and not audible.

IP was not explicitly developed for telecommunications, but rather for Lan/Wan communication from servers and PCs. As I said, VoIP telephony makes telephony/data communication cheaper because you can use standard components. That’s it.

-> Yes, IP was originally developed for data communication, but time did not stand still here either and it was further developed for real-time communication (among other things by defining suitable QoS procedures.

And yet the compromises remain… TCP is TCP and Ethernet remains Ethernet and collosions remain collosions 🙂 You can’t get rid of them with any additional protocol. The problem is easily alleviated with higher bandwidth volumes.

--> In what era are you still alive? At that time there were collisions with the hubs (which are not allowed to be used in connection with VoIP anyway). Since switches have been used there have been no more collisions. And even if so, packet losses that would cause collisions of <1% are problem-free and imperceptible. In addition, the correction procedures are integrated into the codecs, e.g. PLC for G.711. There is no need for additional protocols or higher bandwidths.

-> and introduction of new protocols (RTP, RTCP, SIP,….).

But all components in the WAN and LAN must also support this correctly and correctly

be configured. And as I said, if there is nothing left to ‘distribute’, then even the most prioritized service will fail…

--> I have already mentioned several times that everything E2E must be configured correctly. You are also not allowed to overbook the bandwidths. But that is no different with ISDN. The 31st call setup on a primary connection is assigned to a lane. You can get around this with ISDN using alternative routing, but this is also the case with VoIP and is called zone management or CAC.

-> Competitors also have no choice but to switch to IP because they too are dependent on what the industry offers for communication platforms. And competitors also still have problems with this technology. However, if you look at the forums there, it seems that they are much larger than Swisscom.

Strictly speaking, it’s not about IP at all, but about the quality of the overall infrastructure and

As is well known, Swisscom is usually found there… It’s not just the end customers who rely on it

but also the competitors!

--> Yes, but ultimately it’s what the competitors make of it. If you purchase bandwidth XY from Swisscom and deliberately overbook it just to offer cheaper prices, then you can’t blame Swisscom. Swisscom is also not responsible for the quality of the routers, switches, modems and set-top boxes that competitors use. A chain is only as strong as the weakest link.

-> It’s also not really useful to discuss which technology is the best. The fact is that every era has its technology. And it is actually the case that, depending on how you look at it or how it is weighted, there are always regressions. What matters is whether the disadvantages or advantages outweigh everything and everyone.

We don’t want to deteriorate, that would probably be the wrong intention! And the end users also have a say in how the advantages and disadvantages are to be weighted. At least I’m happy with DSL and as long as I can make calls via ISDN, then I’ll do that. And if I want it cheaper, then I’ll use SIP / Voip, which doesn’t cost anything. It’s cool that I’ve had the choice so far.

--> Swisscom must adapt to the global market, even if that would mean a deterioration. As I said, Siemens, Alcatel, Ericson and all the other manufacturers are probably not making an exception for Swisscom or Switzerland just to keep the beloved ISDN alive. So from 2018 you will no longer have an alternative.

---

@hed wrote:

-> Since 1995, the industry has been developing and testing VoIP together with providers worldwide; Swisscom implemented the first VoIP solutions for customers in 2001. Around 10 years ago, the further development of VoIP towards ALL-IP began. That’s probably long enough, right? However, one cannot foresee all the problems that arise in the field during a mass roll-out.

Good for Swisscom. The fact is that SCIS introduced Voip internally in 2004 and the project

the first thing I had to do was reset it because nothing was working anymore! A new attempt was then made

undertaken six months later, which, with some compromises, remained in use.

Strictly speaking, ISDN and Voip are not actually mutually exclusive because they are connected in parallel

the same cables can be routed. But that makes no sense for cost reasons.

It should also be said that the first Swissnet-1 projects were put into operation in 1988

successful. At least for me it was extremely stable from the start.

--> It’s nice that ISDN worked well for you right from the start. I witnessed the introduction of Swissnet-1 and 2 on the front lines. Believe me, there were some customers who switched back to analog out of frustration. It was also not unusual for the manufacturer’s specialists to have to be flown in for support due to major problems. But 20 years later you see a lot of things through rose-colored glasses and dream of the good old days…

I also experienced this time and I know that Swisscom initially had too little experience,

and that the distances to the headquarters and the line quality caused difficulties and that the

the first NT’s were a bit unreliable. Nevertheless, when ISDN worked, the quality was also great.

Long story short: We, the end customers, don’t want any compromises or regression, that’s what we want

Swisscom’s service is EXPENSIVE. We expect flawless and impeccable performance from the Swisscom brand

and I hope for Swisscom that it continues to live up to this claim.

--> Before digitization takes place, the frequency range is cut with filters. With codec G.711 (standard codec for ISDN) it ends at 3400 Hz, with HD audio, for example with codec G.722, the analog bandwidth goes up to 7 kHz.

All old hat that I had already described. This frequency range is also sufficient for clear speech.

The difference is simply that with ISDN 2×16Kbit is available without interference, which is the case with a

Communication via Ethernet & IP can hardly be guaranteed and not even if it is essential

offers higher bandwidths. (which of course helps reduce the problems)

That’s a huge audible difference. Sure, the G.722 codec was already around during the ISDN era, but was hardly used by the device manufacturers

wasn’t even necessary for pure language - I’ll say again, we’re talking about telephony and not about

Data communication with images and audio.

What is being criticized here is purely the telephony and the full support of MSN.

.

--> Correct, ISDN cannot be compared with IP, but even less with DSL transmission technology. The ISDN service can best be compared with the All-IP service, and that brings us back to the topic.

I don’t agree with you, since All-IP also operates on layers other than ISDN.

--> Thanks to end-to-end prioritization, nothing stalls as long as everything is dimensioned and configured correctly.

It will hardly be possible to correctly estimate every load behavior of every user/end customer.

The only thing I’m advocating for is that language has its own channel where

the bandwidth is guaranteed, no matter what other IP packets are floating around somewhere.

VoIP has the highest priority (TOS 5 or DSCP 46) and “displaces” all others lower in terms of bandwidth

and yet the quality is not enough… think about it

prioritized data. Of course, the prerequisite is that VoIP does not overbook the maximum available bandwidth. Of course, this is and remains a compromise compared to the old systems with physical lines or TDM time slots assigned to each call when you consider the effort, benefits, flexibility,

now we agree!

Scalability, open global standards, and much more, depending on the weighting, the compromise has the better cards for once.

That is your and Swisscom’s interpretation, but it may look different for a customer

--> Yes, there are other better technologies, but Swisscom has to use what the world market offers and certainly cannot go any extra mile or even influence the world market.

Yes and no, all major providers are brought together in one forum and already have voting rights,

which allows them to tell manufacturers how they envision the business. Especially in messaging and

Collaboration, I can give you a few examples where the telcos didn’t want to participate.

Why do you think Swisscom doesn’t offer a SIP gateway?

--> If the largest providers push the technology in one direction, little Switzerland has no choice but to go along with it. Alcatel probably wouldn’t have continued because of the Swiss market. Speaking of proprietary systems… that was exactly the death of many manufacturers.

What was is uninteresting. If the quality suffers, then the end customer is also willing to dig a little deeper

grab sack. I mean compare the price-performance ratio of Swisscom-Mobile to the

Offered in nearby countries…

--> See above, as long as QoS end-to-end is correctly dimensioned and configured/implemented, with VoIP you can achieve voice quality at ISDN level or with G.722 even better than ISDN. The fact that the majority of networks (mostly in the house on the LAN) are not or incorrectly configured for VoIP cannot be blamed on technology. The biggest source of errors in VoIP is layer 8, i.e. people.

Maybe, but that changes very little for the end customer.

--> In the business customer sector, Swisscom has long supported SIP, but you also deal with customers who know what they are doing. In the private customer segment it is a different matter.

Do you really believe that? Private customers have already used SIP, where most Swisscom employees do

didn’t even know what SIP was. The first users of SIP were computer nerds and interested people

there were hardly any Geschäftskunden who could use it. (Missing phone books, distribution, etc.)

If everyone has any no-name pseudo SIP phone. If it were attached to the Internet box, the need for support at the help desk would probably explode.

I don’t agree with you, after all, some gateway providers have existed for many years

the problems were manageable. These gateways had the biggest problems in their respective areas

Countries to get local number porting.

Sure, I’m also for open systems and markets. Here, Swisscom could at most certify a range of different SIP devices together with the manufacturers for operation on the Internet box and publish the lists.

And above all offer a public SIP gateway, but you probably can’t make any money with that.

.

--> In what era are you still alive? At that time there were collisions with the hubs (which are not allowed to be used in connection with VoIP anyway). Since switches have been used there have been no more collisions.

Babble-the-blabber… of course there are still collisions, they’re just in the switch. The switch can

cannot switch through if a point-to-point connection is overloaded. The broadcaster then does

one last thing. Maybe you’ll take a look at the lights (they don’t say much) on one of them

Switch or even better, take a look at the statistics in a manageable switch and you’ll be surprised

be how many packages are lost!

Packet losses that would cause collisions of <1% are problem-free and imperceptible. In addition, the correction procedures are integrated into the codecs, e.g. PLC for G.711. There is no need for additional protocols or higher bandwidths.

Imperceptible delays, which are absorbed by the switch’s buffer, are enough

reduce the transmission quality. Long story short, the voice quality is superior to ISDN

accepted, which was also accepted by the end users. Actually it is idle about bandwidth and

Talk about corrective procedures while you still have to live with restrictions.

-> and introduction of new protocols (RTP, RTCP, SIP,….).

But all components in the WAN and LAN must also support this correctly and correctly

be configured. And as I said, if there is nothing left to ‘distribute’, then even the most prioritized service will fail…

--> I have already mentioned several times that everything E2E must be configured correctly. You are also not allowed to overbook the bandwidths. But that is no different with ISDN. The 31st call setup on a primary connection is assigned to a lane. You can get around this with ISDN using alternative routing,

According to ISDN, overbooking is not permitted at all. If you have exhausted your 2 or 30 lines, then

you get a regular busy signal. It’s more legitimate than simply throttling the phone quality.

--> Yes, but ultimately it’s what the competitors make of it. If you purchase bandwidth XY from Swisscom and deliberately overbook it just to offer cheaper prices, then you can’t blame Swisscom. Swisscom is also not responsible for the quality of the routers, switches, modems and set-top boxes that competitors use. A chain is only as strong as the weakest link.

Perhaps an end user is not even aware of how their business is changing? Again, the

The remaining communication should not affect the voice quality of a telephone connection.

--> Swisscom must adapt to the global market, even if that would mean a deterioration. As I said, Siemens, Alcatel, Ericson and all the other manufacturers are probably not making an exception for Swisscom or Switzerland just to keep the beloved ISDN alive. So from 2018 you will no longer have an alternative.

That’s right, I won’t make an exception either, because that will be the point in time when I mean Swisscom

I will cancel space for the local headquarters/regional headquarters. That doesn’t hurt Swisscom, but it does

costs a few 100,000 CHF if they are allowed to pull the copper cables and fiber optics out of the garden again. You see, it all has its secondary costs too.

---

---

@joewied wrote:
[…]

All old hat that I had already described. This frequency range is also sufficient for clear speech.

The difference is simply that with ISDN 2×16Kbit is available without interference, which is the case with a

Communication via Ethernet & IP can hardly be guaranteed and not even if it is essential

offers higher bandwidths. (which of course helps reduce the problems)

---

I consider the “guaranteed bandwidth” mentioned again and again in connection with VoIP to be a theoretical weak point that is now irrelevant in practice. Apart from experimental hobbyist networks, I have not seen any cases in recent years where the best-effort approach to IP has had any noticeable practical impact. The real problems that end customers face now have more to do with limited functionality - such as not being able to set different ringtones per MSN, etc. At least not with certain Swisscom devices.

---

[…]

--> In what era are you still alive? At that time there were collisions with the hubs (which are not allowed to be used in connection with VoIP anyway). Since switches have been used there have been no more collisions.

Babble-the-blabber… of course there are still collisions, they’re just in the switch. The switch can

cannot switch through if a point-to-point connection is overloaded. The broadcaster then does

one last thing. Maybe you’ll take a look at the lights (they don’t say much) on one of them

Switch or even better, take a look at the statistics in a manageable switch and you’ll be surprised

be how many packages are lost!

---

So on my switches the collision counter on the port only goes up when a hub is connected there. The packet loss counter would go up if the connection was at its limit and the port buffer was full - see below.

---

Packet losses that would cause collisions of <1% are problem-free and imperceptible. In addition, the correction procedures are integrated into the codecs, e.g. PLC for G.711. There is no need for additional protocols or higher bandwidths.

Imperceptible delays, which are absorbed by the switch’s buffer, are enough

reduce the transmission quality. Long story short, the voice quality is superior to ISDN

accepted, which was also accepted by the end users. Actually it is idle about bandwidth and

Talk about corrective procedures while you still have to live with restrictions.

---

I took your statement as an opportunity to take another look at the port statistics of some fairly heavily loaded switches. Result: not a single packet lost due to buffer overflow, not a single collision, zero, zero, nothing, never - and that on several hundred Ethernet ports and over several months. The port buffer of the switches viewed is 512kB/port, ie. at gigabit the maximum jitter is less than 5 milliseconds. Even if this wasn’t ironed out at higher levels, I’d say that no eardrum in the world can perceive something like that.

Apart from the technical digressions here, it seems to me that the real core of the problem originally raised is once again that Swisscom only supports its own VoIP devices. With certain third-party IP phones, all six of the original questioner’s points would be answered in one fell swoop. Therefore: dear Swisscom, please give out the SIP credentials!