Solutions to the consumer VoIP quality problem

Last time, we talked in some additional detail about the root cause of VoIP call quality degradation for users who subscribe to a BYOB (bring your own broadband) VoIP service. Today, we’d like to propose a few alternative solutions.

While one of our recent reader replies suggested that even a Papal Decree might not work to get service providers off the dime to improve their Internet connections and provide voice-quality networks, we think users, VoIP providers, and Internet access providers all have a role in solving the problems.

First, users need to be educated about the risks of using the Internet as a VoIP backbone. As a best-effort network, the Internet was never designed to be a voice backbone because it was built for data. (This fact is not to suggest that IP can’t be used for voice, but that the Internet is a dynamic network not purpose built for real-time traffic.) VoIP users can also help by understanding a little about the potential pitfalls and representing their problems well to service providers. For example, a user might do well to understand that if an IP packet containing voice is discarded, their voice quality will suffer. However, we also think this level of detail may be unrealistic for most VoIP users.

Second, we turn to the Internet access and Internet core providers with one possible solution – creating a service class within the Internet specifically for real-time applications, such as voice. This approach has been successful in the enterprise, since IP traffic and MPLS cores can easily accommodate real-time traffic. But then the question remains – who should pay for a better quality of service for BYOB VoIP – the Internet provider, the VoIP provider, or the user?

Here’s where we come to the third point of responsibility. We think that perhaps the BYOB VoIP providers should pay for a voice-grade quality of service class, although we realize these costs will likely be ultimately passed on to the consumer. The sticking point for this alternative falls back on the access providers. Since most Internet access providers also offer their own VoIP service, will they “play fair” by enabling a cost-effective VoIP access service class and be willing to step up with an enforceable service level agreement for the VoIP providers?

Now, we know this approach contradicts our position on ‘Net neutrality but we think access to voice services isn’t going to be free, that a quality voice isn’t necessarily a universal privilege, and that, if priced correctly, BYOB VoIP competition could still be a thriving business.

We’d like to know what you think – please drop us an e-mail and we’ll publish your replies.