The Telephone Is Dead (Except When It’s Not)

While it is obvious that younger generations do not use the telephone much anymore, it is also true that older generations are very frustrated and disillusioned by modern communications technologies. For them, the telephone represents a reliable, predictable, and easy-to-understand communications method, and they are likely to continue using it for the remainder of their lives. Since there are an awful lot of old people in this world, and many of them are senior executives, decision makers, and shareholders—not to mention well-heeled customers—it seems to be a good strategy for businesses today to continue to ensure that their customers can reach them through the telephone.

When one has tried all other methods of communication, such as email, webforms, and perhaps even text messaging, one will finally pick up the phone and call. It seems that in many cases, a problem that could not get sorted out any other way is finally resolved over the phone.

It would also be correct to say that the increasingly poor job companies are doing in handling communications with their customers is a source of much frustration and confusion. However, as always, where there is a problem, there exists opportunity. Companies that retain a commitment to an excellent telecom infrastructure may find themselves with a distinct competitive advantage, using nothing more complicated than good old-fashioned customer service. If you wish to service customers over age 50, you would do well to keep your telephone system running well.

Another interesting component of traditional telecommunications networks is that while we can never be sure that we are using the same conferencing software as each other (never in history have so many near-identical apps had to be installed just to allow people to talk to each other), we can be reasonably sure that if one of us picks up the phone and dials the other’s phone number, a successful conversation will be possible, without any troubleshooting or software installation. In an age where it seems no conference call can start without someone having to troubleshoot their app, this kind of universal consistency and reliability likely still has some value. Today’s hot new office collaboration software is tomorrow’s forgotten toy (whither thou, Skype?). The brave old telephone soldiers on.

We’re not sure the telephone is dead just yet.

Communications Overload

In many ways, the ability to communicate defines our species. Yes, other critters are able to signal each other in basic ways, but our fascination with creating ever-changing and innovative ways to connect to each other is not something we’ve encountered in any other being.

From the carrier pigeon to the postal service to the telegraph, telephone, and television, each new technology served the same goal: improving our ability to communicate. Today, we have achieved a most remarkable thing: it is now reasonable to expect instant communication with almost anyone on the planet.

The challenge we never predicted is that too much of a good thing has begun to overwhelm us. It will be interesting to see how this plays out culturally.

The Problems with Open Source Development

Although Alexander Graham Bell is most famously remembered as the father of the telephone,¹ the reality is that during the latter half of the 1800s, dozens of minds were working toward the goal of carrying voice over telegraph lines. These people were mostly business-minded folks, looking to create a product through which they might make their fortunes.

We have come to think of traditional telephone companies as monopolies, but this was not true in their early days. The early history of telephone service took place in a very competitive environment, with new companies springing up all over the world, often with little or no respect for the patents they might be violating. Many famous monopolies got their start through the waging (and winning) of patent wars.

It’s interesting to contrast the history of the telephone with the history of GNU Linux and the internet. While the telephone was created as a commercial exercise, and the telecom industry was forged through lawsuits and corporate takeovers, Linux and the internet arose out of the academic community, which has tended to value the sharing of knowledge over profit.

Unfortunately, once again too much of a good thing has begun to overwhelm. What we have seen recently is a loss of vision for open source development. Too few developers have gotten tired of the demands of too many users unwilling to contribute. Most open source projects have—out of necessity—had to shield the development team from the selfish demands of those who intend to only take, and never give. This abuse of the developers has, sadly, even extended to companies that have built highly profitable businesses on open source projects that they have never contributed a dime to. Multibillion-dollar businesses, profiting from the efforts of a team barely able to pay their bills, is not a sustainable development model. It remains to be seen how this story will play out, but open source software is not what it was 10 years ago.

Asterisk is fortunate in that it is funded by the efforts of Sangoma/Digium, the parents of the project. Their challenge has and always will be to figure out how to nurture the product in such a way that the requirements of the business are compatible with the needs of the project. Not an easy task. We’ll be cheering for them. They have done a remarkable job thus far.

The Future of Asterisk

So, does Asterisk have a future? We don’t see why it shouldn’t. It continues to do what it has always done, and it also works hard to be compatible with suitable technologies coming down the pipe. If nothing else, Asterisk will continue to be very good at integrating with telephone technologies, and we’re not prepared to call that story fully told yet.

The Future of Telephony

Telephony may look dead, but we still see movement in the tail, and it’s a long tail indeed.