Why does the Skype generation accept a lower quality of voice?
It's an interesting paradox; Skype offers a pretty amazing level of call quality, which is the reason why it's often used in recording Podcasts. An example being the TWiT network, Leo Leporte uses Skype to conference in his guests and the quality is great.
I've seen the phrase used a coupe of times nhttp://www.jajah.com/ow, but most recently to justify lower investment in voice infrastructure. The generation that uses Skype is also the generation that has grown up using mobile phones as their main form of communication. The call quality can be a bit shaky due to a myriad of reasons, but people have accepted the convience in substitution of quality.
Having tried Jajah, Rebtel, Skype, Truphone, services that use the internet as the voice backbone, I can say that about 80% of the time the call quality is really good, but there's 20% of the time the quality is horrific, delays, calling dropping, strange noises etc. Compare this to traditional voice where you knew when you picked up the phone it was going to work 100% of the time, (even in a power outage).
Today we have lots of different ways of communicating, IM, Facebook, Twitter, SMS, email (through a variety of devices), so if voice doesn't work a quick SMS, email or Tweet often get's the message across. So we accept lower quality voice because there are other forms of communication not just voice.
So the Skype generation is in fact very communications savvy, they have lots of communications tools and have lowered the cost to almost free. What we've learnt here is that as predicted the IT strategy of an