Re: [VoiceOps] HPBX over ADSL

Metaswitch but as its not really media handling it isnt terribly relevant. The latest Oracle SBC;s will transcode Opus as will many software platforms (Freeswitch, Frafos, etc) On 12/5/2015 9:15 AM, Colton Conor wrote: Ryan, What voice platform are you using with OPUS? On Thu, Dec 3, 2015

Re: [VoiceOps] USF and Minimum Billing

At the expense of sounding anal I have to point out a couple of minor corrections... > In the end they admitted that their consideration of the minimum fee as > telecom vs non-telecom was a choice based on lack of guidance from the > FCC, and on the advice of their telecom lawyers,

Re: [VoiceOps] HPBX over ADSL

Ryan, What voice platform are you using with OPUS? On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 12:42 PM, Ryan Delgrosso wrote: > Hi Anthony, > We do this pretty frequently with a high success rate. It really depends > on the site size and usage patterns. > > A couple of things to keep in

Re: [VoiceOps] Future of the Traditional PSTN vs VOIP and VoLTE

What's Inteliquent's Position? PSTN 2.0 is a great way to describe the upgraded regulation of a system that's not invented to be free to the masses but more so profited by one large mass. I just can't wrap my head around how the government supposedly broke up the bells years ago but for the past

Re: [VoiceOps] Future of the Traditional PSTN vs VOIP and VoLTE

I can only point out what I pointed out in the FCC comment period - iconnectiv already charges both sides for the LERG, which it solely maintains with an iron grip. It maintains many if not practically all of the standards documents, and now we're proposing (well, too late for future tense) to

Re: [VoiceOps] Future of the Traditional PSTN vs VOIP and VoLTE

Erik, What you're advocating is the well-established notion that voice should be treated as just another Internet application, like HTTP or World of Warcraft, and billed according to the same model, not as a series of per-minute billable events. Technologically, it's rational, but it's an

Re: [VoiceOps] Future of the Traditional PSTN vs VOIP and VoLTE

Even BGP is not a decentralised, democratic, peer-to-peer utopia. Routes are distributed down in a rather hierarchical fashion; effectively, an oligopoly of global Tier 1 backbone operators ends up the clearinghouse. And the weaknesses and vulnerabilities in BGP to the extent that it IS a

Re: [VoiceOps] Future of the Traditional PSTN vs VOIP and VoLTE

It has very little to do with actual Technology... it is a lot to do with Money, which is used to influence politics, which is used to influence regulations, which is used to influence business which is used to influence Money. To try to explain it any other way would be naive. Telecom (PSTN)

Re: [VoiceOps] Future of the Traditional PSTN vs VOIP and VoLTE

On 12/05/2015 07:05 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote: It has very little to do with actual Technology Agreed. I think that's the most important takeaway here. The technology itself is the last and least relevant factor. -- Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC 303 Perimeter Center North,

Re: [VoiceOps] Future of the Traditional PSTN vs VOIP and VoLTE

Paul, Your description of Inteliquent makes a lot of since. It's essential how the internet was born via free interconnections at hub locations. Of course you paid to get to the location but once you built your fiber or back then copper path you just plugged in. On Sat, Dec 5, 2015 at 11:55

Re: [VoiceOps] Future of the Traditional PSTN vs VOIP and VoLTE

TDM only stands for faxing and paying FCC fees. If a packet transverses your entire network as a packet then it's never a toll charge. It's a packet. This is why they are pressing hard to tax the internet more because the voice money games are slowing decreasing. It's a data war now. On Sat, Dec

Re: [VoiceOps] Future of the Traditional PSTN vs VOIP and VoLTE

On 12/05/2015 05:01 PM, Erik Flournoy wrote: Your description of Inteliquent makes a lot of since. It's essential how the internet was born via free interconnections at hub locations. Of course you paid to get to the location but once you built your fiber or back then copper path you just

Re: [VoiceOps] Future of the Traditional PSTN vs VOIP and VoLTE

On 12/05/2015 05:14 PM, Erik Flournoy wrote: allow carriers to directly connect via packets This is more complicated than it seems, although part of that is definitely because the incumbents want it to be. Still, see prior 2000s-era art on "federated domain peering policy control" and the

Re: [VoiceOps] Future of the Traditional PSTN vs VOIP and VoLTE

Using BGP VERY Broadly here just as a peering example is all not how it actually routes. On Sat, Dec 5, 2015 at 12:27 PM, Alex Balashov wrote: > Even BGP is not a decentralised, democratic, peer-to-peer utopia. Routes > are distributed down in a rather hierarchical

Re: [VoiceOps] Future of the Traditional PSTN vs VOIP and VoLTE

Yep, I think we're saying the same thing. And while Inteliquent's role is undeniably interesting, I do think it ultimately fits squarely into PSTN 2.0. On 12/05/2015 04:41 PM, Paul Timmins wrote: I can only point out what I pointed out in the FCC comment period - iconnectiv already charges

Re: [VoiceOps] Future of the Traditional PSTN vs VOIP and VoLTE

They operate a competing interconnection service that you can use to in some circumstances entirely replace interaction with the RBOC, save for doing things like LSRs for number portability. You can get an entirely VoIP handoff to them. As for any to any interconnection, without some sort of

Re: [VoiceOps] Future of the Traditional PSTN vs VOIP and VoLTE

Paul So Agreed. Voice in the US is a roadmap with profits created for the author to continually profit. I totally believe in standards, heck structure are built around building codes, but when the information is all centrally controlled and not freely available to the masses isn't it

Re: [VoiceOps] Future of the Traditional PSTN vs VOIP and VoLTE

Ah, but how would you know what IPs your inbound call should be trusted from for your SBCs? It's hard enough to get people properly interopped when the calling activity is planned, let alone have random endpoints hit your network. Are they going to use E.164? Should they send npdi/rn data?

[VoiceOps] Future of the Traditional PSTN vs VOIP and VoLTE

Aloha Group, I'm curious to know others thoughts on where they believe the traditional PSTN is going vs VOIP and VoLTE. Now that Iconnectiv will be administering the LNP in the US I feel as though it's the best time to try and propose new or more up to date solutions that allow smaller carriers

Re: [VoiceOps] Future of the Traditional PSTN vs VOIP and VoLTE

On 12/05/2015 04:28 PM, Paul Timmins wrote: Are you ignoring the position Intelliquent has in the market? Am I? -- Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC 303 Perimeter Center North, Suite 300 Atlanta, GA 30346 United States Tel: +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free) / +1-678-954-0671

Re: [VoiceOps] Future of the Traditional PSTN vs VOIP and VoLTE

On 12/05/2015 04:46 PM, Paul Timmins wrote: They operate a competing interconnection service that you can use to in some circumstances entirely replace interaction with the RBOC They do indeed, but when you look at their model, doesn't it ultimately redound to the benefit of the same old

Re: [VoiceOps] Future of the Traditional PSTN vs VOIP and VoLTE

T-Mobile is entirely switching away from TDM connectivity and using IQ for their entire TDM interop from what a little birdie told me. That alone seemed like a pretty big paradigm shift. > On Dec 5, 2015, at 15:00, Alex Balashov wrote: > > On 12/05/2015 04:55 PM,

Re: [VoiceOps] Future of the Traditional PSTN vs VOIP and VoLTE

On 12/05/2015 05:05 PM, Erik Flournoy wrote: If a packet transverses your entire network as a packet then it's never a toll charge. It's a packet. Well, right. :-) No provider of voice networks wants value-added services to go away and be replaced by OTT applications for whom they're just a

Re: [VoiceOps] Future of the Traditional PSTN vs VOIP and VoLTE

Alex I think if they remained NEUTRAL like their previous name it could work as an interconnecting place such as BGP peering. we are here to move packets. Now if they start to tax the packets or dig in and say hey that's VoIP we are taxinig the calls then things would change. They did change

Re: [VoiceOps] Future of the Traditional PSTN vs VOIP and VoLTE

On 12/05/2015 05:19 PM, Paul Timmins wrote: have random endpoints hit your network. As SIP security currently works, this goes under "no. just no." So, "just route directly to each other via packets" is an understandable but very naive notion, IMHO. -- Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste

Re: [VoiceOps] Future of the Traditional PSTN vs VOIP and VoLTE

Paul I think direct switch to switch would work great especially with IPv6. There would have to be a list kinda like the SS7 list that is maintained and updated but with the correct certificate exchanges it could work. You would essentially have to keep your upstream provider happy. Unless of