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

‎No, Iconectiv is what Telcordia's called this week. -- 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 (direct) Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/

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

I hadn't heard of Iconectiv (one "n") before. I found this: http://www.ericsson.com/news/150326-fcc-authorizes-local-number-portability_244069647_c Was it Neustar prior to this change? I dream of a process for LNP that goes like this: 1. Customer goes to current carrier, requests a

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

No, it won't. The rejections the other side provides are largely optional, and in fact the FCC has issued strict guidance about the necessary level of matching on an LSR (I want to say it's telephone number, account number, PIN if applicable, and zipcode, but I know there's some conditional

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

I think you may have missed the main point of the ILEC proposals to “modernize”. They still propose, post-“modernization”, to force CLECs to interconnect with TDM facilities and SS7 at each tandem as they have to today. That’s a huge revenue stream and they’re not going to willingly give that

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

Haha, that was a fun read! (and pretty accurate) >> > Technically, ILECs publish a lot of stuff publicly, to comply with the > letter of regulations requiring them to do so. However, most of it is not > digestible or usable to those who work outside the world of ILEC > provisioning, so it has

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

Honestly, I think the proper balance here (my 2c) would be creating a rolodex of properly maintained carrier contact information (with controlled distribution) so we could reach out to carriers we exchange a useful amount of traffic with, and working out privately the contortions necessary to

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

And who has the rights to announce? With IP, you are disincentivized from having all the traffic flow through one's network if it can be avoided, because that is additional cost that the customer doesn't want to pay and additional overhead and management for the IP provider. So they say "hey,

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

In this scenario: NANPA -> Level3 -> reseller A -> reseller B -> reseller C -> end-user Only reseller C and the end user knows where the chain ends. So, what about some OSPF-like mechanism? Let's say that in this scenario Level3 has direct connections with both resellers A and C. It would know

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

- Original Message - > From: "Alex Balashov" > 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

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

On 12/07/2015 02:22 PM, Jay R. Ashworth wrote: And my heart bleeds for them. But so has my wallet, for decades; they've gotten their ROI. :-) I didn't mean to legitimate their crying poor house. I was just illuminating their reasoning for resisting OTT and commoditisation. -- Alex

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

- Original Message - > From: "Mike Ray, MBA, CNE, CTE" > I think you may have missed the main point of the ILEC proposals to > “modernize”. > They still propose, post-“modernization”, to force CLECs to interconnect with > TDM facilities and SS7 at each tandem as

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

Pete Count me in for testing and development. On Dec 7, 2015 7:01 AM, "Pete E" wrote: > These are the crux of the issue. If there were a cooperative group willing > to peer to circumvent the PSTN, and if the group were large enough, then it > could offer *some* competitive

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

BGP relies on physical interconnections that have large contracts behind them. You don't just get a full BGP feed from your upstream and they accept all your announcements blindly. You can broadcast to your upstream that you are a route for all IPs in AS701, but if you are directly connected to

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

This is a really interesting idea, Mark. I only have a high-level understanding of Bitcoin but it definitely seems very similar to what we're talking about as for number ownership. It doesn't completely answer the trust question but there's definitely something here... On Dec 7, 2015, at

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

You only need look at what the UNE circuit IDs are to know how the ILECs feel about them...DS1s and DS3s both have FU in them! LOL! iconectiv used to be Telcordia, which was originally BellCore. In the past Telcordia only produced Telecom documentation, sold industry codes, and adminstered

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

On 12/07/2015 02:22 PM, Jay R. Ashworth wrote: And no company is guaranteed the right to continue to make a living, by the law, in whatever field it is currently engaged in. Didn't a Supreme Court Justice say that in an opinion? By that same token, though, there is some question as to

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

Reseller C and the end user knows where the chain ends, but how do WE know that reseller C and end-user are honest? And how do we know that when reseller B says "no no, send calls here!" they are being bad actors when really the calls should skip reseller B and go directly to reseller C or

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

On Mon, 7 Dec 2015, Alex Balashov wrote: The proposed system might just hasten this process along, as the big CLECs that feed the industry ask, "Why do we need resellers again?" Flattening out the tree sure would help with speed of ports and troubleshooting.