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

Not us. Is this topic interesting enough to everyone to try and formalize and develop? (i.e. take it off the email list and do something more)? Maybe meet up at SIPNOC? (though that's 1/2 year away). We'd be happy to host something (say, a two-day meeting) here sooner, if there's interest. On

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

This is a slight topic change, but at SIPNOC for the last few years, FCC and FCC-connected people have come and talked about the plans for transitioning. My general sense is that the they're considering adding something like an IP address to the NPAC data structure. There's a new IETF working

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

I don't mean to be a Negative Nancy, but I am concerned that some of may not realise how many times this conversation has played out before, in various permutations. The PSTN is dead, long live the PSTN, etc. The enthusiastic proclamation of a forum/vehicle/working

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

bject: Re: [VoiceOps] Future of the Traditional PSTN vs VOIP and VoLTE From: "Alex Balashov" <abalas...@evaristesys.com> Date: 12/9/15 11:17 am To: voiceops@voiceops.org I don't mean to be a Negative Nancy, but I am concerned that some of may not realise how many times thi

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

On 12/09/2015 01:16 PM, mgra...@mstvp.com wrote: There was a time where certain parties from a large wireless carrier were sounding the alarm about spectral waste, even as their very own marketing teams were extolling the virtues of watching television on your mobile phone. This sort of talking

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

- Original Message - Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Future of the Traditional PSTN vs VOIP and VoLTE From: "Alex Balashov" <abalas...@evaristesys.com> Date: 12/9/15 12:10 pm To: mgra...@mstvp.com, voiceops@voiceops.org Cc: "Randy Resnick" <rand...@randulo

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

201-1262 sip:mgra...@mjg.onsip.com skype mjgraves - Original Message - Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Future of the Traditional PSTN vs VOIP and VoLTE From: "Alex Balashov" <abalas...@evaristesys.com> Date: 12/9/15 11:17 am To: voiceops@voiceops.org I don't mean to be a Negati

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

I'd add a #7 to "what I believe we agree upon": 7. The current PSTN prevents and the new world order offers, or at least allows for, high def and video codecs, and other cool new things yet to be imagined. On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Peter Beckman wrote: > Argh. I've

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

Peter - This instantly provides the ability to remove the cost of termination and > origination, and while adding to the number of relationships that are > required in order to reach all phone numbers, can move us toward > decentralization of the telephony world. > > Beckman > > PS Man that last

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

Well, I think that's where Mark's Bitcoin-ish idea comes in. I'm sure he can explain it better than I can. On Dec 8, 2015, at 00:35, Peter Beckman wrote: Reseller C and the end user knows where the chain ends, but how do WE know that reseller C and end-user are honest?

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

Can I get a count of how many folks have SPID? There is a process that some major carriers that were once small used to do exactly what we are describing. The routing issues happen all the time even if it's not a reseller amongst CLECs, ILEC everyday even when NPAC says the number goes to xyz the

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

iceOps [mailto:voiceops-boun...@voiceops.org] On Behalf Of Pete E Sent: Monday, December 7, 2015 12:01 PM To: Paul Timmins <p...@timmins.net> Cc: voiceops@voiceops.org Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Future of the Traditional PSTN vs VOIP and VoLTE These are the crux of the issue. If there were a coope

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.

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

Of course, there's a lucrative niche for select third parties that _do_ have the secret decoder ring, or pieces of it. That's summed up by: https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/0a/f8/f9/0af8f9ed1fe346266e6b614a88fc53c2.jpg -- Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC 303 Perimeter

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

On 12/06/2015 11:31 PM, Mary Lou Carey wrote: NC/NCI information is company specific so it's actually the ILEC that documents that information..you just have to know where to go to look for it! Technically, ILECs publish a lot of stuff publicly, to comply with the letter of regulations

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

mail: supp...@snappytelecom.net > From: "Erik Flournoy" <e...@eespro.com> > To: "voiceops@voiceops.org" <voiceops@voiceops.org> > Sent: Saturday, December 5, 2015 4:17:26 PM > Subject: [VoiceOps] Future of the Traditional PSTN vs VOIP and VoLTE > Aloha Gr

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