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

Mike Ray, MBA, CNE, CTE mike at astrocompanies.com
Mon Dec 7 12:34:43 EST 2015

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 up.  Their “modernization” proposal is simply “We want to get rid of all UNEs” in disguise.  It’s totally anti-competitive.  AT&T simply wants to take that wire that’s in the ground today that must be made available for UNEs and divest that wire to one of its subsidiaries which is not an ILEC.  They will use that existing copper to provide both legacy and next-gen services but since it is no longer owned by the ILEC it’s no longer subject to being used for UNEs by CLECs.  Viola!  Network modernized!  The old monopoly is new again and they didn’t even have to invest in new infrastructure.


Today, both AT&T and Verizon are still claiming that they are not technically capable of interconnecting over IP.


In a recent proceeding that I was involved in

http://www.floridapsc.com/utilities/telecomm/naats/NAATS_results.aspx? <http://www.floridapsc.com/utilities/telecomm/naats/NAATS_results.aspx?&startDate=4/4/2014&endDate=5/4/2016&numCos=1&compcode1=TY058%20&agreementType=ARBITRATION> &startDate=4/4/2014&endDate=5/4/2016&numCos=1&compcode1=TY058%20&agreementType=ARBITRATION


AT&T/Bellsouth claimed that it was “impossible” for it to provide our dispute IDs to us when it issues billing in response to our valid billing disputes.  “Impossible”.  It made many similar claims as well in this proceeding.


This is the same standard of “impossible” that they claim about interconnecting over IP, even though it’s clear that AT&T has other subsidiaries that do it every day.  They think they can define what terms mean, like “impossible”.


Beware of any such proposals from the ILECs.  That term “modernization” as they use it doesn’t mean what you think it means.




Mike Ray, MBA, CNE, CTE

Astro Companies, LLC

11523 Palm Brush Trail #401

Lakewood Ranch, FL  34202

DIRECT: call or text 941 600-0207



From: VoiceOps [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] On Behalf Of Pete E
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2015 12:01 PM
To: Paul Timmins <paul at timmins.net>
Cc: voiceops at 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 cooperative group willing to peer to circumvent the PSTN, and if the group were large enough, then it could offer *some* competitive pressure to get the ILEC's to change. In fairness, Verizon and AT&T have been petitioning and hit some roadblocks by the FCC to retire their legacy networks. Some of these concerns are legit, some are not.  Now, I'm not naive enough to believe these petitions are for the good of the consumer or for anyone other than Verizon and AT&T. But technologically, it's a step in the right direction.


But for the signaling issue mentioned above, there could potentially be a new DNS record type created which defines accepted signaling. 


Trust is a whole different problem. Without a central authority, it could be chaotic and really difficult to manage. But I think the BGP analogy is a good one. If there could be a method of passing info and then either allowing or blocking it would be ideal, but it is a really big shift in VoIP security, as was pointed out.


That said, anyone interested in setting up a lab environment to hash this out?


On Sat, Dec 5, 2015 at 5:19 PM, Paul Timmins <paul at timmins.net <mailto:paul at timmins.net> > wrote:

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? Should you trust the calling party information being sent? How do you know the original caller is even a legitimate telco and not some telemarketer going on a rampage connecting directly with everything? If you are getting problematic (abusive, illegal) inbound calls, how do you look up that IP to know who to complain about? Is WHOIS enough?





On Dec 5, 2015, at 15:14, Erik Flournoy <erik at eespro.com <mailto:erik at eespro.com> > wrote:


Additionally to come to Neustar NPAC extremely LATE proposal rescue of using the IP and SMS fields in the NPAC to packet route calls instead of via the TDM/SS7 Path that would kinda remove IQ from the path and allow carriers to directly connect via packets.  Put the call on the IP packet path if it's voice and use TDM only for faxing which I wish would disappear for goodness sakes.


On Sat, Dec 5, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Alex Balashov <abalashov at evaristesys.com <mailto:abalashov at evaristesys.com> > wrote:

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 low-margin, flat-rate, 95% percentile-billed transport layer.

To a point, you can understand where they're coming from. They do the hard, capital-intensive work of building out the network, while some clever mobile app out of Silicon Valley pockets all the profits. That wasn't the assumption from which they built anything.

Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC
303 Perimeter Center North, Suite 300
Atlanta, GA 30346
United States

Tel: +1-800-250-5920 <tel:%2B1-800-250-5920>  (toll-free) / +1-678-954-0671 <tel:%2B1-678-954-0671>  (direct)
Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/
VoiceOps mailing list
VoiceOps at voiceops.org <mailto:VoiceOps at voiceops.org> 


VoiceOps mailing list
VoiceOps at voiceops.org <mailto:VoiceOps at voiceops.org> 


VoiceOps mailing list
VoiceOps at voiceops.org <mailto:VoiceOps at voiceops.org> 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/voiceops/attachments/20151207/6a571ec2/attachment.html>

More information about the VoiceOps mailing list