[VoiceOps] Future of the Traditional PSTN vs VOIP and VoLTE
Peter Beckman
beckman at angryox.com
Wed Dec 9 13:58:39 EST 2015
Argh. I've come up with three different ideas in this email, and deleted
them all.
1. Carriers do not want to disclose which DIDs they service. A
company's customers might not want an easy way for callers to find out
that the number is associated with that business, or that the number is
temporary.
2. Carriers do not want to disclose how many DIDs they service.
Competitive behind-the-curtain reasons.
3. Carriers are wary of smaller carriers, and are concerned with having
to figure out who to deal with if incoming calls from their networks
are failing and there isn't an SLA or guaranteed response time,
unlike their bigger carriers.
4. We all generally agree that another "centralized" system is just
replacing one for another.
What I believe we agree on:
1. It's stupid for a phone call to go through 19 hops of carriers and
resellers, it makes troubleshooting a pain, adds latency, and adds
complexity. But it is only stupid if there is no value added by that
hop.
2. The PSTN is too ingrained into our global society to replace it.
3. Ownership of a DID in NANP is so vague that it comes down to who
answers the phone at a given point in time, wins. Maybe.
4. Porting should be unbelievably simple and easily automatable.
5. The data in the LERG should be free, since taxes and law pay for the
data that lies within.
6. Centralized authorities and monopolies do not innovate.
What we can do:
1. Write a contract template and make it public that:
* Outlines the intent to send traffic directly, in either
direction, destined for published DIDs at either carrier
* Prohibits the payment, in either direction, for such traffic
* Outlines the SLAs and Escalation Procedures for both parties
* Clearly documents how to end the contract and remedies for lack
of timely technical termination
* Handles 90% of issues that may come up in the course of avoiding
the PSTN for origination and termination traffic
2. Propose a standard non-public method of publishing a
machine-readable and parsable configuration that includes:
* DIDs available for direct termination
* DIDs owned that SHOULD NOT be directly terminated
* When the config was created/generated
* The frequency of the config generation
* The endpoints and rules for terminating calls to the carrier
* Enforces the use of legally binding arbitration with a very
small window to resolve disputes
3. Use the contract and standard to start sending traffic
directly to each other.
At some point we can get to the point of solving the "who is best suited to
receive this call" problem.
This moves the "trust" to between the two parties, not some centralized
management. And while bad things can still happen, aren't they already?
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 sentence sounds cheesy.
On Wed, 9 Dec 2015, mgraves at mstvp.com wrote:
>
> <delurks>
>
> Sigh, yes I recall sitting at an event hosted by Jeff Pulver in NYC, back in 2009. "The future is here!" cried one and all, just not yet.
>
> OTOH, at least the very backward looking have largely stopped the plaintive bleating about "spectral efficiency" and bandwidth constraints.
>
> I for one would love to have this discussion live in a podcast or hangout...if anyone else is interested.
>
> Michael Graves
> mgraves at mstvp.com
> http://www.mgraves.org
> o(713) 861-4005
> c(713) 201-1262
> sip:mgraves at mjg.onsip.com
> skype mjgraves
>
>
> </delurks>
> --------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Future of the Traditional PSTN vs VOIP and VoLTE
> From: "Alex Balashov" <abalashov at evaristesys.com>
> Date: 12/9/15 11:17 am
> To: voiceops at voiceops.org
>
> 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
> committee/consortium/federation/association for Truly Next Generation
> VoIP Peering, For Real This Time--sometimes with great fanfare--is at
> least a once-annual occurrence, if not more often.
>
> In the end, it always dies and withers away, because in the end, nobody
> really cares what a consortium of small operators think. Without buy-in
> from a major-league industry actor, the one-year survival rate on these
> visionary initiatives is extremely low.
>
> I'm not saying it shouldn't be tried again. I would just be realistic
> about the possibilities for large, cosmological-type change. The reality
> is that almost all ITSPs make and receive almost all of their calls to
> and from the PSTN, in one way or another. As long as that's the case,
> there won't be the critical mass for anyone to sponsor Truly Next
> Generation VoIP Peering, For Real This Time.
>
> -- Alex
>
>
> --
> 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/
> _______________________________________________
> VoiceOps mailing list
> VoiceOps at voiceops.org
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Beckman Internet Guy
beckman at angryox.com http://www.angryox.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
VoiceOps mailing list
VoiceOps at voiceops.org
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
More information about the VoiceOps
mailing list