[VoiceOps] Future of the Traditional PSTN vs VOIP and VoLTE
peeip989 at gmail.com
Wed Dec 9 17:20:47 EST 2015
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
On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Peter Beckman <beckman at angryox.com> wrote:
> 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
> that the number is associated with that business, or that the
> number is
> 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
> 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.
> PS Man that last sentence sounds cheesy.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the VoiceOps