[VoiceOps] Connecting to Remote Tandems

[Mike Hammett]

In our home turf, the same entity is operating local and long distance tandems (I hear it's even the same chassis, just a different blade), so locally, I wouldn't really be avoiding dealing with the ILEC. I understand that may not always be the case. I'd assume it would be fairly common, though, where one ILEC is dominate in the LATA. 


Ah, so scale doesn't necessarily help them on the local side if I need all of my own trunks anyway. That makes sense. The terms presented to me don't seem to jive well with (my portion of costs of the other gear + profit) * number of trunks required, but that could be a business decision on their side. 


It totally makes sense that the incumbent and\or government are the source of the problems and not some third party trying to solve problems and provide a service. 




----- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 



----- Original Message -----

From: "Paul Timmins" <paul at timmins.net> 
To: voiceops at voiceops.org 
Sent: Friday, August 9, 2019 2:51:41 PM 
Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Connecting to Remote Tandems 


I'm sure I know which one you're talking about. It's because they exist in entirely different regulatory domains. The upside of inbound feature group D is that you get to cut out a terrible ILEC tandem, and at least the vendor I'm thinking of doesn't charge for the trunks themselves, so you're at a very strong cost advantage on it. 


Inbound local trunking, usually interconnection agreements dictate that the trunks have to be dedicated per carrier, so you're just avoiding sinking hardware cost and transport, but it still uses up considerable resources at least in AT&T areas. So if you need 3 trunks to CHCGILWB's tandem, they can't just route that to their trunks where they have existing capacity, like FGD, but they have to install 3 shiny new T1s just for your traffic, that they order as you, to their equipment. It's stupid, convoluted, and wasteful but it's not the vendor's fault, it's AT&T maintaining artificial barriers to competition. As if they'd have it any other way. 


-Paul 



On 8/9/19 3:42 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: 



I'm evaluating methods of extending our footprint. I purposely left out company names. 


One of the companies we talked to was really only interested in getting us the inbound long distance calls, not the local ones. Well, they would, but the terms were vastly different. 


Given that I still need to build out to connect to the local tandem, what's the point in using a third party to connect to long distance? 


Are the terms for connecting to the local tandems different because the access tandem is simpler, whereas the local tandem could potentially involve connections to a bunch of other switches, once volume dictated I needed direct connections... and they don't want to deal with that? 


Are there third parties that don't have vastly different terms for local tandem services? 


Also, is it likely that I just don't understand what's going on? I went circles with the sales rep to make sure I understood what he was saying, but I could be wrong. 





----- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 



_______________________________________________
VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops 




_______________________________________________ 
VoiceOps mailing list 
VoiceOps at voiceops.org 
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/voiceops/attachments/20190809/199efef1/attachment.htm>