<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.hoenzb
{mso-style-name:hoenzb;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Today, both AT&T and Verizon are still claiming that they are not technically capable of interconnecting over IP.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>In a recent proceeding that I was involved in<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><a href="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">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</a><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>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”.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Beware of any such proposals from the ILECs. That term “modernization” as they use it doesn’t mean what you think it means.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Mike<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Mike Ray, MBA, CNE, CTE<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Astro Companies, LLC<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>11523 Palm Brush Trail #401<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Lakewood Ranch, FL 34202<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>DIRECT: call or text 941 600-0207<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F4E79'>http://www.astrocompanies.com<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> VoiceOps [mailto:voiceops-bounces@voiceops.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Pete E<br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, December 7, 2015 12:01 PM<br><b>To:</b> Paul Timmins <paul@timmins.net><br><b>Cc:</b> voiceops@voiceops.org<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [VoiceOps] Future of the Traditional PSTN vs VOIP and VoLTE<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>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.<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>But for the signaling issue mentioned above, there could potentially be a new DNS record type created which defines accepted signaling. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>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.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>That said, anyone interested in setting up a lab environment to hash this out?<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Sat, Dec 5, 2015 at 5:19 PM, Paul Timmins <<a href="mailto:paul@timmins.net" target="_blank">paul@timmins.net</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in'><div><p class=MsoNormal>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?<span class=hoenzb><span style='color:#888888'><o:p></o:p></span></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span class=hoenzb><span style='color:#888888'>-Paul</span></span><o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Dec 5, 2015, at 15:14, Erik Flournoy <<a href="mailto:erik@eespro.com" target="_blank">erik@eespro.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>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.<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Sat, Dec 5, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Alex Balashov <<a href="mailto:abalashov@evaristesys.com" target="_blank">abalashov@evaristesys.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in'><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>On 12/05/2015 05:05 PM, Erik Flournoy wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in'><p class=MsoNormal>If a packet transverses your entire network as a packet then it's never<br>a toll charge. It's a packet.<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><br>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.<br><br>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.<o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><br><br>-- <br>Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC<br>303 Perimeter Center North, Suite 300<br>Atlanta, GA 30346<br>United States<br><br>Tel: <a href="tel:%2B1-800-250-5920" target="_blank">+1-800-250-5920</a> (toll-free) / <a href="tel:%2B1-678-954-0671" target="_blank">+1-678-954-0671</a> (direct)<br>Web: <a href="http://www.evaristesys.com/" target="_blank">http://www.evaristesys.com/</a>, <a href="http://www.csrpswitch.com/" target="_blank">http://www.csrpswitch.com/</a><br>_______________________________________________<br>VoiceOps mailing list<br><a href="mailto:VoiceOps@voiceops.org" target="_blank">VoiceOps@voiceops.org</a><br><a href="https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops" target="_blank">https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops</a><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal>_______________________________________________<br>VoiceOps mailing list<br><a href="mailto:VoiceOps@voiceops.org" target="_blank">VoiceOps@voiceops.org</a><br><a href="https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops" target="_blank">https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops</a><o:p></o:p></p></div></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br>_______________________________________________<br>VoiceOps mailing list<br><a href="mailto:VoiceOps@voiceops.org">VoiceOps@voiceops.org</a><br><a href="https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops" target="_blank">https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops</a><o:p></o:p></p></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></body></html>