Send VoiceOps mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[email protected]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[email protected]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of VoiceOps digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. VoIP traffic survey (Frank Bulk)
2. Re: VoIP traffic survey (Justin B Newman)
3. Re: VoIP traffic survey (Justin B Newman)
4. Re: VoIP traffic survey (Frank Bulk)
5. Re: VoIP traffic survey (Jay Ashworth)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2013 15:55:16 -0600
From: "Frank Bulk" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: [VoiceOps] VoIP traffic survey
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I've been asked to address some of the technical matters of the VoIP at a
regulatory-oriented meeting, but not being a consultant my knowledge and
experience aren't as broad as they should be.
One of the concerns by RLECs related to AT&T (and Verizon's) de-regulation
initiative is compensation for origination and termination of traffic.
Today many non-pricecap rural carriers are paid by IXCs both for any traffic
originated or terminated from the network. Most, if not all, of that
compensated traffic, is originated as TDM. The concern is that if the rural
carriers move to IP that they won't be paid (hardly) anything for
origination or termination. Discussions are being held to use ETS (Ethernet
Transport Service) and other NECA-type approach to facilitate a way for
RLECs to bill for originating and terminating traffic in an IP-world. These
private connections, with QoS support, would allow for both capacity and
perhaps volume-type billing. But it's been my experience that much of the
VoIP long-distance traffic flows over the Internet, not over private
Ethernet circuits.
My question to this group, which is very IP heavy and therefore much ahead
of the curve in terms of IP-oriented telco operations, is how much traffic
flows over public (i.e. Internet) circuits versus private (point-to-point to
another carrier or VoIP exchange) circuits, and also how that compares
inbound versus outbound.
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/6PRCGWM
Any additional commentary on this forum would be help.
Regards,
Frank
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 08:18:15 -0600
From: Justin B Newman <[email protected]>
To: Frank Bulk <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] VoIP traffic survey
Message-ID:
<CALTu_fy_74YJ4aN1a=KYhodHqjK3rtTmv+DFmNB4T_Lh=e0...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Frank,
As I'm sure you're aware, the FCC's compensation scheme does not in
any way relate to the media over which calls are delivered. The
argument that migration to another technology for call completion
would somehow change compensation is, in my view, FUD, designed to
continue an outmoded interconnection scheme that tends to have higher
start-up costs, thereby favoring incumbents.
Ultimately, the FCC has made it clear, repeatedly, that they favor a
bill and keep ICC scheme, regardless of technology. This scheme, which
looks like email and will likely result in a continued increase in
junk calls, makes the historical practice of funding higher cost
(rural) implementations through ICC unworkable.
Ultimately, I feel that the FCC is ignoring the difficult issues in
order to placate a very limited number of large "sponsors." This is a
problem for all remaining vendors, rural, IP, CLEC, or otherwise.
Rural vendors would be well-suited to adopt better cost schemes where
they can (including SIP-based interconnection) in order to limit the
long-term damage done by regulators dis-interested in their problems.
Just my perspective.
-jbn
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 08:44:22 -0600
From: Justin B Newman <[email protected]>
To: Frank Bulk <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] VoIP traffic survey
Message-ID:
<CALTu_fxyfDdJjqa0yLqMf4=nr_behfkcl2+cfa2fuua0mac...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> As I'm sure you're aware, the FCC's compensation scheme does not in
> any way relate to the media over which calls are delivered.
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 8:30 AM, Frank Bulk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Unfortunately that is not the case. Just google for PVU and PIU.
I would disagree with this assessment. PVU and PIU do not relate to
the way in which we interconnect. In fact, the Court has weighed in
years ago re: "IP in the middle" for AT&T. The fact that IP is used
somewhere in the middle of the call changes nothing. What PIU/PVU are
designed to address is (in theory) end-points. While we can argue all
day long over the relevance of end-point technology, the regulators
appear to have opened that door. They have not, IMO, opened the door
to "IP in the middle" making a difference.
-jbn
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 08:30:59 -0600
From: "Frank Bulk" <[email protected]>
To: "'Justin B Newman'" <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] VoIP traffic survey
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Unfortunately that is not the case. Just google for PVU and PIU.
Regards,
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: Justin B Newman [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 8:18 AM
To: Frank Bulk
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] VoIP traffic survey
Frank,
As I'm sure you're aware, the FCC's compensation scheme does not in
any way relate to the media over which calls are delivered.
<snip>
Just my perspective.
-jbn
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 10:04:24 -0500 (EST)
From: Jay Ashworth <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] VoIP traffic survey
Message-ID:
<[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Frank Bulk" <[email protected]>
> My apologies, I'm not following you here -- can you give me an example
> of a TDM traffic (i.e. T-1 or DS-3) flowing over the Internet?
Didn't say it had to be TDM.
I am a VoIP end-user. I pick up my desk phone to make a call, and my
PBX routes it. It might go:
* To a local PSTN gateway, and out over traditional TDM (or analog) lines, or
* To a commercial gateway provider, or
* Direct to the other end's PBX as a 'native' VoIP call
In either case, it might get there over
* Private, dedicated IP networking, or
* The Internet.
The 6 sextants are "who operates the gateway" multiplied by "who owns the
wires I use to get there".
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink [email protected]
Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
VoiceOps mailing list
[email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
End of VoiceOps Digest, Vol 45, Issue 3
***************************************
