<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.ipeerx.com/">http://www.ipeerx.com/</a> is doing it see
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.ipeerx.com/federation.php">http://www.ipeerx.com/federation.php</a><br>
<br>
John Lange wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid1146580808.28177.76.camel@ws55.darkcore.net"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Mon, 2006-05-01 at 13:20 -0400, <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:alex@pilosoft.com">alex@pilosoft.com</a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">The facts are simple, paying your competition to complete calls is not
good business. When one VoIP customer calls another routing the call
over the PSTN just does not make sense.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Don't get me wrong, I wish you best, and I think its the Right Way, but,
this has a low chance of happening.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
On the contrary; it is happening. There are already examples of peering
networks for VoIP.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">a) while many carriers run IP in their network, I doubt any of them will
want to *accept* calls from another carrier over public intarweb, much
less *send* the calls to another carrier. I certainly won't.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
If there are VoIP providers who don't believe in sending calls over the
Internet it would seem they are not in the right business.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> Unless
there's some push for "carrier-only private network to connect
enum-enabled carriers" or carriers interconnecting via switches at
soem fabrics, I doubt you will have any big boys using it.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Private closed networks are what we have now. If a provider wants to use
use a private closed network then the existing PSTN is a much better
solution.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">b) CLECs are notorious for not cooperating with each other, even if their
lives depended on that. I doubt there are many CLECs in NYC that have
trunks built to each other to pass traffic. Instead, they send inter-CLEC
traffic via VZ tandem, and pay for switching.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
That is not at all the situation in Canada. CLECs and ILECs are bound by
regulation to allow interconnection but aside from that its obviously in
their best interest to do so.
In any case, that is why an organization like the CAVP is ideal for this
project. It is a neutral 3rd party which is acting in the best interest
of all parties.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">c) Also, just as much as CLECs hate paying access fees to ILECs, no CLEC
is willing to give up access fees they *charge* other CLECs for
termination on their network.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
What you have described in your comments paints a picture of an
extremely expensive and inefficient network. No doubt the "big boys"
will continue to do business this way as long as they can but clearly
the writing is on the wall for a more efficient method of
interconnection and its only a matter of time.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>