[asterisk-users] What are the various models of DID providers

[SIP]

Alex Balashov wrote:
> SIP wrote:
>
>   
>> What's interesting is the number of caveats and mixes even in the CLEC
>> and ILEC world.  I work with a CLEC that is also an ILEC (in certain
>> areas), since they encompass various areas in Georgia (and own the
>> state's largest contiguous network, passing through old rural ILEC lines
>> (now purchased and updated)). They maintain CLEC status in some areas
>> because they're not the incumbent there, but it helps them continue
>> their network across lines owned by the incumbent with various peering
>> agreements and the like.
>>     
>   
>> One of the interesting things we ran across was a discussion with them
>> about UNEs. They provide strictly data lines throughout the state, and
>> their CLEC status allows them the purchase of UNE DS1s and DS3s at
>> exceptional rates to provide data to small installations in counties and
>> municipalities. 
>>     
>
> I don't know that the price of UNE DS1s and DS3s is really all that 
> exceptional.  Sure, it seems impressive that you can get a T1 in LATA 
> 438 for some odd $44, but once you factor in the costs of 
> interconnection, CO colocation, EELs and interoffice mileage if not 
> colocated in the CO to which the circuit is being generated, private 
> SONET for backhaul, etc.
>
> Not to mention in that in urban areas the ILEC commonly suspends UNE 
> pricing discipline on the grounds that the wire center is "impaired" - 
> i.e. there is enough "competition" in the CO.  That requires you to 
> revert to wholesale / special access and pay a lot more.
>   

The interconnection, CO colocation, private SONET, etc, are already in
place in something like 60 municipalities and 4 Atlanta metro areas.
They're using the UNEs to cut costs. Honestly, you could ask me some
complex questions about their network, but I don't know it all that well...


>   
>> However, upon reading the current governmental
>> regulations (the somewhat more recent E911 provisions), it states
>> specifically that a UNE MUST have, to each logical circuit, an assigned
>> DID and the ability to pass voice traffic to the local E911 call center.
>>
>> The problem being, of course, that these were for data and not voice.
>> However, the law is very clear (in that murky way in which laws are),
>> and to avoid possible hassle down the road from an unfriendly ILEC or an
>> upset AT&T who wanted to press the issue, it was decided that DIDs would
>> be purchased and assigned to those UNE circuits as they were deployed.
>>     
>
> I'm not sure I follow.  Voice trunks need routing to E911 tandems, but 
> what do data circuits have to do with this?
>   

Nothing. This is part of a law governing who can get UNEs. I don't have
it handy, but I'll look it up on Thursday (when I get back to the
office... have it in email there but not here for some reason).
>   
>> This is where we came in, and where the middle-man model still works to
>> some degree. They could simply buy great swaths of DIDs for themselves
>> at ridiculously low rates (being a LEC), but the caveat there is that
>> the DIDs have to be USED, or they're reassigned. 
>>     
>
> Depends on the area;  NANPA and pooling blocks aren't necessarily cheap.
>   

The numbers they quoted us were reasonable. Something like $500 for 2000
DIDs. Or possibly $200. Again... fuzzy on the exact numbers there, but I
remember it was quite good.
>   
>> We stepped in to
>> provide DIDs (which we purchase elsewhere) to their UNE circuits and
>> maintain them (even with no use), as well as maintaining the information
>> for E911 dispatch on each of the circuits (assuming, for the sake of
>> argument, that someone were to convert the data line into voice). Thus,
>> they can get the rates they want on the UNEs they deserve, and not worry
>> about the hassles of actually dealing with the technology and contracts
>> on the voice side that is simply not part of their core business model.
>>     
>
> Why would they have to deal with this when someone buying directly from 
> AT&T off the special access tariff doesn't?  (i.e. independent ISPs)
>   

Again. Thursday I'll have that info.
>   
>> Now this is, to be certain, an odd and unusual case. I doubt we could
>> find too many customers if that were our ONLY sort of business. But it
>> does illustrate your point that there is still, for now, a logical place
>> for the middle men companies in some situations.
>>     
>
> Agreed, although I'm still very confused as to why you need DIDs for 
> data UNEs.  Is this some bizarre feature of their ICA or something?
>   
It has to do with a recent modification of the telecom laws concerning
who's allowed to have access to the UNEs and who isn't, and it
stipulates that, in order to have access to them, you're now required to
be able to provide E911 service over them (as the law seems to just
outright assume that you'll be using them for voice). The law itself
doesn't seem to take into account that there's even a possibility that
someone might use a UNE for ONLY data (like many of the more recent
modifications to the telecom act, it appears to have been hastily and
vaguely written).