Not too long ago, optimizing least cost routing was a relatively straight-forward exercise that could be managed part time by an industrious billing or switch technician. This is no longer the case and this article will describes the major developments that have increased the scope and complexity of least cost routing for the North American telephone network.
Routing Table Size
Area Codes were first established in 1947 with a total of seventy-eight area codes nationwide. Over the next 43 years, only thirty-six area codes were added. In the 1990s, the growth in wireless services drove the addition of 109 new area codes so new blocks of 10,000 numbers could be issued to carriers. These number blocks refer to the first six digits of a telephone number, or NPA-NXX where NPA is the area code and NXX is the switch code.
Faced with a dwindling supply of telephone numbers for new carriers to issue to their subscribers, the FCC in 2000 ordered that NPA-NXX number blocks be partitioned into 1000 blocks (NPA-NXX-X). Partitioning of NPA-NXX blocks, also known as number pooling, dramatically increased the supply of new numbers for expanding carriers which is good. But seven digit routing based on 1000 block partitions is more complicated than routing on six digit NPA-NXX blocks. In the Local Exchange Routing Guide (LERG) there are 166,431 six digit NPA-NXX dial codes. In contrast, there are 644,327 dial codes when routing based on seven digit one thousand blocks.
In telephone routing tables, a dial code matched with a destination (IP address or trunk group) is called a translation. Most least cost routing tables have an average of three destinations per dial code. This means that a basic optimized least cost routing tables for domestic US routing can have more than one and half million translations. Some TransNexus customers have 50 million translations in their routing table.
Jurisdictional Routing
Jurisdictional routing is another name for local, intra-state and inter-state routing. Call routing decisions are based on both the calling and called number. How a call gets rated depends on where the calling party is located. Paradoxically intra-state calls cost more than inter-state calls. For a service provider to optimize their least cost routing, they must have two routing tables, one for intra-state calls and a second for inter-state call.
Jurisdictional routing is determined by the ANI (Automatic Number Identification), or telephone number, of the calling party. With VoIP calls, it is common for the ANI to be an invalid value, such as a random number that is not a telephone number or the SIP URI of the calling party. Calls with an invalid ANI are rated at the higher intra-state rate if they are completed. Most major carriers will block calls that do not have a valid ANI. However, some service providers will accept calls with an invalid ANI so this creates an optimization for a third least cost routing table. One for inter-state, one for intra-state and a third for calls with invalid ANIs.
Local routing is another form of jurisdictional call routing which is determined by the NPA-NXX-X of the calling party and the called party. Interconnection of local calls is usually charged at very low rates, much less than intra-state, and offers another least cost routing optimization. A challenge with local call routing for most VoIP providers is the size of the table which defines the source and destination NPA-NXX-X combinations for each local calling area. Unlike Local Exchange Carrier switches that serve limited geographic areas, a VoIP service provider’s softswitch can serve customers anywhere in the US. A table that defines all the local calling areas in the US would have over a billion NPA-NXX-X combinations.
Deciphering Rates by LATA, OCN and Tier
Least cost routing is all about analyzing dial codes and the rates carriers charge to complete calls to those dial codes. Unfortunately, most carriers to not quote rates for US termination by dial code. Instead they quotes rate in terms of OCN, LATA and Tier. So the first step in least cost routing analysis is to normalize carrier rates from OCN, LATA and Tier to E.164 dial codes. OCN stands for Operating Company Number and is a four digit number in the LERG. The LERG lists all the dial codes (NPA-NXX-X) for each of the 3,936 OCNs. LATA stands for Local Access and Transport Area and is a regulatory relic of the AT&T breakup in 1984. The LERG can be used to determine all dial codes for each OCN within each of the 223 different LATAs. Tiers are the last abstraction used by carriers to quote rates. Carriers often have six to eight rate tiers per LATA. Tiers are not standard and every carrier’s tier structure is different. Manually normalizing carrier rates using the LERG is too big a task for even the most industrious technician.
Number Portability Correction
In 1996 the FCC ordered that telephone companies must let subscribers switch service providers and keep their telephone number. When you switch phone companies and keep your telephone number, your number is ported to the new service provider and added to the number portability database. Today, every call in North America starts with a query to the Number Portability Administration Center (NPAC) database to determine if the telephone number has been ported to a different service provider. If the number has been ported, then the NPAC returns the Location Routing Number (LRN) for the ported number. The call is then routed using the LRN, not the dialed telephone number.
Today there are 197 million ported telephone numbers in North America. TransNexus customers report that 40% of their calls are to ported telephone numbers. This development has a dramatic impact on least cost routing. If least cost routing is based on the dialed telephone number then 40% of all calls will not be routed to the lowest cost provider! TransNexus customers have found that number portability correction can decrease their total termination costs by over 15%.
Showing posts with label Number Portability. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Number Portability. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Friday, March 5, 2010
The LERG is Becoming Obsolete
The LERG, or Local Exchange Routing Guide, has been the routing table for the North American telephone companies for decades. But two forces are driving the LERG toward irrelevance. First, growing numbers of subscribers are porting their landline telephone numbers to cable and wireless services providers. Second, technology and cost trends indicate that the North American number portability database will be widely available as a routing resource for enterprise and VoIP service providers.
Number portability has been an issue for telephone companies since it was mandated by the FCC in 1996. Now number portability is becoming a serious issue for enterprises and VoIP service providers as the percentage of calls to ported numbers is approaching parity with calls to un-ported number. Our customers tell us that approximately 40% of their VoIP calls to ported numbers.
Virtually all enterprises and most retail VoIP service providers route calls based on the dialed telephone number. This is a problem when the called party has ported their number to different carrier. Routing the call to the dialed number directs the call toward the carrier that owns the number, not the carrier that serves the subscriber. The call will be completed, but the enterprise or service provider originating the call will get a surprise when the termination cost is greater than expected. The reason is because most long distance providers charge for wholesale termination based on the final carrier, not the dialed telephone number.
In almost every case, call termination charges based on the dialed number are different from termination charges based on the carrier serving the ported number. The result is that long distance invoices never match what customers expect, and usually the bill is significantly larger than expected. This issue is amplified by wholesale rate plans that include a high termination fees for calls to terminating carriers not explicitly included in the rate deck. Calls to ported number may unexpectedly be routed to carriers not included on a rate deck and charged at rates as high as five cents per minute or more.
The experience of our customers indicate the rate differences between dialed and ported numbers can increase termination costs by at least 15% and the problem will only get worse as more people port their numbers. If you want to manage your costs, you have to route based on the LRN. The LRN, or Location Routing Number, looks like a telephone number, but is a special routing number that links a dialed telephone number that has been ported to its new carrier.
The FCC mandated the creation of the Number Portability Administration Center, or NPAC, to manage the database of ported numbers in the U.S. In simple terms, the NPAC is a list of 300 million ported telephone numbers and their corresponding LRN. For every call, telephone carriers query the NPAC with the dialed telephone and receive the corresponding LRN needed for call routing.
Originally access to the NPAC was expensive and limited to only telephone companies. Now, however, subscription to NPAC is affordable for enterprises and VoIP service providers who need number portability correction. Companies such as NeuStar offer the complete NPAC available for download. Enterprises and VoIP service provides can now host the NPAC database locally in their network and correctly route calls based on the LRN just like phone companies.
Ten years ago, the specialized hardware needed to host the NPAC with a telephone switch cost one million dollars. Four years ago the cost of an ENUM network appliance to host the NPAC had fallen to one hundred thousand dollars. Now TransNexus is offering a SIP based Linux based software package that reduces the cost of hosting the NPAC by another order of magnitude.
We forecast that in five years, virtually all enterprise call centers and VoIP service providers will host the NPAC in their operation. Barry Augustinsky, CEO of SipGully, a growing SIP service provider says “SIP technology changes everything in telecom. We have a lower cost structure than our competitors because we are on the front of a dramatically falling cost curve. The TransNexus server is a great example, now anybody can afford to host their own number portability database.”
Number portability has been an issue for telephone companies since it was mandated by the FCC in 1996. Now number portability is becoming a serious issue for enterprises and VoIP service providers as the percentage of calls to ported numbers is approaching parity with calls to un-ported number. Our customers tell us that approximately 40% of their VoIP calls to ported numbers.
Virtually all enterprises and most retail VoIP service providers route calls based on the dialed telephone number. This is a problem when the called party has ported their number to different carrier. Routing the call to the dialed number directs the call toward the carrier that owns the number, not the carrier that serves the subscriber. The call will be completed, but the enterprise or service provider originating the call will get a surprise when the termination cost is greater than expected. The reason is because most long distance providers charge for wholesale termination based on the final carrier, not the dialed telephone number.
In almost every case, call termination charges based on the dialed number are different from termination charges based on the carrier serving the ported number. The result is that long distance invoices never match what customers expect, and usually the bill is significantly larger than expected. This issue is amplified by wholesale rate plans that include a high termination fees for calls to terminating carriers not explicitly included in the rate deck. Calls to ported number may unexpectedly be routed to carriers not included on a rate deck and charged at rates as high as five cents per minute or more.
The experience of our customers indicate the rate differences between dialed and ported numbers can increase termination costs by at least 15% and the problem will only get worse as more people port their numbers. If you want to manage your costs, you have to route based on the LRN. The LRN, or Location Routing Number, looks like a telephone number, but is a special routing number that links a dialed telephone number that has been ported to its new carrier.
The FCC mandated the creation of the Number Portability Administration Center, or NPAC, to manage the database of ported numbers in the U.S. In simple terms, the NPAC is a list of 300 million ported telephone numbers and their corresponding LRN. For every call, telephone carriers query the NPAC with the dialed telephone and receive the corresponding LRN needed for call routing.
Originally access to the NPAC was expensive and limited to only telephone companies. Now, however, subscription to NPAC is affordable for enterprises and VoIP service providers who need number portability correction. Companies such as NeuStar offer the complete NPAC available for download. Enterprises and VoIP service provides can now host the NPAC database locally in their network and correctly route calls based on the LRN just like phone companies.
Ten years ago, the specialized hardware needed to host the NPAC with a telephone switch cost one million dollars. Four years ago the cost of an ENUM network appliance to host the NPAC had fallen to one hundred thousand dollars. Now TransNexus is offering a SIP based Linux based software package that reduces the cost of hosting the NPAC by another order of magnitude.
We forecast that in five years, virtually all enterprise call centers and VoIP service providers will host the NPAC in their operation. Barry Augustinsky, CEO of SipGully, a growing SIP service provider says “SIP technology changes everything in telecom. We have a lower cost structure than our competitors because we are on the front of a dramatically falling cost curve. The TransNexus server is a great example, now anybody can afford to host their own number portability database.”
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
PathFinder Business Model Flaw
"PathFinder is the GSMA’s multi-tiered, fully extensible number resolution system. It is designed to facilitate the efficient global interoperability of new and existing IP services using telephone numbers – all within a business framework consistent with operator needs. It provides a comprehensive suite of services designed to enable IP-to-IP interconnections between interconnect partners for voice, messaging, video, and other IP services."
TransNexus is a certified PathFinder partner. The TransNexus OSPrey server can launch a ENUM query to the PathFinder service as an alternative to least cost routing. We believe the efficiencies from IP to IP routing made possible by PathFinder will generate new profits for carriers and better services for their customers.
As a PathFinder partner, I have been promoting the service to carrier customers. Some of the feedback I have received is very clear. Carriers do not like the Called Party Pays business model of PathFinder. Here is a simplified description of the PathFinder business model. Service providers provision their telephone numbers and corresponding Service Provider Number (SPN) to the PathFinder database. When a service provider originates a call they send a query with the called number to PathFinder. PathFinder returns the SPN of the service provider that serves the called number. This type of service has become critical since number porting between service providers is widespread. All of this is good. Now here is the problem - the carrier serving the called party pays PathFinder for the query. This simple flaw in the PathFinder business model is a serious obstacle to its success.
There is some sound logic to the PathFinder business model and here are some reasons why it makes sense:
1) The called network may benefit from the PathFinder service because it may receive the call directly over an IP connection which could be less expensive than a TDM interconnect.
2) Also a direct IP interconnection will enable end to end IP services so the called party can benefit from the advantages of VoIP such as wideband codecs and better sound quality.
3) The carriers who terminate the most calls will be the biggest carriers since they serve the most telephone numbers. Therefore, the biggest carriers with the most financial resources will make the largest revenue contribution for funding PathFinder. This is an egalitarian concept that regulators would endorse.
Now here are the counter arguments:
1) The called party pays model means that the terminating carrier is forced to pay an expense that it has incurred on behalf of the calling network. Everyone fears an expense liability that is out of their control.
2) The called party network has no record of PathFinder dips that point to its network and no way to audit its PathFinder bill. Conversely, the Calling party network has complete control over its number of Pathfinder dips and perfect audit capability of its PathFinder expenses.
3) Why should large carriers, who will be the net terminators for PathFinder queries, subsidize smaller carriers for PathFinder expenses?
And here is the Partner's appeal:
Put logic and intellectual arguments aside when defining the PathFinder business model. Go with what works in the market. PathFinder, like so many network initiatives, has a chicken and egg problem. The idea makes total sense, but is worthless until there is a big database that offers value. Getting the world's largest carriers to participate and provision their numbers to PathFinder is goal number one. Any other focus is folly. If the big carriers want a calling party pays business model - the argument is over. PathFinder needs to implement a calling party pays business model. TransNexus is a big supporter of the PathFinder concept and looking forward to its success.
If you think I have this wrong, please post your thoughts here. This is all about getting it right, you won't hurt my feelings. This post is all about getting the economic incentives right so PathFinder and the promise of IP to IP communications become a reality for everyone.
TransNexus is a certified PathFinder partner. The TransNexus OSPrey server can launch a ENUM query to the PathFinder service as an alternative to least cost routing. We believe the efficiencies from IP to IP routing made possible by PathFinder will generate new profits for carriers and better services for their customers.
As a PathFinder partner, I have been promoting the service to carrier customers. Some of the feedback I have received is very clear. Carriers do not like the Called Party Pays business model of PathFinder. Here is a simplified description of the PathFinder business model. Service providers provision their telephone numbers and corresponding Service Provider Number (SPN) to the PathFinder database. When a service provider originates a call they send a query with the called number to PathFinder. PathFinder returns the SPN of the service provider that serves the called number. This type of service has become critical since number porting between service providers is widespread. All of this is good. Now here is the problem - the carrier serving the called party pays PathFinder for the query. This simple flaw in the PathFinder business model is a serious obstacle to its success.
There is some sound logic to the PathFinder business model and here are some reasons why it makes sense:
1) The called network may benefit from the PathFinder service because it may receive the call directly over an IP connection which could be less expensive than a TDM interconnect.
2) Also a direct IP interconnection will enable end to end IP services so the called party can benefit from the advantages of VoIP such as wideband codecs and better sound quality.
3) The carriers who terminate the most calls will be the biggest carriers since they serve the most telephone numbers. Therefore, the biggest carriers with the most financial resources will make the largest revenue contribution for funding PathFinder. This is an egalitarian concept that regulators would endorse.
Now here are the counter arguments:
1) The called party pays model means that the terminating carrier is forced to pay an expense that it has incurred on behalf of the calling network. Everyone fears an expense liability that is out of their control.
2) The called party network has no record of PathFinder dips that point to its network and no way to audit its PathFinder bill. Conversely, the Calling party network has complete control over its number of Pathfinder dips and perfect audit capability of its PathFinder expenses.
3) Why should large carriers, who will be the net terminators for PathFinder queries, subsidize smaller carriers for PathFinder expenses?
And here is the Partner's appeal:
Put logic and intellectual arguments aside when defining the PathFinder business model. Go with what works in the market. PathFinder, like so many network initiatives, has a chicken and egg problem. The idea makes total sense, but is worthless until there is a big database that offers value. Getting the world's largest carriers to participate and provision their numbers to PathFinder is goal number one. Any other focus is folly. If the big carriers want a calling party pays business model - the argument is over. PathFinder needs to implement a calling party pays business model. TransNexus is a big supporter of the PathFinder concept and looking forward to its success.
If you think I have this wrong, please post your thoughts here. This is all about getting it right, you won't hurt my feelings. This post is all about getting the economic incentives right so PathFinder and the promise of IP to IP communications become a reality for everyone.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Asterisk is 10
Wednesday night at Astricon 2009 in Glendale, AZ, the Asterisk Community celebrated the 10th birthday of Asterisk. It was not your typical trade show party. It was a pretty quirky event with a lot techie guys drinking beer and playing video games, darts, pool, air hockey and foosball. One colleague noted that there were seven females present and that this was an increase from three females at the Astricon party in 2008. Hey, but what do you expect, this is the Asterisk community. It is a bright, eclectic mix of hackers, open source developers and a lot of independent entrepreneurs who install telephone systems for small and medium businesses.
The stereotypical open source developer is an irreverent young guy with an outrageous mohawk and yes of course those folks are an important part of the Asterisk community. But what I find interesting is the large number of older business owners who attend Astricon. These are experienced guys who have been installing data and telephone systems for 20-30 years. If you wonder who these people are, go to the yellow pages and look for telephone systems. You will see pages of small businesses that install telephone systems. This is a highly fragmented, grass roots distribution channel that adopted Asterisk early because it enables them to earn margins they could never make from reselling the traditional PBX solutions. According to sources at Digium, Asterisk based PBX systems serve more phone seats in North America than any other phone system. That is a pretty amazing accomplishment for a 10 year project.
While at Astricon, I gave a number on tutorial on Number Portability. Here is a download link for the Number Portability presentation.
The stereotypical open source developer is an irreverent young guy with an outrageous mohawk and yes of course those folks are an important part of the Asterisk community. But what I find interesting is the large number of older business owners who attend Astricon. These are experienced guys who have been installing data and telephone systems for 20-30 years. If you wonder who these people are, go to the yellow pages and look for telephone systems. You will see pages of small businesses that install telephone systems. This is a highly fragmented, grass roots distribution channel that adopted Asterisk early because it enables them to earn margins they could never make from reselling the traditional PBX solutions. According to sources at Digium, Asterisk based PBX systems serve more phone seats in North America than any other phone system. That is a pretty amazing accomplishment for a 10 year project.
While at Astricon, I gave a number on tutorial on Number Portability. Here is a download link for the Number Portability presentation.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
TransNexus Certified as a GSMA Pathfinder Partner
On October 1st, the GSMA announced the launch of its PathFinder Number Portability Discovery Service. The GSMA is the global wireless organization consisting of nearly 800 wireless carriers in 219 countries. PathFinder was created by the GSMA to provide an interoperable, industry-wide solution that enables the routing of global IP service interconnect traffic.
A couple of years ago the GSMA presented its vision for an all IP world based on the IPX, a global IP network run by GSMA operators. Carriers connected to the IPX would be able to peer IP communucation applications such as VoIP and video end to end over IP networks. The global route discovery provided by PathFinder is a big step forward in implementing that vision.
At TransNexus, we are proud to be one of the first vendor partners certified for the PathFinder service. The TransNexus OSPrey route server is certified to query PathFinder for Number Portability discovery. The GSMA Pathfinder Announcement.
A couple of years ago the GSMA presented its vision for an all IP world based on the IPX, a global IP network run by GSMA operators. Carriers connected to the IPX would be able to peer IP communucation applications such as VoIP and video end to end over IP networks. The global route discovery provided by PathFinder is a big step forward in implementing that vision.
At TransNexus, we are proud to be one of the first vendor partners certified for the PathFinder service. The TransNexus OSPrey route server is certified to query PathFinder for Number Portability discovery. The GSMA Pathfinder Announcement.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Astricon 2009 Interview
Recently I was interviewed by Erik Linask, TMC's Editorial Director for Astricon 2009. Below is a transcript of that interview.
Erik Linask: This year marks the 10th birthday of Asterisk. What has driven its growth over a decade?
Jim Dalton: Pent-up demand for a reasonably priced PBX solution for small and medium businesses.
EL: What is your company’s involvement with Asterisk?
JD: TransNexus maintains the OSP module in Asterisk. OSP is the Open Settlement Protocol for secure peering among VoIP peers.
EL: Who is your target customer and what are their biggest pain points?
JD: Our target customers are any service provider who offers A to Z VoIP termination services. They use the TransNexus software for least cost routing, number portability, traffic reports, profitability analysis and billing.
EL: How does Asterisk help address your customers’ pain points?
JD: Actually, there is very little intersection between the TransNexus customer base and the universe of Asterisk users. Nevertheless, we like to be involved with Asterisk because we think it will become more than just a PBX. Asterisk and a couple of other open source telecom projects are the most significant leading indicators for the future of telecommunications. If you are not watching developments in the Asterisk community, you have your head in the sand.
EL: What are the key differentiators of your product over others on the market?
JD: Focus and Price.
For twelve years our focus has been on VoIP routing and accounting. From the beginning our solution architecture has been based on a standards based routing and CDR collection server. This is quite different from traditional least cost routing and billing solutions for telecom. Traditionally, these solutions have been customized to interoperate with each switch vendor’s proprietary routing table and CDR format. Customization for many different vendors is very expensive, but that is just the way it was in telecom. The TransNexus approach, however, is based on the OSP protocol which is an XML based standard for authorizing, routing and accounting for IP transactions. It is a simpler approach with much better scalability. For example, we have customers that manage over forty million routes with the TransNexus OSPrey routing and CDR collection server. By comparison, a softswitch or session border controller is limited to a routing table of just two million routes or less.
Price is the second differentiator. Since our standards based architecture is simpler and more efficient, our costs are lower which means we are profitable even though our solution is significantly lower in price than the competition. In addition, we are the only vendor that offers a free 90 day evaluation trial complete with technical support and remote training. We have had multiple customers save more money using TransNexus software during the free evaluation trial than they paid us at the end of 90 days. I do not know of any competitor that can profitably offer a solution with a payback period of zero months.
EL: You are speaking at AstriCon 2009 – describe your session and tell our readers why they should attend it.
JD: My session will be a tutorial on Number Portability. In the US, 40% of all calls are to telephone numbers that have been ported to a different service provider. If you are routing calls on the dialed telephone number, then 40% of your calls will be mis-routed! The call will still complete to the called party so end users will not know the call was mis-routed, but the cost of routing a call to the wrong carrier who then has to forward the call to the correct terminating provider is very expensive. So this tutorial will explain the basics of Number Portability technology and how Asterisk users and correct their call routing with Number Portability and most importantly save on termination fees.
EL: What else do you expect to see or hear at AstriCon that will be particularly interesting or innovative?
JD: Astricon attracts an eclectic group of innovators. You never know what you will learn at Astricon. That is what makes Astricon interesting.
EL: Where do you see the Asterisk market in five years?
JD: Asterisk will continue to be used in new ways that folks never imagined. But more importantly, Asterisk will have a greater share of the PBX market.
Erik Linask: This year marks the 10th birthday of Asterisk. What has driven its growth over a decade?
Jim Dalton: Pent-up demand for a reasonably priced PBX solution for small and medium businesses.
EL: What is your company’s involvement with Asterisk?
JD: TransNexus maintains the OSP module in Asterisk. OSP is the Open Settlement Protocol for secure peering among VoIP peers.
EL: Who is your target customer and what are their biggest pain points?
JD: Our target customers are any service provider who offers A to Z VoIP termination services. They use the TransNexus software for least cost routing, number portability, traffic reports, profitability analysis and billing.
EL: How does Asterisk help address your customers’ pain points?
JD: Actually, there is very little intersection between the TransNexus customer base and the universe of Asterisk users. Nevertheless, we like to be involved with Asterisk because we think it will become more than just a PBX. Asterisk and a couple of other open source telecom projects are the most significant leading indicators for the future of telecommunications. If you are not watching developments in the Asterisk community, you have your head in the sand.
EL: What are the key differentiators of your product over others on the market?
JD: Focus and Price.
For twelve years our focus has been on VoIP routing and accounting. From the beginning our solution architecture has been based on a standards based routing and CDR collection server. This is quite different from traditional least cost routing and billing solutions for telecom. Traditionally, these solutions have been customized to interoperate with each switch vendor’s proprietary routing table and CDR format. Customization for many different vendors is very expensive, but that is just the way it was in telecom. The TransNexus approach, however, is based on the OSP protocol which is an XML based standard for authorizing, routing and accounting for IP transactions. It is a simpler approach with much better scalability. For example, we have customers that manage over forty million routes with the TransNexus OSPrey routing and CDR collection server. By comparison, a softswitch or session border controller is limited to a routing table of just two million routes or less.
Price is the second differentiator. Since our standards based architecture is simpler and more efficient, our costs are lower which means we are profitable even though our solution is significantly lower in price than the competition. In addition, we are the only vendor that offers a free 90 day evaluation trial complete with technical support and remote training. We have had multiple customers save more money using TransNexus software during the free evaluation trial than they paid us at the end of 90 days. I do not know of any competitor that can profitably offer a solution with a payback period of zero months.
EL: You are speaking at AstriCon 2009 – describe your session and tell our readers why they should attend it.
JD: My session will be a tutorial on Number Portability. In the US, 40% of all calls are to telephone numbers that have been ported to a different service provider. If you are routing calls on the dialed telephone number, then 40% of your calls will be mis-routed! The call will still complete to the called party so end users will not know the call was mis-routed, but the cost of routing a call to the wrong carrier who then has to forward the call to the correct terminating provider is very expensive. So this tutorial will explain the basics of Number Portability technology and how Asterisk users and correct their call routing with Number Portability and most importantly save on termination fees.
EL: What else do you expect to see or hear at AstriCon that will be particularly interesting or innovative?
JD: Astricon attracts an eclectic group of innovators. You never know what you will learn at Astricon. That is what makes Astricon interesting.
EL: Where do you see the Asterisk market in five years?
JD: Asterisk will continue to be used in new ways that folks never imagined. But more importantly, Asterisk will have a greater share of the PBX market.
Friday, September 4, 2009
Report on IT-Expo in Los Angeles
I just returned from the Internet Telephony Expo in Los Angeles where I gave a tutorial on Number Portability. Overall the conference was good. I am always interested in trade show attendance and vibrance since it is a good business indicator for our market. Overall attendance at the keynotes seemed to be up from last year and the exhibit hall had about the same number of booths. More importantly, I did not detect any gloom. The continued growth of VoIP in a recession is a good sign for rapid growth of the VoIP business when the overall market rebounds.
Interestingly, my 8:30 am tutorial on Number Portability was well attended. By most measures, the topic of Number Portability registers about zero in terms of excitement. Couple this with an early morning time and I expected just a few of folks in the room reading the paper while they drank their coffee. Instead, the tutorial was well attended and the group was engaged, asking a lot of questions throughout. One gentlemen told me that a last minute call from his CEO, who was stuck in traffic, instructed him to attend the number portability tutorial and take notes. In the past, VoIP folks dismissed number portability as insignificant. But things have changed. We have found that up to 40% of our customer's VoIP traffic is to ported telephone numbers. This means that their least cost routing, without number portability correction, is wrong for 40% of their calls. The simple implementation of routing calls based on the ported number can increase a VoIP provider's net income by 4% to 8%. This is not a revenue increase, this is cash income straight to the bottom line. One TransNexus customer tells me that our analysis is much too conservative and that the savings is significantly greater. All driven by an easy to implement database dip. Everybody loves easy money, I guess that is why an early morning tutorial on a dry topic drew such a keen crowd. You can download the presentation from www.TransNexus.com.
Interestingly, my 8:30 am tutorial on Number Portability was well attended. By most measures, the topic of Number Portability registers about zero in terms of excitement. Couple this with an early morning time and I expected just a few of folks in the room reading the paper while they drank their coffee. Instead, the tutorial was well attended and the group was engaged, asking a lot of questions throughout. One gentlemen told me that a last minute call from his CEO, who was stuck in traffic, instructed him to attend the number portability tutorial and take notes. In the past, VoIP folks dismissed number portability as insignificant. But things have changed. We have found that up to 40% of our customer's VoIP traffic is to ported telephone numbers. This means that their least cost routing, without number portability correction, is wrong for 40% of their calls. The simple implementation of routing calls based on the ported number can increase a VoIP provider's net income by 4% to 8%. This is not a revenue increase, this is cash income straight to the bottom line. One TransNexus customer tells me that our analysis is much too conservative and that the savings is significantly greater. All driven by an easy to implement database dip. Everybody loves easy money, I guess that is why an early morning tutorial on a dry topic drew such a keen crowd. You can download the presentation from www.TransNexus.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
