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.
Showing posts with label VoIP Peering. Show all posts
Showing posts with label VoIP Peering. Show all posts
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Monday, September 28, 2009
VON Peering Initiative
My trip to VON last week was cut short last week by three feet of flood waters following through my home in Atlanta. Nevertheless I did get to spend some time at the show and these are a couple of my impressions.
First, Rick Martin and his colleagues put up a courageous effort to rebuild the VON show in a very tough economic climate. The conference agenda looked good and a couple of premier keynote speakers certainly made the conference content worth attending. Nevertheless, the attendance had to be less than they hoped for. For what its worth, I heard that the Channel Partners show, which followed immediately after VON, was a good success.
Second, a possible spark for re-igniting interest in VON may come from a grass roots VoIP peering effort being led by Dave Gilbert, CEO of SimpleSignal. As a VoIP operator, Dave organized a meeting at VON with a cadre of like minded VoIP service providers who want to build a "bill and keep" (settlement free) VoIP peering federation. This idea is certainly not new. A number of VoIP visionaries, starting with Jeff Pulver (the founder of VON), have created settlement free VoIP peering networks. At TransNexus, we were the Atlanta node for Jeff's second Free World Dial-up (FWD II) network in 1998 which used VocalTec software and Dialogic cards. FWD II was a lot of fun and was a fascinating testbed for the early days of VON, but it never took-off.
Other more commercially based peering federations such as the Voice Peering Fabric and XConnect have had success, but the dream of a rapidly growing, VoIP peering network which can challenge the Public Switched Telephone Network has yet to emerge. I do not think the VoIP peering pioneers made any mistakes other than being too early for the market. Perhaps the grassroots effort by Dave Gilbert and his group of VoIP service provider peers will have the good fortune of stumbling onto perfect market timing and starting a new peering federation that grows virally. If they do, it will be good for VON and good for everyone in the VoIP business.
First, Rick Martin and his colleagues put up a courageous effort to rebuild the VON show in a very tough economic climate. The conference agenda looked good and a couple of premier keynote speakers certainly made the conference content worth attending. Nevertheless, the attendance had to be less than they hoped for. For what its worth, I heard that the Channel Partners show, which followed immediately after VON, was a good success.
Second, a possible spark for re-igniting interest in VON may come from a grass roots VoIP peering effort being led by Dave Gilbert, CEO of SimpleSignal. As a VoIP operator, Dave organized a meeting at VON with a cadre of like minded VoIP service providers who want to build a "bill and keep" (settlement free) VoIP peering federation. This idea is certainly not new. A number of VoIP visionaries, starting with Jeff Pulver (the founder of VON), have created settlement free VoIP peering networks. At TransNexus, we were the Atlanta node for Jeff's second Free World Dial-up (FWD II) network in 1998 which used VocalTec software and Dialogic cards. FWD II was a lot of fun and was a fascinating testbed for the early days of VON, but it never took-off.
Other more commercially based peering federations such as the Voice Peering Fabric and XConnect have had success, but the dream of a rapidly growing, VoIP peering network which can challenge the Public Switched Telephone Network has yet to emerge. I do not think the VoIP peering pioneers made any mistakes other than being too early for the market. Perhaps the grassroots effort by Dave Gilbert and his group of VoIP service provider peers will have the good fortune of stumbling onto perfect market timing and starting a new peering federation that grows virally. If they do, it will be good for VON and good for everyone in the VoIP business.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Interconnect Business Models
One of the most interesting white papers I have read on the economics of network interconnect models was written by Jay M. Atkinson and Christopher C. Barnekov who were working at the FCC. The white paper has a very odd title: "A Coasian Alternative to Pigovian Regulation of Network Interconnection". The title sounds comical for non-economists like me, but if you take the time to dig into this white paper it offers an insightful understanding of interconnect costs between networks. More importantly, it illustrates why interconnect costs between two networks are not equal. When a small and large network interconnect, the larger network tends to experience a disproportionate share of the interconnect cost. This explains why network operators fear a simple bill and keep peering model with smaller networks. You can download the white paper from http://web.si.umich.edu/tprc/papers/2004/348/CoasianAlternative040901b.pdf.
If you do not have the time to read the tedious details covered in this white paper, you can download a presentation I gave at PTC'06 entitled "Interconnect Business Models". It summarizes some of the main points addressed by Atkinson and Barnekov in their white paper.
If you do not have the time to read the tedious details covered in this white paper, you can download a presentation I gave at PTC'06 entitled "Interconnect Business Models". It summarizes some of the main points addressed by Atkinson and Barnekov in their white paper.
VoIP Peering Discussion at VON
I had an interesting discussion yesterday with Dave Gilbert (SimpleSignal), Dave Cullerot (Acme Packet) and Kevin Groth (XConnect) about the current state of VoIP peering and how it will evolve. VoIP peering is an old idea that is slowly catching on, but will a public VoIP peering network ever replace the Public Switched Telephone Network? There is plenty of speculation about this topic which the four of us will be discussing next Tuesday, September 22nd at the VON conference in Miami. We are participating on a panel titled"The Peering Puzzle: VoIP Interconnections and Peering in a Distributed-Network World".
One fundamental issue of contention is the definition of VoIP peering. Some folks define VoIP peering as a secure, dedicated IP connection between two VoIP carriers. This definition is how data peering is defined between to large Internet Service Providers. But other folks take a more expansive view and believe VoIP peering is a many to many, peer to peer connection among a large and open group of VoIP networks. This type of peering enables the full potential for two peers to realize all the application possibilities of peer to peer communications, such as the use of broadband codecs and video.
While most peering issues are discussed in terms of technical interoperability, I believe the most important issue is the economic model. The primary economic incentive of peering models are focused on cost avoidance for the source network. This approach in not sufficient. If you want a VoIP peering revolution, there needs to be an economic incentive for all VoIP networks to open their networks to any anonymous VoIP network. Peering models today lack a secure clearing and settlement mechanism that provides an efficient incentive for destination VoIP carriers to take traffic from an anonymous sources. When this problem is solved, a public VoIP network will replace the Public Switched Telephone Network. The white paper "Peer to Peer Settlement for VoIP Networks" provides a proposed solution.
Our panel discussion at VON is scheduled for 8:00 am next Tuesday. I hope you will join us.
One fundamental issue of contention is the definition of VoIP peering. Some folks define VoIP peering as a secure, dedicated IP connection between two VoIP carriers. This definition is how data peering is defined between to large Internet Service Providers. But other folks take a more expansive view and believe VoIP peering is a many to many, peer to peer connection among a large and open group of VoIP networks. This type of peering enables the full potential for two peers to realize all the application possibilities of peer to peer communications, such as the use of broadband codecs and video.
While most peering issues are discussed in terms of technical interoperability, I believe the most important issue is the economic model. The primary economic incentive of peering models are focused on cost avoidance for the source network. This approach in not sufficient. If you want a VoIP peering revolution, there needs to be an economic incentive for all VoIP networks to open their networks to any anonymous VoIP network. Peering models today lack a secure clearing and settlement mechanism that provides an efficient incentive for destination VoIP carriers to take traffic from an anonymous sources. When this problem is solved, a public VoIP network will replace the Public Switched Telephone Network. The white paper "Peer to Peer Settlement for VoIP Networks" provides a proposed solution.
Our panel discussion at VON is scheduled for 8:00 am next Tuesday. I hope you will join us.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Voice Peering Forum Update
I am at the closing plenary of the Voice Peering Forum in SanFrancisco. It has been a very interesting two days with a lot of informative and thought provoking conversations and presentations. The Voice Peering Fabric made two very notable announcements today. First the VPF is opening up its ENUM directory to the public Internet. Previously, the VPF ENUM registry has been limited to users of the VPF private ethernet network. Now common route discovery between networks on the VPF and public Internet is possible. More importantly, however, the VPF ENUM registry is no longer just a simple open database. The VPF ENUM registry users can now define the groups of users that have access to their ENUM entries - similar to the features offer by other ENUM solutions such as NetNumber.
The second announcement from the VPF was the launch of the VPF Automated Trading Platform (ATP) which enables a VPF user to define and control a hosted least cost routing and settlement solution. Users will deposit funds with the ATP which will automatically execute clearing and settlement of funds between peering partners.
In many respects, the VPF initiative is similar to Arbinet's VoIP peering service, however, their is one big difference. The VPF ENUM registry and ATP is completely free for VPF users. Automated clearing and settlement of VoIP peering transactions seems like a major infrastructure service that will have a material expense. Nevertheless the folks at the VPF feel confident that the float of prepaid deposits plus the addition of new VPF business will pay for the services
The second announcement from the VPF was the launch of the VPF Automated Trading Platform (ATP) which enables a VPF user to define and control a hosted least cost routing and settlement solution. Users will deposit funds with the ATP which will automatically execute clearing and settlement of funds between peering partners.
In many respects, the VPF initiative is similar to Arbinet's VoIP peering service, however, their is one big difference. The VPF ENUM registry and ATP is completely free for VPF users. Automated clearing and settlement of VoIP peering transactions seems like a major infrastructure service that will have a material expense. Nevertheless the folks at the VPF feel confident that the float of prepaid deposits plus the addition of new VPF business will pay for the services
Thursday, June 19, 2008
The Voice Peering Forum
Yesterday I mentioned the Voice Peering Fabric (VPF), run by Stealth Communications, as an innovation to watch in NGN interconnection. Twice a year the VPF hosts its Voice Peering Forum. The Voice Peering Forum is a gathering of VPF customers and leaders of the VoIP industry for discussions about the future of peering applications, such as VoIP, over IP networks. I attended the last Voice Peering Forum in December 2007 in New York City and heard a lot interesting ideas and experiences about VoIP peering and new applications. Next Monday and Tuesday, June 23rd & 24th, the Voice Peering Forum will be meeting in San Francisco. On Tuesday, at 11:30am to 12:15pm, I will be participating in a panel discussing "To Couple or Decouple Routing Intelligence from SBC?". I expect it will be an interesting two days. I hope to see you there.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Ideas for VoIP Interconnect Evolution
Like other folks involved with VoIP, we ponder how the new interconnect model for future IP services will evolve. I think we all share the same vision - open, global, peer to peer communication between any two applications on the Internet. This is the model we experience with the World Wide Web (WWW) and it works. Any browser can have a session with any web server. The technical challenge of HTTP inter-working is easy and the interconnect model is simple. The WWW business model is a broadcast model. The web site sponsors pay to have their content advertised on the Internet. It is a very simple economic model that benefits both the source (web browser) and destination (web site) of each session.
The interconnect challenge for Next Generation Networks (NGN) is much more complex. Like the WWW model, there are two different challenges: finding a technical and economic solution that encourages networks to interconnect. First, the technical inter-working challenges are much more complex. For example, VoIP, with its many features and codecs is much for complex that a typical web session. But, like all technical issues, the inter-working challenges are being overcome. The more challenging problem is finding the economic model that provides an incentive for for every network to interconnect.
The economic model for interconnecting networks for VoIP and other value added IP sessions such as video, gaming, and content distribution is much less simple than the WWW model. Many folks in the industry have advocated for a "Bill and Keep" model. In this model, the interconnecting networks bill their end user subscribers, keep all the revenue and interconnect with one another for free. There is no sharing of revenue between the networks of the calling and called parties. This simple model does have its merits, but the practical reality is that no network operators have indicated any interest in this model.
The economic model problem is simple, different applications might require more or less network infrastructure services and therefore have different costs, which may be small, but are still material for the network operators. In addition, the direction of the value exchange for session between the source and destination is unknown to the network. In some scenarios the calling party (source) is willing to pay for the entire session, in other scenarios the called party (destination) is willing to pay for the entire session. The major challenge is to find an economic model, coupled with a technical solution, that enables the efficient exchange of economic value that tracks the value of interconnected sessions. When this solution is found, NGN interconnection will flourish.
But back to the point we ponder - how will the winning model for NGN interconnection evolve? We see four possible paths.
1) Dominant Player Defines the Solution
In many industries a dominant player evolves that defines the industry wide standard. AT&T certainly did this for the US telephone network. But, today the telecom world is more competitive and fragmented than ever. It seems unlikely that a single company, or even a consortium of companies can dictate the industry standard.
2) Industry Cooperation
This is possible and we see these beginning of these efforts from CableLabs, GSMA, i3 Forum and others. But the process to define technical standards and standard practices is long and bureaucratic. In addition, since this is a global challenge, there will be competition between different interest groups which are huge, such as wireless versus wireline carriers, or the US versus the EU. This migration path is possible, but long.
3) Regulation
Mandating NGN interconnect standards is a scenario where regulators might add some value. But unfortunately regulators usually do not understand the issues, are overly influenced by the dominant players and lack innovation. It is doubtful that regulators will solve the problem.
4) Grass Roots
The last possible evolution path toward an NGN standard could from the users themselves. For example, this kind of solution could come from an open source project. Another scenario is that a group of small companies or new entrants to the industry develop a solution that works and grows to critical mass.
One possibility for the grass roots success scenario could be the Voice Peering Fabric (VPF) run by Stealth Communications. It is private ethernet network that enables VoIP peering among networks. The VPF is not a carrier and provides a neutral solution for network interconnection. The VPF provides an ENUM server to support the Bill and Keep economic model for interconnection. The VPF ENUM implementation has been successful, but the narrow appeal of the Bill and Keep model has limited its growth. We understand that the VPF will soon be providing infrastructure services that enable efficient interconnect billing settlements between peering VoIP networks. If they get the economic model right, VoIP peering on the VPF will flourish. If this happens, could the amount of network traffic using the VPF NGN interconnect model grow to critical mass and become a de facto standard before being countered by a solution from the industry giants? We will see.
The VPF is just one example of a possible grass roots solution for NGN interconnection. I am certain there are other innovators and entrepreneurs working to solve this global problem. If you know of any, I would like to hear from you.
The interconnect challenge for Next Generation Networks (NGN) is much more complex. Like the WWW model, there are two different challenges: finding a technical and economic solution that encourages networks to interconnect. First, the technical inter-working challenges are much more complex. For example, VoIP, with its many features and codecs is much for complex that a typical web session. But, like all technical issues, the inter-working challenges are being overcome. The more challenging problem is finding the economic model that provides an incentive for for every network to interconnect.
The economic model for interconnecting networks for VoIP and other value added IP sessions such as video, gaming, and content distribution is much less simple than the WWW model. Many folks in the industry have advocated for a "Bill and Keep" model. In this model, the interconnecting networks bill their end user subscribers, keep all the revenue and interconnect with one another for free. There is no sharing of revenue between the networks of the calling and called parties. This simple model does have its merits, but the practical reality is that no network operators have indicated any interest in this model.
The economic model problem is simple, different applications might require more or less network infrastructure services and therefore have different costs, which may be small, but are still material for the network operators. In addition, the direction of the value exchange for session between the source and destination is unknown to the network. In some scenarios the calling party (source) is willing to pay for the entire session, in other scenarios the called party (destination) is willing to pay for the entire session. The major challenge is to find an economic model, coupled with a technical solution, that enables the efficient exchange of economic value that tracks the value of interconnected sessions. When this solution is found, NGN interconnection will flourish.
But back to the point we ponder - how will the winning model for NGN interconnection evolve? We see four possible paths.
1) Dominant Player Defines the Solution
In many industries a dominant player evolves that defines the industry wide standard. AT&T certainly did this for the US telephone network. But, today the telecom world is more competitive and fragmented than ever. It seems unlikely that a single company, or even a consortium of companies can dictate the industry standard.
2) Industry Cooperation
This is possible and we see these beginning of these efforts from CableLabs, GSMA, i3 Forum and others. But the process to define technical standards and standard practices is long and bureaucratic. In addition, since this is a global challenge, there will be competition between different interest groups which are huge, such as wireless versus wireline carriers, or the US versus the EU. This migration path is possible, but long.
3) Regulation
Mandating NGN interconnect standards is a scenario where regulators might add some value. But unfortunately regulators usually do not understand the issues, are overly influenced by the dominant players and lack innovation. It is doubtful that regulators will solve the problem.
4) Grass Roots
The last possible evolution path toward an NGN standard could from the users themselves. For example, this kind of solution could come from an open source project. Another scenario is that a group of small companies or new entrants to the industry develop a solution that works and grows to critical mass.
One possibility for the grass roots success scenario could be the Voice Peering Fabric (VPF) run by Stealth Communications. It is private ethernet network that enables VoIP peering among networks. The VPF is not a carrier and provides a neutral solution for network interconnection. The VPF provides an ENUM server to support the Bill and Keep economic model for interconnection. The VPF ENUM implementation has been successful, but the narrow appeal of the Bill and Keep model has limited its growth. We understand that the VPF will soon be providing infrastructure services that enable efficient interconnect billing settlements between peering VoIP networks. If they get the economic model right, VoIP peering on the VPF will flourish. If this happens, could the amount of network traffic using the VPF NGN interconnect model grow to critical mass and become a de facto standard before being countered by a solution from the industry giants? We will see.
The VPF is just one example of a possible grass roots solution for NGN interconnection. I am certain there are other innovators and entrepreneurs working to solve this global problem. If you know of any, I would like to hear from you.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
CableLabs and VoIP Peering
Well a lot of blogging from me last week about activities in the field of Next Generation Network (NGN) Interconnection. A more commonly used term for NGN Interconnection has been VoIP peering. However, the term VoIP peering may be is losing is usefulness since it limits the concept to VoIP. Anyway, one organization that has been surprisingly silent in the recent dialog about NGN Interconnection has been CableLabs.
In October 2006 CableLabs released a Request for Proposal (RFP) for "CableLabs® Voice over IP (VoIP) Peering Registry Services". The RFP was focused on delivering a solution for VoIP to VoIP calling between Cable MSOs (Multi-System Operators). The CableLabs RFP generated a lot of excitement when it was first released, but no progress has been reported by CableLabs. Rumors in the industry indicate a pilot trial is in place based on ENUM technology from Net Number deployed by NeuStar. More importantly, however, is the reality that Time Warner (TWC) - a critical player in any successful VoIP peering initiative, partnered with Sprint to handle all of TWCs offnet voice traffic.
So the lack of news about VoIP peering from CableLabs may be telling - there is not much to tell. Perhaps the Cable MSOs are too small a market niche to drive a standard NGN interconnection strategy, or may the initiative was just too early. Another possibility could be the limitation that the CableLabs approach had no mechanism for inter-carrier settlements. Open peering sounds great until you look more closely at the need to manage the profitability of your network. At that point, peering without any economic controls seems like a very risky concept.
In October 2006 CableLabs released a Request for Proposal (RFP) for "CableLabs® Voice over IP (VoIP) Peering Registry Services". The RFP was focused on delivering a solution for VoIP to VoIP calling between Cable MSOs (Multi-System Operators). The CableLabs RFP generated a lot of excitement when it was first released, but no progress has been reported by CableLabs. Rumors in the industry indicate a pilot trial is in place based on ENUM technology from Net Number deployed by NeuStar. More importantly, however, is the reality that Time Warner (TWC) - a critical player in any successful VoIP peering initiative, partnered with Sprint to handle all of TWCs offnet voice traffic.
So the lack of news about VoIP peering from CableLabs may be telling - there is not much to tell. Perhaps the Cable MSOs are too small a market niche to drive a standard NGN interconnection strategy, or may the initiative was just too early. Another possibility could be the limitation that the CableLabs approach had no mechanism for inter-carrier settlements. Open peering sounds great until you look more closely at the need to manage the profitability of your network. At that point, peering without any economic controls seems like a very risky concept.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
ATIS Inter-Carrier VoIP Workshop
The migration to an all IP world takes another small step forward. This week ATIS is holding a workshop in Washington D.C. to discuss Inter-Carrier VoIP Call Routing (ICVR). If you do not know, ATIS stands for Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions. ATIS is accredited by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and creates telecom industry standards for everything from provisioning to routing to billing.
The objective of the ICVR workshop will be to determine if there is consensus that it is desirable to reach a single inter-carrier VoIP routing solution. If a single routing solution is desired, then the workshop will begin development of a roadmap to achieve a single routing solution. This workshop is based on the work that has been done by the IVCR Focus Group which began in 2006. In January 2008 ATIS published the ATIS Inter-Carrier VoIP Call Routing Assessment and Work Plan. The Work Plan is a good document that describes alternative models for inter-carrier VoIP routing. The Work Plan identifies that inter-carrier billing and settlement are requirements, but no work has been done to define the requirements.
We are happy to see that IP interconnection is getting some serious focus by ATIS which is driven by the legacy telecom operators in the US. This will be good for VoIP vendors and good for consumers if the derived standards encourage an open competitive market.
The objective of the ICVR workshop will be to determine if there is consensus that it is desirable to reach a single inter-carrier VoIP routing solution. If a single routing solution is desired, then the workshop will begin development of a roadmap to achieve a single routing solution. This workshop is based on the work that has been done by the IVCR Focus Group which began in 2006. In January 2008 ATIS published the ATIS Inter-Carrier VoIP Call Routing Assessment and Work Plan. The Work Plan is a good document that describes alternative models for inter-carrier VoIP routing. The Work Plan identifies that inter-carrier billing and settlement are requirements, but no work has been done to define the requirements.
We are happy to see that IP interconnection is getting some serious focus by ATIS which is driven by the legacy telecom operators in the US. This will be good for VoIP vendors and good for consumers if the derived standards encourage an open competitive market.
Friday, April 25, 2008
VoIP Peering Architectures & Strategies
The link below is a video of the "VoIP Peering Architectures and Strategies" presentation I gave at the VoIP Peering Forum in December 2007.
VoIP Peering Architectures & Strategies - Video
VoIP Peering Architectures & Strategies - Powerpoint
VoIP Peering Architectures & Strategies - Video
VoIP Peering Architectures & Strategies - Powerpoint
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Voice Peering Forum - New York
I just wrapped up a full day at the Voice Peering Forum in New York City sponsored by The VPF (Voice Peering Fabric). There was a strong representation of service providers (AT&T, Verizon, XO, Sprint) and in a couple of sessions there was a lot of insightful discussion regarding the current and future state of VoIP peering. There is no doubt that VoIP peering is growing strongly, but it is still a small part of the total telecom interconnection market.
I think the good news for VoIP peering is that folks are starting to focus on business models for peering rather than the enabling technology. The focus on VoIP peering for the last three years has been on how to get it working for isolated interconnect cases. The initial VoIP peering concepts promoted a simple economic model of "bill and keep" (each VoIP peers bills their subscribers and keeps all the revenue without sharing with other networks involved with the call). The bill and keep model is attractive because it is simple, but it provides no economic incentive for interconnection or VoIP peering.
Now the discussion is beginning to focus on how to enable a common business model that gives all network operators an economic incentive to offer open interconnection with other VoIP networks. The general consensus is that the challenge is large and the following critical infrastructure components need to be defined for VoIP peering: route discovery, interoperability, accounting and settlement. The key question raised at the conference is when will the industry realize that VoIP interconnection is preferred over SS7 interconnection - when is the tipping point? Nobody knows the answer to this question, but for the first time I saw representatives from big incumbent carriers mulling over this problem and looking for a new market opportunity.
I think the good news for VoIP peering is that folks are starting to focus on business models for peering rather than the enabling technology. The focus on VoIP peering for the last three years has been on how to get it working for isolated interconnect cases. The initial VoIP peering concepts promoted a simple economic model of "bill and keep" (each VoIP peers bills their subscribers and keeps all the revenue without sharing with other networks involved with the call). The bill and keep model is attractive because it is simple, but it provides no economic incentive for interconnection or VoIP peering.
Now the discussion is beginning to focus on how to enable a common business model that gives all network operators an economic incentive to offer open interconnection with other VoIP networks. The general consensus is that the challenge is large and the following critical infrastructure components need to be defined for VoIP peering: route discovery, interoperability, accounting and settlement. The key question raised at the conference is when will the industry realize that VoIP interconnection is preferred over SS7 interconnection - when is the tipping point? Nobody knows the answer to this question, but for the first time I saw representatives from big incumbent carriers mulling over this problem and looking for a new market opportunity.
Friday, November 23, 2007
New Market VoIP Peering
Next week, Wednesday through Friday, November 28-30 I will be at Pulver's New Market Peering conference in Orlando, FL. The conference is focused on many different issues related to VoIP peering, such as business models, technology choices, quality of services and security.
I willl speaking on a panel discussing Billing and OSS issues related to VoIP peering. I will be joined by Chris Celiberti and Etienne Pipers from Belgacom. Major issues I will be addressing are settlement billing, reconcilation and and the growing impact of local number portability.
I have a limited number of free passes for the conference, so contact me if you would like to attend. For more information about the conference go to http://www.newmarketpeering.com/2007/florida/web/
I willl speaking on a panel discussing Billing and OSS issues related to VoIP peering. I will be joined by Chris Celiberti and Etienne Pipers from Belgacom. Major issues I will be addressing are settlement billing, reconcilation and and the growing impact of local number portability.
I have a limited number of free passes for the conference, so contact me if you would like to attend. For more information about the conference go to http://www.newmarketpeering.com/2007/florida/web/
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
VoIP Peering Panel at VON in Boston
Next Tuesday (Oct 30th) at the VON conference in Boston, I will be joining Ed Guy from Truphone and Eli Katz from XConnect on a panel to discuss ”Directories, ENUM and DUNDI”. Both of these gentlemen are VoIP Peering experts. Ed was the CTO for Free World Dialup and Eli is the founder and CEO of XConnect, a rapiding growing VoIP peering provider.
Our discussion will focus on different VoIP peering models, enabling technologies, trends and visions for VoIP peering in the future. Directories and ENUM technologies follow the classic model of a central database that provides route discovery for all users. It is a simple model based on sound economic principles - a central database offers economies of scale and positive externalities that benefit everyone. Nevertheless, there is a lot of market resistance to the centralized model - everyone is suspicious of the power and control ceded to a central routing authority.
DUNDi is a completely different model with decentralized route discovery. However, DUNDi offers the same positive externalities offered by a centralized database. By positive externalities, I mean that the benefit of using DUNDi grows as more endpoints join the DUNDi network. DUNDi, created by Mark Spencer, is a clever way to remove the objections to a central routing authority while keeping the benefits.
Unfortunately, neither ENUM nor DUNDi are rapidly gaining acceptance in the market place. The reason is because these technologies only address route discovery. A VoIP peering model requires more than just route discovery, VoIP peering also requires access control and economic settlement. Today these VoIP Peering functions are fulfilled by Session Border Controllers that are architectually identical to a class 4 switch in a PSTN inter-exchange network. This technique does not offer the benefits of ubiquitous direct peering between service providers. So part of our discussion will cover what is required to fulfill the VoIP vision for direct peering between any two VoIP networks globally.
I hope you will join us at Tuesday, October 30th, from 3:30pm – 4:30pm, in Room 209 at the VON conference in the Boston Convention Center.
Our discussion will focus on different VoIP peering models, enabling technologies, trends and visions for VoIP peering in the future. Directories and ENUM technologies follow the classic model of a central database that provides route discovery for all users. It is a simple model based on sound economic principles - a central database offers economies of scale and positive externalities that benefit everyone. Nevertheless, there is a lot of market resistance to the centralized model - everyone is suspicious of the power and control ceded to a central routing authority.
DUNDi is a completely different model with decentralized route discovery. However, DUNDi offers the same positive externalities offered by a centralized database. By positive externalities, I mean that the benefit of using DUNDi grows as more endpoints join the DUNDi network. DUNDi, created by Mark Spencer, is a clever way to remove the objections to a central routing authority while keeping the benefits.
Unfortunately, neither ENUM nor DUNDi are rapidly gaining acceptance in the market place. The reason is because these technologies only address route discovery. A VoIP peering model requires more than just route discovery, VoIP peering also requires access control and economic settlement. Today these VoIP Peering functions are fulfilled by Session Border Controllers that are architectually identical to a class 4 switch in a PSTN inter-exchange network. This technique does not offer the benefits of ubiquitous direct peering between service providers. So part of our discussion will cover what is required to fulfill the VoIP vision for direct peering between any two VoIP networks globally.
I hope you will join us at Tuesday, October 30th, from 3:30pm – 4:30pm, in Room 209 at the VON conference in the Boston Convention Center.
Monday, October 15, 2007
VoIP Peering at ISPCON
The Internet industry will be meeting this week at ISPCON in San Jose. ISPCON has always been a show for ISPs and NetHeads and more recently it has expanded its focus to include non-data applications like voice. VoIP is a natural business extension for ISPs and I will be at ISPCON tomorrow giving a tutorial on the business case for how ISPCONs can leverage their current business to provide VoIP service.
The ISPCON session is:
Track: TECHNOLOGY 10:15 AM - 11:15 AM Tuesday Oct. 16, 2007
E2: SIP Peering: A VoIP Business Model that Works for ISPs Serving Enterprise Customers.
This session will describe how the SIP peering business model is a natural service extension for ISPs providing bandwidth to Enterprise customers. The presentation will cover the following points:
- Who is the target market
- Selling proposition
- Business model and economics
- Incremental infrastructure required
- Example network design
- Understanding least-cost routing of telecom traffic
This presentation will provide ISPs the information they need to determine if they want to expand their business to provide basic VoIP services.
The ISPCON session is:
Track: TECHNOLOGY 10:15 AM - 11:15 AM Tuesday Oct. 16, 2007
E2: SIP Peering: A VoIP Business Model that Works for ISPs Serving Enterprise Customers.
This session will describe how the SIP peering business model is a natural service extension for ISPs providing bandwidth to Enterprise customers. The presentation will cover the following points:
- Who is the target market
- Selling proposition
- Business model and economics
- Incremental infrastructure required
- Example network design
- Understanding least-cost routing of telecom traffic
This presentation will provide ISPs the information they need to determine if they want to expand their business to provide basic VoIP services.
Friday, October 5, 2007
ISNs, an innovative approach to VoIP Peering
What's an ISN?
An ISN is an ITAD Server Number.
What the heck is an ITAD?
An ITAD is an Internet Telephony Administrative Domain.
If you are in the business of developing future VoIP products you need to visit http://freenum.org/ and include the ITAD concept into your long term strategic thinking. It could be just another geek idea that never flys, but it could also be another one of those unusual open source type concepts that take-off virally when the market enablers are in place.
The concept is simple - create an open numbering system for VoIP that is available to everyone, not just telephone companies.
A billion plus people in the world make telephone calls using telephone numbers provided exclusively by telephone carriers. ITADs are different. They are numbers that anyone can get from IANA (Internet Assigned Number Authority). An ISN is a subscriber number followed by a * followed by the ITAD for the subscriber.
For example, the TransNexus ITAD is 484. You can think of 484 as the domain name for TransNexus VoIP calls - just like transnexus.com is the domain name for e-mail messages sent to TransNexus. The ISN for phone extension 101 at TransNexus is 101*484.
A key feature of ISNs is that they are easy to dial on a plain old 12 digit telephone key pad. This is not the case with a SIP uri which could require a full alphanumeric keyboard.
At this point ITADs are still just an interesting idea being nurtured in a live trial by John Todd, a clever VoIP innovator. Nevertheless, it is concept that forward thinking product managers and strategic planners need to keep in mind as they look for new opportunities to out-flank their competition. Visit freenum.org for more information and to join the trial.
An ISN is an ITAD Server Number.
What the heck is an ITAD?
An ITAD is an Internet Telephony Administrative Domain.
If you are in the business of developing future VoIP products you need to visit http://freenum.org/ and include the ITAD concept into your long term strategic thinking. It could be just another geek idea that never flys, but it could also be another one of those unusual open source type concepts that take-off virally when the market enablers are in place.
The concept is simple - create an open numbering system for VoIP that is available to everyone, not just telephone companies.
A billion plus people in the world make telephone calls using telephone numbers provided exclusively by telephone carriers. ITADs are different. They are numbers that anyone can get from IANA (Internet Assigned Number Authority). An ISN is a subscriber number followed by a * followed by the ITAD for the subscriber.
For example, the TransNexus ITAD is 484. You can think of 484 as the domain name for TransNexus VoIP calls - just like transnexus.com is the domain name for e-mail messages sent to TransNexus. The ISN for phone extension 101 at TransNexus is 101*484.
A key feature of ISNs is that they are easy to dial on a plain old 12 digit telephone key pad. This is not the case with a SIP uri which could require a full alphanumeric keyboard.
At this point ITADs are still just an interesting idea being nurtured in a live trial by John Todd, a clever VoIP innovator. Nevertheless, it is concept that forward thinking product managers and strategic planners need to keep in mind as they look for new opportunities to out-flank their competition. Visit freenum.org for more information and to join the trial.
TransNexus at Comptel in Dallas
TransNexus will be exhibiting at the Comptel Plus Fall 2007 Convention and Expo next week in Dallas. The exhibit floor is open on Sunday - Tuesday October 7th-9th. If you plan to attend the Comptel show, please stop by booth 904 to visit TransNexus.
When you visit TransNexus, be sure to sign-up for a free Least Cost Routing Analysis of your telecom traffic. TransNexus will analyze your vendor rate plans and Call Detail Records to calculate your telecom vendor fees with profit optimizing Least Cost Routing.
The TransNexus analysis will give you the hard data you need to maximize the value of your vendor contracts:
- Do you need to fine tune your Least Cost Routing Algorithm?
- Will adding more telecom vendors save you money?
- Should you add Least Cost Routing for intra-state calls?
- Should you add Least Cost Routing for Expanded Local Calling Areas?
- Can you generate new revenues from wholesale VoIP peering with other service providers?
I hope to see you at the Comptel show.
When you visit TransNexus, be sure to sign-up for a free Least Cost Routing Analysis of your telecom traffic. TransNexus will analyze your vendor rate plans and Call Detail Records to calculate your telecom vendor fees with profit optimizing Least Cost Routing.
The TransNexus analysis will give you the hard data you need to maximize the value of your vendor contracts:
- Do you need to fine tune your Least Cost Routing Algorithm?
- Will adding more telecom vendors save you money?
- Should you add Least Cost Routing for intra-state calls?
- Should you add Least Cost Routing for Expanded Local Calling Areas?
- Can you generate new revenues from wholesale VoIP peering with other service providers?
I hope to see you at the Comptel show.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
The VoIP Peering Puzzle
TransNexus has been featured in this week's edition of "The VoIP Peering Puzzle" - a comprehensive set of articles examining VoIP Session Border Controllers. "The VoIP Peering Puzzle" is a series of articles is written by Mark Miller, President of DigiNet Corporation. Miller, who is a Professional Engineer, is a good writer on technical topics and his articles provide a quick, easy to read understanding of technical issues.
To the see the article on how TransNexus fits into a VoIP peering network architecture, go to http://www.voipplanet.com/backgrounders/article.php/3700166
To the see the article on how TransNexus fits into a VoIP peering network architecture, go to http://www.voipplanet.com/backgrounders/article.php/3700166
Sunday, September 9, 2007
SPIDER Adoption is an important trend for VoIP Peering
On August 6th 2007, NueStar (www.NeuStar.biz) issued a press release announcing that they have partnered with NetNumber (www.netnumber.com) "in response to customer demand for interoperability between NeuStar’s SIP-IX service and NetNumber’s SPIDER and TITAN technology platforms."
This announcement is significant because it is the first coordination between two companies on a common approach for VoIP peering. Up until now, the apparent strategy for most players in the VoIP peering market has been to build a dominant database of peering partners before anyone else and become the de facto VoIP peering registry monopoly. Fortunately, this has not happened for a variety of reasons such as competition, immature technology, lack of demand and, most importantly, business models that do not work.
A clear message from the market regarding VoIP peering is that customers do not want a monopoly VoIP peering registrar even if it brings simplicity and economies of scale. A market driven business model for VoIP peering will not be similar to the monopoly status given to telecom databases such as the Telcordia (www.telcordia.com) LERG (Local Exchange Routing Guide) or the NPAC (Number Portability Adminstration Center) run by NeuStar.
While service providers might loathe dependence on a centralized authority to coordinate global VoIP peering, at some level a root authority for route discovery seems impossible to avoid. This is why SPIDER and coordination between NeuStar and NetNumber is interesting. SPIDER stands for Service Provider Interconnect Data Exchange Resource and "is used by registry solution providers to enable the efficient exchange of interconnect address information between trusted communications service providers and VoIP communities" (quote from press release). Conceptually, SPIDER (spiderregistry.net) is a neutral, non-profit organization created by NetNumber and Arbinet (www.arbinet.com). I use the word conceptually, because up until now, SPIDER has appeared to be a marketing tool for Arbinet and NetNumber. The participation of NeuStar might be the first step in the evolution of SPIDER becoming a truely independent mechanism for enabling ubiquitous VoIP peering.
If you have used SPIDER or have an opinion about SPIDER I welcome your comments.
This announcement is significant because it is the first coordination between two companies on a common approach for VoIP peering. Up until now, the apparent strategy for most players in the VoIP peering market has been to build a dominant database of peering partners before anyone else and become the de facto VoIP peering registry monopoly. Fortunately, this has not happened for a variety of reasons such as competition, immature technology, lack of demand and, most importantly, business models that do not work.
A clear message from the market regarding VoIP peering is that customers do not want a monopoly VoIP peering registrar even if it brings simplicity and economies of scale. A market driven business model for VoIP peering will not be similar to the monopoly status given to telecom databases such as the Telcordia (www.telcordia.com) LERG (Local Exchange Routing Guide) or the NPAC (Number Portability Adminstration Center) run by NeuStar.
While service providers might loathe dependence on a centralized authority to coordinate global VoIP peering, at some level a root authority for route discovery seems impossible to avoid. This is why SPIDER and coordination between NeuStar and NetNumber is interesting. SPIDER stands for Service Provider Interconnect Data Exchange Resource and "is used by registry solution providers to enable the efficient exchange of interconnect address information between trusted communications service providers and VoIP communities" (quote from press release). Conceptually, SPIDER (spiderregistry.net) is a neutral, non-profit organization created by NetNumber and Arbinet (www.arbinet.com). I use the word conceptually, because up until now, SPIDER has appeared to be a marketing tool for Arbinet and NetNumber. The participation of NeuStar might be the first step in the evolution of SPIDER becoming a truely independent mechanism for enabling ubiquitous VoIP peering.
If you have used SPIDER or have an opinion about SPIDER I welcome your comments.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Conversation with Rich Tehrani
Rich Tehrani, Editor-in-Chief of TMCnet, recently asked me a few questions regarding the VoIP industry. I gave him my on the spot, candid answers and suffered the wrath of my diligent VP of Marketing for missing a promotion opportunity. You can see the questions and answers at:
http://internetcommunications.tmcnet.com/topics/enterprise/articles/9535-ip-communications-focus-transnexus.htm
http://internetcommunications.tmcnet.com/topics/enterprise/articles/9535-ip-communications-focus-transnexus.htm
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
NexSRS Peering Server gets press
We have been quietly working hard this Summer preparing for new releases of NexOSS and NexSRS. Our focused effort, plus some vacation, explains my recent silience on this blog.
Nevertheless, we were very pleased to see the recent article covering our NexSRS V3.0 Peering Server and VoIP Service Control Point in "Service Provider Weekly" magazine. Go to www.spweekly.com/issue929.pdf and turn to page 7 for an informative article on the NexSRS server.
NexSRS V3.1 will be available in September and will offer important new features such as call burst control for inbound and outbound traffic, better error code reporting for faster trouble shooting and network analysis and perhaps the addition of a web services interface.
NexOSS 3.3, in beta testing since early June, will also be available in September and will include improved reporting, invoicing summaries, reconciliation reports to simplify auditing of bills from VoIP terminators and improved rate plan management.
Nevertheless, we were very pleased to see the recent article covering our NexSRS V3.0 Peering Server and VoIP Service Control Point in "Service Provider Weekly" magazine. Go to www.spweekly.com/issue929.pdf and turn to page 7 for an informative article on the NexSRS server.
NexSRS V3.1 will be available in September and will offer important new features such as call burst control for inbound and outbound traffic, better error code reporting for faster trouble shooting and network analysis and perhaps the addition of a web services interface.
NexOSS 3.3, in beta testing since early June, will also be available in September and will include improved reporting, invoicing summaries, reconciliation reports to simplify auditing of bills from VoIP terminators and improved rate plan management.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
