-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
Michel Py
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2011 10:54 PM
To: Richard Shockey; John Leslie; IETF-Discussion list
Subject: RE: The US Federal Communications Commission just sent theIETF
RAI/SIPcommunity an early Christmas present...
Richard Shockey wrote:
IMHO, they're talking "obligation to interconnect" between
"carriers" as required by actual law.
Please forgive a probably naive question;
Does this mean that a "carrier" that recently jumped in the voice market
(it could be either an ISP now providing VOIP to their customers along
with a data bundle that -or- a VOIP-specialized carrier that leverages
the IP bandwidth provided to the customer by another ISP) now has some
leverage to go to the FCC to "require" (note the quotes) another
"carrier" that historically has been in the traditional business of
copper/TDM to connect primarily using IP/SIP?
[RS> ] Yep that's the idea!
There is a good potential of conflict in the appreciation of the
"negotiate in good faith" thing, as the carrier with a majority of SIP
clients would not want to invest in the TDM hardware to connect, while
the carrier with a majority of TDM clients would not want to invest in
the SIP gateways.
[RS> ] Well that's why there are communications lawyers. Actually this has
been going on for some time. Cable Operators in the US and the Netherlands
as well as some CLEC's have been interconnecting among themselves via SIP/IP
for years now as have US mobile operators. It's the "copperhead" land line
operators that have resisted the move.
Michel.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf