Subject: FYI : Canada's CRTC mandates all IP Interconnection for voice.

From: "Richard Shockey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:28:33 -0500

In this decision, the Commission decides that it is in the public interest
to establish a set of principles to facilitate IP voice network
interconnections between network operators while allowing market forces to
shape the details of the arrangements. Specifically, in areas where a
carrier provides IP voice interconnection to an affiliate, a division of its
operations, or an unrelated service provider, the carrier must negotiate a
similar arrangement with any other carrier that requests such an
arrangement. Within six months of a formal request, an arrangement is to be
concluded.

http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/com100/2012/r120119.htm

Richard Shockey
Shockey Consulting
Chairman of the Board of Directors SIP Forum
PSTN Mobile: +1 703.593.2683
< <mailto:richard(at)shockey.us> mailto:richard(at)shockey.us>
skype-linkedin-facebook: rshockey101
http//www.sipforum.org

---

From: "Kevin P. Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:53:46 -0600

On 01/24/2012 02:28 PM, Richard Shockey wrote:
> /In this decision, the Commission decides that it is in the public
> interest to establish a set of principles to facilitate IP voice network
> interconnections between network operators while allowing market forces
> to shape the details of the arrangements. Specifically, in areas where a
> carrier provides IP voice interconnection to an affiliate, a division of
> its operations, or an unrelated service provider, the carrier must
> negotiate a similar arrangement with any other carrier that requests
> such an arrangement. Within six months of a formal request, an
> arrangement is to be concluded./
>

I think that your subject is a bit misleading. This decision does not 
'outlaw' non-IP interconnection, nor does it obligate a carrier that is 
not currently IP-interconnected (if such a carrier exists) to become so 
connected. It only levels the playing field and ensures that all 
IP-interconnected carriers make IP interconnection available to any 
other carrier that is interested in it, not just the 'chosen few'.

-- 
Kevin P. Fleming
Digium, Inc. | Director of Software Technologies
Jabber: [email-masked] | SIP: [email-masked] | Skype: kpfleming
445 Jan Davis Drive NW - Huntsville, AL 35806 - USA
Check us out at www.digium.com & www.asterisk.org

---

From: "Richard Shockey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:27:41 -0500

I didn't suggest that. It's clear in the Canadian Order that if you provide
SIP interconnection to anyone you have to make it available to everyone. 

But as you correctly point out, I doubt such carriers either exist or will
exist much longer. It does create a more level playing field. This Order
clearly sidestepped the issue of a shot clock for full TDM retirement,
though a review of the Order is suggested for 2014. 

I thought Paragraph 69-70 on establishing a Canadian carrier ENUM database
personally amusing. 

The larger issue for our community is the existing NNI profiles have not
been updated in years and there is still a huge gap analysis that needs to
be undertaken that may require further IETF RAI work. I haven't seen that
started yet. We haven't heard the last of this by any means. 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Kevin P. Fleming
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 4:54 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: FYI : Canada's CRTC mandates all IP Interconnection for voice.

-- 
Kevin P. Fleming
Digium, Inc. | Director of Software Technologies
Jabber: [email-masked] | SIP: [email-masked] | Skype: kpfleming
445 Jan Davis Drive NW - Huntsville, AL 35806 - USA
Check us out at www.digium.com & www.asterisk.org
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: "Kevin P. Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 16:30:09 -0600

> SIP interconnection to anyone you have to make it available to everyone.

Right, but 'mandates all IP interconnection for voice' certainly seems 
(to me) to imply that non-IP-interconnection for voice would no longer 
be allowed. It wasn't your intent to make that claim, but you know how 
message subjects get taken out of context :)