Buzz, You are quite welcome, and I thank you for the acknowledgement.
I think that there is a strong message underneath that PR. That is, there is a highly significant level of urgency and importance associated with peering and strategic partnering in this new field.
Whereas the Switched GSTN model, almost by definition, lends itself to open entry due to the established accounting and settlements standards which exist (despite their onerous effects), there are no such established avenues or instruments of commerce open to new entrants in the International VoIP marketplace at this time, save the use of clearinghouses (settlement firms), which, all too often, have their own restrictions.
While it would be nice to do it yourself, roll your own, so to speak, and own all of the capital equipment on both sides of the pond, there can be no escaping the need for dependencies on other carriers' traffic distribution needs, _and_, very significantly, other equipment manufacturers' products. This is where, IMO, the bifurcated mission of this company comes back to bite it in the rear end. For, as it stands now, you cannot easily partner with carriers whose equipment is not compatible with your own.
There needs to be some even-handed compromise along the way, and a willingness to use other people's gateways and routers at times. The alternative to this, of course, is isolationism from 99.9xy% of the world's future VoIP traffic.
And the implications of this bring us back to the discussion we had upstream, a bit, concerning the need to be selective and to develop trusted relationships among the world's VoIP Operators. Crucial.
FWIW, Frank C. |
