-----Original Message----- From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] 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@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf