CDG INTERNATIONAL ROAMING TEAMTheme: 3G & 4G Roaming: The Next GenerationHamilton, BermudaNovember 2 – 4, 2010

FCH Peering taskforceUpdate

Federico Nienstadt

Problem to Solve

FCH SyniverseFCH MACH

DCHMACH

DCHTNS

(Verisign)

DCHSyniverse CRX

Aicent

CRXTNS

(VeriSign)

CRXSyniverse

CIBER

CIBERCIBER

Radius

RadiusRadius

ReportReport Report Report Report

Report ReportReport

Carrier A

Carrier B

Carrier C

Carrier D

Invoice

Invoice

Invoice

Invoice

Net Settlement through FCH

Net Settlement NOT available

Bilateral settlement required

Net Settlement through FCH

FCH Peering: Project Timeline Industry collaboration = progress and growth

JULY 2009KDDI presents idea of FCH

peering. Carrier voted item in for action

August 2009Carrier Requirements

collected

September 2009Carrier Requirements

reviewed and provided to FCH vendors

November 2009FCH vendors present

peering status – Outcome = no support for the

project in 2010

January 2010IRT Co-chairs send

request letter listing carrier who are in support

for the initiative

February 2010FCH vendors respond to

IRT with the willingness to support the project

March 2010Announcement of NEW TASK FORCE

FCH Peering: Project Timeline Industry collaboration = progress and growth

April 2010First Task Force meeting

Hosted by MACHTampa, FL

May 2010Response Received

By IRT Chairs

July 2010Update to IRT Carriers

Seek Direction. Decision move forward with task

August 2010DRAFT: FCH Peering

agreement released to carriers for review

September 2010Conference Call held to

review draft FCH peering agreement

DRAFT: FCH Peering Agreement

• Updates to the agreement based on conference call 9/8/10

• Version 002 includes:– Item 6A: Updated term from 1 year to 3 years– Item 6B: placeholder added for “time to deploy”.

This area NEEDS text. Volunteers? – Exhibit A1d: Changed notification time from 15

days to 30 days

Next Steps: FCH Peering Agreement

• Carriers to submit content for 6B: Time to deploy by Nov 30, 2010.

• Conference call or email distribution in January to review a final time. – Should no comments be received, draft to be sent

to vendors for review and add in text to highlighted sections. Vendor review mid January – March 2011

• Final review of new content, April 2011• Request document approval at next IRT meeting

Taskforce Resources

• CDG Wiki: http://wiki.cdg.org/wiki/Main_Page

More info here!

Thank you

Back Up

Task Force Discussion Items • The task force to focus on:– Development: feasibility of developing a CDMA FCH

peering solution– Liability: what are the liability issues of for peering?– Legality: discuss the legal aspects of peering

between FCH providers– Practicality: What is the practicality of providing the

service? – Cost: Determine the cost to build the FCHP service

Development

• What are the things that need to be done in order to develop a peering solution? Carrier Requirements: completed – Network/connectivity (VPN) – Standardized Record Formats– Process to charge the other FCH – General process of message and record flow

• Discussion: – Development is not extensive– Agreed by both vendors this is feasible

Liability • What happens if a carrier does not pay FCH#1 and the partner belongs to

FCH#2? – Is there a willingness to cover for non pay or slow pay? – What happens if there is a natural disaster – who is liable then? – May need additional days to allow data and fund transfer – carrier pushback?

• What happens if there is non funding between FCH’s? • Information sharing: sensitive carrier information will need to be shared with

additional organizations• Discussion:

– Recasting occurs today on a single FCH• Recasting across FCHs will be tricky to work out • Need for FCH’s to hold insurance or roll over accounts will be imperative • IDEAS:

– Adjust roaming agreement to include a fee for late or non payment– Allow a roll over account – FCH Vendors hold insurance accounts which will be added to the cost of the serivce

Legal

• New agreements needed: – FCH to FCH – Carrier to Carrier, Carrier to FCH – Clearing House to FCH – Banks: Charging across banks for FCH fees

• Discussion: – Understanding banking fees

• What are they • Who is going to pay for them• Liability is the key component

Practicality

• Main benefit is going from 2 invoices out to 1 invoice. What is the real need for this? – Both vendors find demand to be low – CDG finds the demand to be moderate

Cost

• FCH services today are very low (est ~$200 USD)

• To build is going to take money• Ideas: – Service: for those that want the service, will pay

for it– Development: All contribute to the development

FCH Response

Where to go from here?

• Ideas: – Understand the real costs that will be passed off

to carriers – Carriers answer questions that came out of task

force– Provide additional requirements to FCHs– Provide a list of “actual” carriers that want this

service to be developed out