CDG INTERNATIONAL ROAMING TEAM Theme: 3G & 4G Roaming: The Next Generation Hamilton, Bermuda November 2 – 4, 2010 FCH Peering taskforce Update Federico Nienstadt

Problem to Solve FCH SyniverseFCH MACH DCH MACH DCH TNS (Verisign) DCH Syniverse CRX Aicent CRX TNS (VeriSign) CRX Syniverse CIBER Radius Report Carrier A Carrier B Carrier C Carrier D 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 2009 KDDI presents idea of FCH peering. Carrier voted item in for action JULY 2009 KDDI presents idea of FCH peering. Carrier voted item in for action August 2009 Carrier Requirements collected August 2009 Carrier Requirements collected September 2009 Carrier Requirements reviewed and provided to FCH vendors September 2009 Carrier Requirements reviewed and provided to FCH vendors November 2009 FCH vendors present peering status – Outcome = no support for the project in 2010 November 2009 FCH vendors present peering status – Outcome = no support for the project in 2010 January 2010 IRT Co-chairs send request letter listing carrier who are in support for the initiative January 2010 IRT Co-chairs send request letter listing carrier who are in support for the initiative February 2010 FCH vendors respond to IRT with the willingness to support the project February 2010 FCH vendors respond to IRT with the willingness to support the project March 2010 Announcement of NEW TASK FORCE March 2010 Announcement of NEW TASK FORCE

FCH Peering: Project Timeline Industry collaboration = progress and growth April 2010 First Task Force meeting Hosted by MACH Tampa, FL April 2010 First Task Force meeting Hosted by MACH Tampa, FL May 2010 Response Received By IRT Chairs May 2010 Response Received By IRT Chairs July 2010 Update to IRT Carriers Seek Direction. Decision move forward with task July 2010 Update to IRT Carriers Seek Direction. Decision move forward with task August 2010 DRAFT: FCH Peering agreement released to carriers for review August 2010 DRAFT: FCH Peering agreement released to carriers for review September 2010 Conference Call held to review draft FCH peering agreement September 2010 Conference 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, Conference call or 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: 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