This generation OSS: Interconnection is the order of the day

Understandably, software and hardware providers of operations support systems must stay ahead of the technology curve. That's why it may appear that the focus of next generation OSSs already has moved from the comparatively dull yet essential process of interconnection and electronic bonding into the more customer-engaging world of service management.

However, interconnection still is important. It is the cornerstone of the OSS because quality service starts with a properly provisioned service order. In turn, service orders depend on a functional interconnection between carriers.

To date, only Bell Atlantic has met the FCC standard for providing a system open to competition. But even that RBOC still has work to do.

The three primary methods for interconnection between competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs) and incumbent LECs (ILECs) are licensing a private interconnection gateway, using a centralized clearinghouse or outsourcing using an emerging application service provider (ASP) model. Companies such as DSET, Mantiss, NightFire, Quintessent Communications and Telcordia Technologies offer interconnection solutions.

"The real priority is that the CLECs [continue] to stay market-driven. How they go about doing that can vary. Interconnection is one of the enablers to make that happen," said Robert Risany, director of marketing research and sales support for Mantiss.

Mantiss offers all three interconnection methods and takes a stair-step approach to designing solutions around the needs of different carriers.

The clearinghouse solution is most appealing to emerging CLECs and ILECs that are trying to break into a competitive market, Risany said.

"The CLEC is looking for a clearinghouse solution because it can't afford to have a flow-through OSS in the classic sense. The ILEC doesn't see the return on investment necessary in the short run to develop a true electronic interconnection, so it looks to a clearinghouse," he said.

But most service providers choose a licensed gateway, he said. Licensed interconnection gateways provide more in-house control for service providers with some expertise in building OSSs. Licensed gateways require a high degree of integration and links to each trading partner.

The ASP model is used primarily by major carriers that are increasingly outsourcing their IT infrastructures, Risany said. Clearinghouses and ASP models act as central hubs for communicating with trading partners. They allow service providers to communicate with trading partners through a single path. They deal with changing rules and software revisions from the ILECs. But there are differences.

"An ASP model is much closer to a licensed application model. It has outsourced applications that a provider can connect to its systems by adding an integration layer between the virtual system at the ASP and its own," Risany said.

>From an economic standpoint, the ASP model eliminates the typical >transaction costs of a clearinghouse and reduces the amount of >infrastructure required. However, it increases maintenance and support >costs.

In the early days of interconnection, CLECs that could provision orders electronically had a distinct competitive advantage. Today, that capability should be a given.

"We need to stop treating interconnection as a competitive advantage. It's a cost-efficiency that will make the market take off," said James Boyer, executive director of interconnect solutions for Telcordia.

During a presentation at TeleManagement World last month, Boyer urged providers to think about the future by considering the past. "If we knew then what we know now, we would have attacked interconnection differently. We would have centralized," Boyer said. Telcordia also offers a clearinghouse solution and believes it is the best solution going forward.

Although these models offer solutions to a growing number of providers, they are only as good as the rules of the game allow, and the rules keep changing. "Carriers looking to build flow-through have a major headache on their hands trying to cope with the nuances of all these trading partners," Risany said.

Companies such as Mantiss are trying to assume those headaches for their customers. In addition to the litany of changing rules and software revisions, three other issues continue to nag interconnection gateway providers: ordering guidelines, deployment time and trouble administration.

Most service providers use the local service ordering guideline outlined by the Ordering and Billing Forum. "Reality says, however, that those are guidelines and not the bible. When we try to build interconnection gateways, every single trading partner is deploying those standards in a different method," Risany said.

Deployment time, or the time it takes to turn up new service from the initiation of a service request is still a crapshoot. "Market strategies being developed by carriers follow the needs of the business, not the operational issues, which exist in the marketplace," Risany said. Although turn-up times are improving, they are inconsistent.

Trouble administration is key to providing quality of service. Providers must report and react to reports of service outages, degradation and provisioning problems quickly and consistently, yet flow-through trouble administration continues to create bottlenecks and impede a provider's ability to respond.

"In the telecom market, responsiveness is one of the top market share drivers in the industry," Risany said.

Once interconnection and flow-through provisioning are mastered between CLECs and ILECs, new challenges await. The number of interconnect links alone that are required when CLECs begin exchanging orders could be enormous without the use of a clearinghouse or virtual private network.

And then there is the European market. "We are going to have to do global ordering within five years," Boyer said. "We're going to have a train wreck unless we band together."