SMS_Response_summary by welcomegong2


									                   SMS Survey Response Summary
V4     1/30/2006

This document summarizes the responses received to date to the SMS survey questions
sent out on 11/21/05.

How do you bill your subscribers for roaming SMS?
   Operator 1: Domestic Rate BAU- International. No solution to identify message
     as being international and add any additional rates.
   Operator 2:
          o SMS MT: free of charge (main reason is spam and SMS MT is free in the
              local market)
          o SMS MO : int’l roaming rate
     We use the billing data generated from our SMSC only for the successful message.
     based by the tariff agreed between us and roaming partner. It's the best way to bill
     my customer. I think every operator does.
   Operator 3:
          o MO: The Billing per subscriber is done via our SMSC records. There isn't
              any indication in the CDR, from where the SMS was originated which
              forces us to charge the same fee for every roamer MO-SMS.
          o MT: Most of the operators don't bill for MT-SMS. Still there are operators
              especially in USA which charge for MT-SMS. In this case the subscriber
              is also not charged by us.
   Operator 4: Per event, separate for MO and MT for all domestic and International
   Operator 5: We built a gateway to bill customer by SMS delivery message.
   Operator 6: We obtain our billing records from our home SMSC, rate them & then
     feed these into our retail billing system. We present count of MO & MT to our
     customers with the associated cost. We plan on staying with this course as to
     provide more info - such as serving market - is considered to be too much info for
     the customer retail bill which the customer does not want. Additionally, the
     serving market is currently not passed to the home SMSC in our country to allow
     for this identification.
   Operator 7: International roaming service not yet launched commercially.
   Operator 8: Currently we don not charge our customer for roaming SMS.
     However, once we have SMS roaming agreements in place with our partners, we
     would like to bill our customer with a fixed rate for SMS-MO.

How would you like to bill them?
   Operator 1: Same as Domestic through PDR
   Operator 2: To apply the different rate for different carrier
   Operator 3: To bill my subscriber according to the payment to the serving
     operator + percentage.
   Operator 4: Same but with different rates for International
      Operator 5:
      Operator 6:
      Operator 7:
      Operator 8:

How do you charge roaming partners for SMSs to/from their roamers?
   Operator 1: Per message for both MO and MT
   Operator 2: thinking to use the Wholesale report provided by RSP.
   Operator 3:
          o MO: We don’t have CDRs for SMS in our switches and are using RSP all
               sales reports in order to bill the remote operator.
          o MT: We don't charge for MT-SMS
   Operator 4: Most included in the airtime rate (no SMS charges). Others charged
      using RSP's solution
   Operator 5: We’re preparing to use RSP wholesale report for billing settlement.
      The big problem is each operator has its own strategy to conduct billing
      settlement which will make the disaccord on billing settlement.
   Operator 6: Domestically, our platform for SMS roaming is bill & keep - we do
      not bill roaming partners for SMS. We plan on billing our Int'l partners based on
      simple monthly counts of MO & MT times the applicable contracted rate for each.
      The accumulation of these counts will be performed by RSP, they will provide
      reports & one monthly CDR for the total rated messages.
   Operator 7: Working on SMS Wholesale report as provided by RSP
   Operator 8: We would like to charge customers with fixed rate for SMS-MO and
      free for SMS-MT. Under our network architecture, we do not generate SMS CDR.
      We will use RSP’s record as our charging base.

Is there any information lacking that prevents you from charging as you would like?
(interpreted here as applying to both inbound & outbound, MO & MT)
      Operator 1: Yes- recognize Point code.
      Operator 2:
             o If we are billing by number of SMDPP messages delivered between my
                gateway system and signaling hub(i.e. RSP), the serving carrier cannot tell
                how many messages are successful, that means, chargeable to my/its
                customer. It is good to know the successful rate to make agreement tariff
                between carriers.
             o . If we can see MSCID in SMDPP we can have different rate with roaming
      Operator 3: A unique indication of the operator from where the MO-SMS was
      Operator 4: Serving network identifier is missing on our SMSC cdr's
      Operator 5: SMS message unfortunately doesn’t include the serving carrier
      Operator 6: For international roaming, we will not support exchange of billing
        records amongst carriers. The only solution that I know that is available is the
       RSP solution. We would be interested if there are any other solutions available
       for us to consider.
      Operator 7: Content &/ application information is missing.
      Operator 8: We are yet to verify if any information is missing from RSP’s CDR

Does your MSC produce CDRs for MO and/or MT SMS events?
    Operator 1: No they are dropped.
    Operator 2: CDRs are being generating in not MSCs but SMSC.
    Operator 3: Our MSCs can produce CDRs for MO&MT SMS, but we choose not
      to produce them but to relay on RSP reports.
    Operator 4: No
    Operator 5: No, our MSC don’t generate any SMS related CDR
    Operator 6:
    Operator 7: No the CDRs are not generated at MSC
    Operator 8: No, our MSC does not produce CDRs. RSP would be the source for

What about your MC (SMSC)? Does it generate CDRs?
   Operator 1: Yes
   Operator 2: CDRs are being generating in not MSCs but SMC. SMSC cannot
      generate the MT records because in domestic, MT is not charged, but we are
      changing the function of our SMSC for generating MT CDR preparing the service
      with N.A. carriers
   Operator 3: Yes
   Operator 4: Yes
   Operator 5: Yes [?]
   Operator 6: Yes
   Operator 7: Yes
   Operator 8:

As a Home carrier, would you want to receive CIBER records from the serving carrier for
SMSs to/from your roamers?
    Operator 1: No.
    Operator 2:
          o Sure, but how can serving roaming partners can make CIBER?
          o Also, - if serving operator generates the CIBER for the SMS MO, and we
              use our own billing data generated by our own SMSC. That means, there
              is a possibility to make double charge to my customer for the SMS MO. I
              think it's not good to generate the CIBER for the MO
    Operator 3: Yes, this is the way we are implementing the SMS charging.
    Operator 4: Undecided, possibly.
    Operator 5: Absolutely yes, it will resolve all problems which were encountered
    Operator 6: No - the RSP solution connects to the home SMSC to allow us to rate
      & bill for these messages. We would have to adjust our billing systems & incur
       costs to send/receive these records when we feel the RSP solution is less costly &
       much easier to maintain - will also allow for quick-to-market with other roaming
      Operator 7: Yes.
      Operator 8: Yes, we would like to receive CIBER records from the serving carrier
       so that we could compare the records with that of RSP.

Commercial & Documentation
Does the roaming agreement accurately capture what's really happening for SMS? Do
you have good information about the status of SMS roaming with your partners?
    Operator 1: Yes and Yes
    Operator 2: I think it will be good to make 2 kind of agreement: one is using
       settlement solution provided by signaling hub; the other is for the direct-net
    Operator 3: We just started to provide SMS services for our roamers. As for now
       the information is sufficient – but maybe after we'll have more experience there
       will be need for more information.
    Operator 4: Our agreement does, do you mean the CDG roaming template? No
       good information about the status of SMS roaming.
    Operator 5: No, most of the agreement we signed only include voice roaming.
    Operator 6: Current template needs to be updated for SMS. We have a template
       that we use for our current bill & keep relationship.
    Operator 7: Not with all partners. Some partners discuss it openly.
    Operator 8: We need to add the SMS-MO charging rate in appendix III of
       roaming agreement. Currently, we are negotiating SMS-MO charging rates with
       our roaming partners and in the meantime conducting roaming tests.

What documents would you like to see for SMS roaming? (e.g.: A simple 1 page
document that describes how to solve all current and future issues; an expanded SMS
TDS/Partner Qualification form; a whitepaper with detailed discussion of the potential
problems and suggested resolutions; standardized test plans)
    Operator 1: All those listed
    Operator 2:
           o We just using IS-637 A for SMS MO/MT and feel we have to add SMS
               MO testing plan in current E2E test spec.
           o I think there will be no need to new TDS for MO. From my experience,
               the type of Switch is important to do the service. All the data is in current
               Voice TDS
    Operator 3: All of the above. Also it is recommended to have a table which
       provides information about the status of each operator and it's capability to
       support SMS.
    Operator 4:
    Operator 5:
    Operator 6: I am not sure what the carriers are planning to do - which path they
       are planning - as I stated, currently we are planning on using the RSP tool w/o
       passing CIBER between carriers. If there is one path that we are going to take,
       then I would suggest all of the above would be helpful to document suggested
       path for carriers.
      Operator 7: All of the above.
      Operator 8: All of the above.

Do you use Direct or Indirect routing?
    Operator 1: Please elaborate on Direct vs Indirect
    Operator 2: Using Direct Routing for local subscribers but Indirect for I/B
      roamers because there is some load to manage a lot of prefix (dialed digits of I/B
    Operator 3: Our routing is indirect, via RSP utilities.
    Operator 4: What is meant, do you mean STP to STP? Point to point? GTT? Or
      using a provider?
    Operator 5: We’re using indirect routing, as RSP has already done conversion
      based on our requirement. The routing difference is not a problem I think.
    Operator 6:
    Operator 7: Through RSP
    Operator 8: We use indirect routing path through RSP Under this architecture, we
      could not distinguish which country the subscriber is roaming on.

Do you have any problems with ANSI-41 messaging, e.g. address population (expect the
MIN, but receive the MDN)?
    Operator 1: No
    Operator 2: RSP is a facilitator for it. (See their SMS MO/MT technical data sheet
      for operators)
    Operator 3: No
    Operator 4: Some of the operators don't support the special Teleservices – which
      cause a problem to the subscriber. Otherwise no.
    Operator 5: We have a problem on inbound SMS MO for the time being, as MIN
      based IMSI and GTT introduced in our network.
    Operator 6:
    Operator 7: Foresee the issue but not observed.
    Operator 8: We found that for some countries, the message will not be delivered if
      the length of the message is longer than 160 characters

Is there information missing from the messaging that you would like to see (e.g. serving
network identifier in SMDPP)?
      Operator 1: No
      Operator 2: As you know there is SMDPP does not include MSCID as standard
        but RSP may be able to insert this parameter as a roaming facilitator. If we can
        see MSCID in SMDPP we can have different rate with roaming partners
      Operator 3: Yes, Network identifier is critical for billing differentiation.
      Operator 4: Yes, serving network identifier
      Operator 5: Yes, serving network identifier is the key information lost in SMDPP
      Operator 6:
      Operator 7: Charge indicator
      Operator 8: No, it seems that we have all the necessary information we need

Does SMS Notification work properly?
    Operator 1: Yes
    Operator 2: Yes
    Operator 3: It looks OK although we don't have too much experience so far.
    Operator 4: Yes
    Operator 5: Yes, I think.
    Operator 6:
    Operator 7: Yes
    Operator 8: Please clarify the meaning of “SMS Notification”

Any problem with maximum length messages - do they get truncated or rejected by the
other end? What about Segmentation and Reassembly?
    Operator 1: Rejected if oversized. Our Switches will accept Segmentation and
    Operator 2: The maximum length bearer data are different each operators.
        Segmentation function is installed in our roaming gateway and Reassemble
        function is handset.
    Operator 3: We didn't see any problem with that.
    Operator 4: Yes a problem, yes they get truncated.
    Operator 5: Yes, RSP also has a problem on supporting XUDTS, though I think
        each operator has a problem to use segmentation and reassembly.
    Operator 6:
    Operator 7: Not faced such issues
    Operator 8: RSP does not support message segmentation neither reassembly. RSP
        will reject the message that is longer than certain length.

Any problems with subscriber provisioning (e.g. we set FMC but the serving network
doesn't handle this)?
    Operator 1: No
    Operator 2: We do support FMC
    Operator 3: It looks OK,
    Operator 4: No
    Operator 5: I don’t know, we still don’t have any detail test on it.
    Operator 6:
    Operator 7: Not launched commercially so not faced such situation
    Operator 8: There is no need for roaming SMS provisioning. We haven’t
        launched this service yet.

Any over-the-air problems (e.g. SO6 vs. 14, plus code format)?
      Operator 1: No
      Operator 2: Not yet
      Operator 3: This service is not supported in our network.
      Operator 4: Don't know
      Operator 5: I’m not really sure what’s your question.
      Operator 6:
      Operator 7: Yes
      Operator 8: We do not provide over-the-air capability over our network

Any configuration limitations with MSCs and/or MCs (e.g. we can't authorize SMS on a
per-home carrier basis in our MSC)?
     Operator 1: No
     Operator 2: No
     Operator 3:
     Operator 4:
     Operator 5: SMSC should authorize originate subscriber.
     Operator 6:
     Operator 7: YES – SID & IRM conflict , regulatory issues in routing
     Operator 8: We do not expect any limitation with our MSCs

Are you interested in SMS over EV-DO?
    Operator 1: No
    Operator 2: No
    Operator 3: Not yet – but in the future
    Operator 4: Yes
    Operator 5: Yes
    Operator 6:
    Operator 7: Yes
    Operator 8: Yes, we would like to receive more information regarding SMS over

To top