I've been asked to address some of the technical matters of the VoIP at a regulatory-oriented meeting, but not being a consultant my knowledge and experience aren't as broad as they should be. One of the concerns by RLECs related to AT&T (and Verizon's) de-regulation initiative is compensation for origination and termination of traffic. Today many non-pricecap rural carriers are paid by IXCs both for any traffic originated or terminated from the network. Most, if not all, of that compensated traffic, is originated as TDM. The concern is that if the rural carriers move to IP that they won't be paid (hardly) anything for origination or termination. Discussions are being held to use ETS (Ethernet Transport Service) and other NECA-type approach to facilitate a way for RLECs to bill for originating and terminating traffic in an IP-world. These private connections, with QoS support, would allow for both capacity and perhaps volume-type billing. But it's been my experience that much of the VoIP long-distance traffic flows over the Internet, not over private Ethernet circuits. My question to this group, which is very IP heavy and therefore much ahead of the curve in terms of IP-oriented telco operations, is how much traffic flows over public (i.e. Internet) circuits versus private (point-to-point to another carrier or VoIP exchange) circuits, and also how that compares inbound versus outbound. http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/6PRCGWM Any additional commentary on this forum would be help. Regards, Frank
Frank, As I'm sure you're aware, the FCC's compensation scheme does not in any way relate to the media over which calls are delivered. The argument that migration to another technology for call completion would somehow change compensation is, in my view, FUD, designed to continue an outmoded interconnection scheme that tends to have higher start-up costs, thereby favoring incumbents. Ultimately, the FCC has made it clear, repeatedly, that they favor a bill and keep ICC scheme, regardless of technology. This scheme, which looks like email and will likely result in a continued increase in junk calls, makes the historical practice of funding higher cost (rural) implementations through ICC unworkable. Ultimately, I feel that the FCC is ignoring the difficult issues in order to placate a very limited number of large "sponsors." This is a problem for all remaining vendors, rural, IP, CLEC, or otherwise. Rural vendors would be well-suited to adopt better cost schemes where they can (including SIP-based interconnection) in order to limit the long-term damage done by regulators dis-interested in their problems. Just my perspective. -jbn
Unfortunately that is not the case. Just google for PVU and PIU. Regards, Frank -----Original Message----- From: Justin B Newman [mailto:justin at ejtown.org] Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 8:18 AM To: Frank Bulk Cc: voiceops at voiceops.org Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] VoIP traffic survey Frank, As I'm sure you're aware, the FCC's compensation scheme does not in any way relate to the media over which calls are delivered. <snip> Just my perspective. -jbn
As I'm sure you're aware, the FCC's compensation scheme does not in any way relate to the media over which calls are delivered.
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 8:30 AM, Frank Bulk <frnkblk at iname.com> wrote:
Unfortunately that is not the case. Just google for PVU and PIU.
I would disagree with this assessment. PVU and PIU do not relate to the way in which we interconnect. In fact, the Court has weighed in years ago re: "IP in the middle" for AT&T. The fact that IP is used somewhere in the middle of the call changes nothing. What PIU/PVU are designed to address is (in theory) end-points. While we can argue all day long over the relevance of end-point technology, the regulators appear to have opened that door. They have not, IMO, opened the door to "IP in the middle" making a difference. -jbn
You're right, it PVU and PIU don't relate to the way we interconnect, but if the endpoints are either VoIP or TDM, for the short term that does affect terminating access. IIRC, in terminating access that is originated VoIP is paid at interstate rates, even if it's an intrastate call. Frank -----Original Message----- From: Justin B Newman [mailto:justin at ejtown.org] Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 8:44 AM To: Frank Bulk Cc: voiceops at voiceops.org Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] VoIP traffic survey
As I'm sure you're aware, the FCC's compensation scheme does not in any way relate to the media over which calls are delivered.
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 8:30 AM, Frank Bulk <frnkblk at iname.com> wrote:
Unfortunately that is not the case. Just google for PVU and PIU.
I would disagree with this assessment. PVU and PIU do not relate to the way in which we interconnect. In fact, the Court has weighed in years ago re: "IP in the middle" for AT&T. The fact that IP is used somewhere in the middle of the call changes nothing. What PIU/PVU are designed to address is (in theory) end-points. While we can argue all day long over the relevance of end-point technology, the regulators appear to have opened that door. They have not, IMO, opened the door to "IP in the middle" making a difference. -jbn
participants (2)
-
frnkblk＠iname.com -
justin＠ejtown.org