A company called HLT Technologies has published an excellent dissection of the real impact of SBC’s new TIPToP interconnect tariff for VoIP carriers.
It seems that SBC really are looking for a backdoor to charge significant fees for VoIP carriers to interconnect with their own network. Particularly troubling to my mind are the conditions SBC apply to VoIP carriers in order for them to be compliant and eligible for the TIPToP tariff as opposed to a significantly higher (700 percent!) interconnect charge. For example (from the report):
- Calls must originate from a high speed direct connection and must use IP throughout the connection
- Calls must have an accurate and valid North American number (so dont try to use TIPToP for terminating overseas originating traffic)
- No more than 50% of the traffic on any one port may have the same state for the originating and terminating number otherwise all of the traffic in that LATA will be billed at the NON IP-VIS rate. (which is easily possible in California or Texas)
- All traffic terminating in a LATA must use TIPToP (so no least cost routing schemes may be employed).
I can’t even begin to explain everything that’s wrong with those requirements. No termination of international calls under the tariff? That just doesn’t make any sense. The inter-state calling requirement is going to make customers with a large number of in-state friends, family and business associates a burden for VoIP carriers.
Lest we forget that one of the whole POINTS of VoIP is to eliminate the costs associated with the distance of a call. SBC doesn’t face additional costs for terminating an international or in-state call any more than it does to terminate a call from the next state over. If SBC doesn’t face additional costs to terminate the call, what justification can there be to charge different termination fees other than an attempt to manipulate the market to harm VoIP carriers?
