I just read over the blog and I am not understanding how the money is being made here via “exorbitant access fees to terminate calls”. I fully understand the old way though.
Can IPES providers dictate what people pay for them terminating a call from the wholesale provider? What part of the puzzle am I also missing that allows a money making scheme from inbound calls being generated by a bad actor? I feel like the “hosting lec end office” is the same scummy LECs that were doing it in the past. They must be using the IPES as a way to avoid the local/access tandems to keep the high billing going?!? Matt From: VoiceOps <voiceops-boun...@voiceops.org> On Behalf Of Jared Geiger Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2022 3:47 PM To: VoiceOps <voiceops@voiceops.org> Subject: [VoiceOps] Arbitration or Peering? This blog post from Transnexus highlights a filing Inteliquent placed with the FCC about an Arbitrage Scheme. https://transnexus.com/blog/2022/access-arbitrage-rules-discussion/ The link is broken to the original filing so I can't read the full details. Maybe I'm not understanding the full complaint, but Inteliquent is expecting a lot of traffic to come through them to the IPES's number ranges but they aren't getting the traffic. The "Wholesale Inbound Provider" instead is getting the traffic. Wouldn't this just be similar to private peering between providers? I've had "10 Digit peering" service before from a vendor but that product went away a few years ago. ~Jared
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps@voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
