Consider this scenario: "
A" is the subscriber of an MNO by the name "
MNO1". "A" intends to make a phone call to "
B" who is a subscriber of "
MNO2". For the call to happen, the two MNOs need to be interconnected. Both MNOs charge their respective subscribers for their services. In this scenario, MNO1 provides the
origination service and MNO2 terminates the call. MNO1 charges A based on the "calling rate". MNO2 charges MNO1 based on the "
termination rate" (TR). MNO1 passes on the TR cost to A in full. In contrast, under the RPP model, A pays MNO1 for origination services only, while B is charged by MNO2 for the termination service. In both models, there is no alternative for terminating service. Therefore, the terminating MNO, specifically MNO2 in this instance, holds a monopoly over termination services according to the CPP principle. This allows MNO2 to potentially exploit the originating service provider, MNO1, by establishing monopolistic termination rates. This holds true for each call terminated under CPP, as long as a single network realises the termination. Consequently, there is always an incentive for terminating MNOs to set monopolistic termination rates, irrespective of the MNO that serves as the originating or terminating service. Moreover, termination costs are considered a part of the
marginal cost of calls. So originating MNOs have an incentive to pass on high termination costs to their own subscribers. ==References==