I've been thinking about this and I think the CLECS and ISP's might be benefitted by the passing of this. I think this bill will do more to hurt the ILECS then help them in the long run. One of the things blocking CLECS from offering local dial tone for residential service is the reciprical compensation. The single biggest item contributing to it is internet dialup. As an example of what I mean: AT&T had been heavily advertizing to get people to select AT&T for local dialtone in my area. The ads all say unlimited, but the fine print limits this to 75 hours a month. I would suspect the limit is due to the amount of usage from modem users dialing into the internet. If this bill passes, I suspect AT&T will take advantage of that and ammend their ads to 75 hours, intenet dialup unlimited. Why should someone who spends alot of online hours on the internet even consider AT&T with the 75 hours/month limit? Once this bill passes, any company interested in offering local dialtone wil no longer have to worry about internet connect time causing large reciprical compensation. I suspect AT&T and other CLECS who are providing or interested in providing local dialtone to residential customers are backing this bill. The short term result may be bad for any CLEC depending on the income, but those that are looking to providde local phone service will find this a great benefit and as a result this is more likely to lead to local dialtone competition against the ILEC. Which will lead to lower costs for phone lines ;) As best I can see, the ILECs tend to be the more incompetent competitors and maybe they will finally put themselves out of business with this encouragement to their compitition. If I had the money, I'd start some planning now to put up my own CO's and lay my own copper/fibre/etc for providing local services. -- Richard Shetron multics@ruserved.com multics@acm.rpi.edu NO UCE What is the Meaning of Life? There is no meaning, It's just a consequence of complex carbon based chemistry; don't worry about it The Super 76, "Free Aspirin and Tender Sympathy", Las Vegas Strip.
On Sun, 24 Sep 2000 multics@ruserved.com wrote:
I've been thinking about this and I think the CLECS and ISP's might be benefitted by the passing of this. I think this bill will do more to hurt the ILECS then help them in the long run.
The ILECs are like that, don't forget it was the ILECs who wanted reciprocal compensation and fought to make it as high as possible so they could make more money from CAPs like MFS.
One of the things blocking CLECS from offering local dial tone for residential service is the reciprocal compensation. The single biggest item contributing to it is internet dialup. As an example of what I mean:
Hmm, I have been trying to talk people into building out dial tone network for residential customers for years and I don't think it has been compensation that has stopped them.
I suspect AT&T and other CLECS who are providing or interested in providing local dialtone to residential customers are backing this bill. The short term result may be bad for any CLEC depending on the income, but those that are looking to providde local phone service will find this a great benefit and as a result this is more likely to lead to local dialtone competition against the ILEC. Which will lead to lower costs for phone lines ;) As best I can see, the ILECs tend to be the more incompetent competitors and maybe they will finally put themselves out of business with this encouragement to their compitition.
Well as soon as a VoIP guy start sending a few hundred million minutes of traffic via local interconnection trunks the ILECs will demand access charges and will take them to court. They will try to find some way of saying that compensation should apply until it is to their disadvantage.
If I had the money, I'd start some planning now to put up my own CO's and lay my own copper/fibre/etc for providing local services.
Well I know I plan to do this sometime in the future, but it is a tad expensive to build out local plants. Just watch, as soon as the ILECs get out of paying reciprocal compensation for ISP traffic, they will turn around and say it is LD in nature and demand access charges for use of their local network like every other IXC pays.
<> Nathan Stratton CTO, Exario Networks, Inc. nathan@robotics.net nathan@exario.net http://www.robotics.net http://www.exario.net
-- Richard Shetron multics@ruserved.com multics@acm.rpi.edu NO UCE What is the Meaning of Life? There is no meaning, It's just a consequence of complex carbon based chemistry; don't worry about it The Super 76, "Free Aspirin and Tender Sympathy", Las Vegas Strip.
Hey ithildin, i was unable to reach you back via email. rsvp, -stephen
Nathan Stratton wrote:
I've been thinking about this and I think the CLECS and ISP's might be benefitted by the passing of this. I think this bill will do more to hurt the ILECS then help them in the long run.
The ILECs are like that, don't forget it was the ILECs who wanted reciprocal compensation and fought to make it as high as possible so they could make more money from CAPs like MFS.
I heard, on an Akron (Ohio) radio station today, an ad taken out by the American ISP Association urging people to call their Akron-area congresscritter (Tom Sawyer) to try to sway him to vote AGAINST HR 4445. Things that make you go Hmmm... I might be misinformed, but I thought HR4445 would benefit ISPs in some way. -- North Shore Technologies, Cleveland, OH http://NorthShoreTechnologies.net Steve Sobol, BOFH - President, Chief Website Architect and Janitor Linux Instructor, PC/LAN Program, Natl. Institute of Technology, Akron, OH sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net - 888.480.4NET - 216.619.2NET
Also sprach Steve Sobol
Nathan Stratton wrote:
I've been thinking about this and I think the CLECS and ISP's might be benefitted by the passing of this. I think this bill will do more to hurt the ILECS then help them in the long run.
The ILECs are like that, don't forget it was the ILECs who wanted reciprocal compensation and fought to make it as high as possible so they could make more money from CAPs like MFS.
I heard, on an Akron (Ohio) radio station today, an ad taken out by the American ISP Association urging people to call their Akron-area congresscritter (Tom Sawyer) to try to sway him to vote AGAINST HR 4445.
Things that make you go Hmmm... I might be misinformed, but I thought HR4445 would benefit ISPs in some way.
There is some confusion (no doubt telco derived) about HR 4445 now. HR 4445 will end reciprical compensation on calls terminating with Internet Service Providers. This means that CLECs will charge ISPs more for their lines. I don't see that as benefit'ing ISPs. What the telco's seem to have pushed through is an ammendment to ban Internet taxes, apparently in an effort to muddy the waters and mute ISP criticism of the bill. I don't know about you, but I'd rather fight the evil that I *know* will happen (recip. comp.) rather than the spectre of some evil that might happen, but might not (Internet taxes). Fight HR 4445, its a really bad bill, unless you're an ILEC. -- Jeff McAdams Email: jeffm@iglou.com Head Network Administrator Voice: (502) 966-3848 IgLou Internet Services (800) 436-4456
Modem Fee Legislation HR4445 Stalls http://www.pcworld.com/pcwtoday/article/0,1510,18657,00.html -- Thank you; |--------------------------------| | Thinking is a learned process. | | ICANN member @large | | Gigabit over IP, ieee 802.17 | |--------------------------------| Henry R. Linneweh
participants (6)
-
Henry R. Linneweh -
Jeff Mcadams -
multics＠ruserved.com -
Nathan Stratton -
Stephen Burd -
Steve Sobol