HR 4445 Reciprocal Compensation
"To exempt from reciprocal compensation requirements telecommunications traffic to the Internet. " Anybody know about this? Seems like it kills payments by ILECS to CLECs for dialups, when the calls are to an ISP. Note, only _TO_ an ISP; folks wanting to provide voice are still required to pay ILECs for traffic _from_ an ISP. Is this the "ILECs put ISPs out of business" act? `(A) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding subsection (b)(5), after the date of enactment of this paragraph, no local exchange carrier shall be required to make any payment for the transport or termination of telecommunications to the Internet or any provider of Internet access service. `(B) JURISDICTION- Such transport or termination shall be considered interstate communications and subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commission. WSimpson@UMich.edu Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
Also sprach William Allen Simpson
"To exempt from reciprocal compensation requirements telecommunications traffic to the Internet. "
Anybody know about this? Seems like it kills payments by ILECS to CLECs for dialups, when the calls are to an ISP. Note, only _TO_ an ISP; folks wanting to provide voice are still required to pay ILECs for traffic _from_ an ISP.
Is this the "ILECs put ISPs out of business" act?
Bingo. Hit the nail on the head with that one. BellSouth has been particularly onerous about recip. comp. They've lost their PUC filings in just about every state that they've been brought up where they claim that calls are not terminated at the access server equipment, but are instead better considered as terminating somewhere out on the Internet. That they haven't even made any semblance of effort to try to determine where the calls really *do* terminate, they just do lots of hand waving about it being out on the Internet somewhere, which I find humorous, at best. This is logic that I'm convinced that only a threatened monopoly could understand. I also find it rather interesting that the ILECs were the ones that initially insisted on recip. comp., and now they're the ones whining about it being unfair. -- Jeff McAdams Email: jeffm@iglou.com Head Network Administrator Voice: (502) 966-3848 IgLou Internet Services (800) 436-4456
Unnamed Administration sources reported that William Allen Simpson said:
"To exempt from reciprocal compensation requirements telecommunications traffic to the Internet. "
Anybody know about this? Seems like it kills payments by ILECS to CLECs for dialups, when the calls are to an ISP. Note, only _TO_ an ISP; folks wanting to provide voice are still required to pay ILECs for traffic _from_ an ISP.
Is this the "ILECs put ISPs out of business" act?
Yes. Per folks in telecom regulation field; that's exactly what the Bells want. And they all pulling out all the stops, lobby-wise. They screwed up BIG time by *demanding* recip comp. They now want the Emperor's New Clothes to correct that. -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
I hate to sound stupid, but isn't this the "ILECs put CLECs out of business act?" Exactly how will this impact any ISP that uses the ILEC's facilities? David Leonard ShaysNet On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, William Allen Simpson wrote:
"To exempt from reciprocal compensation requirements telecommunications traffic to the Internet. "
Anybody know about this? Seems like it kills payments by ILECS to CLECs for dialups, when the calls are to an ISP. Note, only _TO_ an ISP; folks wanting to provide voice are still required to pay ILECs for traffic _from_ an ISP.
Is this the "ILECs put ISPs out of business" act?
`(A) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding subsection (b)(5), after the date of enactment of this paragraph, no local exchange carrier shall be required to make any payment for the transport or termination of telecommunications to the Internet or any provider of Internet access service.
`(B) JURISDICTION- Such transport or termination shall be considered interstate communications and subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commission.
WSimpson@UMich.edu Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
I hate to sound stupid, but isn't this the "ILECs put CLECs out of business act?" Exactly how will this impact any ISP that uses the ILEC's facilities?
Some ISPs have business models that include, directly or indirectly, making money from the reciprocal compensation fees paid by the ILEC. (Example: CLEC gives free phone line service to ISPs and makes it's profit off the compensation. ISP becomes dependant on the effective subisdy represented by the free phone lines and can't live with out it.) (Example: ISP becomes CLEC and depends on reciprocal compensation revenue to survive.) Real CLECs -- those that try to serve a broad based market, rather than hack togethor a contrived market that will result in a high ration o finbound to outbound calls, will do fine in the absence of reciprocal compensation. -- Brett
IMHO, anyone who wrote a business plan dependent on continuing recip comp deserves what they get. Sheesh. David Leonard ShaysNet On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, Brett Frankenberger wrote:
I hate to sound stupid, but isn't this the "ILECs put CLECs out of business act?" Exactly how will this impact any ISP that uses the ILEC's facilities?
Some ISPs have business models that include, directly or indirectly, making money from the reciprocal compensation fees paid by the ILEC. (Example: CLEC gives free phone line service to ISPs and makes it's profit off the compensation. ISP becomes dependant on the effective subisdy represented by the free phone lines and can't live with out it.) (Example: ISP becomes CLEC and depends on reciprocal compensation revenue to survive.)
Real CLECs -- those that try to serve a broad based market, rather than hack togethor a contrived market that will result in a high ration o finbound to outbound calls, will do fine in the absence of reciprocal compensation.
-- Brett
> Real CLECs -- those that try to serve a broad based market, rather than > hack togethor a contrived market that will result in a high ration o > finbound to outbound calls, will do fine in the absence of reciprocal > compensation. Excuse me, but why should ILECs receive a free premium for calls to ISPs that happen to be CLECs, or to the CLECs that serve them? Reciprocal compensation wasn't a subsidy, it was a formalization of the notion that dollars follow the direction of call progress. IMHO, and I acknowledge that I don't actually have a stake in this since I wouldn't touch consumer services with a really long stick, this is simply a case of ILECs having agreed to something when they thought it would mean an inflow of revenue, discovering that they were wrong (surprise, surprise), and then wanting to re-write the rules. The fact that they've successfully propagandized surrounding the issue just makes it all the more annoying. Note that if this actually made sense, call recipients would be paying their carriers just as much per-minute as call originators, just as in the IP world, where the cash flows from both endpoints toward the peering session or mutual carrier at the center. At the moment, that only happens in the voice world when both parties are paying flat-rate. And that's not the case the ILECs are principally interested in, one presumes. -Bill
On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, M. David Leonard wrote:
I hate to sound stupid, but isn't this the "ILECs put CLECs out of business act?" Exactly how will this impact any ISP that uses the ILEC's facilities?
No way, I have helped setup 26 CLEC all over the US and I let every one of them know that they should not base their business on reciprocal compensation. There are still several ISPs that BUY PRIs from the ILECs, as a CLEC you can setup one-way trunking and not pay for all your incoming traffic.
<> Nathan Stratton CTO, Exario Networks, Inc. nathan@robotics.net nathan@exario.net http://www.robotics.net http://www.exario.net
WSimpson;
`(A) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding subsection (b)(5), after the date of enactment of this paragraph, no local exchange carrier shall be required to make any payment for the transport or termination of telecommunications to the Internet or any provider of Internet access service.
Web is not the Internet. Web access service is not Internet access service. So, it excludes NSPs network layer of which is terminated by a NAT box within a state, doesn't it? Masataka Ohta PS Subscribers to Internet access service can use and are using voice over the Internet, of course.
participants (8)
-
Bill Woodcock -
Brett Frankenberger -
David Lesher -
Jeff Mcadams -
M. David Leonard -
Masataka Ohta -
Nathan Stratton -
William Allen Simpson