On Fri, 01 June 2001, "Scott Patterson" wrote:
Point C says 2:1, but D says they don't care in which direction its in, it just has to be balanced.
I wonder how is the end of reciprocal compensation going to affect large dial modem pool providers (e.g. UUNET, Genuity). Should UUNET compensate the LEC for all that inbound traffic to their modem pools at a few cents per minute. Obviously the traffic is extremely imbalanced, so why should UUNET get a free ride on the LEC's network?
"Should UUNET compensate the LEC for all that inbound traffic to their modem pools at a few cents per minute. Obviously the traffic is extremely imbalanced, so why should UUNET get a free ride on the LEC's network?" In this case, I have a very flippant, but sincere answer: The ILEC's dictated the terms. Let them suffer. They looked at local dialing patterns and saw that the (presumed) target markets for CLEC's would generate more outbound traffic than inbound traffic. In an effort to stick it to the CLEC's, they imposed a settlement structure that would appear to be fair, but which would actually be unbalanced. The CLEC's weren't driven by a monopoly mentality, so they simply changed their target customer base. How is it that UUNet is getting a free ride? The ILEC's customer pays for that line every month. (OK, the customer underpays, but the ILEC gets to make it up in access charges as part of the regulation process.) The only reason that the traffic is unbalanced is that the ILEC's wrote the rules to favor that traffic arrangement. Too late to whine about it. It's just as if C&W had dictated a policy saying "we won't peer with you unless you have more content than access" then turned around and said to the same providers "we won't peer with you if your traffic is unbalanced." -steve On 1 Jun 2001, Sean Donelan wrote:
On Fri, 01 June 2001, "Scott Patterson" wrote:
Point C says 2:1, but D says they don't care in which direction its in, it just has to be balanced.
I wonder how is the end of reciprocal compensation going to affect large dial modem pool providers (e.g. UUNET, Genuity). Should UUNET compensate the LEC for all that inbound traffic to their modem pools at a few cents per minute. Obviously the traffic is extremely imbalanced, so why should UUNET get a free ride on the LEC's network?
Also sprach Sean Donelan
On Fri, 01 June 2001, "Scott Patterson" wrote:
Point C says 2:1, but D says they don't care in which direction its in, it just has to be balanced.
I wonder how is the end of reciprocal compensation going to affect large dial modem pool providers (e.g. UUNET, Genuity).
Well...first off...the elimination of recip. comp. for ISP-bound calls is a collosal screw-up by the FCC. They need to get smacked around hard for that one. Now then...the only change it will really cause for large modem pool providers will be that the trunks that these modem pool providers get, whether its a big PRI group, or trunk groups with SS7, or whatever, will go up in price some to compensate for the lack of cost recovery from recip. comp. by CLECs. Of course, if the modem pool provider is getting trunks from the ILEC, then nothing much will change at all, since the ILECs will continue their typical anti-competitive actions without much change.
Should UUNET compensate the LEC for all that inbound traffic to their modem pools at a few cents per minute. Obviously the traffic is extremely imbalanced, so why should UUNET get a free ride on the LEC's network?
UUNET is paying for the trunks to the LEC (C or I), they aren't getting a free ride. To say they are getting a free ride is at least as equally as specious of an argument as the ILECs arguing that the CLECs are getting a free ride for the ISP-bound traffic with recip. comp. But then again...given IgLou's experience fighting BellSouth...I've learned not to expect well-formed logical arguments from ILECs. -- Jeff McAdams Email: jeffm@iglou.com Head Network Administrator Voice: (502) 966-3848 IgLou Internet Services (800) 436-4456
participants (3)
-
Jeff Mcadams -
Sean Donelan -
Steve Schaefer