Steven- The reason for this is regarding settlement charges ( reciprocal compensation ) for intrastate calls from ILEC to CLEC. If the FCC rules that calls to ISP's are interstate then the settlement model dramatically changes for the LEC terminating the call. This would have a significant impact on revenues for CLEC's that use recip comp as part of their core business model. Thanks, Chris MacFarland Director, Data Engineering Allegiance Telecom, Inc. 214-261-7257
-----Original Message----- From: Steven J. Sobol [SMTP:sjsobol@nacs.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 1998 5:23 PM To: Ivars Upatnieks Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: FCC Ruling, Cost of Internet
On Tue, Nov 03, 1998 at 01:39:29PM -0500, Ivars Upatnieks wrote:
The Commission intends to address next week, in a separate order, the broader issue of whether conventional dial-up access to the Internet, made through calls to information service providers, including Internet Service Providers (ISPs), is local or interstate in nature.
This stupidity again?
An Internet dialup call is an interstate call if you're in one state dialing into a POP in another. Otherwise it's not. Duh.
The FCC has much better things to do than debate a point for which the answer is painfully obvious. If you're going to tell me that when I dial up to my account in downtown Cleveland from my house ten minutes away, I'm going to either laugh at you, tell you you're a flaming idiot, or quite possibly both.
Sorry. My ISDN line at home is serviced by Ameritech, and NACS's PRIs are serviced by ICG/Netcom. Maybe I should get charged for a call from Chicago to Denver since Ameritech is headquaratered in Chicago and ICG is in Denver, even though I'm calling from Cleveland to Cleveland.
If there's something obvious that I'm missing here, please, PLEASE point it out to me...
Oh yeah. Are they going to insist on charging per-minute for voice calls as well as data calls? I bet not.
-- Steve Sobol [sjsobol@nacs.net] Part-time Support Droid [support@nacs.net] NACS Spaminator [abuse@nacs.net]
On Tue, Nov 03, 1998 at 08:39:52PM -0600, MacFarland, Chris wrote:
Steven-
The reason for this is regarding settlement charges ( reciprocal compensation ) for intrastate calls from ILEC to CLEC. If the FCC rules that calls to ISP's are interstate then the settlement model dramatically changes for the LEC terminating the call. This would have a significant impact on revenues for CLEC's that use recip comp as part of their core business model.
I still see no merit in a phone company charging interstate fees for a call which does not geographically cross state lines, whether it's the phone company charging the end-user (as in the discussion from a month or two ago) or charging a CLEC to recover their costs. And unless someone provides me with a convincing argument, I will continue to see no merit in such fees. I don't really see how a ruling such as the one we're discussing will benefit anyone but the ILEC's. Someone else mentioned lobbyists. Considering the FCC's recent actions regarding both telcos and radio/TV holding companies, I have to assume that the FCC is acting in the interest of those who are bribing them. Um.... I meant "lobbying them." Sorry. Freudian slip. :) -- Steve Sobol [sjsobol@nacs.net] Part-time Support Droid [support@nacs.net] NACS Spaminator [abuse@nacs.net] Spotted on a bumper sticker: "Possum. The other white meat."
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of MacFarland, Chris Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 1998 9:40 PM To: Steven J. Sobol; Ivars Upatnieks Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: RE: FCC Ruling, Cost of Internet
Steven-
The reason for this is regarding settlement charges ( reciprocal compensation ) for intrastate calls from ILEC to CLEC. If the FCC rules that calls to ISP's are interstate then the settlement model dramatically changes for the LEC terminating the call. This would have a significant impact on revenues for CLEC's that use recip comp as part of their core business model.
Thanks,
Chris MacFarland Director, Data Engineering Allegiance Telecom, Inc. 214-261-7257
-----Original Message----- From: Steven J. Sobol [SMTP:sjsobol@nacs.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 1998 5:23 PM To: Ivars Upatnieks Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: FCC Ruling, Cost of Internet
On Tue, Nov 03, 1998 at 01:39:29PM -0500, Ivars Upatnieks wrote:
The Commission intends to address next week, in a separate order, the broader issue of whether conventional dial-up access to the Internet, made through calls to information service
including Internet Service Providers (ISPs), is local or interstate in nature.
This stupidity again?
An Internet dialup call is an interstate call if you're in one state dialing into a POP in another. Otherwise it's not. Duh.
The FCC has much better things to do than debate a point for which
answer is painfully obvious. If you're going to tell me that when I dial up to my account in downtown Cleveland from my house ten minutes away, I'm going to either laugh at you, tell you you're a flaming idiot, or quite possibly both.
Sorry. My ISDN line at home is serviced by Ameritech, and NACS's PRIs are serviced by ICG/Netcom. Maybe I should get charged for a call from Chicago to Denver since Ameritech is headquaratered in Chicago and ICG is in Denver, even though I'm calling from Cleveland to Cleveland.
If there's something obvious that I'm missing here, please, PLEASE
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 .. if I may add my $.02.. If the FCC rules that calls to ISP's are interstate and therefore inter-LATA, it would mess up a whole bunch of regulatory stuff -- IMHO. RBOCs can't sell inter-LATA access as their own. The only way it can be sold is by a third party doing the actual inter-LATA connectivity. The boundaries of what is inter-LATA and intra-LATA are getting so blurred, it is time for the FCC to do away with all this garbage. To me, this is an artificial life-support for a regulatory system which is far outlived its usefulness. It shows that the traditional telephony based wisdom has expired. Exisiting settlement models are antique and more modern ways of defining clearinghouses for connectivity cost arbitration are needed badly. I leave the final judgement of what this means to the lawyers, of which there are plenty in this matter. IMHO, the current CLEC revenue model is obscene with regards to recip comp. This is my personal opinion and I speak for myself only. Cheers, Chris - -- Christian Kuhtz <ck@adsu.bellsouth.com> -wk ck@gnu.org -hm Sr. Network Architect, BellSouth Corp., Advanced Data Services NOTE: "We speak PGP: key available at well-known key servers." "Turnaucka's Law: The attention span of a computer is only as long as its electrical cord." -- /usr/games/fortune providers, the point
it out to me...
Oh yeah. Are they going to insist on charging per-minute for voice calls as well as data calls? I bet not.
-- Steve Sobol [sjsobol@nacs.net] Part-time Support Droid [support@nacs.net] NACS Spaminator [abuse@nacs.net]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.0 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com> iQA/AwUBNkTMeIRXnO1Cm58sEQJiLQCfYJW1FRqEOMVn68XWh88NNaCbmBgAn1fb gcUKVAfuO4QLbHKrA2dhnZHk =6x8c -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
participants (3)
-
Christian Kuhtz -
MacFarland, Chris -
Steven J. Sobol