Re: Unsubstantiated Rumor - this is not simply about RBOC ISP Tariff
a) The "free peering" relationship is directly analogous to a "bill & keep" interconnection relationship between traditional telephone companies.
I suspect that "directly analogous" is neither a legal nor a regulatory term.
b) Under the Communications Act of 1934 As amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("Act"), "telecommunications carriers" are under obligation to interconnect "with the facilities and equipment of other telecommunications carriers..." (Act, Sec. 251 (a) (1)
It may be worth your while to learn what a "telecommunications carrier" is. (I rather doubt that you are one. I also rather doubt that the people you want to peer with are either.) The telecomreg mail list might be a useful place for you to explore this topic. -tjs
On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Tim Salo wrote:
a) The "free peering" relationship is directly analogous to a "bill & keep" interconnection relationship between traditional telephone companies.
I suspect that "directly analogous" is neither a legal nor a regulatory term.
Tim this is new legal ground. That is my whole point.
b) Under the Communications Act of 1934 As amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("Act"), "telecommunications carriers" are under obligation to interconnect "with the facilities and equipment of other telecommunications carriers..." (Act, Sec. 251 (a) (1)
It may be worth your while to learn what a "telecommunications carrier" is. (I rather doubt that you are one. I also rather doubt that the people you want to peer with are either.)
I'm very aware of what a "telecommunications carrier" is and without boring you with the details I'm also very secure in Whole Earth Networks ability to fall under that definition. The question as to whether we peer with other "telecommunications carriers" is what should be of interest to the operational community. I'm going to take this off of this list but all I'm trying to get across if I can't be more subtle about it is: A broad FCC interpretation of the 'Act' with regard to regulations concerning what 'Interconnection' is among 'Carriers' could be of operational benefit to many on this list and we need to make that clear to our future regulators. --david
On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, David Holub wrote:
A broad FCC interpretation of the 'Act' with regard to regulations concerning what 'Interconnection' is among 'Carriers' could be of operational benefit to many on this list and we need to make that clear to our future regulators.
You really should go to http://www.fcc.gov and read some of Reed Hundt's speeches concerning the Internet. You are headed 180 degrees opposite of where the FCC is currently headed. And this discussion really does belong on com-priv@lists.psi.com where FCC issues are regularly discussed. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael@memra.com
On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Michael Dillon wrote:
You really should go to http://www.fcc.gov and read some of Reed Hundt's speeches concerning the Internet. You are headed 180 degrees opposite of where the FCC is currently headed. And this discussion really does belong on com-priv@lists.psi.com where FCC issues are regularly discussed.
Thank you again for the pointer, very useful. I'm trying to pay more attention to the rulings and the dates than the speeches. --david From: http://www.fcc.gov/pub/ftp/pub/Reports/implsched.html ISSUE/BUREAUS STATUTORY FCC PROCEEDINGS TIMETABLE STATUS REQUIREMENTS DEADLINES Interconnection Intelligent Network CC Docket 91-346 Q1 1997 OPEN
participants (3)
-
David Holub -
Michael Dillon -
salo＠msc.edu