[109390] in Cypherpunks
CDR: FCC
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jim Choate)
Mon Mar 22 14:51:49 1999
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 13:40:30 -0600
From: Jim Choate <jchoate@dev.tivoli.com>
To: cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com
Reply-To: Jim Choate <jchoate@dev.tivoli.com>
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------1EBA0428B515BDFCDBE0B1EE
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Factsheets/nominute.html
--
The end of our exploring will be to arrive at where we
started, and to know the place for the first time.
T.S. Eliot
Tivoli Systems James F. Choate
9442 Capital of Texas Hwy. N. 512-436-1062
Austin, Tx. 78759 jchoate@tivoli.com
--------------1EBA0428B515BDFCDBE0B1EE
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii; name="nominute.html"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="nominute.html"
Content-Base: "http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carr
ier/Factsheets/nominute.html"
<html>
<head>
<title>FCC</title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000" link="#0000ee" vlink="#551a8b" alink="#ff0000">
<!-- ++++++++++++++++ FCC BANNER +++++++++++++++++++++++++-->
<center><img align=middle width=525 height=50 src="http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-gifs/hpban1.gif"
alt="Federal Communications Commission"><br></center>
<!-- +++++++++++++ FCC NAVIGATION BAR IMAGE TABLE++++++++++++++-->
<center>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" align="CENTER" summary="This Table contains navigation buttons with links to the FCC Home Page, Search Page, Commissioners Page Bureau-Offices Page and the Finding Information page">
<tr>
<td><a href="/" TITLE="FCC Home Page"><img src="/fcc-gifs/navfcc.gif" width="122" height="20" border="0" alt="FCC Home Page"></a></td>
<td><a href="/search/" TITLE="FCC Search Page"><img src="/fcc-gifs/navsrch.gif" width="67" height="20" border="0" alt="FCC Search Page"></a></td>
<td><a href="/commissioners.html" TITLE="FCC Commissioners"><img src="/fcc-gifs/navcmsh.gif" width="112" height="20" border="0" alt="FCC Commissioners"></a></td>
<td><a href="/bureaus.html" TITLE="FCC Bureaus & Offices"><img src="/fcc-gifs/navbur.gif" width="124" height="20" border="0" alt="FCC Bureaus & Offices"></a></td>
<td><a href="/getinfo.html" TITLE="Finding FCC Information"><img src="/fcc-gifs/navfind.gif" width="100" height="20" border="0" alt="Finding FCC Information"></a></td>
</tr>
</table>
</center>
<p>
<FONT SIZE="2">[ <A HREF="nominute.txt">Text</A> | <A HREF="nominute.wp">WordPerfect</A> ]</FONT><P>
<!--====================== TITLE AND SUBJECT ===============================-->
<CENTER><STRONG><FONT FACE="Helvetica, Arial" SIZE="6">FACT SHEET</font></STRONG></CENTER>
<p align=right>February 1999</p>
<CENTER>
<FONT SIZE="+1"><STRONG>No Consumer Per-Minute Charges to Access ISPs</STRONG></FONT>
</CENTER><P>
<P>The following fact sheet provides information in response to erroneous reports that the FCC is
planning to impose per-minute usage charges on consumer access to Internet Service Providers
(ISPs). It also discusses <A HREF="/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/News_Releases/1999/nrcc9014.html">the FCC's February 25, 1999 decision</A> relating to
dial-up traffic bound for ISPs. The bottom line is that the FCC has no intention of assessing
per-minute charges on Internet traffic or changing the way consumers obtain and pay for access
to the Internet.</P>
<P><STRONG>1. What is the source of this misunderstanding?</STRONG></P>
<P>The FCC has been considering issues relating to certain carrier-to-carrier payments, so-called
"reciprocal compensation." These payments compensate a local telephone company for
completing a local call that is placed by one of its competitor's customers. On February 25, 1999,
the FCC adopted a Declaratory Ruling regarding these carrier-to-carrier payments and initiated a
new proceeding to consider the matter in light of conclusions reached in the Declaratory Ruling.
The following is an example of how the carrier-to-carrier payments at issue work:</P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>If a customer of Phone Company A makes a local call to a customer of Phone Company
B, Phone Company A must compensate Phone Company B for handling the last leg of
the call. This payment structure, called reciprocal compensation, may have been
negotiated by the two phone companies, or may be based on a decision of the state
regulatory authority. The reciprocal compensation payment by Company A to Company
B may be based on a per-minute charge for the length of the call, or some other
negotiated basis.<P>
Reciprocal compensation is thus paid between telephone companies for use of the local
phone network. Reciprocal compensation is <U>not</U> paid by consumers or by Internet service
providers. Accordingly, reciprocal compensation does not determine consumer Internet
charges. Typically, the companies involved are an incumbent local telephone company
(ILEC) currently serving a large number of subscribers, and a competing local telephone
company (CLEC) that has only recently entered the market and has fewer subscribers.</BLOCKQUOTE>
<P><STRONG>2. So why is this suddenly an issue?</STRONG></P>
<P>There is a dispute in the telephone industry over whether calls to ISPs are subject to reciprocal
compensation, and that is the matter the FCC is considering. In the example above, if the
consumer dials up the Internet over the phone lines of Phone Company A, and the ISP is served
by Company B, the question is whether Company A must compensate Company B for delivering
the call to the ISP. That is the only issue before the Commission with regard to this matter. Thus,
<U>the manner in which consumers pay for Internet access is not before the Commission and the
Commission repeatedly has stated that it will not change the manner in which consumers obtain
and pay for Internet access</U>. Rumors to the contrary persist, however, and the FCC has received
hundreds of thousands of e-mails on the subject over the last two years.</P>
<P><STRONG>3. Are phone companies paying reciprocal compensation for Internet traffic now?</STRONG></P>
<P>All 26 state regulatory commissions that have considered the issue have found that the phone
company that originates a call to an ISP must pay reciprocal compensation to the competing
phone company for delivering that traffic to an ISP, but many companies are withholding
payment while pursuing appeals.</P>
<P>Many incumbent local telephone companies argue that Internet traffic is not local, because it
often begins in one state and ends in another state, and therefore should not be subject to
reciprocal compensation. These parties say that Internet traffic is more like long distance traffic,
where the local phone company does not terminate the call locally, but rather hands the call off to
a long distance company that carries the call over its interstate network to a distant location.
Long distance companies pay access charges to the local phone company. If two local phone
companies are involved in carrying the call to the long distance provider, the two local
companies share the access charges paid by the long distance company and no reciprocal
compensation is due. Unlike long distance carriers, ISPs do <U>not</U> pay access charges to local
telephone companies.</P>
<P><STRONG>4. What did the FCC conclude in its February 25, 1999 decision?</STRONG></P>
<P>The Declaratory Ruling concludes that carriers are bound by their existing interconnection
agreements, as interpreted by state commissions, and thus are subject to reciprocal compensation
obligations to the extent provided by such agreements or as determined by state commissions.
The Declaratory Ruling finds that Internet traffic is jurisdictionally mixed and appears to be
largely interstate in nature. But, the Declaratory Ruling preserves the rule that exempts the
Internet and other information services from interstate access charges. <U>This means that those
consumers may continue to access the Internet by dialing a seven-digit number and will not incur
long distance charges when they do so</U>. In a notice of proposed rulemaking, the Commission
also asked for comment on proposals governing future carrier-to-carrier compensation for
handling this traffic.</P>
<P><STRONG>5. If reciprocal compensation does have to be paid in the case of Internet traffic (either
through state or FCC decisions), won't the phone companies that have to pay that
compensation be forced to impose a surcharge on their Internet customers or on ISPs (who
will pass is through to consumers)?</STRONG></P>
<P>No. While the rates consumers pay for local telephone service are regulated by the states, and not
the FCC, most states require phone companies to charge a flat rate for unlimited local usage. A
local telephone company could not alter these local rates to include an internet surcharge without
approval from the state commission. Moreover, local telephone companies are obtaining
increased revenue from internet traffic, because many consumers are installing second lines
dedicated to Internet traffic. Consumers pay for these lines just as they would pay for any second
phone line.</P>
<P>Similarly, the local phone company cannot impose any charges on the ISP, even if it is forced to
pay reciprocal compensation for traffic delivered by a CLEC to that ISP, because the ILEC has
no direct billing relationship with the ISP.</P>
<P><STRONG></STRONG><STRONG>6. Will the FCC's decision that calls bound for ISPs are interstate require ISPs have to pay
access charges to local companies?</STRONG></P>
<P>No. The FCC has a special exemption for ISPs, under which ISPs are treated as local phone
customers and are exempt from interstate access charges paid by carriers. Thus, rather than
paying higher access charges, ISPs simply purchase phone lines from the local phone company
as any local business would do. <U>Nothing in the FCC's February 25, 1999 decision affects this
exemption</U>.</P>
<P><STRONG>7. Why is it necessary to consider this issue if 26 states have already decided it?</STRONG></P>
<P>As discussed in the Declaratory Ruling, the FCC has jurisdiction over calls between states, while
each state has jurisdiction for calls within its borders. Thus, the FCC has a statutory obligation
regarding this traffic. In addition, a uniform national policy regarding inter-carrier compensation
for the delivery of ISP traffic will aid the development of Internet, which is not confined by state,
or even national, boundaries.</P>
</body>
</html>
--------------1EBA0428B515BDFCDBE0B1EE--
