[21112] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: FCC Ruling, Cost of Internet
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steven J. Sobol)
Tue Nov 3 22:21:08 1998
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 22:12:57 -0500
From: "Steven J. Sobol" <sjsobol@nacs.net>
To: "MacFarland, Chris" <chris.macfarland@allegiancetelecom.com>
Cc: "Steven J. Sobol" <sjsobol@nacs.net>, Ivars Upatnieks <ivars@ic.net>,
nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <A7AEBA012C53D211A55400805FA7ABC12F6988@ati_dls_ex1.allegiancetelecom.com>; from MacFarland, Chris on Tue, Nov 03, 1998 at 08:39:52PM -0600
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."
