[31150] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: HR 4445 Reciprocal Compensation
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (M. David Leonard)
Thu Sep 14 09:49:59 2000
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 09:48:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: "M. David Leonard" <mdl@equinox.shaysnet.com>
To: William Allen Simpson <wsimpson@greendragon.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <39C0C02F.EF8D540D@greendragon.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.10009140946.A974-0100000@equinox.shaysnet.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
I hate to sound stupid, but isn't this the "ILECs put CLECs out
of business act?" Exactly how will this impact any ISP that uses the
ILEC's facilities?
David Leonard
ShaysNet
On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, William Allen Simpson wrote:
>
> "To exempt from reciprocal compensation requirements telecommunications
> traffic to the Internet. "
>
> Anybody know about this? Seems like it kills payments by ILECS to CLECs
> for dialups, when the calls are to an ISP. Note, only _TO_ an ISP;
> folks wanting to provide voice are still required to pay ILECs for
> traffic _from_ an ISP.
>
> Is this the "ILECs put ISPs out of business" act?
>
> `(A) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding subsection (b)(5), after the date of
> enactment of this paragraph, no local exchange carrier shall be
> required to make any payment for the transport or termination of
> telecommunications to the Internet or any provider of Internet access
> service.
>
> `(B) JURISDICTION- Such transport or termination shall be considered
> interstate communications and subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of
> the Commission.
>
> WSimpson@UMich.edu
> Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
>
>
