[31153] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: HR 4445 Reciprocal Compensation
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (M. David Leonard)
Thu Sep 14 11:44:45 2000
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 11:43:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: "M. David Leonard" <mdl@equinox.shaysnet.com>
To: Brett Frankenberger <rbf@rbfnet.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <200009141440.JAA20467@rbfux.rbfnet.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.10009141125.A7603-0100000@equinox.shaysnet.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
IMHO, anyone who wrote a business plan dependent on continuing
recip comp deserves what they get. Sheesh.
David Leonard
ShaysNet
On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, Brett Frankenberger wrote:
>
> >
> > 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?
>
> Some ISPs have business models that include, directly or indirectly,
> making money from the reciprocal compensation fees paid by the ILEC.
> (Example: CLEC gives free phone line service to ISPs and makes it's
> profit off the compensation. ISP becomes dependant on the effective
> subisdy represented by the free phone lines and can't live with out
> it.) (Example: ISP becomes CLEC and depends on reciprocal compensation
> revenue to survive.)
>
> Real CLECs -- those that try to serve a broad based market, rather than
> hack togethor a contrived market that will result in a high ration o
> finbound to outbound calls, will do fine in the absence of reciprocal
> compensation.
>
> -- Brett
>
>
