FCC Ruling, Cost of Internet

Mailman List Mirror (Read Only)
1

FROM FCC DAILY DIGEST:
FCC SAYS GTE’S ADSL INTERNET ACCESS SERVICES IS AN INTERSTATE SERVICE.

The Commission intends to address next week, in a
separate order, the broader issue of whether conventional dial-up access
to the Internet, made through calls to information service providers,
including Internet Service Providers (ISPs), is local or interstate in
nature. That decision will address whether incumbent local telephone
companies may be required to compensate their competitors for handling
calls made by the incumbents’ customers to ISPs that are the competitors’
customers. Report No: CC-98-41. by MO&O. Action by: the Commission.
Adopted: October 30, 1998. (FCC No. 98-292) CCB.

ENGLISH TRANSLATION: why is this important?

Most ISP’s in Michigan purchase dialtone from Competitive Local Exchange
Carriers(CLEC) at discounted rates from traditional Ameritech services and
thus provide services at lower cost to consumers. If Internet access
through CLEC’s is deemed to be interstate telecommunications traffic, per
minute tariff charges would begin to apply for calls delivered via CLEC’s.
This could mean a dramatic increase (on the order of 1-2 cents per minute)
for Internet access.

Additional information on the GTE “test” case can be found at
http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/News_Releases/1998/nrcc8081.html

2

This stupidity again?

An Internet dialup call is an interstate call if you're in one state
dialing into a POP in another. Otherwise it's not. Duh.

The FCC has much better things to do than debate a point for which the
answer is painfully obvious. If you're going to tell me that when I dial
up to my account in downtown Cleveland from my house ten minutes away, I'm
going to either laugh at you, tell you you're a flaming idiot, or quite
possibly both.

Sorry. My ISDN line at home is serviced by Ameritech, and NACS's PRIs are
serviced by ICG/Netcom. Maybe I should get charged for a call from Chicago
to Denver since Ameritech is headquaratered in Chicago and ICG is in Denver,
even though I'm calling from Cleveland to Cleveland.

If there's something obvious that I'm missing here, please, PLEASE point it
out to me...

Oh yeah. Are they going to insist on charging per-minute for voice calls
as well as data calls? I bet not.

3

Oh yeah. Are they going to insist on charging per-minute for voice calls
as well as data calls? I bet not.

If they do that, we'll have to create a DOSBS'alike for modems too :}

  _ __ _____ __ _________
______________ /_______ ___ ____ /______ John Gonzalez/Net.Engineer
__ __ \ __ \ __/_ __ `__ \/ __ /_ ___/ MDC Computers/netMDC!
_ / / / `__/ /_ / / / / / / /_/ / / /__ (505)437-7600/fax-437-3052
/_/ /_/\___/\__/ /_/ /_/ /_/\__,_/ \___/ http://www.netmdc.com
[---------------------------------------------[system info]-----------]
  4:50pm up 23 days, 20:19, 3 users, load average: 0.04, 0.07, 0.08

4

Actually, what the FCC stated was that this tariff was filed properly as
the DSL lines are an extension of GTE's inter-LATA frame network. Seems
pretty dubious to me, although it's not the whole Internet as long distance
thing which I was afraid of at first. Apparently there's to be yet another
FCC statement on either access fees or reciprocal comp (I cant remember
which but I think it's the latter) by the end of the week. Those RBOCs
must have a bunch of lobbyist hanging out at the FCC.

5

I'd recommend reading the actual text of the ADSL order (available at
http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1998/fcc98292.txt)
it's actually remarkably lucid regarding the complexity of the issues.

Note that the GTE ADSL decision applies to a specific service which
is not switched per the classic definition. The decision to be
announced is next week (with regard to conventional dial-up access)
apparently will be much broader in nature covering whether or not
the traditional inter-carrier reciprocal compensation should apply
for dialup Internet calls terminating on an ISP/CLEC.

Currently, a carrier pays compensation to terminate calls on another
carriers network. Note that carriers don't pay "customers" for the
privilege of terminating calls on their network. Depending on the
actual ruling of the FCC to be announced, one possible outcome might
be for an ISP acting also as a CLEC to be paid "compensation" for each
call handed off to it by the local exchange carrier. Another outcome
may be the FCC specifically stating that CLEC's should not receive
compensation for such traffic.

Needless to say, the anticipated order has some potential to alter
Internet economics for dialup providers.

/John

6

---Reply on mail from Peter Stemwedel about FCC Ruling, Cost of Internet

Actually, what the FCC stated was that this tariff was filed properly as
the DSL lines are an extension of GTE's inter-LATA frame network. Seems
pretty dubious to me, although it's not the whole Internet as long distance
thing which I was afraid of at first. Apparently there's to be yet another
FCC statement on either access fees or reciprocal comp (I cant remember
which but I think it's the latter) by the end of the week. Those RBOCs
must have a bunch of lobbyist hanging out at the FCC.

If it is for DSL lines, and if they are ruled to be non local, wouldnt
that mean that the rbocs arent required to resell this service to the IXCs
(and other ISPs) since the current ruling is for local service (at no less
than a 17% discount no less)???

7

Actually, what the FCC stated was that this tariff was filed

properly as

the DSL lines are an extension of GTE's inter-LATA frame network.

Seems

pretty dubious to me, although it's not the whole Internet as
long distance
thing which I was afraid of at first. Apparently there's to be
yet another
FCC statement on either access fees or reciprocal comp (I cant

remember

which but I think it's the latter) by the end of the week. Those

RBOCs

must have a bunch of lobbyist hanging out at the FCC.

.. just like every other industry or special interest group. CLECs
come to mind.. Remember: Lobbying is legalized bribery.

Cheers,
Chris

- --
Christian Kuhtz <ck@adsu.bellsouth.com> -wk ck@gnu.org -hm
Sr. Network Architect, BellSouth Corp., Advanced Data Services
NOTE: "We speak PGP: key available at well-known key servers."
            "Turnaucka's Law: The attention span of a computer
             is only as long as its electrical cord."
                                         -- /usr/games/fortune

8

> The Commission intends to address next week, in a
> separate order, the broader issue of whether conventional dial-up

access

> to the Internet, made through calls to information service

providers,

> including Internet Service Providers (ISPs), is local or

interstate in

> nature.

This stupidity again?

Isn't the real issue inter-LATA vs intra-LATA?

An Internet dialup call is an interstate call if you're in one state
dialing into a POP in another. Otherwise it's not. Duh.

Well, not quite so simple in the current regulatory disaster.

The FCC has much better things to do than debate a point for which

the

answer is painfully obvious.

Is it really that obvious? I don't think so if you consider the full
picture of everything resulting from the way the country is currently
chopped up -- LATA region & state wise..

If you're going to tell me that when I dial
up to my account in downtown Cleveland from my house ten minutes

away, I'm

going to either laugh at you, tell you you're a flaming idiot, or

quite

possibly both.

Even if you complete a call from one bedroom to another, it is
conceivable that you might cross LATA boundaries, or state boundaries.
I am not saying that it is a good way to do it that way, but that's
the way the entire regulatory mess is defined. In fact, an RBOC could
not sell you access that way. Meaning: RBOCs can't sell you
inter-LATA traffic, although they make a lot of attempts to make it
look like they are when they are in fact "teaming" with a 3rd party to
provide service to you that looks like one offering.

Sorry. My ISDN line at home is serviced by Ameritech, and NACS's

PRIs are

serviced by ICG/Netcom. Maybe I should get charged for a call from

Chicago

to Denver since Ameritech is headquaratered in Chicago and ICG is
in Denver,
even though I'm calling from Cleveland to Cleveland.

Again, it isn't quite that simple. Unfortunately.

If there's something obvious that I'm missing here, please,
PLEASE point it
out to me...

L-A-T-A. *point* Regulatory garbage.

Oh yeah. Are they going to insist on charging per-minute for voice

calls

as well as data calls? I bet not.

Well, depends on how and where your calls are terminated. It is quite
easily conceivable that an RBOC may get charged by the minute for each
completed call, and yet all they are is local calls. It just so
happens that the RBOC is the orginator and a CLEC customer a
termination point. CLEC makes money for not doing hardly anything.
Heck, the CLEC doesn't even need facilities. All it needs to do is
have customers.

Cheers,
Chris

- --
Christian Kuhtz <ck@adsu.bellsouth.com> -wk ck@gnu.org -hm
Sr. Network Architect, BellSouth Corp., Advanced Data Services
NOTE: "We speak PGP: key available at well-known key servers."
            "Turnaucka's Law: The attention span of a computer
             is only as long as its electrical cord."
                                         -- /usr/games/fortune

9

> This stupidity again?

Isn't the real issue inter-LATA vs intra-LATA?

.
.
.

L-A-T-A. *point* Regulatory garbage.

I was going to comment on this, went to check the recent FCC ruling
WRT GTE ADSL, and found that I lost the URL. :frowning: Can someone please give
it to me again?

Thanks.