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.
Thanks,
Chris MacFarland
Director, Data Engineering
Allegiance Telecom, Inc.
214-261-7257
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. 
.. if I may add my $.02..
If the FCC rules that calls to ISP's are interstate and therefore
inter-LATA, it would mess up a whole bunch of regulatory stuff --
IMHO. RBOCs can't sell inter-LATA access as their own. The only way
it can be sold is by a third party doing the actual inter-LATA
connectivity. The boundaries of what is inter-LATA and intra-LATA
are getting so blurred, it is time for the FCC to do away with all
this garbage.
To me, this is an artificial life-support for a regulatory system
which is far outlived its usefulness. It shows that the traditional
telephony based wisdom has expired. Exisiting settlement models are
antique and more modern ways of defining clearinghouses for
connectivity cost arbitration are needed badly.
I leave the final judgement of what this means to the lawyers, of
which there are plenty in this matter.
IMHO, the current CLEC revenue model is obscene with regards to recip
comp.
This is my personal opinion and I speak for myself only.
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
From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf
Of
MacFarland, Chris
Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 1998 9:40 PM
To: Steven J. Sobol; Ivars Upatnieks
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: RE: FCC Ruling, Cost of InternetSteven-
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.Thanks,
Chris MacFarland
Director, Data Engineering
Allegiance Telecom, Inc.
214-261-7257> From: Steven J. Sobol [SMTP:sjsobol@nacs.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 1998 5:23 PM
> To: Ivars Upatnieks
> Cc: nanog@merit.edu
> Subject: Re: FCC Ruling, Cost of Internet
>
>
> > 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?
>
> 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