Re: HR 4445 Reciprocal Compensation (fwd)

[Jeff Mcadams <jeffm () iglou com>]

Also sprach Steve Sobol
> Nathan Stratton wrote:
> > > I've been thinking about this and I think the CLECS and ISP's might be
> > > benefitted by the passing of this.  I think this bill will do more to
> > > hurt the ILECS then help them in the long run.

> > The ILECs are like that, don't forget it was the ILECs who wanted
> > reciprocal compensation and fought to make it as high as possible so they
> > could make more money from CAPs like MFS.

> I heard, on an Akron (Ohio) radio station today, an ad taken out by the
> American ISP Association urging people to call their Akron-area 
> congresscritter (Tom Sawyer) to try to sway him to vote AGAINST HR
> 4445. 

> Things that make you go Hmmm... I might be misinformed, but I thought
> HR4445 would benefit ISPs in some way.

There is some confusion (no doubt telco derived) about HR 4445 now.  HR
4445 will end reciprical compensation on calls terminating with Internet
Service Providers.  This means that CLECs will charge ISPs more for
their lines.  I don't see that as benefit'ing ISPs.

What the telco's seem to have pushed through is an ammendment to ban
Internet taxes, apparently in an effort to muddy the waters and mute ISP
criticism of the bill.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather fight the evil that I *know* will
happen (recip. comp.) rather than the spectre of some evil that might
happen, but might not (Internet taxes).

Fight HR 4445, its a really bad bill, unless you're an ILEC.
-- 
Jeff McAdams                            Email: jeffm () iglou com
Head Network Administrator              Voice: (502) 966-3848
IgLou Internet Services                        (800) 436-4456