Re: FCC Ruling, Cost of Internet

["Steven J. Sobol" <sjsobol () nacs net>]

On Tue, Nov 03, 1998 at 08:39:52PM -0600, MacFarland, Chris wrote:
> 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.

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. :)

-- 
Steve Sobol [sjsobol () nacs net]
Part-time Support Droid [support () nacs net]
NACS Spaminator [abuse () nacs net]

Spotted on a bumper sticker: "Possum. The other white meat."