TELECOM Digest OnLine - Sorted: Re: Powell Rips FCC Delay on Connection Fee Reform

Re: Powell Rips FCC Delay on Connection Fee Reform

Michael D. Sullivan (userid@camsul.example.invalid)
Wed, 16 Feb 2005 08:01:26 GMT

In article <>,

> "Reform" is what those advocating any particular change always call
> it, progressive or regressive. As I recall, the last "reform"
> slaughtered competitive DSL. The CLEC settlement rules, which the
> Bells wrote, but miscalculated, are probably the next target. That
> should allow them to kill competitive VoIP. OTOH, maybe I am too old
> and cynical. Or worked in telecom too long.

Actually, the real battle involves the rapacious rural ILECs, who want
everything to subsidize them and they want it now. Since the VoIP
providers aren't carriers, they are the party that is conspicuous by
its absence from the scheme. The VoIP providers typically use CLECs
to front for them in terms of obtaining interconnection and
origination/termination of calls on the PSTN, so the CLECs would be
their proxy in this proceeding.

As to the CLEC settlement rules, the Bells didn't write them; the FCC
initially gave the CLECs what they asked for, but when it turned out
the CLECs had played the FCC for a fool and were engaging in
gamesmanship (e.g., signing up ISPs with no outgoing minutes and
massive incoming minutes), it reversed course as to their internet
terminations. For everything else, the CLECs have made out just fine.

Michael D. Sullivan
Bethesda, MD, USA
Replace "example.invalid" with ".com".

Post Followup Article Use your browser's quoting feature to quote article into reply
Go to Next message: "Re: A Silly Question - 2-Line Phone With One Phone Number?"
Go to Previous message: Michael D. Sullivan: "Re: Click Fraud Looms As Search-Engine Threat"
May be in reply to: Jack Decker: "Powell Rips FCC Delay on Connection Fee Reform"
Next in thread: John Levine: "Re: Powell Rips FCC Delay on Connection Fee Reform"
TELECOM Digest: Home Page