IP: Re: FCC appears poised to kill reciprocal compensation

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

> Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 12:54:20 -0500
> From: gep2 () terabites com
> Subject: IP: Re: FCC appears poised to kill reciprocal compensation
> To: farber () cis upenn edu
> X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17
>
> > > From: "Joseph H. Weber" <jweber () spri com>
> > To: <farber () cis upenn edu>
> >
> > Since most calls to ISPs are flat rate local calls, the ILECs get no
> > incremental revenue for these calls. It's therefore not hard to understand
> > why they don't want to pay the ISPs for doing nothing more than terminating
> > long holding time calls. The "will of the people" here seems to be a desire
> > for the ILECs to subsidize the ISPs. That certainly was not the intent  when
> > the reciprocal compensation scheme was established.
>
> I think it's intriguing to see how the ILECs' story changes depending upon 
> the
> day and which side of the fence they're on.
>
> Many of the ILECs weep big alligator tears over their supposed problems 
> caused
> by all these "long holding time calls" which "the system wasn't designed to
> handle".  When in fact, "long holding time" local calls are the EASIEST 
> for the
> system to handle, since virtually *all* phone switches nowadays are 
> non-blocking
> (meaning simply that bandwidth through the switch isn't a scarce commodity
> anymore... digital phone switches can and will happily connect each and every
> incoming line to an outgoing line).  What IS a limited commodity (even in
> digital phone switches) is the call initiation stuff... tone receivers 
> (DTMF and
> MF) as well as routing/setup/knockdown bandwidth (which requires the active
> attention of the computer(s) that administer the switch).  One of the hardest
> things on phone switches are those radio station call-in contests, where
> everybody in town is trying to dial simultaneously, all to the same number,
> everybody getting a busy signal and trying again immediately.
>
> If they were going to compensate the ISPs on the basis of "call terminations"
> (i.e. a fixed miniscule amount per call completed) then the amount is 
> going to
> be tiny anyhow, because the NUMBER of calls is usually small, and because (as
> pointed out) the ILECs get no incremental revenue for local calls.  (But 
> that's
> NOT to say that they aren't getting paid for them!  Let's not forget that 
> some
> of those ILECs offer "lifeline" lower-priced measured-service services to
> elderly etc who make almost no calls... it's just that in the typical case,
> everyone finds it to their advantage... the ILEC included... to sell the "all
> you can eat" package.)
>
> If the ILECs are still griping about their trunks being tied up by these 
> "long
> holding time" calls (and with fiber being the way it is, there is truly *no*
> legitimate excuse for there being any shortage of intra-office and intra-city
> bandwidth) then they ought to we willing to accept the similar argument by 
> the
> ISPs... that the calls the ISPs are terminating for the ILECs are using the
> ISPs' incoming trunks too.
>
> I think the issue is less one that the people "desire that the ILECs 
> subsidize
> the ISPs" as much as it is that the public (and reasonably so) simply doesn't
> want to pay for the same service and connectivity TWICE.
>
> It's really very little different than the outrageous "interconnect fees" 
> that
> the ILECs have traditionally charged to long-distance resale and other
> interconnect companies (how many people realize that those pernicious
> "interconnect fees" are one big reason why cell phone operators have to 
> charge
> by the minute for local calls?)  In fact, what it amounts to is the "old
> monopoly" continuing to overcharge the public for service, even when they 
> don't
> provide it anymore.
>
> Of course, with the cost of providing long distance service becoming 
> vanishingly
> small, and with the increasingly widespread availability of alternatives 
> (even
> for local service!) such as wireless and cable-based digital services, the 
> ILECs
> are seeing their stranglehold on the customer disappear.  They're just 
> jockeying
> for position, trying to milk the public for every last cent they can in the
> meanwhile, and hoping thay they're going to have a chair to sit in when the
> music stops.
>
> Gordon Peterson                  http://personal.terabites.com/
> Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment!  Join at http://www.cauce.org/
> 12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent".
> 12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America.



For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/