IP: All Calls to ISPs Long Distance

[Dave Farber <farber@cis.upenn.edu>]

>From: "Turner, Jim" <Jim.Turner@mail.house.gov>
>To: "Farber, Dave" <farber@cis.upenn.edu>
>Subject: All Calls to ISPs Long Distance
>Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 15:21:41 -0400 
>X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2539.1)
>
>Dave,
>
>      I had the communications legislative assistant for a senior California
>Congressman look into last week's e-mail about making calls to ISPs long
>distance.  Here is her response.
>
>OK, this is kind of a complicated issue.  It is most definitely a rumor with
>regard to the FCC and any federal action.  CPUC is having hearings on the
>reciprocal compensation issue today, however it's not as clearcut as it may
>seem.  23 state regulatory commissions have considered the issue, and all
>have found that the phone company that originates the ISP call must pay
>reciprocal compensation, but many companies are currently withholding
>payment while pursuing appeals, hence the PacWest-PacBell battle.
>
>In February, the FCC issued a Declaratory Ruling concluding that carriers
>are bound by their existing interconnnection agreements and are subject to
>reciprocal compensation obligations to the extent provided by agreements or
>determined by state commissions.  So, theoretically, CPUC could alter
>PacBell's obligatory compensation.  However, even if they do so, which isn't
>fair by the way, cosumers will not be affected.  
>
>The rulings have to do with reciprocal compensation only - the FCC has ruled
>that Internet and other information services are exempt from interstate
>access charges.  This means that customers will continue to be able to
>access their ISP by dialing a seven digit number and will not incur long
>distance charges.  To charge more for Internet access, state commissions
>would have to alter their local rate plans - phone companies alone can't do
>this.  And this is something regulated by states, not by the federal
>government.