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/