  TKJunkMail Enjoy the sun Premium join:2002-03-03 Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| No blocking; but no money either; result:services die
The big telcos will win this in the end. The FCC may stop their blocking, but they won't force the telcos to pay the Iowa termination fees either. And without those fees, the rural telcos can't afford to charge ridiculously low fees to the conference call providers. QED - the conference call providers either go out of business or pay higher fees to the Iowa telcos.
On whether or not the FCC would force AT&T and Qwest to pay disputed access-charge bills, Martin said that was a separate issue, and covered by petitioning processes that might take further time to resolve. If you have a dispute about the intercarrier compensation rules, you can file petitions, and come to the commission to get redress, Martin said. But you cant just stop letting consumers make those calls. -- -- Internet News My BLOG My Web Page |
|
  Noah Vail Premium join:2004-12-10 Lorton, VA
·RoadRunner Cable
| We're still waiting......
....for the "Pay us our extortionate rates or we'll wither on the vine!" argument to validate itself.
More likely to happen is the free market will force large telcos to compete by offering more efficient technologies.
Or another scenario is that the large telco becomes obsolete and goes away.
One must make a decision on whether well being of the consumer or corporation is the priority.
NV |
|
 russotto
join:2000-10-05 Collegeville, PA | There is no free market involved here. There's termination fees imposed by fiat. |
|
  battleop
join:2005-09-28 00000
| reply to TKJunkMail Re: No blocking; but no money either; result:services die
So let me get this right. If more calls flow from the Small Telco to the Big Telco the small telco pays for these calls.
Now if the more calls flow from the Big Telco to the Small Telco the big Telcos Bitch that it's not far and then block the calls.
Three words.
Pot, Kettle, Black. |
|
  TKJunkMail Enjoy the sun Premium join:2002-03-03 Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| said by battleop :So let me get this right. If more calls flow from the Small Telco to the Big Telco the small telco pays for these calls. Now if the more calls flow from the Big Telco to the Small Telco the big Telcos Bitch that it's not far and then block the calls. Three words. Pot, Kettle, Black. Three more relevant words: The Golden Rule Those with the gold rule. Big telco doesn't pay small telco. Small telco goes broke trying to get money from big telco in court. And big telco gets rules changed at FCC. Small telco can't win. -- -- Internet News My BLOG My Web Page |
|
 lesopp
join:2001-06-27 Land O Lakes, FL | Tigers can not change their strips!
Typical Telco behaviour, lie, cheat and steal to stop customer loss.
Although the topic is regarding the Telcos blocking and/or degrading calls, you can, without a great deal of imagination, see why net neutrality is needed. |
|
  powerhog Stinkin' up the joint Premium join:2000-12-14 Owasso, OK
·AtlasOK
| reply to TKJunkMail Re: No blocking; but no money either; result:services die
This is where the so-called "socialist" plan requiring universal coverage comes into play. The small telco can not just go out of business. Someone HAS to provide service to the region and the big telcos don't want to do that (or they would have already bought small telco).
So, which is cheaper? 1) pay small telco the 100% legal connect/termination fees 2) provide telephony service to entire small telco territory
The answer is likely #1 and I think you'll see the big ILECs pay the small ILECs the fees- right up until the time the law is changed to favor the big telcos. |
|
  xerxes3642
join:2006-02-24 Saint Charles, MO | net neutrality
advocates should pay attention to this. This is exactly what will happen if isp's can decide who gets what bandwidth, and who is blocked for their own reasons. |
|
  VoiceOfReason
| The phone companies bring this on themselves
This is what the phone companies get for refusing to compete in other telco service areas. You see, legally, any of the big phone companies could put a stop to this by going into the service areas of the rural ripoff companies and building their own local telephone companies, and by offering better service and lower prices, they could force the ripoff locals out of business (I doubt the incumbent locals could survive with ONLY the income from the conference lines).
Oh. Wait. For that to work, it would mean that a large phone company would have to offer excellent service and low rates. Silly me. |
|
  sporkme drop the crantini and move it, sister Premium,MVM join:2000-07-01 Morristown, NJ
·Optimum Online
| reply to russotto Re: We're still waiting......
said by russotto :There is no free market involved here. There's termination fees imposed by fiat. The delicious irony of this is that the ILECs paid millions in lobbying money to get these termination fees so that they could gouge smaller companies.
Now it's biting them in the ass, just like it did when dialup got big. |
|
  no_one
@iauq.com
| Not designed for this
This is not big telco vs. small telco. It is someone found a loophole to gouge money from a telco. A business model formed on the concept the connect fees wee so high profit could be made even by giving conference calls or international service away. This connect fee was not designed for this. |
|
 viperlmw Premium join:2005-01-25 | Qwest has filed a formal complaint...
...if any RBOC bashers are interested:
»www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/o···,00.html |
|
  batterup I Can Not Tell A Lie. Premium join:2003-02-06 Netcong, NJ clubs:
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to Noah Vail Re: We're still waiting......
said by Noah Vail :....for the "Pay us our extortionate rates or we'll wither on the vine!" argument to validate itself. More likely to happen is the free market will force large telcos to compete by offering more efficient technologies. Or another scenario is that the large telco becomes obsolete and goes away. One must make a decision on whether well being of the consumer or corporation is the priority. NV That makes no sense what-so-ever. |
|
  batterup I Can Not Tell A Lie. Premium join:2003-02-06 Netcong, NJ clubs:
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to sporkme said by sporkme :said by russotto :There is no free market involved here. There's termination fees imposed by fiat. The delicious irony of this is that the ILECs paid millions in lobbying money to get these termination fees so that they could gouge smaller companies. Now it's biting them in the ass, just like it did when dialup got big. The rural ILECs get a much bigger termination fee then Verizon-NJ. If all fees were equal the leaches would not be in Iowa. |
|
  batterup I Can Not Tell A Lie. Premium join:2003-02-06 Netcong, NJ clubs:
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to lesopp Re: Tigers can not change their strips!
said by lesopp :Typical Telco behaviour, lie, cheat and steal to stop customer loss. Although the topic is regarding the Telcos blocking and/or degrading calls, you can, without a great deal of imagination, see why net neutrality is needed. You really need more understanding. Net neutrality and termination fees have nothing to do with each other. Why do you think leaches sucking the life out of a network are good. It is only good for the leaches. |
|
  batterup I Can Not Tell A Lie. Premium join:2003-02-06 Netcong, NJ clubs: | Get a clue.
Leaches do not help, they kill. Why do you think a practice that does not build or innovate and profits fly-by-night hustlers is good for America? |
|
 lesopp
join:2001-06-27 Land O Lakes, FL
| reply to batterup Re: Tigers can not change their strips!
Did I write net neutrality and termination fees have anything to do with each other?
If you inferred that, allow me to clarify. I was referring to their behaviour in this matter and drawing a parallel with regard to net neutrality a different matter.
Leeches? You really need more understanding, the calls made to this Iowa-based free conference call outfit are long distance calls and already paid for by the caller or some other entity paying for an 800 service. |
|
  batterup I Can Not Tell A Lie. Premium join:2003-02-06 Netcong, NJ clubs:
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by lesopp :Did I write net neutrality and termination fees have anything to do with each other? If you inferred that, allow me to clarify. I was referring to their behaviour in this matter and drawing a parallel with regard to net neutrality a different matter. Leeches? You really need more understanding, the calls made to this Iowa-based free conference call outfit are long distance calls and already paid for by the caller or some other entity paying for an 800 service. Yes at&t and Qwest pay for the leaches long-distance. The Iowa ILEC pay a kick back to the chat line providers. It is one big hustle that hurts most and profits a few. |
|
  jhboricua ExMod 2000-01 join:2000-06-06 Minneapolis, MN clubs:
| reply to batterup Re: Get a clue.
said by batterup :Leaches do not help, they kill. Why do you think a practice that does not build or innovate and profits fly-by-night hustlers is good for America? I'll post an answer when I get it from Verizon.
 -- "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." - Albert Einstein Jose A. Hernandez * IT Technician * MPLS, Minnesota, USA * My website: Zerochill |
|
 jervin123
join:2005-04-14 Philadelphia, PA | reply to viperlmw Re: Qwest has filed a formal complaint...
CLEC all the way I believe when a clec behaves and does things the right way... you can have the same or better experience then with the RBOC. |
|