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 can’t 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 |
|
powerhog
Stinkin' up the joint
Premium
join:2000-12-14
Owasso, OK
·AtlasOK
| 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. |
|
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. |
|
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs:
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to Noah Vail
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. |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Two minor points--First, these are "access fees", charged to LD providers. "Termination fees" are what local ILECs and CLECs pay each other for passing traffic. (They have similar characteristics but are treated differently in regulatory structure. There is also a reasonable argument that these fees should not exist as the individual costs of both originating traffic from and terminating traffic to an end user should be paid by that end user.)
Second, it's "leeches", not "leaches".
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs:
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: No blocking; but no money either; result:services die
It makes the lawyers happy. This is like a guy living in public housing selling drugs.
quote:
Since the 1930s, when Congress set as public policy the goal of ensuring affordable phone service for every home, the government has allowed rural carriers to charge higher per-minute rates to long-distance companies for connecting their calls to the local network.
The rural rates typically range from 2 cents a minute to perhaps a nickel, though occasionally exceed a dime. By contrast, AT&T, Verizon and Qwest get paid closer to half a cent per minute when they connect one of their local customers to a long-distance call from another provider.
The extra revenue enables the nation's smallest carriers _ there are roughly 500 companies with fewer than 2,000 phone lines _ to generate a profit without jacking up local rates.
»www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/···81.shtml |
|
John T
@verizon.net
| reply to sporkme
Re: We're still waiting......
Huh?
The fees were set up in order to subsidize rural service, because it costs more to serve a rural customer in a low-density area than one in a high density area. They've always been higher payments for the smaller companies in rural areas than for the big companies. They've always been so that the smaller companies could "gouge" the bigger ones, not the other way around.
Your comment makes no sense. There is no "delicious irony." There's simply that some of the rural companies hit on the idea that, thanks to conference calling and VoIP over a fiber network, they could provide services to lots of people located outside of their rural area while still getting these large fees.
It's a difficult problem, but so far the FCC seems to be getting it right. Allowing the big companies to block the network is clearly wrong, but at the same time these fees should be reexamined if the rural providers are able to use them in totally unintended manners that have nothing to do with bringing phone service to rural and poorer areas. |
|
John T
@verizon.net
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: No blocking; but no money either; result:services die
Weird, because these rules have been around since the 1930s subsidizing poor and rural areas and their poor and rural telcos. How exactly is your comment true?
I don't have a strong problem with subsidizing phone service for the poor and rural. The areas need service, and if it takes a subsidy for Universal Service, then there are only so many ways to do it. I do have a problem with small telcos using this to subsidize the phone calls of people not in their poor and rural area, people who were never intended to get the subsidy, things that have nothing to do with providing Universal Service.
This isn't just about big telco versus small. It's also about well-informed consumers, largely wealthier than average (but also including tech-savvy but poor students), grabbing parts of a subsidy intended for the poor, rural, and under-connected. Using subsidies designed to achieve Universal Service and subsidizing the middle-class who are already connected is wrong, yes? |
|
powerhog
Stinkin' up the joint
Premium
join:2000-12-14
Owasso, OK
·AtlasOK
| The post(s) to which I replied said that the small telco would "go out of business" waiting for their payments from the large telcos.
I was pointing out that the small telco can not go out of business because of the universal service requirements by the government (therefore the USF). Many here at DSLR consider the universal service program and fees to be a socialist program in need of abolishment. |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| reply to John T
Re: We're still waiting......
There is in fact delicious irony here because SBC and VZ, and their component predecessors, all lobbied hard for high and unrestricted access charges when they were just ILECs sticking it to the LD carriers.
Now, having used those high access charges to weaken ATT and MCI to the point where they could purchase them, SBC (under its acquired ATT name) and VZ ARE the LD carriers, and somebody else is sticking it to them. That is the irony of which sporkme speaks....
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
