MH, Ernie,
Ernie brought to the surface something that I have been
waiting for, for the past several days. I tried to elicit this
sort of thing on the VoIP thread but I didn't get any takers.
With this sort of arrangement in mind, I asked what kinds of
alternative measures the VoIP players could take in order to
avert the proposed fees.
How do they 'channel' through the ISP? This would be
crucial to know in order to draw an accurate and informed opinion.
If the connections through the ISP are hard wired (non-IP,
rather through dedicated T1/T3 connections), then they are
subject to the rules. If, on the other hand, they are
channeling traffic that has it's origins in the form or IP
packets, i.e., desktop-based, then they would be exempt.
This is the way I see it.
Let's talk more generically, and leave Qwest alone for a moment.
If a carrier is simply substituting the inter-machine trunk (IMT)
portion of the call path (which are usually T carrier or
PCM-based trunk circuits) with a dedicated backbone IP
alternative, then they are in a sense only choosing a
different, yet equivalent, component between their IXC
Pops.
If that is the case, and if the call entails phone to phone
type characteristics using LECs' Class 5 switching facilities
at both ends, then it should be viewed, IMO, as a normal
telephone call and subject to the same access and orig/term
fees that the 'traditional' carriers are subjected to.
On the other hand, if the call is placed between users who
are in the PC-to-PC mode, using the now traditional ISP
access approach, then I would suggest that they are in the
prescribed mode that would entitle them to the exemption.
If the call is PC-to-Phone, then I believe an argument could
be made that the fees apply, at least at one end (dependent
on whether the POTS phone is at the originating or
terminating end, the appropriate fee might apply,
arguably).
Since I do not know the specific details (network semantics
would be a good term, since there are many fine
lines emerging here) that Qwest is using in every instance
of their call provisioning, it would be difficult for me to
make a more informed opinion. This question and others
like it, I am certain, will emerge over the next couple of
months, and may just be ones that need to be decided in the
courts, I suspect.
Hope this helped,
Best Regards,
Frank Coluccio |
