Frank: My feeling is that the FCC will look over its-facts (what? their own set of rules? right...), as each week passes by with new determining factors, that seem to be molding a book-of-rules-continuum.
When I look at the SS7, I look at it as a necessity for any phone system that require servicing, addressing, alerting, and do see the FCC using that as part of their equation in determining "enhanced service providers".
I recall you saying "heavy on the PSTN side, and 1+ calling, which of course with your other thoughts do raise a "red-flag" sending a message to the FCC <hey does this count?). I would like to think that the FCC in their last statement "on a one to one basis" thought this one out far enough in advance, that they probably determined "We shall wait and see how far these ITSPs take their short rope and stretch in out into a full scale setup"
With that said, I would also bet they had just what you discussed in listing order (things that make-up a telco), waiting to pounce on the first one that shows its Telco-Face.
If it happens, it will be interesting to see who they pick first and set as an example, IDT would be a prime choice. I really believe the FCC will start to show the industry just how serious they are about rounding up NexGenTelco's sometime before the end of the year, IMO.
PSTN, SS7, AIN, 1+ dialing, and 800 service, like you said, that spells T.E.L.C.O. ggg
Its interesting how it breaks down with gray matter all over each segment. If your a Telco, your required to give reciprocal compensation to other IXCs on their lines, and vise-versa, yhis goes for both RBOCs & LDs. If your an ITSP, your not allowed to receive recip-comp due to your handicap of "enhanced service provider", with some carriers. I've heard theirs a mutual understanding with some carriers/ITSPs. If you run PC to PC software provider like mediaring.com, you get nothing and ask for nothing, and you may never be taxed for your system. If as the FCC stated, run PC to Phone, you doubtfully will have to pay. If you do both, Ph-to-Ph & PC-to-Ph, there you may have a safe ride. I am willing to bet the FCC is leaning heavily on letting companies go that provide PC to Ph as one of their service's(as long as its heavy on that side), IMO.
It will be interesting see how the FCC looks at video coming up with ITSPs. If you an ISP and run H.323 video-conferencing with voice, does that mean that your an "enhanced provicer", even though you have Ph-to-Ph?, or by saying video is not part of the regular Telco schematic?
If your an ISP that provides H.323 video-conferencng over VPNs and also providing voice, does that make you an ITSP? Therefore requiring you to call yourself a Telco, if every thing else adds up?
As PP Tunneling Protocol advances and other innovations extend the advantages of private networks to even the smallest companies, and VPNs attach at the "hip-of-your-network", can this be anything less than an "enhanced service provider"?
I laugh when I see how confused the fcc-gang could be on a daily basis. ggg
Off-Topic> <g>
If I was setting up a Global VPN, intranet-linked, through ADSL, using H.323, *would be the way to extend flexibility both inside and outside the company, and maybe stay away from any reciprocal-compensation / tax-laws that might come up in the future?*
Is it a bit windy today? ggg
Stephen |
