Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Voice-on-the-net (VON), VoIP, Internet (IP) Telephony -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (767)	6/13/1998 8:07:00 PM
From: Stephen B. Temple	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3178

One point I would like to make in regards to the USFund is "while ISP's may not write checks directly to the USF, their indirect contributions to the Fund are substancial. Here's why> The FCC has always taken a stance (thx somewhat to Senator Knuckle-head Stevens) that enhanced services which are basic services plus a little bit more. Those basic services contribute to the USF by: a.) Residential consumers lease residential telephone lines, the consumber pays flate-rate access charges and fees that support universal service. b.) Residential consumers lease secondary lines for data, and lines that have even higher fees. c.) ISP's lease business lines for incoming consumer calls. They pay access charges and universal service fees on the hundreds of lines they lease. Then ISP's lease "luxury" high-speed lines to connect to each other. These luxury lines have luxury price tags embedded with universal service costs. So while ISP's may not directly write checks to the USF ( universal service fund), their indirect contribution to the Fund is substancial. As increased Internet use leads to increased consumption of telephony services, there will be increased indirect suppport for the FUND!!! So now the big question> Over 80% of all schools,K-12 schools and public libraries have Internet access, and internal connections. Why is the USF still looking for more funding through this medium, and why did Gore and the boys have the LD's tax us with that .85cent taxiation without legislation crap a few weeks ago. Of course, that was put on hold but for how long?.......I hear another sucking sound! So I guess if you always have data services layered over the telephone network, things could look a little different to the FCC? ggg I guess I not overly concerned with I hear Qwest CEO speak in these terms> "The punch line is, since they're making oodles of money at 16 [cents a minute], I'm making an equivalent oodles of money at 7.5," Qwest CEO Joe Nacchio was reported saying. "If we had to bring the price down, we could. I think most consumers in America would be very thankful if I could cut their average telephone long-distance bill in half and do it with the same quality and reliability that they expect from the Big Three." I think the profit margins in transmitting long-distance phone calls over super-efficient private networks will make up for this anyway. Cheers! Stephen bah hum-bug coast.net and don't forget about your pagers too> mobilecomm.com

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (767)	6/14/1998 4:37:00 AM
From: Daniel G. DeBusschere	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3178

Frank- Feature Group D connections between LECs and IXCs usually form the basis for access charge billings. This was setup before clear channel connections became available with SS7 and then modified to include the clear channel (i.e. signalling bits are no longer in band)connections. ISPs that connect to the LEC usually do so with ISDN PRI connections which are classified as Network to User. These connections were never considered as long distance access and therefore were never included in the access billing systems. Therefore, the LECs do not know if the PRI is being used for telephone to telephone IP voice and cannot bill for access. However, if a big player such as ITXC orders a bunch of PRIs, you can bet that the LECs will focus on calculating the access charges under the assumption that ITXC is ONLY providing telephone to telephone IP services inter LATA. ITXC will either pay or the LEC will pull the plug - its that simple. The ISP that mixes data and voice on their PRIs will stay under the radar based on the size of their operation is my guess. Hope this explains it a little better. By the way, I am a data guy not a voice guy so the explanation may be over simplified.