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: wonk who wrote (1209)	8/29/1998 7:06:00 AM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3178

wonk, I've sent myself an email to reply to you later. Gotta run off now and convert the northeast to an image-enabled environment. <don't ask...!> As I've stated repeatedly here and elsewhere, the local issue is important, IMO, and its implications are far deeper than the surface language would lead one to conclude. It strikes to the core of the ultimate territory that needs to be penetrated in order for this technology to become mainstream. And that is, the traditional end-office switching environment, or its not-so-distant future equivalent. I'll get back to this topic later. In the meantime, if anyone else has something they'd like to add to wireless wonk's observations and statements, please... can always use additional insights and ideas. Later, and thanks, Frank C.

To: wonk who wrote (1209)	8/30/1998 6:27:00 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Respond to of 3178

wireless wonk, I'd like to reply to your post # 1209 to the extent that I can, but I'm not privy to all of the particulars. >Admittedly, I am a little confused by this release. However, if one takes the text at face value, then it was a simple reciprocal compensation dispute and the mention of ISPs just clouds the issue.< Yes, it does cloud (pun intended) the issue, and that's largely my point. In order for access fee exemptions to be applicable to the ISPs, ITSPs, ESPs, etc., structural separations need to exist. This means, to a large extent, they need to avoid taking on traits that resemble the personalities of the incumbents. Of course, this may not be an issue with them at this time, and they may well prefer to compete on an equal footing with the incumbents, foregoing the access fee exemption clauses afforded to ISPs. But I don't know that to be the case at this time. So I can't comment on it with any level of comfort. Once equal treatment is demanded by a startup ITSP in this regard, however, they risk losing certain privileges, and would be hard pressed to demonstrate why, at that point, they should qualify for relief from normal tariffs and surcharges/access fees/etc. > My thinking is that the Netcom subsidiary of ICG purchases trunk circuits to the ICG Central Office. When an Ameritech subscriber dials the ISP the call is handed off to ICG which terminates the call. If the termination point was a call center rather than an ISP would there be confusion here? < I don't know all of the particulars of the interconnection arrangements that exist between these entities. They could be completing the calls in a variety of ways: 1) direct access over their own facilities; 2) using VoIP methods; 3) using type 2 (resale) facilities of the ILEC; 4) by proxy only, or in name only, as in many different forms of agency that exist. But like I say, I'm not familiar with the particulars in this case. And whose call center is it that you are referring to? Is it a carrier-provided outsourced call-center? Is it an enhanced service or a service bureau provider's? Or is it one which owned by its principal user(s)? It gets murky. >If my supposition is correct, then one can presume that what was sticking in Ameritech's craw was the long hold time of the typical dial-up ISP call. Are not most, if not all reciprocal compensation agreements based on a per minute fee? < Good point, and one that I didn't consider fully. There are several sets of usage metrics. sometimes only one. When two exist, they are first, the carrier's utilization of another carrier's resources and these are accounted for in one form of settlement, and secondly, the time elapsed for completed calls, from the time of off-hook to on-hook. The latter is the same time period what you pay for as a subscriber, and the former is something that falls into a gray area, often not straightforward as one would think, open for negotiation. But you know what? If this is the issue that the ILEC was stalling over, IMO, it was very likely only as a smoke screen to obfuscate the issues. Large carriers have been known to do that from time to time. <smile> For the remainder of your message, I frankly cannot offer an opinion unless I were to know all of the specifics concerning ownership, contractual terms and assumptions made by all of the parties. Regards, Frank C.