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: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (1236)	9/5/1998 12:25:00 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3178

Hi Ken, Thanks for that piece of information. Where did you get that clip from? Is there a URL? The prospect of LECs attaching charges to ITSPs has been looming from the outset, I would imagine, at least in the minds of certain LECs and some of the smaller long distance switchless resellers who have cried foul play in the past. This IMO is due, in large part, to their lack of readiness to compete in this market arena right now. Which, in fact, is one of the reasons for many of the objections from many players, if you think about it, despite there being many other good reasons and issues that have to be settled before VoIP becomes a mainstream alternative to POTS. Here's a good example of if you can't join them just yet, then stifle them, by taking away their incentive to compete, for the moment. Of course, none of this has anything to do with the validity of the rationale for access charges being what they are, in the first place. The article you posted is in contrast to one that I posted the other day, concerning the Ohio PUC and ICG's hybrid delivery of PSTN and VoIP services. See this article and some of my thoughts on the subject at: Ohio PUC Rules in Favor of ICG/Netcom in Dispute with Ameritech Message 5612977 For those ITSPs whose gateways are not linked to the PSTN's SS7 mechanisms, execution and enforcement of such a cross-charging and debiting scheme is dubious, at best. If the LEC succeeds in this cause (which I think is doubtful for the non-SS7-attached players, purely from a regulatory sentiment standpoint at this time), it would only IMO encourage a form of underground existence by some players, (more so than already exists!) which has the additional ripple effect of encouraging non-reporting in other venues, as well. And this, in turn, would result in other, collateral forms of regulatory and enforcement headache$. Regards, Frank Coluccio