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 (1300)	9/14/1998 5:47:00 PM
From: Stephen B. Temple	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 3178

Frank: In this statement: "Since the migration of switching functions are changing to the network edge, the PC becomes a communications terminal with launching & receiving packets with no active intervention by the circuit-switching network. So in a real sense, PC's and web-enabled devices themselves become the "signal switching device" communicating Gateways" Could the end result as "stated above", be throwing fear into the ILEC's as the local operators look into the future of IP, say 10 years from now and beyond? It just seems they don't want to accept the terms of the new paradigm. In regards to the statement made by the FCC on a " a case by case basis" for charge's to ITSP's in the local loop. I think this left a huge door opening for the RBOC's in their next "wicked" step. So what if they do start charging ITSP's for access, so on the flipside, can't the ITSP's have "reciprocal compensation" for their part of local access? Isn't there a point where a ITSP will be considered either local / long distance / or both? In the news, it stated that: "Two Federal district courts and 19 state public utilities commissions have ruled in favor of the CLEC, holding that calls to ISP's are local calls entitled to receive recipical-compensation. One of the court ruling was Illinois, where they based its conclusion on the terms of an interconnection agreement between Ameritech and various CLEC"s operation in Illinois". It would seem double-faced in regards to the BellAtlantic approach of crying wolf while wearing sheep clothing on the opposite street from their news below> "BellAtlantic defended its refusal to pay reciprocal compensation based on that calls to ISP's are not local but interstate calls. The ISP local number is only the first step to what is otherwise an interstate call potentially connected around the world via other Internet users" Frank: How can you tell the difference between a Bell-Atlantic call, locally (within state), and an ISP call, locally (within state)? Am I missing something here, or is this just another gray area for the wild-fires starting to show up all over the US? I think that if the ITSP's fight within a positive nature, meaning, if the RBOC's want access charges?, then they should be able to accept the fact that Local ITSP's (loop area's) should also receive "reciprocal compensation". Maybe I'm not understanding the local access charges right for ISP's vs compensation, so please straighten me out on this. Regards Stephen