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 (2517)	2/25/1999 10:44:00 PM
From: Stephen B. Temple	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 3178

Bells win partial victory in ISP ruling By John Borland Staff Writer, CNET News.com February 25, 1999, 9:45 a.m. PT news.com update The Federal Communications Commission ruled today that calls to ISPs are essentially long distance, a decision that could save big local telephone companies hundreds of millions of dollars. The agency has been wrestling with the issue for more than three months, after initially promising a decision by early November. But today's ruling doesn't settle the matter entirely. The commissioners also said the decisions of some two dozen states that had differed from today's ruling should be upheld--meaning the Baby Bells will still be responsible for huge sums to some of their local rivals. Do you want to know more? Read related news View story in The Big Picture Go to Message Boards Search News.com At stake are millions of dollars per year paid to small telephone companies under contracts dubbed "reciprocal compensation." The contracts govern who pays who when a customer makes a call. If a Bell Atlantic customer calls an e.spire communications customer under this system, Bell Atlantic would pay e.spire for completing that call. When these contracts were signed, largely in the wake of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, local phone companies thought they would come out ahead since they controlled the vast majority of local phone lines. But many small phone companies began signing up ISPs for service. The ISPs receive many calls, but place very few--resulting in the imbalance that favors the small telcos. The Baby Bells and GTE have pressed the FCC to rule that calls to ISPs are long distance, since this would exempt the calls from the reciprocal compensation contracts. The FCC today agreed in part, ruling that even local calls to ISPs ultimately find their way to the Internet at large, and so are interstate calls. But by protecting the states' earlier rulings--and by refusing to say whether reciprocal compensation contracts were a good idea or not--the agency left the big local phone companies liable for the contracts they had already signed. The Baby Bells and GTE paid competitors close to $600 million last year under these contracts, and analysts have predicted this number will hit $1 billion for 1999. But some of the big local phone companies had delayed paying their smaller rivals while waiting for a final FCC decision. The commission also said it would begin soliciting comment on a proposal that left this kind of agreement between phone companies up to individual negotiations, rather than to sweeping federal regulations. Net charges The commissioners took pains to emphasize that their decision would not affect consumers' Internet phone bills. "It doesn't affect the way consumers get dialup access to Internet," said chairman William Kennard. "Nothing we're doing here should be construed as regulating the Internet." But the decision was made under protest by one commissioner, who has argued that it could inadvertently open up the possibility for courts to impose per-minute access charges on ISPs. Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth had asked to delay the decision by at least another three weeks to study this issue. But Kennard denied that request, saying commissioners had already waited too long. "I believe that part of operating efficiently is being decisive," Kennard said. "We owe the marketplace a decision."

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (2517)	2/25/1999 11:16:00 PM
From: Stephen B. Temple	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3178

Hey Frank, with all the hoop-la over iNOW, more reading needs be done on my part. Interesting the small print at the bottom of iNOW mainpage "Neither ITXC nor any other iNOW! supporting company make any warranties of any kind, expressed or implied, in connection with the iNOW! interoperability certification and assume no liability with respect to any loss, damage, or claim arising from or in any manner from the iNow! certification program or from any failure of interoperability between any equipment. A mixed bag, with what seems to be allot of political overtones...... Temp'

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (2517)	2/26/1999 7:18:00 AM
From: Secret_Agent_Man	Respond to of 3178

FCC RULING REGARDING ISP'S and LONG DISTANCE BELOW per HHBB by: Havehunchbuybunch 29143 of 29146 Yes, they sort of, classified a call to isp as 'long distance' but they really didn't. Let me explain. They classified it as long distance to GET JURISTICTION AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL over this issue, which has been dealt with at the state and court level in over 40 states separately, and this is an attempt to finally put the freaking thing to bed once and for all. BUT, here's the important part, THEY MADE NO CHANGE TO ANY EXISTING AGREEMENTS which means that they basically left things as they are. Therefore, reciprocal payments stand, and there will be no charges imposed for calls to isp's, so effectively the exemption for isp's being local calls continues. Read the accompanying statements from the four commissioners, one of which abstained from voting today Fuegeroth (sp?). BOTTOM LINE, THE GOOD GUYS, US, WON TODAY. This was just one more overhang removed imo. Here's the best part, Chairman Kennard's words afterwards: 'I support today's decision with respect to intercarrier compensation for internet bound traffic. Some people have been trying to scare the public into thinking this is government regulating the internet. Nothing could be further from the truth. This decision only affects the way phone companies pay each other for traffic that is passed over phone lines before even reaching the internet. We are not regulating the internet, and will not do so as long as I am chairman. Those employing scare tactics have suggested that the FCC is going to change the way consumers pay for dial up access to the internet. Again, nothing could be further from the truth. For consumers, dialing up the internet is just like a local call. It always has been, and, as far as I am concerned, it always will be. Chairman William Kennard, FCC 2/25/99 link sec.gov