Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 23:38:11 -0700 From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> To: "Louis A. Mamakos" <louie@TransSys.COM> Cc: "void" <float@firedrake.org>, "Matt Dillon" <dillon@earth.backplane.com>, <Bsdguru@aol.com>, <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: RE: Imagestream WanIC-520 interface cards Message-ID: <003101c1579f$750d3160$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com> In-Reply-To: <200110172331.f9HNVNb56638@whizzo.transsys.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>-----Original Message----- >From: louie@whizzo.transsys.com [mailto:louie@whizzo.transsys.com]On >Behalf Of Louis A. Mamakos >Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 4:31 PM >To: Ted Mittelstaedt >Cc: void; Matt Dillon; Bsdguru@aol.com; hackers@FreeBSD.ORG >Subject: Re: Imagestream WanIC-520 interface cards > > > >> I am perfectly aware of this. >> >> The RBOCs deserved to have those "fines" levied against them for a number >> of years, to punish them for attempting to block the CLECs. However, it's >> been long enough for this, and in fact the money from the RBOCs is >no longer >> being used to increase the CLEC's reach or service area (ie: >infrastructure) >> and being used by the CLECS to bash each other, instead of bashing the >> RBOCS. > >The recip-comp charges have nothing to do with extending the reach of >a CLEC's network. It's (supposed) to cover the cost of carrying or >terminating an inbound POTS voice call. Back up a sec - the reason that Bellcore was busted up is because the trust people claimed that CLECs could provide voice dialup better and cheaper than ILECS by the sheer fact that they were competitive. The FCC has always pushed as hard as it could to give CLECs an advantage over RBOCS to promote competition. The RBOCS forced the call term charges as a fairness issue. Once it was discovered that the cash transfer was going towards the CLECS from the ILECS, the FCC couldn't have been happier. They never wanted things to be fair in the first place between the CLECS and the RBOCS. By the pro-breakup people's definition, the CLECS incur less cost than the RBOCS for terminating a call. If this was a fairness issue then the RBOCS would only have to pay the CLECS the actual cost incurred by the more efficient CLECS for the call term. But instead they pay what it costs the RBOCS to terminate a call (which is higher according to the pro-breakup people's definition) Now, obviously it's hard to know what the truth is because the entire point of Telco accounting is to so confuse the numbers that the PUC's and the FCC and all the other governmental regulators are so baffled by them that they pretty much throw their hands up in the air and accept whatever bullshit the phone companies care to dish out. Telco accounting is the science of making an absolute into a negotiated item. > >Huh? You might also explain the situation as subsidizing the cost >of providing Internet service. It's revenue coming into the business >which would otherwise need to come from some other source, such as the >customers. > And of course the entire point of running a Telco is to not make a profit by the customers that are supposedly paying you for the service your supposedly giving, but to screw everyone else in the business that's otherwise totally unaffiliated into paying for your customers. Yes, I know all about that. :-( >There are lots of other examples of charges and tariffs which telecom >carriers charge each other because of the bizzare reality set up by >FCC regulations. You simply siezed upon one with contemporary sex-appeal. > >If you want to rant about something, go take a look at how half-circuit >pricing is done for international private lines. Don't even get me started. There's a huge litany. Like, why are T1 charges so gouging yet DSL (which delivers more bandwidth in some cases) so rediculously low. Like, why is each trunk on a T1 charged at nearly the same rate as if it were provided by POTS yet it costs the phone company 10% of the expense to deliver trunks over T1 than POTS. Like why is mileage charges allowed in a calling area when it costs the phone company exactly the same amount to run a T1 5 miles as it does to run it 1 mile (and in some cases the CO is 4 miles from both endpoints so the total line length is 8 miles but they still only charge for 5) >You think the US >carriers are evil, go see what state-supported telecom monopolies get >to do. Or the hoops which much be jumped through to get licenses to >operate telecom, datacom, or Internet lines of business in some >countries around the world. > Ah - you mean like China. Don't forget all the state-sponsored porno filtering of the Internet feeds into Iran either. Yes there are some very nasty and greedy people in the world. Frankly, as long as the CLECs and ILECS are using the FCC to beat each other over the heads, I could care less. What I get mad about is that the CLECS seem to have given up fighting with the RBOCS and are turning against the ISPs. It's like they turn around and start bullying the ISP's simply because the ISP's are weaker than they are. Yet it was those ISP's that got the recipri-comp payments wacked out in the CLECs favor to start with. That's gratitude for you. Ted Mittelstaedt tedm@toybox.placo.com Author of: The FreeBSD Corporate Networker's Guide Book website: http://www.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?003101c1579f$750d3160$1401a8c0>