North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: C&W Peering Problem?
Also sprach Sean Donelan >On Fri, 01 June 2001, "Scott Patterson" wrote: >> Point C says 2:1, but D says they don't care in which direction its >> in, it just has to be balanced. >I wonder how is the end of reciprocal compensation going to affect >large dial modem pool providers (e.g. UUNET, Genuity). Well...first off...the elimination of recip. comp. for ISP-bound calls is a collosal screw-up by the FCC. They need to get smacked around hard for that one. Now then...the only change it will really cause for large modem pool providers will be that the trunks that these modem pool providers get, whether its a big PRI group, or trunk groups with SS7, or whatever, will go up in price some to compensate for the lack of cost recovery from recip. comp. by CLECs. Of course, if the modem pool provider is getting trunks from the ILEC, then nothing much will change at all, since the ILECs will continue their typical anti-competitive actions without much change. >Should UUNET compensate the LEC for all that inbound traffic to their >modem pools at a few cents per minute. Obviously the traffic is >extremely imbalanced, so why should UUNET get a free ride on the LEC's >network? UUNET is paying for the trunks to the LEC (C or I), they aren't getting a free ride. To say they are getting a free ride is at least as equally as specious of an argument as the ILECs arguing that the CLECs are getting a free ride for the ISP-bound traffic with recip. comp. But then again...given IgLou's experience fighting BellSouth...I've learned not to expect well-formed logical arguments from ILECs. -- Jeff McAdams Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Head Network Administrator Voice: (502) 966-3848 IgLou Internet Services (800) 436-4456