C&W Peering Problem?

Sat Jun 2 14:36:09 UTC 2001

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: jeffm at iglou.com
Head Network Administrator              Voice: (502) 966-3848
IgLou Internet Services                        (800) 436-4456