SBC/AT&T + Verizon/MCI Peering Restrictions

Wed Nov 2 15:12:36 UTC 2005

On Nov 2, 2005, at 9:36 AM, Randy Bush wrote:

> if i am a paying sbc or other foopoloy voice customer, and i
> place a voice call to aunt tillie, does aunt tillie pay sbc
> to hold up her end of the conversation?

No, but they pay their local carrier.  And somewhere there's an IXC  
in the middle.  And settlement happens.  Access charges, LD charges  
and all.  Hell, they even bill their customers on behalf of all those  
other guys.  And they all want access charges (remember the fights a  
few years back?), and then they want a cut what goes over the pipe  
which the access charges just enabled.  And I stand here shaking my  
head, going blblblblblb, wtf.

All because they don't want and can't (sic) accept that the pipes r  
us business has been commoditized and evolution must happen for them  
to get money out of other services.

Now, if they made bw free, and wanted a cut from the transaction.. I  
don't think anyone would object.  Pull up the recent balance sheets  
and see how much money you'd have to make up to cover the gap. Ooof.

> if i am a paying sbc or other foopoloy dsl customer and i go
> to <http://content.provider>, why should content.provider pay
> to give the sbc paying customer what they're already charged
> for?

That's my precisely my point as well.  It's nutty.  There are several  
people reading along here who saw first hand with me what sort of  
curious models this brought to light..

> what these greedy <bleep>s want it a way to double bill.
> your analogy to the riaa/mpa desperation is apt.

Thanks.  And tomorrow we'll all wonder out loud why all these guys  
haven't been poaching customers in the other's backyard thus far in  
what's basically been a decade now since 1996, in spite of having  
hardly any regulatory restraints placed on them (about which they  
bitch so loudly at home).

;-)

Best regards,
Christian