North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: SBC/AT&T + Verizon/MCI Peering Restrictions
On Nov 2, 2005, at 9:36 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
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.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?
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.
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..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?
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).what these greedy <bleep>s want it a way to double bill. your analogy to the riaa/mpa desperation is apt.