| Steve & Susan 2005-05-22, 10:52 pm |
| On Sun, 22 May 2005 12:26:13 -0700, John Nelson
<DieSpammerDie@njabl.org> wrote:
>In article <rni191hogoj58flupakt8ij7adoocp3fmg@4ax.com>, smakky@spam.com
>says...
>
>I disagree. For the hundreds of start-up VOIP providers who will NOT be
>able to gain the mandated access, the implications are meaningful
>indeed.
Yes, this is of consequence to the VoIP providers. But the competitive
telephone industry is so fluid that it seems to run in cycles. Back in
the CLEC craze of about 1999 - 2000, we were barraged with
interconnection agreements (we require a contractual relationship to
send into the selective router). Nearly all of these have gone
bankrupt simply due to the competitive nature of their own industry.
Only a few remain.
We'll see how this endures - and what will happen once the ILECs feel
that piping broadband into everyone's home and replacing tip and ring
with a line-powered modem and POTS interface better meets long term
business. If that ever comes to fruition I've got to wonder what will
come of the smaller VoIP companies.
Don't get me wrong - I do appreciate the requirement to provide ANI/
ALI information, however Congress should have assessed the impact to
local governments in certain operating situations prior to turning
loose another free rider.
Steve
|