>> Without an unfettered supply of phone numbers from NANPA, SBC IP
>> argues, it and other carriers' rollouts of Net phone service will be
>> hampered.
> Employees of Vonage, VoicePulse and other VoIP services would laugh
> at that. SBC continues as the absolute lamest telecom company in
> existence.
Oh, you just don't understand. The RBOCs have always had a
sooper-sekrit agreement that they won't invade each other's
territories. For example, a few years back they were all complaining
that the wholesale rates for CLECs that wanted to resell local phone
service were so low that they were below cost. So someone asked the
obvious question: If they're that low, why aren't you making big buck$
reselling each other's services, since you just told us that would be
more profitable than selling your own? The only answer was a fairly
sniffy "we don't do that."
So they can't file as CLECs in each other's territories since We Don't
Do That. They sure don't want to buy service through existing CLECs
as Vonage et al do, since those are the very same CLECs they've been
shafting for the past decade or two who would be unlikely to pass up
an opportunity to turn the tables.
What's a poor RBOC to do? Go whine to the FCC and hope that Chairman
Mike will make things all better. He's always given them all of the
nonsense they wanted in the past. Why should he stop now?
John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 330 5711
XXXX@XXXXX.COM , Mayor, http://johnlevine.com,
Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Was anyone else as amused as I was by
hearing SBC referred to in the header as a 'VOIP Firm'? So now that
they have called the shots for so many years, all of a sudden they
want to be known as an underdog? Poor, pitiful, put upon SBC! PAT]