Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Verizon Ruling May Tax Dial-Up Customers 147

cellocgw writes "The Boston Globe is reporting that a court ruling in Verizon's favor could effectively allow phone companies to charge dial-up users on a per-minute basis." From the article: "About 68 percent of US internet users now connect via broadband, according to the latest data from Neilsen//NetRatings. That still leaves millions of users connecting the old way, in which modems in their home call local numbers over a telephone line to access the Internet. Precisely how many people were affected by the court ruling is unknown. Good said the number was in the thousands, but that Global NAPs did not have exact numbers and could not disclose the identities of all the companies that relied on Global NAPs for dial-up numbers."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Verizon Ruling May Tax Dial-Up Customers

Comments Filter:
  • more information (Score:5, Informative)

    by stoolpigeon ( 454276 ) * <bittercode@gmail> on Friday April 28, 2006 @07:02PM (#15224610) Homepage Journal
    if you are like me, and found that reading the article didn't really help explain the situation, i found that this legal document [findlaw.com] really helped. i didn't follow every bit of it, but it does present a surprisingly readable history of the case and the issues.
  • Re:DSL Lines (Score:5, Informative)

    by Geekboy(Wizard) ( 87906 ) <(spambox) (at) (theapt.org)> on Friday April 28, 2006 @07:08PM (#15224651) Homepage Journal
    No, DSL lines are not dialing a number. They are point to point links.
  • title misleading (Score:2, Informative)

    by chriscappuccio ( 80696 ) on Friday April 28, 2006 @07:13PM (#15224671) Homepage
    GNAPS and others are using a loophole of sorts to provide free 800#s within LATA boundaries. The phone companies finally started to close the loophole, presumably they want to boost their own dialup revenue since they will be the only dialup alternative in the very small towns where it is not financially feasible for a real company to put in dialup modems.
  • i'm not sure that is right. it looks like global naps is using these vnxx numbers so that the person doesn't need to pay out of area charges on the call. and verizon is saying that global naps should pay that charge. global naps didn't think they should have to, but so far haven't found an arbitrator or court who agrees with them.
  • Re:DSL Lines (Score:3, Informative)

    by Chirs ( 87576 ) on Friday April 28, 2006 @07:21PM (#15224710)
    If "they" say that, then "they" are full of it.

    DSL links are always connected. Your computer (or router/firewall) may need to periodically refresh/obtain a DHCP lease, but the link itself is always up.
  • by fm6 ( 162816 ) on Friday April 28, 2006 @07:22PM (#15224723) Homepage Journal
    As it says somewhere in the FAQs, Slashdot is a U.S. web site and assumes its readers know stuff that U.S. readers know. And yes, most residential users in the U.S. don't pay per-minute charges for local calls.
  • by stoolpigeon ( 454276 ) * <bittercode@gmail> on Friday April 28, 2006 @07:22PM (#15224724) Homepage Journal
    local calls are. calls out of your area are not. global NAPs had a method that allowed isp customers to make out of area calls without having to pay the charges. verizon basically said that global naps needed to pay those fees, global naps disagreed. this goes back 4 years i think, and the amount owed has grown and finally global naps was shut down as they keep losing in court and not paying.
  • Re:DSL Lines (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 28, 2006 @07:22PM (#15224725)
    The DSL modem does not need to "redial". There is no dialing happening in the first place. The DSL line operating at Layer 1 (and 2 I believe) is established 24/7 between the end-user's modem and the DSLAM at the Central Office. The only thing that you see that is similar to dialing is the PPPoE connection made by the router (and is commonly part of a modem/router combo) but it only operates at Layer 2 and above.
  • Read the ruling... (Score:5, Informative)

    by storm_guardian ( 687284 ) on Friday April 28, 2006 @07:36PM (#15224786)
    Much as it's nice to blame Verizon for everything, it looks as if they have a case this time. Basically, this is about virtual numbers where the ISP has no physical presence in a local calling area, but instead pays the phone company to route the calls elsewhere. Effectively, the ISP is asking Verizon to route calls from (say) Cape Cod to Boston without paying usage charges. As the original article implies, the unfortunate side-effect of the ruling is that people in rural areas may have to pay long distance charges to access their ISP.
  • Re:more information (Score:3, Informative)

    by DragonWriter ( 970822 ) on Friday April 28, 2006 @07:43PM (#15224811)

    If I read that right, Global NAPs acts as a telephone service provider and offers "local" numbers that aren't actually physically in the exchange area they are logically in (mostly to ISPs). Because (for reasons I don't understand) with these local-but-not-really calls the originating local carrier pays the receiving local carrier on a per minute basis, Global NAPs has previously been getting paid by Verizon by the minute for these calls.

    This ruling allows a state regulatory action to stand which would change that arrangement so that Global NAPs would pay Verizon for those calls, rather than vice versa.

    It certainly does not allow Verizon to charge dialup users on a per minute basis; it allows Verizon to charge Global NAPs -- the ISPs phone company -- on a per minute basis, rather than vice versa, for the calls.

    Now, of course, this (if other states follow suit) is likely substantially discourage companies from providing virtual local numbers for ISPs, which could well adversely effect the dialup market [especially the big national and regional dialup ISPs -- the surviving local dialups might rely more on real rather than virtual local numbers, and not be hurt at all], but its hardly a tax on dialup users, as such.

  • Re:So what (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 28, 2006 @07:46PM (#15224823)
    Yeah, OK. Did you also pay $30+/month fixed for the local phone service?

    In the US just to have a phone number you pay $30+ which generally gives you local phone service, local meaning your neighborhood not necessarily the entire city. Anything besides that costs additional to the $30+.

  • by Shishak ( 12540 ) on Friday April 28, 2006 @07:54PM (#15224882) Homepage
    For local calls there are 2 carriers involved. The originating carrier and the terminating carrier. For local calls the originating carrier pays the terminating carrier a small amount per minute to terminate the call. This is called Reciprical compensation

    For long distance (LD) calls there are 3 carriers involved. The originating carrier, the terminating carrier and the Inter eXchange Carrier (IXC). For LD calls the IXC bills the customer and pays the originating carrier and the terminating carrier a slightly bigger amount per minute. This is call Access Charges.

    The problem arose when the FCC determined that Internet traffic, including dialup is considered interexchange traffic and is therefore considered LD calls. The way GNaps operated they established local phone numbers in every rate center in a LATA. That would allow the dialup user to dial a local (aka toll free) phone number. Just because the call is 'local' doesn't make it truly local. The call, according to the FCC is 'long distance' and because of that the originating carrier (Verizon in this case) is owed money by the terminating carrier (Global NAPs) that was acting as an IXC.

    One of the issues in the law suit was that Verizon was billing GlobalNAPs access charges based off the MA state tariff while GNAPs said they should be billing off the FCC Federal Tariff. The MA state tariff is an order of magnitude more expensive than the federal tariff.

    In any event, I had less than 24 hours notice and this 'event' knocked 5000 of my dialup users offline for almost a day. Luckily I could port my numbers to another carrier quickly
  • The Real Deal (Score:5, Informative)

    by Spazmania ( 174582 ) on Friday April 28, 2006 @11:09PM (#15225620) Homepage
    So here's the story. Its been a while since I've heard it so I may have some of the details wrong, but this is what happened:

    First, rewind about 2 decades to the breakup of AT&T and the very beginnings of competitive local phone service. Or rather what would have been the beginning... the regional bell operating companies (RBOCs) didn't want any competition.

    A couple companies said, "Look, we're going to sell phone service to this office building over here. You Mr. RBOC have to provide us with access to the local phone network." The RBOCs like Verizon said, "We don't want to. These bozos should have to buy service per-minute just like the long distance comanies. Otherwise they'll flood our network with free calls and the residential consumer who doesn't have a hundred phone lines will get stuck holding the bag."

    That didn't fly in court so the RBOCs came up with a hairbrained scheme called "reciprocal remuneration": Anybody could be a competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC) but the carrier who originates a call would have to pay the carrier who receives the call a per-minute charge. Its "fair" since either company has to play by the same rules, but if you cherry-pick that office building over there, their outbound calls will exceed the received calls and you, Mr. CLEC, will pay a mountain of money to Ma Bell. So sorry. Buh bye.

    This twistedly clever strategy backfired. Do you see the problem yet?

    Along comes the commercial Internet. Suddenly there are scores of companies with a very special need: They have to receive a large number of phone calls 24 hours a day while originating none. Its an ISP with dialup modem banks. And along come companies like Global NAPs who know the phone company rules. What do you think they did?

    That's right. They went and wired the ISPs on the cheap -- sometimes as little as a tenth of what the RBOC charged. Why would they do such a thing? Because all the calls were inbound. Every time Joe Blow dialed his ISP and stayed connected for 18 days, GNAPS got to rape Verizon for a per-minute charge.

    And good for them. Verizon deserved it. Its always great to see a monopoly eat crow.

    After a number of successively more effective attempts, Verizon has closed the loophole.

    Since the AT&T breakup there have been buildings called "tandems" where the long distance carriers connect their phone lines to the RBOC. Each local calling area has several of these tandems. Now, if you're a CLEC you can go into Verizon's tandems and connect to Verizon. They pay their half, you pay yours and you can trade calls with all the phones served by that tandem. Which isn't the whole local calling area. If you want the whole calling area you have to go to all the tandems.

    Verizon, of course, will happily sell you a "virtual" presence in the other tandems where they carry the traffic back to the one tandem you connected to. They'll even sell you a virtual presence in all the tandems and carry your calls back to a connection in another state. For a fee.

    Bad news for GlobalNAPs. No more reciprocal remuneration, and worse they have to buy expensive infrastructure to multiple tandems or else pay for a virtual presence.

    They didn't want the gravy train to end so they went to court. They lost.

  • Some inside skinny (Score:5, Informative)

    by isdnip ( 49656 ) on Friday April 28, 2006 @11:25PM (#15225660)
    For the record, I have been involved with some, uh, related cases, and know Virtual NXX backwards and forwards....

    Remember the 1988 "modem tax"? That's exactly what this is about. The Massachusetts DTE has called for that exact charge, technically called originating access, to be applied to ISP-bound calls, if the modem is in a central location (as it always is) and the caller is not physically in the modem's local calling area. So the modem tax doesn't apply to callers who are local to Quincy (GNAPs) or another big modem bank, but would apply to most of the state, where the carrier hotels aren't.

    Now the sorded history in a nutshell...

    Global NAPs set up shop after the Telecom Act when its owners' ISP wanted to expand its local calling area. The normal way to do this was to buy Foreign Exchange lines, which NYNEX sold for about $20/mile/T1 (23-24 channels). The Telecom Act allowed open entry for competitors, and said that for local calls, the calling LEC (local exchange carrier) would pay the called LEC for its half of the call. This is called reciprocal compensation. Bell Atlantic actually asked the FCC for this; in a 1996 filing, they demanded it, and said that if CLECs (competitive LECs, what GNAPs is) didn't like it, they should look for customers who get more incoming calls, like ISPs. Really. So GNAPs took them at their word.

    Now Foreign Exchange lines are normally charged based on the distance between switches, not rate centers (billing points), and CLECs have one switch covering a lot of area, so the mileage is zero. That's what GNAPs, not to mention MFS-Worldcom, MCI, AT&T, Level 3, and various other companies, did. They could thus provide "local" dial-in numbers to ISPs. And they billed the incumbent telcos for reciprocal compenastion.

    Well, the incumbents were caught off guard. Not only didn't they like the Internet, but they really didn't expect it to catch on, and were blindsided by all of this dial-up traffic going to competitors. So they asked to change the rules, and get rid of reciprocal compensation on ISP-bound calls. Global NAPs was the lightning rod for this in Massachusetts, where it was the biggest modem-serving CLEC and its leadership, frankly, had a rather "in your face" style. The Republican-appointed state Commission (DTE) ruled against them in 1999, saying "no reciprocal comp for ISP-bound calls". (The "telecom commissioner" of that era has left the DTE, and has been spotted consultling for Verizon. Duh.) The Republican-appointed FCC in 2001 adopted that as a national policy, capping ISP-recip at $.0007/minute (about a quarter of the typical voice rate of about .2-.3c/min).

    Then around 2003, the Romney DTE pulled a stunt on GNAPs. CLECs and ILECs interconnect via contracts, which are arbitrated by state Commissions. Verizon decided to put in new wording that FX (and Virtual NXX, what GNAPs is -- it's FX when the LEC doesn't have live customers where the number is putatively billed as) calls are "toll" calls subject to "access" charges. GNAPs objected, but the DTE let that language in. And then said that while federal law allows CLECs to adopt other CLECs' contract terms, GNAPs couldn't, because arbitration is unescapable (a rather strange interpretation of the law). GNAPs said, however, that the FCC's assertion of federal authority over ISP-bound calls -- that's how they got rid of recip on a nationwide basis in 2001, over CLEC objections -- meant that the state couldn't declare them to subject to intrastate toll access charges. Most states have held that way, and I think the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld.

    So it was rather odd that the First Circuit ruled for Verizon, though it was on some legal technicalities that GNAPs wasn't really prepared for. That left GNAPs with a theoretical $45M or so back bill for this "modem tax" access charge. They wouldn't pay, so Verizon pulled the plug.

    Level 3 and some other CLECs still have different

Thus spake the master programmer: "After three days without programming, life becomes meaningless." -- Geoffrey James, "The Tao of Programming"

Working...