The Missoula plan is inherently flawed

October 28, 2006

“The Missoula plan is inherently flawed, extremely complex and would ultimately penalize Illinois consumers,” says ICC Commissioner Lula Ford. Read the rest of this entry »

Advertisements

Missoula plan documents

October 16, 2006

Here is an overview of documents found regarding the Missoula Plan for intercarrier compensation:

  • Posts on this site regarding Missoula Plan: link
  • Original filed plan:link
  • Comments on Mossoula Plan by supporters: link and link
  • Public notice to file comments: link
  • Commisioner briefing (good overview) from the National Regulatory Research institute: link
  • Missoula Plan workshop Illenois: link doc1 doc2
  • ATT Missoula plan presentation (powerpoint): link
  • Time Warner Telecom Missoula plan presentation (powerpoint): link
  • Illinois Attorney General: link
  • Comcast presentation: link
  • Level3 presentation: link
  • GVNW presentation: link

We try to keep this page updated so bookmark for reference. Leave a comment if you have more sources to share.

last update: oct 16th,2006


Missoula Plan ‘workshop’

September 23, 2006

Staff of the Illinois Commerce Commission will host a workshop on October 4, 2006 concerning the “Missoula Plan” for intercarrier compensation reform. See link

edit oct ’02: presentation documents here and here


Global Crossing supports Missoula plan

August 23, 2006

On Paul Kouroupa’s blog he explains his view (and Global Crossing’s view) of the Missoula Plan.
Here a brief quote from his blog:

I can’t speak as to why the other carriers supported this plan, but I can say that it is worthy of support, if for no other reason than this is the only comprehensive plan that delivers positive reform of a broken system. There are no other viable options. The industry cannot afford another five years of debate. It is time to embrace the Missoula Plan for what it is and accept the incremental improvement in the situation. Once rate unification is achieved, the rest becomes manageable and hopefully the Missoula Plan is accompanied by further reform of the universal service system.

Read the rest of his view on the Missoula plan here

Some other posts about the Missoula Plan


Boyle Objects to Missoula Plan

August 22, 2006

LINCOLN – Commissioner Anne Boyle of Omaha strenuously objected Tuesday to a plan currently before the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that she said would be unfair to Nebraska.

Boyle’s comments were directed at the intercarrier compensation reform plan which was developed through a series of workshops conducted by State Commissioners Larry Landis, Indiana and Ray Baum, Oregon who acted as facilitators between all telecommunication carriers in an attempt develop a fair compensation plan in a changing environment. The FCC’s comment period on the proposal, named the Missoula Plan after the Montana city where one of the workshop meetings was held, ends September 25.

Read more here and here


the Missoula Plan – $10 phone bill increase???

August 1, 2006

A plan has been released to raise the intercarrier compensation by a large group of state government and telecom providers. This will increase the fees of your phonebill by $3.50 per month per phone, and even up to $10 in four years.

The Intercarrier compensation is for carriers who pass calls from one netwrok to another carriers netwrok. The problem now is that with the increase in VoIP and cell phone calls the current system needs to be reformed, since these calls don’t have that charge.

Bad news is that the Missoula Plan (Missoula, AZ is where this was first discussed) consists of increasing the subscriber line charge on all US phone bills.

Fortunately there is some resistance to this plan: 

“NARUC has not taken a position on the substance of the Missoula Plan,” said the joint statement. “While the undersigned organizations and entities may not agree on every aspect of intercarrier compensation reform, they oppose the Missoula Plan. The undersigned parties agree that the Missoula Plan does not serve the interests of consumers because it does not adequately address, and in many cases would exacerbate, problems with the current intercarrier compensation and universal service systems – e.g., uneconomic regulatory distinctions and incentives for inefficiency. The wide diversity of stakeholders listed below demonstrates that, as filed, the Missoula Plan is not the appropriate vehicle for reforming the intercarrier compensation system and should not serve as the framework for future discussions. We look forward to the opportunity to participate in the FCC process to develop a plan that results in pro-competitive, pro-consumer intercarrier compensation reform.” 

Any comments?

Also see other posts about the Missoula Plan and see who is opposing or supporting, click here