Re: Dial-up Provider Loses Net Access Amid Fee Dispute / Ruling

Dial-up provider loses Net access amid fee dispute

> Ruling favoring Verizon may hike price of service > By Keith Reed, Globe Staff > Service to thousands of dial-up Internet users in Massachusetts was > disrupted this week after a federal court ruled against a Quincy > company in a lawsuit that could have broad impact on the cost of > dial-up service. > The US Court of Appeals in Boston ruled April 11 that Verizon > Communications Inc. can charge per-minute fees for calls to local > numbers that dial-up users need to connect to the Internet -- in much > the same way that they charge for long-distance or other calls. > The ruling came after Verizon sued Global NAPs Inc., a Quincy company > that supplies local numbers to 28 Internet service providers for use > by their dial-up customers.

I don't understand this. Aren't the fees based on the telephone customer's calling plan? The unlimited calling plans in MA list the exchanges that you can call within your flat rate.

Verizon claims it is owed more than $65 million by Global NAPs.

What does this have to do with how Verizon charges their customers?

Barry Margolin, Arlington, MA

*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me *** *** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group *** [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think Verizon believes Global NAPs Inc. is a subscriber to their telephone service (via the dial up numbers used by Global NAP end user customers.) Does Verizon in MA offer unlimited flat rate service to businesses or just to resiences? If Verizon offers unlimited flat rate service plans to everyone, then it should not matter. If they only offer unlimited flat rate service plans to residential customers (i.e. the end users of Global) then it still should not matter. I suspect Verizon is annoyed about the amount of service being consumed by the end users. PAT]
Reply to
Barry Margolin
Loading thread data ... Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.