The bigger AT&T gets, the older Qwest gets and the more Sprint is associated with them, the more unpopular it gets to defend their policies. Defending them pits someone like me against the radicals of the Internet and brands me as a backwards Bell head, a supporter of a dying industry that is best forgotten--and the sooner the better. After all, who needs that old infrastructure when we have the Internet?

I won't get into what a stupid concept that is, but here I go again, defending the big bad Bell companies. But this time, such a defense comes with a double whammy of unpopularity, because it's not just the Internet crowd taking an anti-establishment stance; this time the rural telcos in Iowa have joined them. What strange bedfellows.

The article below defines the latest clash between application providers and network providers and between rural and Tier 1 telcos that has spilled over into the courts. I have to hand it to the telcos of Iowa and the folks at FreeConferenceCall.com--whom I characterize as Internet-heads even though the service they provide utilizes the circuit switched network--because they saw a need, they saw the loophole and they exploited it. That's businesses.

However, I won't spend time on FreeConferenceCall.com because in the blink of a tele-historical eye they'll be gone. Instead, I question the strategy of the independent telcos of Iowa. And mostly it's their timing I question. It's always been fun for them and other independent telcos to tweak the noses of the RBOCs any chance they could get, and it’s only right that they get compensated as handsomely as possible for providing that last-mile connection across rural America.

But is now the time to get into a manufactured confrontation over access charges? They had to know their little workaround would create a stir. They had to know that there is no such thing as a free lunch. With all the decisions about Universal Service Funding and inter-carrier compensation being pondered by the FCC as we speak, it just seems the wrong time to draw attention to the prices some of these telcos charge for access. And it comes at a time when those who see the future clearly are making honest efforts to build business models that rely less on this form of compensation.

Perhaps it’s payback for all the revenue independent telcos are losing to the underhanded practice of phantom calling perpetrated by the Tier 1 carriers, and perhaps it will draw that issue into the argument, which would be a good thing. But independents shouldn't want to be seen at this time as taking advantage of the compensation rules defined by the FCC when the FCC is currently reconsidering them.

The tugging-at-the-heartstrings stories about non-profit organizations and health care facilities relying on this free service will only go so far. Routing calls through a rural network gateway regardless of final termination is either a legitimate practice or it isn't. The FCC will have to decide. And what kind of taste will they have in their mouths as they then tackle the overall compensation issue?

Unfortunately for AT&T, win or lose, the Internet crowd will jump all over this as an example of how Tier 1 carriers will control Internet access if Net neutrality rules are not adopted. The two cases are not even remotely similar.

The new print issue of the Independent hits the streets today, so be sure to check online for the latest news and analysis.

E-mail me at tmcelligott@telephonyonline.com.