Frank, As I'm sure you're aware, the FCC's compensation scheme does not in any way relate to the media over which calls are delivered. The argument that migration to another technology for call completion would somehow change compensation is, in my view, FUD, designed to continue an outmoded interconnection scheme that tends to have higher start-up costs, thereby favoring incumbents. Ultimately, the FCC has made it clear, repeatedly, that they favor a bill and keep ICC scheme, regardless of technology. This scheme, which looks like email and will likely result in a continued increase in junk calls, makes the historical practice of funding higher cost (rural) implementations through ICC unworkable. Ultimately, I feel that the FCC is ignoring the difficult issues in order to placate a very limited number of large "sponsors." This is a problem for all remaining vendors, rural, IP, CLEC, or otherwise. Rural vendors would be well-suited to adopt better cost schemes where they can (including SIP-based interconnection) in order to limit the long-term damage done by regulators dis-interested in their problems. Just my perspective. -jbn