 dadkinsCan you do Blu?Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
kudos:18 | No 900? Sucks to be on AT&T!!! |
|
|
|
RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | You can get to 976 and 900 numbers as long as you pay your bill every month...
This conference call thing seems to be missing a bit of fact. Why the fuck should they care who you call as long as the bill gets paid, unless someone has been calling these and leaving them up for days at a time, which is a TOS violation on "unlimited" long distance plans.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
 batageekSlave To The DuopolyPremium
join:2003-01-25 | "Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it,"
"So there's going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they're using. Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?"
--
»www.tricitybroadband.com |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | reply to RadioDoc
According to »www.freeconference.com, the numbers being blocked are in area code 641. I Googled that and it's in central Iowa.
Specifically, they claim the following numbers may be blocked by AT&T, Cingular, Sprint and Qwest:
- 641-297-5400
- 641-297-5333
- 641-297-5500
- 641-297-5600
- 641-297-5700
- 641-297-5800
- 641-297-5900
I didn't know much about their service but apparently if you're willing to pay the long distance fee to access one of their non-800 numbers, the conference call is free. The only charge is what your LD carrier charges for the call. Their premium service offers an 800 number and charges the conference call facilitator .10/minute for each participant.
My guess is they are billing through AT&T to bill the facilitator's phone. If this is what's happening, perhaps too many facilitators have disputed the charge. Perhaps they thought it was "free" as the web site implies.
It's anything but free unless you use the standard service and have an unlimited LD plan.
Regardless, I don't have enough information to convict AT&T of any wrong doing. It seems suspicious that they would block access to the standard 641 numbers. That service seems legitimate unless there have been complaints that folks thought that too, was free. Again, if you don't have an unlimited LD plan, dialing 1+ the number is going to cost. |
|
| reply to RadioDoc
said by RadioDoc:This conference call thing seems to be missing a bit of fact. Why the fuck should they care who you call as long as the bill gets paid, unless someone has been calling these and leaving them up for days at a time, which is a TOS violation on "unlimited" long distance plans. Here is why:
The root of the dispute is the termination fees large telecom companies pay to small rural carriers to foot development of telecom service in low-population areas. Services such as FreeConference.com can set up agreements to drive services to the smaller carriers and bring them more money, while the major telecoms pay the bill. AT&T claims such moves are fraudulent and has sued a similar service, FuturePhone, in an attempt to recoup its losses.
Qwest, the local phone company in much of the West, also filed suit against FreeConference.com and FuturePhone, claiming that "untoward" and "inappropriate" traffic brought by the services and others like it cost it upwards of $10 to $15 million.
A writer for the TechDirt blog said that, "The problem isn't with these services, but the bad regulations that allowed the small telcos to charge crazy termination fees in the first place. If the big telcos have a problem with it, they should take it up with whoever put those laws in place." So, basically the Freconference.com service is doing deals with small telcos so that the regulatory environment allows them to push most of the costs on to the big telcos. They are taking advantage of the current regulatory system to be able to sell a very cheap service.
The best solution is more deregulation and a change in the termination agreements with small telcos so that they can't stick it to the big telcos. But all the big telco haters won't like that solution. So AT&T and Qwest are striking back where they can. That might drive it to the FCC for hearings. But then the big telcos get to lay out their case for changes to the termination charge system.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
| said by fAcEtIOUs:That might drive it to the FCC for hearings. But then the big telcos get to lay out their case for changes to the termination charge system. Yeah, that's the better solution. And I'm pretty sure this is why the FCC announced hearings on having auctions to decide who would operate local phone service in an area and what the termination fees would be.
You want to talk about inefficiencies and waste in the USF? This is a prime example of the sort of thing that goes on.
I seem to recall an article posted here a while back where someone got wind of proposed changes at the FCC and (of course) bashed the big telcos over it. I understand the suspicion, but these services are a big sign that the regulated termination fees in some of these rural areas are too high. |
|
 en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | reply to batageek
I think carriers can put blocks from your number to 900/976 numbers as they can stick a large $$$ on your personal bill (p0rn ?) »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premium-ra···e_number |
|
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
Years ago in the days when LATA's rule, I heard about Bell shutting down people who bought T-1s and used them to trunk calls across LATA's for unlicensed long distance. People complained that their cheap long distance was getting shut down. |
|
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
quote:
The problem isn't with these services, but the bad regulations that allowed the small telcos to charge crazy termination fees
I love when blog writers have no idea what they are talking about. These "bad regulations" were by and large negotiated by the large telcos to generate a revenue off the smaller phone companies.
As an oversimplified example I submit the following:
These termination fees are paid to the telco whos network the call ends on. So if a user of Small Phone Company, Inc. calls a user of AT&T, Small Phone Co., Inc. must pay a termination charge. If an AT&T user calls a Small Phone Co. user, AT&T pays Small Phone Co. Since Small Phone Co. has a smaller user base than AT&T at the end of the month Small Phone Co. usually has to pay AT&T the difference.
The smaller phone companies got smart and decided to create services that would generate a large number of incoming calls like chat lines, conference calls, ISPs, and more recently free international long distance. Clever!
Now more traffic comes in than out meaning big paychecks for Small Phone Co. Now that the shoe is on the other foot AT&T decides that the whole termination fee game is unfair and wants to take it's ball and go home.
So in a nutshell, when AT&T made money with these rules it was OK. When a small company tries to do it, they are taking advantage. Funny how that works. |
|
RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | reply to fAcEtIOUs
Yeah, I looked up the exchange for their numbers and found that they are using numbers from "Interstate 35 Telephone Company" in St. Mary's, IA.
Smells like the old payphone scam where you got paid 25 cents for every call made from "your" pay phone to an 800 number.
Still doesn't make it right to block the numbers, but these guys are working a scam.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | reply to batageek
said by batageek:"Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it," "So there's going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they're using. Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?" What the fuck are you talking about? This is about a broken compensation system, not some wet dream of yours.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
batageekSlave To The DuopolyPremium
join:2003-01-25 | reply to RadioDoc
Re: No 900? jesus dude...lighten up.
I was agreeing with you...
--
»www.tricitybroadband.com |
|
 dennismurphyPut me on hold? I'll put YOU on holdPremium
join:2002-11-19
Parsippany, NJ
 ·Verizon FiOS
 ·Optimum Online
| reply to mrbueno
Exactly. This is like in the Bad Old BBS Days, back when dialin modem banks ruled the world. Those were mostly inbound-only, which spawned a whole industry of small telcos who provided dialup service. Since they only received calls - never made them - they collected termination fees but never paid out. |
|
 kapilThe Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL | Yes, and Ameritech tried to get them shut down too. Someone needs to try and get AT&T shut down. |
|
 Farley3Holyshnikes
join:2002-01-23
Croswell, MI | said by kapil: Someone needs to try and get AT&T shut down. Please register. This site could use more fair and balanced posts like this one.
--
The exsistance of Flame throws says that at sometime, somewhere, someone said, ya know.. i really want to light that guy over there on fire but i just cant reach that far...
|
|
 qdemn7Smurf in My LoopPremium
join:2003-09-16
Fort Worth, TX | Re: No 900? said by RadioDoc:Try stating it next time instead of posting irrelevant, off-topic shit you post everywhere then. It's not off-topic, that's a quote from Ed Whitacre the head of AT&T in re Google and others being forced to pay to use his "pipes." Same Shit Different Verse
--
A faithful reading of the Constitution does not allow us to pick and choose from among rights we like or dislike, and we bolster our claim on other enumerated and unenumerated rights when we adopt an expansive view of liberty. |
|
bobnsri
join:2004-06-09
North Smithfield, RI | reply to dadkins
The "Ugly" Story About ATT Blocking Numbers For many years the IOWA phone companies named in the ATT (et al) suit were paid 5-cents per minute by LD Carriers to terminate calls on the local Iowa Telephone networks.
While most local carriers in the USA get less than a penny a minute to terminate a call, IOWA, due to the rural nature of the state, was tariffed at/around 5-cents per minute.
In reality, since IOWA companies COMPLETE more calls than ORIGINATE, they earned a few thousand dollar a month (profit) on termination fees.
This was legal and everyone, including ATT played by these rules.
For most consumers, the rate they were charged to call IOWA was much, much less than the termination fee ATT and others were charged.
(eg) Boston to Iowa 3-Cents Per Minute to Customer, yet ATT and others have to pay 5-cents per minute to the local companies to COMPLETE the call.
Consumers with UNLIMITED FREE long distance (ie) cell phones were KILLING ATT, Cingular, Verizon, etc.
Last summer, the carriers named in the suit, (Dixon, Superior Telephone, et al) unilaterally (and without tariff approval) raised the rate they charge to 14-cents per minute.
They got very, very greedy.
Soon ATT, which regularly paid thousands of dollars a month in termination fees, was dishing out $2-Million in fees.
IF, the local carriers had stuck to their tariffed price, ATT would NOT have a leg to stand on.
The local telcos SHARED their termination fees with FreeConference.
There were two ways FreeConference and the local telcos made money.
-If the call terminated on Freedom equipment in Iowa, the telco and Freedom split the 14-cents per minute termination fee.
-If someone called FreeConference to place an INTERNATIONAL call, Freedom would transmit the call via VOIP at less than a penny a minute.
So, if FreeConference was getting paid 7-cents a minute and the cost of VOIP outbound call was a penny a minute, FreeConference was making 6-cents a minute profit.
The local telco was also making 7-cents per minute.
The plan fell apart when the owner of FreeConference went on the ABC Evening News and said his company would "beat AT&T at their own game"
He gave dozens of interviews with tv stations and newspapers.
ATT got mad and sued.
Everyone is now suing everyone else.
The IOWA companies expect to settle with ATT et al without going to trial.
The presumption is:
-IOWA companies will NOT admit guilt.
-They will NOT be paid the termination fees that ATT still owes them for calls made to FreeConference.
-They will AGREE to resume their tariffed rate of 5-cents per minute to terminate calls.
Of course it goes without saying, ATT and all the others, DO NOT WANT TO PAY ANYONE, ANYTHING, to terminate their calls.
They want a free ride on the local networks.
Both sides here have some dirt on their hands.
Of course, ANY local phone company in America, legally CAN lease out, their lines to chat services and earn tons of money on termination fees.
THIS IS TOTALLY LEGAL since the calls TERMINATE at the local level.
They can also SHARE the termination fees, with the chat service, PROVIDED the chat service does not INITIATE an outbound call to CIRCUMVENT the tariff.
In some states, California (eg) the chatlines must be placed on a block of numbers that the local telco can BLOCK if a customer requests.
North Nevada Telco has been earning millions a year running chat lines that TERMINATE at their facilities.
They also do NOT charge MORE than the tariff rate to terminate calls.
The long distance companies are powerless to stop them. |
|
