RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | reply to dadkins
Re: No 900? 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. |
|
JJVPremium
join:2001-04-25
Seattle, WA | reply to rradina
I cant reach any of those numbers from my sprint cell phone.
Vonage works fine. |
|
 ff1324Everybody Goes HomePremium
join:2002-08-24
On Four Day
 ·AT&T Southwest
| reply to RadioDoc
He's talking about Ed Whitacre...quoting him actually.
»www.businessweek.com/@@n34h*IUQu···8092.htm
FTA: How concerned are you about Internet upstarts like Google (GOOG ), MSN, Vonage, and others?
How do you think they're going to get to customers? Through a broadband pipe. Cable companies have them. We have them. 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? --
The funny thing about firemen...night and day they're always firemen
»www.stlfire.com |
|
