how-to block ads
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
| | Re: No 900? 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 | |
|  | | Re: No 900? 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. | |
| | | 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. | |
| | | 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. | |
| |  dennismurphyPut me on hold? I'll put YOU on holdPremium
join:2002-11-19
Parsippany, NJ
 ·Verizon FiOS
 ·Optimum Online
| Re: No 900? 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 | Re: No 900? 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 | Re: No 900? 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...
| |
|
| | | |
Dialup modem banks never really took off as a service offering until the telcom act of 96. BBS operators weren't ISPs as we currently think of them. Unless you are thinking of the Giffy Girls type crap advertised in the back of PC world...
In 96, the BOCs, like Microsoft, thought nothing of the internet. They said "ok MS CLEC, we'll exchange local traffic with you at X per minute". The CLEC, recognizing that they were in start up mode, couldn't possibly generate more minutes terminating at the BOC than they could terminate at the BOC.
\Big Idea\
The CLECs began chasing after the growing dial up ISP market by offering sweet deals for "managed modem services". All calls became outbound to the CLEC.
The BOCs cried.."foul".
Not to interested at the moment to continue, but the jist of it is that our beloved internet access, voip and calling cards, and soon video all hang off the same arbitrage games.
If Level3 were sold off to a BOC tomorrow, who will provide the mass market termination services? (maybe the BOCs will finally compete due to VOIP?)
Fun Fact for the Day:
First ten calls this morning resulted in "all circuits busy". First time I've heard that in over ten years..short of calling the local radio station for free stuff. | |
|
RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | 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. | |
| | | Eliminate that ridiculous USF fund.
It does sound like the company is misusing the system. I don't get blocking cell phones though. I can see blocking landlines when people are misusing their unlimited ld plans but not if they pay by the minute. | |
|
| |
|
