Can AT&T Block Access To Numbers It Doesn't Like? > No 900?

reply to JJV

Re: No 900?

Interesting observation. It would be interesting to know if I35 is connected with freeconference.com. That would explain a lot. Still not illegal and as I said in another reply to this thread, it seems very risky for them to block numbers without going through proper legal channels. I suppose AT&T and the rest feel their charter permits them to do this but I would think the proper course would be for consumers to appeal to their state's AG and only after proper court cases had been won would the court order the carriers to block the numbers.

Obviously there are lots of assumptions here but this is not unlike a farmer putting a damn on the creek running through his property to deny the downstream farmer.

Generally, blocking traffic has been shot down, as in the Madison River case at the FCC and the Volcano Telephone case at the California PUC.

For non-Iowans, however, this is interstate traffic, and the complaint route is through the FCC....

calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies!

Again, lots of assumptions here but I was coming at this from those who lodged enough complaints to the telcos that the telcos decided to take their own action to block the numbers.

If I was misled into calling an LD number I thought was free (is that an oxymoron?), I can complain to the telco and even refuse to pay my bill. However, unless I claim I did not make the calls, is my beef with the telco? Isn't my beef with freeconference.com as a business with a misleading product?

Consider a company called "Free Energy" that gives away fancy-looking power strips. Even though I have to plug the strip into an outlet, does the name make me think I'm getting free energy? If I'm stunned by my next electric bill, is my beef with the electric company? Granted, perhaps "Free Energy" has a partnership with my electric company as I35 does with freeconference but at the end of the day am I just incredibly gullible?

It just seems odd that the telcos would decide to take action on their own. I would think the only time they can block numbers is if by leaving them active they are jeopardizing the technical infrastructure of their network -- much like ISPs block DDOS attacks to protect their network.

If these numbers were not such a threat, I would think a regulatory body of some kind would have to win a court case to block the numbers. Even then I wouldn't think the court would order the numbers blocked. The court would probably order the business to shut down its service or more explicitly declare it's not a free conference.

Based on the information at hand, it seems wrong that all the telcos would block access to plain old LD numbers. Even if I35 and freeconference.com are in cahoots, their business plan doesn't seem illegal. As you said, they just figured out how to reverse the extortion rules built into the 1996 TA.

yea but if freeconference.com bills through telco that's where I think the problem comes in.

Most LD and other telco type of services bill through the telephone company.

If that's what you are thinking.

rradina, freeconferencecall.com is quite clear that it's the conference bridge that's free, not the LD call to reach it. Maybe their ads seem misleading to you (not to me) but by the time you've read enough of their website to set up the conference call, you understand that you and your other callers will be paying the LD call to get to the bridge.

In no way is this some effort by large telcos to "protect" consumers. All it is is a way to avoid paying fees that the large telcos are not only obligated to pay, but fees that the large telcos invented, nurtured, and used themselves to strangle other telephone companies. This includes the fact that some charges have been wildly inflated since deregulation--as if the large telcos haven't done enough of THAT themselves.

I believe access charges were economically and philosophically wrong when instituted and remain wrong--but that doesn't change my view that since they are legal, the big telcos should pay them just like everybody else.

calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies!

reply to David
My understanding is that freeconference.com only bill charges for the premium service. The free service is free with the exception that the participants have to call a 641 number. The 641 numbers are the numbers the ILECs blocked and I'm trying to figure out what kind of justification the ILECs used to block a standard 641 area code number from which there are no extra bill back charges (according to freeconference.com's site -- they don't care what you pay to your LD provider to call this number.)

If you use the premium service, the participants call an 800 number (so it's free for them) and for these costs, I believe they do use the telco billing system to charge your number for each participant minute. But the ILECs didn't block the 800 number, did they?

not sure, I wouldn't think so, I would say try it.

reply to calvoiper
I totally agree that they are clear. Again, I'm trying to play dumb and assume folks complained and that's why the numbers were blocked. You may be right with respect to the telcos getting pissed at large I35 interconnect fees, but I don't have enough information to know if that's the real situation.

It certainly wouldn't surprise me. The hatred for my ILEC has brewed for decades. It started after college when I paid $50/number to move to the apartment across the hall. The hatred was permanent when I moved across the street and my prefix changed to a new higher-priced MCA plan. Same street, same city, same service, new higher priced plan. When I asked to have the MCA plan removed, they told me I could not keep my number. I almost exploded.

Regardless, I still cannot believe they can just block numbers at will without going through the proper legal channels.