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

reply to rradina

Re: No 900?

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.