site Search:


 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery






how-to block ads


 
Search Topic:
Uniqs:
97221
Share Topic
Posting?
Post a:
Post a:
Links: ·ALL ·VoIP FAQ ·VoIP Reviews ·MJ Forum FAQ ·VoIP Overview
page: 1 · 2 · 3 ... 36 · 37 · 38 · 39
AuthorAll Replies

TProphet

join:2008-10-29
Renton, WA

reply to DrStrange

Re: HELP- Magic Jack can't call local ISP area code

Everything I tried in Alaska two days ago was blocked - looks like the whole state is blocked. I can do some testing in the next couple of days to find out for sure.


DrStrange
Technically feasible
Premium
join:2001-07-23
West Hartford, CT
kudos:1

reply to GaryT2
OK. I found a year-old list that looks a bit more recent than what was posted. Here goes:

 Here's what should be a complete list of prefixes blocked by Magicjack, as of 11/23/2010
 
 
*207-235-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Somerset Telephone/TDSTelecom in Carrabasset, ME
[note – 207-235-4xxx = CRC Communications of Maine, Inc. in Carrabasset, ME]
207-237-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Somerset Telephone/TDSTelecom in Bigelow, ME
207-246-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Somerset Telephone/TDSTelecom in Stratton, ME
*207-265-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Somerset Telephone/TDSTelecom in Kingfield, ME
[note – 207-265-6xxx are Verizon cell phones in Kingfield, ME – not sure if these are blocked?]
207-297-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Somerset Telephone/TDSTelecom in Coburn Gore, ME
207-338-xxxx [BLOCKED] = NO NEW ENGLAND TEL OP DBA FAIRPOINT COMM - ME (Fairpoint) in Belfast, ME
207-368-xxxx [BLOCKED] = NO NEW ENGLAND TEL OP DBA FAIRPOINT COMM - ME (Fairpoint) in Newport, ME
207-444-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Northland Telephone of Maine in Eagle Lake [Ft. Kent], ME
207-474-xxxx [BLOCKED] = NO NEW ENGLAND TEL OP DBA FAIRPOINT COMM - ME (Fairpoint) in Skowhegan, ME
*207-566-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Somerset Telephone/TDSTelecom in Embden Lake, ME
[note - – 207-566-4xxx = CRC Communications of Maine, Inc. in Embden Lake, ME]
207-585-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Somerset Telephone/TDSTelecom in Weld, ME
207-589-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Northland Telephone of Maine in Liberty, ME
207-628-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Somerset Telephone/TDSTelecom in North New Portland, ME
207-634-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Somerset Telephone/TDSTelecom in Norridgewock, ME
207-635-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Somerset Telephone/TDSTelecom in North Anson, ME
207-639-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Somerset Telephone/TDSTelecom in Phillips, ME
207-643-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Somerset Telephone/TDSTelecom in Solon, ME
207-652-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Somerset Telephone/TDSTelecom in New Vineyard, ME
207-667-xxxx [BLOCKED] = NO NEW ENGLAND TEL OP DBA FAIRPOINT COMM - ME (Fairpoint) in Ellsworth, ME
207-684-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Somerset Telephone/TDSTelecom in Strong, ME
207-732-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Mid Maine Telecom in West Enfield, ME
207-757-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Northland Telephone of Maine in Sherman Mills, ME
207-785-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Tidewater Telecom in Union, ME
207-834-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Northland Telephone of Maine in Fort Kent, ME
207-945-xxxx [BLOCKED] = NO NEW ENGLAND TEL OP DBA FAIRPOINT COMM - ME (Fairpoint) in Bangor, ME
207-948-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Unity Telephone Co in Unity, ME
 
 
217-226-xxxx [BLOCKED] = ILLINOIS CONSOLIDATED TELEPHONE CO. in Assumption, IL
217-227-xxxx [BLOCKED] = ILLINOIS CONSOLIDATED TELEPHONE CO. in Farmersville, IL
217-229-xxxx [BLOCKED] = ILLINOIS CONSOLIDATED TELEPHONE CO. in Raymond, IL
217-324-xxxx [BLOCKED] = ILLINOIS CONSOLIDATED TELEPHONE CO. in Litchfield, IL
*217-725-xxxx [BLOCKED?] = CELLCO PARTNERSHIP DBA VERIZON WIRELESS – IL in Springfield, IL
[note – original info was in error; used correct info for prefix given – not sure if this is really blocked?]
217-824-xxxx [BLOCKED] = ILLINOIS CONSOLIDATED TELEPHONE CO. in Taylorville, IL
 
218-238-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Loretel Systems Inc. in Lake Park, MN
218-243-xxxx [BLOCKED] = PAUL BUNYAN RURAL TELEPHONE COOPERATIVE in Puposky, MN
218-332-xxxx {BLOCKED] = Onvoy, Inc. in Fergus Falls, MN
[Note: 218-332-5xxx= Onvoy, Inc. in Fergus Falls, MN]
[ 218-332-7xxx = 360Networks (USA) Inc.- MN (360 Networks) in Fergus Falls, MN]
218-334-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Loretel Systems Inc. in Frazee, MN
218-335-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Qwest Corporation in Cass Lake, MN
218-346-xxxx [BLOCKED] = East Otter Tail Telephone Co. in Perham, MN
[Note: 218-335-5xxx = Onvoy, Inc. in Cass Lake, MN]
218-356-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Twin Valley – Ulen Telephone Co., Inc. in Gary, MN
218-363-xxxx [BLOCKED] = East Otter Tail Telephone Co. in Longville, MN
218-367-xxxx [BLOCKED] = East Otter Tail Telephone Co. in Ottertail, MN
218-375-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Callaway Telephone Exchange in Callaway, MN
218-385-xxxx [BLOCKED] = East Otter Tail Telephone Co. in New York Mills, MN
218-439-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Loretel Systems Inc. in Audubon, MN
218-444-xxxx [BLOCKED] = PAUL BUNYAN RURAL TELEPHONE COOP in Bemidji, MN
218-462-xxxx [BLOCKED] = East Otter Tail Telephone Co. in Deer Creek, MN
218-473-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Twin Valley – Ulen Telephone Co., Inc. in Waubun, MN
218-483-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Qwest Corporation in Hawley, MN
[ 218-483-7xxx = 360Networks (USA) Inc.- MN (360 Networks) in Hawley, MN]
218-547-xxxx [BLOCKED] = East Otter Tail Telephone Co. in Walker, MN
218-573-xxxx [BLOCKED] = East Otter Tail Telephone Co. in Osage, MN
218-583-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Qwest Corporation in Henning, MN
{Note: 218-583-1xxx = Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless MN (Verizon) in Henning, MN]
[ 218-583-7xxx = 360Networks (USA) Inc.- MN (360 Networks) in Henning, MN]
218-584-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Twin Valley – Ulen Telephone Co., Inc. in Twin Valley, MN
218-596-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Twin Valley – Ulen Telephone Co., Inc. in Ulen, MN
218-631-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Qwest Corporation in Wadena, MN
[Note: 218-631-6xxx = Bandwidth.com CLEC, LLC – MN in Wadena, MN]
[ 218-631-8xxx = Level 3 Communications, LLC – MN in Wadena, MN]
218-652-xxxx [BLOCKED] = East Otter Tail Telephone Co. in Nevis, MN
218-675-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Arvig Telephone Co. in Hackensack, MN
218-732 -xxxx [BLOCKED] = Qwest Corporation in Park Rapids, MN 
218-758-xxxx [BLOCKED] = East Otter Tail Telephone Co. in Dent, MN
218-844-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Tekster Communications, Inc. in Detroit Lakes, MN
218-846-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Qwest Corporation in Detroit Lakes, MN
[Note: 218-846-8xxx = Onvoy, Inc. in Detroit Lakes, MN]
218-847-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Qwest Corporation in Detroit Lakes, MN
218-863-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Loretel Systems Inc. in Pelican Rapids, MN
218-864-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Qwest Corporation in Battle Lake, MN
218-894-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Qwest Corporation in Staples, MN
[Note: 218-894-6xxx = Onvoy, Inc. in Staples, MN]
[ 218-894-7xxx = Level 3 Communications, LLC – MN in Staples, MN]
[ 218-894-8xxx = Qwest Corporation in Staples, MN]
218-924-xxxx [BLOCKED] = East Otter Tail Telephone Co. in Bertha, MN
218-935-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Qwest Corporation in Mahnomen, MN
[Note: 218-935-1xxx = Level 3 Communications, LLC – MN in Mahnomen, MN]
[ 218-935-3xxx = Onvoy, Inc. in Mahnomen, MN]
[ 218-935-7xxx = 360Networks (USA) Inc.- MN (360 Networks) in Mahnomen, MN]
218-983-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Twin Valley – Ulen Telephone Co., Inc. in White Earth, MN
 
251-540-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Gulf Telephone Co. dba Centurylink in Fort Morgan, AL
251-945-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Gulf Telephone Co. dba Centurylink in Silverhill, AL
251-942-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Gulf Telephone Co. dba Centurylink in Robertsdale, AL
251-946-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Gulf Telephone Co. dba Centurylink in Seminole, AL
251-947-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Gulf Telephone Co. dba Centurylink in Robertsdale, AL
251-948-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Gulf Telephone Co. dba Centurylink in Gulf Shores, AL
251-949-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Gulf Telephone Co. dba Centurylink in Bon Secour, AL
251-955-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Gulf Telephone Co. dba Centurylink in Foley, AL
251-960-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Gulf Telephone Co. dba Centurylink in Loxley, AL
251-964-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Gulf Telephone Co. dba Centurylink in Loxley, AL
251-965-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Gulf Telephone Co. dba Centurylink in Magnolia Springs, AL
251-967-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Gulf Telephone Co. dba Centurylink in Gulf Shores, AL
251-968-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Gulf Telephone Co. dba Centurylink in Gulf Shores, AL
251-974-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Gulf Telephone Co. dba Centurylink in Orange Beach, AL
251-980-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Gulf Telephone Co. dba Centurylink in Orange Beach, AL
251-981-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Gulf Telephone Co. dba Centurylink in Orange Beach, AL
251-986-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Gulf Telephone Co. dba Centurylink in Elberta, AL
251-987-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Gulf Telephone Co. dba Centurylink in Elberta, AL
251-988-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Gulf Telephone Co. dba Centurylink in Summerdale, AL
251-989-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Gulf Telephone Co. dba Centurylink in Summerdale, AL
 
270-396-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Brandenburg Phone Co. in Clarkson, KY
270-397-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Brandenburg Phone Co. in Leitchfield, KY
270-580-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Brandenburg Phone Co. in Hardinsburg, KY
270-902-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Brandenburg Phone Co. in McDaniels, KY
270-949-xxxx [WORKING] = Brandenburg Phone Co. in South Hardin, KY
270-982-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Brandenburg Phone Co. in Elizabethtown, KY
 
304-643-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Armstrong Telephone Co. in Harrisville, WV
304-869-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Armstrong Telephone Co. in Ellenboro, WV
 
315-265-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Verizon NY (Verizon) in Potsdam, NY
 
319-293-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Van Buren Telco in Keosauqua, Iowa
319-592-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Van Buren Telco in Bonaparte, Iowa
319-653-xxxx [BLOCKED] = IOWA TELECOMM SVCS DBA IOWA TELECOM - NORTH in Washington, IA
319-656-xxxx [BLOCKED] = KALONA COOPERATIVE TELEPHONE CO. in Kalona, IA
*319-668-xxxx [BLOCKED] = IOWA TELECOMM SVCS DBA IOWA TELECOM - NORTH in Williamsburg, IA
[Notes: 319-668-0xxx IOWA WIRELESS SERVICES, LP in Williamsburg, IA]
[ 319-668-4xxx MCC TELEPHONY OF IOWA, LLC in Williamsburg, IA]
[ 319-668-7 SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, L.P. - IA (Sprint) in Williamsburg, IA]
319-863-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Iowa Telecom (Now Windstream) in Washington, IA
 
320-676-xxxx [BLOCKED] = CITIZENS TELECOM CO MN-FRONTIER CITIZENS COM-MN (Frontier Communications) in Isle, MN
320-684-xxxx [BLOCKED] = CITIZENS TELECOM CO MN-FRONTIER CITIZENS COM-MN (Frontier Communications) in Malmo, MN
 
336-224-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Windstream Lexcom Communications, Inc. in Lexington, NC
 
360-945-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Whidbey Telephone Co. in Point Roberts, WA
 
412-254-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Intermedia Communications Inc. PA in Pittsburgh, PA
[412-254-1xxx = Fibernet Telecommunications of Pennsylvania LLC – PA in Pittsburgh, PA]
[412-254-3xxx = Bandwidth.com CLEC, LLC – PA in Pittsburgh, PA]
[412-254-4xxx = Bandwidth.com CLEC, LLC – PA in Pittsburgh, PA]
[412-254-5xxx = Compartners, LLC – PA in Pittsburgh, PA]
[412-254-6xxx = Bandwidth.com CLEC, LLC – PA in Pittsburgh, PA]
[412-254-7xxx = Nextel Communications, Inc. (Sprint) in Pittsburgh, PA]
[412-254-8xxx = Level 3 Communications, Inc. - PA in Pittsburgh, PA]
[412-254-9xxx = XO Communications Services, Inc. - PA in Pittsburgh, PA]
 
417-746-xxxx CenturyLink---- Norwood, Missouri
417-948-xxxx CenturyLink---- Vanzant, Missouri
417-926-xxxx CenturyLink---- Mountain Grove, Missouri
417-683-xxxx CenturyLink---- Ava, Missouri
 
435-462-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Central Utah Telephone Inc. in Mount Pleasant, UT
*435-705-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Nextel Communications, Inc. (Sprint) in St. George, UT
[notes: 435-705-1xxx = Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless (Verizon) in St. George, UT]
[ 435-705-2xxx = Qwest Corporation in St. George, UT]
[ 435-705-3xxx = Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless (Verizon) in St. George, UT]
[ 435-705-4xxx = Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless (Verizon) in St. George, UT]
[*WORKING* 435-705-5xxx = YMAX COMMUNICATIONS CORP. - UT [aka MagicJack] in St. George, UT – [I should hope!]
[ 435-705-8xxx = Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless (Verizon) in St. George, UT]
[ 435-705-9xxx = Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless (Verizon) in St. George, UT]
 
440-593-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Conneaut Telephone Co. in Conneaut, OH
440-594-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Conneaut Telephone Co. in Conneaut, OH
440-599-xxxx [BLOCKED] = CONNEAUT TELEPHONE CO. in Conneaut, OH
 
 
507-243-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Mid-Communications, Inc. dba Hickorytech in Madison Lake, MN
507-735-xxxx [BLOCKED] = NO INFO for this prefix!
 
509-657-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Pioneer Telephone Company in Endicott, WA
 
514-310-xxxx [BELL CANADA 7-DIGIT SERVICE; WON'T WORK OUTSIDE AC 514 or from VOIP] Bell Canada QC
 
518-392-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Taconic Telephone Co. In Chatham, NY
 
540-396-xxxx [BLOCKED] = MGW TELEPHONE COMPANY INC in McDowell, VA
540-468-xxxx [BLOCKED] = HIGHLAND TELEPHONE COOPERATIVE in Monterey, VA
540-939-xxxx [BLOCKED] = MGW TELEPHONE COMPANY INC in Deerfield, VA
540-949-xxxx [BLOCKED] = NTELOS TELEPHONE INC. in Waynesboro, VA
540-962-xxxx [BLOCKED] = NTELOS TELEPHONE INC. in Covington, VA
 
541-563-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Pioneer Telephone Cooperative in Waldport, OR
 
559-683-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Sierra Telephone Company, Inc. in Oakhurst, CA
559-692-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Sierra Telephone Company, Inc. in Oakhurst, CA
559-641-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Sierra Telephone Company, Inc. in Oakhurst, CA
 
563-544-xxxx {BLOCKED] = Ace Telephone Association – Iowa in New Albin, Iowa
563-873-xxxx [BLOCKED] = ALPINE COMMUNICATIONS, L.C. in McGregor, IA
563-964-xxxx [BLOCKED] = ALPINE COMMUNICATIONS, L.C. In Garnavillo, IA
 
*570-333 [BLOCKED] = COMMONWEALTH TELEPHONE COMPANY (Citizens Communications Company) in Center Moreland, PA
[notes: 570-333-6xxx = Core Communications – PA in Center Moreland, PA]
[ 570-333-7xxx = Comcast Business Communications, Inc. - PA (Comcast) in Center Moreland, PA]
*570-897 COMMONWEALTH TELEPHONE COMPANY = (Citizens Communications Company) in Portland, PA
[notes: 570-897-1xxx = CORE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. PA in Portland, PA]
 
573-439-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Mark Twain Rural Telephone Cooperative in Philadelphia, MO
 
601-936-xxxx [BLOCKED] = BELLSOUTH TELECOMM INC DBA SOUTH CENTRAL BELL TEL (Bellsouth) in Jackson, MS
 
603-362-xxxx [BLOCKED?] = NORTHERN NEW ENGLAND TEL dba FAIRPOINT COMMUNICATIONS in Atkinson, NH
[Note: 603-362-0xxx = Lightship Telecom, LLC – NH in Atkinson, NH]
[ 603-362-1xxx = Freedom Ring Communications, LLC in Atkinson, NH]
[ 603-362-2xxx = Bell Atlantic NYNEX Mobile (Verizon Wireless) in Atkinson, NH]
603-382-xxxx [WORKING] = NORTHERN NEW ENGLAND TEL. dba FAIRPOINT COMMUNICATIONS in Plaistow, NH
*reported working 2010-11-06
603-894-xxxx [WORKING] = NORTHERN NEW ENGLAND TEL. dba FAIRPOINT COMMUNICATIONS in Salem, NH
*reported working 2010-11-06
 
606-295-xxxx [WORKING] = LESLIE CO. TELEPHONE CO. in Canoe, KS
*reported working 2010-11-02
 
607-546-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Empire Telephone corp in Burdett, NY
 
608-324-xxxx [BLOCKED] = UTELCO, INC in Monroe, WI
608-325-xxxx [BLOCKED] = UTELCO, INC in Monroe, WI
608-328-xxxx [BLOCKED] = UTELCO, INC in Monroe, WI
608-329-xxxx [BLOCKED] = UTELCO (TDS Telecom) in Monroe, WI
608-527-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Mt. Vernon Telephone Co. in New Glarus, WI
 
610-381-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Palmerton Telephone Company in Kunkletown, PA
610-681-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Palmerton Telephone Company in Kresgeville, PA
 
620-496-xxxx [BLOCKED] = La Harpe Telephone Co. in La Harpe, KS [info corrected]
 
641-472-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Iowa Telecom (now Windstream) in Fairfield, IA
 
647-919-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Rogers Wireless in Toronto, ON [Canada]
 
660-423-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Mark Twain Rural Telephone Cooperative in Hurdland, MO
 
701-356-xxxx [WORKING] = IDEAONE TELECOM in Fargo, ND
701-463-xxxx [BLOCKED] = RESERVATION TELEPHONE COOPERATIVE in Garrison, ND
701-776-xxxx [BLOCKED] = NORTH DAKOTA TELEPHONE COMPANY in Rugby, ND
 
706-935-xxxx [BLOCKED] = RINGGOLD TELEPHONE COMPANY in Ringgold, GA
706-937-xxxx [BLOCKED] = RINGGOLD TELEPHONE COMPANY in Ringgold, GA
706-965-xxxx [BLOCKED] = RINGGOLD TELEPHONE COMPANY in Ringgold, GA
 
716-761-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Chautauqua & Erie Phone Corp. in Sherman, NY
 
724-423-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Citizens Telephone Company of Kecksburg in Kecksburg, PA
724-443-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Consolidated Communications of PA in Gibsonia, PA
724-444-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Consolidated Communications of PA in Gibsonia, PA
724-455-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Laurel Highland Phone Company in Indianhead, PA
724-742-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Consolidated Communications of PA in Criders Corners, PA
724-779-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Consolidated Communications of PA in Criders Corners, PA
724-804-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Consolidated Communications Enterprise Services - PA in Latrobe, PA
724-933-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Consolidated Communications of PA in Wexford, PA
724-934-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Consolidated Communications of PA in Wexford, PA
724-935-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Consolidated Communications of PA in Wexford, PA
 
765-675-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Tipton Telephone Co., Inc. in Tipton, IN
 
812-383-xxxx [BLOCKED] = SMITHVILLE TELEPHONE COMPANY in Hymera, IN
812-936-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Smithville Telephone Co. in French Lick, IN
 
850-283-xxxx [WORKING as of 11/23/2010] = GTC Inc. FL in Tyndall AFB, FL
850-286-xxxx [WORKING as of 11/23/2010] = GTC Inc. FL in Tyndall AFB, FL
 
907)XXX Alaska [yes, all of Alaska is blocked]
907-373-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Matanuska Telephone Association Inc. in Wasilla, AK [Watch out for Sarah, Dan!]
907-854-xxxx [BLOCKED] = NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC (AT&T Wireless) in Eagle River, AK
 
912-754-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Georgia Windstream, Inc. in Springfield, GA "
912-826-xxxx [BLOCKED] = Georgia Windstream, Inc. in Rincon, GA
 
931-752-xxxx [BLOCKED] = TWIN LAKES TELEPHONE COOPERATIVE CO in Jamestown, TN
 
941-861-xxxx [BLOCKED?]= Telcove Investment in Sarasota, FL
941-863-xxxx [BLOCKED] = [no carrier info!] in Miami, FL
 
 
 
 
 


TProphet

join:2008-10-29
Renton, WA

OK. Point Roberts, WA is now unblocked. Someone might have just filed a WUTC complaint on 509-657 being blocked. Note that if intrastate calls are blocked, you can file a complaint with your state PUC, and this tends to be much more effective than an FCC complaint.



DrStrange
Technically feasible
Premium
join:2001-07-23
West Hartford, CT
kudos:1

Thanks.

Updated 360-945-xxxx on the most current list I can find.



Calling VA

@comcast.net

Just signed up for Magicjack and looks like our Family in the 276-452-xxxx is blocked. That is Gate City, VA Local carrier is Scott County Telephone Cooperative.

So what do I need to do to see about getting it unblocked?



Gork
Ou812ic

join:2001-10-06
Bountiful, UT

reply to TProphet
RE: Alaska

I tried a number in Alaska a few months ago at 907-586-0xxx and it went through fine - I was happy! I think I posted something in this forum about it... But after reading your post, TProphet See Profile, I tried the number again just now. No go.



Lumberjack
Premium
join:2003-01-18
Newport News, VA
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

reply to Calling VA
There's not much you can do about blocked numbers. I tried chat support and it ended up being "sorry, just use our conference numbers" followed by "we're working to provide new features everyday" or something like that. Basically it means your out of luck until they get around to dealing with those carriers.

I don't think MJ is a scam at all but they aren't upfront about numbers being blocked which is sneaky. However, the other carriers like the conference people my work uses (and many others do) must charge just right to have most big carriers pay is also sneaky.

Given the technology we have to day it's all a scam really. If you think about how it all works, if we lost all our telcos now what would we do? We wouldn't replace them, we'd just use or expand Internet backbones and providers and use our IP solutions.
--
»www.fairtax.org



Calling VA

@myvzw.com

Yep, I got basiclly the same on chat and finally 'someone will contact you' when I pressed. I am not holding my breath. I feel they are just trying to ride out the 30 day return window. I deal with local, long distance, IP, and cell services at work. If anything like this happened once, we would cancel contracts immediately. From my experience, this usually boils down to the provider, MagicJack, refusing to pay fees more than the terminating carrier gouging them. If it was the other way around, the local carrier would get in hot water legally. The local carrier my blocked number is in is too small to risk that. Anyway, I see myself returning this unless they can give me a good resolution. Phone service only works if you can call anyone you need to, when you need to.



CreamOfWeber

@comcast.net

The problem is Qwest. They are legally obligated to reciprocate with Magic Jack... but they are choosing not to.

I have no idea why Magic Jack hasn't sued them yet.



N9MD
Premium
join:2005-10-08
Boca Raton, FL
kudos:5
Reviews:
·VOIPo
·voip.ms
·Callcentric
·PHONE POWER

said by CreamOfWeber :

The problem is Qwest. They are legally obligated to reciprocate with Magic Jack... but they are choosing not to.

I have no idea why Magic Jack hasn't sued them yet.

Not exactly accurate. MagicJack is the offender, not QWEST. Every time a MagicJack customer makes an outgoing call, MagicJack (and/or its CLEC YMAX) must pay a fee to the "terminating carrier" ... the company that serves the called number. All of the major phone companies ... and YMAX/MagicJack ... have agreements in place that call for an affordable/reasonable termination fee charged to the originating provider.

The small, rural, local phone companies ... such as Scott County (VA) Telephone Cooperative, Twin Lakes(TN) Telephone Cooperative, etc. ... tend to charge higher, occasionally exorbitant termination charges.

MJ has shown a penchant for blocking calls to these small carriers to reduce expenses. And thus far, the FCC has not shown any interest in making a ruling to rectify the situation.

When a previously blocked exchange/rate center suddenly becomes unblocked, it is more likely that YMAX/MJ has made an agreement with that carrier ... rather than the terminating carrier being forced to accept calls by any state of Federal regulators.

Nailgunner

join:2010-09-28

said by N9MD:

Not exactly accurate. MagicJack is the offender

I'm not sure that is exactly accurate either.

I admit to not knowing exactly how this crap works, but isn't it likely the case that there was a termination agreement in place that has now expired between MagicJack and these exchanges being blocked? Do the old termination fees stay in effect until a new agreement is signed by both parties?

It could be that MagicJack is trying to squeeze every nickle and dime they can out of these small rural carriers. Blame? MagicJack.

It could be that some of these small carriers are not happy at losing customers and are not negotiating in good faith and MagicJack is blocking them in an effort to get an agreement in place. This is what could be happening on some of the exchanges that are only being blocked for a short time. Blame? Depends more on which party is being the unreasonable one.

It could also be some of these small companies want to continue their practice of charging exorbitant termination fees and sharing them with traffic pumping conference call and sex chat companies. This is what could be happening on some of the exchanges that have been blocked for a long time. Blame? The rural carrier.

Large companies like Qwest? Is it possible they took over a small carrier that had a fee agreement with large termination fees and they want that to continue? Blame? Again, I would think it would depend more on which party is being the unreasonable one.

It's obvious MagicJack has found a loophole to do what other "phone" companies wish they could. Just like some of the rural carriers are making good use of the loophole provided to them. I'm just not sure how "blame" can be assigned without knowing exactly why a given exchange is being blocked.

This wiki hasn't been updated for a while, but the way I read it, my opinion is that the blame can be easily shared by MagicJack, a few rural carriers, a few states that apparently refuse to get more involved, and the FCC for allowing ANY of this to still be going on.

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_pumping

Nailgunner

join:2010-09-28

reply to GaryT2
The "edit" function seems to not be working for me.

I wanted to add that if anyone has information on how these termination agreements work I would be interested. I've done a little searching, but haven't found out how long does a typical agreement last, and what fees are used if they don't have a new agreement, basic stuff like that.

Edit: And now the edit tab is back showing.


junk4u

join:2002-12-09
Miami, FL

reply to N9MD
I would agree with N9MD on all that is written. I am in dispute with them since I've had 2 unit for more that 3 yrs now.

The problem is they keep insisting that its my system and not there network.

The major problem here is the average user with go along with that support and try for hours to fix the problem even login remotely to your system and modify the router. I have 3 laptops and 2 desktops and they all do the same thing they don't work to call a specific area code. I've taken the laptop to other areas and used different ISP providers same issue.

The whole thing about MagicJack is they sell them self as being able to call anywhere in the USA and Canada for only a yearly fee. Once you end up with the problem as we have do they point out the week service and the clause in terms. I get ads sent to me every day about the plus, but I'm not upgrading the unit, it doesn't work as promised.

One other thing is the number I am calling is in there home state Florida and they can't even get that squared away. For a communications company they lack a customer service line, I guess they don't want to have customers calling them via magicjack because they know that it doesn't work well right now, maybe its that cheap compression they are using to send the sound back and forth,



Megamixer

join:2010-08-28
Brandon, MS

reply to GaryT2
Has anyone else noticed if a number that used to be blocked for them now goes through but the call is limited to 5 minutes? This has been going on for about two weeks for calls to VA at 540-396-XXXX.

Exactly 5 minutes into each call it disconnects. Just wondered.



DrStrange
Technically feasible
Premium
join:2001-07-23
West Hartford, CT
kudos:1

reply to GaryT2
In case anyone missed it, the FCC's 'official' blog made mention of this issue recently:

»www.fcc.gov/blog/new-year-soluti···problems

said by the FCC:
The issue is complicated, but in a nutshell, the problem appears to be occurring in rural areas where long distance carriers normally pay higher-than-average charges to the local telephone company to complete calls. These charges are part of the decades-old system of “access” charges that help pay for the cost of rural networks. To minimize these charges, some long-distance carriers use third-party “least-cost routers,” which attempt to connect calls to their destination at the lowest cost possible. Sometimes, however, the calls appear not to be connecting at all.

The good news is that new FCC rules – which took effect on Dec. 29 – will provide both short and long-term solutions to rural call completion problems. These rules are part of an Order the FCC adopted in October making broader reforms to the access charge system, called intercarrier compensation, or ICC.

The Order also clarified and reiterated the FCC’s prohibition against blocking, degrading, or choking off calls for any reason, including to avoid high termination rates.


[bolding added for emphasis]


Nailgunner

join:2010-09-28

said by DrStrange:

The Order also clarified and reiterated the FCC’s prohibition against blocking, degrading, or choking off calls for any reason, including to avoid high termination rates

As the wording says, that has been the FCC's position all along. So it still leaves unanswered the question as to whether or not magicJack is subject to regulation as a phone company. Because they either didn't read the "memo" or don't consider themselves subject to it, since they are still blocking exchanges, and have been, in the face of FCC regulations for one heck of a long time now.


DrStrange
Technically feasible
Premium
join:2001-07-23
West Hartford, CT
kudos:1

My take on this is as follows:

MJ/YMax/whatever provides phone service. It says so in the ads:
"We now offer phone service for $1.70 a month!"

If they provide phone service, that makes them a phone company. They recently started passing along regulatory fees to customers, which further proves that they're a phone company.

The reason the FCC hasn't taken any serious enforcement action isn't because they can't. It's because they're overburdened with cases and have to choose their battles. If enough people complain, the FCC might choose MJ as the next issue to 'clean up'. It's not like the latest memo isn't dropping a strong hint that this issue might be next on their enforcement agenda.

My guess is that they're already negotiating behind the scenes. If that fails, you'll see MJ/YMax/whatever fined or worse.

Considering that the FCC is phasing out the interconnection fees paid to rural phone companies, MJ is getting what they wanted. I think you'll see them quietly stop blocking those calls sometime in the not-too-distant future.


Nailgunner

join:2010-09-28

1 edit

The 4.8% regulatory fee MJ is charging was discussed at length in another forum. I don't necessarily agree, but the consensus was that it was nothing but a junk fee added to recoup costs and has nothing to do with any standard regulatory fee from the federal government. They have been charging it for at least a half a year now, and I challenge anyone to post exactly what it consists of. Something that is very easy to do with other "phone" companies taxes/fees. It could be a combination of local/state taxes/fees or what they are paying their auditors to comply with filing "regulations". Your guess is as good as mine because MJ won't tell you.

And why the FCC would rather quickly drop the hammer on Google blocking exchanges and issue them a public letter,:
»techcrunch.com/2009/10/09/att-co···e-voice/
but negotiate quietly behind the scenes with MJ who has blocked exchanges, including all of Alaska, for more than a year, escapes me.

MJ has multiple companies involved in their operations and I don't pretend to know which does what, nor do I care. But my opinion is that if the FCC does consider MJ a phone company, then MJ has it all structured so that the company doing the blocking is not the company providing the service. I logically see no other reason how they have managed to have been able to block a whole state, and countless other rural exchanges, for over a year, with all the complaints the FCC has had to have received on it.

Again, my opinion only, but if it was so simple as the FCC saying MJ is a phone company and MJ is blocking exchanges, the FCC would have put a stop to it a long time ago. Granted MJ is no Google, but it does, in theory, have a rather large customer base. I would love to know though how many of the 7 to 8 million units they have sold are sitting in landfills. But like the 4.8% regulatory fee, I can't seem to find any hard number on their actual active customers. So it's also possible there are only 100,000 of us left and the FCC can't be bothered with 15 complaints about their shenanigans.

Edit: For anyone who gives a rats behind, here is one of the discussions about the 4.8% fee from the other forum:
»www.magicjacksupport.com/battle-···074.html
They may have changed it, but at one point it was labeled "Regulatory and Compliance Expense". Hard to be more vague than that.



txpatriot

@or.us

reply to DrStrange

said by DrStrange:

If they provide phone service, that makes them a phone company. They recently started passing along regulatory fees to customers, which further proves that they're a phone company.

Unfortunately that's not necessarily the case.

VoIP providers (e.g., Vonage) offer a service that looks, smells, and quacks like local telephone service, but they are not regulated as local telephone companies. Several states have passed legislation that specifically prohibits the PUC in those states from regulating VoIP service.

Yes, the FCC makes VoIP providers collect certain fees like federal USF and the local 911 fee. But that alone does not make them a telco. And because they are not telcos, the "normal" telco requirements (e.g., time to install a new service, time to repair an existing service, amount of noise on your line, etc.) does not apply to them.

Funny thing is, I've seen (but cannot now point to) places where MajicJack claims they are neither a telco nor a VoIP provider. If they are not providing VoIP service, I have no idea how they do what they do.


DrStrange
Technically feasible
Premium
join:2001-07-23
West Hartford, CT
kudos:1

I know what they say they are. It's in the TOS.

I just don't think it would hold up to a judge's scrutiny if the FCC or FTC decided to play hardball.

page: 1 · 2 · 3 ... 36 · 37 · 38 · 39

Saturday, 02-Jun 11:39:06 Terms of Use & Privacy | feedback | contact | Hosting by nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo
over 12.5 years online © 1999-2012 dslreports.com.
Most commented news this week
Hot Topics