Can AT&T Block Access To Numbers It Doesn't Like? Scuff up over AT&T, Qwest blocking of FreeConference.com Tipped by jslik 
Techdirt, GigaOM and Consumer Affairs offer thoughts about AT&T and Qwest's decision to block calls made to FreeConference.com. The service is used by many companies on a budget, and only charges users the long distance fee to reach their numbers (usually in the midwest). In their FAQ the company says AT&T & Qwest "are violating the public trust as well as abusing their market power" by determining their customers cannot call certain phone numbers. AT&T justifies the move as such: "We may block access to certain categories of numbers (e.g. 976, 900 and certain international destinations) or certain web sites if, in our sole discretion, we are experiencing excessive billing, collection, fraud problems or other misuse of our network." An AT&T Spokesman insists that their service is for calls "between one person and another person, not between one person and many." But AT&T dominates 800-service, notes FreeConference.com CEO Alex Cory in the GigaOM comment section. "If free conferencing were eliminated, what would people do? Go back to 800-service conferencing."
|
  dadkinsCan you do Blu?Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
kudos:18 | No 900? Sucks to be on AT&T!!! | |
|  | RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | 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 | Re: No 900? "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 | |
| | | | | | | | RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | 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. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: No 900? said by kapil:Whoa! Doc. You get fiesty if anyone fires in the direction of your beloved ILEC. And your position is any different? look in a mirror lately?
Pot, this is kettle, your black!! | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |  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. | |
| | | | | | | agill81
join:2007-02-26
Aliso Viejo, CA | Maybe you need to stop cussing. Get a grip dude | |
|
| | | |  ff1324Everybody Goes HomePremium
join:2002-08-24
On Four Day | 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 | |
|
| | | | | | | | ff1324Everybody Goes HomePremium
join:2002-08-24
On Four Day
1 edit | Re: No 900? [Wow, throwing personal insults at people qualfies you as mature? If you notice those little things we call "quotation marks." Those little bits of punctuation indicate that someone else made those remarks and that he is re-stating those statements. In this case, they were made by the CEO of (at the time) SBC, Ed Whitacre.
So how's that make the post-writer juvenile?
--
The funny thing about firemen...night and day they're always firemen
»www.stlfire.com | |
|
| | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | 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. | |
| | | | JJVPremium
join:2001-04-25
Seattle, WA | Re: No 900? I cant reach any of those numbers from my sprint cell phone.
Vonage works fine. | |
| | | | |  calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
 ·Comcast Formerl..
| Re: No 900? The NPA-NXX exchange listed (641-297) is operated by Interstate 35 Telephone, a small rural Iowa carrier. This carrier is paid access charges for terminating traffic from the long distance carriers. These charges may be as small as a fraction of a cent per minute or may be a few cents per minute.
When long-distance was a separate business (as a result of divestiture, until the FCC granted re-unification of local and LD under [a contested interpretation of] TA'96) access charges were one of the largest bones of contention between local and long distance carriers. In short, the locals stuck it to the LD's with access charges that were far in excess of marginal cost (though supposedly justified by "fully distributed cost", which begs an economic costing argument beyond the scope of this discussion.)
At any rate, LD carriers hated paying "access charges". Now that SBC bought ATT (and renamed itself to ATT) it is ironic that they are paying I-35 Telco access charges on this terminating traffic when conference calling parties call into these free "conference bridges". It especially stings when they are paying these per-minute charges on calls originated by customers on "all you can eat" unlimited LD plans.
While I have no evidence or indication that there is any unusual relationship between freeconferencecall.com and I-35 Telco, I doubt that the Long Beach headquartered firm chose an Iowa telco to locate their bridges and equipment randomly. There is some reason this is happening in Iowa, and there is no question that I-35 Telco derives considerable per minute revenue from the calls to the call bridge (unless these numbers have been "ported" to another carrier, which is possible but unlikely.)
This is yet another example of the law of unintended consequences and its beautiful application to the whining Baby Bells. When local competition first started in the '95-'96 timeframe, the Baby Bells demanded high "termination" and "access" charges, thinking that competitors would seek telemarketers and others making predominantly outbound calls as that was the most concentrated traffic. They got high compensation to the "terminating" (call recipient) carrier, only to find that the competitors targeted dial-up ISPs instead of telemarketers. Accordingly, the competitors got huge inbound (and very concentrated) traffic and reaped the rewards (at times, after taking Big Ed and Little Ivan to court.)
Now the same scenario is playing out in access charges--having used access charges to help bring the LD carriers to their knees and then purchased them, the former Baby Bells are now LD carriers themselves, only to find themselves being stuck with access charges from other local companies. How does your own petard as a hoist feel, Ed?
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | | | | | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | 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. | |
| | | | | | | calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA Reviews:
·Comcast Formerl..
| Re: No 900? 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! | |
| | | | | | | | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | Re: No 900? 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. | |
| | | | | | | | |  DavidI have a son- d3Premium,VIP
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL
kudos:68 | Re: No 900? 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. | |
| | | | | | | | | | calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA Reviews:
·Comcast Formerl..
| 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! | |
| | | | | | | | | | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | Re: No 900? 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. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | 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? | |
| | | | | | | | | | DavidI have a son- d3Premium,VIP
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL
kudos:68 | Re: No 900? not sure, I wouldn't think so, I would say try it. | |
|
| | | | | | | | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | Re: No 900? But what's odd is that they should have disputes against the 800 number, not the 641 number. According to the service, the "free" service is accessed through the 641 numbers. You simply dial 641 numbers and pay the LD fee -- unless you have an unlimited LD plan.
It must be that folks are disputing the LD charge to the 641 number. Perhaps they claim they were misled into calling the 641 number on the thought that it was "free conference" (as the (freeconference.com name implies). To defend the service, conferencing multiple calls is free but each call is not free. Even though some might be confused, the site doesn't hide the fact there are charges associated with the service. From their site:
In order for conference participants to reach our service, each one must call a telephone number. For Reservationless Standard and Web-Scheduled Standard conferences this number may be local or long distance, depending on their location. The only costs for these type of conference calls are whatever long distance rates are charged by each individual conference participant's long distance carrier (Sprint, MCI, AT&T, etc.). We do not require the use of any specific carrier, nor do we know what rates you pay on your calling plan. Although the name might be confusing and some might even say misleading -- they don't hide the fact that if it's not a local call for you, it's anything but free.
But in a world where bottled water has a warning label, I guess it's par for the course. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | Re: No 900? What would the complaint be? I called a long distance number and I'm not happy about the cost? I'm surprised the telco has the authority to block a number because folks were possibly mislead into making an LD call. It would seem this authority should lie in the state's AG office and that an investigation would be warranted to determine if the public was mislead. And I don't think the AG can just declare such a fact. Doesn't the AG have to sue and win a court case?
If ISPs challenge the RIAA with having proper legal documentation before releasing an MP3 downloader name, blocking a number based on consumer complaints seems legally risky. However since the service is free, I don't know what freeconference.com would claim they are losing -- unless they sell ads on their web site and claim that by blocking their number, it damages their credibility. | |
| | | | | | | | |
| |  ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium
join:2002-03-03
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:4 | 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 | |
| | | |
See 9 replies to this post |
| bobnsri
join:2004-06-09
North Smithfield, RI | The "Ugly" Story About ATT Blocking Numbers For many years the IOWA phone companies named in the ATT (et al) suit were paid 5-cents per minute by LD Carriers to terminate calls on the local Iowa Telephone networks.
While most local carriers in the USA get less than a penny a minute to terminate a call, IOWA, due to the rural nature of the state, was tariffed at/around 5-cents per minute.
In reality, since IOWA companies COMPLETE more calls than ORIGINATE, they earned a few thousand dollar a month (profit) on termination fees.
This was legal and everyone, including ATT played by these rules.
For most consumers, the rate they were charged to call IOWA was much, much less than the termination fee ATT and others were charged.
(eg) Boston to Iowa 3-Cents Per Minute to Customer, yet ATT and others have to pay 5-cents per minute to the local companies to COMPLETE the call.
Consumers with UNLIMITED FREE long distance (ie) cell phones were KILLING ATT, Cingular, Verizon, etc.
Last summer, the carriers named in the suit, (Dixon, Superior Telephone, et al) unilaterally (and without tariff approval) raised the rate they charge to 14-cents per minute.
They got very, very greedy.
Soon ATT, which regularly paid thousands of dollars a month in termination fees, was dishing out $2-Million in fees.
IF, the local carriers had stuck to their tariffed price, ATT would NOT have a leg to stand on.
The local telcos SHARED their termination fees with FreeConference.
There were two ways FreeConference and the local telcos made money.
-If the call terminated on Freedom equipment in Iowa, the telco and Freedom split the 14-cents per minute termination fee.
-If someone called FreeConference to place an INTERNATIONAL call, Freedom would transmit the call via VOIP at less than a penny a minute.
So, if FreeConference was getting paid 7-cents a minute and the cost of VOIP outbound call was a penny a minute, FreeConference was making 6-cents a minute profit.
The local telco was also making 7-cents per minute.
The plan fell apart when the owner of FreeConference went on the ABC Evening News and said his company would "beat AT&T at their own game"
He gave dozens of interviews with tv stations and newspapers.
ATT got mad and sued.
Everyone is now suing everyone else.
The IOWA companies expect to settle with ATT et al without going to trial.
The presumption is:
-IOWA companies will NOT admit guilt.
-They will NOT be paid the termination fees that ATT still owes them for calls made to FreeConference.
-They will AGREE to resume their tariffed rate of 5-cents per minute to terminate calls.
Of course it goes without saying, ATT and all the others, DO NOT WANT TO PAY ANYONE, ANYTHING, to terminate their calls.
They want a free ride on the local networks.
Both sides here have some dirt on their hands.
Of course, ANY local phone company in America, legally CAN lease out, their lines to chat services and earn tons of money on termination fees.
THIS IS TOTALLY LEGAL since the calls TERMINATE at the local level.
They can also SHARE the termination fees, with the chat service, PROVIDED the chat service does not INITIATE an outbound call to CIRCUMVENT the tariff.
In some states, California (eg) the chatlines must be placed on a block of numbers that the local telco can BLOCK if a customer requests.
North Nevada Telco has been earning millions a year running chat lines that TERMINATE at their facilities.
They also do NOT charge MORE than the tariff rate to terminate calls.
The long distance companies are powerless to stop them. | |
| | | ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium
join:2002-03-03
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:4 | Re: The "Ugly" Story About ATT Blocking Numbers Thanks for all the info on what precipitated this donnybrook.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page | |
| | |  kapilThe Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL | Umm...
No one is "killing" the ILECs with termination costs...see their SEC filings...the companies and their execs are rolling in dough.
And you're right, ATT and other ILECs want a free ride...pretty ironic that ATT CEO was the one quoted as something along the lines of, MY PIPES, NO ONE CAN STUFF THEM WITH TRAFFIC UNLESS THEY PAY ME! | |
| | | | | You win the award for the most factual posting. As part of the legal action against AT&T I can verify that your posting is very true.
The public outrage aimed at AT&T and the band of colluding carriers really raises the question of Net Neutrality. These large carriers can disrupt the entire Internet and our national economy if left unchecked to wage financial war against us small carriers. This most likely will blow up in their monopolistic faces I predict. | |
| | | |  morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
·Charter
1 edit | Re: The "Ugly" Story About ATT Blocking Numbers said by Free :
These large carriers can disrupt the entire Internet and our national economy if left unchecked to wage financial war against us small carriers. This most likely will blow up in their monopolistic faces I predict.
uh, the point is both sides have dirt on their hands. it's not just the large carriers. greed on both sides is what caused this. right?
i'm no fan of AT&T, but if the rural telecom raised termination rates sky high (even higher than they have been; out of the normal, average rates) just 'cause, then why not? on the other side, for AT&T to just remove access to these lines is also wrong. | |
|
|  Dude111An Awesome DudePremium
join:2003-08-04
USA
kudos:9 | Re: No 900? "Sucks to be on AT&T!!!"
At&t blows | |
| | | |
| Dude111An Awesome DudePremium
join:2003-08-04
USA
kudos:9 | You must work for AT&T  | |
| | | | | Re: No 900? said by Dude111:You must work for AT&T Dude, I don't even live in the states, so no I will have to say I don't work for at&t.
Although if you want to talk to someone who does I think MrFixitCT might be able to tell you who they spied on this week. | |
| | | | calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | Re: No 900? Uh, ATT has a large number of overseas employees, so just living outside the US doesn't guarantee you don't work for them....
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | | | | | | Re: No 900? Dude, take a fucking clue, I said I don't work for them. I have standards as least. | |
|
| | Shame On Me... ...for even thinking about getting service with them. I think I'll stick to my cheap VoIP service. | |
| |  Farley3Holyshnikes
join:2002-01-23
Croswell, MI | Shame on you is right "or certain web sites if, in our sole discretion, we are experiencing excessive billing, collection, fraud problems or other misuse of our network"
Trying Running Fraud, not paying your bill, or misuse your cable network and see how long you have your VOIP.
--
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...
| |
| | | kapilThe Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL | Re: Shame on you is right This has nothing to do with fraud, not paying a bill or misuse of a network. It has to do with AT&T and other ILECs not wanting to play by the same rules which have created immense profits for them for years, and rules which they helped put into place. | |
| | | | Farley3Holyshnikes
join:2002-01-23
Croswell, MI
1 edit | Re: Shame on you is right Regardless, resistance is futile, the numbers are blocked. | |
|
vic5
join:2007-03-20
Alhambra, CA | Understandable Well, you have to understand that free calls are still using ATT's infrastructure and network. The blocking of numbers is still wrong, in my opinion, though. I think ATT is just doing this so they can eventually implement their own form of "freeconference" so that they can keep the entire pie, much like retail stores having their own credit cards to avoid fees to CC companies.
Nationwide Long Distance | |
| | | | Re: Understandable Not to be O/T but their was a small strike by cabbies due to credit card fees today here in Philadelphia, because they have to 5% of the money to the cc company they would rather carry cash though bad negiborhoods when they don't have rich lawyers then let anyone who can use a credit card or debit card. | |
|
approval from:
kapil
LilYoda
thumbs down from:
kapil
| Ugh. The worst possible solution My understanding of FreeConference.com is that their scheme, while it does take somewhat advantage of the regulatory arbitrage available in the USF, is not quite as bad as the free international calling schemes. Both of them, however, do take advantage of entirely unintended consequences of the Universal Service Fund:
1) Local phone companies in rural areas are subsidized by regulated high termination fees paid per minute from the originating caller's local phone company.
2) This tends to cause the originating caller's company to lose money on each phone call, but it doesn't matter too much in the long run because there's a small volume of calls to these rural areas.
3) To some degree, the rural phone company passes on savings to their customers, and similarly, to some degree the originating caller's phone company passes on the additional charges to their customers. (These rates should be roughly similar.)
4) Some rural phone companies, or companies in partnership with them, have found ways to encourage people to call these numbers, since they actually make a profit on each call, essentially causing the big phone companies to subsidize them and people who use their services. (And, in the end, some portion of this will be passed on to everyone else.)
5) One method is the "free international calling" sites, since Iowa rural phone companies have an impressive fiber backbone, and can reroute incoming domestic calls over VoIP (using Skype or some such) for less than the termination fee, making a profit while still having the calls be free to the end user.
6) Another method is the free conference call service offered here.
7) Both methods take advantage of regulation, and show that the subsidies granted to the rural phone companies are probably too high.
8) One acceptable solution is better regulation decreasing those high termination fees.
9) Another solution is one that the FCC is proposing, whereby phone companies would bid for the right to operate rural phone companies. (I can connect those calls for x cents/minute.) The idea is that the auction would do a better job of finding the optimum subsidized rates than the current obviously inefficient regulation.
10) The worst possible solution is allowing the phone companies to block these calls, or sue them out of business for spurious reasons. Yes, they're taking advantage of regulation. Yes, the regulation should be changed. But it on first blush all appears legal to me, and giving phone companies the right to sue based on "the calls aren't really terminated" or the right to not connect to some numbers has enormous downsides. Real, legitimate arbitrage and competition (not dependent on taking advantage of subsidies and regulation) would be blocked.
Blocking is unacceptable. | |
| | kapilThe Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL | Re: Ugh. The worst possible solution Please register. This site could use more fair and balanced posts like this one. | |
| | |  LilYodaFeline with squirel personality disorderPremium
join:2004-09-02
Mountains | Re: Ugh. The worst possible solution Seconded | |
|
|  JammerMan79Premium,VIP
join:2004-05-13
Prince George, BC
kudos:10 | agreed | |
|
| | well what about 3 way calling!?!?!?!? as quoted:
An AT&T Spokesman insist that their service is for calls "between one person and another person, not between one person and many."
if thats the case then well wouldn't three way calling be eliminated (or 6 way with cingular.....do they even still offer that??)
I think it's just cause it's "free"  | |
| hurfyPremium
join:2002-08-06
Spokane, WA | umm right "between one person and another person, not between one person and many"
Nice line and all but............
Maybe ya all want to sue my PBX provider since the office phone system lets me set up a conference call for no extra charge. Of course it has been doing so for 20 years now......
Since they let that one slide i don't see that arguement flying. I bet a newer one does even better than my built-in support for 3-way calling (3+1 extension actually, pretty snazzy for ancient analog) They damn well better since this is so old even the provider doesn't know how to program it  | |
| kapilThe Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL
1 edit | It can be safely assumed... ...that in any given dispute, the position taken by AT&T is the one that violates all moral, ethical and logical reasoning. For that reason alone, although there are many others, I support the rural carriers' position.
"Our service is meant for one-to-one calls, not one-to-many"....what utter and total bullshit. It's a god damned phone. If I pay for the said phone, I should be able to call whomever I damn well please. Your world delivered, my ass.
This is the same company that tried oh so hard to get companies like Focal and Level3, who owned big dial-up modem banks, declared as information service providers so that it didn't have to pay termination fees for calls to ISPs. Didn't work....that's why it went and bought Prodigy. | |
| | rantou
join:2002-06-04
Richardson, TX | Re: It can be safely assumed... said by kapil:... Your world delivered, my ass. Very nicely said. | |
| | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: It can be safely assumed... said by rantou:said by kapil:... Your world delivered, my ass. Very nicely said. let me correct that for the reading public..
Your world, destroyed.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-reitchous and lazy ... those who also never take the time to point out a good fortune when the opportunity presents itself. It says a lot about one's moral character." - Unknown | |
| | | |  sivranBack to Opera againPremium
join:2003-09-15
Arlington, TX
kudos:1 | Re: It can be safely assumed... They don't call it the AT&T Death Star for nothin, ya know. | |
|
| | Time to fire a couple of proton torpedoes... ...into the Death Star again. They're supposed to be a common carrier, and not discriminate according to what's on the other end of the call. | |
|  RideRedVista needs a popup blocker for VistaPremium
join:2005-06-18
USA
1 edit | It's not illegal AT&T and Qwest should be subject to suit, not only by the people who are being blocked from using the service, but the service company itself.
AT&T has no problem collecting termination fees from these small telcos when AT&T builds itself back up to 35% marketshare (making every small telco subject to paying AT&T) but when it comes time to pay them they don't like it.
Tough sh!t. The telco laws which created this situation were bought and paid for by the likes of AT&T and suddenly they don't like the loophole in their corrupt rules.
--
There's only 10 types of people in this world. Those who understand binary, and those who don't. | |
| bobnsri
join:2004-06-09
North Smithfield, RI
1 edit | The "Truth" About ATT v Iowa Phone Companies For many years the IOWA phone companies named in the ATT (et al) suit were paid 5-cents per minute by LD Carriers to terminate calls on the local Iowa Telephone networks.
While most local carriers in the USA get less than a penny a minute to terminate a call, IOWA, due to the rural nature of the state, was tariffed at/around 5-cents per minute.
In reality, since IOWA companies COMPLETE more calls than ORIGINATE, they earned a few thousand dollar a month (profit) on termination fees.
This was legal and everyone, including ATT played by these rules.
For most consumers, the rate they were charged to call IOWA was much, much less than the termination fee ATT and others were charged.
(eg) Boston to Iowa 3-Cents Per Minute to Customer, yet ATT and others have to pay 5-cents per minute to the local companies to COMPLETE the call.
Consumers with UNLIMITED FREE long distance (ie) cell phones were KILLING ATT, Cingular, Verizon, etc.
Last summer, the carriers named in the suit, (Dixon, Superior Telephone, et al) unilaterally (and without tariff approval) raised the rate they charge to 14-cents per minute.
They got very, very greedy.
Soon ATT, which regularly paid thousands of dollars a month in termination fees, was dishing out $2-Million in fees.
IF, the local carriers had stuck to their tariffed price, ATT would NOT have a leg to stand on.
The local telcos SHARED their termination fees with FreeConference.
There were two ways FreeConference and the local telcos made money.
-If the call terminated on Freedom equipment in Iowa, the telco and Freedom split the 14-cents per minute termination fee.
-If someone called FreeConference to place an INTERNATIONAL call, Freedom would transmit the call via VOIP at less than a penny a minute.
So, if FreeConference was getting paid 7-cents a minute and the cost of VOIP outbound call was a penny a minute, FreeConference was making 6-cents a minute profit.
The local telco was also making 7-cents per minute.
The plan fell apart when the owner of FreeConference went on the ABC Evening News and said his company would "beat AT&T at their own game"
He gave dozens of interviews with tv stations and newspapers.
ATT got mad and sued.
Everyone is now suing everyone else.
The IOWA companies expect to settle with ATT et al without going to trial.
The presumption is:
-IOWA companies will NOT admit guilt.
-They will NOT be paid the termination fees that ATT still owes them for calls made to FreeConference.
-They will AGREE to resume their tariffed rate of 5-cents per minute to terminate calls.
Of course it goes without saying, ATT and all the others, DO NOT WANT TO PAY ANYONE, ANYTHING, to terminate their calls.
They want a free ride on the local networks.
Both sides here have some dirt on their hands.
Of course, ANY local phone company in America, legally CAN lease out, their lines to chat services and earn tons of money on termination fees.
THIS IS TOTALLY LEGAL since the calls TERMINATE at the local level.
They can also SHARE the termination fees, with the chat service, PROVIDED the chat service does not INITIATE an outbound call to CIRCUMVENT the tariff.
In some states, California (eg) the chatlines must be placed on a block of numbers that the local telco can BLOCK if a customer requests.
North Nevada Telco has been earning millions a year running chat lines that TERMINATE at their facilities.
They also do NOT charge MORE than the tariff rate to terminate calls.
The long distance companies are powerless to stop them. | |
| | |  I got this crazy idea.....
I will start a free conference call site where the local level charges are high and funnel the money to the terrorists. Then I will let AT&T take the blame and explain the news story of "AT&T supports terrorism!" Just so the BBR news whores can get their AT&T panties in a bunch.
I am beginning to think that 3,000 on 9/11 wasn't near enough and should have been 100k or more. I could have settled for a cool million easy. The U.S. and it's stupid people keep breeding anyway, a cool million would be a drop in the bucket.
*runs off to try idea!!* | |
| |  MrFixitCTpay it forwardPremium,VIP,ExMod 2001-06
join:2000-12-01
Charleston, SC | Re: I got this crazy idea..... subject says it all, you're just another floater in the gene pool. | |
| | | | | Re: I got this crazy idea..... said by MrFixitCT:subject says it all, you're just another floater in the gene pool. Least I don't live in the U.S. my friend, take that and "float" on it. How you people let your (and at one point in time my) government get away with what it does is frankly beyond me, and should concern you too.
Besides you seem to work at at&t, least by the snet forum posts. I have to ask, who have you spied on lately?
Care to answer or don't have the guts? Or mod away coward!
If you mod I will already know the answer. So take that and "float" on that too.
| |
|
| | | They aren't the only ones I don't know if Sprint is blocking freeconference but they sure as hell are blocking another company. My Girlfriend uses a calling card from her Sprint Cell to call a company in mass. I think and they relay the call to where she wants over the world, like any other calling card. However recently she began calling and it doesn't work she gets an error message that says the connection can not be made, if she calls the spanish number she gets a message in spanish saying the same thing. How if she calls from some other carrier it works, she's spoken to the company and they have no network problems.
My only real concern is once you find our suspect this is happening then what do you do? | |
|  batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie.Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| Leaches must die. This is typical of the state of affairs in America today. Leaches that don't add value to the network want to suck the life's-blood out of it. It started with MCI/WorldCom and continues today with the likes of FreeConference, TeleTruth and FIDO. Leaches must die. | |
| | | | Re: Leaches must die. said by batterup:This is typical of the state of affairs in America today. Leaches that don't add value to the network want to suck the life's-blood out of it. It started with MCI/WorldCom and continues today with the likes of FreeConference, TeleTruth and FIDO. Leaches must die. Right on Batterup!These freeloaders are out to rule or ruin the Network.No amount of Chaos is enough -as long as there is a free ride in it for them.However if they were defending the infrastructure instead of overthrowing it they would do just like at&t --and be seen as "unfair" for defending themselves. | |
| | | | | Re: Leaches must die. Few people bother to truly understand the issue. If they did, they would realized that eventually they will be paying for the "free" service. There is no such thing as "FREE", somebody pays, somewhere along the line. As a nation, we need to get away from this "free" (cost nothing)mentality.
I am no fan of big telco, but you have to accept that they are in business to make money - like everyone else. When they start to lose money, they will either cut back on the service (no more Unlimited) or jack up the rates. And of course everyone will start howling were that to happen. Would you suddenly start paying $500 a month for a service for which you had been paying $50? Bet you wouldn't! Same with Qwest and ATT. Networks cost billions to build and maintain, not the few thousand these investors/freeloaders put up to start their "free" service. I don't recall hearing any of these "free" service providers kicking in a few bucks for US network integrity; heck, some are even offshore companies.
It's a take and run game....they did the taking for awhile, now it's time to run and find a new angle...and they will, freeloaders are like that. | |
|
| | Foreshadowing the Importance of Net Neutrality Net Neutrality. If it's a Republican Congress, you can bet the cable and phone companies get their way. | |
|
| |
|
|
·
·
Try this