 
ropeguru
Premium
join:2001-01-25
Bridgeport, WV
clubs: | So how long.... Will it be before there is an uproar in the government over phone neutrality?? Shouldn't anyone be able to call anywhere on their unlimited local call lines?? | |
|  | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
 ·AT&T Southeast
| Re: So how long.... Phone neutrality? It already exists in the form of the regulated phone companies. How long before these questionable rural phone companies are run out of business or smacked down? How long before the FCC lifts the regulations allowing these loopholes, tying the hands of the ILECs, all the while allowing their competition to do whatever they want because they aren't "phone companies"? | |
| | | | | | | 
Nsane_iceman
Workaholic
Premium
join:2001-02-26
North Richland Hills, TX
clubs:
| Re: So how long.... My boss uses these numbers for conf calls all the time. I keep telling him they are no good, but a free conf call is a free conf call...
--
Avatar by: dandelion | Disarm you with a smile. | Tell me, tell me what you're after. I just want to get there faster. | |
| | | | | | | | | 
r81984
Thread is
Premium
join:2001-11-14
St John'S, NL
 ·magicjack.com
 ·Cox HSI
·Insight Communicat..
·AT&T Midwest
1 edit | Re: So how long.... said by amigo_boy  :said by r81984 :It won't be long before these scammer numbers go out of business. A "scam," by definition is a fraud or deception. They aren't defrauding anyone. Their charges are public (no deception). They aren't doing anything worse than companies like MagicJack offering "unlimited" service when they don't really mean "unlimited." I'd say that's more of a deception than these con-call companies finding a way to use the system to provide a "free" service. It's "free" like MagicJack's service is "unlimited." It's just that MagicJack misleads its own customers. These con-call companies aren't misleading anyone. Just helping to hold the MagicJack-like companies to their word. So, I'd say if these con-call services are "scammers," the companies offering "unlimited" service (with limits) are something 10 times worse. In that sense, this reminds me of those odd cases where a drug dealer goes to the police and complains a rival drug dealer ripped him off. Mark [1] » www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scam These conference call numbers pretend to be free when they charge your phone company 6 cents a minute. That definately is a scam.
--
Democrats are not Socialists any more than Republicans are. | |
| | | | | | 
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
1 edit | Re: So how long.... said by r81984 :These conference call numbers pretend to be free when they charge your phone company 6 cents a minute. That definately is a scam. 1. To the user of the service, it's a long-distance call. It's only free if the user's long-distance provider doesn't charge them (i.e., "free, unlimited long distance," or some number of minutes free per month.).
If that's true, the con-call service isn't misleading the user.
2. The user's service provider isn't misled. They know exactly how much they'll pay at the time they connect the call.
Therefore, calling it a "scam" diminishes the the meaning of the word. It's hyperbole.
They're definitely "gaming" the system. They found a way to provide a free service to end users by taking advantage of the rules. And, in the case of many VoIP providers like MagicJack, they take advantage of providers who "game" their own customers with "free, unlimited" long distance.
I don't feel too sorry for providers like MagicJack being "gamed."
I'm more sympathetic to providers like Skype, vbuzzer, voipvoip who are pay-as-you-go and don't charge enough per minute to cover the cost of these calls. But, those users have to pay for their long-distance usage. They have less incentive to use it compared to the users of "unlimited, free" VoIP services.
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
1 edit | Re: So how long.... said by r81984 :These numbers are scams taking advantage of laws not meant for them to profit from. They are providing a "free" service to scam money from the phone companies. Don't you think that if these con-call numbers were located in areas with more traditional termination fees, companies with "unlimited" long distance would still complain about their customers calling services that make their profit entirely from call termination (with no origination costs)?
That's why I think a large part of the problem are the telco providers like MagicJack who offer "unlimited" service when they know it's not unlimited. These con-call services are just an "edge case." They press the problem with fake (or "scam" which is more appropriate in this case than the way you use the word) usage claims by telcos. They just lead to overages easier. (I.e., we all know that if a MJ user calls someone in Iowa for too many minutes, they'll be terminated for "excessive use" of the "unlimited service".).
said by r81984 :I never had a problem with my unlimited MJ. That comment, along with your incorrect use of the word "scam" shows your bias.
I've never had a problem with my unlimited MJ either. But, that doesn't mean people really have "unlimited" service. There have been plenty of examples of people terminated for "excessive use."
There are plenty of people who never had a problem using those rural con-call numbers in moderation, not triggering the "excessive use" discontinuation of service.
The bottom line is that companies like MJ have some cost that they're willing to incur for outbound calls. They won't say what that is because it depends on how much money you bring in through inbound calls. And, how many outbound calls are to other MJ customers (no termination fee). And, whether the outbound calls are to low termination-cost areas, or high-. That's why MJ eventually added to their ToS that "excessive use" is 20 times the average user's use. They won't say how many minutes it is because of all the variables involved.
The con-call numbers are just another variable (with higher contribution). But, if someone called one of those con-call numbers only once a month, for an hour, they wouldn't rake up as much use as someone calling his girlfriend every night for an hour (and, perhaps triggering an "excessive use" discontinuation of service).
So, it's really about how companies like MJ are misusing the term "unlimited." These con-call services simply compound the problem of companies like MJ misleading their customers about "unlimited service." It's not unlimited. The con-call services bring that to light in a much clearer way. And, even after blocking access to the con-call companies, MJ will still terminate users for nebulously-defined "excessive use."
Finally, to help you add some balance to your near Rainman-like obsession with "scams" and anything that harms the bottom line of companies like MagicJack, consider for a moment how MJ offered to continue connecting calls to the con-call services if they entered into a termination agreement. That was essentially an offer for revenue sharing. If MJ could get a cut of the profits (in the form of discounted termination fees) they didn't have any trouble doing business with "known scammers" (as you would call them).
Doesn't that give you a slight indication that we're not talking about a "scam." Just that companies like MJ are losing too much money on these services (which admittedly game the system), harming MagicJack's scamming of their own customers (through deceptive marketing of "unlimited" long distance)?
MJ's ok with misleading its own customers about "unlimited" service. And, it's ok with validating the con-call services if MJ could bargain lower termination fees for itself, which is nothing more than revenue sharing. In that situation, MJ would have continued terminating its own customers for nebulously-defined "excessive use" while being in league with a group you continuously assert are engaged in a deception and fraud.
In that context, who would be the bigger scammer?
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: So how long.... said by r81984 :People who call those numbers are trying to put voip and phone companies out of business. Right. It's probably written into their business plan as a goal. (At least you don't try to hide your bias.).
It looks more to me like they're trying to game the system, just like "unlimited" services (MagicJack) try to game their customers.
What did you think of MagicJack being willing to unblock these rural con-call services if they essentially share their revenue? If the con-call services gave MJ a lower termination rate, MJ would have allowed calls to those services. Essentially validating what you insist is a fraudulent and deceptive business (even though you can't point to anyone being defrauded or deceived).
In other words, MJ recognized these rural con-call services as the same kind of "gaming" that MJ practices on its own customers through so-called "unlimited" service. MJ would have shared the revenue and continued to terminate its own customers for nebulous "excessive use."
So, what does that make MJ look like compared to the rural con-call services?
Or, is it just too much to read? (wink)
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: So how long.... said by r81984 :MJ asked these rural exchanges for a interconnection deal to get a better rate and they refused. You see the rural exchanges are in the on the scam. They split the 6 cents a minute with the scammer conference and sex lines. MJ was willing to split it too. MJ's proposal was essentially revenue sharing. MJ didn't have a problem with these rural companies. Just wanted in on their gimmick (just like these rural companies wanted in on MJ's "unlimited long distance" gimmick.).
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | |
r81984
Thread is
Premium
join:2001-11-14
St John'S, NL | Re: So how long.... Nope, no revenue sharing. They just wanted to negotiate a normal less than a penny rate.
--
Democrats are not Socialists any more than Republicans are. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: So how long.... said by r81984 :Nope, no revenue sharing. They just wanted to negotiate a normal less than a penny rate. 1. You don't know what price MJ was willing to negotiate.
2. It would have been essentially revenue sharing because MJ would have received a lower price for its customers to use the rural-based service which would have continued to charge other carriers full price. I.e., MJ's price would have been subsidized by other carriers. MJ would have had the imputed value of making the rural service available to its customers, distinguishing itself from other carriers who block it. And, they would have done this at the expense of other carriers who hadn't blocked it, and were paying the full (rural) price.
My only point is that both sides are basically a dirty business. Carriers like MJ advertise "unlimited long distance" when they know they aren't really offering such a service. That's more of a "scam" (fraud and deception).
The rural-based services merely take advantage of the MJ-like services. If a user's service is really "unlimited," there shouldn't be a problem with providing a "free" service subsidized by the user's "unlimited" service which they paid for.
That's why I've said a couple times that this reminds me of the drug dealer who files a police report because a rival drug dealer broke the law.
At least the rural services haven't misled anyone. Their service is above board. Carriers know what they'll pay when they originate the call. The rural services are just putting the carrier in the untenable position of explaining how "unlimited" isn't really unlimited. MJ was willing to do business with the rural service if they could get a special deal (subsidized by the other carriers who didn't get the deal). MJ would have continued to terminate its own users for "excessive use" of "unlimited" services.
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: So how long.... said by r81984 :Phone companies negotiate termination rates for exchanges all the time, that is normal for them. How many do it with "scammers?"
That's my point. You're using hyperbole to depict the rural services as breaking the law (fraud and deception, the definition of "scam.").
But, when it's pointed out how these services are predicated on companies like MagicJack who offer "unlimited long distance" (which is much more of a fraud and deception perpetrated on their own customers), you don't have anything to say about that.
And, when it's pointed out that services like MagicJack were willing to do business with those (whom you say) are guilty of criminal conduct, you switch gears and say "everyone negotiates termination fees." Undermining your own claim that these services aren't like "everyone."
If these rural services were really guilty of fraud and deception, MJ would be guilty of vastly more such conduct based on the way it depicts its service as "unlimited" (when it's not). And, MJ would be guilty of partnering with disreputable characters simply if it could get a better deal than other carriers. A form of revenue sharing. Like rebating some of the "loot" back to MJ in the form of lower termination fees.
You'll say "everyone negotiates termination fees." So, which is it? Are the rural services just like everyone? Or, guilty of criminal conduct?
That's been my point all along. I think it's just a dirty business. The rural services are simply playing upon the "unlimited" gimmick used by carriers like MJ. I don't think MJ is a guilty of criminal conduct by overhyping its service. It's just distasteful business conduct, like PT Barnum.
The rural services are operated by the same caliber of people. They found a way to game the system in a way that would be much less profitable without the prevalence of the "unlimited long distance" gimmick (which they had nothing to do with.).
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: So how long.... said by r81984 :MJ was willing to do business, but since they are scammers they refused so MJ blocked them. (chuckle). You're so biased it's unbelievable.
MJ didn't do business with the rural services because they wouldn't cut the kind of deal MJ wanted to do business with them. That was the story from someone claiming to represent MJ at the time MJ blocked the services.
First you justified that position (as just an agreement like any telco enters into) because you didn't like the implication that such a relationship smacks of revenue sharing (MJ using and validating a group which you insist are guilty of criminal conduct, at the expense of other carriers who didn't get the sweet deal).
But, that would have implied the rural services are like any other service/exchange which telcos routinely establish agreements with.
To avoid that little disconnect, now you've fabricated a reason for MJ which MJ never gave.
It's like you're living in a mythical world where someone who didn't deceive or defraud anyone is guilty of a "scam." And, where a telco like MJ blocked access to them out of principle, which was exactly contrary to what MJ said.
You need to relax. It's just two distasteful businesses running into each other's turf. The more you use hyperbole to overstate the problem, the more you have to contort your arguments to make them work.
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
1 edit | Re: So how long.... said by r81984 :You sound like an uninformed buyer that is pissed at MJ. You probably are one of the tools that used the scammer conference call service and now your pissed that MJ blocked the scam. 1. My views of MJ are balanced. I've said it's a great deal if a user can make it work, etc. I've said it's not for everyone.
I see both sides of MJ. That's not biased.
2. I've never called any rural service as far as I know.
said by r81984 :MJ just wanted to cut a deal so that they would pay the standard less than a penny termination rate. Again, you don't know what price MJ was willing to agree to.
And, it's good to see you back to the "it's about money" position, instead of "it's about principle."
Taking your hyperbole seriously, that means MJ was willing to enter into an agreement with a service guilty of criminal conduct, and the basis of that agreement would be if MJ could share the proceeds of that criminal behavior. A lower termination fee than the other telcos pay, essentially making the criminal service available to MJ customers at a subsidized price. And, this would be an imputed benefit to MJ because they could advertise that they don't block these services (giving validity to criminals!).
Of course, I don't really believe that. But, I'm not the one who's locked onto hyperbole like a pit bull. 
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: So how long.... said by r81984 :MJ did what normal phone companies do, try to get better deals in termination fees. (Chuckle) Now you're back to implying the rural services are like any other prefix (i.e., not a "scammer.").
It's amusing to watch you dance around this point. You can't accept that these rural services are guilty of no more subterfuge than MJ is (with its "unlimited" long distance). You have to use hyperbole to make them worse than they really are, guilty of criminal conduct.
But, when faced with how MJ was willing to do business with them, and what that would mean about MJ, you start backpeddling, and depicting the rural services as just like any other normal service.
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
2 edits | Re: So how long.... said by r81984 :MJ tried to make a standard agreement that legit exchanges make with each other, but since these rural exchanges are scammers they refused to make an agreement. Which means MJ tried to enter into an agreement with a scammer. This would have meant that MJ would have legitimized the scammer service, and enjoyed a form of revenue sharing (lower costs than other telcos pay to connect their users to those services, causing other telcos to subsidize MJ's access to those services).
Of course, I don't really believe that. But, I'm not the one saying they were "scammers." I think they are distasteful businesses just like MJ is (with its own questionable business practices). In that case, it's understandable why MJ tried to work out a deal with them. It's just a distasteful business.
But, that's not your position. You want it both ways. You want to depict them as engaged in obvious criminal conduct. But, when the implication becomes clear (of MJ negotiating with them), you want it to be "just another case of telcos negotiating termination fees."
said by r81984 :Unlimited long distance has nothing to do with the scammer conference call... I still don't understand the basis for that assertion. If users payed metered billing (based upon the per-minute cost incurred by the telco), who would want to use those expensive rural-based services?
"Unlimited long distance" is just a similar edge case, showing how obscuring the actual cost of long distance contributes to the feasibility of these rural services. "Unlimited long distance" makes them perfectly feasible because, to the end user, there is no cost at all. (But, of course, it becomes the ultimate problem to the "unlimited service provider" who doesn't honestly provide "unlimited" service even to customers calling very cheap exchanges.).
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: So how long.... said by r81984 :Give it up. MJ blocked them because they are scammers and your crying about that will not change anything. The Iowa Utilities Board admits these scammers were illegaly collecting fees for calls that did not qualify for the higher termination fees. They are making them refund money and they will put a stop to them. I think it's good if these services are put out of business. They're obviously gaming the system.
Just taking exception to your hyperbole that they were engaged in criminal conduct, and how (if we take your hyperbole seriously) what that would mean for MJ to negotiate a preferred partner agreement with them (and how you backpeddle on that one, and depict the services as just ordinary services that all telcos negotiate with).
They definitely were gaming the system, just like carriers game their own customers with "unlimited long distance" which isn't unlimited.
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | |
r81984
Thread is
Premium
join:2001-11-14
St John'S, NL
·magicjack.com
·Cox HSI
·Insight Communicat..
·AT&T Midwest
1 edit | Re: So how long.... said by amigo_boy :Just taking exception to your hyperbole that they were engaged in criminal conduct, and how (if we take your hyperbole seriously) what that would mean for MJ to negotiate a preferred partner agreement with them (and how you backpeddle on that one, and depict the services as just ordinary services that all telcos negotiate with). They definitely were gaming the system, just like carriers game their own customers with "unlimited long distance" which isn't unlimited. They were conducting criminal conduct. They were illegally charging higher fees. Read this: »www.newtonindependent.com/newton···ing.html
MJ tried to contact them to have an agreement and they ignored MJ because they are scammers and do not want to conduct legitimate business.
Why are you being a troll?
--
Democrats are not Socialists any more than Republicans are. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: So how long.... That's an accusation (not a determination yet) which seeks repayment of tarrifs, not criminal charges of fraud.
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: So how long.... said by r81984 :Stop being so bitter about MJ. I don't feel like I'm bitter about MJ. I don't employ hyperbole to describe them. I've said MJ did nothing wrong trying to enter into an agreement with the rural-based telcos (nothing more wrong than they do with their own business practices). And thus, the rural services are guilty of nothing more than gaming the system, just as MJ does (with it's hype, selling less to its customers than it delivers).
I've only said it's par for the industry, and thus not criminal fraud (as you've insisted).
That doesn't sound like bitterness to me.
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: So how long.... said by r81984 :First you say they are legit and now you call them a con-call service. Conference call service. (abbreviated con-call.).
said by r81984 :Unlimited LD and higher rural fees do not matter because phone companies can absorb the fees for a few calls make to these areas. I agree. But, that wasn't the point under discussion. We were discussing whether "unlimited long distance" encourages (improves the feasibility of) the rural-based services.
I believe they do because the rural-based services are long distance-based. To the extent that the cost of a user's long distance is obscured, it makes rural-based services more attractive. And, axiomatically, less attractive to the carrier providing "unlimited" service.
said by r81984 :The problem is when scammers install thousands of phone lines in an area that get to charge higher fees because they too few phone lines to be profitable. We're in agreement about what the problem is. Apparently we only disagree over who has the most incentive to use them (users of "unlimited long distance") and thus, who the services harm the most (carriers offering "unlimited long distance."). Right?
said by r81984 :You are the one using hyberbole when you say MJ is trying to revenue share with the scammers. But, that's exactly what MJ would have done if the rural-based services were engaged in obvious and blatant criminal conduct.
I simply took your hyperbole and asked what that meant for MJ to try to negotiate an agreement with these rural services, so they could essentially facilitate access by MJ customers to notoriously criminal services. And, I asked at who's expense this would have occurred if other telcos paid the normal rates, and providing profit to the rural services? (I.e., revenue sharing. Providing the "criminal" service to MagicJack at a discount, at the expense of the other services.).
That doesn't seem like hyperbole to me. I'm just pointing out how, if your hyperbole is taken literally, it leads to some uncomfortable conclusions like that. And, it's obvious you're uncomfortable, based on the way you've danced around how they're criminal, but just like any other exchange-based service; or how MJ didn't know they were criminal until they refused to make MJ a preferred partner.
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | |
r81984
Thread is
Premium
join:2001-11-14
St John'S, NL
1 edit | Re: So how long.... Damn, didn't work.
I guess amigo_boy will keep trolling along with flawed logic and ignoring facts.
--
Democrats are not Socialists any more than Republicans are. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
r81984
Thread is
Premium
join:2001-11-14
St John'S, NL
1 edit | You are a troll and completely stupid if you think paying money to someone is revenue sharing.
MJ does not allow ATAs, stop being so bitter about that.
--
Democrats are not Socialists any more than Republicans are. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: So how long.... said by r81984 :You are a troll and completely stupid if you think paying money to someone is revenue sharing. (Chuckle). You've insisted that the services were criminal enterprises. If MJ entered into a preferred partner agreement (to get lower costs to use the services of the criminal enterprise), they would essentially be validating the criminal enterprise (showcasing it as a service which MJ users can access unlike other carriers). And, this would have through the simple economic principle that other carriers would have been subsdizing MJ's discounted fees. (I.e., the rural services would simply make their money from the other carriers.).
As I said before. I don't actually believe that. Just pointing out the ludicrous nature of your hyperbole, and how you have to dance around the hyperbole when it comes to the implication of MJ doing business with the rural services.
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: So how long.... said by r81984 :MJ had every right to contact them and see if they were legitimate. They ignored MJ because they were scammers. C'mon. Now your position is that MJ didn't know this was a rural-based con-call service?
Everyone knew what this service was when MJ blocked it. But, to you, MJ didn't know, and had to contact them first with an offer to become a preferred partner?
(wink, wink, nudge, nudge.). That sounds almost like what Sulley is accused of doing. Facilitating the transaction.
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: So how long.... said by r81984 :said by amigo_boy :[I still don't understand the basis for that assertion. If users payed metered billing (based upon the per-minute cost incurred by the telco), who would want to use those expensive rural-based services? No metered billing LD company charges the actual fees, they charge a flate rate which will not protect them from these scammers charging a higher rate than calling another country. You are making things up that do not exist. Well, no "unlimited long distance" service exists either. I didn't hear you complaining about that.
I was just using two edge conditions to illustrate a point.
You insist that "unlimited long distance" has nothing to do with the feasibility of these rural services' business model. I pointed out that, to the extent long distance is metered, users have less reason to use these rural services. To the extent long distance is "unlimited," users have every reason to use them.
Therefore, "unlimited long distance" contributes to the conditions leading to these services thriving.
That doesn't mean any long distance is truly "unlimited." We know it's not. That's why MJ had to block them. But, in that case, users of the service were deceived by MJ, not the rural-based service.
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: So how long.... said by r81984 :Now you are changing the subject instead of admitting you are wrong. If you need a way to exit the discussion, just stop replying.
I responded to your assertion that "unlimited long distance" has nothing to do with the feasibility of these rural-based services. I demonstrated how (on a sliding scale) it contributes greatly (and consequently, harms such providers the most).
I think you're projecting when you say I'm the one who can't admit he's wrong. (wink).
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
See 7 replies to this post | |
| | 
EPOE
@covad.net
| The PSTN is a per minute business model it has been and will always be if we want to keep all points connectable and quality of service.
When a company offeres an Unlimited Long Distance plan they know they are doing granting Unlimited Access to a per minute network. There are NO TRUE UNLIMITED LONG DISTANCE PLANS... I suppose you believe that if you package it differently it some how changes and becomes an All You Can Eat netwok like the Internet. The two networks are different and if they interconnect they should abide by the rules that come with both. If you don't want to play by the rules of the PSTN don't use it.
Disrupting the PSTN is not an option. | |
| | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| Re: So how long.... Did you respond to the wrong post? I have never stated the PSTN (or the Internet) is, or should be, "all you can eat". I've also never suggested disrupting the PSTN. Furthermore, I understand the basics of interconnecting networks to transfer phone calls and how lopsided they are. Some small, rural carriers are exploiting loopholes that should be close. And if the "alternative" voice providers want to sell voice service, they should step up to the same regulations that the incumbents are held to. If you don't want to play by the rules and regulations, then you shouldn't be allowed to connect to the PSTN, IMO. | |
| |
r81984
Thread is
Premium
join:2001-11-14
St John'S, NL | If there was phone neutrality they would not have to block these scammer phone numbers.
--
Democrats are not Socialists any more than Republicans are. | |
| | 
tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
·Comcast
1 edit | Except that the small telco's are abusing the compansation system. This isn't ordinary traffic, but traffic generated just to increase fee payments.
To be truely neutral, the little telco's wouldn't recieve any higher transport fees than the big guys do, which would make the extra traffic VERY unappealing to the small telco, which do actually have somewhat higher costs per minute expenses.
really neutral would make it a breakeven compansation, but that leaves no incentive for the little guy to expand service or even maintain current equipment.
The FCC did stomp on other companies doing this before, but moves too slowly to prevent abuse in realtime. | |
| | |
See 6 replies to this post | |
| kd6cae
P2p Shouldn't Be A Crime
join:2001-08-27
Lancaster, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| Why block a service anyway, what's the point? Why are all these providers so eager to block services such as free conference call? I've never used the service myself, but shouldn't I be able to call any telephone number I wish? How are services such as free conferencecall suppose to work to please phone companies then? If I wanted to offer a confrencing call service, would I have to risk being blocked to just because I'm offering a service which folks use and results in calls coming in to my service and no calls going out? Is that what this is all about? No phone provider should block calls to any number, that's my thought. If I wish to use free conference call, why should it matter? It's a phone number within my calling plan, so let me call it! | |
| | | 
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| What Happens if you are a non-Conference number in NPA-NXX? Speakeasy states Speakeasy will disallow voice traffic to a few selected area and prefix codes ("NPA-NXX").
Are the NPA-NXX numbers dedicated EXCLUSIVELY to the Conference Call Companies or are they sharing the exchange with normal customers of that Phone Company? If the later, then Speakeasy is blocking incoming access to all those who (due to living in the area covered by the NPA-NXX exchange) have phone numbers that are now unreachable by Speakeasy. If they want to block calls to the conference numbers, and I do not disagree with their right to do so, then do so but do not block calls to the "Human Shield" customers who are not conference companies. | |
| |
EPOE
@covad.net | Re: What Happens if you are a non-Conference number in NPA-NXX? They don't care they block all residents too! They are not looking to solve any problems other than keeping their users calls down to a minimum in transactions and costs. | |
|
EPOE
@covad.net
| The problem is ULDP wants to price low and not carry calls Unlimited Long Distance is a Great Marketing Idea but not a strong business model. Oh yeah sure it is popular with the customers ULDPs have moved customers from paying by the minute. If you buy a per minute plan or an Unlimited Long Distance Plan the price is the same for the carrier that is interconnecting for you. Yet ULDPs price to the competition instead of their costs.
ULDP attracts the highest volume users and entice those customers to use more. Some of those high volume users were using service like FreeConferenceCall.com before they became ULDP users.
ULDP desensitize the customer to price and time which means the applications like FreeConferenceCall can exist in higher cost areas because it is painless to the customer calling the service.
But here is the kicker because Unlimited Long Distance Providers (ULDPs) make the most money if their customers don't call at all. Why is that a big deal? Because they were paid for carrying traffic now they are paid for not carrying traffic.
The funny thing is that most people blame the free conference calling service and call them scammers when it is the ULDPs that are holding themselves out to be Carriers when they don't get paid to carry and they are trying to stop customers from making calls anyway they can.
THE CUSTOMERS WANT TO MAKE THESE CALLS!!!!! | |
| | | | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: The problem is ULDP wants to price low and not carry calls said by r81984 :It is not unlimited long distance that creates the problem. Sure it is. The service is a toll call. Users who pay for their long distance are less inclined to use it. It's clearly designed to appeal to users of "unlimited, free long distance" services like MagicJack.
That's why it's funny to hear services like MagicJack get everyone excited about "scammers" when their own behavior (selling "unlimited service" which they know isn't truly unlimited) fits the definition much more closely.
Here's another way to look at it: MagicJack advertises unlimited long distance. (I've seen the infomercial saying "call anyone, talk as long as you want" and "never pay a phone bill again."). But, they terminate users for undefined "excessive use." Therefore, the problem with the con-call service isn't that it charges MJ 6-cents per minute. Just that it helps users reach the "excessive use" definition 3-4 times faster.
To me, that sounds like a crack addict complaining to the police that his drug dealer ripped him off. These "unlimited long distance" providers are guilty of vastly more subterfuge than the con-call providers. The con-call providers merely help point out the deception of "unlimited long distance" providers. It's not really unlimited even without the con-call services.
Mark | |
| | | | | jtozer
join:2003-12-19
San Diego, CA | Free Conference Call Company NOT in Iowa I've come across a Free Conference Call Service that is based in California and utilizes various non-rural local numbers: www.freevoiceconferencing.com | |
| | | |
|
|
Speakeasy Latest To Block Free Conference Outfits
