dslreports logo
FCC To Telcos: No Blocking Iowa Calls
Or traffic degradation either...
During his tour of Silicon Valley yesterday, FCC chief Kevin Martin warned the major telcos not to block calls headed for Iowa-based free conference call operations. As mentioned back in March, Qwest and AT&T had been blocking their customers from calling such services, which exist due to a regulatory loophole. AT&T defended the decision this way:
"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."
The FCC says no, you can't:
"According to Martin, all the offending telcos responded and said they would stop blocking — sort of. “One had stopped blocking, but we heard complaints the next week that they were restricting access, sort of narrowing the pipe,” said Martin. 'We called them back and said, no, no, you can’t artificially degrade [service] either.'"
The debate isn't over, of course; the FCC will also likely take steps to stop "Traffic pumping," or the routing of high call volume through rural ILEC exchanges in order to "pump up" the termination fees large telcos must pay to smaller rural companies.
view:
topics flat nest 

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

No blocking; but no money either; result:services die

The big telcos will win this in the end. The FCC may stop their blocking, but they won't force the telcos to pay the Iowa termination fees either. And without those fees, the rural telcos can't afford to charge ridiculously low fees to the conference call providers. QED - the conference call providers either go out of business or pay higher fees to the Iowa telcos.
On whether or not the FCC would force AT&T and Qwest to pay disputed access-charge bills, Martin said that was a separate issue, and covered by petitioning processes that might take further time to resolve. “If you have a dispute about the intercarrier compensation rules, you can file petitions, and come to the commission to get redress,” Martin said. “But you can’t just stop letting consumers make those calls.”

Noah Vail
Oh God please no.
Premium Member
join:2004-12-10
SouthAmerica

Noah Vail

Premium Member

We're still waiting......

....for the "Pay us our extortionate rates or we'll wither on the vine!" argument to validate itself.

More likely to happen is the free market will force large telcos to compete by offering more efficient technologies.

Or another scenario is that the large telco becomes obsolete and goes away.

One must make a decision on whether well being of the consumer or corporation is the priority.

NV
russotto
join:2000-10-05
West Orange, NJ

russotto

Member

Re: We're still waiting......

There is no free market involved here. There's termination fees imposed by fiat.

sporkme
drop the crantini and move it, sister
MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ

1 recommendation

sporkme

MVM

Re: We're still waiting......

said by russotto:

There is no free market involved here. There's termination fees imposed by fiat.
The delicious irony of this is that the ILECs paid millions in lobbying money to get these termination fees so that they could gouge smaller companies.

Now it's biting them in the ass, just like it did when dialup got big.

batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium Member
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ

batterup

Premium Member

Re: We're still waiting......

said by sporkme:

said by russotto:

There is no free market involved here. There's termination fees imposed by fiat.
The delicious irony of this is that the ILECs paid millions in lobbying money to get these termination fees so that they could gouge smaller companies.

Now it's biting them in the ass, just like it did when dialup got big.
The rural ILECs get a much bigger termination fee then Verizon-NJ. If all fees were equal the leaches would not be in Iowa.

calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA

calvoiper

Member

Re: We're still waiting......

Two minor points--First, these are "access fees", charged to LD providers. "Termination fees" are what local ILECs and CLECs pay each other for passing traffic. (They have similar characteristics but are treated differently in regulatory structure. There is also a reasonable argument that these fees should not exist as the individual costs of both originating traffic from and terminating traffic to an end user should be paid by that end user.)

Second, it's "leeches", not "leaches".

calvoiper

John T
@verizon.net

John T to sporkme

Anon

to sporkme
Huh?

The fees were set up in order to subsidize rural service, because it costs more to serve a rural customer in a low-density area than one in a high density area. They've always been higher payments for the smaller companies in rural areas than for the big companies. They've always been so that the smaller companies could "gouge" the bigger ones, not the other way around.

Your comment makes no sense. There is no "delicious irony." There's simply that some of the rural companies hit on the idea that, thanks to conference calling and VoIP over a fiber network, they could provide services to lots of people located outside of their rural area while still getting these large fees.

It's a difficult problem, but so far the FCC seems to be getting it right. Allowing the big companies to block the network is clearly wrong, but at the same time these fees should be reexamined if the rural providers are able to use them in totally unintended manners that have nothing to do with bringing phone service to rural and poorer areas.

calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA

calvoiper

Member

Re: We're still waiting......

There is in fact delicious irony here because SBC and VZ, and their component predecessors, all lobbied hard for high and unrestricted access charges when they were just ILECs sticking it to the LD carriers.

Now, having used those high access charges to weaken ATT and MCI to the point where they could purchase them, SBC (under its acquired ATT name) and VZ ARE the LD carriers, and somebody else is sticking it to them. That is the irony of which sporkme speaks....

batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium Member
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ

batterup to Noah Vail

Premium Member

to Noah Vail
said by Noah Vail:

....for the "Pay us our extortionate rates or we'll wither on the vine!" argument to validate itself.

More likely to happen is the free market will force large telcos to compete by offering more efficient technologies.

Or another scenario is that the large telco becomes obsolete and goes away.

One must make a decision on whether well being of the consumer or corporation is the priority.

NV
That makes no sense what-so-ever.

battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000

battleop to FFH5

Member

to FFH5

Re: No blocking; but no money either; result:services die

So let me get this right. If more calls flow from the Small Telco to the Big Telco the small telco pays for these calls.

Now if the more calls flow from the Big Telco to the Small Telco the big Telcos Bitch that it's not far and then block the calls.

Three words.

Pot, Kettle, Black.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Re: No blocking; but no money either; result:services die

said by battleop:

So let me get this right. If more calls flow from the Small Telco to the Big Telco the small telco pays for these calls.

Now if the more calls flow from the Big Telco to the Small Telco the big Telcos Bitch that it's not far and then block the calls.

Three words.
Pot, Kettle, Black.
Three more relevant words: The Golden Rule
Those with the gold rule. Big telco doesn't pay small telco. Small telco goes broke trying to get money from big telco in court. And big telco gets rules changed at FCC. Small telco can't win.

powerhog
Stinkin' up the joint
Premium Member
join:2000-12-14
Owasso, OK

powerhog

Premium Member

Re: No blocking; but no money either; result:services die

This is where the so-called "socialist" plan requiring universal coverage comes into play. The small telco can not just go out of business. Someone HAS to provide service to the region and the big telcos don't want to do that (or they would have already bought small telco).

So, which is cheaper?
1) pay small telco the 100% legal connect/termination fees
2) provide telephony service to entire small telco territory

The answer is likely #1 and I think you'll see the big ILECs pay the small ILECs the fees- right up until the time the law is changed to favor the big telcos.

John T
@verizon.net

John T to FFH5

Anon

to FFH5
Weird, because these rules have been around since the 1930s subsidizing poor and rural areas and their poor and rural telcos. How exactly is your comment true?

I don't have a strong problem with subsidizing phone service for the poor and rural. The areas need service, and if it takes a subsidy for Universal Service, then there are only so many ways to do it. I do have a problem with small telcos using this to subsidize the phone calls of people not in their poor and rural area, people who were never intended to get the subsidy, things that have nothing to do with providing Universal Service.

This isn't just about big telco versus small. It's also about well-informed consumers, largely wealthier than average (but also including tech-savvy but poor students), grabbing parts of a subsidy intended for the poor, rural, and under-connected. Using subsidies designed to achieve Universal Service and subsidizing the middle-class who are already connected is wrong, yes?

powerhog
Stinkin' up the joint
Premium Member
join:2000-12-14
Owasso, OK

powerhog

Premium Member

Re: No blocking; but no money either; result:services die

The post(s) to which I replied said that the small telco would "go out of business" waiting for their payments from the large telcos.

I was pointing out that the small telco can not go out of business because of the universal service requirements by the government (therefore the USF). Many here at DSLR consider the universal service program and fees to be a socialist program in need of abolishment.

batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium Member
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ

batterup to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
It makes the lawyers happy. This is like a guy living in public housing selling drugs.
quote:
Since the 1930s, when Congress set as public policy the goal of ensuring affordable phone service for every home, the government has allowed rural carriers to charge higher per-minute rates to long-distance companies for connecting their calls to the local network.

The rural rates typically range from 2 cents a minute to perhaps a nickel, though occasionally exceed a dime. By contrast, AT&T, Verizon and Qwest get paid closer to half a cent per minute when they connect one of their local customers to a long-distance call from another provider.

The extra revenue enables the nation's smallest carriers _ there are roughly 500 companies with fewer than 2,000 phone lines _ to generate a profit without jacking up local rates.
»www.cbsnews.com/stories/ ··· 81.shtml
lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL

lesopp

Member

Tigers can not change their strips!

Typical Telco behaviour, lie, cheat and steal to stop customer loss.

Although the topic is regarding the Telcos blocking and/or degrading calls, you can, without a great deal of imagination, see why net neutrality is needed.

batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium Member
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ

batterup

Premium Member

Re: Tigers can not change their strips!

said by lesopp:

Typical Telco behaviour, lie, cheat and steal to stop customer loss.

Although the topic is regarding the Telcos blocking and/or degrading calls, you can, without a great deal of imagination, see why net neutrality is needed.
You really need more understanding. Net neutrality and termination fees have nothing to do with each other. Why do you think leaches sucking the life out of a network are good. It is only good for the leaches.
lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL

lesopp

Member

Re: Tigers can not change their strips!

Did I write net neutrality and termination fees have anything to do with each other?

If you inferred that, allow me to clarify. I was referring to their behaviour in this matter and drawing a parallel with regard to net neutrality a different matter.

Leeches? You really need more understanding, the calls made to this Iowa-based free conference call outfit are long distance calls and already paid for by the caller or some other entity paying for an 800 service.

batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium Member
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ

batterup

Premium Member

Re: Tigers can not change their strips!

said by lesopp:

Did I write net neutrality and termination fees have anything to do with each other?

If you inferred that, allow me to clarify. I was referring to their behaviour in this matter and drawing a parallel with regard to net neutrality a different matter.

Leeches? You really need more understanding, the calls made to this Iowa-based free conference call outfit are long distance calls and already paid for by the caller or some other entity paying for an 800 service.
Yes at&t and Qwest pay for the leaches long-distance. The Iowa ILEC pay a kick back to the chat line providers. It is one big hustle that hurts most and profits a few.

calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA

calvoiper

Member

Re: Tigers can not change their strips!

Interestingly enough, there are some similarities between access charge issues and Net Neutrality, which is essentially the rejection of "content priority" charges.

Both access charges and content priority charges are attempts by the local provider of connectivity services to charge twice for connecting an end user to an upstream provider of services.

Both shift revenue from the upstream provider to the local provider.

Both depend on the fact that the local (usually wired) connection to the end user gives the local provider a stranglehold over connections to/from that end user.

Both give larger players an advantage because they discourage smaller players from breaking into either the content market (because they increase the cost of distribution) or the ISP market (because small ISPs can't extort the same "priority" fees big ISPs can.)

Both seriously distort the economics of what should be a competitive market and allow the local provider to favor its own affiliates in the upstream market.

Both are bad. (And it's still "leeches", not "leaches".)

calvoiper

batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium Member
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ

batterup

Premium Member

Re: Tigers can not change their strips!

said by calvoiper:



And it's still "leeches"

I agree.

xerxes3642
join:2006-02-24
Saint Charles, MO

xerxes3642

Member

net neutrality

advocates should pay attention to this. This is exactly what will happen if isp's can decide who gets what bandwidth, and who is blocked for their own reasons.

VoiceOfReason
@85.195.123.x

VoiceOfReason

Anon

The phone companies bring this on themselves

This is what the phone companies get for refusing to compete in other telco service areas. You see, legally, any of the big phone companies could put a stop to this by going into the service areas of the rural ripoff companies and building their own local telephone companies, and by offering better service and lower prices, they could force the ripoff locals out of business (I doubt the incumbent locals could survive with ONLY the income from the conference lines).

Oh. Wait. For that to work, it would mean that a large phone company would have to offer excellent service and low rates. Silly me.

John T
@verizon.net

John T

Anon

Re: The phone companies bring this on themselves

Well, it is actually expensive to provide service in these areas. So it's unlikely that the big phone companies could provide particularly cheaper rates for the actual Universal Service obligations. (Though there is a proposal floating around the FCC for competitive bidding on the franchise rights in these areas.)

The problem is when the local rural companies get to use the subsidy for activities that have little to nothing to do with providing universal service, which is what they're doing here.

no_one
@iauq.com

no_one

Anon

Not designed for this

This is not big telco vs. small telco. It is someone found a loophole to gouge money from a telco. A business model formed on the concept the connect fees wee so high profit could be made even by giving conference calls or international service away. This connect fee was not designed for this.

calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA

calvoiper

Member

Re: Not designed for this

No, it wasn't. Access charges were designed to shift money from LD providers to local companies, so local companies could keep their rates low.

Which is what is happening here. The only difference is that ATT (nee SBC) is now a long distance company, and the unlimited access charges that Ed Whitacre used to love are now a thorn in his side. (Oh, and the Iowa companies have driven the local rates negative by splitting the revenue, but what's a plus or minus sign, anyway?)

calvoiper
viperlmw
Premium Member
join:2005-01-25

viperlmw

Premium Member

Qwest has filed a formal complaint...

...if any RBOC bashers are interested:

»www.rockymountainnews.co ··· ,00.html
jervin123
join:2005-04-14
Philadelphia, PA

jervin123

Member

Re: Qwest has filed a formal complaint...

CLEC all the way I believe when a clec behaves and does things the right way... you can have the same or better experience then with the RBOC.

batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium Member
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ

batterup

Premium Member

Get a clue.

Leaches do not help, they kill. Why do you think a practice that does not build or innovate and profits fly-by-night hustlers is good for America?

jhboricua

join:2000-06-06
Minneapolis, MN

jhboricua

Re: Get a clue.

said by batterup:

Leaches do not help, they kill. Why do you think a practice that does not build or innovate and profits fly-by-night hustlers is good for America?
I'll post an answer when I get it from Verizon.


calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA

calvoiper

Member

Re: Get a clue.

What sort of leach kills? Maybe the toxic liquids leaching from a dump? Or are you talking about leeches?

calvoiper

MrMoody
Free range slave
Premium Member
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC

MrMoody

Premium Member

The answer

The obvious answer is to have a sliding scale: only the first xx,000 minutes get charged at a high rate, enough to subsidize the small community's residents, then the rate drops lower and lower as the minutes climb.