Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

• 

  ..., 5 Oct 2007 @ 7:30pm

  
  

  Gee really...

  It doesnt take a rocket scientist to see something was being exploited...

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Surfsailor, 5 Oct 2007 @ 7:34pm

  
  

  First

  First

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Surfsailor, 5 Oct 2007 @ 7:35pm

  
  

  Dam - missed it

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    Mrhobbes (profile), 8 Apr 2014 @ 6:08am

    
    

    Re: Dam - missed it

    No buddy, you haven't missed.. If you're looking for an alternative to make free calls, this link would be perfect for you.. http://goo.gl/GbnCLM
    
    You can make free calls to India for 100 minutes

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Anonymous Coward, 5 Oct 2007 @ 10:11pm

  
  

  Re: playing games?

  You're new here, arent you

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  fishbane, 6 Oct 2007 @ 3:59am

  
  

  Are we really defending ATT now? Their point seems to be that regulations are great, so long as they win. If someone outthinks them, that's bad.
  
  I'd love to see an equal footing for telecom, telecom startups, and alternatives, but somehow I think my interests and ATT diverge just... perhaps a little.
  
  Protecting rights is important, but protecting already well protected semi-nationalised firms, not so much. I know we can't practically rollback what has happened, but taking an adversarial role to what they've become is reasonable.

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2007 @ 1:39pm

    
    

    Re: @fishbane

    It's ATT's legal obligation as an entity to make as much money as they can however they can. If that means exploiting regulations when they can and stopping others from doing it to them. Their stance doesn't change.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    Ryan Johnson, 7 Oct 2007 @ 1:48pm

    
    

    Re: Phone Biz.

    Hello, my name is Ryan. I saw your comments about AT&T and thought i'd just drop a line letting you know that I completely agree with you. That's why I got started in a deregulation company that also offers VoIP and Video Phones. If you might be interested in getting on the other side of the communications industry "The recieving side" send me back an e-mail and I would be happy to send you some information.
    
    Thanks for your time,
    Ryan J.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • 

      Ryan Johnson, 7 Oct 2007 @ 2:02pm

      
      

      Re: Re: Phone Biz.

      Hey, sorry I forgot to leave my e-mail address ryanjohnsonrvp@yahoo.com Also if anyone would like save money on there service or even knows someone that would like to, get a hold of me.
      Thanks again,
      Keep fighting the GOOD Fight!
      
      Ryan J.

      [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2007 @ 5:09am

  
  

  is this what the world coming to ???

  Damn man .. We're feeling sorry for one of the worst corporate companies in this country. (talking about ATT for the one tuning in this century) what next .. feel sorry for Enron, WCom, steve jobs and the king of all .... MS ..

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Meoip, 6 Oct 2007 @ 7:15am

  
  

  Whole

  The whole industry is backward. Tax subsidies and my taxes pay for ATT to put new lines in. Then I pay again to get that line run an extra 10 feet to my house, then I pay a monthly fee just to have access to that line. Then I pay a higher monthly fee just to make out going calls.
  I laughed at ATT when I started using a free voip service that let me punch in my phone number then the number I want to speak with. The internet calls my land line then calls the person I want to speak with. I recieve an incoming call and sine incoming calls are free I subscribe to the ATT $4.25 plan and get $60 worth of service for it.

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  dualboot, 6 Oct 2007 @ 2:41pm

  
  

  Not defending big companies

  Okay, I'm not defending any big phone company, but do you really think that those of us paying for service would be paying as much if the big companies didn't have to pay the little companies that were using exploits? I'm all for them paying to help build up the infrastructure, but perhaps there needs to be a regulation that they actually HAVE to use that money, or at least a portion of it (50% is more than reasonable) to do what it was intended to do... improve the infrastructure of the little guys. It seems like in the long run that would work out better for the little companies anyway... a better network = higher capacity of paying customers = higher revenues = more able to compete with big companies.
  
  I think it's less about the big companies and more about the fly-by-night companies setting up for the specific purpose of exploiting the system. Anyone who got shut down by a certain VOIP provider this year without prior notice and the inability to now port out their existing number of 15 years knows what I'm saying here.

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    Arochone, 6 Oct 2007 @ 3:30pm

    
    

    Re: Not defending big companies

    Yes, actually, I do think you would be paying just as much without those little companies doing that. The difference is the big companies would be making bigger profits. Supply and demand. They amount they charge is based on the price that the most people will buy it at. The price that gets them the most profits. If they know you'll pay $60 for it, why would they charge less? You think they'd just charge you less to be nice?

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • 

      THUFIR, 6 Oct 2007 @ 4:47pm

      
      

      Re: Re: Not defending big companies

      Well, if you're making x percent margin, a competitor will come along and make x-1 percent margin. That's competition, that's why the price could be lower.

      [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • 

      Alex, 8 Oct 2007 @ 11:42am

      
      

      Re: Re: Not defending big companies

      Note that conference calls used to cost 50 cents a minute (once you were approved for credit). Because of the free conferencing companies, it now is essentially the same cost as long distance (LD revenues average about 6.5 cents per minute and conferencing costs average about 7 cents per minute). Competition is good for consumers, even if it is through what seem to be bizarre regulatory systems that end up balancing the power in the telecom industry.

      [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    Alex, 8 Oct 2007 @ 11:39am

    
    

    Re: Not defending big companies

    FreeConference.com has been around for 6 years. Why is AT&T getting the FCC to do its bidding now? Because of all the new fly-by-night companies and chat companies who were running to the most extreme abusers of this regulatory system. In the free conferencing industry case, this is a reasonable balancing act. AT&T is making 5 to 10 cents a minute on the new long distance business FreeConference generates and only paying 1 to 4 cents to rural telcos for access (that is why they never prompted FCC action previously--they are making a very large profit on this business). "Exploiting the system" is something AT&T, Sprint, Verizon, and Qwest are masters at and you can find dozens of examples of them playing the regulatory game for fun and profit at the user's expense. In this case, everyone benefits. Users pay for long distance service to consume services they want. Carriers earn incremental profit. Rural telcos profit and can compete across the spectrum of services in their areas without needing to pull as hard from the Universal Service Fund. Free Conferencing companies profit and continue to innovate to drive down conferencing costs with more and better features--another win for consumers.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  The Joe, 6 Oct 2007 @ 5:21pm

  
  

  AT&T stoped paying term fees a while ago.

  In 2000 and 2001 I worked at the helpdesk for the Dial-up ISP side of a small telco in Iowa. Sometime during that period AT&T stopped paying some of the Iowa telcos the term fees just because they didn't want to. Blatently breaking the law without thinking twice must be AT&T's policy. AT&T figured the telcos wouldn't be able to affored to sue them. I left the company before finding out what the outcome of that was.
  Bottom line.....screw AT&T and if they are getting ripped off by this loophole...well, karma's unfogiving.

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  clearly not all there, 7 Oct 2007 @ 7:44am

  
  

  BELLS are the Illegal ones

  People
  Can't people see the writing on the wall? AT&T wants to be a monopoly again. Think your rates are high now, wait until that happens. AT&T did chat forever when the rules went there way. Now they scream foul when they done. Look at this power point.
  http://www.itl.nist.gov/iaui/vvrg/hfweb/hfweb99ppt/fairbrother/fairbrother.ppt
  
  AT&T hosts their conference call gear at a clec called teleport. Why? the same rules that allow others to get this money. Don't ever think you can belive one thing that comes out of a bells mouth. just as well be www.att.gov.

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Read Theorder, 7 Oct 2007 @ 2:34pm

  
  

  Read the Order

  "We find that Farmers’ payment of marketing fees to the conference calling companies does not affect their status as customers, and thus end users, for purposes of Farmers’ tariff. Qwest offers scant support for its assertion that one cannot subscribe to a service without making a net payment to the service provider....Qwest has failed to prove that the conference calling company-bound calls do not terminate in Farmers’ exchange, and has failed to prove that Farmers’ imposition of terminating access charges is inconsistent with its tariff. We therefore deny Counts II and III of the Complaint." FCC's Farmer's Order.
  
  In addition the FCC order stated that Farmer's tariff's were valid and that Farmers could collect the withheld access fees from the carriers in "federal court." The WSJ reporter clearly did not read the FCC's order.
  
  The FCC Notice of Proposed Rulemaking which merely opened the docket and asks for comments, states: "We believe that traffic may be stimulated through a variety of means, including conference bridges, chat line facilities, call center operations, and help desk provisioning. We invite
  interested persons to comment on the prevalence of these types of operations and to describe in detail how
  each type of service is provisioned. We understand that carriers complaining about the access stimulation
  arrangements also offer conferencing and other services that may result in increased traffic. We ask such
  carriers to explain how they provide each of the above mentioned services, including what charges they
  assess on the provider, whether access charges are assessed on such calls, and what compensation, if any,
  is paid to such provider."

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Burzum, 8 Oct 2007 @ 5:36am

  
  

  Think before you Legislate!

  ...and maybe stuff like this won't happen. Not that I feel sorry for AT$T.

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Free Calls, 10 Aug 2008 @ 10:55am

  
  

  techdirt:for free calls

  free conferencing calling is also good medium to talk in free of cost.we can make
  Free Calls easily.

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Add Your Comment