Follow us on FaceBook Follow us on Twitter    
What are the anti-carriers willing to do... Minimize
Location: BlogsDavid Erickson's Blog    
Posted by: David Erickson 10/1/2009 7:49 PM

What are the anti-carriers willing to do to get (keep) a competitive advantage?

AT&T's letter to the FCC

Yesterday I was on a call with Hank Hultquist of AT&T. We were discussing net neutrality and the
letter filed at the FCC by AT&T that mixes “Self Help” with net neutrality (accusing Google Voice of Self Help).

AT&T wrote a letter on September 25, 2009 that stated:

“…By blocking these calls, Google is able to reduce its access expenses. Other providers, including those with which Google Voice competes, are banned from call blocking because in June 2007, the Wireline Competition Bureau emphatically declared that all carriers are prohibited from pursuing “ self help actions such as call blocking.” Google Voice thus has claimed for itself a significant advantage over providers offering competing services...”

This letter states that AT&T knows that it is wrong to conduct Self Help and AT&T accuses Google of using Self Help. AT&T is not stating that Self Help is bad for the consumer. AT&T is stating Self Help allows Google to reduce its expenses. Then AT&T says that Google thus has claimed for ITSELF a significant advantage over providers offering competing services.

So AT&T knows Self Help is wrong and knows that the 2007 Wireline Competition Bureau’s emphatic declaration was squarely directed at them and they confirm that in their letter.

AT&T’s act of reducing its expenses by use of Self Help on calls to FreeConferenceCall.com (or similar) for the purpose of gaining competitive advantage, and the Wireline Competition Bureau’s emphatic declaration directed at AT&T prohibiting AT&T from pursuing Self Help is squarely at issue. In other words the Wireline Competition Bureau has emphatically declared that AT&T is specifically prohibited from pursuing “self help” with regard to free conference calls yet AT&T does it anyway in an effort to reduce its own expenses and gain a
competitive advantage.

So I wanted to ask, “what is the difference between Google’s Self Help (as alleged by AT&T) and AT&T’s ithholding of payment, which is also Self Help?” Hank’s response was to say that one is call blocking and the other one is non-payment, and that AT&T and LECs are involved in legal proceedings that have not reached a final conclusion (cop out answer that avoids the question).

So I went to Dictionary.com and looked up the definition to “self help”: “The act or right of remedying a wrong, without resorting to legal proceedings.”

I guess AT&T believes they can remedy the problem by not paying, thus claiming for themselves a significant advantage over providers that offer competing services like Google. Then, they try to justify their own Self Help by stating they are suing the company that they are refusing to pay…?

Maybe they should just resort to legal proceedings and not also conduct Self Help! AT&T has made it very clear that by withholding payment on these calls AT&T is able to reduce its access expenses. Other providers, including those with which AT&T competes, are banned from withholding payments because in June 2007, the Wireline Competition Bureau emphatically declared that AT&T and all other carriers are prohibited from pursuing “self help actions such as withholding payments.” AT&T has thus violated the emphatic declaration!

This doesn’t mean I agree with Google – I don’t. If Google connects to any part of the PSTN then they should connect to all of the PSTN. And, if Google thinks they can selectively reserve the right to block calls, then the PSTN should reserve the right to block calls to Google’s numbers.
Permalink |  Trackback
Comments (5)   Add Comment
Re: Administrator    By GLTaPENG on 3/10/2010 10:24 PM
Thanks for posting~~Nice Article
Designer Handbags,Replica bags Blogs
Re:administrator    By Replica bags on 3/15/2010 3:33 AM
GLT10a03PENG15
Designer Handbags,Replica bags Blogs
Omega Replica Watches
Designer HandBags
Designer Bags
Designer Purses
Prada handbags
Louis Vuitton Handbags
Gucci Handbags
Prada Handbags
Hermes Handbags
Louis Vuitton Wallets
Burberry Wallets
Prada Wallets
Hermes Wallets
Gucci Wallets
Hermes Belts
Louis Vuitton Belts
Gucci Belts
Gucci Sunglasses
Louis Vuitton SunglassesWatches
Rolex Watches
Omega Watches
Cartier Watches
replica handbags    By replica handbags on 5/20/2010 1:20 AM
gemahrv0520
1PRADA Handbags
Hermes Wallets
Designer Replica Handbags
Gucci bags
Prada Scarf

2Replica Handbags
lOUIS VUITTON Handbags
Louis Vuitton Handbags
LOUIS VUITTON Replica Handbags
HERMES Handbags
HERMES Birkin
Hermes Replica Handbags
BURBERRY Handbags
Replica WALLETS
Louis Vuitton Wallets
Gucci Wallets
Hermes Belts
Louis Vuitton Belts
Gucci Belts
Replica SCARF
Louis Vuitton Scarf
Hermes Scarf
Burberry Scarf
Gucci Scarves
Louis Vuitton Bracelets
Hermes Bracelets
Hermes Bracelet
Hermes handbags

3Tiffany Jewelry
Replica tiffany
wholesale crystal
tiffany jewelry
Hermes Jewelry
Bottega Veneta
Gucci Jewelry
DIOR Jewelry
Chic Jewelry
Necklaces Tiffany Jewelry
Bracelets Tiffany Jewelry
Earrings Tiffany Jewelry
Rings Tiffany Jewelry
Cuff links Tiffany Jewelry
Money clips Tiffany Jewelry
Tiffany Jewelry Key chains
Bvlgari Jewelry
Cartier Jewelry
Links Jewelry
Key Chains
Bracelets
Louis Vuitton
D&G Jewelry
Key Chains
Art Compact Mirror
Phone strap
Chic Jewelry

4replica handbags
Louis Vuitton Belts
replica watches
IWC watches
Burberry Handbags
Hermes Bracelet
Burberry Handbags
replica watches

5PRADA Handbags
Hermes Wallets
Designer Replica Handbags
Gucci bags
Prada Scarf
PRADA Handbags
Hermes Wallets
Designer Replica Handbags
Gucci bags
Prada Scarf
Re: What are the anti-carriers willing to do...    By jolsms on 6/18/2010 10:05 PM
Prince
Sea Dweller
Submariner
Yachtmaster
A.Dunhill Watches
A.Lange & Sohne Watches
Alain Silberstein Watches
Audemars Piguet Watches
B.R.M Watches
Baume & Mercier Watches
Bell & Ross Watches
Blancpain Watches
BMW Watches
Breguet Watches
Breitling Watches
Burberry Watches
Bvlgari Watches
Calvin Klein Watches
Carl F. Bucherer Watches
Re: What are the anti-carriers willing to do...    By grege on 7/8/2010 1:59 AM
My son loved adidas shoes, and I like him to buy nike shox shoes. So he often unhappy. I bought him a lot. He only most satisfying the ed hardy. Even I bought him the timberland boots, he did not like. No way, I just defer to it. Today I bought him a pair of adidas adicolor shoes, he liked. At the same time he gave me my pair of nike shox turbo shoes. Together we put on shoes and ed hardy tank. We finally harmonious relationship between a father and son.

Your name:
Title:
Comment:
Add Comment   Cancel 

Archives Minimize

In the News Minimize

VoIP Evolution, "The Top 25 VoIP Advances of 2009," December 29, 2009 (Coverage Link)

 

Kingston Financial Advisors, "For Financial Advisors: A Little Used Marketing Tool With Outsized Advantages," December 28, 2009 (Coverage Link)

 

Post-Bulletin, "Now Dasher, Now Dancer, Now Facebook, Now Twitter," by Bridget Carey, December 24, 2009 (Coverage Link)

 

Smart Products, "Now Dasher, Now dancer, Now Facebook, Now Twitter," December 24, 2009 (Coverage Link)

 

Cool Baby Kid (Facebook Page), "Have your little ones call the North Pole for last minute gift wishing!" December 23, 2009 (Coverage Link)

 

Miami Herald, "Ways to Engage with Santa Digitally," December 23, 2009 (Coverage Link)

 

Seattle Times, "Today’s Kid’s Connect With Santa Through Texts, Tweets," by Bridget Caret, December 23, 2009 (Coverage Link)

 

Miami Herald, "Ways to Engage With Santa Digitally," December 23, 2009 (Coverage Link)

 

Mommies With Cents, "Leave a Message With Santa!" December 21, 2009 (Coverage Link)

 

Lots of finger-pointing in Google Voice battle I wrote a story for today's paper about a free conference call company, FreeConferenceCall.com, that also uses rural numbers and, in exchange for driving call traffic, collects a fee from rural phone carriers. Free conference call lines like his make up a sizable portion of the calls that Google Voice still blocks. Read More...  
 

Pressure on Google over Blocked Calls

“Google shouldn’t be able to tell consumers where they can call and where they can’t,” said David Erickson, president of the Free Conferencing Corp. based in Long Beach, Calif., a company that set up conference calls for President Barack Obama when he was campaigning in 2008. Read More...

Call Between AT&T and FCC Minimize

Customer Comments Minimize
Dave - August, 3, 2010 - 12:10
Bill can you prove that 30 cent statement… with out it your whole rant falls apart. FreeConferenceCall.com average termination rate is below 1 cent...no LEC that FreeConferenceCall.com charges 30 cents a minute that is ridiculous...
Dave - August, 4, 2010 - 12:22
Allan-I am glad to see that you agree that everyone should be able to call anywhere within the country as long as they are willing to pay the charges for the call. Some guys think that we need to ask the big carriers for approval. Thanks for humoring me. First I would like to say that FreeConferenceCall.com saves consumers both time and money. FreeConferenceCall.com saves consumers time on the phone because they speak to multiple people simultaneously. As a consumer I like having the FreeConferenceCall.com service available to me. Secondly let’s not look at this from the big carriers’ point of view but the consumers’ point of view. You are a consumer, you pay for telephone service to be able to call anywhere within the country as long as you are willing to pay the charges for the call. Your thought that the users of FreeConferenceCall.com are stealing from the carriers is where I think you go wrong. Here is why, in order to make the allegation that FreeConferenceCall.com and its customers are stealing from the big carriers you would need to know: The average cost per minute the big carriers are charging the users of FreeConferenceCall.com? The average cost of terminating a call at the LECs that work with FreeConferenceCall.com? The average cost of terminating an ordinary call (non-FreeConferenceCall.com)? The average amount of time a FreeConferenceCall.com user is connected to the service each month? My guess is that you know none of these and that is why you use PT Barnum comparisons and hypothetical homeless people in a hypothetical apartment building and hypothetical government subsidies. With out the answer to the above questions what value are your comparisons. Prove me wrong! My response to your comments is that you don’t know what you are talking about. Prove me wrong! Your best answer so far to the average cost the consumer pays is that the big carriers are paying for termination as if they are not receiving money from the consumer to pay for connections. I guess in your eyes that once the consumer has given their money to ATT it is ATT money and should be spent for things like marketing more customers instead of benefiting the customer that gave them the money. Your best information offered so far to the average cost that a carriers get charged at a location where FreeConferenceCall.com’s services are provide is a that it is a “loophole” “subsidy” “rural exemption” “antiquated” “perverting” “welfare” “theft” “robbed” “shoplifting” “stealing”… But if the cost of terminating a call to FreeConferenceCall.com is in-line with the average cost of a non-FreeConferenceCall.com call isn’t the consumer just making another call.
VELMA S JONES, EVANGELIST - August, 2, 2010 - 03:41
THE CONFERENCE ROOM I FREQUENT WITH 18 OTHERS DAILY FROM 5AM - 7AM PST WOULD NOT BE IN THE CONFERENCE ROOM SUGGESTED BY MAGIC JACK...WHAT WOULD BE THE POINT OF MY ENTERING A CONFERENCE ROOM WHERE NONE OF THE FOLK I PRAY WITH WOULD BE? I DO NOT WANT TO USE A CONFERENCE ROOM WHERE THE ONLY PERSON PARTICIPATING WOULD BE ME AND ME ALONE. NONE OF THE PEOPLE I NOW CONFER WITH WOULD HAVE NOR WANT ACCESS TO A CONFERENCE ROOM OFFERED BY MAGIC JACK. THE NUMBER I USE TO ACCESS FREE.CONFERENCE.COM IS IN THER UNITED STATES, SOUTH DAKOTA.....MAGIC JACK SAYS I HAVE LONG DISTANCE SERVICE ANY WHERE IN THE UNITED STATES BUT DENIES ME ACCESS TO AREA CODE 605 IN SOUTH DAKOTA WHICH THE LAST TIME I CHECKED WAS IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS TO ME IS FALSE ADEVERTISING...I HAVE NOW RETURNED THE USELESS MAGIC JACK TO RADIO SHACK BUT WAS TOLD THE ONE YEAR SERVICE PAID FOR IN ADVANCE I WOULD HAVE TO GET FROM MAGIC JACK, WHICH OFFERS NO WASY TO CONTACT THEM EXCEPT FOR A WEB SITE THAT IS ALSO USELESS. I WILL BE FILING A CLAIM AGAINST TYHEM WITH MY LOCAL ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE.
Alan - July, 29, 2010 - 10:37
Although it seems you are avoiding speaking to the points I have made, I will humor you. Yes, you should be able to call anywhere within the country as long as your willing to pay the charges for the call. I assume you are asking this question because of the ill advised attempts to block your service by certain companies. On this point you are correct, they should not be allowed to stifle competition by acting in this manner. This said, you should not be able to force them to pay for your customers use of your service through mandates imposed on them from the FCC. Did the telcos setup the rural exemption? Do they have the freedom to tarrif their services anyway they choose? And if they actually did have the freedom to modify their pricing practices so they can include the additional itemized costs associated with each call would the consumer ever have a chance in heaven of figuring out their phone bill again. You and I both know that if the telecommunications industry was allowed to act as a free market instead of the controlled market that it is, there would not be any money left at the end of that rainbow (rural exemption) to make your model work. What you currently are doing is using the FCC to force the big telcos to subsidize your service for your customers. There is no free lunch, it just is sometimes hard to see who is paying the tab. As to your question as to why I think you are stealing. I think you are because you and your customers are. The price for phone service is regulated so the telephone companies are not free to set it. Since you have found a loophole you are exploting it to the financial misfortune of the LD providers. When through force (FCC regulations) you take the money from the phone company it sounds like theft. Legalized theft maybe, but theft none the less. In a retail situation, if a company loses money through shoplifting or inventory shrinkage, they first have the ability to improve their security and secondly can pass the loss on to the consumer. In this case the telephone companies do not easily have that same freedom. But they eventually will find a way to pass that cost on, and everyone will be paying for your service whether we want to or not. So now that I have answered your questions, please be so kind as to do me the favor of speaking to the points I have made in this and my previous post.
Dave - July, 29, 2010 - 07:59
Hello Alan I have 2 questions for you: 1. As consumers of telecommunications do I or do I not have the ability to call anywhere within the country as long as I am willing to pay the charges associated with calling that destination (even if that destination has a higher rate due to a rural exemption but I am willing to pay that too). 2. Why do you think I am stealing from big corporations when they set the price of service? Dave
Page 1 of 9           Next >> 


Customer Comments Submission
Name:
Email:
Comments:
Submit Cancel

Copyright 2009 by FreeConferenceCall  | Terms Of Use