|
|
Interested in possibly joining
a class action suit?
Click here to subscribe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Location: Blogs Blog.FreeConferenceCall.com |
 |
| Posted by: Web Master |
3/20/2007 2:56 PM |
Last week, some of our Cingular and Sprint customers began calling into customer service with issues surrounding their connections to our service. After speaking with Cingular’s customer service group, our customers were given numerous, and unfounded, reasons for the call blockage. Reasons cited included fraud, international forwarding, fee disputes and, to our astonishment, that we were blocking our own FreeConferenceCall numbers. We cannot corroborate or justify any of these reasons. FreeConferenceCall would never knowingly impede our customers from using our services. For now, we can tell you that a Cingular spokesperson has gone on record and stated that their terms of service gives them the right to block any number they wish and also said that AT&T’s wireless service is "between one person and another person, not between one person and many." Cingular and Sprint have chosen to block service to our shared customers regardless of Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules and regulations. Neither carrier has ever directly complained, filed suit or even contacted FreeConferenceCall. The upshot is that carriers are basically telling you that a cell phone is not intended for use on conference calls of any type.
As a total commitment to our customers, we have quickly ramped up to help them deal with this issue. If you are experiencing connectivity problems, please call us directly at 877-482-5838. We promise to give you unparalleled technical support and will treat every customer with immediate, personalized attention. |
|
| Permalink |
Trackback |
Comments (38)
Add Comment
|
Re: AT&T Blocks Numbers |
By Stacy Johnson on
3/22/2007 5:38 PM |
I haven't had problems with this in the past, but did just recently on 3/20/07. My team, spread across states, was really looking forward to this call and were well prepared for discussion. However, to our astonishment, we were not able to utilize it.
I feel I should be able to use my cell phone and call any number I choose to and at any time I choose too. If this is not the case, then it should be documented in my mobile service contract so that I am aware pripr to signing my contract. If this continues to be a problem with Cingular/AT&T, then this will force me to look into other mobile providers that WILL allow me to use freeconferencecall to help run my business successfully. |
|
|
Re: AT&T Blocks Numbers |
By Erin on
3/26/2007 2:41 PM |
Could it be because this is a far cheaper option than three-way calling, especially after 9pm or on weekends when folks have free long-distance cell phone minutes?
If so, that's pretty crappy. |
|
|
Re: Sprint Blocks Numbers |
By Steve Roy on
3/26/2007 7:22 PM |
| My trouble started on 3/18/2007, at 10:56:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time (7:56 Az) I got right through and at 11:00:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time I lost my connection and have not been able to access our conference call bridge since that time. I called Sprint repair and spent 3+hrs talking with CSR's but got nowhere. The CSR's don't know that their own companies are causing the connection problem. I asked a very concerned and helpful CSR directly if Sprint was blocking the calls and she said "O no, Sprint would never do that." The courts just told Vonage that they can't connect their customers to land lines, so this is probably just another battleline drawn by Big Telecom. |
|
|
Re: AT&T Blocks Numbers |
By Traveller1861 on
3/27/2007 11:11 AM |
I have been released from my contract with Cingular Wireless.
Email stan.sigman@cingular.com
You will get a couple of calls from several minions, just stick to your guns. |
|
|
Re: AT&T Blocks Numbers |
By bvj on
3/28/2007 9:09 AM |
This problem is not limited to just AT&T/Sprint cell phones.
Sprint/Embarq land lines in central Florida and Comcast VoIP are also not able to connect to the teleconference numbers. |
|
|
Re: Wireless Companies Blocking Conference Call Numbers |
By Lonnie Howard on
3/28/2007 9:14 AM |
| I personally have not had any problems, but it seems this is an escalating and expanding problem. Wireless companies should understand that we are NOT using our wireless phones on conference call lines to avoid using 3-way calling and extra minutes. If they continue doing this or try to make inconvenient restrictions, then we should be able to immediately cancel our contracts without penalty. Afterward, we should file a class action suit against them, then they'll stop this madness! |
|
|
Re: AT&T Blocks Numbers |
By Ben Rolfe on
3/28/2007 10:05 AM |
| Sounds like a huge business oportunity for Verizon! |
|
|
Re: AT&T Blocks Numbers |
By Ange on
3/28/2007 10:15 AM |
I had this same problem a few weeks ago--after calling Cingular they had me "register" my phone which then cancelled my sim card!! Thanks alot! So I had to go to a local store the next morning to get another one--what an inconvenience.
I was then told by an informed CSR that all conference calls were being blocked by some new federal law. hmmm, hadn't heard about it before then.
However, had another conference call last night and thought I'd give my cell a try and this time it let me through with no problems??????? Weird |
|
|
Re: AT&T Blocks Numbers |
By Bill Bro on
3/28/2007 10:40 AM |
If you are affiliated with a health-related business or cause, use the FCC's online complaint system to send a letter similar to that which follows. Send a copy to your state regulators and your local newspaper, using this free service: http://www.akca.us. Enter your Zip Code and find the contact info for your local media.
This carrier is apparently blocking calls to FreeConferenceCall.com telephone numbers. Our charity uses this free service to reach physicians and desperately ill people who are fighting cancer. The hardship caused by this willful obstruction by AT&T/Cingular is an urgent medical issue that should be promptly addressed by the Commission, as it affects public access to medical information.
William P. Bro
CEO
Kidney Cancer Association |
|
|
Re: AT&T Blocks Numbers |
By Steve on
3/28/2007 1:27 PM |
| I use Cingular/AT&T and I still get through to the conf call number just fine. No blocking at least not yet. |
|
|
Re: AT&T Blocks Numbers |
By Joe on
3/28/2007 1:44 PM |
| I just got off the phone with sprint representative kgavi009, she told me that sprint does not block numbers. I asked her about the number 6419858000 specifically and she denied that sprint blocks numbers at all. I asked to speak to her supervisor and she told me that without my PCS number I could not speak to her supervisor. I would not give my number for fear of reprisal. |
|
|
Why is Sprint lying? |
By Joe (again) on
3/28/2007 2:35 PM |
Ok, so embarq is also in on this, on their land and cell lines.
What I would like to know is: why is sprint lying about this? If they think it's legal/ethical, why lye. Why not just tell me that they are blocking my phone from calling this number? |
|
|
Re: AT&T Blocks Numbers |
By Old Phone Guy on
3/28/2007 5:38 PM |
Neither Cingular, Embarq or Sprint PCS or ComCast (using Sprint CLEC) have direct connections to the the conference bridge locations, they all must use an IXC (Long Distance Company) such as ATT, Sprint LD, MCI (Verizon LD), Global Crossing etc. I suspect that the IXC's are doing the true blocking.
Of course now that Kevin Martin (FCC Chairman) is Ed Whitacre's (ATT CEO) buddy, they have all gotten together and have accurately discussed and initiated the demise of the free conference services.
Such actions are status-quo for ATT and Whitacre whom factually and historically has demonstrated that throwing a a bullying team of lawyers in an unlawful manner at any entity he dislikes is a prudent business practice. |
|
|
Re: AT&T Blocks Numbers |
By Redeux on
3/28/2007 3:16 PM |
Our business runs on cell phones we have no wired lines. This action suggests that the wireless industry does not want the revenue from the LD minutes our many employees accrue on an annualized basis or they are attempting to force wired service upon us that is likely more lucrative to them.
|
|
|
Re: AT&T Blocks Numbers |
By Jason on
3/28/2007 3:56 PM |
From the customer's standpoint, I understand your pain, you want to use a service. But this service is really a scam. Cingular is getting charged massive amounts for your call, and this is not incidental, this is the intent of the service. You are essentialy calling a 1-900 number, and sending the bill to Cingular.
Cingular's statement saying you cant call conf numbers is of course totally BS, and their TOS does not state anything of that sort, but shutting off a scam (from their perspective) is entirely fair.
Think about a different industry with a similar problem : email. All major ISPs block spam, because it hurts their bottom line, even though they say they are not censoring your account. Does the spam filter hurt the bottom line of the spammer? Of course. Is that ok? Yep.
You can't build a buisness model out of screwing a 3rd party and expect the checks to flow in forever.
This post will of course be deleted but hope you can read it for a few min! |
|
|
Re: AT&T Blocks Numbers |
By Emily on
3/28/2007 4:17 PM |
I hosted a call on Monday evening and we had a bunch of people get dumped off the call (don't know who's end this was on.
I tried calling in from a vonage line and a cingular cell phone and had trouble with both.
Finally I got through on my vonage line.
My business partner is having trouble with his Sprint phone on some of the bridge lines from Free Conf Call, but not all of them...
Emily |
|
|
Re: AT&T Blocks Numbers |
By David Erickson on
3/28/2007 5:34 PM |
Jason you need to check the facts and do the math.
1. Check the rates the rural phone companies charge 2 to 5 (massive?)
2. See the rates Cingular charges on their site 10 cents per minute (2 x massive?).
That means that Cingular is not losing a massive amount they are making a massive amount.
Cowboy justice is not a good thing Jason - read the FCC Access Charge Reform posted in the left-hand corner of this blog - the FCC is very clear that carriers like Cingular are not to block calls as a barganing tool to lower rates.
"Additionally, IXCs have threatened to stop delivering traffic to, or accepting it
from, certain CLECs that they view as over-priced. Thus, AT&T has notified a number of
CLECs that it refused to exchange originating or terminating traffic. In some instances, AT&T has terminated its relationship with CLECs and is blocking traffic, thus raising various consumer and service quality issues. These practices threaten to compromise the ubiquity and seamlessness of the nation’s telecommunications network and could result in consumer confusion. Once one or more IXCs refuse to do business with a CLEC, it will become impossible for that CLEC’s end users to reach, or receive calls from, some parties outside of the local calling area. If such refusals to exchange traffic were to become a routine bargaining tool, callers might never be assured that their calls would go through. We are particularly concerned with preventing such a degradation of the country’s telecommunications network. It is not difficult to foresee instances in which the failure of a call to go through would represent a serious problem, and, in certain circumstances, it could be life-threatening. Accordingly, the public interest demands a resolution to this set of problems."
Ask yourself this Jason - if they are making massive amounts money why are they blocking the calls, then ask yourself who is next to get blocked.
Simply saying that Cingular pays a massive amount and not take into account what they get paid is wrong Jason. Research Jason |
|
|
Re: AT&T Blocks Numbers |
By Bill on
3/28/2007 5:28 PM |
| Funny isn't it. MCI and Sprint wanted a free market in telecom and won the case against AT&T breaking up the monopoly in 1984. And now we see the effects of a free market environment where anything goes until laws prevent it. We are bound to see lots more innovation disquised as ways to fleece CLECs, LECs and IXCs before we are through. |
|
|
Re: AT&T Blocks Numbers |
By Tim Nihoul on
3/28/2007 7:13 PM |
I was unable to host a conference call last night because Cingular blocked me from dialing in to my own call. Those of us who travel and work our businesses will lose. This needs to be addressed and properly handled. Many businesses rely on cell phones and on the ability to communicate via conference calls. The telecom industry is going to awaken a sleeping giant of discontent.
Let your angst be heard! |
|
|
Re: AT&T Blocks Numbers |
By Felicia on
3/28/2007 7:17 PM |
| I have a conference call set up for April and I hope none of my team members across the map will be affected by this mess, I will know when the conference starts and no one is on but me. This is just a shame. |
|
|
Re: AT&T Blocks Numbers |
By CBB- Central Florida on
3/28/2007 8:39 PM |
I was unable to make a conference call on my cingular cell phone or my husbands cingular cell phone 3/25. The same calls I have been making since Sept. I have had service with cingular, bellsouth, sprint or at& t for over 20 years. Between Cingular & bellsouth. I just had a $300 phone bill for going over my minutes and no adjustments made. I think when we pay for a service we should be able to dial anyone or anywhere on our cell phones. I am going to file a complaint after I go through all the proper channels. Watch out cingular -Bright house is coming live with cell phones in June.
Your freeconference service allowed my 30 year class reunion to take place and be a success with us being all over the usa. |
|
|
Re: AT&T Blocks Numbers |
By clif on
3/29/2007 5:50 AM |
| I just tried the Free conference call 712 exchange from my Sprint cell phone and got through to set up a conference call though I am worried. My business is virtual and has no offices and uses cell phones extensively. This would clearly force me to change my business model because a cell phone carrier is too greedy. Time to change the leadership of the FCC (and the President) and start looking out for the little guy. |
|
|
Re: AT&T Blocks Numbers |
By Frank on
3/29/2007 8:51 AM |
I would be interested in knowing the "average" per minute cost that the phone companies charge. AND, I'd be interested to know how much more FreeConference.com charges. If it's 100 x times as much, then obviously the conference isn't "Free", it's just paid for by the local phone company of the calling party.
If it's the service someone's looking for [not so much the "Free" part], conferencing is available using 800#'s for 0.07/minute per party. 15 minutes to set up. Frank@TexasPhoneDoctor.com
Or, you can use a Travel Calling Card [0.03 to 0.30 / minute] when you otherwise can't get into your conference. If nothing else, go to Walmart & buy a prepaid card to use in emergencies [if you find a critical number blocked by your cell carrier]. Maybe this will get resolved & you'll never have to use it.
Shall we set up a conference call to discuss this? |
|
|
Re: AT&T Blocks Numbers |
By Bryan Daly on
3/29/2007 10:34 AM |
That really ticks me off.
I can't believe it
Can I call ATT and complain?
|
|
|
Re: AT&T Blocks Numbers |
By Duke on
3/29/2007 10:52 AM |
| SWB or the new ATT is blocking access on land lines as well. |
|
|
Re: AT&T Blocks Numbers |
By Robert on
3/29/2007 11:43 AM |
Jason, your comparison of spam e-mail to using a free conference calling service is absurd in the extreme.
Everyone involved in the use of the free conference call is doing it *williingly*. The phone company provides the phone service (local LD, etc.), the customers *pay their bill* then the customers decide what number to call. End of story.
What would be more correct to say using your example is if the free conference call organizations were randomly and incessantly calling anyone with a phone number, regardless if they used the service or not. THAT is something that should be blocked.
But, that's not what is going on. If there is a real and legitimate gripe that Ma Bell has a claim to, she needs to state it openly and not act like a horses arse.
This is exactly why people have dropped the local telco’s and moved to VoIP.
|
|
|
Cingular |
By Lisa on
3/29/2007 11:50 AM |
Thanks for the email. I called in for a conference call on a very windy night and both my Cingular phones didn't work. Thought the wind knocked out the cel towers, now I know differently.
I did note that when I called back for freeconferencecall playbacks that there was no problem with that.
Our team uses them 3 times a week and our company many more than that. We sincerely hope this is resolved very soon. |
|
|
Re: AT&T Blocks Numbers |
By Jolee on
3/30/2007 8:15 AM |
Here is how Sprint responded to my questions regarding why they were not allowing me to call into my pre-recorded hotline and then not allowing me to call my conference call number:
1. I was on hold for 15 minutes and then the CSR hung up on me,
2. I was on hold again for over 15 minutes and was then told "Sprint has made a corporate decision to not allow me to call the phone numbers of my choosing because I was causing their customers to bear the burden of cost for my calls - funny, last time I checked, I wrote out the check for my bill.
3. I called customer service from my land line to explain that I was not concerned with their corporate politics, I was in search of services, if they will not allow me to use the service of my choice, could they please suggest the same services with their company. Sure, for just $5 a month, I now had a conferencing plan added to my bill and here is a website to show me how to use it. When I received the website, the phone number went to Intercall - I had no account - the costs were several thousand dollars a month to do the same thing I was doing with my freeconference call numbers, and they are not affiliated with Sprint or my bill, and when I called Sprint again to find out what had been added to my bill - NOTHING HAD BEEN ADDED, the CSR Supervisor flat out lied about resolving my request for services, and this CSR researching my plan told me that if I wanted to have teleconferencing services, I needed to go into the Sprint Store because his computer was too slow and couldn't pull up the code to add it to my plan
4. I emailed my question to Sprint and was told that Sprint does not offer any teleconferencing options and received this response:
Thank you for taking the time to write in to Sprint together with Nextel to inquire about the conference call number for your account, I can certainly advise you in regard to this matter.
**Clarification**
I am sorry, but I will need some additional information for this matter.
When you say that you are blocked from your conference call number, is this freeconference.com or a similar service that you are speaking about, or is it something else?
**Freeconference.com**
If you are speaking about use of this service for your conference calls, please be aware of the following:
Thank you for sharing your concerns about the actions Sprint Nextel is taking against providers of so-called free conferencing service. At Sprint Nextel, we believe in dealing with our customers in an honest way. We believe that companies like freeconference.com and others are not being honest with you, and we appreciate the opportunity to explain why.
It is understandable why an offer of free conference calls would be appealing to customers. Unfortunately, these conference calls are not free. Our customers pay for those calls each time a consumer makes a call to one of these so-called free services. Sprint Nextel is billed exorbitant fees. The bill for this free service has added up to millions of dollars, and that cost is ultimately borne by our customers, even those who do not use this service. In short, these companies want you to believe that their services are free, but they are not.
Sprint Nextel does indeed reserve the right to block calls like this that abuse the system. You should also know that our network, particularly in rural areas where these conference calls are routed, is engineered to handle certain traffic volumes. When there is a sudden, extreme spike in calling, as apparently has occurred with freeconference.com’s service, it is not unusual to experience difficulty getting through to a line because of network congestion.
**Other Issues**
If this is not the issue that you are having for your account, please reply to this email with more specific information as to the problem that you are having with your Sprint account and eCare will certainly resolve your issue for you.
**Teleconferencing**
At this time, Sprint does not offer this feature for wireless service.
Currently Sprint phones do have the three-way calling feature, but regrettably this is the closest that we come to teleconference capability.
I am very sorry for the conflicting information that you have received in regard to this teleconferencing feature that you are trying to set up on your line.
If you have any further questions or concerns in regard to your Sprint account, reply to this email for further assistance.
Thank you for writing back in to Sprint and for choosing Sprint as your wireless service provider. It was a pleasure helping you resolve your issues today.
Brice D.
E-Care
Sprint together with Nextel
"Where our customers come first!"
To ensure that we are providing excellent customer service on your self service experience, you may receive a survey on this response.
|
|
|
Re: AT&T Blocks Numbers |
By Jeff on
3/30/2007 9:27 AM |
This question is for David Erickson
How much are you charging the local carriers? They're making this sound like you're charging outrageous fees. I pay $.019 to $.05 per minute on my T1's. Alltel charges me $.30 per minute if I go over my plan minutes. AT&T charges $.10 per minute for my local business calls within TX.
|
|
|
Re: AT&T Blocks Numbers |
By Rchard on
3/30/2007 10:41 AM |
| Does the blocking issue only pertain to cell phones, and not calls into a conference from a land line? |
|
|
Sprint blocks FreeConferenceCall.com numbers |
By Reed Fisher on
3/30/2007 12:03 PM |
| My access to our company conference bridge number has been blocked since sometime between March 14 and March 21. |
|
|
for Dan |
By g on
3/31/2007 6:55 AM |
| Feeble marketing attempt... very weak |
|
|
Re: AT&T Blocks Numbers |
By David on
4/1/2007 3:17 PM |
After stating for the record that I would be the last person on earth to ever defend big telco, after reading the FCC Access Reform info and the Cingular service agreement I have a theory on why they chose to invoke their blocking rights:
1. Conference callers dial a number serviced by a CLEC that has a rural exemption and not subject to Access Charge Reform rates, and;
2. The CLEC and freeconferencecall.com share the tariff paid by the IXCs to route the call (or perhaps they own the rural CLEC outright), therefore allowing us, the customer, to have 'free' conference calling by way of conference call participants using a cellular calling plan that does not charge for long distance calls. net/net: the carrier pays more than it charges you to connect the call.
Others are writing about this: (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070319-attcingular-blocks-cellular-customers-from-free-conference-call-services.html)
so I do not claim original thoughts, just a test of this theory.
Note to David Erickson: it may _not_ be that the blocking carriers are losing money on a per minute basis - it may be that they are not making enough!
Note to Jason: it is not a "scam" but more a shrewd business exploit of an existing loophole in FCC regulations.
Background
=========================
Here is the excerpt from the Cingular and T-Mobile service agreements. Net/net = they can block at will and/or charge connection fees.
Cingular: "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."
T-Mobile: "We may impose credit, usage, or other limits to Service, cancel or suspend Service, or block certain types of calls, messages, or sessions (such as international, 900, or 976 calls) at our discretion. We may suspend Service without notice if you exceed any credit limit. Service may not be transferred to another market except at our discretion, and we may charge transfer fees."
My layperson's understanding of the FCC 2004 Access Charge Reform is that the FCC aimed to flatten the tariffs charged by competitive LECs (page 4 of the PDF) but allowed a rural exemption for CLECs to charge higher rates:
"The Commission also adopted a rural exemption to the benchmark regime. The exemption is available for a competitive LEC that competes with a non-rural incumbent LEC, where no portion of the competitive LEC’s service area falls within: (1) any incorporated place of 50,000
inhabitants or more, based on the most recently available population statistics of the Census Bureau or (2) an urbanized area, as defined by the Census Bureau.24 If a competitive LEC originates traffic from or terminates traffic to end-users located within either of these two types of areas, the carrier is ineligible for the rural exemption to the benchmark rule.25 In recognition of the substantially higher loop costs incurred by competitive LECs in rural areas, competitive LECs qualifying for the rural exemption are permitted to tariff rates up to the highest rate band in the National Exchange Carriers Association (NECA) tariff, minus the NECA tariff’s carrier common line (CCL) charge."
Analysis
=========================
I did not take this research very far, but far enough to be willing to post the theory for others to consider.
- My local access number (605-990-xxxx) terminates in Mitchell, SD, population 14,558. (see http://www.cityofmitchell.org/info/index.htm)
- Quest is the incumbent LEC, and according to the SD PUC (http://www.state.sd.us/puc/2006/Publications/Utility%20by%20Town%2002-07-06.pdf) Mitchell also may be served by one or more CLECs. The list can be found here: (http://www.state.sd.us/puc/telecom/clec.htm)
- Quest serves Souix Falls and therefore is not eligible for a rural exemption.
- Assumption: Quest has an interconnection agreement with one or more CLECs to service the 605-990 exchange and any IXC (like AT&T) has to pay the much higher tariffs - including one-time and recurring charges. See http://www.neca.org/source/NECA_1208.asp
- Multiply the number of accounts, callers, minutes and maybe it does add up to a significant $ figure for Cingular. So, they deny access. Or, maybe they really don't care about the $ amount and are doing it just because they can, or until they can offer a similar service in the future.
Recommendations
=========================
Freeconferencecall.com should:
- clearly communicate its business model to its customers if indeed the rural CLEC theory is correct. This is not illegal; in fact it is very legal according to FCC regulations. Exposing the truth isn't going to give the IXCs any information they don't already have and gives the end-user customer information they need in order to continue using the service.
- put forth a plan (aside from a class action, which, without a TRO prohibiting carriers from denying service, will not address customer concerns) that will address customer issues. For example, the company might have to establish numbers that do not exploit the rural CLEC model if certain of its customers are experiencing delays. Yes, freeconferencecall.com might make less money but could stay in business longer. AS we all know, the large corporations do have a bit more legal and capital resources at their disposal to fend off the freeconferencecall's in their space.
Customers of freeconferencecall.com should:
- consider switching to other cellular providers when their contracts terminate, or attempt to break the contract citing this practice. You might get a CSR that is ignorant of the agreement and will terminate the contract.
- establish an inexpensive landline or VOIP service with free long distance and permanently forward it to your access number. QoS may suffer sometimes, but we have successfully used this method to circumvent selective call blocking.
I'll keep using the service until it becomes unusable. Good luck to all.
|
|
|
Re: Sprint Blocks Numbers |
By Jim on
4/1/2007 8:40 PM |
| When I reported this to Sprint they created a trouble ticket for me. When they called me back on my cell they told me that the number was a non-working number. At which point I dialed it from my office land line and said "Listen. It's going through on my landline" Their rep then repeated they could not get a call to go through and it was a nonworking number. When I asked if this was blocked because it was a free conference call number, she was evasive and then said that there had been reports of that in the news and it was up to the FCC to decide. She never admitted that that was the case. |
|
|
Re: AT&T Blocks Numbers |
By Nghosi Online on
4/3/2007 10:40 AM |
I recently experienced this problem yesterday, 4/2/07 when attempting to help one of the callers on my scheduled conference with a connectivity issue. I too, had never experienced until yesterday. Each time I placed the call, I received a message that either all circuits were busy or that the call just could not be placed. This problem does not occur on my landline, which is one saving grace for me because I'm typically the host of these calls. However, for many of my participants, they are calling from cell phones. I really hope that the FCC does something about this. I don't think it's fair for monopolies to strong arm other companies that are simply trying to offer flexibility and choices for consumers that are cost effective of high quality. I've used your service for a year and have been extremely satisfied with the service. Please let me know if there is anything else that I can do to lend my support.
|
|
|
Re: AT&T Blocks Numbers |
By Shawn on
4/3/2007 5:53 PM |
It is amazing that a company that will charge .15c - .45ca min for airtime (but not credit for unused minutes) or .05c to .20c for a text message would have room to bitch about being charged a bit more on a termination fee.
How about ring tones that are $2.00 a pop?
Off the hook had it right, Crockadile tears.
Unethetical bastards (telco's) are finally getting a taste of there own medicine. |
|
|
AT&T is a greedy monster |
By Chad on
4/17/2007 10:32 AM |
lRegardless of "Jason’s" creative reasoning torn from the pages of the “AT&T Employee Handbook”, what AT&T is doing is insane, unprecedented and they should pay by losing all of our business.
Contrary to AT&T’s pathetic sobbing and cries of unfair play, AT&T and its many companies continue to offer a wide selection of FREE products. For example, cable TV for a year (anyone ever hear that type of offer before?), free wireless services, free phones, free Internet, free SMS, all the attempt to gain as much power and market gain as it possibly can. Funny, one product AT&T still charges a massive premium on is conferencing.
The “New AT&T” is far bigger and offers many more services than the AT&T of 1984, which the government of then decided was to large and anti-competitive to remain as one company.
Today the environment is worse. Washington is run, on both sides of the aisle, by politicians only focused on cutting lucrative deals for themselves and positioning their voting record in the best light, so that the lobbying group or industry group they most admire will hire them after one or two decades in office.
Please, let’s keep to momentum high! Tell all your friends, colleagues, tell your cat and dog. We all need to file complaints to the FCC, it’s quick and easy. Remember, if nothing is done, the status quo remains the same.
I don’t begrudge AT&T for its methodical, under the radar, sneaky growth back to the number one position in telecom, I am a capitalist. What I do have a problem with is that AT&T has billions in profits and is concerned by access to small independent carriers whose annual revenue is dwarfed by the SMS revenue created by the fanatical prepubescent teenagers voting for Sanjaya.
Yet, AT&T, the “New AT&T”, is crying and is using it’s enormous stockpiles of cash and influence in Washington to run over small competitors and worse yet, the small Independent Phone companies.
Simply put, this is a policy matter. AT&T and other billion dollar carriers need to take this issue to the FCC, the government agency that created the policy in the first place. Instead, AT&T would rather take a draconian approach and choose not to connect callers. This is an unprecedented action and is totally a function of AT&T’s out of control mind-set. Remember that “absolute power corrupts absolutely”, we are all witnessing this first hand. Question is what are we going to do about it?
If we all stand together here, we can make a change. Sounds unrealistic, but its possible! Good job all!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|