<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Cingular, Qwest blocking &#8216;Free&#8217; Calls</title>
	<atom:link href="http://gigaom.com/2007/03/15/cingular-qwest-blocking-free-calls/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://gigaom.com/2007/03/15/cingular-qwest-blocking-free-calls/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 May 2013 10:10:24 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: FCC Investigating Google Voice &#8211; GigaOM</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2007/03/15/cingular-qwest-blocking-free-calls/#comment-137991</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[FCC Investigating Google Voice &#8211; GigaOM]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:14:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2007/03/15/cingular-qwest-blocking-free-calls/#comment-137991</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;p&gt;[...] their revenues by charging callers high termination fees. We explain the concept in posts here and here: Typically, long-distance or cellular providers pay local telcos a termination fee for each call [...]&lt;/p&gt;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] their revenues by charging callers high termination fees. We explain the concept in posts here and here: Typically, long-distance or cellular providers pay local telcos a termination fee for each call [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Terri</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2007/03/15/cingular-qwest-blocking-free-calls/#comment-137990</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Terri]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Jan 2008 15:27:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2007/03/15/cingular-qwest-blocking-free-calls/#comment-137990</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;p&gt;I was wondering if this was still an active issue for anyone.  I keep getting the random, one off, report of this from the students who take Teleclasses from us but can&#039;t really find anymore data on the web that indicates a more recent, widespread &#039;outbreak&#039;.  I&#039;m only talking a handful of people on a bridge line and our folks do pay their own long distance charges but the bridge we use is reserved for us without a reservation charge, so to speak.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I&#039;d love to be able to point our efforts and membership toward this if we can &#039;do something&#039;.  First, I need to make sure we&#039;re in an active &#039;fight&#039; per se.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The most recent report I have is out of North Carolina. Anyone have anything more????&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was wondering if this was still an active issue for anyone.  I keep getting the random, one off, report of this from the students who take Teleclasses from us but can&#8217;t really find anymore data on the web that indicates a more recent, widespread &#8216;outbreak&#8217;.  I&#8217;m only talking a handful of people on a bridge line and our folks do pay their own long distance charges but the bridge we use is reserved for us without a reservation charge, so to speak.</p>
<p>I&#8217;d love to be able to point our efforts and membership toward this if we can &#8216;do something&#8217;.  First, I need to make sure we&#8217;re in an active &#8216;fight&#8217; per se.</p>
<p>The most recent report I have is out of North Carolina. Anyone have anything more????</p>
<p>Thanks!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: john</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2007/03/15/cingular-qwest-blocking-free-calls/#comment-137989</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[john]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Nov 2007 07:26:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2007/03/15/cingular-qwest-blocking-free-calls/#comment-137989</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;p&gt;That is stupid.. They already make enough money as it is.  I cant believe they are so greedy.  But hey that is At&amp;T.  http://nationwide-dsl.com&lt;/p&gt;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That is stupid.. They already make enough money as it is.  I cant believe they are so greedy.  But hey that is At&amp;T.  <a href="http://nationwide-dsl.com" rel="nofollow">http://nationwide-dsl.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: GigaOM FreeConference Drops Lawsuit Against AT&#38;T &#171;</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2007/03/15/cingular-qwest-blocking-free-calls/#comment-137988</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[GigaOM FreeConference Drops Lawsuit Against AT&#38;T &#171;]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 19 Aug 2007 18:36:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2007/03/15/cingular-qwest-blocking-free-calls/#comment-137988</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;p&gt;[...] few months ago some incumbent phone companies started blocking free conference calling services such as FreeConference.com, that were using Iowa rural telecoms to terminate calls, squeezing out [...]&lt;/p&gt;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] few months ago some incumbent phone companies started blocking free conference calling services such as FreeConference.com, that were using Iowa rural telecoms to terminate calls, squeezing out [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: GigaOM FreeConference Drops Lawsuit Against AT&#38;T &#171;</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2007/03/15/cingular-qwest-blocking-free-calls/#comment-168688</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[GigaOM FreeConference Drops Lawsuit Against AT&#38;T &#171;]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 19 Aug 2007 18:36:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2007/03/15/cingular-qwest-blocking-free-calls/#comment-168688</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;p&gt;[...] few months ago some incumbent phone companies started blocking free conference calling services such as FreeConference.com, that were using Iowa rural telecoms to terminate calls, squeezing out [...]&lt;/p&gt;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] few months ago some incumbent phone companies started blocking free conference calling services such as FreeConference.com, that were using Iowa rural telecoms to terminate calls, squeezing out [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Skipper</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2007/03/15/cingular-qwest-blocking-free-calls/#comment-137987</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Skipper]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Jul 2007 03:32:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2007/03/15/cingular-qwest-blocking-free-calls/#comment-137987</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;p&gt;Well, someone has moved this on to a different direction - of sorts.  I&#039;m not blocked and I can get into the free conferencing services with my unlimited minutes plan, but it&#039;s amazing how the calls mysteriously drop at six minute intervals - without fail!  Thank you AT&amp;T.&lt;/p&gt;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, someone has moved this on to a different direction &#8211; of sorts.  I&#8217;m not blocked and I can get into the free conferencing services with my unlimited minutes plan, but it&#8217;s amazing how the calls mysteriously drop at six minute intervals &#8211; without fail!  Thank you AT&amp;T.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Asterisk VoIP News</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2007/03/15/cingular-qwest-blocking-free-calls/#comment-137986</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Asterisk VoIP News]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 May 2007 18:24:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2007/03/15/cingular-qwest-blocking-free-calls/#comment-137986</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;FCC Chairman Martin to Telcos: No Blocking Iowa Calls...&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Note:&#160; Wow, this could blow up into a big fight.&#160; Om Malik sent in this breaking news written by Paul K.&#160;&#160;FCC Chairman Kevin Martin said Thursday that the commission told large telcos to stop blocking calls into numbers for the......&lt;/p&gt;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>FCC Chairman Martin to Telcos: No Blocking Iowa Calls&#8230;</strong></p>
<p>Note:&nbsp; Wow, this could blow up into a big fight.&nbsp; Om Malik sent in this breaking news written by Paul K.&nbsp;&nbsp;FCC Chairman Kevin Martin said Thursday that the commission told large telcos to stop blocking calls into numbers for the&#8230;&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2007/03/15/cingular-qwest-blocking-free-calls/#comment-137985</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jim]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Apr 2007 00:23:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2007/03/15/cingular-qwest-blocking-free-calls/#comment-137985</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;p&gt;Both sides in the dispute expect the FCC to issue an informal ruling this week on the matter. (Superior Telephone et al)&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Last Tuesday an FCC spokesman made clear that blocking calls was forbidden, (calls are now flowing again) so it now comes down to recip comp money.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Will the local carriers be paid by ATT (et al) for monies owed and will they continued to be paid for future calls?&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;It seems the Iowa companies have made a pretty strong case for getting paid for calls made to, and terminating in Iowa.  (Conference Calling)&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The made a weaker case when calls are routed thru the Iowa companies and then sent elsewhere (ie) free international calling.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;If the Iowa telcos win at the FCC, they will press for immediate payment, plus fines, plus interest, plus attorney fees. If they lose, they probably will not appeal.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;If ATT (et al)  lose at the FCC they have an interesting decision to make.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;IF, they appeal the decision to the Federal Court ---and they lose there--- (likely since the Federal Courts usually defer to the govt.) ATT (et al) would be stuck paying high recip comp rates permanently.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;If so, look for hundreds of the services to sprout. A true nightmare for the major carriers.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Right now neither side is ready to blink, which is dangerous for both sides.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Both sides made offers to each other to settle the issue, but they were not even in the same “state” never mind the same “ball park”&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Possible Solutions:
IF, the local telcos were to accept payment ONLY for calls that terminated in Iowa, and were not routed overseas, perhaps ATT (et al) would ante up the money they owe.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;But if the local telcos insists on every last dime,  ATT (et al) may just sit tight and try to wait them out.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Either way, the local telcos did nothing illegal.
They read the tariff and went about their business.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;ATT (et al) never, in their wildest dreams thought a few local telcos in Iowa would beat the giant carriers.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;And with first quarter profits collectively over several-BILLION dollars, its hard to feel empathy for the giant telcos.
The amount of money they owe the local telcos is probably the amount of money they spend on &quot;entertainment expenses&quot;  every year.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Perhaps the BEST solution would be for the giant carriers to point out to their customers, that in their TOS, the giant carriers CAN BLOCK calls due to excessive use. (in unlimited plans only)&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;When a customer exceeds 6,000 minutes per month to a certain number, the carrier can block access to the number and/or cancel the account.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Of course it is far more expensive to block individual customers than to prevent ALL customers from dialing a specific phone number.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I would bet the FCC will choose this route as an interim solution, with an eye toward examining the entire recip comp structure at a future date.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The FCC chairman has made it clear reexamining this issue is a priority.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;So for the Iowa telcos, “let the good times roll, while they last!”&lt;/p&gt;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Both sides in the dispute expect the FCC to issue an informal ruling this week on the matter. (Superior Telephone et al)</p>
<p>Last Tuesday an FCC spokesman made clear that blocking calls was forbidden, (calls are now flowing again) so it now comes down to recip comp money.</p>
<p>Will the local carriers be paid by ATT (et al) for monies owed and will they continued to be paid for future calls?</p>
<p>It seems the Iowa companies have made a pretty strong case for getting paid for calls made to, and terminating in Iowa.  (Conference Calling)</p>
<p>The made a weaker case when calls are routed thru the Iowa companies and then sent elsewhere (ie) free international calling.</p>
<p>If the Iowa telcos win at the FCC, they will press for immediate payment, plus fines, plus interest, plus attorney fees. If they lose, they probably will not appeal.</p>
<p>If ATT (et al)  lose at the FCC they have an interesting decision to make.</p>
<p>IF, they appeal the decision to the Federal Court &#8212;and they lose there&#8212; (likely since the Federal Courts usually defer to the govt.) ATT (et al) would be stuck paying high recip comp rates permanently.</p>
<p>If so, look for hundreds of the services to sprout. A true nightmare for the major carriers.</p>
<p>Right now neither side is ready to blink, which is dangerous for both sides.</p>
<p>Both sides made offers to each other to settle the issue, but they were not even in the same “state” never mind the same “ball park”</p>
<p>Possible Solutions:<br />
IF, the local telcos were to accept payment ONLY for calls that terminated in Iowa, and were not routed overseas, perhaps ATT (et al) would ante up the money they owe.</p>
<p>But if the local telcos insists on every last dime,  ATT (et al) may just sit tight and try to wait them out.</p>
<p>Either way, the local telcos did nothing illegal.<br />
They read the tariff and went about their business.</p>
<p>ATT (et al) never, in their wildest dreams thought a few local telcos in Iowa would beat the giant carriers.</p>
<p>And with first quarter profits collectively over several-BILLION dollars, its hard to feel empathy for the giant telcos.<br />
The amount of money they owe the local telcos is probably the amount of money they spend on &#8220;entertainment expenses&#8221;  every year.</p>
<p>Perhaps the BEST solution would be for the giant carriers to point out to their customers, that in their TOS, the giant carriers CAN BLOCK calls due to excessive use. (in unlimited plans only)</p>
<p>When a customer exceeds 6,000 minutes per month to a certain number, the carrier can block access to the number and/or cancel the account.</p>
<p>Of course it is far more expensive to block individual customers than to prevent ALL customers from dialing a specific phone number.</p>
<p>I would bet the FCC will choose this route as an interim solution, with an eye toward examining the entire recip comp structure at a future date.</p>
<p>The FCC chairman has made it clear reexamining this issue is a priority.</p>
<p>So for the Iowa telcos, “let the good times roll, while they last!”</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ::Yakety Mobility:: &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Sprint Nextel announces it will end illegal blocking of Conference Calling Service Numbers&#8230;</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2007/03/15/cingular-qwest-blocking-free-calls/#comment-137984</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[::Yakety Mobility:: &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Sprint Nextel announces it will end illegal blocking of Conference Calling Service Numbers&#8230;]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 14 Apr 2007 21:44:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2007/03/15/cingular-qwest-blocking-free-calls/#comment-137984</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;p&gt;[...] a month ago, several mobile news websites and mobile blogs, including myself posted about major carriers blocking their customers from calling into certain [...]&lt;/p&gt;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] a month ago, several mobile news websites and mobile blogs, including myself posted about major carriers blocking their customers from calling into certain [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: bill</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2007/03/15/cingular-qwest-blocking-free-calls/#comment-137983</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[bill]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Apr 2007 00:17:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2007/03/15/cingular-qwest-blocking-free-calls/#comment-137983</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;p&gt;thats bullcrap..the rep states &quot; he said, is for calls “between one person and another person, not between one person and many.”....then why do they offer phones with 3 way calling? hey hey..its still not just one person and another person..but a 3rd person..so tell their stupid ass&#039;s that&lt;/p&gt;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>thats bullcrap..the rep states &#8221; he said, is for calls “between one person and another person, not between one person and many.”&#8230;.then why do they offer phones with 3 way calling? hey hey..its still not just one person and another person..but a 3rd person..so tell their stupid ass&#8217;s that</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
