Comments on: Why is FCC quiet on AT&T’s Call-Blocking?

By: Paul Kapustka

Paul Kapustka — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 17:42:15 +0000

Agreed! But probably less time than before since AT&T, Qwest etc. now have a reason to pressure regulators to move faster… interesting to see if this bleeds into USF reform discussions as well.

By: John Thacker

John Thacker — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 17:31:18 +0000

Not sure if the free call companies are shy about going to the FCC — their attorneys say they have already had informal talks.

Right. The thing is, I also know that there's a reform plan floating around the FCC (that they've already asked for comments on) involving competitive bidding for these rural areas with subsidized higher termination fees. It's an interesting idea for a solution, though there's lots of details to work out. Formal complaints to the FCC might simply hasten the day when the fee structure is reformed or that plan is adopted-- I assume that's part of why these companies haven't complained more strongly to the FCC formally.

Filing a lawsuit is a no-brainer for FreeConference. I believe that they are certainly in the legal right. Morally, though, the regulations should be reformed-- but that'll take some time.

By: Paul Kapustka

Paul Kapustka — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 06:18:29 +0000

John, think you are correct in noting there are two separate worries for AT&T here — landline plans and wireless plans — but the spokesperson was specifically commenting on wireless plans, hence the bracketed adds (which are just clarification of quotes, not an editorial comment). On the wireline side, AT&T (and Qwest’s) strategy seems to be not paying their termination-fee bills to the rural telcos.

Not sure if the free call companies are shy about going to the FCC — their attorneys say they have already had informal talks. And one, FreeConference.com, filed an antitrust suit against AT&T Friday (see new post today).

By: John Thacker

John Thacker — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 05:53:06 +0000

“At the end of the day, these [free-calling plans] harm consumers because they are a threat to our ability to offer all-you-can-eat [wireless] dialing plans.”

Sorry, I don't think that your editorial comments in the brackets are accurate. I think you might be badly distorting the interview. It affects their ability to offer "all-you-can-eat" landline plans as well. Namely, it interferes with their ability to offer landline packages with one monthly rate and free long distance, because those plans are predicated on normal termination charges. They can absorb a normal amount of calls to the rural areas, but if there are suddenly tons of them, then free long distance "all-you-can-eat" plans become unprofitable.

They could, of course, institute plans that simply charge consumers more for calling these rural areas with high termination fees, instead of absorbing the costs and spreading them out to all calls.

All that said, while they have a point on the termination fees, blocking calls is a really bad thing. There needs to be a regulatory fix.

I imagine that some of these "free" call companies are reluctant to go to the FCC commissioners, because the FCC commissioners will roll it into already existing proposals to reform those rates.

By: Ashok

Ashok — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 03:08:53 +0000

Also when these big telco’s try to tell you that they can only offer services that you need. I really enjoyed conferece features of these smaller players

By: Karl

Karl — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 18:24:21 +0000

"At the end of the day, these [free-calling plans] harm consumers because they are a threat to our ability to offer all-you-can-eat [wireless] dialing plans."

I love it when AT&T disguises revenue worries as consumer advocacy. I mean it's just so SEXY.