Comments on: Futurephone, Ready to Fight Back

By: Jake

Jake — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 17:02:51 +0000

Wouldn't the FCC use its "quacks like a duck" argument to say this is a dial around service? That's the argument to hit AT&T on access charges for its calling cards.

By: Clem

Clem — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 15:47:06 +0000

Regarding the call termination to Iowa. The service futurephone offered was an internet connection. All the calls were sent over the internet and the FCC has ruled many times on this, the call terminates to the dialed number and whatever happens once on the internet is none of AT&T's bsiness.

By: Clem

Clem — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 15:43:54 +0000

Jake, the Iowa telco's are not susidized by the Universal service fund, they were not in NECA. So no taxes were recieved by these telco's nad they were not a part of those fee's on your bill.

By: Jake

Jake — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 11:59:44 +0000

At best this seems like it will end up with some sort of agreement like the Payphone/DAC settlements that the prepaid calling card industry supports.

At worst, the access charge/rural subsidies get blown away (unlikely).

As a Verizon subscriber, I'm on AT&T's side - I do not like the idea of funding these ridiculous business plans through the tax and fee lines on my phone bill.

By: Stefan Timm

Stefan Timm — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 07:54:56 +0000

Good point, but as far as I know, retail billing has absolutely nothing to do with intercarrier settlement. I'm anxious to see how the FCC is going to handle it. However I expect the interpretation of "termination" neither to be based on common sense, nor on a technical view or indications like what's showing up on the users's bill. It'll be a legal interpretation, and in my amateur legal view it's rather obvious that those international calls are not terminated in Iowa, no matter if they went there in the first place.

By: Paul Kapustka

Paul Kapustka — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 06:43:43 +0000

Stefan, Futurephone’s Doolin raised an interesting point in our phone call (this was not in the post above): If AT&T billed its customer for a long-distance call to Iowa — which it did — how can it claim the call was not terminated there? Can you have it both ways, getting paid for the call to Iowa but not paying for its completion? Something the FCC needs to answer, I think.

By: Stefan Timm

Stefan Timm — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 06:06:14 +0000

As the calls don't really terminate in Iowa, I don't see why they should be entitled to the high termination rate. Furthermore it's stupid of an Iowa telco to partner in offering such a service as this will eventually lead to the termination rates being adjusted to discourage abuse.

This is nothing less than stealing subsidies by wrongfully declaring goods. Certainly not heroic in any way.