Iowa Telcos: Fight the FUD
NEWS ANALYSIS: Showing perhaps that they learned the lessons of last year’s net neutrality battles, the Iowa telcos and their Internet-based ‘free-calling‘ partners have formed their own ‘grassroots‘ coalition, complete with its own blog-like website to battle what they call “myths” being spread by big telcos, their opponents in the ongoing controversy.
Representatives for the Iowa telcos admitted in email exchanges that a weekend story about the controversy by the Associated Press — which played up sex-chat services in in its lead — brought more urgency to their task, given the widespread reach of the wire service. In a previous letter to the FCC, AT&T had also emphasized the adult-themed services. While such services are not in violation of any laws, the nudge-nudge implications of AT&T’s message (picked up dutifully by AP) were perhaps just the first sign of how nasty this fight may get.
While FCC chairman Kevin Martin said last week that the commission had told large carriers to stop blocking calls to the Iowa-based operations, those infractions were only part of the ongoing tussle. Members of the carrier coalition (ungainly named the Coalition for Carrier Neutrality) as well as other sources of ours inside the telecom biz claim there are network-ops dirty tricks going on that are sporadically limiting call throughput — while also admitting such tactics are almost impossible to prove.
On the above-board side of the battle, Sprint Nextel formally joined the fight by filing its own lawsuit against a group of Iowa telcos and the calling service providers in federal court Tuesday, joining AT&T and Qwest, the latter of which also recently filed a formal complaint with the FCC.
Complicating matters a bit is the fact that the coalition does not speak for all the participants on the Iowa/Internet side of this battle — in fact, some background grumbling has already started from some Internet calling providers, who are charging that some of the newer entrants into the field “got too greedy” and spoiled the game by running up big bills for the large providers.
Still, the coalition, led by veteran D.C. telecom lawyer Jon Canis, showed it can at least match wits with AT&T in a rhetorical battle, squelching the adult-chat argument by noting today on its website that “AT&T, Verizon, and Qwest numbers power adult chat sites such as RedHotDateline, LiveLinks, and TangoByPhone.”
Touche! More to come, we’re sure.
UPDATE: Michael Balmoris, AT&T spokesperson, replied in an email:
We have no relationship — revenue sharing, having these numbers, or otherwise — to the web sites/chat lines these guys cite. Their claims are baseless and are a complete falsehood; underscoring their lack of credibility.
Before everyone “beats up” on the local Iowa Companies, it must be pointed out that they are merely following a legal tariff agreed to by AT&T and all the other LD carriers all the way back in 1996.
The problem AT&T now faces, is that in 1996 no one offered unlimited LD calling for a flat rate.
In 1996 ATT and the others did not object to connection fees, since the LD carriers just passed along to cost of the fees in their “per minute” rate.
Jump ahead to 2006/2007 and ATT and most carriers are offering unlimited long distance calling for a flat rate. Suddenly those connection rates ATT and the others agreed upon, don’t look so good.
So, like little kids, they are stomping their feet and declaring, “we won’t pay”
And they are using the “scare tactic” of dredging up the old “adult chat line scare!”
MCI, (under whatever name it is today) is STILL in the “900″ adult chat line business. They not only provide the “900″ number but they will transport the call and bill the caller on your behalf. ( Of course they get to keep 30% of the cost of the call for “billing and transport”)
And did I neglet to mention that Verizon is also in the chatline business, using the same business model in Maine, Rhode Island and Massachusetts. (They get 50%)
Hey ATT/Qwest/Verizon: “Time to pay your bar tab!” And then maybe negotiate future lower rates with the guys from Iowa who beat you!
This should be settled out of court, because if the major LD’s lose, (highly likely) there will be no stopping the brush fire of free calling services.
And of course, the majors should follow the lead of all the Voip carriers, by placing a “limit” on the amount of “unlimited minutes” in their TOS.
Paul Ask MR. Michael Balmoris to dial these numbers. And then ask him who lacks the credibility? He is just lying like he was coached to.
209-837-3131—Crows Landing, California—Pacific Bell (AT&T)
209-899-8080—Milton, CA—Pacific Bell (AT&T)
209-544-3838—Modesto, CA—Pacific Bell (AT&T)
209-956-3838—Stockton, CA- Pacific Bell (AT&T)
323-210-2000–Los Angels, California–Teleport Comm. Group (AT&T)
913-888-5366–Kansas City, Missouri—Southwestern Bell (AT&T)
973-954-7400–Newark, New Jersey –Cingular Wireless LLC (AT&T)
209-728-4141—Angels Camp, California—Blue Licenses Holding LLC (Cingular Wireless Blue) (AT&T)
Thanks, forthelittleguy,
Clearly Mr.Balmoris should check with all his department heads before making such a statement. It is a case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing. Right hand claiming adult chat is immoral and illegal/left hand promoting adult chat.(right hand taking in money/left hand illegaly withholding payment)
Paul – Just so your readers understand. The numbers cited come from a public resource to look up phone numbers: http://www.telcodata.us/
What the http://www.telcodata.us web site doesn’t do is take into consideration number portability — the practice of “porting” (or moving) phone numbers from one carrier to another. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_number_portability and http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/numbport.html. In short, the phone numbers were ported to other service providers, and they are not used by AT&T. “For thelittleguy,” I think you owe Mr. Balmoris an apology for besmirching his good name. ;)
Mr. Balmoris,
I apologize. I would like you to clarify that you are not running or afiliated in any way with adult chat. I would like you to say it twice.
Thank you
To clarify, your company AT&T and its subs.
Mr Balmoris, AT&T spokesperson Mark Siegel, and the IXC’s get a big F U from the FCC. Thank you for blowing all the smoke up our asses for 3 months. Arogant pricks.
FCC Declares Carrier Call Blocking Unlawful Self-Help Remedy in Access Charge Dispute and Suspends Tariffs to Investigate Claims of Access Traffic Stimulation
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2863A1.pdf
So Christian, or anyone, what does this all mean? What do you think is going to happen with the money that the IXC’s owe now, and going forward?