to know if it is ever blocked, but I have had experience with calls being blocked...

At my mom's in N. Central Montana ... I was not able to call the 800 number to pay my credit card bill over the phone -- couldn't even access Customer Service.  I got the message "this number is not available from this area code".  I had a similar experience after moving to Hawaii.  Both times I was able to use my cell phone (Verizon Wireless -- 503 area code) to place the calls.

by roxy317 on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 10:15:00 PM EST

FreeConference.com is owned by Integrated Data Concepts, LLC who has a "co-branded relationship" with TelePacific Communications. TelePacific has this to say about themselves:

"TelePacific is the largest competitor to AT&T, Verizon and Embarq in its markets..."

But this is the part that makes Ed Whitacre's forehead veins visibly throb. TelePacific boasts:

• "915 miles of metro fiber"
  
• "1,412 miles of statewide fiber"
  
• "25,000 fiber strand miles"

Ooo, how Ed hates companies with their own fiber. All those years AT&T had to let anyone who asked use their wire for FREE, and now that AT&T is finally back to together...all these little companies now have their own, faster infrastructure.


by Todd Johnston on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 02:31:12 AM EST

question.  Going back a few steps via the phone companies buyout/merge.........was someone in the justice department involved/approved the buyout/merge? And if so, who?  Were there hearings?

My pea brain tells me that DOJ is the center of the universe for Corporations via Bushco.....we just gotta keep digging/hammering......... Maybe finding out if a political appointee is involved...... I don't know just musing.......

by avahome on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 10:13:46 AM EST

Actually poked around on this for a minute or two after the call yesterday and found this analysis of the business of free conference calling in area code 712. Might lend some additional background as to Cingular's motive for blocking the calls.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
by wanderindiana on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 02:41:25 PM EST

with whoever owns FreeConference.com. I'm sure they'd have both an interest and theory on why this would be the case.


by Todd Johnston on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 11:27:37 PM EST

The article quoted below is available in full at FreeConference.com's web site.

"Teleconferencing spurs more excited talk"

By Jon Van
Tribune staff reporter
Published August 8, 2004

Here's the basic idea:

"In 2003, when most telecom industry indicators pointed downward, teleconferencing was up 10 percent worldwide, said Marc Beattie, a senior partner with Wainhouse Research in Boston..."

"Smaller firms have prospered in part because the long-distance companies that traditionally dominated teleconferencing--AT&T Corp., MCI Inc., Sprint Communications Co. and Global Crossing--have been preoccupied with falling long-distance rates, regulatory problems and shrinking revenues." [emphasis added]

So, is it in Cingular's financial interest to block its customers from using free VOIP teleconferencing services? Absolutely. The only question is whether they're powerful enough to get away with it.

For those who are unaware, Cingular Wireless was formed in 2001 as a joint venture of BellSouth and SBC Communications ("SBC" stands for "Southwestern Bell Corporation," NOT to be confused with BellSouth Corporation. BellSouth and SBC were 2 of the original 9 independent local-exchange companies resulting from the Bell System divestiture in 1984). One result of former-President Bill Clinton's conciliatory and devastating Telecommunications Act of 1996 is that AT&T has nearly reassembled itself.

For example, after the industry was deregulated, from 1996-98 SBC acquired 3 of the divested companies: Pacific Telesis, SNET, and Ameritech. Then in 2001, BellSouth and SBC merged their wireless divisions to form Cingular.

Meanwhile, back in 2000, AT&T Corp. had taken its wireless services division public as "AT&T Wireless," and the following year spun it off as a separate company. However, in 2004 AT&T Wireless put itself on the auction block and was eventually acquired by Cingular.

Now, recall that Cingular was owned in a 60-40 split between SBC and BellSouth and that SBC (including itself) had consolidated 4 of the 9 divested companies. So in 2005, when SBC acquired AT&T Corp they managed to reassembled 5/9 of the original AT&T, and owned 60% of AT&T Wireless (through Cingular). If there was any doubt about SBC's intent, shortly after the acquisition they renamed to AT&T, Inc.

The coup de grace came in 2006, when AT&T, Inc was allowed to acquire BellSouth. The merger essentially meant that 6 of the 9 independent local-exchange companies, created to break up AT&T's monopoly in 1984, were now owned by AT&T, Inc. In addition, AT&T who had sold off its entire wireless division just 2 years earlier, had reacquired 100% of it, along with the rest of Cingular Wireless' network and customers.

On January 15, 2007, AT&T officially began phasing out the Cingular brand, in favor of an as yet unannounced variant of "AT&T."

by Todd Johnston on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 02:08:19 AM EST

Suggest you contact whoever has teleconference responsibilities on campus.  Out here they've been running IP video/ teleconferencing for years.  

by rba on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 08:58:15 AM EST

As someone who is involved in telecommunications I believe there are two bad guys here.

-ATT/Cingular

-Greedy Local Telephone Companies in Iowa and FuturePhone.



Some background.

All telephone companies in the USA, local and long distance, “hand off” traffic to each other in order to make the phone system work.

When the “hand off” is made, the carrier who is accepting the call is paid, a few pennies per minute to complete the call from the company originating the call.



In some parts of the country, this “fee” (known as a reciprocal compensation) is just a few tenths a penny per minute.

In theory, most companies should pay as much to connect calls, as they get paid to complete calls.

In practice however, some small phone companies earn a few dollars to complete the calls.



In the case of the Iowa companies, more calls were placed TO their ustomers rather than their customers placing calls outside of the local area.

This is totally legal and  long ago was sanctioned by the courts and the FCC.



In Iowa, due to the rural nature of the state, the rate the local companies are paid by ATT, MCI and other long distance carriers to accept and complete calls  is sometimes as high at 5-cents per minute.



However, the companies named in the lawsuit, decided to ignore the regulated 5-cents per minute fee  and charged up to 14-cents per minute.



After several months, ATT, MCI and others became aware of this situation and stopped paying the fees altogether.(Payments stopped in January 2007.



FuturePhone was the main culprit, despite claiming the mantle of “friend of the consumer”The owner gave numerous interviews with newspapers and even appeared on the ABC Evening News and urged callers to essentially beat ATT at their own game (e.g.) “Don’t pay for an international phone call ever again”

ATT naturally looked into FuturePhone and stopped payments to the local Iowa phone companies, which were handling all the incoming calls to FuturePhone.



If FuturePhone had “kept a low profile” ATT would NOT have had a legal case against them.

If the local phone companies had accepted the regulated “connection fee” they were normally paid, they would NOT be in legal hot wate.



FuturePhone and the Iowa phone companies decided to “take a chance” and swing for the fences and earn alot money together. Instead of a home run, they struck out.



Eventually the lawsuits will be settled.

-ATT and others will NOT pay amounts larger than 5-cents per minute to the local Iowa phone companies.

-ATT will NOT pay any money to the Iowa phone companies for any calls made to a FuturePhone Number.

-The local phone companies will agree to abide by the rules in the future, and instead of making millions and millions of dollars on connect fees, they may earn “just a few million”



Capitalism works. Greed never does.





<FONT SIZE=4>

</FONT>

</BODY>
</HTML>


by bobnsri on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 09:29:50 PM EST