ePluribus Media Community || citizen journalism, for the people, by the people

Bypassing the FCC: Discussion

Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:41:05 AM EST

Todd Johnston's AT&T (Cingular) blocking calls over business dispute, bypassing FCC digs into the facts behind several of the larger telephone companies (telecom) new strategy of blocking calls to small entrepeneurs in the internet phone conferencing business.

Johnston starts his article with the following:

AT&T (Cingular) blocking calls over business dispute, bypassing FCC Cingular Wireless is selectively blocking calls placed to numbers in Iowa run by local phone companies currently involved in multiple suits with its parent company AT&T Inc. The dispute is over "termination fees" -- rates long distance carriers pay the local phone company at a call's destination -- relating to third-party conference and international call services who are increasing traffic to states where these fees are relatively high.

But the FCC has made clear that long distance carriers may not block traffic to local companies as a "bargaining tool" based solely on the carrier's perception that fees are "excessive," in previous rulings that explicitly cite AT&T's use of the tactic.

commentary :: :: :: buzz-it!

Read the rest of AT&T (Cingular) blocking calls over business dispute, bypassing FCC on the ePluribus Media Journal and tell us what you think in the comments below.

About the Author: Todd Johnston is currently finishing his Ph.D. in glaciology, focusing on rapidly melting Alaskan glaciers and more broadly on Earth systems related to global climate change. Johnston received a B.Sc. with High Distinction in meteorology and Honors in Geosciences, and a minor degree in mathematics from the Pennsylvania State University. Prior to that, he enjoyed a 15-year career as a musician.
Contributors: Aaron Barlow, wanderindiana, roxy, cho, avahome, standingup

If you like what ePMedia's been doing with research, reviews and interviews, please consider donating to help with our efforts.

Bypassing the FCC: Discussion | 6 comments (6 topical, 0 hidden)

Available, as clammyc has taught us to say: (5.00 / 1) (#1)

in Orange

by Cho on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 05:10:54 PM EST

AT&T sues two more: Seattle Post-Intelligencer (5.00 / 1) (#2)

Last updated at 4:36 p.m. PST Thursday, March 22, 2007:

AT&T sues over chat-lines in Iowa
By BRUCE MEYERSON
AP BUSINESS WRITER
NEW YORK -- AT&T Inc. has sued two rural telephone companies and a provider of group chat-line services, alleging it's being charged exorbitant fees for calls that are made to a small Iowa town.
[snip]
Bloggers and some consumer advocacy groups have railed against AT&T's actions as heavy-handed and illegal. Some have argued that AT&T's decision to block calls is designed solely to prevent competition to its own services, and demonstrates how major telecommunications companies can abuse their control over the Internet and the public phone network.

Sounds like a diss aimed at Todd.

BTW, Iowa TV stations have picked this AP story up tonight; no comment yet from the defendants in the new suit.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
by wanderindiana on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 10:46:43 PM EST

If I had to guess (5.00 / 1) (#3)

AT&T is trying to create the perception that "chat rooms" are the same as conference call services. By invoking that negative imagery they're probably trying to further the false notion that they're being "scammed" by dial-a-porn services.

In truth, free conference call users include community activists, therapy support groups, and non-profits like ePluribus Media. They're legitimate businesses and services that value what they do far above what they earn. And after speaking to Cingular's exec. dir. of public affairs yesterday, I can assure you he had no concept whatsoever that people like that even exist.

After reflecting on the interview, I actually kind of pity him.

I saw a headline somewhere today about a study claiming that human brains are "hardwired" for compassion and empathy, something I've long believed. Ignoring or disconnecting from that entirely is IMO the most damaging thing a person can do to themselves. That empathy is a biological imperative makes perfect sense, because you can see the physical toll it takes on people who are either forced or decide to deny it. Just look at the faces and into the eyes of Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld or John Bolton and you can see the toxic and corrosive effect of fighting against an essential part of humanity.

"To the politician and a priest
We're in the belly of the beast
Because we fed it"

Amos Lee, "Freedom"

by Todd Johnston on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 04:02:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

: Have (5.00 / 1) (#4)

you written up that conversation?

by rba on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:22:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
: The "uncomfortable flux" (none / 0) (#5)

That paragraph in the Meyerson story that talks about "bloggers" presenting the other side to AT&T's story? Let me repeat, that sounded downright disrespectful and directed at you, Todd.
But it becomes part of a bigger issue for me.
I also pointed out, on Todd's original post, that Ars Technica used Todd's construction for "termination fees" - nowhere else in doing fact-checking did I see termination fees in quotes.
Methinks he's been ripped off twice now. Kind of flattering, kind of not.
But it's also like Cho's comment about the Jane Mayer New Yorker article on former AR U.S. Attorney Bud Cummins - Cho complimented Mayer, saying "Mayer sure puts it all together extremely well"; but at the same time she says there's "[n]othing new that you [avahome] didn't have in your articles six weeks ago."
Mayer's article is loaded with factual information that has no attribution, no sourcing, no linking. In my eyes, she's done the same as Ars Technica and now the AP's Meyerson, and it's probably over years' old standards that one publication rarely bows to give another publication credit on a story - which is a great big black hole being filled by blogs and citizen journalism efforts.
With professional journalism and corporate, for-profit publishing, competition and scoop mentality gets in the way of serving the public interest. If we want to be an informed citizenry, we've got to fight through that b.s. and seek out the best information from a variety of sources and piece it together for ourselves (which is how Todd went about researching and writing his story). Writers, editors and publishers don't have to violate copyright to achieve this effect, either; a simple reference would be enough.
I see much of ePluribus Media's work on the U.S. Attorneys story in the same light; that is, until the document dumps, it was a piecing together of facts and information gathered up from a variety of sources, akin to fitting pieces of a puzzle together albeit those pieces had been scattered by the White House and DoJ so that people wouldn't even realize there was a puzzle.
The big difference? We source, we attribute, we link, we give credit.
I have an old bookmark in my browser's favorites from Talking Points Memo, from one of the first times this same thing happened to them - their work was taken without getting credit (by the AP, to boot).

We're in a period of often uncomfortable flux in the news business. And as the containers into which the news is poured and the structure of the industry itself both change, it's understandable that stuff like this happens. My point in flagging this yesterday was not to zing the particular reporter or news organization. I'm not in this business to rack up 'as first reported by' lines. But reporters and news outlets that do solid, enterprise journalism should be credited for their work. And we shouldn't lose sight of that even as the formats we write in change.
--Josh Marshall
And as Josh Marshall said back then, it's not so much about getting the credit as it is about integrity in the process regardless of the format - but I'm not averse to adding a zing.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
by wanderindiana on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 11:45:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Mentioned Honorably (5.00 / 2) (#6)

From the blog where I found the Iowa case:

Cingular Blocks FreeConferenceCall.com and Introduces the New Futurephone, written by Eric Hernaez, March 23rd, 2007.

In that blog, I had speculated that FreeConferenceCall.com might be next in line to feel the wrath of AT&T (formerly SBC) following the latter's suit against Futurephone.
Thirty seconds of Googling found this post from an AT&T Wireless subscriber who found his calls to FreeConferenceCall.com blocked:
On March 10th, I tried to join an ePluribus Media conference call through freeconference.com . .

Click 'n read the rest.

by rba on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 12:46:35 PM EST

Bypassing the FCC: Discussion | 6 comments (6 topical, 0 hidden)

Support ePluribus Media -- Support Citizen Powered Journalism!