AT&T/Cingular, Sprint, Qwest Blocking Telephone Numbers

Earlier this year, Tim Wu wrote an important paper on wireless net neutrality.  If you have a normal landline, your phone company can't block you from using any phone you want or calling any number you want.  This is not the case for wireless companies.  I received word earlier today that AT&T/Cingular, Qwest, and Sprint are blocking customers from calling free conference calling services.

As of Friday, March 9, it's come to our attention that Cingular Wireless has begun blocking all conference calls made from Cingular handsets to selected conference numbers. If you call our service, you receive a recording that says, "This call is not allowed from this number. Please dial 611 for customer service".

I called up Cingular spokesman Mark Siegel today, and he explained why they did this. The dispute at hand is basically a complicated intra-carrier fight that really isn't all that interesting (it looks something like this, suffice to say that these free conference call companies are not saints).

The gist is that AT&T/Cingular doesn't like these Free Conference call services because they cost the company money.  Siegel said that customers that have a lot of free minutes spend too much time on them, and that if the number of users on them increase it will pose a financial problem for the company.  I asked him how much it cost, and he wouldn't tell me, though he did give me this delightful quote:

"If we were not to keep a phenomenon like this in check, we wouldn't be able to offer great service and competitive rates to our 61 million customers."

I asked him how many of his customers use the conference call services, and he wouldn't tell me except to say that it's a very very small number (which kind of makes it hard to believe that it's costing AT&T/Cingular very much money).

There's a pricing problem with cell phones in that these companies offers customers free minutes they don't want used in specific ways.  But rather than address the pricing issue, the telcos resort to their big brotherish legal rights.  Here's how Siegal justified blocking the calls:

Wireless services are intended to be used by one person to call another person, not to call a conference call line where there are potentially hundreds of people on it.  That's in our terms of service.  We also have in our terms of service the right to block calls to certain kinds of numbers and we have used this right in this case.

Get that?  If you have a cell phone, they can block your calls if you use your phone in ways they don't like.  And they will, if it costs them money.  Or rather, if they say it costs them money, a claim for which Siegel produced no proof.  Apparently it's a very very small number of customers that are using these Free Conference call services but it's enough of a revenue threat that it's threatening their customer service?

Please.  That's just false.  And these people are in charge de facto of who you can and can't call.  Incidentally, Sprint and Qwest blocked Free Conference call services last week, which leads me to think that there's not so much competition here as there is coordinated monopolistic behavior.

I think we could use some wireless net neutrality about now.  This is very dangerous. And these are the same telecom elites that are asking for control over the internet itself.



Display:


this is total bullshit (3.00 / 1)

I hope somebody files suit against this, I've either organized or participated in dozens of conference calls using a free service -- all of them were political and included some of the most important people in congress. What would happen if they tried to block calls to congress because "too many" groups were calling to lobby? But they think they can get away with preventing congressional leaders from using conference calls to communicate with citizens?


by Bob Brigham on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 06:17:33 PM EST

Re: this is total bullshit (3.00 / 1)

You're right on the politics.  If they are blocking this number they could probably block any other number.

These free conference call services though are something of a temporary phenomenon.  Nothing is free and these companies are exploiting a pricing loophole.


by Matt Stoller on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 06:21:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

introduction is free (none / 0)

The service I've used (which you've used on calls I've set up), is free for a call to a non-local number but has lots of add-ons. One, to make it a toll free number is one that I've paid for on a number of occasions because I was happy with them during the free service. They also allow more services like recording and such and the free stuff is only available if they have enough lines available. I don't know whether their business model pans out, but I know I've spent a good deal of money because I tried out the free service and liked the company's performance.  

They need to be sued and we need federal legislation on this, just like net neutrality.


by Bob Brigham on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 06:29:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

We can all file complaints (3.00 / 1)

As I mentioned in my blog post (thanks for the link Matt), I've filed a complaint with the Connecticut Attorney General and the FCC.

Here is the text of my FCC complaint:


Today, March 14, 2007, I received an email from FreeConference.com informing me that Cingular was blocking calls to their service.  I use both Cingular and FreeConference.com

I attempt to call the number above, 641-297-5500 which is a number provided by FreeConference.COM to participate in a conference call from my Cingular Wireless phone, 203-217-6712 at approximately 7:45 EDT this evening.  I received a message from Cingular saying, "This call is not allowed from this number. Please dial 611 for customer service".

I called 611 and spoke with a representative and they said that calls to 641-297-5500 had been blocked by the fraud department, but could not give a reasonable explanation of why the number was blocked.

I have written further details about this on my blog,
http://www.orient-lodge.com/node/2213

I am asking that you take action against Cingular Wireless to prevent them from anti-trade policies of blocking phone numbers from their competitors.

The FCC responded:


Acknowledgment & Fax Cover sheet to submit additional information.

Filing for: Aldon M Hynes has been received by the FCC. Thanks for your information. When inquiring about your complaint, be sure to reference this number:
FORM475: 07-W12841363 and, be sure to mention that you filed this complaint over the internet.

Matt is right to note that companies like FreeConference.com are taking advantage of FCC rules to make a quick buck, but as I commented over on Paul Kapustka's blog entry at Giga Om,


I don't have a lot of sympathy for them [AT&T]. I think the operative phrase might be, "Payback's a bitch"...I guess, from my perspective, it is inappropriate for a large telecommunication firm to try and change FCC policies that they don't like by denying service to their customers.

So, contact the FCC and your State Attorney General today.


by aldon on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 07:05:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Agree Wholeheartedly (none / 0)

Corporate malfeasance at its highest odor.


by optimusprime on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 06:22:00 PM EST

Going on the Offense (3.00 / 1)

I think it would be a great tactical move to start pushing toward Wireless net neutrality and/or agitating other areas where the Public Interest is being put behind telco profits.

This is a much better position to be in than defending.


Me | My Work | Future Majority
by Josh Koenig on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 06:32:33 PM EST

Re: AT&T/Cingular, (none / 0)

That is outrageous. I use conference call services for both political and business purposes. Are they blocking just calls to the toll free numbers or to landline conference call numbers as well?


BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog
by robliberal on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 07:18:53 PM EST

I believe there is more blocking then covered here (3.00 / 1)

I would like to see full disclosure of their complete blocking practices.


Check out the New Progressive Blog EENRBLOG
by dk2 on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 08:26:40 PM EST

Matt, you're barking up the wrong tree, big time (1.00 / 1)

The bad players here are the crooks routing calls through rural Iowa.  They are the ones taking advantage of regs that were put in place to help rural telephony customers.  That the big telcos are trying to put a stop to these parasites is neither shocking nor wrong.

I refuse to use any of these services precisely because it is stealing -- nothing more, nothing less.  I have no sympathy for the cheapskates who are now whining because they can no longer profit from this scam with free calls.


by Disputo on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 10:20:43 PM EST

Disputo, your missing a few things (none / 0)

The rules which are being taken advantage ofwere designed to create a level playing field for all telecom players and to promote universal access.

In many ways, these rules have worked and have been beneficial.  Rural Iowa has much better coverage as a result of these rules.

The argument on behalf of the large telecom companies is that the these rules have become outmoded and are now being used for arbitrage instead of improving our telecom infrastructure.

There is validity to this argument.  However, the large telecoms damage their case by acting unilaterally to deny service to people who benefit from these arbitrages.

Since my days as a consultant at Bell Laboratories in the early 1980s, I've been committed to ideals like universal access, net neutrality, wireless neutrality, and all efforts to make sure that all American citizens get the best possible connectivity.


by aldon on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 10:02:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Carriage laws... not that hard to understand (none / 0)

The carriage laws have been the same since the beginning of the republic, back when carriage meant stuff being pulled in a carriage by horses.

A strict constructionist view (sorry, I like to use conservative code words to screw conservatives) of carriage would mean these carriers are breaking the law.

The truth is, this issue is being used to create sentiment for reviving the net neutrality debate.


by jcjcjc on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 10:40:17 PM EST

Re: ATT/Cingular, Sprint, Qwest Blocking (none / 0)

"I think we could use some wireless net neutrality about now.  This is very dangerous. And these are the same telecom elites that are asking for control over the internet itself."

Fighting for wired and wireless NN is one approach, but it is inherently partial, defensive and uphill.

What's needed is spectrum (and, over time, fiber) that provides neutral, low-cost IP connectivity.  The FCC is now digesting comments in a proceeding on how to deal with the "white space" portions of the TV band, which have great propagation characteristics for penetrating trees, buildings and for low-cost devices.  This, layered on top of the existing 2.4 GHZ band used for muni-wireless nets, can go a long way toward providing that kind of connectivity.  I'm in the process of completing a report on this. My view is that, if you want a "good fight" you'll never fully win, put all your energy into NN.  If you want a strategy for achieving the goal more directly and fully, then help push for unlicensed white space (or the variation on it I'll be proposing in my report) and start talking to local community, political and business leaders about developing a long term "muni-fiber" strategy.


by mitchipd on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 11:21:49 PM EST

Re: ATT/Cingular, Sprint, Qwest Blocking (none / 0)

The fight is not for a solution, but against a set of entrenched powers.


by Matt Stoller on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 12:58:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ATT/Cingular, Sprint, Qwest Blocking (none / 0)

I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're making. But, using your terminology, shouldn't the key question then be how best to un-entrench them, and maybe even before that, what you're un-entrenching them from?


by mitchipd on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 02:52:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

This *just* happened to me (3.00 / 2)

Well I guess I can file a complaint. This just happened to me a week ago, trying to join a conference call with a client. I rarely dial in to conference call services, but I was startled that the call wouldn't go through, and I couldn't figure why. Now I know.

If that's the explanation, it's crazy. Cingular/AT&T cost me and my client time and money by restricting a service that I paid for. Perhaps I should invoice them.


by s5 on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 01:21:35 AM EST

Re: This *just* happened to me (none / 0)

I may have an overly simplistic view of it but I feel that if a company offers unlimited long distance (landline, VOIP, or wireless) it is really none of their business who I call with my own phone.  


BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog
by robliberal on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 06:29:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Resource that Sets Record Straight on Blocking (none / 0)

Matt,

In response to the outpouring of support from bloggers like you, industry thought leaders, consumer interest groups and the media, FreeConferenceCall.com has created a special web site --http://blog.freeconferencecall.com/Defau lt.aspx -- to set the record straight on the call blocking and law suits being leveraged by the major carriers including Cingular/AT&T Wireless and Sprint/Nextel.  This site includes links to current blog postings, blocking FAQs, forum for visitors to blog, and, most importantly, a "Know your Rights" section directing people to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) web site so customers fully understand how their rights are being violated.  The Know your Rights section includes links to learning about current FCC regulations, filing a complaint with the FCC, contacting your state attorney general and reading about historic cases that refute the claims of the telecommunications carrier "Goliaths."  FreeConferenceCall.com is also encouraging site visitors to subscribe to a list to join the fight in a class action suit.  


by Labbazia on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 12:48:38 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.