Speakeasy The Latest VoIP Provider To Block Certain Calls
from the this-is-going-to-get-messy dept
A few weeks back, we noted that VoIP provider MagicJack had begun blocking calls to certain numbers it didn't like -- specifically free conference numbers that were using a regulatory arbitrage loophole that required the networks of incoming calls to certain rural telcos to pay huge connection fees, creating incentives for those telcos to develop cheap or free services that brought in lots of calls. Then, a few weeks ago, it came out that Google was blocking similar calls via its Google Voice offering. I still believe that offering a telephone service that connects to POTS requires that you complete all non-fee-based (i.e., 900 number) calls, according to an FCC order in 2007 on this particular subject. Google and MagicJack disagree.However, with more and more people switching to VoIP services, combined with more and more VoIP providers going down this route, it's becoming a big issue, quickly. Harold Feld notes that Speakeasy is the latest VoIP provider to go down this route, blocking similar calls. To Speakeasy's credit, however, unlike both MagicJack and Google, it at least clearly alerted customers to this change, and also publicly lists out the blocked numbers. It's amazing that Google and MagicJack did not do either of these things.
Still, as Feld notes, this is becoming a big deal. It's likely that more and more VoIP providers are going to quickly go down this same path, and the phone system will start to splinter. This is bad. For a phone system to work, you shouldn't have a situation where the service you use can arbitrarily refuse to complete certain phone calls. The real answer is to get rid of the arbitrage loopholes. The rural telcos are clearly abusing the rules. Yes, this could seriously curtail various free conference calling solutions, but that's better than the alternative.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: arbitrage, free conference calls, telco service, voip
Companies: google, magicjack, speakeasy
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: yes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The idea was to use the fee to subsidize the cost of hooking up rural customers. While clearly being abused currently, that cost has to be borne somewhere, and it's unclear what would replace it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It seems obvious to me that the cost should be borne by rural providers like anything else, with the cost passed on to rural customers to the degree that providers can compete and still make a profit. There is absolutely no reason why people anywhere else should have to subsidize the additional cost required to connect more expensive users.
As a side note, if I understand the arbitrage regulations correctly, this is one of the dumbest ideas since the automatic groin-targeting self-punch machine. How could anybody think that forcing telcos to pay extortionate and arbitrary fees to incentivize scammers to take up rural connectivity services would be a good idea or not get abused?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's done for societal reasons. You could also say there is absolutely no reason the telco should be able to use utility right-of-ways across private lands (enforced by the gov't), but it is deemed to be in the greater interest of society to do so.
That kind of reasoning is applied to other services as well. For example, at one time, the post office would not deliver mail to rural locations because it cost more to do so. They only wanted to service the most profitable population centers and if people in the country wanted mail delivered they had to get a post office box in one of those population centers and hire private carriers to go get it for them. Congress put a stop to that and passed laws requiring universal mail service to all domestic areas and for the same fee. There are still those who disagree with that as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Umm, the law *established* these fees.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Civil disobedience?
Maybe I'm being too optimistic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Get rid of free calls ... sort of
With this approach, increasing use of VoIP will lead to increasing pressure on the conference call providers to change their ways....
-- Jerry
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Get rid of free calls ... sort of
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmm
Regulation is only as good as thoughs doing the regulating. In this case? Just hack out the law and go back to the drawing board.
Offtopic: It's really fun occasionally to go back through the older stories, especially those over a year old, and see who you recognize in the comments section. I suggest everyone try it. Who remembers the Weird Harold days? :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmm
The very same law repealing the fees should also evict the telcos from all utility right of ways at the same time. Let them purchase their own land at market prices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmm
I agree to the basic premise here, but I would go further and just hack out the old outdated tech, and have everyone upgrade to all-data lines plus VoIP (this can be done the Earthlink way, where the VoIP equipment is at the local colo, so the house connection just acts like a regular phone line). Get rid of the old minor remnants of the POTS system entirely. If you think your current "long distance" phone provider doesn't use VoIP tech internally, you're hopeless. Instead of Universal Telephone service we should have Universal Internet service, with a VoIP address registration requirement per building (for 911 and reverse-911 purposes). Concepts like area-codes and domestic long distance calling have been outdated since cell phones in the late 80's and should all be abandoned. Most of the old POTS based system should go along for the ride, into the trash bin of history.
Before people start yelling "but what if I'm not in DSL range?" you need to realize that analog audio is just another form of data. It can be digitized and compressed to use less of your POTS bandwidth than it does now, and you can use the leftover bandwidth for other data. Even if the space for other data is just a few Kb/s, that's better than what you can do with an old POTS type modem that isn't tolerant of simultaneous voice calls. Besides, government should have the incentive to bring you more broadband options, rather than stick you with an over-priced rural POTS connection like they do now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hmm
It's always funny when someone who doesn't know what they're talking about comes along and, thinking that they do, starts spouting off and insulting people. Talk about "hopeless".
No, telcos don't typically use VoIP internally. They use systems specially designed for the purpose, often ATM based, that are far more efficient and reliable for telco use.
Considering the technical ignorance already demonstrated, I won't even bother with the rest of the comment. The lesson for others: If you want to give technical lectures, learn what you're talking about first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I disagree absolutely
Just like 900 numbers, there is no reason that anyone should be compelled to connect calls that require extortionary fees.
There's no need for legislation... Just block the calls. The businesses being hosted there will simply go out of business when people find out their "free" host wasn't actually free and isn't actually available to the parties they invited.
This isnt rocket science... thats an abusive leach. Don't outlaw abusive leaching.. just don't require people submit to abusive leaching and the problem goes away.
Just because the telcos (intentionally) created a stupid rule, doesn't mean we should make everyone else pay for their mistake.
Mike, this might be the first time you have suggested that "there ought to be a law" to handle a free market mistake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes it should
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yes it should
We are clearly on the brink of the end of the VoIP telephony providers in present form.
The RBOC's and tier-1 IXC's are celebrating.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yes it should
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
By the way, I think you are confusing POTS with PSTN. POTS = Plain Old Telephone Service, this is the analog type of service that you might get at home from a Bell operating company.
PSTN = Public Switched Telephone Network, this includes both analog and digital service, your home phone and T1 type service a business might use. While I have no proof, I'm quite sure that FreeConferenceCall uses T1 lines, not analog lines, so its PSTN not POTS.
To me, this gets back to all the discussion on your blog about business models. VoIP is a new innovative service and the folks doing are experimenting with new business models. If you require VoIP providers to play by the same rules as monopoly Telcos then they have less ability to innovate with business models because their costs go up substantially. If I were running FreeConferenceCall and there was a VoIP service (or more than one VoIP service) that provided calls into my service for free (where I as FreeConferenceCall get paid for the calls) I would have as many free accounts as possible and I would keep calls to my service connected 24/7 - those free VoIP services are a money printing machine for FreeConferenceCall.
The simple fact is that services like FreeConferenceCall are fee based, fee based to the Telco not the end user. Based on a 2007 FCC decision, Telcos have to accept calls placed from VoIP providers. In light of that the Telcos changed their contracts with VoIP providers to pass on the costs of the fee based calls like those to FreeConferenceCall. There is no requirement for VoIP providers to connect calls from end users to all numbers, VoIP providers do not have to assume the costs of those fee based calls.
Your position that VoIP providers should connect all calls does not make sense. The main difference between VoIP providers and traditional telcos is a monopoly. VoIP providers do not get monopoly access and thus do not play by the same rules as traditional telcos. The FCC has been really consistent about not placing undue regulation on VoIP services in order to allow VoIP service providers to experiment with new services and business models - and its working.
Time to stop complaining that you cannot have the calls you want for free. In fact, you are you so fixed on using hidden fee based services like FreeConferenceCall? Given your position it seems like the right thing to do is to NOT use FreeConferenceCall, time to stop supporting them. Time to start supporting another free conference service that does not have hidden fees.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
PSTN = Public Switched Telephone Network, this includes both analog and digital service, your home phone and T1 type service a business might use. While I have no proof, I'm quite sure that FreeConferenceCall uses T1 lines, not analog lines, so its PSTN not POTS.
Ah yes. That's correct. Used the wrong term..
The simple fact is that services like FreeConferenceCall are fee based, fee based to the Telco not the end user. Based on a 2007 FCC decision, Telcos have to accept calls placed from VoIP providers. In light of that the Telcos changed their contracts with VoIP providers to pass on the costs of the fee based calls like those to FreeConferenceCall. There is no requirement for VoIP providers to connect calls from end users to all numbers, VoIP providers do not have to assume the costs of those fee based calls.
Again, I think you're misreading the FCC ruling, but I assume we'll find out soon enough.
Time to stop complaining that you cannot have the calls you want for free.
Did you not read what I wrote? In this very post I said that they should remove the loophole that allows those services to exist -- and then they will go away.
This has nothing to do with me wanting calls for free. I think the better solution is for the regulatory loophole that allows those companies to exist to go away.
In fact, you are you so fixed on using hidden fee based services like FreeConferenceCall? Given your position it seems like the right thing to do is to NOT use FreeConferenceCall, time to stop supporting them.
Why? It's still free to me to use. There's no reason not to use it until the loophole is closed.
Time to start supporting another free conference service that does not have hidden fees.
But... um... do those exist? This is part of the problem. None of these things are transparent, so it's impossible to know which ones are using the loophole and which aren't. Besides, most of the time, the reason I'm using free conference calling services is because *others* use those and set up conferences that I need to call into. You do realize that people beyond just those who set up the call have to be able to call in too, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Besides, most of the time, the reason I'm using free conference calling services is because *others* use those and set up conferences that I need to call into. You do realize that people beyond just those who set up the call have to be able to call in too, right?"
Yes, I do realize that other folks setup conferences that you need to join. Perhaps you could encourage those folks to use another service. You have heard of a grass-roots effort, right?
You mentioned yourself in a previous post that MagicJack setup its own conference service, why not use that one?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Which ruling? I cannot find any VoIP related FCC ruling saying that VoIP providers are required to connect to all PSTN numbers. Check for yourself:
http://www.fcc.gov/voip
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I usually agree, but..
It's more of a stance issue than a legal issue, I'd say. You say you want the problem to be fixed, yet you still utilize the problem. Just my take on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I usually agree, but..
For some reason, this logic is very prevalent in the comments--that you cannot recognize a bad system and disagree or want it fixed if you still utilize the system advantageously. Lawyers can recognize that the patent system is screwed up but still take personal advantage. Firms can get bailout funds and still recognize that they're terrible for the country. There's nothing wrong with this--smart people make the best of any situation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I usually agree, but..
Point taken. At the same time if lots of folks just stop using the service then FreeConferenceCall's income goes down and they have a lot less reason to be in business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
VOIP vs Google Voice
However I completely agree with everyone that is saying that we just need to close the loophole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Except, that's not quite true. Google only needs to connect to other networks when the callers are on other networks, like any other call provider.
Because of that Google Voice should not be required to act like a common carrier because nothing is stopping the user from calling the requested number directly.
Oh? And if you don't have a land or mobile line, how are you supposed to do that? And even if you do, wouldn't that just be pushing the fees off onto another carrier instead? How is that right? What makes Google so special? Why should land or mobile operators have to connect to those numbers either?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No phone - no google voice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No phone - no google voice
I use Google Voice and I don't have a mobile or land line. It forwards to my Gizmo/SipPhone VOIP line.
I believe it also provides you with the ability to call out, and have your Google # displayed, but you still have to call into Google Voice to begin with, so again, no main phone, no Google Voice.
I do that from my VOIP line. Again, no mobile or land line.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Likewise, it is clearly a case of the rural telcos being engaged in double dipping. The Universal Service Fund is supposed to be equalising the costs between rural telcos and city telcos. The rural telcos should be bitchslapped hard by the FCC and told to stick with USF only. The Universal Service Fund should also be mentioned prominently in any story about rural telcos.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stupid, stupid, stupid!!!!!
ATT, Verizon et al are laughing into the weekend.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Surprise
The RLEC's that host the free services are not paid by the IXC's for the majority of their access minutes. The payment is held in dispute often with legal case in process.
Some RLEC's have made commercial agreements with the big IXC's at a small fractional rate (say $.015 per minute) of their actual tariff'd rate (say $.07 per minute).
At the same time these IXC's are jacking up rates to these RLEC's (like $.25 per minute).
Such is reality of the US telecom business where the adults play and far outside the foo-foo land of free internet mindset that violates it's own cries of network neutrality.
So do you see how you are being PWNED now??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Speak Easy's List is Larger than Some
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Speak Easy's List is Larger than Some
These complete morons are blocking the entire OCN.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I dropped Speakeasy two weeks ago
Speakeasy's VOIP offering is really good, but it better be at more than $35/month. I calculated that if I used a pay-as-you-go service from CallCentric, it would be much cheaper, even while taking into account overseas calls.
It just seems that, given their price points, Speakeasy is just shooting itself in the foot. If competitors can operate at 1/4 of the price AND don't block access, well, you know what's going to happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
$40 a month! Holy Crap!!!
It clearly looks like Speakeasy is the greedy pig in this scenario, far outpacing the biggest phone companies.
If these clowns cannot manage a clear profit without blocking calls that others in their sector that charge less overall for, then they simply should not be in business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who is being Blocked?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who is being Blocked?
To hear the way Google and SpeakEasy are spinning it you might think that the rural telcos are somehow charging some kind of extra fee for those "Free Conferencing" calls. Well, they aren't. Nor does the FCC allow that. They are charging the same fee they charge for connecting to any of their subscribers, whether it's Ma and Pa or Free Conferencing.
But Google and SpeakEasy don't like paying the rural connect fees, period. What this is probably leading to is Google, SpeakEasy, and others, starting to blocks all calls to rural areas (because those rural calls all cost more) unless the FCC puts a stop to it.
If it is a latter case (blocking the exchange) then unless the exchange is dedicated to the Free Services the normal customers of that exchange are being used as Human Shields to protect the Free Services.
Like I said, the termination fees for the "Free Services" and "normal customers", as you call them, are exactly the same.
I should be allowed to contact any phone number I call and be connected.
Google and SpeakEasy disagree. AT&T would also like to block calls to rural numbers but the FCC won't let them.
As I note, I am willing to exclude those that charge a fee to the Phone Company (as in the case of the Free Conferencing loophole) so long my other calls to that exchange are allowed to go through.
All calls that start on one telco and end on another result in call termination fees. Even calls to non-rural areas. If you block those calls then basically you'll be blocking all calls between telcos. The large telcos (e.g. AT&T) could then use that to strangle the small telcos out of existence. (They wouldn't do such a thing, would they?)
There could even develop wars between the larger players, e.g. AT&T & Sprint, where they either start blocking calls to each other (because those calls all result in call termination fees) or, more likely, charge extra for them. Already the FCC allows them to charge extra for mobile calls between telcos and that's what they're doing with the mobile plans that allow unlimited calls between their own customers but then charge extra for calls to other carriers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bandwidth.com also blocking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Qwest V Farmers and Merchants Mutual Telephone Company
http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/FCC-09-103A1.html
Canp't George
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Service
[ link to this | view in chronology ]