Re: A Service Message From FreeConference.com

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: L Victor Marks <victor () victormarks com>
Date: March 17, 2007 6:11:45 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Subject: Re: [IP] Re: A Service Message From FreeConference.com

Dave, for IP if you please,

I find AT&T's statement " is for calls “between
  one person and another person, not between one person and many.”"  
to be curious, given the nature of the iPhone (an AT&T exclusive in  
America) and its powerful conferencing features as demonstrated at  
Macworld.

So really, AT&T approves of one-to-many calls when made on an iPhone,  
using their for-pay-features, but not one-to-many using anyone else's  
service?

Have I concluded correctly?

Regards,
Victor Marks

On Mar 17, 2007, at 2:41 PM, David Farber wrote:

> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: "John S. Quarterman" <jsq () quarterman org>
> Date: March 17, 2007 11:46:25 AM EDT
> To: dave () farber net, Jim Thompson <jim () netgate com>
> Cc: "John S. Quarterman" <jsq () quarterman org>
> Subject: Re: [IP] Re: A Service Message From FreeConference.com
>
> (For IP, if you like.)
>
> > It would be best if FreeConference would provide some 'test' number.
>
> PennPIRG claims to have confirmed blocking by trying test numbers:
>
>  http://pennpirg.org/PA.asp?id2=31481
>
> > Paul Kapustka posted posted something on GigaOM about this yesterday:
> > http://gigaom.com/2007/03/15/cingular-qwest-blocking-free-calls/
> >
> > More background:
> > http://gigaom.com/2007/02/26/iowa-telcos-att-owes-12-million/
> > http://gigaom.com/2007/02/07/atts-free-call-bill-2-million/
> >
> > http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/tech/article/
> > 0,2777,DRMN_23910_5371999,00.html
> >
> > Note how Qwest attempts to tie FreeConference to sex chats and
> > "'untoward' and 'inappropriate"'traffic on its network".
> >
> > Gee, what happened to common carriage?
>
> And note the part about:
>  'AT&T spokesperson Mark Siegel said the company is blocking “certain
>   numbers” for conferecing services, including FreeConferece.com’s,
>   an action it feels appropriate under its wireless terms of service
>   agreements. AT&T’s wireless service, he said, is for calls “between
>   one person and another person, not between one person and many.”'
>
> I've used your links in a blog post that attempts to draw out
> some of the threads:
>
>  http://riskman.typepad.com/peerflow/2007/03/more_telcos_blo.html
>
> In particular, what happens on a non-neutral Internet when these
> same telcos decide some service has "inappropriate" traffic,
> or too many participants?
>
> > jim
>
> -jsq
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
> Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/@now
> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com



-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/@now
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com