Re: A Service Message From FreeConference.com

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

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