Back on March 14th, I posted a blog entry about AT&T blocking calls to FreeConference.com. In that call, I described my experience and noted that I filed a complaint with the FCC. Well, yesterday, I received a phone call from Rosalyn Young at AT&T’s Office of the President about my complaint.

Unfortunately, I was on the road at the time in an area where there is poor Cingular Wireless cellphone coverage, and the call cut out partway through. I suggested that we talk later in the day, but when she called later, I was also out of range. I’m not sure if there is some hidden message there.

Anyway, this morning, I called her back to follow up. We had a good discussion. She explained that AT&T gets charged for calls to Freeconference.com, so technically their not free. I’ve been reading up various posts about the issue, such as the one on e Pluribus Media, so I was prepared for the discussion.

I asked her if the charges were different from the standard termination fee that Interexchange carriers (IXCs) are required to pay Local Exchange Carriers (LECs) as part of the FCCs Rural Communications rules. She didn’t seem exactly clear about what I was asking, so I put it this way. Yesterday, I called Gavin TV and Appliance in St Marys, Iowa. The same town where Freeconference.com’s interconnection is. Is there some sort of termination fee that AT&T has to pay Freeconference.com or the LEC that is different from what AT&T pays the LEC for a termination fee for me calling Gavin TV and Appliance? She did not know the answer and said that she would get me information on the different termination fees and get back to me.

It seems like if the real issue is termination fees at a given LEC, then AT&T ought to be targeting everyone in the LEC, and not just a high profile vendor using the LEC. It may be that they calculated that blocking a specific vendor would create less of a backlash that targeting everyone served by a LEC. It may be that they miscalculated.

I mentioned the cases that AT&T has before the Iowa Utilities Board and the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa against various LECs and pondered if the blocking of calls had anything to do with these cases.

She didn’t have anything to say about this other than asserting that wireless companies had the right to block anyone they want, at their discretion.

I am not a lawyer, particularly, not a telecommunications lawyer. I am not a publicist. So, take my thoughts on this with appropriate grains of salt. It may be that AT&T has a legitimate grievance against FreeConference.com and/or the LECs that it uses. It may even be that the grievance is so substantial that it warrants going beyond the IUB and the U.S. District Court. If that is the case, I hope to see some evidence of that from AT&T and I will publish it. It would be good publicity about them trying to right a wrong, instead of the current bad publicity that their current stance is creating.

It may be that the rules allowing wireless companies to block anyone they want at their own discretion means that this is not a valid complaint before the FCC. That might mean that the real complaint might be against AT&T for attempting to interfere with cases before the court, or for anti-competitive policies. It may be that this needs to be addressed by legislative action in Congress bring about some wireless neutrality. It may be that this is just poor public relations by AT&T which will ultimately cost them, not in the courts or congress, but in the market place.

Clearly, I do not have all the details, but as it stands now, AT&T’s blocking of calls to FreeConference.com does not appear to pass the smell test.