WIP:
debug isdn q931 - see live calling / called numbers on PRI
debug voip ccapi inout - This is hard to read but you will see something on the screen if calls come in / out of the FX0 / POTS lines.
debug ccsip messages - debug sip messages
debug ccsip all - debug all sip traffic - CAREFUL
term mon - see debugs on the screen
u all - disable all debugging
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Friday, March 5, 2010
Bandwith.com Blocking Access to Rural Telephone Numbers
One of our customers ran into this issue the other day. They were attempting to call into a free conference bridge to meet with a client. They received a busy signal. After it happened twice in a day on 2 different numbers, they told us about it.
After opening a ticket with Bandwidth.com, we received an email response a day later. Basically, Bandwidth.com has decided that they are going to block calls to certain locations without informing their customers. Also, their notification that your call is blocked is a busy signal. The same busy signal our customer has received when they had all the other Bandwidth.com issues with calls. This does not lead to customer satisfaction. It also causes us problems since we can't identify the cause of the call failure.
To be fair, some of the other providers are are also blocking these same calls. These calls are to certain rural areas which are known for hosting lots of "call pumping" businesses. These areas receive significantly higher call termination fees for having calls terminated there. This was put into place with the idea that we need telco infrastructure in rural areas but there are less subscribers and calls there to spread the costs over. See the links at the end of this post for some more information on this issue.
Some smart (but shady) people figured out that if they were able to get tons of calls into these areas, that would be a lot of money generated for the local telco. Start up your own CLEC and host a free (to end users) adult chat site or conference bridge service there. Now just get people to call and your CLEC business makes money off your other business.
These fees really add up apparently. Google voice recently blocked service to some of these areas which resulted in AT&T complaining to the FCC. It looks like some VoIP providers are already doing this as well.
So the problem here is that this is horrible for Net Neutrality. We absolutely should NOT allow a telco decide who/where to connect calls to. This just opens up a huge can of worms. For example, what if AT&T decided that they weren't going to connect callers to Sprint numbers. Or to people in the state of Montana. That would be a problem right? The FCC has already ruled that the traditional telcos have to provide service to these areas and can't block the calls. However, a definitive ruling on VoIP providers has not been given, so many providers are making up their own rules.
I understand that there is a problem here. Calls into these areas are resulting in huge charges for the telephone companies. This is a particular problem on a low cost nationwide unlimited VoIP plan as the provider can't recoup those charges. However, allowing the telcos to determine who they will connect calls to is insanity and will cause huge problems down the road.
So what's the solution? Well, the FCC should pass some new rules governing call pumping and probably reducing the price of connection fees to rural areas. These rules would be very complex and should be carefully considered so as not to cause other problems. This will likely take forever.
What about a short term solution? I think it's reasonable for VoIP providers to limit access to areas known for call pumping. Speakeasy did this and they informed their users ahead of time and provide a list of numbers that are blocked online.
However, Bandwidth.com has not posted this information. They have not published their policy of blocking these numbers online and they also do not provide a list of blocked numbers.
Well.... Hopefully they just didn't get around to publishing it. Below is their letter they sent us on this issue and the list of prefix's they are blocking (per them).
More Info::
Speakeasy Gives Notice It Will Block Calls, FCC Needs To Take Action. | Public Knowledge
Here's To You, Mr. Traffic-Pumper.
AT&T Falls Back on "It's All About Google" Strategy
Response to AT&T's letter to FCC on Google Voice
After opening a ticket with Bandwidth.com, we received an email response a day later. Basically, Bandwidth.com has decided that they are going to block calls to certain locations without informing their customers. Also, their notification that your call is blocked is a busy signal. The same busy signal our customer has received when they had all the other Bandwidth.com issues with calls. This does not lead to customer satisfaction. It also causes us problems since we can't identify the cause of the call failure.
To be fair, some of the other providers are are also blocking these same calls. These calls are to certain rural areas which are known for hosting lots of "call pumping" businesses. These areas receive significantly higher call termination fees for having calls terminated there. This was put into place with the idea that we need telco infrastructure in rural areas but there are less subscribers and calls there to spread the costs over. See the links at the end of this post for some more information on this issue.
Some smart (but shady) people figured out that if they were able to get tons of calls into these areas, that would be a lot of money generated for the local telco. Start up your own CLEC and host a free (to end users) adult chat site or conference bridge service there. Now just get people to call and your CLEC business makes money off your other business.
These fees really add up apparently. Google voice recently blocked service to some of these areas which resulted in AT&T complaining to the FCC. It looks like some VoIP providers are already doing this as well.
So the problem here is that this is horrible for Net Neutrality. We absolutely should NOT allow a telco decide who/where to connect calls to. This just opens up a huge can of worms. For example, what if AT&T decided that they weren't going to connect callers to Sprint numbers. Or to people in the state of Montana. That would be a problem right? The FCC has already ruled that the traditional telcos have to provide service to these areas and can't block the calls. However, a definitive ruling on VoIP providers has not been given, so many providers are making up their own rules.
I understand that there is a problem here. Calls into these areas are resulting in huge charges for the telephone companies. This is a particular problem on a low cost nationwide unlimited VoIP plan as the provider can't recoup those charges. However, allowing the telcos to determine who they will connect calls to is insanity and will cause huge problems down the road.
So what's the solution? Well, the FCC should pass some new rules governing call pumping and probably reducing the price of connection fees to rural areas. These rules would be very complex and should be carefully considered so as not to cause other problems. This will likely take forever.
What about a short term solution? I think it's reasonable for VoIP providers to limit access to areas known for call pumping. Speakeasy did this and they informed their users ahead of time and provide a list of numbers that are blocked online.
However, Bandwidth.com has not posted this information. They have not published their policy of blocking these numbers online and they also do not provide a list of blocked numbers.
Well.... Hopefully they just didn't get around to publishing it. Below is their letter they sent us on this issue and the list of prefix's they are blocking (per them).
List of Blocked Prefixes
At Bandwidth.com, Inc. our SIP trunking, BoxSet and Phonebooth voice-over-IP products have been recognized as being a great value for customers. As an interconnected VoIP and communications service provider, we have grown rapidly because our business customers are routinely saving 30-70% off of their traditional telecom bills.
However, we want you to know that the viability of low-cost IP telephony is at risk due to highly controversial so-called “traffic-stimulation” activities of some telecom providers and their business partners through the promotion and use of “free” conference calling or similar services, or “free” adult entertainment and “chat” services. Long distance calls to the phone numbers of these services is usually directed to rural areas where the telecom providers assess charges for the calls that we view as excessive, if not exorbitant. In fact, the charges are so high that the telecom providers have an arrangement where their conference calling or adult entertainment service partners share in the profits.
This practice has been the subject of great controversy within the telecommunications industry and among VoIP providers like Bandwidth.com, Inc., and has drawn the recent formal scrutiny of both the FCC and the State of Iowa Utilities Board. In our view, these so-called “services” exist for no reason other than to draw high-volume traffic to high-cost tariff areas. In fact, the “free” service is not really free since the telecom provider then turns around and charges the communications companies that send them the long distance “stimulated” calls from around the country for connecting to the service. In our view, this whole practice greatly distorts what would otherwise be a low volume of calls to a given rural area into a high volume calling area, resulting in unfair and excessive charges to others. The problem is compounded because, while the FCC may not look kindly on these practices, thus far, there has not been the timely relief we think is needed to protect those being unfairly charged.
So, how does this affect you if nothing is done? If you are a metered SIP trunk customer (i.e. you are charged per minute), you will be subject to excessively high cost per-minute charges for calls into those rural areas of concern. That free conference calling service that you thought was saving you money would actually cost you significant money on your phone bill.
If you are an Unlimited SIP trunk, BoxSet or Phonebooth customer, your bill will not be affected now. However, the growing costs that Bandwidth.com, Inc. and other VoIP providers incur to deliver an unlimited nationwide VoIP product will inevitably raise your telecom rates as we try to continue to stay profitable and viable.
Thus, we refuse to do nothing and put our customers or our own business in jeopardy to what we, and many others, believe to be inappropriate practices that exist to take advantage of regulatory loopholes. Therefore, effective today, we are making the following changes to our voice product terms and conditions and acceptable use policy:
a) Bandwidth.com, Inc. will stop allowing voice traffic to a few selected locales in North America, where we determine that "traffic stimulation" practices are going on. Instead of passing on these fees to you, we have chosen to maintain the most competitive rates possible by implementing this policy change.
b) We are updating our Acceptable Use Policy, and are extending other conference calling options to customers who may have a legitimate need for conferencing.
These changes are effective immediately, and can be seen on our website at http://www.bandwidth.com/resources/legal/policy.html. Please feel free to contact customer care if you have any additional questions or would like to talk about alternate conferencing options for your business.
Additionally, I would urge you to contact the FCC and ask them to crack down on "traffic stimulating" practices by rural telecom companies so that innovation in low-cost, feature-rich IP telephony can continue. They can be contacted at: http://www.fcc.gov/contacts.html
Best regards,
Joe Campbell
Vice President of Operations
Bandwidth.com
218237
218339
218486
218538
218548
218632
218844
218862
218895
218936
270250
270200
270400
270402
270405
270406
270407
270431
270446
270572
270696
270834
270872
270943
270951
270960
308231
308344
308378
308526
308823
308831
308929
319256
319279
402590
563843
605475
605622
605715
605725
641210
641213
641235
641237
641262
641264
641297
641308
641309
641315
641388
641396
641410
641453
641509
641527
641551
641552
641570
641594
641608
641612
641654
641665
641696
641710
641713
641715
641739
641765
641793
641795
641816
641826
641827
641865
641962
641982
641983
641985
641992
712278
712338
712353
712429
712432
712439
712451
712458
712472
712475
712541
712568
712580
712725
712726
712737
712775
712827
712858
712858
712872
712873
712876
712889
712941
712944
712945
712948
712951
724444
906204
906232
906239
906294
906357
906481
906874
More Info::
Speakeasy Gives Notice It Will Block Calls, FCC Needs To Take Action. | Public Knowledge
Here's To You, Mr. Traffic-Pumper.
AT&T Falls Back on "It's All About Google" Strategy
Response to AT&T's letter to FCC on Google Voice
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)