Page 2 of 2
Re: Not Illegal
Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 7:19 pm
by r81984
mjuser2010 wrote:r81984 wrote:
The freeconferencecall.com is using a number in rural Iowa where about 50 phone lines exist. Iowa passed a law where these rural phone companies could charge a lot more in termination fees to subsidize the phone system so they would not loose money supplying phone service to 50 people.
The termination fee is $.06 a minute.
...If you want to call scammer Iowa phone numbers than pay $20 a month for phone service.
One number MJ is blocking 218-339-2500 is in northern Minnesota, not Iowa or subject to Iowa law. Area code 218 is not Iowa. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_code_218
In 2007 the FCC state that call blocking was illegal via this order (Establishing Just and Reasonable Rates for Local Exchange Carriers, Call Blocking by Carriers, 22 FCC Rcd 11629 (2007).)
Call blocking is also contrary to MJ's advertising.
That FCC ruling only applies to phone companies not VOIP companies.
Also, ATT is fighting these scammer numbers because they loose millions a month to them.
ATT has to fight these companies in court because they are bound by the FCC law that does not allow them to block those numbers. Magic Jack will block any scammer number that trys to game the system. If you do a quick search you can see that the 218 is also one of those telco exchanges where they are trying to scam phone companies with termination fees.
Magic Jack is not blocking these because they want to, they have to block them to avoid going out of business. Actually you have to blame these conference companies because if they want you to call them they will cut deals with companies like Magic Jack so instead of paying 6 cents a minute they can pay less than a penny a minute. The owner of Magic Jack has stated that he reached out to these companies to negotiate a cheaper rate and they refused.
Posted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 6:03 am
by GuyOnTheAir
You seem to be very educated on this topic, newbie. And yet your conclusions and opinions are no more solid or documented than anyone else's. I think you must work for mJ.
Posted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 11:16 pm
by cell14
Magic Jack is not blocking these because they want to, they have to block them to avoid going out of business
Most of us understand the issue. The problem is not what they did but how they did it. They could have sent an e-mail to all customers that they would start blocking certain numbers in 15 days, announce it on their web site and change their TOS and advertisement. A major contributor here once called the company owner a sociopath and this is another proof of that.
Free Conference Call is Now Doomed
Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 4:25 pm
by r81984
It wont be long before these scammer services shut down forever.
http://www.newtonindependent.com/newton ... mping.html
"IUB spokesman Rob Hillesland said today that the state regulatory board came to a "verbal" decision on Friday that directs the office's general counsel to draft an order that finds "the conferencing companies were not end users for purposes of the respondents' exchange access tariffs, and therefore access charges did not apply to these calls and should not have been charged to the interexchange carriers.""
"Hillesland said the board also ordered the rural telephone companies involved in the action to "refund the illegally-collected access charges.""
Since they must refund the scam profits they made they will certainly be going out of business.
Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 7:46 pm
by GuyOnTheAir
While r81984 seems to have only joined this board to support either magicjack or some other entity against consumers callers, there are more sides to the issue than he/she presents. And, there's nothing to indicate that they are "scammer services", or that they'll be "shut down forever."
Listen to the conference call and read the information here for another viewpoint (not that it's the correct viewpoint, but at least gives a bit of balance to what r81984 has said).
http://blog.freeconferencecall.com/
Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 8:08 pm
by GuyOnTheAir
Another interesting read, (more for the comments at the end, than anything...) is found here:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/200910 ... 6401.shtml
Posted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 4:17 pm
by pagemen
Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 1:25 am
by GuyOnTheAir
Fascinating article, pageman. I think that very accurately tells the story, as I understand it.
This is not about breaking the rules, or doing anything illegal. It is about either finding a loophole, or using the laws to your advantage.
Makes me wonder if now mJ is doing the same thing with their free conferencing service. Their number, 305-848 is registered to Doral, FL, and owned by mJ (YMAX) according to
http://phones.whitepages.com/305-848.
I wonder if there are higher rates there. As far as I understand it this is a large part of mJ's entire business model, is charging other carriers for incoming calls.
Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 2:25 pm
by mjuser2010
AlaninKY wrote:I found the work around to get around magicJack blocking calls.
1. Go the
http://www.google.com/voice
2. Now Sign into your Google Voice account
3. Click the Call Link and enter the phone number you need to call and select your magicJack to ring and click on Connect. Now your magicJack will ring and you pick up your magicJack phone call and enjoy this work around
It's as easy as 1,2,3!
Google now will not connect to Free Conference Call at 218-339-4600.
Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 3:30 pm
by mjuser2010
In response to my FCC complaint, a Magic Jack representative called me and said that they were willing to refund the $19.95 renewal I paid, but I would lose my entire MJ service. He admitted that MJ was blocking calls to Free Conference Call numbers and said that these services were welcome to contact MJ to set up an exchange access agreement with MJ, but MJ was not hopeful any would agree. He said if I keep my MJ service, I will not be able to connect to these free conference calling numbers because MJ will continue to block them.
Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 5:23 am
by pagemen
So now everyone is avoiding them like plague....if possible
Its also funny to see that AT&T, while stuck with FCC regulation, is trying to drag Google down.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2354929,00.asp#at
"We told the FCC today that Google Voice now restricts calls to
fewer than 100 specific phone numbers, all of which we have good reason to believe are engaged in traffic pumping schemes," "generated more than 160 times the expected traffic volumes, and
accounted for a whopping 26 percent of our monthly connection costs,"
Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 2:31 pm
by jp10558
GuyOnTheAir wrote:Fascinating article, pageman. I think that very accurately tells the story, as I understand it.
This is not about breaking the rules, or doing anything illegal. It is about either finding a loophole, or using the laws to your advantage.
Makes me wonder if now mJ is doing the same thing with their free conferencing service. Their number, 305-848 is registered to Doral, FL, and owned by mJ (YMAX) according to
http://phones.whitepages.com/305-848.
I wonder if there are higher rates there. As far as I understand it this is a large part of mJ's entire business model, is charging other carriers for incoming calls.
I'd actually like to know if magic jack's conference call number is a "normal" line or one of these super expensive ones. If it's a normal cost number, I'd actually recommend it over freeconference call.com because I don't like to "abuse" the system like the Iowa numbers are...
Posted: Tue Mar 09, 2010 11:25 am
by jimisbell
Well, Im outa here. I have no control over which service is used and only want to join a conference that someone else initiated, which I cannot with MJ, so its history.
Posted: Tue Mar 09, 2010 8:44 pm
by jmrathbun
I contacted FreeConference.com regarding this situation and they urged me to report it to the FCC using
https://esupport.fcc.gov/sform2000/form ... page=2000B
Posted: Tue Mar 09, 2010 11:25 pm
by crackerjack
A totally futile effort as Magicjack/YMAX is not constituted as a telecom carrier but an "enhanced data service provider" and therefore not subject to FCC oversight on their service.
BTW, this is the reason they will never implement LNP.
Posted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 2:27 am
by jeniffer21
I am looking to setup
conference calls in my office. We have requirement of 20 persons. What service should I use. Any suggestions?
THANK YOU!!!!
Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:31 pm
by jjohnson2324
[quote="AlaninKY"]I found the work around to get around magicJack blocking calls.
1. Go the [url]
http://www.google.com/voice[/url]
2. Now Sign into your Google Voice account
3. Click the Call Link and enter the phone number you need to call and select your magicJack to ring and click on Connect. Now your magicJack will ring and you pick up your magicJack phone call and enjoy this work around :)
It's as easy as 1,2,3![/quote]
YOU ARE A GOD SEND!!! Thank you so much!
This worked perfectly. I'm starting a new @home 9-5 job and we have these team meetings. We're not supposed to be using Magicjack but it's the most affordable. Anyway, the conference call I have to be on doesn't allow me to call through and it makes me so mad! But this worked for me without a hitch! Literally it was as simple as you said. It took me all of about 5 minutes. Thanks again! You literally saved my life! Jobs are so hard to find now and I wouldn't have been able to continue working had it not been for you!
Posted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 12:20 pm
by mjuser2010
This work around does not work since GV is blocking calls to the conference call number: (218) 339-2500
Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 12:05 am
by redpepper
I just checked Skype and they are still putting calls through to that number as normal.
If you want to use your magicJack and your phone to place the call, you can use Skype with the "Skyjack" Plugin.
Posted: Wed Feb 29, 2012 2:04 pm
by GuyOnTheAir
Really old thread here that I started long ago, but got some unexpected email in my inbox this morning, that piqued my interest.
Here's part of an email from FreeConferenceCall.com, who I'd contacted long ago, complaining of MJ (and GV) blocking their numbers...
One of the fundamental conditions of providing telecommunications service in the United States is that calls, whether from a landline phone, a cellphone or an online service, must be completed. Every telecommunications company has not always implemented this condition.
As a result, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently issued a Declaratory Ruling clarifying that blocking, reducing, or restricting telephone traffic is prohibited. This ruling was issued in response to complaints about call completion and service quality on long distance calls to certain areas-including some areas where FreeConferenceCall.com has placed its conference bridges.
It is important to note that a Declaratory Ruling emphasizes current law and regulation-in case, the fundamental condition of connectivity. It is NOT a new policy.
In addition to phone carriers, the FCC reiterates that the prohibition on call blocking also applies to Voice over Protocol (VOIP) (such as Google Voice, Magic Jack, Vonage, etc…) traffic. The FCC clarifies that these call blocking practices are a violation of Section 201 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act.
A carrier or VoIP provider is in violation if it knows or should know that it is providing degraded service (including call blocking) to certain areas and fails to correct the problem. The FCC further clarifies that it also might be a violation to play a false intercept message stating the call cannot be completed as dialed because the number is out of service or not reachable when that number is functioning. Practices that deceive or mislead customers are also in violations.
The FCC enforcement action on these violations can result in penalties up to $150,000 for EACH violation, and up to 1.5 million for a single act or failure to act.
For more information on the FCC ruling, click here;
http://www.fcc.gov/document/wcb-issues- ... ion-issues
Posted: Wed Feb 29, 2012 2:09 pm
by GuyOnTheAir
Hmmm. Calls to my former complaint number, 218-862-1000, DO route and go through this morning, from my mJ+.
However, still doesn't work with GV, which just gives me a busy signal...