What's the catch with free discussion calling services? Sounds too good to be true? Well, you're not the only one with those questions. Thousands of people wonder the same things every day.
There are surely only a merge of things you need to recognize. First, there is a chance, however slight, that your call will be blocked from entering a free conference. And second, the whole firm model may be short lived, depending on regulatory decisions. So, there's a opportunity that free conferencing won't be nearby too much longer.
Att Call Conference
Here is a very thoughprovoking background on how the free conferencing companies operate and the kinds of challenges they face in the business:
1) In 1996, the Federal government carefully that small rural phone companies could fee larger long length phone companies to passage their lines. For instance, if you had a small phone firm in Kansas, you could fee a large firm like Qwest for any long length calls advent into your area. As an example, if you lived in Seattle and used Qwest as a long length carrier, and you called your cousin in rural Kansas, Qwest would have to pay the small phone firm in Kansas a fee to put your call through. Why? Because the government recognized that the small phone companies had bigger costs in servicing rural areas and lower call volume. It cost more on a per call basis to operate and verbalize a smaller firm than a bigger one. So, the bigger companies pay more to passage the tool and phone lines owned by the smaller companies.
2) The fees that Qwest and the larger companies pay the small companies are 10 to 20 times more than the normal fees, which makes for a great deal for the rural phone companies. Very simply, the more calls they had advent in, the more money they would make.
3) How could the smaller phone companies attract more incoming phone calls from the larger phone companies, so they could make more money? That's easy. Just ask: What businesses have the most incoming calls? Well, two of them would be discussion call companies and phone sex operators. For instance, a small rural phone firm would make an deal with a discussion call firm to set up shop in its area. In doing so, the rural phone firm would split the revenues with the discussion firm that the big companies were paying to send phone calls there. The small rural companies were happy to make more money by dramatically increasing their incoming calls, and the discussion call companies were happy because they could offer free aid and make money at the same time. Needless to say, the consumers were happy as well. It was a good deal for everyone, that is, except the big long length companies who were forced to pay the bills.
4) Moreover, to add insult to injury, the long length companies found themselves in a double whammy. First, because the long length companies offered many of their customers free long distance, either with cell phones or bundled with their customers' local landline service. And second, paying the smaller companies to have their calls delivered. Obviously, the large long length companies were livid. At&T, as one example, estimated that paying the rural companies to deliver their calls -- a theory called "traffic pumping" -- cost it an extra 0 million in 2007.
5) In an exertion to stop these fees, some of the large long length companies have blocked calls into the rural areas. (This is the conjecture why some users of the free discussion services have experienced problems getting in conferences.) And while the government has made it clear that the long length companies cannot block calls, problems still exist.
6) For example, the Google Voice aid has blocked its users from dialing the rural phone companies. At&T has officially complained about Google Voice saying fair is fair. If At&T can't block calls and is forced to pay the fees to the small companies, then Google Voice should be required to play by the same set of rules and allow calls to go through and pay the fees like the other big companies. At&T has used Google's own discussion that carriers should be neutral, and that a provider should not block "fair access." However, At&T stands united with Google in its discussion that "traffic pumping" and being forced to pay the small companies higher than normal fees to passage their systems is "patently unlawful."
7) any months ago the Iowa Utility Board made a decision that was big set back for the small rural phone companies. A complaint had come from Qwest, a major long length carrier, that the traffic pumping schemes were unfair and costly. The Iowa Board agreed and told the small rural companies that they would have to pay back millions of dollars. Qwest said that the Iowa ruling would come to be a model for time to come decisions on the federal level, including cases in front of the Fcc that could be handed down this year.
No one can predict the outcome of what will happen next. However, with the Iowa decision, the time to come of free discussion calling has come to be cloudy. And with the political clout of the larger companies at play, including aggressive legal actions, the days of free discussion calling could be numbered.
Many discussion call companies that offer paid aid (not free) have stayed out of the fray and are standing on the sidelines waiting to see what happens. In the vast majority of instances, calls are not being blocked going to the paid discussion services, which is why thousands of businesses, both large and small, continue to patronize and do firm with the paid discussion services.
What's the Catch With Free argument Calling?