« The end of the Iowa hack? | Main | CDYNE Web Services »

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c118753ef00e5507752b48834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference More on AT&T vs. Superior Telephone Cooperative, et al:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Clem

AT&T has several uphill battles on this matter as I see it.

First they billed ther customers for calls to Iowa, and there saying the calls don't terminate in Iowa.

Second, if you look at the suit Farmers and Superior filed against AT&T in NY, AT&T did not just withhold payment for calls to these international numbers. They did not pay the telco's for any calls.

They do not have a slam dunk by any stretch if this get's sent to the FCC, where it belongs.

ziggy

Clem, where did you see the suit that Farms and superior filed?

Christopher Herot

I put the complaint from the New York suit in http://herot.typepad.com/cherot/2007/02/superior_teleph.html

Loren

"If AT&T lost in the courts, it could try another approach. Instead of charging a flat rate for all long distance calls, it could charge a higher rate to calls to areas served by overpriced CLECs. Given that there are only 57 households server by Superior, there wouldn't be many complaints from callers, except those users of the free international calling services that AT&T wants to discourage anyway."

No, FCC rules explicitly prohibit this kind of charge differential. If they could do this, they would have done it a long time ago.

Christopher Herot

Loren, do you have a pointer to the specific FCC rule?

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Other Places to Find Me

Tracking


Daily Grommet