Earlier this year, Tim Wu wrote an important paper on wireless net neutrality.  If you have a normal landline, your phone company can't block you from using any phone you want or calling any number you want.  This is not the case for wireless companies.  I received word earlier today that AT&T/Cingular, Qwest, and Sprint are blocking customers from calling free conference calling services.

As of Friday, March 9, it's come to our attention that Cingular Wireless has begun blocking all conference calls made from Cingular handsets to selected conference numbers. If you call our service, you receive a recording that says, "This call is not allowed from this number. Please dial 611 for customer service".

I called up Cingular spokesman Mark Siegel today, and he explained why they did this. The dispute at hand is basically a complicated intra-carrier fight that really isn't all that interesting (it looks something like this, suffice to say that these free conference call companies are not saints).

The gist is that AT&T/Cingular doesn't like these Free Conference call services because they cost the company money.  Siegel said that customers that have a lot of free minutes spend too much time on them, and that if the number of users on them increase it will pose a financial problem for the company.  I asked him how much it cost, and he wouldn't tell me, though he did give me this delightful quote:

"If we were not to keep a phenomenon like this in check, we wouldn't be able to offer great service and competitive rates to our 61 million customers."

I asked him how many of his customers use the conference call services, and he wouldn't tell me except to say that it's a very very small number (which kind of makes it hard to believe that it's costing AT&T/Cingular very much money).

There's a pricing problem with cell phones in that these companies offers customers free minutes they don't want used in specific ways.  But rather than address the pricing issue, the telcos resort to their big brotherish legal rights.  Here's how Siegal justified blocking the calls:

Wireless services are intended to be used by one person to call another person, not to call a conference call line where there are potentially hundreds of people on it.  That's in our terms of service.  We also have in our terms of service the right to block calls to certain kinds of numbers and we have used this right in this case.

Get that?  If you have a cell phone, they can block your calls if you use your phone in ways they don't like.  And they will, if it costs them money.  Or rather, if they say it costs them money, a claim for which Siegel produced no proof.  Apparently it's a very very small number of customers that are using these Free Conference call services but it's enough of a revenue threat that it's threatening their customer service?

Please.  That's just false.  And these people are in charge de facto of who you can and can't call.  Incidentally, Sprint and Qwest blocked Free Conference call services last week, which leads me to think that there's not so much competition here as there is coordinated monopolistic behavior.

I think we could use some wireless net neutrality about now.  This is very dangerous. And these are the same telecom elites that are asking for control over the internet itself.

There's more...

I read this post from Atrios on the big telcos cooperating with the NSA and was just about to shrug my shoulders about the latest outrage.  Then I actually read the article and something jumped out - these companies have a choice in whether to participate in spying on Americans without warrants.

AT&T recently merged with SBC and kept the AT&T name. Verizon, BellSouth and AT&T are the nation's three biggest telecommunications companies; they provide local and wireless phone service to more than 200 million customers.

The three carriers control vast networks with the latest communications technologies. They provide an array of services: local and long-distance calling, wireless and high-speed broadband, including video. Their direct access to millions of homes and businesses has them uniquely positioned to help the government keep tabs on the calling habits of Americans.

Among the big telecommunications companies, only Qwest has refused to help the NSA, the sources said. According to multiple sources, Qwest declined to participate because it was uneasy about the legal implications of handing over customer information to the government without warrants.

Qwest's refusal to participate has left the NSA with a hole in its database. Based in Denver, Qwest provides local phone service to 14 million customers in 14 states in the West and Northwest. But AT&T and Verizon also provide some services -- primarily long-distance and wireless -- to people who live in Qwest's region. Therefore, they can provide the NSA with at least some access in that area.

Qwest refused to help?  And Verizon and AT&T (which bought Bellsouth) acted as nice little sycophants?  Wow.  I always hated Verizon because of their customer service, and AT&T is run by a megalomaniac named Ed Whitacre who likes to destroy trees in his spare time.  But I still assumed that cooperation with the government was mandatory.  It's not.  These companies are aiding and abetting the NSA in illegal activity.  And not only are they aiding and abetting the NSA, they are possibly engaging in illegal corporate behavior.  That at least is how Qwest is reading the law.

Telecommunications is one of the most heavily regulated industries in the country.  These companies regularly depreciated billions of dollars annually in tax write-offs, and the franchise agreements and subsidies are monstrously complicated.  Entire armies of spoiled rich DC brats have been sent through private schools with telecom money that went to their lobbyist parents.

This is a disgrace.  An absolute disgrace.  Shame on ATT.  Shame on Verizon.  I'm glad I use Sprint and don't have a landline.  And if I were a mayor or a Governor, I would try to move contracts away from these companies and towards Qwest or other telco players.  At the very least I'd make local subsidies contingent upon not spying on my constituents.

There's more...