Easier phone conference
January 13, 2012 10:30 PM Subscribe
Phone conference provider that I will provide me with a unique number guests can call, and not have to bother with a conference id (this is called different things by every provider). Id like to go "Here bob call 702 555 2424 for our phone conference at 2pm".
I haven't checked out the Google voice feature, so just assuming for the moment that it works as advertised. I'm giving you the vast benefit of my expertise working for a conference calling company 10 years ago, for 5 months.
The requirement to have a conference code is based in part on the fact that conference companies used to bill gobs of money per minute, per line. So as a customer, you didn't want to pay for people to call in who weren't invited. Nowadays, you can get free conference calls left and right if you're willing to bring your own LD and don't need recording, etc. (I have no idea how this business model works; I guess there's enough people who need the 800 numbers and/or can't figure out how to hook a recorder up to one of their own phones).
But even if you as a customer aren't paying for the lines any more, there is still the problem that a conference bridge (the equipment that connects all the incoming lines, amplifies the signals, etc.) has a very large, but still finite, number of plain old telephone numbers, and they're giving those numbers out to people all the time. And in fact, there's probably not as many publicized phone numbers as you think (there may, in fact, be only a handful per bridge) because you can have a phone number that rotates through a number of available lines (just as any multi-line business has).
My thinking is that if you were to somehow get them to dispense with the code and let anyone who called a given number be connected to your conference, you'd get hit with an annoying number of wrong numbers joining your conference and asking "Is this the conference on the Jones matter?" whereas you are the conference on the Barnaby case.
There might well be solutions in the realm of VoIP (cf Google voice, above), Skype, etc., but if you think about it, those solutions involve another level of authentication on the PC (logging into an account at minimum). My guess is if your users are savvy enough to log into an internet-based account, they're savvy enough to punch in a touch-tone code.
posted by randomkeystrike at 5:57 AM on January 14, 2012
The requirement to have a conference code is based in part on the fact that conference companies used to bill gobs of money per minute, per line. So as a customer, you didn't want to pay for people to call in who weren't invited. Nowadays, you can get free conference calls left and right if you're willing to bring your own LD and don't need recording, etc. (I have no idea how this business model works; I guess there's enough people who need the 800 numbers and/or can't figure out how to hook a recorder up to one of their own phones).
But even if you as a customer aren't paying for the lines any more, there is still the problem that a conference bridge (the equipment that connects all the incoming lines, amplifies the signals, etc.) has a very large, but still finite, number of plain old telephone numbers, and they're giving those numbers out to people all the time. And in fact, there's probably not as many publicized phone numbers as you think (there may, in fact, be only a handful per bridge) because you can have a phone number that rotates through a number of available lines (just as any multi-line business has).
My thinking is that if you were to somehow get them to dispense with the code and let anyone who called a given number be connected to your conference, you'd get hit with an annoying number of wrong numbers joining your conference and asking "Is this the conference on the Jones matter?" whereas you are the conference on the Barnaby case.
There might well be solutions in the realm of VoIP (cf Google voice, above), Skype, etc., but if you think about it, those solutions involve another level of authentication on the PC (logging into an account at minimum). My guess is if your users are savvy enough to log into an internet-based account, they're savvy enough to punch in a touch-tone code.
posted by randomkeystrike at 5:57 AM on January 14, 2012
Also, in the time I spent writing this answer, up to 25 people could have punched in a conference code, even if they did it one at a time. Damn.
posted by randomkeystrike at 5:59 AM on January 14, 2012
posted by randomkeystrike at 5:59 AM on January 14, 2012
The business model relates back to arcane long distance billing laws designed to make sure rural America had service. LD provides in the middle of nowhere get to bill the Bells for each minute used. So as long as the free conference calling providers can keep their per minute cost lower than what they get to bill back to the former Bells, the make money. This is also why the phone number for said services are often in South Dakota or other less populated areas.
posted by COD at 6:40 AM on January 14, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by COD at 6:40 AM on January 14, 2012 [1 favorite]
COD, interesting. The CC company I worked for was fairly small, was in central Alabama, and AFAIK was simply contracting for all telephony services. I *thought* at the time (and I might have been wrong; the boss's family owned a local telco in a small town about an hour away - he was estranged from them, but he still knew the POTS business inside and out) that we simply contracted for telephone services. If we were somehow the LD provider of record, I guess that would provide a revenue stream as you say.
At the time, we were obviously making money hand over fist by charging $.40 to $.50 per minute, per line for 800 access, perhaps as much as $.20 to $.30 if you called a toll line. The bells were charging $.60 to $.80. We were also making tons of 3 person conference calls for a client that did depositions of a sort and it was important that all 3 connect at the same time with no opportunity for "sidebars." We charged out the butt for those calls, which could have been done on any desk set but for the strict operator control requirement. I've assumed that technology has wiped a lot of this stuff out.
posted by randomkeystrike at 6:50 AM on January 14, 2012
At the time, we were obviously making money hand over fist by charging $.40 to $.50 per minute, per line for 800 access, perhaps as much as $.20 to $.30 if you called a toll line. The bells were charging $.60 to $.80. We were also making tons of 3 person conference calls for a client that did depositions of a sort and it was important that all 3 connect at the same time with no opportunity for "sidebars." We charged out the butt for those calls, which could have been done on any desk set but for the strict operator control requirement. I've assumed that technology has wiped a lot of this stuff out.
posted by randomkeystrike at 6:50 AM on January 14, 2012
FreeConferenceCall.com
posted by elle.jeezy at 7:26 AM on January 14, 2012
posted by elle.jeezy at 7:26 AM on January 14, 2012
oop
posted by elle.jeezy at 7:27 AM on January 14, 2012
posted by elle.jeezy at 7:27 AM on January 14, 2012
Back when I did office management stuff, we had a contract with a company for 3 dedicated conference 800 numbers. They billed us a fee each month to keep the number active but there was always a additional code to enter once you dialed to define who was presenter and who was attendee. Presenters could do extra things, like kick everyone out of the conference, mute everyone's phone and the like. Attendees could not.
Depending on how many people you need on a call, Google Voice or regular 3-way calling might be a solution?
posted by fiercekitten at 10:11 AM on January 14, 2012
Depending on how many people you need on a call, Google Voice or regular 3-way calling might be a solution?
posted by fiercekitten at 10:11 AM on January 14, 2012
Best answer: The vendor Turbo Bridge provides the functionality I was looking for.
http://www.turbobridge.com/custom.html
posted by digividal at 7:54 PM on January 15, 2012
http://www.turbobridge.com/custom.html
posted by digividal at 7:54 PM on January 15, 2012
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by JohnnyGunn at 1:04 AM on January 14, 2012 [2 favorites]