Slashdot Mirror


AT&T Calls Google a Hypocrite On Net Neutrality

NotBornYesterday writes "AT&T is accusing Google of being a hypocrite when it comes to Net neutrality because it blocks certain phone calls on its Google Voice service. 'By openly flaunting the call-blocking prohibition that applies to its competitors, Google is acting in a manner inconsistent with the spirit, if not the letter, of the FCC's fourth principle contained in its Internet Policy Statement,' Robert Quinn, AT&T's senior vice president focusing on federal regulation, said in a statement. Google blocks certain calls to avoid high costs due to a practice known as traffic pumping. Rural carriers can charge connection fees that are about 100 times higher than the rates that large local phone companies can charge. In traffic pumping, they share this revenue with adult chat services, conference-calling centers, party lines, and others that are able to attract lots of incoming phone calls to their networks. Google responded by saying that the rules AT&T refers to don't apply to Google Voice for several reasons. Google Voice is a software application that offers a service on top of the existing telco infrastructure, it is a free service, and it is not intended to be a replacement for traditional telephone service. In fact, the service requires that users have a landline phone or a wireless phone."

4 of 95 comments (clear)

  1. Traffic Pumping = 0900 Service numbers ? by zaibazu · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    I am German, those extra expensive "service" numbers are usually 0900 numbers, is that the same system in the USA ?

    1. Re:Traffic Pumping = 0900 Service numbers ? by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      No. The US only has the 800/888 numbers (called party pays), there's no special area code reserved for premium-rate numbers.

  2. Re:Those who live by the sword... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Well your mother wears combat slippers!

  3. AT&T, really? by Hailth · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    They broke down and turned their dispute with google into a name calling game? How very disappointing.

    You know what's worse? AT&T restricts torrent traffic from most open trackers on their DSL services. I can download anything I want from my favorite private tracker at a constant 300KB/s down and 45KB/s up, thus killing my ratio for the next week without any interference. I can go and get the very same file from an open tracker, any of the nova's or the pirate bay plus some I've never even heard of, and even if it's FREE, UNCOPYRIGHTED content then I still get screwed by AT&T. There can be several hundred more seeders than downloaders, I can be connected to as many peers as possible, and I will still only be able to download at less than 100KB/s. Additionally, my internet connection for the whole house will drop every 5 minutes for about 1 minute like clockwork. Just long enough for nearly every useful active connection service to disconnect you.

    This sort of traffic shaping has been going on for about 5 months for me now, it didn't used to be like this for the several years I've been with them. AT&T how about YOU practice net neutrality before pointing fingers like a bitch.

    *Additional off-topic ranting below*

    For those of you with AT&T's DSL setup, you know how frustrating 2wire routers are when internet connection is lost. The router acts like a virus, it injects itself into your browser to let you know the reason pages aren't loading is because the internet is not functioning. Then, with it's virus-like iron grip on your computer, it lets you know when the internet is okay again and you have to restart your browser in order to continue using the internet. Opening new tabs just leads you to the same notification page. I even have these specific events blocked by Noscript so now it's just a notification via Noscript telling me I told my router to fuck off, but even still I have to restart my browser. Everyone knows how Firefox hates to restart with multiple tabs open on DSL, thanks 2wire for trying to help me by inconveniencing me further.