AT&T Calls Google a Hypocrite On Net Neutrality 95
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."
Peering (Score:1, Informative)
If phone companies were to use peering, like ISPs do, then this would be a neutrality issue. Since there's no peering, and this is a simple matter of avoiding exorbitant costs, there's no neutrality issue.
Re:Traffic Pumping = 0900 Service numbers ? (Score:3, Informative)
The services question are 1-900-xxx-xxxx numbers here, and charge outrageous fees. The problem is that in some rural areas, apparently, the small teclos charge the long distance carriers (the phone network backbone) significantly more to connect each call then the connection would normally be worth. The per connection fee is charged to the long distance carrier regardless of what type of number is dialed.
These small telcos then agree to share revenue from connection costs with those 900 number services, in exchange for them using them for service. Those numbers are high volume, so they pull in many, many calls. If the revenue sharing is done right, by doing this the small telco can make more money then if they did not partner with these services, and instead charged a reasonable connection fee. Under such a system, both the small telco and the 900 number service benefit, at the expense of the long distance carrier.
The result of all this is that it cost more for Google (or AT&T, or any long distance carrier) to connect a call to the normal numbers served by that small Telco then it should, because those calls are subsidizing the 900 number services.
Since Google is providing a free service, the additional expense of those calls hurts them much more than a traditional long-distance carrier. For Google any connection costs are being payed for from revenue from other ventures, since they make no money on this. For AT&T they get payed each month by the customer. Now, AT&T really cant charge more for those calls, since they generally charge a flat rate per call charge, or more often these days, a flat rate per line (unlimited number of calls). But never the less, AT&T is making money from their long distance service, even with these extra charges, so it is not as big a deal to them.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Traffic Pumping = 0900 Service numbers ? (Score:4, Informative)
This doesn't have anything to do with 900 numbers, it has to do with toll calls to rural telephone carriers. They are allowed to set arbitrary rates that AT&T and other LD carriers must/should pay. To entice calls they offer free conference call systems or other services that cause people in other areas to call these toll numbers.
Re:Big difference (Score:5, Informative)
Unfortunately, you're a bit incorrect about this. If you look around at these other posts, the issue is that even tho you dial any XXX-XXX-XXXX number in the US like it's local, AT&T and Google still both pay long-distance fees in the case of these rural lines. AT&T isn't allowed by federal rules to block these gouging calls, but since Google Voice is an overlay network basically they can. AT&T is just mad because they can't block the calls too.
As was said by someone else on this post, if net neutrality existed on phone networks, this wouldn't be an issue.
Re:Traffic Pumping = 0900 Service numbers ? (Score:5, Informative)
All of this is based on a crazy fee structure created by the big telecoms in an effort to drive out smaller competition. There has been a multi-decade war of defining fee structures that look fairish but are anything but that in practice followed by some provider finding a loophole and raking in a fortune. That, in turn, causes the large providers to demand a re-structuring all while pretending the last one wasn't their idea. Lather, rinse, repeat endlessly.
All of this is exactly the sort of double dipping they want to implement for the internet and it's 100% anti-neutrality.
Fundamentally, cross charging other carriers is bogus since each already got paid a fair fee by their own customer to provide the service. That is, I have a phone and I pay a monthly fee for it. That fee is in part for the service of accepting incoming calls for me and connecting them. I have already paid the call 'termination fee'. If my provider refuses to connect a call for me to my paid for phone line (presumably if another carrier originating the call refuses to pay termination fees), they are ripping ME off by not providing what I paid for.
So, actually, Google is pressing for proper neutrality in the VoIP world by refusing to participate in an anti-neutrality scheme that was in-part created by AT&T.
Iowa just put a stop to traffic pumping. (Score:4, Informative)
A few days ago, The Iowa Department of Commerce Utilities Board put a stop to traffic pumping in Iowa. [iowa.gov] It seems that a number of small telcos like "The Farmers and Merchants Mutual Telephone Company of Wayland, Iowa" were overcharging long distance carriers for "terminating" large numbers of long distance calls that were actually shipped elsewhere. (Unlike the Internet, there is inter-company billing within the telephone system.) This service was used mostly for conference bridges and dial-a-porn. Sprint, which offers flat-rate long distance service within the US, was losing money on calls to those numbers. So Sprint blocked them and filed a complaint with the Iowa authorities.
Iowa ruled this week that the telcos were overcharging, had to stop it, and had to give the money back. Sprint also had to stop blocking, which won't be a problem once the rates come down.
The FCC is working on this problem nationally, but the worst offenders just got shut down.