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."
Those who live by the sword... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Those who live by the sword... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not even the 'battleground of business'. It's a 5th grade playground.
hmph (Score:4, Insightful)
I see no problem.
Google is just protecting itself from unscrupulous end-line telcos.
Big difference (Score:4, Insightful)
One major difference between what Google's doing and what AT&;T would like to do: AT&T wants to block/limit something the user wants to do and that they are doing deliberately, when the blocking benefits AT&T and negatively affects the user. Google is blocking something the user doesn't know (before they get the bill, at least) would happen and didn't ask for, and the blocking benefits the user (by keeping them from being unwittingly charged a large sum of money) and not Google. The whole reason those rural numbers are used, after all, is specifically because they can charge high rates without it being apparent from the number that the charges are going to be any higher than normal. They're used to deceive callers into thinking the call's a regular one and not one that'll be charged at a premium rate. Blocking that deception is, IMO, just ever so slightly different from keeping a user from using a service they want to use.
Possible motivation (Score:4, Insightful)
Hmm, I just realized. IIRC AT&T (like most phone companies) offers a premium-rate-call blocking service themselves. One that you have to pay for, if they're like the others I'm familiar with. Google's blocking makes it unnecessary to pay for AT&T's blocking. I suspect that's why AT&T's upset.
Divorce infrastructure from service provision (Score:2, Insightful)
This is yet another instance where the conflation of infrastructure with service muddies the picture.
Netneutrality should really be about neutrality in the network (ie the infrastructure/series of tubes) service providers USE the series of tubs and ought to be able to come up with whatever usage scheme they want as long as people will buy it.
Instead, in the US, at least, the service provider owns the infrastructure as well and we end up in obtuse arguments like this one complaining that a network USER is in violation of rules/principles which should govern network PROVIDERS.
Re:Those who live by the sword... (Score:5, Insightful)
I quite agree.
Just for a second, suppose AT&T have got a point. That still wouldn't turn Net Neutrality a bad idea.
This is just a corporate level ad-hominem attack: Google are hypocrites, therefore they are Wrong, and their ideas are all Bad.
I reckon AT&T must be getting desperate if they're scraping this far down into the bottom of the barrel.
Re:hmph (Score:3, Insightful)
exactly, and by doing these blocks, it encourages the unscrupulous end-line telcos to go out of business, or change their ways, that benefit both Google and AT&T and others.
It sounds like AT&T are just idiots here...
Re:Peering (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, it is. They don't do peering because that would keep them from killing small players with exorbitant termination fees. They're trying to bring the same corrupt model to the internet.