dslreports logo
 story category
AT&T Cleverly Flips Google Voice Fight On Its Head
Even if they don't believe a single word they're saying...

As we discussed at length last week, network neutrality is about incumbent phone companies trying to hold on to market power in the face of Internet evolution, some of which just happens to be coming from Google. One such example is how AT&T and Apple (despite denials) prevented Google Voice from coming to the iPhone, in order to protect the companies' mobile OS and MMS/voice businesses. In other words, they used a position of market power to engage in anti-competitive behavior against a threat to revenues.

Throughout the network neutrality debate, AT&T and Verizon have consistently worked to redirect attention away from the fact they began the network neutrality debate by pointing fingers at Google whenever possible. It usually works. So it wasn't too surprising to see AT&T flip the Google Voice fiasco on its head by sending a letter to the FCC late last week accusing Google of anti-competitive behavior for blocking user access to FreeConferenceCall.com. In AT&T's letter, the carrier suggests this violates a looming fifth neutrality principle:

quote:
Ironically, Google is also flouting the so-called “fifth principle of non-discrimination” for which Google has so fervently advocated. According to Google, non-discrimination ensures that a provider “cannot block fair access” to another provider.9 But that is exactly what Google is doing when it blocks calls that Google Voice customers make to telephone numbers associated with certain local exchange carriers.
We've discussed how a slew of VoIP, network and phone operators have blocked access to these free conference services, because they use a regulatory loophole to enable a practice known as "traffic pumping," which allows small phone companies to sock bigger phone companies with huge bills for voice connections. AT&T themselves has previously come out against such practices and blocked access to these services as well, though the FCC slapped their wrist for it back in 2007, and is discussing changing the rules that allow traffic pumping.

But the problem here isn't a network neutrality one, it's a regulatory one. The rules that allow smaller phone companies to engage in traffic pumping are disliked by Google and AT&T alike, and if you sat both companies down privately they'd simultaneously argue the issue is one of bad policy, not network neutrality. In Google's response over at the Google policy blog they suggest as much, while noting that the FCC's rules on not blocking access to free conference services apply to broadband operators, not software applications.

In PR land, it's a really smart move by AT&T to conflate network neutrality with traffic pumping, even if AT&T itself probably doesn't even believe half of what they're saying. Traffic pumping's a sophisticated issue you can expect the press to bungle, and AT&T's letter acts to draw more attention to the fact that Google's got a nasty anti-competitive streak of their own. Still, none of this changes what the network neutrality argument's really about or who started it, though it does continue the proud, half-decade old tradition of AT&T trying to muddy the waters.
view:
topics flat nest 

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

pnh102

Premium Member

What Problem?

From what I've read people who want to run Google Voice can jailbreak their iPhones and run it. There's no reason for the FCC to get involved.

Uncle Paul
join:2003-02-04
USA

Uncle Paul

Member

Re: What Problem?

said by pnh102:

From what I've read people who want to run Google Voice can jailbreak their iPhones and run it. There's no reason for the FCC to get involved.
Isn't that against the TOS?

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

1 recommendation

pnh102

Premium Member

Re: What Problem?

said by Uncle Paul:

Isn't that against the TOS?
So what? If it is my hardware that I own I should be able to modify it as I see fit, especially if those modifications have no impact on AT&T. No TOS should be allowed to take that right from me.

Matt3
All noise, no signal.
Premium Member
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC

Matt3

Premium Member

Re: What Problem?

said by pnh102:

said by Uncle Paul:

Isn't that against the TOS?
So what? If it is my hardware that I own I should be able to modify it as I see fit, especially if those modifications have no impact on AT&T. No TOS should be allowed to take that right from me.
Fortunately, as a society we're not allowed to ignore rules we are contractually obligated to follow just because we don't like them.

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

1 recommendation

pnh102

Premium Member

Re: What Problem?

said by Matt3:

Fortunately, as a society we're not allowed to ignore rules we are contractually obligated to follow just because we don't like them.
But no contract can override the law. If I own something, then I should be able to modify it. I understand that this will void the warranty and that the use of a modified device might cause other problems for me, but if the device is truly mine, then no one should be able to legally challenge my right to modify it.

I see it this way. I should be allowed to uncap a cable modem that I bought. But the cable company has every right to ban me from using said cable modem with their network. I view jailbreaking and/or unlocking of cell phones in the same vein.

If AT&T wants to legally disallow people from modifying equipment, then it should consider renting out the equipment instead of selling it.

Matt3
All noise, no signal.
Premium Member
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC

Matt3

Premium Member

Re: What Problem?

said by pnh102:

said by Matt3:

I see it this way. I should be allowed to uncap a cable modem that I bought. But the cable company has every right to ban me from using said cable modem with their network. I view jailbreaking and/or unlocking of cell phones in the same vein.

If AT&T wants to legally disallow people from modifying equipment, then it should consider renting out the equipment instead of selling it.
You just described why it's against the ToS to modify your iPhone. Sure you may be legally allowed to do it, but AT&T isn't obligated to allow you to connect it to their network. That is what the ToS states.

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

pnh102

Premium Member

Re: What Problem?

said by Matt3:

You just described why it's against the ToS to modify your iPhone. Sure you may be legally allowed to do it, but AT&T isn't obligated to allow you to connect it to their network. That is what the ToS states.
And I have no problem with that. A lot of people use Google Voice with Wifi so they do not burn through minutes or rack up bytes on their cellular data connections.

AT&T and Apple banned Google Voice because it is a direct competitor to their offerings. But because there is a workaround, I do not see a need for the government to get involved.

Matt3
All noise, no signal.
Premium Member
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC

Matt3

Premium Member

Re: What Problem?

said by pnh102:

said by Matt3:

You just described why it's against the ToS to modify your iPhone. Sure you may be legally allowed to do it, but AT&T isn't obligated to allow you to connect it to their network. That is what the ToS states.
And I have no problem with that. A lot of people use Google Voice with Wifi so they do not burn through minutes or rack up bytes on their cellular data connections.

AT&T and Apple banned Google Voice because it is a direct competitor to their offerings. But because there is a workaround, I do not see a need for the government to get involved.
We're running in circles here.

But the "workaround" requires you to break the ToS of the contract you signed. As Karl237 See Profile stated, there is no technical reason to deny Google Voice, it's a blatant anti-competitive move. So yes, that is what the government is for and why they should be involved.

ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium Member
join:2005-03-14
Woodstock, CT

1 recommendation

ptrowski

Premium Member

Re: What Problem?

This point isn't about getting GV on your phone, it's about how GV is blocking access to some free conference numbers and should htey be deemed a telephone company.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

1 recommendation

FFH5 to pnh102

Premium Member

to pnh102
said by pnh102:
said by Matt3:

Fortunately, as a society we're not allowed to ignore rules we are contractually obligated to follow just because we don't like them.
But no contract can override the law. If I own something, then I should be able to modify it. I understand that this will void the warranty and that the use of a modified device might cause other problems for me, but if the device is truly mine, then no one should be able to legally challenge my right to modify it.
Try changing a semi-automatic rifle to full automatic and see how far that argument gets you when the ATF comes after you. There are laws that prevent you from doing what you say in MANY, MANY areas(like modifying the power levels on radios where the FCC prevents it). Don't like the laws, then get them changed. But you can't ignore them in the meantime.

Matt3
All noise, no signal.
Premium Member
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC

Matt3

Premium Member

Re: What Problem?

said by FFH5:

But you can't ignore them in the meantime.
Technically, you CAN ignore them ...

Just be prepared for the repercussions of your actions.

ArrayList
DevOps
Premium Member
join:2005-03-19
Mullica Hill, NJ

ArrayList

Premium Member

Re: What Problem?

said by Matt3:

said by FFH5:

But you can't ignore them in the meantime.
Technically, you CAN ignore them ...

Just be prepared for the repercussions of your actions.
and don't get caught.

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

pnh102 to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
said by FFH5:

Try changing a semi-automatic rifle to full automatic and see how far that argument gets you when the ATF comes after you.
Not to get too far off topic but we all know the government hasn't given a rat's rear end about gun rights for a very long time now.
said by FFH5:

There are laws that prevent you from doing what you say in MANY, MANY areas(like modifying the power levels on radios where the FCC prevents it). Don't like the laws, then get them changed. But you can't ignore them in the meantime.
The laws regarding radio frequencies have nothing to do with modifying the equipment, but rather infringing on the rights of others who have paid for the frequency space they are trying to use.

But back to your first point, if the government continues to infringe on gun rights, what makes you think that more laws (i.e., the DMCA) which infringe on my rights as the owner of a device to modify it as I wish, won't be passed?
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC

axus to FFH5

Member

to FFH5
The examples you give are things prevented by law. He's talking about things prevented by terms of service. A better example would be early termination fees, which are to protect the company from a loss on subsidized hardware. I think there are plenty of things a contract can say that should not be enforceable.

PaulTT
@151.198.208.x

PaulTT to pnh102

Anon

to pnh102
What you fail to understand is that you don't OWN the software, you ONLY license it.

baineschile
2600 ways to live
Premium Member
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI

baineschile to pnh102

Premium Member

to pnh102
You dont own it; you are leasing it from apple

r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium Member
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX

r81984 to Matt3

Premium Member

to Matt3
Once you buy equipment you can do anything you want with it that does not break any laws.

Jailbreaking your phone does not break any laws, thus it is legal to do it. If you do jailbreak you phone apple is in its right to void your warranty.

Ual
@bellsouth.net

Ual

Anon

Re: What Problem?

said by r81984:

Once you buy equipment you can do anything you want with it that does not break any laws.

Jailbreaking your phone does not break any laws, thus it is legal to do it. If you do jailbreak you phone apple is in its right to void your warranty.
Actually jailbreaking your own phone that you bought and own is against the law under DMCA. Not like it matters though because you tell 95% of people that changing something about something they own is illegal under some law they've never read and they will say "Yeah, sure..." and do it anyway. The majority rebelling against an unjust law has led to such laws being overturned many times in history so hopefully DMCA will end the same way, because it really is unfair that you can't modify something legally that you've paid for already.

nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium Member
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA

nixen

Premium Member

Re: What Problem?

said by Ual :

Actually jailbreaking your own phone that you bought and own is against the law under DMCA. Not like it matters though because you tell 95% of people that changing something about something they own is illegal under some law they've never read and they will say "Yeah, sure..." and do it anyway. The majority rebelling against an unjust law has led to such laws being overturned many times in history so hopefully DMCA will end the same way, because it really is unfair that you can't modify something legally that you've paid for already.
Unfortunately, these days, many things are less sold than they are "licensed". Not only does software comes with EULAs, but so does much hardware. While you may have paid for your software or device in a single, up-front payment, the ever increasing use of EULAs, and the creeping scope of those EULAs, have created a situation where you don't exactly fully own what you think you've bought. Basically, when you agree to the EULA, you often give away certain rights (at least till someone files a class-action suit). So, *always* read the EULA.

SurfTheSky
Flyingphotog
MVM
join:2001-08-26
Santa Rosa, CA

SurfTheSky

MVM

Re: What Problem?

said by nixen:

said by Ual :

Actually jailbreaking your own phone that you bought and own is against the law under DMCA. Not like it matters though because you tell 95% of people that changing something about something they own is illegal under some law they've never read and they will say "Yeah, sure..." and do it anyway. The majority rebelling against an unjust law has led to such laws being overturned many times in history so hopefully DMCA will end the same way, because it really is unfair that you can't modify something legally that you've paid for already.
Unfortunately, these days, many things are less sold than they are "licensed". Not only does software comes with EULAs, but so does much hardware. While you may have paid for your software or device in a single, up-front payment, the ever increasing use of EULAs, and the creeping scope of those EULAs, have created a situation where you don't exactly fully own what you think you've bought. Basically, when you agree to the EULA, you often give away certain rights (at least till someone files a class-action suit). So, *always* read the EULA.
Actually, with something like the iPhone, I don't think there's anything preventing you from modifying the phone or the hardware, within FCC regulations at least; meaning, you can't boost voltage to your antennas to increase your signal range past legal limits. Now, the software contained on the iPhone is a whole separate deal. It is what is being licensed for your used. The firmware of the phone is probably not allowed to be modified under the EULA, so removing it would be against the terms of use, hence making jailbreaking the slippery slope it currently is.

Lagz
Premium Member
join:2000-09-03
The Rock

4 edits

Lagz

Premium Member

Re: What Problem?

said by SurfTheSky:

Now, the software contained on the iPhone is a whole separate deal. It is what is being licensed for your used. The firmware of the phone is probably not allowed to be modified under the EULA, so removing it would be against the terms of use, hence making jailbreaking the slippery slope it currently is.
This all hinges on what firmware and software is running on the iphone. If all the firmware and software(including OS) are open source then no laws are broken. If I buy a computer I can replace all the firmware and software with whatever i want provided on have a right to use the software and firmware. It all comes down to what will AT&T let on its network. If they will even allow you to connect it up to their network. Chances are they won't allow you to connect modified equipment.

r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium Member
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX

r81984 to Ual

Premium Member

to Ual
Nope. We are talking about a cell phone that you own.
As long as what you do does not violate a law, copyrights, or used it to circumvent DRM copyrighted material then you are not breaking the DMCA.
k1ll3rdr4g0n
join:2005-03-19
Homer Glen, IL

k1ll3rdr4g0n to pnh102

Member

to pnh102
said by pnh102:

said by Uncle Paul:

Isn't that against the TOS?
So what? If it is my hardware that I own I should be able to modify it as I see fit, especially if those modifications have no impact on AT&T. No TOS should be allowed to take that right from me.
Be careful with that, the Mac fanbois will wipe the floor with their TOS. It's even ironic that every Mac user is in violation of the TOS. According to the Mac OS TOS it says that you can't install it on non-Mac hardware, but guess what is inside of a Mac? PC parts.

There was a story I read where the iTunes or Quicktime TOS restricted it from being used on Windows, but I can't find that story so if someone knows where you can find that article can you post it?

fifty nine
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ

fifty nine

Member

Re: What Problem?

said by k1ll3rdr4g0n:

Be careful with that, the Mac fanbois will wipe the floor with their TOS. It's even ironic that every Mac user is in violation of the TOS. According to the Mac OS TOS it says that you can't install it on non-Mac hardware, but guess what is inside of a Mac? PC parts.
The OS X EULA says that you can install it on "Apple branded" hardware. Therefore your argument doesn't hold water here, since every mac is "Apple branded" even though it uses PC parts.

Lovedummy
@rr.com

Lovedummy to k1ll3rdr4g0n

Anon

to k1ll3rdr4g0n
Yea a mac is a pc anyway, power pc processors could be found in computers that ran windows. It always said apple branded, also no "fanboi" as you spell it, would ever install OSX on a no apple branded pc buni would
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY

patcat88 to pnh102

Member

to pnh102
said by pnh102:

said by Uncle Paul:

Isn't that against the TOS?
So what? If it is my hardware that I own I should be able to modify it as I see fit, especially if those modifications have no impact on AT&T. No TOS should be allowed to take that right from me.
No you can't, its been illegal for more than a decade (anti-circumvention). »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA

r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium Member
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX

r81984

Premium Member

Re: What Problem?

The DMCA applies to copyright violations. If you jail break your iphone to give you more features and do not use stolen software then you are not in violation of the DMCA.
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY

patcat88

Member

Re: What Problem?

said by r81984:

If you jail break your iphone to give you more features and do not use stolen software then you are not in violation of the DMCA.
It doesn't work that way. There is no "fair use" with DMCA DRM circumvention. A modchip to run homebrew, that can also run copied games, even if only used legally for homebrew, is illegal.

r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium Member
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX

r81984

Premium Member

Re: What Problem?

said by patcat88:
said by r81984:

If you jail break your iphone to give you more features and do not use stolen software then you are not in violation of the DMCA.
It doesn't work that way. There is no "fair use" with DMCA DRM circumvention. A modchip to run homebrew, that can also run copied games, even if only used legally for homebrew, is illegal.
Intent and what you do is everything when it comes to law.

If we all went by your reasoning then all guns would be illegal since a gun can be used to commit murder.
Also all computer hardware would be illegal since any computer can be used to circumvent DRM.

To interpret a law like you want to would mean ignoring how we have interpreted laws for our entire history.
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY

patcat88

Member

Re: What Problem?

said by r81984:

Intent and what you do is everything when it comes to law.

If we all went by your reasoning then all guns would be illegal since a gun can be used to commit murder.
Also all computer hardware would be illegal since any computer can be used to circumvent DRM.

To interpret a law like you want to would mean ignoring how we have interpreted laws for our entire history.
Try reading the law your talking about

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An ··· mvention

r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium Member
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX

1 edit

r81984

Premium Member

Re: What Problem?

According to the link you provide jailbreaking the Iphone does not fit into that law because jailbreaking has valid legitimate uses. After you jailbreak your iphone you will need additional software to circumvent any DRM.
There is nothing illegal with jailbreaking your iphone.

••••
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC

axus to patcat88

Member

to patcat88
That's a good article, it points out some things I didn't know. Making a temporary copy of a hard drive for computer repair is exempt from copyright laws. Circumventing DRM that is obsolete or unavailable on the marketplace is also exempt. Circumventing DRM that causes a security risk is exempt.

Matt3
All noise, no signal.
Premium Member
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC

Matt3 to pnh102

Premium Member

to pnh102
said by pnh102:

From what I've read people who want to run Google Voice can jailbreak their iPhones and run it. There's no reason for the FCC to get involved.
My iPhone is unstable jailbroken. I don't want to jailbreak it with software from who knows where with who knows what in it just to run an app I should be able to run.

TamaraB
Question The Current Paradigm
Premium Member
join:2000-11-08
Da Bronx
·Verizon FiOS
Ubiquiti NSM5
Synology RT2600ac
Apple AirPort Extreme (2013)

TamaraB to pnh102

Premium Member

to pnh102
said by pnh102:

From what I've read people who want to run Google Voice can jailbreak their iPhones and run it. There's no reason for the FCC to get involved.
This is ironic. My phone is not jailbroken. I have GV on my iPhone. I installed it from iTunes before it was "banned", it has, and continues to work a charm. I am sure I am not the only iPhone owner/GV user in this class of users.

So, isn't Apple/AT&T discriminating against those who didn't get GV from iTunes before the ban? They allow some to use GV, and others not? Isn't this discriminatory? Illegal?

Bob

koma3504
Advocate
Premium Member
join:2004-06-22
Granbury, TX

koma3504

Premium Member

Re: What Problem?

That would probally be against the F.C.C. rule that states that you can not treat one customer any different than any other.

ATT is in violation of that.
jjeffeory
jjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
Bloomington, IN

jjeffeory to pnh102

Member

to pnh102
said by pnh102:

From what I've read people who want to run Google Voice can jailbreak their iPhones and run it. There's no reason for the FCC to get involved.
LOL, funny! Nice try...

PaulTT
@151.198.208.x

PaulTT to pnh102

Anon

to pnh102
REALLY, only Apple has lobbied the Library of Congress (keepers of the Digital Millennium Act) to make it illegal to jailbreak an iPhone. Jailbreaking an iPhone is already against the TOS and it is not easy for some users.

mech1164
I'll Be Back
join:2001-11-19
Lodi, NJ

mech1164

Member

And...

You expect anything else from these bad actors. Both wireless and wired (That means you to Cable). Need a rectal exam of their practices. Will that happen....Not likely, all the people will be bought off before this gets too far. Sad to say.
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

1 recommendation

rradina

Member

AT&T has a point...

I'm not sure if Google can/should be classified the same as AT&T and held to the same rules. However it should be vigorously debated whether or not the FCC should force AT&T (or any other carrier) to connect calls to a "rural provider" (using this term loosely) that charges excessive interconnect fees.

Somehow market forces are not in play. That is, normally the fear of a reciprocating fee would seem adequate to keep interconnect fees fair and balanced. However, that only works if the "rural provider" has balanced incoming and outgoing call volumes. If the rural provider is specifically hosting large inbound call services with relatively little outbound call services, there is little incentive to keep fees reasonable.

Somehow we need to restore competitive forces. If AT&T and other carriers cannot block the calls, perhaps they can exclude them from their "unlimited" long distance plans. If folks paid long distance charges on these calls, competitive forces would be restored and these services would quickly move to host their offerings with local numbers and issue would go away.

•••••••••••••

r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium Member
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX

r81984

Premium Member

Worse Argument Ever!

said by :
According to Google, non-discrimination ensures that a provider “cannot block fair access” to another provider.9 But that is exactly what Google is doing when it blocks calls that Google Voice customers make to telephone numbers associated with certain local exchange carriers.
Fair access does not mean being charged 6 cents a minute that you cannot pass onto your customer.
It is cheaper to call international than to call these scammer phone numbers in rural Iowa.

If neutrality rules were put into place then these rural exchanges would not be able to charge anything and then google would not block them. Google has to block them due to the lack of fair access and neutrality laws for phone companies.

dcurrey
Premium Member
join:2004-06-29
Mason, OH

dcurrey

Premium Member

Re: Worse Argument Ever!

Can the same be said about voip companies that block access to 900 numbers? I assume google voice blocks them also.
dcurrey

dcurrey

Premium Member

Google Conference

Not really an answer but maybe google should create its own free conference system that knocks FreeConferenceCall out of the water. Or just buy them out and shut them down. But that would be anti-competitive also.

But then the solution is why do rural carriers get to charge outrageous amounts.
WhatNow
Premium Member
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC

WhatNow

Premium Member

Re: Google Conference

The rules were put in place because the in and out call volumes tend to be unbalanced. Most of the small telcos barely break even. My family paid more for a 4 party line then our friends that lived a half mile away in a Bell territory did for a private line. I was on the edge of a big city and calling the Bell area was "free" but was actually a long distance call you paid for it in your flat rate bill. The ratio was 4 to1 of calls going from the independent telco to the Bell system. It is to keep the prices reasonable in those rural area.
The problem is these outside companies and the small telcos are gaming the system.
That is the problem too many Americans have decided the rules don't apply to me. The government makes more rules but the only people that follow the new rules are the ones that were not gaming the system in the first place. It just finally makes life a pain and the lawyers make a fortune.

For the record I am no angel.

DC DSL
There's a reason I'm Command.
Premium Member
join:2000-07-30
Washington, DC
Actiontec GT784WN

1 recommendation

DC DSL

Premium Member

More AT&T BS

GoogleVoice is *NOT* a telco or even a LEC, so it is completely within its rights to accept or reject whatever calls it desires, solely at its discretion. Period. GV is a *convenience* service, analogous to an answering service of old.

Some of you were around in the 60s and 70s might remember how AT&T fought tooth and nail against answering services with WATS lines that provided "patch through" calling for their customers (depriving them of direct-dialed long distance revenue), and answering machines (even though they actually increased LD revenue).

funchords
Hello
MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA

funchords

MVM

Ooh, look at that Bright shiny thing ...

Don't allow AT&T to distract you with bright shiny objects.

NOVA_Guy
ObamaCare Kills Americans
Premium Member
join:2002-03-05

NOVA_Guy

Premium Member

Re: Ooh, look at that Bright shiny thing ...

Or, in this case, brown putrid-smelling pieces of waste matter.
djweis
join:2006-04-02
West Des Moines, IA

1 recommendation

djweis

Member

Traffic pumping ruling in Iowa

The Iowa Utilities Board has made their ruling in the traffic pumping/access charge case. It was released last week and is interesting if a bit long for reading. The small ITC's that were working with the conference providers got smacked down pretty hard. The access rates should be dropping very soon rending some of this moot.
»efs.iowa.gov/efiling/gro ··· 3026.pdf

dcurrey
Premium Member
join:2004-06-29
Mason, OH

dcurrey

Premium Member

Re: Traffic pumping ruling in Iowa

I just read the summery. Yea I am lazy.

Seem they are going to have to refund the money. Guess more bankruptcy are going to happen.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5 to djweis

Premium Member

to djweis
said by djweis:

The Iowa Utilities Board has made their ruling in the traffic pumping/access charge case. It was released last week and is interesting if a bit long for reading. The small ITC's that were working with the conference providers got smacked down pretty hard. The access rates should be dropping very soon rending some of this moot.
»efs.iowa.gov/efiling/gro ··· 3026.pdf
Good news for most average customers in the US who paid more to their phone company to support this ripoff. Bad news for the local carriers that used the rules to exploit the system and for businesses using these free conference calling systems.
SuperWISP
join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY

3 edits

SuperWISP

Member

False premise

network neutrality is about incumbent phone companies trying to hold on to market power in the face of Internet evolution
Absolutely false. "Network neutrality" is a scare campaign, mounted by lobbyists working for Google and other content providers, whose purpose is to regulate the Internet so as to give those providers an advantage and prevent new competitors to them from arising.

As I've demonstrated many times before, "network neutrality" regulations aren't neutral. They harm ISPs -- especially the small and competitive ones that provide consumers with a choice -- so as to advantage large, greedy corporations such as Google. (Incidentally, this Web site receives money from Google, creating a conflict of interest when it publishes "news" reports or editorials on this issue.) But since "network neutrality" advocates are in the pay of Google, they become apologists for Google even when it clearly violates the same regulations they're lobbying for. It's hypocrisy, plain and simple.

•••••••

funchords
Hello
MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA

1 edit

funchords

MVM

Traffic Pumping Days May Soon End

... »www.newtonindependent.co ··· ing.html ... also
... »channelvisionmag.com/New ··· ffic.htm ...

Synopsis: The Iowa Utilities Board decided last month that "traffic pumping" operations at several rural Iowa telephone companies amounted to unreasonable practices that violated tariffs. The Iowa companies were ordered to issue refunds to the long-distance companies. A written order to that effect is forthcoming.
hottboiinnc4
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

hottboiinnc4

Member

Google

But after all this, Google does the same to their own developers. Google is the devil of all. They claim they're out for the better good, and yet they tell one of their own developers to FCK Off.

Hey Google, the Kettle is Calling you!
WhatNow
Premium Member
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC

WhatNow

Premium Member

Re: Google

Google has a big network but guess what it is private no net neutrality rules for their network and server farms and buildings. Their add placement is not first come first served it is the more you pay the closer to the top your add moves.

I am waiting for them to try and ban NoScript and Adblock Plus because they interfer with their business model.
hottboiinnc4
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

hottboiinnc4

Member

Re: Google

True.

Google is just as bad as all the other Mega Corps. This site (especially Karl) believe all of what Google has to say and do, when in yet, they do the samething as other companies they're bitching about.

Gimli
Premium Member
join:2006-01-03
l5a2o4

Gimli

Premium Member

Well... rogers has done it too...

1-800-Goog-411

you can connect to the service and used to be able to connect to the number once you found what you were looking for.... now all of a sudden - you get one ring and..

"the number you are dailing is not available from your calling area 043T"

gee - did rogers block google!!!
99376237 (banned)
join:2007-09-25
Edgewood, TX

99376237 (banned)

Member

screw TOS...

you people that wanna whine about breaking the TOS is against the law are a bunch of bitches... the government just ass raped you with giving the banks trillions of taxpayer dollars and you wanna bitch and whine about breaking a TOS contract... unbelieveable..