Google finds traffic-pumping work-around

Google Voice now blocks just under 100 numbers, which might not satisfy AT&T but might get the FCC off its back.

(Credit: Screenshot by Jessica Dolcourt/CNET)

Google says it has found a work-around that should allow it to restore access for Google Voice users to most of the local lines it had blocked before AT&T complained about its practices.

AT&T and Google have been engaged in a war of words over Net neutrality and the obscure practice of "traffic-pumping," exchanging letters with the Federal Communications Commission on an almost weekly basis over the past month. Google wants to ensure that broadband Internet providers such as AT&T adhere to the proposed Net neutrality principles, while AT&T wants Google to be held to the same standard as other local telephone service providers.

And so, AT&T had objected to Google's practice of blocking Google Voice users from restricting calls to certain local telephone numbers that host a disproportionate amount of traffic-heavy telephone services like phone sex lines and conference call services. No phone service provider really wants to connect calls to those lines, considering the hefty fees that local operators charge for those calls, but AT&T is required to provide access to those numbers under federal regulations.

Leaving aside the notion of whether Google Voice is subject to the same rules as AT&T--you can guess where each company stands on that question--Google announced Wednesday that it has found a way to limit its block on those particular calls to only the worst offenders. In other words, instead of blocking access to entire telephone prefixes, Google said it has blocked less than 100 specific telephone numbers belonging to the so-called traffic pumpers.

Will this mollify AT&T? Probably not. But Google actually threw AT&T a bone, calling on Congress to change the laws regarding these services.

"While we've developed a fix to address this problem, the bottom line is that we still believe the Commission needs to repair our nation's broken carrier compensation system. The current system simply does not serve consumers well and these types of schemes point up the pressing need for reform," wrote Richard Whitt, Washington telecom and media counsel for Google.

[Pete Bardo]

Anything Google doesn't like it calls broken. Same for AT&T. If Google wants to look like a phone service carrier, they're gonna have to learn how to act like one.

[TriHawk]

Google Voice was never a service provider. You had to have a traditional home/cell number for service, so they can block whatever/whoever they want. Your just pissed cause you didn't get a GVoice invite.

[Remo_Williams]

Really? You really want Google to act like AT&T and Verizon? Dumb. More than dumb. Backwards. I'm glad Google didn't connect to them, and you should have been, too. Instead, you sound like a shill or a troll.

[kieranmullen]

TriHawk - Just you wait. They provide enhanced voicemail with your own number. (purchased a company called grandstream) they only recently started to put it to work, made some enhancements and added the ability for people to make inexpensive international phone calls. A little at a time...

[faceless128]

Google Voice requires a seperate Telephone service, it is not a common carrier. Some people don't seem to understand this. If you have Google Voice and do not also have another service with a phone number (Baby Bells, VOIP, etc) you cannot send or receive calls, all you can do is text and get voicemail on the website. You need a phone (not from Google) to use Google Voice.

[tortillaj]

I think you're confused. Google Voice is essentially a voicemail system to connect your various phone numbers together in one. You must have a phone plan or service of some kind to place calls through GV, otherwise it's just an instant messaging and voicemail receptor system.

[VoiceOfLogic]

I am really tired of hearing the WHINING that these billion dollar corporations do on a daily basis. The customer loses, again.

[hankthedwarf]

My head is spinning from trying to figure out what the hell AT&T is complaining about.

[kieranmullen]

AT&T got into the same trouble when they blocked access to the same services. Like freeconferencecall.com they view Google as a threat as Google gets into the voice business.

[mikeblogs]

The shift to communications services based on software and IP networking, means the definitions and obligations of a phone service should be reviewed, for what ought to be a much richer communications experience, incorporating text, video, and voice.

The telephony folk (with their legacy networks and costs) will tie us to the 1970's, including all the shortcomings and naff practices and loopholes that accumulate over that period. In particular it will tie in legacy costs and practices which could be removed.

Before we re-write for a multi-media communications service, (encompassing fixed and mobile) the underlying utility of data transport and connectivity needs to be described to the end user. This describes that your connectivity is engineered to carry all packets (1byte packets) to and from anywhere in the US in <50Ms and your peak hour allowance is 100Kbps. Some loss and delay characteristics are needed as well.

Once the data transport is clear, you will at least know whether an application like Google voice can work or not during busy periods.

[tortillaj]

AT&T is just upset that Google thought of it first, plain and simple. And if Google ever decides to merge it's already free VOIP service (Google Talk) with GV, then there won't be a reason to use a traditional phone. There are probably more than a few free VOIP services you can integrate with GV as it is...

[BrettGlass]

Gee, isn't that nice. Google is picking and choosing the individual telephone numbers to which it, in its omnipotence, will deign to allow you to make calls.

And then it has the audacity to advocate "network neutrality" regulation, claiming that ISPs **MIGHT** block traffic to certain sites when in fact they have never done so.

What hypocrisy. Clearly, Google is the real gatekeeper and the real threat here -- and the company that really needs to be regulated.

[Epoe10]

I see some people have drank the Google Voice punch!

Google Voice pays for voice services that they give away for free which is an unsustainable model. The problem with that is that Google Voice is undermining providers that charge for services with their war chest of funds. Good for the consumer! At least that is what Google wants you to think. But if Google is sucessful getting millions of people to trust them as gatekeeper to their phone service in an unsustainable model. What happens when Google changes policy and decides they need to charge or that they need to scan all the words in your conversations for advertisment placement or START BLOCKING CALLS TO SPECIFIC COMPANIES (EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE DOING NOW).

This is an Anti Trust Violation

You can not sell service below your cost for an extended period of time to eliminate the competition!!!!

[benz6381]

TO: trihawk, faceless128, tortilla and hankthedwarf,

Can you use a long distance provider like ECG, 3U Telecom, Total Call, Pioneer, Telna or one of many hundreds of other providers without having telephone service and a number provided by some local provider? These companies must all play by the rules which require them to terminate calls to any number and pay the associated interconnection fee. What make Google any different other than everyone's infatuation with them?