Google not so keen on net neutrality in its own backyard | Hacker News Reader

Google not so keen on net neutrality in its own backyard

digitaldaily.allthingsd.com

12 pointsgrellas14 comments

This has nothing to do with net neutrality. (The requirement to provide telephone service to rural numbers falls under telephone regulation.)

OK, guys, didn't mean to mislead (I posted this while rushing off to a meeting and am just now seeing the reaction).

The logic of Google trying to have it both ways respecting the principles of net neutrality (regardless of the precise context in which they are applied) is spelled out here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870362830457445....

Sorry if I used a poor choice of wording for the headline.

The telephone system is not part of the Internet? News to me.

Don't be evil, my ass

I am pretty sure Google is not blocking calls to nuns because it is trying to be evil. Either they are not a regular phone number, or this is a bug. It's beta. There will be bugs.

I really hope AT&T's whining doesn't ruin this for the rest of us. I love Google Voice, and it would be a shame to see regulations kill it off before it is even out of beta. It's a free service. Why should it have to let me call 900 numbers?

No, it isn't a bug. Unfortunately, telephone regulations allow some local carriers to get away with some unfriendly charges to the big phone carriers. Google made a choice to block those rural (not 900) numbers because they currently aren't as regulated as a "real" phone company.

I hope that this will change the rules for carrier charges, but I also think Google needs to play by the same rules as everyone else. Blocking rural calls is evil when the rural users have no knowledge of how the system works and are just innocent victims.

Many of the rural exchanges are anything but innocent. Many of them work with free conference call and phone-porn companies and then hike their connection rates to absurd levels. They rely on the law to over-charge telecoms. This isn't to say they're all doing it, but there are a lot of them out minting free money from the telecoms.

Ars Technica has a more detailed explanation of that side of the issue. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/10/att-accused-...

When I was referring to innocent, I was referring to the people being blocked NOT the rural exchanges.

ah, I read "rural users" and thought you were referring to the rural exchanges.

I somewhat agree, but don't you think that as rural internet infrastructure improves this will become a moot point? I suspect we are only talking about landlines on small local carriers.

Will these customers move to mobile devices or at least a cellular connections in the coming years?

The same problems of service exists with wireless carriers. Number of People per square mile is always going to be a problem for service providers of utilities in rural areas.

The US government's last bill (this administration) was utterly useless to provide independent internet. It had the great phrase "if broadband service is available to anyone in the service area for any price, the service area is ineligible for funding".

Incorrect and misleading headline. I'm all for bringing Google down a peg, but at least read the name of the regulations you think Google is in violation of first.

I find this topic fascinating, but that article was unreadable. I stopped about half way through. Tiny type and horrible writing style.

http://lab.arc90.com/experiments/readability/

Not a fix for the writing style, unfortunately.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com