backtop

Print 41 comment(s) - last by BikeDude.. on Apr 6 at 5:35 AM
AT&T jumps right into the heart of the net neutrality war

Several days ago, reports surfaced about AT&T using its capabilities to hinder or slow down activities by competitors, putting what some anlysts call a dark light on the top tier telco. FreeConferenceCall.com alleged that AT&T used its position and vast resources to block outgoing and incoming calls routed through its service.

Utilizing a complex array of call routing techniques, FreeConferenceCall.com is able to offer its customers a free service while still making money. The technique involves routing calls around to different areas and carriers that charge different rates so that the math works out to FreeConferenceCall.com's favor. This was heavily frowned upon by AT&T.

After attempts to circumvent the situation, AT&T filed suit against several localized telcos for allowing the call routing practice to take place. AT&T officials said that companies like FreeConferenceCall.com were causing it to lose millions of dollars. "If this phenomenon were to go unchecked, it would dramatically raise our costs and seriously impede our ability to provide great services at reasonable prices to our customers," said Mark Siegel, Cingular spokesman.

What makes the current AT&T situation more intriguing to industry analysts is that it touches the heart of net neutrality. Net neutrality has been a hot topic of debate for the last year and in its current state issues are still high up in the air. Currently, large telcos such as AT&T and Verizon are up against content providers such as Google and others. Telco lobbyists long argued that net neutrality was a non issue, and that despite Congress' concern over the topic, the telcos deemed the issue nonsense. When FreeConferenceCall.com made claims that AT&T was acting for its own financial interest and in a monopolistic and anti-competitive manner, Siegel said "that's absolute nonsense."

It now appears that AT&T will have to do a bit more to cover its tail as FreeConferenceCall.com has countersued. Siegel said that FreeConferenceCall and other localized telcos violated FCC regulations but the FCC itself is conducting its own study on net neutrality. The large telcos have long opposed what Congress is doing on the issue of net neutrality

The net neutrality dispute will continue to be a hot topic with an uphill climb for both supporters and detractors. Without any official laws being passed on the topic, however, service providers such as AT&T, Cingular and Verizon are free to stipulate any regulations they feel is necessary. Fees are also a major concern for customers and content providers, fearing that if the principles of net neutrality aren't kept consumers will face diminishing service quality and higher service rates.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
What I love about the Internet
By Mitch101 on 4/2/2007 3:06:56 PM , Rating: 5
What I love about the Internet is that its caused Phone, Cable, News/Press, Music, and Movie companies into something called COMPETITION and when they dont compete they just file lawsuits.




RE: What I love about the Internet
By Crazyeyeskillah on 4/2/2007 3:12:09 PM , Rating: 2
If anyone actually has a land line in their home, and pay for things like long distance, then you know exactly what the guy above is talking about. Verizon in home phone service is absolutely outrageous. About 100$ a month, where as standard Cell phone would be 35$ for the same calls. I hope these companies all go out of business and their employees promptly fired. May the internet revolution continue!


RE: What I love about the Internet
By tekzor on 4/2/2007 3:15:12 PM , Rating: 2
Left verizon as soon as my DSL contract ran out. was getting half the advertised speeds. Switched over to cable, got tv/cable/phone for $30/each. Bested everything verizon ever did.


RE: What I love about the Internet
By masher2 (blog) on 4/2/2007 3:15:49 PM , Rating: 3
> "I hope these companies all go out of business ..."

You realize these are the same companies running the backbone for the "Internet revolution" you espouse?


RE: What I love about the Internet
By dluther on 4/2/2007 3:38:10 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
... these are the same companies running the backbone for the "Internet revolution" you espouse?


Not really.

The backbone is provided by companies like Global Crossing, MCI, Level3, and XO communications. While AT&T technically does have their own long-haul IP network, it is the result of several dozen acquisitions that are strung together using dissimilar equipment, outdated fiber, and an aging infrastructure. It's an ugly, ugly Rube Goldberg contraption with a pretty paint job (picture a shiny, pristine Ferrari Enzo with a Yard Man lawnmower engine under the hood).

Companies like AT&T, Verizon, Ameritech, Comcast, and Cox all purchase bandwidth from these specialized carriers over their IP and MPLS networks. Where these companies (AT&T, etc) come in useful is with "last mile" connections, where the long-haul companies cannot compete.

It may actually sound logical for AT&T to pitch to customers a "one-stop" full-service ISP for voice and data, and AT&T is steadily moving their traffic from the long-haul carriers onto their own patchwork network in an effort to save billions of dollars. However, as a result of their poorly designed and managed network, many AT&T customers are moving to other carriers.

Unfortunately, there is no singly company who has leveraged their infrastructure buildouts to include both long-haul and local, to do so would be immensely costly, and would have bankrupted them many years before the big "dot-com bubble" burst.


RE: What I love about the Internet
By creathir on 4/2/2007 4:57:28 PM , Rating: 2
Though UUNet is no longer the MAIN backbone (was aquired by WorldCom... which then bought MCI, which then WorldCom went bankrupt, and MCI floated for a while until Verizon picked them up) Verizon has a major portion of it still.

So, yes, one of these companies that you are demanding go away is responsible for a major portion of the Internet. Also, AT&T has around 1/3 of all land lines in the United States.

If they just "went away", so would around 1 out of every 3 people you talk to on the phone.

AT&T does have long haul services, they are just not as vast as some of the others.

- Creathir


RE: What I love about the Internet
By dluther on 4/2/2007 10:44:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
...one of these companies that you are demanding go away...


Now go back and carefully read what I wrote, and point me to the portions of text where I advocate any carrier "going away". Go on, take your time; I'll wait right here.

...

Back so soon? Couldn't find it, could you? That's because I made no such statement.

What I was doing was taking umbrage with masher2's previous comment that companies like AT&T are providing *the* backbone for the internet. They're not.


By masher2 (blog) on 4/3/2007 11:47:35 AM , Rating: 3
> "I was doing was taking umbrage with masher2's previous comment that companies like AT&T are providing *the* backbone for the internet. They're not. "

I've already clearly demonstrated this is true. In addition to my prior link, showing actual router volume, here's another from a NYU research paper, which establishes AT&T as the largest backbone provider, by data volume. (scroll down to Table 3 for the actual figures).

http://www.stern.nyu.edu/networks/Economides_ECONO...

Simply because you read some ten-year out-of-date news story on "how the internet works" doesn't mean you really do. AT&T used to be a minor player in Internet traffic; they no longer are.


RE: What I love about the Internet
By masher2 (blog) on 4/2/2007 5:10:57 PM , Rating: 2
> "While AT&T technically does have their own long-haul IP network, it is the result of several dozen acquisitions that are strung together using dissimilar equipment"

I'm sorry, but this isn't even remotely close to true. AT&T has by far the largest longhaul fiber network-- 50,000+ miles worth of it...most of those miles encompassing anywhere from 12 to 200 fibers within a single cable. This doesn't even count the AT&T local/metropolitan fiber, much of which is indeed, the result of merger acquisition. But the core longhaul network is all original AT&T, and the largest carrier of data traffic in the world.


RE: What I love about the Internet
By dluther on 4/2/2007 11:56:01 PM , Rating: 5
Masher,

AT&T does indeed operate a 56K mile fiber network. However, the last long-haul fiber AT&T laid was back in the late 80's to early '90s, using ATM as the transport layer. All the fiber they're laying now is in their metro buildouts to support extending local loops, SONET rings, and rural upgrades in accordance with FCC agreements.

You have to understand that at the time, AT&T was not as interested in wholesale data because voice networking was (and still is) where the real money lies, because the major portion of AT&T's revenues come from transit fees of long-distance voice services, something you simply don't get in the data world with peering agreements.

The majority of AT&T's long-haul data network lies in the acquisition of Velocita's 22K North American fiber backbone back in 2002, the integration of which makes AT&T's long-haul IP backbone a hodge-podge of Cisco, Juniper, Sycamore, Siemens, Alcatel, Redback, and of course Lucent switching gear. More than half of AT&T's network cannot support DWDM because the fiber they laid, the repeaters they use, and the optical switching gear they've implemented simply don't support it. It was only last February that AT&T announced their plans to *start* upgrading their fiber network to support OC768 via DWDM, which means massive replacement of optical switching gear.

Compare all of this to companies like Level3 communications, who already had some 60K miles of DWDM fiber network when they acquired Wiltel's 33K mile DWDM network, and most recently Broadwing's 16K mile DWDM network and Progress Telecom's 9K mile network, all using Cisco and Juniper routing gear with Ciena optical switching. Or look at companies like XO communications, or even Global Crossing.

Oh and just for a fun and interesting fact, Wiltel was SBC's primary long-distance provider before they announced their acquisition of AT&T, and while they have been moving traffic off of Wiltel's network onto AT&T's, Wiltel (now Level3) still maintains just under half of AT&T's long-haul voice traffic. If AT&T's network was so big and great, you'd think they'd be burning the midnight oil to shift all of that network data onto their own instead of paying millions of dollars per month to a competitor. And yet...

As to your point of 12 to 200 fibers in a single cable, well, everybody does that. The reason you lay down hundreds of strands of fiber is because of the enormous expense of actually laying long-haul armored fiber, acquiring rights of way, paying the teamsters, etc... Most companies that laid fiber do so in multiple cables of up to 288 optical strands per, simply because it's just more economically feasible to dig one hole and incrementally expand capacity as needed. Most fiber networks may well have hundreds of strands of fiber, but are operating only a few to a couple dozen strands (see "dark fiber glut").

And finally, AT&T (actually SBC, but what's in a name?) has had to make some massive concessions to get the FCC and the Justice Department agree to all of these mergers. Customer guarantees, customer deferments, price concessions, rate fixation, peering agreements, and promises of rural buildouts all directly contribute to how AT&T operates its network.

I understand you're a big AT&T fanboy -- you may work for them or have an uncle who does. But it appears you don't have a very firm grasp on what goes on inside the network, and don't appear to have much of an interest in finding out. I'm not saying that AT&T isn't an important long-haul fiber operator. However, I *am* saying that AT&T isn't the largest one, not by a long shot.

You just can't believe everything you see in the commercials...


RE: What I love about the Internet
By Pete84 on 4/3/2007 3:02:32 AM , Rating: 2
That was, without a doubt, one of the most interesting comments I have read on DailyTech in as long as I can remember. My regards to the effort you made in clearly explaining your position. In response, I shall continue to suck down as much of my SBC allotted DSL bandwidth as possible.


RE: What I love about the Internet
By masher2 (blog) on 4/3/2007 8:22:15 AM , Rating: 4
> "However, the last long-haul fiber AT&T laid was back in the late 80's to early '90s"

Incorrect. AT&T's NexGen initiative put down over 6000 miles of new cable from the late 1990s to 2004. You can still find plenty of references online to their right-of-way request and environmental eval reports for the construction. Currently, they're spending several billion dollars on their fiber-to-the-node initiative, Project Lightspeed.

As for your belief that AT&T is just a "bit player" in the IP backbone arena, here is a link that shows the entire North American backbone. AT&T and Verizon are the two largest, both of which dwarf Qwest, Level 3, and all other providers.

http://advice.cio.com/node/209

That's just AT&T's IP data. Adding in their dedicated data, AT&T moves more data per day than any over network in the world...by a large margin. Which is what I said in my first post.

> Wiltel...still maintains just under half of AT&T's long-haul voice traffic.... If AT&T's network was so big and great, you'd think they'd be burning the midnight oil to shift all of that network data onto their own...

Both wrong and misleading. Wiltel managed nearly 50% of (pre-merger) SBCs long-haul voice traffic. And while that percentage hasn't declined substantially since the merger, the reason isn't due to any lack of capacity on AT&T's network, but rather the original 20-year contract signed between SBC and Wiltel in 1999.

> "AT&T...has had to make some massive concessions to get the FCC and the Justice Department agree to all of these mergers.."

True, but what's your point? None of those concessions limit AT&Ts ability to compete in the IP arena. In fact, some of them REQUIRE AT&T to compete, specificaly their commitment to supply broadband to 100% of their inservice area by the end of this year, or their commitment to offer ADSL without requiring bundled voice service. Which of these do you feel prevents them from operating a large IP network?

Here's a link to the AT&T merger commitments made to the FCC to help you search for that answer:

http://www.fcc.gov/ATT_FINALMergerCommitments12-28...

> "AT&T was not as interested in wholesale data because voice networking was (and still is) where the real money lies"

No. As of today, AT&T is averaging $8B/quarter from voice, out of total revenues of just under $16B/quarter....or about 50% only from voice, a ratio that has remained roughly constant for the past several years.

> "I understand you're a big AT&T fanboy...But it appears you don't have a very firm grasp on what goes on inside the network"

A rather amusing statement, given the almost total dearth of correct information in your post.


RE: What I love about the Internet
By ralith on 4/3/2007 8:45:56 AM , Rating: 2
WOW! Links! You got serious about this debate :)


RE: What I love about the Internet
By vorgusa on 4/3/2007 9:56:50 AM , Rating: 2
Wow I think those are the two longest replies I have seen on this site... They are really getting into this.


By dluther on 4/3/2007 10:44:24 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
They are really getting into this.


Eh...

There's a saying that winning an argument on a message board is like winning an event in the special olympics. At the end of the day, you're still, well, you know.


RE: What I love about the Internet
By fxnick on 4/2/2007 8:46:25 PM , Rating: 2
Where's your proof of this?


RE: What I love about the Internet
By TimberJon on 4/2/2007 3:46:02 PM , Rating: 2
I hope that they are controlled by the government, services provided for nearly at-cost fees. Devices are developed so that they can recharge by remote, accept signals while within that subscription city, and you have to enable or purchase a package in order to get coverage in that other wifi-equipped city for a flat rate based on the duration of your stay. Mobile phone packages will include nozone minutes and services based on the tier of service you contract on with, so that while flying from one city to another, you remain connected to the network.

Then hopefully there will be implants, so that we can browse the internet behind our eyes, or a cybernetic one, process information with our own brain and make and take calls with a truely handsfree system. We'd need a hell of a firewall though..


By thecoolnessrune on 4/3/2007 1:18:22 AM , Rating: 2
While some industries in the country need government intervention to function properly... I never saw the name of it being "America the Bush estate." Just because there isn't enough competition yet, doesn't mean we have the government solve our problem for us.


RE: What I love about the Internet
By stm24 on 4/2/2007 6:31:20 PM , Rating: 2
I think u full of it! $100 a month? My mother have Verizon and pay $60 for local and long distance, I have Bellsouth(AT&T) and was paying $88 a month for the same thing until they became part of AT&T and now pay $91 a month. Going cable(Cox) with phone service isn't that much cheaper!


By Mitch101 on 4/3/2007 1:35:15 PM , Rating: 2
I use sunrocket and my internet as the backbone.

I pay $8.33 a month for unlimited and love it.

Just wait for a $199.00 for 2 years deal they do it about 1 day every month. As long as you have good upload and download the service is excellent. I have 4.7mbs/384kbs up. More than enough.

Some things I am able to do with Sunrocket that I could not with Vonage.

1-Fax Documents. (Extra on Vonage and didnt work)
2-Tivo Daily Calls.
3-Get my Voice Mail (Vonage is a Mess in NC)

Vonage wasnt bad but they just werent reliable for me in the northern charlotte area.

It just sickens me to see $60.00 a month.

Plus since every hotel imaginable has free high speed internet I just take the box and phone on trips and no one even knows I am away and I dont have reduclous local hotel phone calls like some places charge.


By vorgusa on 4/3/2007 9:43:10 AM , Rating: 2
Well you can always go Vonage or some other VOIP and do your local phone over the internet... that should help out your revolution!


By EarthsDM on 4/2/2007 8:55:12 PM , Rating: 1
Wireless companies have been attacking and trying to destroy wifi for that reason. They think that we should pay them money for existing.


Details
By TheTerl on 4/2/2007 3:45:15 PM , Rating: 2
Even after reading the link, I'm still not exactly clear how this arrangement was working. You place a call, and it gets routed through the telco in Iowa to a number of other people. What I don't understand is how the payment structure works out so that FreeConferenceCall (and presumably this telco as well) makes money at AT&T's expense. Anyone have some light to shed?




RE: Details
By kpb on 4/2/2007 4:14:45 PM , Rating: 4
From what I understand from a previous article it works basically like an 890 Phone scam http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/809.html

Basically it goes back to the the way calls get routed. AT&T and all the other major cariers don't each have a seperate line for you to receive phone calls. They all go to your Local exchange which HAS to provide them access to route calls to you by law and gets to charge a fee back to the phone company for said access.

The Iowa Local exchange charges an unusually high rate for a call and passes part of that on to freeconferencecall for getting people to call the exchange. This then presumably covers all thier operating costs and lets them make a profit.

I don't have a problem with conference call services but charging it back to the carriers in a way that isn't billed back to that customer is dishonest imo. It's basically a 1-900 call that everyone ends up paying for. I beleive AT&T is correct in thier stance and should be able to block these calls and allow customer an option to reenable access by agreeing to pay the higher than normal access fees. Let the customer who is getting the service pay for it.


RE: Details
By TheTerl on 4/2/2007 6:12:01 PM , Rating: 2
Very interesting. Thanks for the detailed response.


RE: Details
By borowki on 4/2/2007 7:07:45 PM , Rating: 2
And don't forget the subsidies from the Universal Service Fund, which these rural exchanges receive ostentively because their call volumes are too low to be cost effective.


RE: Details
By Pete84 on 4/3/2007 2:55:58 AM , Rating: 2
I for one never knew that calling a ten digit number could get you outside the U.S. Thank you for the very insightful link.


Misguided
By masher2 (blog) on 4/2/2007 3:13:50 PM , Rating: 5
Honestly, portraying this as a Net Neutrality issue is off base. A company using shady call routing techniques to make conference calls on the AT&T network without paying for the privilege gets sued by AT&T. In standard defensive litigation practice, they countersue.

Big deal. Either the FCC will rule these shenanigans legal (which I doubt) or they'll lose the case, and their entire business model along with it. In no way does this actually have anything to do with Net Neutrality.




RE: Misguided
By gramboh on 4/2/2007 3:25:12 PM , Rating: 2
How does the site work? If it's VOIP then it is a neutrality issue. If it's phone lines on AT&T's network then you are correct.

From the text of the article it sounds like phone line routing.


RE: Misguided
By Clienthes on 4/2/2007 3:29:16 PM , Rating: 2
I would like to compliment you on your use of the word "shenanigans." I love that word. I hope more people follow your good example and use it in as many posts as possible.

Oh, and you're right. Nothing to do with net neutrality.


RE: Misguided
By UNCjigga on 4/2/2007 3:42:01 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. Based on how the article is worded, AT&T might be in the clear here. It seems like this company was putting complex routing in place to lower their costs, while AT&T was footing the bill for all the extra overhead/routing costs that resulted. If a company is using AT&T's network services in an inefficient manner which can potentially harm other customers, then AT&T is obligated to prevent this practice.


Re:What I Love about the Internet......
By kerrdog on 4/2/2007 4:03:30 PM , Rating: 1
An old communications company like AT&T has never fully grasped how to compete in the Internet influenced world market. AT&T keeps trying to work their way around, change, (or outright ignore), the rules/regs/laws that govern the Internet and Communications industry, instead of obeying them. If you had time to do the research on who has influenced the creation of, or alteration of, the most Communication industry rules/regulations/laws, bet you would find the AT&T name at the top of the list much of the time. Now these same rules/regulations/laws they helped create through the years are coming back to haunt them. The cost of having to change or bypass old rules/regulations/laws they helped create will just be passed on to AT&T customers. Business as usual.....




RE: Re:What I Love about the Internet......
By Looey on 4/2/2007 4:56:11 PM , Rating: 2
I would like some facts to back up your statements about AT&T. What rules, regulations and laws did they help to create which are coming back to haunt them? What rules, laws and regulations are they trying to ignore or work their way around. Are you confusing AT&T with Worldcom?


By wetwareinterface on 4/3/2007 12:17:08 PM , Rating: 3
he's actually correct about the old at&t having instituted several contractual rules and the fcc following along and then socking it right back to them.

for example...
sbc had several contracts with clecs (competitive local exchange carriers) that were all basically the same. you could call us through this dept only and have a problem answered in this specified time frame. well then the fcc told sbc they couldn't have data, cel, local and long distance right after they aquired ameritech. so sbc split the data and cel networks off into thrid party entities (cel went to cingular and data went to asi). well at first sbc was doing great in dsl adoption rates as the data compant asi had reps in the central offices and the field techs were all sbc and asi had direct phone lines to sbc personel for order handling issues. fcc stepped in and told asi they could no longer call sbc reps directly and had instead to contact the same exact center other clecs had to. also no more sbc field installers, all had to be asi employees and couldn't do phone line work only installs at customer locations as other clecs were restricted to. also had to remove all personel from central offices (where the sbc side phone equip is located) unless they wanted to seperate equipment from leased lines to dslam equipment being caged off and no sbc employee having access and lphone line only sharing lease like other clecs.

basically dsl went from easy order and 1 week install window with line up and ready. to order being dropped or lost after being placed, fouled up order due to the 48 database systems it now had to traverse, or order goes through here's dsl ohhh... wait line isn't capable of supporting dsl sorry bout that we'll send someone out if you wanna pay the $200 to have em look at the line.

that's one example relating to only one product, dsl. the nightmare was the worst situation here, fractional t1 and frame relay had issues but with the amount customers were spending sbc made sure to hand walk every order and pre-test every line for data integrity before the order went through. dsl was small markup high volume and caused such a mess it took 3 years to fianlly get it sorted out because sbc was so good at their initial attempt to make it impossible for clecs to compete in dsl that even the comapny that knew about the road blocks as they had placed em couldn't sort out the mess.


By AlexWade on 4/2/2007 5:54:46 PM , Rating: 2
The internet is going to change the world of communication. One day in the future, what you know today won't exist. Phone, cable, and satellite companies will either sink or innovate; most will sink.

AT&T is half-way smart. While the old phone landline phone system is on the way out, they still have cellular. The internet and cell phones are going to make landline, cable, and satellite obsolete. One day soon, cable over internet will be available to the masses. Furthermore, I believe Congress will wake up and require Viacom and other cable TV broadcasters to sell channels individually instead of a package. And already, many people are dumping landline for cellular, I have for years.

The world of communications is going to change rapidly. Unless a company control internet or cellular interests, they will sink. AT&T and Verizon will be fine. Embarq (the spin-off of Sprint) will not.


Consider history for a while...
By kilkennycat on 4/2/2007 5:53:39 PM , Rating: 2
A long time ago AT&T was a telecommunications monopoly with the best telephone and data-transmission service in the world - by far !!! I came to the US in 1976 from the UK. Telephone rates from US to UK were about 1/4 of those to the US originating in the UK. Flat fee unlimited-time local calling. All calls in the UK and throughout Europe had a per-minute rate; many in Europe still do. Telephone installation ( of a new telephone number ) was within one week. In the UK at that time it was at least 2 months. And the line quality for both domestic and transatlantic calls was superb. The benevolent monopoly, investing billions of dollars a year in improving the WORLD's (already) BEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE and with the best telecommunications research lab in the world - Bell Labs. And the AT&T shareholders also got fair compensation - everyone was happy. Then Congress got very clever and decided that monopoly was a dirty word and broke up AT & T. For me at that time it appeared to be one of the most massive political/technology blunders of the 20th century. And we (the US consumers ) have paid continuously for this mistake ever since. Fractured telephone neworks competing with each other; unnecessary equipment duplication, billions of $$ down the drain. Fractured cell-phone networks and standards, all competing with each other, more billions down the drain. Who has paid for that? Joe-sheep US consumer for the last 20-odd years. Wonder about your high cell-phone bill being promoted as "great value" compared to that "other network". Who pays for the millions of $$ in competitive advertising? Joe-consumer again...

The new version of AT & T (only in name, sure not in spirit) is no benevolent monopoly. They are ruthlessly competing for $$$ and nothing else. Hence their hard-ball playing with access to their network. And Bell Labs is a shadow of its former self.

How I wish for the return of the old AT&T........... sigh... Maybe so do the greyer hairs at Google (if there are any) and the other information-providers.




RE: Consider history for a while...
By fxnick on 4/2/2007 8:50:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Then Congress got very clever and decided that monopoly was a dirty word and broke up AT & T. For me at that time it appeared to be one of the most massive political/technology blunders of the 20th century.


I couldn't agree with you more!
They said that competition would bring down prices, but its only gone up since then...


By masher2 (blog) on 4/2/2007 9:05:18 PM , Rating: 3
Competition did bring down prices, and very sharply so. The problem is that the AT&T breakup brought in competition for long-distance service, but reinforced the monopoly on local 'last-mile' service. Costs for the latter have dropped precipitously, while the latter has remained roughly constant (or even increased in some areas).


Net neutrality
By Proteusza on 4/3/2007 4:53:46 AM , Rating: 2
Initially I thought the evil corporation was blocking a good way for consumers to lower their costs. But in this case, I agree with AT&T only because AT&T are footing the bill. If they werent, then I would say AT&T are in the wrong.

I'm glad I live in the UK, where we dont have issues like this. Why doesnt everyone just use VOIP? the data costs are minimal compared to what a voice call would cost.

VOIP used to be illegal in my home country (South Africa) because the only telecommunications provider (with a government enforced monopoly) was the only thing allowed to carry communications across boundaries. Running ethernet cable to your neighbours would be illegal unless it was sanctioned by Telkom.

Go visit http://www.hellkom.co.za/ to see how bad telecommunications companies can get.




By BikeDude on 4/6/2007 5:35:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
FreeConferenceCall.com is able to offer its customers a free service while still making money.


Often (always?) when someone talk about a free service, it usually turns out to be financed by advertising. To me, that is not 'free'. There are a number of websites out there that are truly free (i.e. someone other than the user foots the bill without claiming anything in return), so why delute the significance of that by labelling ad-driven sites and services as "free"?

Or maybe FreeConferenceCall.com is truly 'free' at the moment (just, until recently, quietly sponsored by AT&T). I couldn't tell, because their website requires Javascript, and I'm not enabling scripting for a site that I suspect is riddled with ads. ;)




"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki