Talk:Traffic pumping

Biased (pro-Google) coverage

The article appeared overnight in the wake of AT&T complaint, and contains sourced but not substantiated allegations against members of congress. Pumping or not, Google has to play by the rules. It is also interesting that it was promptly promoted to the main page. 212.188.109.179 (talk) 11:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting that there is no reference to the original author of this article. I agree with the above comment and have added the POV tag. DQweny (talk) 11:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The original author of *which* article? The DailyFinance article raises the issue of conflict-of-interest with respect to Congress, and it's more of an editorial, so I should point that out in the article text. Is it better now? Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 14:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's a new issue, and I read about it and wrote the article because I thought it was an important and interesting topic. I usually submit newly-written articles to Template Talk:Did you know so that others, like yourself, can find out about them... I don't think there's anything suspicious about this :-). I agree that the article is slanted towards Google's point-of-view, but this is because I was not able to find any sources with a coherent pro-AT&T argument. If you find any, please add them. Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 14:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any particular bias against AT&T or for Google. The article reads like a very factual account with lots of references. It says Google is refusing some calls, which AT&T objects to, and also describes Google's accusations against AT&T. Like the article creator says, if anyone has relevant and sourced info, they are free to add it. I think the non-neutral tag should go. Facts707 (talk) 14:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the support! This is what I was trying to do. I do agree with DQweny that it'd be ideal if we had a source that explained AT&T's POV in more detail. Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 22:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

My residual concern is that the two blogs cited in the references might not meet WP criteria for sources. Most blogs don't. It appears to be more a case of recentism than bias. DQweny (talk) 18:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand the concern, but I tried to cite those blog articles only insofar as they clarify Google's point of view on this issue (which I state to be their point of view). As it's an official Google blog, it should be a reliable source as far as explaining Google's official opinion. Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 22:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

relevant original source docs

• FCC ruling regarding call blocking [[1]]
• AT&T POV [[2]]
  Pwellner (talk) 15:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic, thanks! These are really useful. I have incorporated them into the article where relevant. Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 15:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, that's really good! I was going to remove the neutrality tag but someone beat me to it. DQweny (talk) 18:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

US-centric: who cares?

I'm just asking the question...I am not aware of traffic pumping in other than the U.S. So it follows then, who cares if it's US-centric? Thus, there's no need for the US-centric tag. Please...if you know of other areas which have traffic pumping practices, add to the article, but it seems as if this is a consequence of the 1996 Telecomm Act.

I agree. Have removed tag. Barte (talk) 00:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Google now charges to connect calls.

Google is now changing 1 cent per minute to complete calls to traffic pumpers. Most calls in the US are still free, but traffic pumpers are not one of them.

Ploxhoi (talk) 13:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Traffic pumping. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.callchinaforfree.com/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.freedigits.com/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.faxdigits.com/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.callchinaforfree.com/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://signup.freedigits.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)