or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › AT&T fires back at Google on net neutrality rules
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

AT&T fires back at Google on net neutrality rules

post #1 of 48
Thread Starter 
AT&T has written the Federal Communications Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau to insist that any new net neutrality rules need be apply to everyone in the industry, including web companies like Google.

Google has helped lead the drive to impose net neutrality rules on cable and phone operators, in order to prevent Internet service providers from selectively blocking or slowing access to content or network applications from competitors. AT&T, which would be impacted by such rules both as broadband provider and as a wireless mobile company, maintains that Google itself needs to comply with the same regulations AT&T must if it wants to compete with telephone services like Google Voice.

An article published by Reuters reported that Robert Quinn, AT&T's senior vice president for federal regulations, wrote the FCC on Friday saying, "To the extent 'net neutrality' is animated by a concern about ostensible Internet 'gatekeepers,' that concern must necessarily apply to application, service, and content providers."

Quinn said Google has blocked its Google Voice users from placing calls to some phone numbers in rural locations in order to cut costs. AT&T, like other phone companies, are prohibited from selectively denying service to their users by regulations designed to guarantee phone access to all users regardless of whether it is profitable for them to do so. Without such regulations in place, much of rural America would never have been commercially viable for private phone companies to service.

Quinn said that "Google Voice thus has claimed for itself a significant advantage over providers offering competing services." His comments were echoed by USTelecom, a telephony trade group which issued a statement that accused Google of "effectively assuming the power to decide who its customer can call and what content they can access."

Google opts itself out of regulation

In reply, Google lawyer Richard Whitt told Reuters, "We feel comfortable that [Google Voice] is not a regulated service. It is a service that originates from an online platform." Whitt acknowledged that Google Voice was blocking calls, and said that "the company is doing that because certain local telephone carriers in rural areas charge AT&T and other long-distance companies especially high rates to connect calls to their networks."

Marguerite Reardon, reporting for CNET, explained, "Because they are small, rural phone companies are allowed to charge connection fees that are about 100 times higher than the rates that large local phone companies can charge. But in a practice known as traffic-pumping, some of these rural carriers are sharing revenue with adult chat services, conference calling centers, party lines, and others that are able to attract lots of incoming phone calls to their networks. The rural carriers charge the high rates and then split the revenue with these partners."

In its public policy statement on the issue, AT&T wrote that "A June 2007 FCC decision prohibits other providers, including those with which Google Voice competes, from taking such action [to selectively block calls]. Google has dismissed the Commissions order, claiming that Google Voice 'isnt a traditional phone service and shouldnt be regulated like other common carriers.'"

AT&T insists that Google Voice is simply a "creatively packaged" service with the same features as existing FCC-regulated phone services. "By openly flaunting the call blocking prohibition that applies to its competitors," Quinn wrote, "Google is acting in a manner inconsistent with the spirit, if not the letter, of the FCC's fourth principle contained in its Internet Policy Statement. Ironically, Google is also flouting the so-called 'fifth principle of non-discrimination' for which Google has so fervently advocated."

"While Google argues for others to be bound by net neutrality rules, it argues against itself being bound by common carriage, which the Financial Times aptly recognized as an intellectual contradiction.'" Quinn wrote. "Such a contradiction highlights the fallacy of any approach to Internet regulation that focuses myopically on network providers, but not application, service, and content providers."

He concluded, "the Commission cannot, through inaction or otherwise, give Google a special privilege to play by its own rules while the rest of the industry, including those who compete with Google, must instead adhere to Commission regulations. We urge the Commission to level the playing field and order Google to play by the same rules as its competitors."
post #2 of 48
I hate to say it, but I think I'm gonna side with AT&T here -- you really can't demand legal control to give you open access to work against your competition, but then claim exclusive indepence from the regulations that bind them. It just isn't fair competition.
post #3 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by iCarbon View Post

I hate to say it, but I think I'm gonna side with AT&T here -- you really can't demand legal control to give you open access to work against your competition, but then claim exclusive indepence from the regulations that bind them. It just isn't fair competition.

yyyeah sort of... The problem is; ATT isn't doing this for the sake of fairness. ATT is doing this because they want to do anything they can to defeat net neutrality. Which makes them disingenuous, which makes them liars in my book. Beyond that, as far as I care, net neutrality is about pipe providers and the throttling of those pipes that I pay my already too high monthly fee for.
post #4 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by iCarbon View Post

I hate to say it, but I think I'm gonna side with AT&T here -- you really can't demand legal control to give you open access to work against your competition, but then claim exclusive indepence from the regulations that bind them. It just isn't fair competition.

I'm thinking what fell thru the cracks in Washington that would allow ANY location in the United States to get away with charging ONE HUNDRED TIMES the going rate to connect a call to its subscribers. Aside from that yes I for the moment side with AT&T since they and most every other carrier VOIP included seem to take the lumps of allowing the calls to connect to (presumably) these locations.
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #5 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by isaidso View Post

yyyeah sort of... The problem is; ATT isn't doing this for the sake of fairness. ATT is doing this because they want to do anything they can to defeat net neutrality. Which makes them disingenuous, which makes them liars in my book. Beyond that, as far as I care, net neutrality is about pipe providers and the throttling of those pipes that I pay my already too high monthly fee for.

THIS.... and yes... if anyone thinks AT&T is stepping up to bat for the poor defenseless GoogleVoice users who can't call their 98 year old grandmother in Stump Swamp, LA then I got a nice __insert your favorite bridge or landmark__ to sell them. Oh and if this is the BEST the AT&T legal team has come up with to besmirch or attack Google then they don't have a prayer of tearing down net neutrality.

Dave
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #6 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by isaidso View Post

yyyeah sort of... The problem is; ATT isn't doing this for the sake of fairness. ATT is doing this because they want to do anything they can to defeat net neutrality. Which makes them disingenuous, which makes them liars in my book. Beyond that, as far as I care, net neutrality is about pipe providers and the throttling of those pipes that I pay my already too high monthly fee for.

AT&T are being very disingenuous, and normally I would simply take anything they say as spin and lies. This is no different, as far as their motives.

But, regardless of their intent, I agree with them in this case. Google loves to argue for net neutrality and that it should apply to wireless providers just as to wired, because in the end they are providing voice and data services, just as the landline providers are. Google posits that the medium is not to be considered when applying net neutrality-wired and wireless should fall under the same provisions. Well, then they ought to take as well as they give. If they are providing a telephony service through Google Voice, then they need to apply and be constrained by the same regulations that traditional providers have to. Otherwise they give credence to the wireless providers argument that they are different enough from wired provider as not to be held to the same requirement. If Google can argue it, so then can the wireless companies.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #7 of 48
Do we still believe AT&T had nothing to do with the rejection (or delay) of Google Voice in the App Store?
post #8 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Quinn said Google has blocked its Google Voice users from placing calls to some phone numbers in rural locations in order to cut costs. AT&T, like other phone companies, are prohibited from selectively denying service to their users by regulations designed to guarantee phone access to all users regardless of whether it is profitable for them to do so. Without such regulations in place, much of rural America would never have been commercially viable for private phone companies to service.

Quinn said that "Google Voice thus has claimed for itself a significant advantage over providers offering competing services." His comments were echoed by USTelecom, a telephony trade group which issued a statement that accused Google of "effectively assuming the power to decide who its customer can call and what content they can access."



AH HA!



It really WAS AT&T that denied the Google Voice app for the iPhone!!
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
post #9 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

AT&T are being very disingenuous, and normally I would simply take anything they say as spin and lies. This is no different, as far as their motives.

But, regardless of their intent, I agree with them in this case. Google loves to argue for net neutrality and that it should apply to wireless providers just as to wired, because in the end they are providing voice and data services, just as the landline providers are. Google posits that the medium is not to be considered when applying net neutrality-wired and wireless should fall under the same provisions. Well, then they ought to take as well as they give. If they are providing a telephony service through Google Voice, then they need to apply and be constrained by the same regulations that traditional providers have to. Otherwise they give credence to the wireless providers argument that they are different enough from wired provider as not to be held to the same requirement. If Google can argue it, so then can the wireless companies.

Funny thing is...

In the last few years its been AT&T out in front condemning these services/locations and prompting the FCC to take charge (the FCC did, but with some rules that were still pretty simple to maneuver around) and was even withholding payments due to these very sleazy operators and the FCC.

A link for some initial info: http://www.telcocost.com/archives/20...is_traffic.htm

Then search 'Traffic pumping' for a ton of articles with nearly all of the major carriers and cell phone providers to some degree who have spoke out against and or flat out withheld money to these vultures who are using a policy that was intended to ensure rural locations equal access to telco services but instead are being used to offer free phone sex and conference calling payed for by the telcos.

Dave
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #10 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post


AH HA!
It really WAS AT&T that denied the Google Voice app for the iPhone!!

ummmm ya think?



Dave
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #11 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney View Post

Do we still believe AT&T had nothing to do with the rejection (or delay) of Google Voice in the App Store?

GV the service competes with AT&T. GV the app does not. It simply makes it more convenient, so what reason would AT&T have for asking Apple to deny the app? And what other reasons would lead you to believe AT&T was involved, outside of AT&T and Apple's official statements denying not only AT&T being involved or consulted, but that nothing in the Apple/AT&T contract would obligate Apple to deny the app?

AT&T was involved only if Apple boldly and plainly lied to the FCC.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #12 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by iCarbon View Post

I hate to say it, but I think I'm gonna side with AT&T here -- you really can't demand legal control to give you open access to work against your competition, but then claim exclusive indepence from the regulations that bind them. It just isn't fair competition.

I couldn't agree more. But, this is pretty much the pattern at Google, to act as though the law doesn't apply to you or try to find a way to do an end-run around it. If that doesn't work, try to rewrite it. Well, fortunately, the Google Books settlement is now toast in it's original form. Hopefully, the FCC will get on the ball here and lay down the law on them.
post #13 of 48
Google caught breaking the rules that they want everyone else to follow? Am I the only one seeing this?

Google is nothing but an ad generator. Their entire existence (and profit model) is centered on sticking as many ads in front of us as they can (in the form of pop-up windows, banners, and manipulated search results).

They want nothing more than complete control of our access to the internet, email, and now voice service.
post #14 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by noexpectations View Post

They want nothing more than complete control of our access to the internet, email, and now voice service.

Google getting complete access to email and voice is really impossible to force, it is the user that voluntarily uses their service. I don't know about internet, they aren't an ISP except in one city. If you have a problem with a given ad provider, that's trivial to block.
post #15 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Google getting complete access to email and voice is really impossible to force, it is the user that voluntarily uses their service. I don't know about internet, they aren't an ISP except in one city. If you have a problem with a given ad provider, that's trivial to block.

No, no, that makes too much sense. Better to just give in to the hype (or hyperbole..)


They are the monster in the shadows. They are solely responsible for the loss all of privacy on the internet. They seek to control all and only the foolish or simple minded would use their service. They are to blame for all that is wrong. They collect the data you provide and steal the rest. They should not and cannot be trusted. They are always driven by motives that are not in your best interest. Everything they do is evil and wrong.

I dunno. The googlers I see in the morning when I grab my morning coffee and drop my son at the daycare seem nice enough.

Anyhoo, they are on the wrong side of this argument (the one about network neutrality and non-traditional telephony for those thrown off by the paranoid tangents).

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #16 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by iCarbon View Post

I hate to say it,

it is completely different: ATT provide a pipe; Google provides a value-added service. AT&T locks consumers out by prohibiting calls while Google offers those same consumers an easier way to communicate. It is not wirelessco vs MVNO.
post #17 of 48
GV the app is available for other phones that Att sells, probably because Att has no way of blocking them from being installed.

That being said, it is a free service, so you can't complain. Though Google must be benefiting from harvesting the data, somehow; why else do it?

Google is intent on taking over advertising, but the net result is this: relevant ads. They are laid quite nicely on the side to my search results and are clearly marked. I've used some and benefited from the results.

Some find them harvesting all that data to provide those results evil, but I have yet to experience any evil in my gmail inbox, nor in my chats, or in my searches. I have yet to experience any evil either with FireFox and having Google as the main search engine either. Mozilla gets $50 million and I get a browser with a search engine that works.
post #18 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

AT&T are being very disingenuous, and normally I would simply take anything they say as spin and lies. This is no different, as far as their motives.

But, regardless of their intent, I agree with them in this case. Google loves to argue for net neutrality and that it should apply to wireless providers just as to wired, because in the end they are providing voice and data services, just as the landline providers are. Google posits that the medium is not to be considered when applying net neutrality-wired and wireless should fall under the same provisions. Well, then they ought to take as well as they give. If they are providing a telephony service through Google Voice, then they need to apply and be constrained by the same regulations that traditional providers have to. Otherwise they give credence to the wireless providers argument that they are different enough from wired provider as not to be held to the same requirement. If Google can argue it, so then can the wireless companies.

I agree totally. When the initial story broke about Apple declining Google Voice app, I said I could see the advantages for the consumer, but this app is competing with wireless companies and duplicating features on iPhone (latter may not be true) about iPhone features). I see Google as another MS of the internet and to be frank, I do not like companies who try to have a monopoly because only the consumer suffers. When there is healthy competition in market, the consumer gets a product that is innovative, well designed and probably priced.

btw: just installed snow leopard today, since in India, they had to resolve a scam that retailers were trying to force consumers, who had bought new systems in last 2 months to pay full price for the upgrade. My system feels like its had a spring clean
post #19 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

AT&T are being very disingenuous, and normally I would simply take anything they say as spin and lies. This is no different, as far as their motives.

But, regardless of their intent, I agree with them in this case. Google loves to argue for net neutrality and that it should apply to wireless providers just as to wired, because in the end they are providing voice and data services, just as the landline providers are. Google posits that the medium is not to be considered when applying net neutrality-wired and wireless should fall under the same provisions. Well, then they ought to take as well as they give. If they are providing a telephony service through Google Voice, then they need to apply and be constrained by the same regulations that traditional providers have to. Otherwise they give credence to the wireless providers argument that they are different enough from wired provider as not to be held to the same requirement. If Google can argue it, so then can the wireless companies.

Sorry, I don't see it. The Google thing is an application that runs on top of a network. Net Neutrality is about the network. It's a telecom network issue, not a telecom service issue. There may be legitimate issues concerning Google Voice. I just don't see them as being germane to the net neutrality. I see this as ATT trying to confuse the issue. (big surprise)
post #20 of 48
Bravo AT&T for using your Engineering Talents to advise your legal team to make sure Google is included in Net Neutrality.
post #21 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by isaidso View Post

Sorry, I don't see it. The Google thing is an application that runs on top of a network. Net Neutrality is about the network. It's a telecom network issue, not a telecom service issue. There may be legitimate issues concerning Google Voice. I just don't see them as being germane to the net neutrality. I see this as ATT trying to confuse the issue. (big surprise)

BS. Google wants to be a Telco and dominate the Web Services Space. Google wanted to get bandwith in the cheap with their bidding and everyone praised them as just wanting to raise the bidding--they wanted in and weren't expecting the bidding to be so high.

Now they want in without having to be regulated like a Telco by their attempt to control the app service layer and all the Net's data.
post #22 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by isaidso View Post

Sorry, I don't see it. The Google thing is an application that runs on top of a network. Net Neutrality is about the network. It's a telecom network issue, not a telecom service issue. There may be legitimate issues concerning Google Voice. I just don't see them as being germane to the net neutrality. I see this as ATT trying to confuse the issue. (big surprise)

That is because you are only looking one of two issues. There are really two issues at play both regulated by the FCC, one is net neutrality, the other is phone service regulations.
post #23 of 48
Nice way to shift discussion to something completely unrelated.

Net neutrality is all about packet routing and priority. Google DOES NOT route packets nor provide internet access services to anyone, so this is completely irrelevant straw man argument.

If AT&T has issues with Google voice they should discuss them with FCC on different terms, and not bring net neutrality into this discussion which is completely irrelevant.

Mac Pro, 8 Core, 32 GB RAM, nVidia GTX 285 1 GB, 2 TB storage, 240 GB OWC Mercury Extreme SSD, 30'' Cinema Display, 27'' iMac, 24'' iMac, 17'' MBP, 13'' MBP, 32 GB iPhone 4, 64 GB iPad 3

Reply

Mac Pro, 8 Core, 32 GB RAM, nVidia GTX 285 1 GB, 2 TB storage, 240 GB OWC Mercury Extreme SSD, 30'' Cinema Display, 27'' iMac, 24'' iMac, 17'' MBP, 13'' MBP, 32 GB iPhone 4, 64 GB iPad 3

Reply
post #24 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

AT&T are being very disingenuous, and normally I would simply take anything they say as spin and lies. This is no different, as far as their motives.

But, regardless of their intent, I agree with them in this case. Google loves to argue for net neutrality and that it should apply to wireless providers just as to wired, because in the end they are providing voice and data services, just as the landline providers are. Google posits that the medium is not to be considered when applying net neutrality-wired and wireless should fall under the same provisions. Well, then they ought to take as well as they give. If they are providing a telephony service through Google Voice, then they need to apply and be constrained by the same regulations that traditional providers have to. Otherwise they give credence to the wireless providers argument that they are different enough from wired provider as not to be held to the same requirement. If Google can argue it, so then can the wireless companies.

Google is NOT providing telephony services. Google works with your existing telephone service provider.

Mac Pro, 8 Core, 32 GB RAM, nVidia GTX 285 1 GB, 2 TB storage, 240 GB OWC Mercury Extreme SSD, 30'' Cinema Display, 27'' iMac, 24'' iMac, 17'' MBP, 13'' MBP, 32 GB iPhone 4, 64 GB iPad 3

Reply

Mac Pro, 8 Core, 32 GB RAM, nVidia GTX 285 1 GB, 2 TB storage, 240 GB OWC Mercury Extreme SSD, 30'' Cinema Display, 27'' iMac, 24'' iMac, 17'' MBP, 13'' MBP, 32 GB iPhone 4, 64 GB iPad 3

Reply
post #25 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by isaidso View Post

yyyeah sort of... The problem is; ATT isn't doing this for the sake of fairness. ATT is doing this because they want to do anything they can to defeat net neutrality. Which makes them disingenuous, which makes them liars in my book. Beyond that, as far as I care, net neutrality is about pipe providers and the throttling of those pipes that I pay my already too high monthly fee for.

That's right, play the man instead of the ball.

Its a lot easier to understand someone's argument if you can remind yourself to dislike them first. Call them a liar and then you don't have to consider what they said. Complain that you're already paying money for a service, and you don't have to remember that some arguments are complex. You have no idea what their costs are. You got a glimpse of it here, but you closed your eyes to it. What AT&T is saying is Fair is fair. If you want to apply this rule to us, then apply it to everybody. Frankly I love Google, but I think they're arguing in favor of a double-standard on the basis of a pretty weasely distinction.
post #26 of 48
First there's that appalling book licensing deal that they tried to sneak in under the radar. Then this. Google is more and more being evil.
post #27 of 48
None of these rules apply to google and here is why, Google Voice is a 100% free service, unless you wanna make overseas calls. AT&T in the other end is a paid service, and if you pay for unlimited data they should not have a saying in how you use it, kind of remind me of this comercial http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suBGbef5p3g
post #28 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario View Post

Google is NOT providing telephony services. Google works with your existing telephone service provider.

They are not providing telephony services in the traditional manner, no. They don't provide you with a landline or wireless connection or even a VOIP connection for now. And yes, you use the service through your existing provider. However, they do provide a phone number and the offer long distance services, both of which are core telephone services.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #29 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraklinc View Post

None of these rules apply to google and here is why, Google Voice is a 100% free service, unless you wanna make overseas calls. AT&T in the other end is a paid service, and if you pay for unlimited data they should not have a saying in how you use it, kind of remind me of this comercial http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suBGbef5p3g

It is free for now. It is beta for now. It is invite only for now. There is nothing preventing them from switching it to a paid service at any time. In fact, I would consider it quite likely that when it leave beta, there will be a free service and a paid, premium service.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #30 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by isaidso View Post

Sorry, I don't see it. The Google thing is an application that runs on top of a network. Net Neutrality is about the network. It's a telecom network issue, not a telecom service issue. There may be legitimate issues concerning Google Voice. I just don't see them as being germane to the net neutrality. I see this as ATT trying to confuse the issue. (big surprise)

Actually, I agree with you. Regulating how Google operates their GV service quite likely does fall under different definitions than the regulation of the networks themselves. And I obviously agree that AT&T is trying to muddle the issue at hand. But, I think that fairness, open-ness and neutrality are important objectives both for the networks and for the service providers. You are right, perhaps AT&T is just talking out of their ass and the FCC needs to ignore their request regarding GV in the context of just network neutrality, but they do need to look at how the GV service operates and what regulations they should have to follow.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #31 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by isaidso View Post

yyyeah sort of... The problem is; ATT isn't doing this for the sake of fairness. ATT is doing this because they want to do anything they can to defeat net neutrality. Which makes them disingenuous, which makes them liars in my book. Beyond that, as far as I care, net neutrality is about pipe providers and the throttling of those pipes that I pay my already too high monthly fee for.



And google has always been a leech company
post #32 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by noexpectations View Post

Google caught breaking the rules that they want everyone else to follow? Am I the only one seeing this?

Perhaps you're right!

Maybe Google should just follow the example AT&T themselves set a few years ago and simply ILLEGALLY WITHHOLD PAYMENT from these shysters.

Would that make it all better?

Dave
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #33 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney View Post

Do we still believe AT&T had nothing to do with the rejection (or delay) of Google Voice in the App Store?

Or lack of a mic(read camera) in the iPod Touch? It could have been an awesome all in one skype phone.
post #34 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by iCarbon View Post

I hate to say it, but I think I'm gonna side with AT&T here -- you really can't demand legal control to give you open access to work against your competition, but then claim exclusive indepence from the regulations that bind them. It just isn't fair competition.

Exactly. People are mixing it all up here for the most part and comparing things that should not be compared.

The ruling is about net neutrality on the networks, not about service on the networks. AT&T and other network providers are being told that they are now dumb pipes and that they have to allow competing services on their own network.

This effectively separates the services from the pipe.

But ... AT&T is right about the next step.

If Google is just a service provider using a dumb pipe and AT&T is also a service provider using a dumb pipe, then both service providers need to be playing by the same rules. The net neutrality rule in and of itself says nothing about the services, but if it passes, then it follows that Google is a telcom service provider in this new world in the exact same way that AT&T is.

It's still going to be a win for the consumer because we would have an even playing field and competition for a change, but Google *is* a telcom provider in this new setup and has to play by the same regulations.
post #35 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

Exactly. People are mixing it all up here for the most part and comparing things that should not be compared.

The ruling is about net neutrality on the networks, not about service on the networks. AT&T and other network providers are being told that they are now dumb pipes and that they have to allow competing services on their own network.

This effectively separates the services from the pipe.

But ... AT&T is right about the next step.

If Google is just a service provider using a dumb pipe and AT&T is also a service provider using a dumb pipe, then both service providers need to be playing by the same rules. The net neutrality rule in and of itself says nothing about the services, but if it passes, then it follows that Google is a telcom service provider in this new world in the exact same way that AT&T is.

It's still going to be a win for the consumer because we would have an even playing field and competition for a change, but Google *is* a telcom provider in this new setup and has to play by the same regulations.

While I agree with your conclusion, I think this, "The ruling is about net neutrality on the networks, not about service on the networks," is something of a distinction without a difference. Yes, strictly speaking, one could interpret "net neutrality" as being about keeping "the last mile" free, but the idea behind the term is actually much broader than that. The FCC ought not treat information access and communications differently as freedom in both of these areas is equally important to maintaining a healthy democracy, and making everyone play by the same rules is indisputably in the public interest. So, whether one controls the physical networks, or the services that run on them, the same basic principles must be applied.

Obviously AT&T means to stick it to Google here. But they also happen to be entirely correct.
post #36 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney View Post

Do we still believe AT&T had nothing to do with the rejection (or delay) of Google Voice in the App Store?

Nope. AT&T had everything to do with it. It's becoming clearer every day.
post #37 of 48
AT&T is one of the WORST wireless companies out there.

Absolutely terrible service quality. Slow 3G. Slow EDGE.



And people here are using irrational arguments to defend them.

Unbelievable.
Fragmentation is not just something we have to acknowledge and accept. Fragmentation is something that we deal with every day, and we must accept it as a fact of the iPhone platform experience.

Ste...
Reply
Fragmentation is not just something we have to acknowledge and accept. Fragmentation is something that we deal with every day, and we must accept it as a fact of the iPhone platform experience.

Ste...
Reply
post #38 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario View Post

Google is NOT providing telephony services. Google works with your existing telephone service provider.

No they are. Inbound calls terminate to a GV number terminate to google...who charges a termination fee to the PSTNs. They route to your real phone via their VoIP infrastructure and Google pays them a termination fee. They look just like any other carrier behind the scenes. They just handle that last mile weirdly.

It's a wash more or less for Google but they are providing telephony service via their VoIP core except when they have to terminate to one of those rural carriers. Then, instead of paying $0.02 to $0.05 a minute they pay $2.00 a minute. And they start loosing $$$.

What AT&T is saying is that as a VoIP telephony company, Google must terminate calls to rural carriers because it's a huge cost for everyone else to keep a level playing field.

Just because Google is eating the costs for the moment doesn't mean that they aren't a carrier. They simply latched on to what ooma figured out. It really only costs $21/year or so to provide VoIP services in termination costs (in normal cases) + the cost of your pipes. If they had to play by the same rules, they couldn't give away service for free to hurt the incumbents.

The termination fees are subject to regulation so it's not a free market...

I'm a proponent for net neutrality but with caveats. You certainly don't want Apple or Google locked out by ISPs or singled out for higher rates but you also don't want to give Apple or Google a free ride because ultimately, if there's no money in being a carrier those carriers will simply stop investing in last mile infrastructure. It costs billions to do so.

And you need them to because Google sure as heck isn't going to wire the whole US and the only other folks are the cable companies. You may think that AT&T or Verizon sucks but mostly the cablecos suck more.
post #39 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by g3pro View Post

AT&T is one of the WORST wireless companies out there.

Absolutely terrible service quality. Slow 3G. Slow EDGE.



And people here are using irrational arguments to defend them.

Unbelievable.

No, they are not the worst. I have excellent coverage and speedy 3G rates. Never have any dropped calls either.
post #40 of 48
So Apple Fans have now added Google to the "HATE LIST"?

Is there any company that Apple Fans don't hate. The shere stupidity with the posts in this forum and every other Apple Forum makes me think that I'm real glad that my iPhone will be the last Apple product I will buy.

Apple users spread Hate and mistrust to every company that even has the remotest advantage to them.

You are all a bunch of lunatic Nut Cases that need severe counseling.

Steve Jobs is not a leader, he is not a cult and neither is Apple for anything but a piece of tech that plays music and makes really bad phone calls, Apple Fans spread hate and mistrust to the point of it being really scary as an outside observer.

Apple Fanatics and the Tea Party Clan need to get together. You'd have a great time spreading hate and lies about everything when you don't know SHIT about anything but APPLE and that's pathetic.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › AT&T fires back at Google on net neutrality rules