AT&T fires back at Google on net neutrality rules
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 Commission?s order, claiming that Google Voice 'isn?t a traditional phone service and shouldn?t 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."
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 Commission?s order, claiming that Google Voice 'isn?t a traditional phone service and shouldn?t 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."
Comments
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.
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.
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
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.
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!!
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
AH HA! It really WAS AT&T that denied the Google Voice app for the iPhone!!
ummmm ya think?
Dave
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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
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)
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.