AT&T weighs in against Net neutrality for wireless networks

Posted:
in iPhone edited January 2014
AT&T, the exclusive carrier of the iPhone in the U.S., has spoken out against recent statements by the Federal Communications Commission chairman in favor of Net neutrality.



While AT&T supports the principles outlined Monday by Chairman Julius Genachowski for broadband access, the nation's second-largest wireless carrier reportedly does not have the same feeling for the cellphone market -- something Genachowski also mentioned in his speech Monday. In a new report from CNet, an AT&T spokesman is quoted as saying that wireless networks are different from broadband because bandwidth is limited.



"We are concerned, however, that the FCC appears ready to extend the entire array of Net neutrality requirements to what is perhaps the most competitive consumer market in America: wireless services," Jim Cicconi, AT&T's senior vice president of external and legislative affairs, reportedly said.



Joining AT&T in showing concern toward Genachowski's remarks was Verizon. A company spokesperson said some of the goals outlined in the FCC chairman's remarks could have "unintended consequences."



As exclusive agreements like the one between AT&T and Apple for the iPhone have gained more attention, the FCC has begun an investigation into the matter at the request of members of the U.S. Senate. In response, Verizon agreed to unlock some exclusive phones for use on smaller wireless carriers in rural areas.



The FCC's concern in the matter has been with some smaller markets where major carriers do not offer service. Because the iPhone is exclusive to AT&T, a customer would be unable to obtain the device in an area where AT&T does not provide coverage. The Rural Cellular Association, a group of smaller tier II and tier III wireless carriers, lobbied members of the U.S. Senate for their cause. The association has argued that their inability to provide their customers with some of the most popular mobile handsets and smartphones makes it difficult for them to compete, especially in markets where their coverage does overlap with some of the big tier I operators.



"There are markets in the country where if you wanted an iPhone, if you wanted a Pre, you just couldn?t get it -- from anyone," Genachowski said in July. "So one question is, is that consistent with broad consumer interests?"



In addition, the FCC has also begun an investigation into wireless carrier competition. The commission has said its goal is to increase competition, innovation and consumer protection in the market. In August, the FCC released a number of official notices of inquiry, announcing investigations designed to look into wireless innovation and investment, mobile wireless competition, and additional opportunities to protect and empower consumers in the communications marketplace.



The FCC has also shown interest in Apple's App Store approval process. Apple, Google and AT&T all responded to an inquiry initiated after the Google Voice application was not accepted into the iPhone App Store.



On Monday, Genachowski outlined six principles he would like to see implemented in support of Net neutrality. They include freedom to access legal content and to use applications of the users' choice. The goal is to keep the Internet a free and open place, and prevent Internet service providers from selectively blocking or limiting access to specific services, like Voice Over IP services and peer-to-peer downloading software.
«1345

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 81
    Dear AT&T: Get fucked.



    You can throttle a connection during peak load to protect network stability without subverting and selectively implementing standards and protocols.
  • Reply 2 of 81
    AT&T's role in GV's "rejection" is becoming clearer by the day.
  • Reply 3 of 81
    Yes, and there's a reason AT&T's bandwidth is limited. Because they don't invest as much as they should in their network.
  • Reply 4 of 81
    AT&T: Go to hell, really.



    Invest in your network. Solve the bandwidth crunch, rather than degrade the service for your customers who are already paying very large monthly bills for your service.



    I have no sympathy. Your network being slow is not because of "over-usage" or "abuse". It's because you've refused to invest in it.



    There's a reason why Sprint and Verizon's data networks totally waste AT&T's: They have invested in their infrastructure. Sprint and Verizon aircards feel like portable DSL modems; that's how fast their service is.



    Fix your network, AT&T, rather than fight against rules to make things fair for everyone.
  • Reply 5 of 81
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post


    AT&T's role in GV's "rejection" is becoming clearer by the day.



    Based on what?
  • Reply 6 of 81
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by steviet02 View Post


    Based on what?



    AT&T is responsible for killing GV on the iPhone. Apple had little to do with it, apart from covering for AT&T.



    Take Apple out of the mix for a second.



    Why do you think AT&T wanted to pull GV from the iPhone, and not other phones on its network?



    AT&T doesn't have the ability to muscle RIM into blocking specific apps. In fact, I'm not even certain that apps can be blocked for Blackberry, correct me if I'm wrong. They do have that ability with the iPhone, which needs Apple's blessing for every app installed unless it's jailbroken (which voids warranty and risks being bricked by OS updates).



    What motivation would Apple possibly have to block Google Voice on its own? It doesn't compete with any Apple product or service, and it would increase the value of the iPhone. If anything, Apple would want to encourage the development of an iPhone Google Voice app.



    It's AT&T that is threatened.



    AT&T lacks technical and/or legal means to prohibit Windows Mobile and Blackberry users from installing third party applications. AT&T can?t sue Google for offering a Blackberry app. All they can do is ban things in the terms of service, and pray people will obey. Apple has declared themselves gatekeeper for iTunes Store content, and that makes Apple responsible for its content. Apple and AT&T have agreements in place. Through those agreements, AT&T gains a level of control over third party applications they don?t enjoy with the other handsets. Had Apple gone with Verizon instead, we'd be likely be seeing the exact same thing.



    And really, The iPhone has hit AT&T in numbers it can?t handle, and AT&T must be in a terrible love/hate relationship over it with both Apple and the consumers who have the iPhone. BB users are more likely business users and therefore less likely to jack around with apps like slingplayer or google voice. Consumer type iPhone users are far more likely to suck up data with these apps, and far more likely to drop expensive SMS services and replace them. Business users won?t hassle with it, or will be prevented by corporate IT policy.



    Makes plenty sense for AT&T to treat iPhone differently than other phones. AT&T holds the iPhone to a different set of standards and rules than other devices on its network.



    The iPhone, in terms of network strain, data usage, and consumer usage habits, is unprecedented. It will overtake RIM. It's only a matter of time, and it'll happen sooner than we think. That will be an entirely unique strain on the major carriers, both financially and in terms of capacity. AT&T, at least in this case, saw the writing on the wall, and it did the most prudent thing in terms of it preparedness (or lack thereof.) They put a stop to GV.
  • Reply 7 of 81
    Former SBC (now AT&T) CEO Ed Whitacre:



    How concerned are you about Internet upstarts like Google, MSN, Vonage, and others?

    How do you think they're going to get to customers? Through a broadband pipe. Cable companies have them. We have them. Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it. So there's going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they're using. Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?

    The Internet can't be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment and for a Google or Yahoo! (YHOO ) or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts!





    The market will find a way around AT&T eventually.



    note: Whitacre is the guy doing the GM commercials now. He brags that he doesn't know about cars, just like he bragged that he didn't use a computer or email at AT&T.
  • Reply 8 of 81
    al_bundyal_bundy Posts: 1,525member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post


    AT&T is responsible for killing GV on the iPhone. Apple had little to do with it, apart from covering for AT&T.



    Take Apple out of the mix for a second.



    Why do you think AT&T wanted to pull GV from the iPhone, and not other phones on its network?



    AT&T doesn't have the ability to muscle RIM into blocking specific apps. In fact, I'm not even certain that apps can be blocked for Blackberry, correct me if I'm wrong. They do have that ability with the iPhone, which needs Apple's blessing for every app installed unless it's jailbroken (which voids warranty and risks being bricked by OS updates).



    What motivation would Apple possibly have to block Google Voice on its own? It doesn't compete with any Apple product or service, and it would increase the value of the iPhone. If anything, Apple would want to encourage the development of an iPhone Google Voice app.



    It's AT&T that is threatened.



    AT&T lacks technical and/or legal means to prohibit Windows Mobile and Blackberry users from installing third party applications. AT&T can’t sue Google for offering a Blackberry app. All they can do is ban things in the terms of service, and pray people will obey. Apple has declared themselves gatekeeper for iTunes Store content, and that makes Apple responsible for its content. Apple and AT&T have agreements in place. Through those agreements, AT&T gains a level of control over third party applications they don’t enjoy with the other handsets. Had Apple gone with Verizon instead, we'd be likely be seeing the exact same thing.



    And really, The iPhone has hit AT&T in numbers it can’t handle, and AT&T must be in a terrible love/hate relationship over it with both Apple and the consumers who have the iPhone. BB users are more likely business users and therefore less likely to jack around with apps like slingplayer or google voice. Consumer type iPhone users are far more likely to suck up data with these apps, and far more likely to drop expensive SMS services and replace them. Business users won’t hassle with it, or will be prevented by corporate IT policy.



    Makes plenty sense for AT&T to treat iPhone differently than other phones. AT&T holds the iPhone to a different set of standards and rules than other devices on its network.



    The iPhone, in terms of network strain, data usage, and consumer usage habits, is unprecedented. It will overtake RIM. It's only a matter of time, and it'll happen sooner than we think. That will be an entirely unique strain on the major carriers, both financially and in terms of capacity. AT&T, at least in this case, saw the writing on the wall, and it did the most prudent thing in terms of it preparedness (or lack thereof.) They put a stop to GV.



    you can block apps on the blackberry. most BB's are corporate users and either won't install GV or their IT deparments will block any unapproved app from being installed via the BES server. Or they will just blackhole the DNS if they see GV traffic going through their internal network via the BES server



    BB's might not be as flashy, but if your corporate policy requires you to lock them down for security and other reasons then BB will easily beat the iPhone in the ability to do so. and it will be a lot cheaper
  • Reply 9 of 81
    al_bundyal_bundy Posts: 1,525member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by walshbj View Post


    Former SBC (now AT&T) CEO Ed Whitacre:



    How concerned are you about Internet upstarts like Google, MSN, Vonage, and others?

    How do you think they're going to get to customers? Through a broadband pipe. Cable companies have them. We have them. Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it. So there's going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they're using. Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?

    The Internet can't be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment and for a Google or Yahoo! (YHOO ) or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts!





    The market will find a way around AT&T eventually.



    note: Whitacre is the guy doing the GM commercials now. He brags that he doesn't know about cars, just like he bragged that he didn't use a computer or email at AT&T.



    why should AT&T, VZW, T-Mo and Sprint continue to upgrade their networks if companies like Google can just sneak in and offer a cheaper service because they can? I bet once LTE comes out the telcos will just charge you $100 per month flat rate for the data and will let you run whatever you want
  • Reply 10 of 81
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post


    AT&T is responsible for killing GV on the iPhone. Apple had little to do with it, apart from covering for AT&T.



    I don't see sufficient evidence to support that view. If anything, the evidence points directly in the opposite direction. Apple has a strong incentive to keep Google from subverting its platforms; the effect on AT&T is minimal at most.
  • Reply 11 of 81
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by al_bundy View Post


    why should AT&T, VZW, T-Mo and Sprint continue to upgrade their networks if companies like Google can just sneak in and offer a cheaper service because they can?



    Because it's not in the public interest to allow the wireless carriers to use their position of control of a public resource to stifle competition and innovation. They're making plenty of money on the pipes, but, if they find it not profitable enough, they can always return their spectrum to the FCC. I doubt we see that happening even if strict wireless net neutrality is enforced for them.
  • Reply 12 of 81
    al_bundyal_bundy Posts: 1,525member
    Google bid on the 700MHz a few years ago but lost. Rumors were they only did it to saddle potential competition with debt. and there have been two successful startups in the cell phone business in the last few years. Boost Mobile and MetroPCS. If Google wants to be in the phone business they should pony up the cash and buy frequencies and set up roaming agreements with other carriers



    Net Neutrality may work in home broadband to a point, but in the cell phone business there is enough evidence going back years to spank Google in court if they complain
  • Reply 13 of 81
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    I don't see sufficient evidence to support that view. If anything, the evidence points directly in the opposite direction. Apple has a strong incentive to keep Google from subverting its platforms; the effect on AT&T is minimal at most.



    Tons of AT&T wireless customers who pay $20 for unlimited text or whatever unlimited text costs on a family plan would DROP that plan immediately for Google Voice. Pure profit out the window.
  • Reply 14 of 81
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by al_bundy View Post


    why should AT&T, VZW, T-Mo and Sprint continue to upgrade their networks if companies like Google can just sneak in and offer a cheaper service because they can? I bet once LTE comes out the telcos will just charge you $100 per month flat rate for the data and will let you run whatever you want



    That's a good question. Google Voice is a great solution when you don't have decent AT&T Wireless coverage in your home - as long as you have a landline. With GV you have free unlimited long distance and you won't consume minutes when people call you. It's an excellent alternative to AT&T's MicroCell.



    The downside is having a landline, which many people have dropped.
  • Reply 15 of 81
    Of course AT&T (and Verizon and all the others too) oppose Net Neutrality (except were it does not gore their ox). IT IS ALL ABOUT $. They will take all the $ they possibly can from the customer. This is a profit based economy. Do you think the High and Mighty AT&T managers will take pay cuts so that we (consumers) can save $0.01 a month on our data plan? What about the stock holders? Will they buy AT&T stock if they get less than their 3 - 5% growth/dividend each quarter?



    We consumers are paying for that, ALL of it. It pays your salary (in the industry you work in). AT&T will squeeze every $0.01 out of us they can. We can only vote with our pocket books/wallets and support those that do give us what we want. (REMEMBER that we will pay one way or the other: lower data plan rates and if everybody does the same then in your industry - ultimately lower salaries.) This is the capitalist economic system we have chosen.
  • Reply 16 of 81
    Google Voice is NOT a VOIP application.

    Google Voice is NOT a VOIP application.

    Google Voice is NOT a VOIP application.



    Every article on AppleInsider that mentions the iPhone and AT&T should state "Google Voice is NOT a VOIP application" at the bottom.



    How long is it going to take for people who don't even know what Google Voice is to stop theorizing about it?
  • Reply 17 of 81
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iru69 View Post


    Google Voice is NOT a VOIP application.

    Google Voice is NOT a VOIP application.

    Google Voice is NOT a VOIP application.



    Every article on AppleInsider that mentions the iPhone and AT&T should state "Google Voice is NOT a VOIP application" at the bottom.



    How long is it going to take for people who don't even know what Google Voice is to stop theorizing about it?



    I just searched the thread for VOIP and only your comment came up. What am I missing?

    I have GV, I know what it is. Who said it was VOIP?
  • Reply 18 of 81
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by walshbj View Post


    Tons of AT&T wireless customers who pay $20 for unlimited text or whatever unlimited text costs on a family plan would DROP that plan immediately for Google Voice. Pure profit out the window.



    There are many ways to send free text messages from an iPhone:



    http://www.mydigitallife.info/2008/0...and-operators/



    GV, like all Google products and services is a dual purpose trojan horse designed to a) undermine the platform it runs on or is accessed from and give Google greater control of information access, and b) give Google access to, and control of, personal and private information. As such, Apple stands to lose much more by having the iPhone platform turned into Android-light than AT&T does from text message losses.



    This is all pretty obvious if you look objectively at what the three companies' businesses are all about, but pretty much everyone is allowing their feelings about the companies involved to cloud their judgment on this and related issues.
  • Reply 19 of 81
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post


    AT&T is responsible for killing GV on the iPhone. Apple had little to do with it, apart from covering for AT&T. ...



    Okay, that's a thesis statement ...



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post


    ... Why do you think AT&T wanted to pull GV from the iPhone, and not other phones on its network?



    And your very first point demolishes your own argument.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post


    ... What motivation would Apple possibly have to block Google Voice on its own? ...



    How about the exact motivation they stated?



    You know when they owned up to being entirely responsible for blocking Google Voice and how it has nothing to do with AT&T except for the VoIP on cell part which will be eliminated by these rules if they go into effect?
  • Reply 20 of 81
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iru69 View Post


    Google Voice is NOT a VOIP application.

    Google Voice is NOT a VOIP application.

    Google Voice is NOT a VOIP application.



    Every article on AppleInsider that mentions the iPhone and AT&T should state "Google Voice is NOT a VOIP application" at the bottom.



    How long is it going to take for people who don't even know what Google Voice is to stop theorizing about it?



    It's actually "VoIP"



    How long is it going to take before people who don't even know how to spell it keep mentioning it? The Horror!



Sign In or Register to comment.