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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
As I see it, just the threat of Net Neutrality regulation has just bore its first fruit. Transparency. Thank you AT&T for opening the rural secrecy box, regardless of your motives. Before today, it might not be so apparent to many people, why roaming on rural networks were so expensive. I have Sprint's Roam Free America plan which doesn't charge roaming fees, just don't use it because, like ISPs, they have their own definition of unlimited.
Comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Absolutely terrible service quality. Slow 3G. Slow EDGE.
And people here are using irrational arguments to defend them.
Unbelievable.
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.
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.
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.
Net Neutrality +1 Providers 0