AT&T to FCC: Rules must apply to Google too

AT&T has taken off the boxing gloves in its fight against the Google Voice service and proposed changes to Net neutrality rules.

In a letter sent to the FCC (PDF) on Wednesday, AT&T went on the attack to portray Google as a powerful company that's trying to fool the FCC into believing that the rules shouldn't apply to it.

In the letter, AT&T is trying to cover all of its bases. This means that, at times, it's hard to follow which arguments it's trying to make--the one about Google Voice or the one about Net neutrality. And it doesn't help that AT&T stoops a little low by referencing a convent of Benedictine nuns in a list of those hurt by having calls to their numbers blocked to and from Google Voice numbers.

Read more of "AT&T to FCC: Close loopholes and write rules that apply to Google, too" on ZDNet's Between the Lines.

[faceless128]

Does AT&T know that you still need some kind of telephone service to use Google Voice?

I ask because i want to know if they're idiotic or just ignorant...

[Vegaman_Dan]

You can use Google Voice on a desktop or laptop to make VoIP calls as well. It is not limted to a cell phone or telephone provider.

[JCPayne]

This extends beyond Google.... Skype will be subject to this, as would Yahoo IM (which you can call out through too I think?) MSN Messenger, common computer applications have ways to patch you through to the telephone system and if those are charged by the FCC some of these services will likely no longer be as cheap or even free.

[OctoChops]

Vegaman_Dan, no you can't. Google is not VOIP at all. nothing like skype. All it really does it re-route your calls to a REAL phone.

[terminalblue]

Sorry, but i am not going to click through to read a news story from two weeks ago.

[Mergatroid Mania]

Really.

The author must think we will make up the story for him. Why doesn't he just write: AT&T whining about Google, read about it here: and place the link.

There is no information whatsoever in this story. Get with it CNET, how can you allow a story with no information in it?

[umbrae]

Funny how ATT has not even taken the time to find out what Google Voice is. Google Voice is not a telephone service.

[dennisheadley]

If it is a SERVICE that people call and have their calls forwarded to other locations, provides voice mail functions, and call blocking, call screening, conference calling, etc.. They are indeed a phone "SERVICE".

A phone service and a infrastructure provider are not the same thing. You do not have to own your own copper lines or cellular spectrum to be a communication service.

[Vegaman_Dan]

If you use a provider that makes it possible to make and receive phone calls, then it's a telephone service.

You can try to hide the reality as much you want with different terms, but in the end Google is providing a service to connect end users to telephone numbers.

Now if Google Voice was set up to *only* connect with other Google Voice users, and had no ability to call real world telephone numbers, then they might have a case here, but as it is, they are a telephone service provider.

[Dalkorian]

by Vegaman_Dan October 15, 2009 8:58 AM PDT
... but as it is, they are a telephone service provider.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh good, I'm sick of the standard telcos billing me for their limited phone service. How do I sign up to have a Google phone in my house, billed by Google Voice?

[ThinkBeforeYouPost]

That's hilarious.
Images of pots and kettles come to mind.

[WinNoMo]

AT&T still has that old Blue Chip mentality. Adapt or be destroyed.

[Spats30]

Wow. I learned more about Google's "evil doing" in one read (the PDF) than I ever knew before. Irregardless of one's feelings for this topic, the letter AT&T put together is interesting by itself.

[sondun2001]

It is not interesting. They are comparing Google to a service provider, it is not. Google has the right to determine what shows up in its search results to give the consumer the best quality listings. It doesn't prevent you from visiting any site, you still have to option to use another search engine, or type in the URL manually. AT&T has the power to block you from visiting a website all together.... Net neutrality doesn't apply to Google, they are not a gatekeeper. That was an ignorant letter, and it will backfire on them!

[NPGMBR]

The most important points I see in your post are these:

1 - "They are comparing Google to a service provider, it is not."
The truth is that Google like any organization that provides a product to consumers is a service provider.

2 - "Google has the right to determine what shows up in its search results to give the consumer the best quality
listings. It doesn't prevent you from visiting any site, you still have to option to use another search engine, or
type in the URL manually."
Im not sure how ATT is preventing you from using ATTs service to call any number you want. However, Google
Voice does prevent you from calling certain numbers.

3 - "AT&T has the power to block you from visiting a website all together"
So does Google, they just have'nt used it.

[Spats30]

@sondun2001

I was not saying Google was evil. I was quoting others (in general) that often find the irony of Google's "do no evil" in examples here and there. The PDF, however, lays out several coherent (and cited) examples in one document. IMO, it is interesting. I find the legal battle interesting, and like most things, there's probably truth to both sides.

I am neither for not against either company in general, and I have not taken a position on this topic. Your response, though, leaves little doubt whose flag you're waving in the battle.

[unknown unknown]

@ NPGMBR
" 3 - "AT&T has the power to block you from visiting a website all together"
So does Google, they just have'nt used it."

Google can not prevent you from visiting a website unless their competitors block it as well and there are no links to it on any other sites. Google can only remove it from their index.

[Mergatroid Mania]

Google has gotten to the point of being a major resource. They should no longer have the right to decide what shows up in your searches because that is tantamount to censorship and involves free speech issues.

Google has in effect become a platform, and denying people's written work from being discovered through the platform is the same as denying them their free speech.

If there was some other method for people to use to have their work available to everyone then it might not be an issue. I realize there are other search engines, but Google seems to have become the defacto standard.

[Dalkorian]

Mergatroid, when did Google take over the government?

[dennisheadley]

Actually, could you explain to me how Google voice is really any different from the small companies that use others cellular networks to host their own private brand?

Google Voice number is a real telephone number just like you have in your home. I've read a lot of articles on Google's site about how it works, watched a couple of movies and it never clearly explains the technology behind it, but I assume that it is very similar to Vonage in that they pay for an actual hard line connection to the phone system in each area code they are covering currently and the calls to numbers they are assigning you are all forwarded to that number or bank of numbers. From there they place the call from that location to your other phones, or you can call that number and have it connect to people you want to call.

So my question is can you call your brother in another city that would be long distance on your carrier and have it be local by calling the Google number and having it forwarded? Can he do the same back to you? Are they doing the same thing with the cellular networks so that it makes your out of plan calls in plan calling? Can you make the Google number your "my friends" type free call number on networks and thus avoid using your plans minutes or drop your plan to the lowest possible plan and actually get unlimited calling?

If the answer is yes to any of those questions then I really don't see that they should not be considered the exact same thing as any other communications provider. Same as Vonage and cellular resellers etc.. People will say "they are free!" but I am pretty confident that if you were to start a non-profit phone company or cellular service right now you would still have to comply with the regulations, they should not be any different.

[cindyg4]

In answer to your question... My family has two AT&T cell phone numbers (no "my friends" plan as AT&T just came out with that and I think they only have high minute plans beginning at 1400 so we won't be getting it because we don't use 1400 minutes a month). Anyway back to answering your question, when I call my brother in another city/state, I am being charged by my phone company, AT&T, for use of my cell minutes (and long distance if applicable). When my brother calls me from another city/state, I am being charged by my phone company, AT&T, for use of my cell minutes. Google Voice is not charging me, AT&T is charging me for AT&T phone service. All that Google Voicie is doing is giving my brother "one phone number" to be able to reach me anywhere. Google Voice lets me tell/program my "one number" which of my AT&T phones to ring during various times of the day. I can program Google Voice to send all calls that come in from the babysitter to come to my AT&T phone number and send all calls that come in from my mother-in-law to ring my husband's AT&T phone number, and then based on the time of day, have both of those programming events change and ring our AT&T home phone number after 5:30 when we're both home from work. Google Voice allows me to program a "do not disturb" on my "one number" that sends all calls on all of my AT&T phone numbers to voice mail. I can send all my calls or just calls from certain people to voice mail and then even have those voice mails transcribed into an e-mail and e-mailed to me. Google Voice also allows me to set up separate Greeting messages based on who's calling me - My greeting for my kids might say, "Dad and I will be late tonight, start your homework," while my message for business associate might be "Sorry to have missed your call..." and one to an undesirable could say "We are no longer accepting calls." There are all kinds of possibilities with the Google Voice application but without AT&T or another phone service, Google Voice DOES NOT AND CANNOT WORK.

[dennisheadley]

Thank you for the description. I have read many posts in other articles that make it out to be able to circumvent many charges on your various phone bills but having never used it I was unsure. I realize that you are using the phone services that you contract normally (AT&T land line and AT&T cellular services for example) but was not sure if they actually connected you to the other party the same as if you placed the call yourself as far as charges go.

I'm not a big fan of telephone or cellular companies, so I'm not asking this as pro AT&T in any way. What I am though is ANTI - special case treatment for one company over another. If one person that offers a given service has to comply with certain regulations than every company, no matter who they are, should have to do the same. If one company that uses the phone system for a "service" has to comply then every last service should have to comply.

Same as I would expect the small company that has those text message or email only mobile gadgets should have to follow all the rules that apply to them as a communications company the exact same way as AT&T does. A "service" that uses the telephone system is the same as any other service that uses the telephone system.

A service does not have to own copper lines or wireless spectrum and operate a huge network. They can own nothing of the infrastructure and still have to be accountable to adhere to all regulations.

[Dalkorian]

by dennisheadley October 15, 2009 9:01 AM PDT
What I am though is ANTI - special case treatment for one company over another.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you think about it you'll likely find yourself against AT&T here, considering they're trying to build a special case for Google.

[cindyg4]

I can't believe that AT&T is that stupid so I'd bet that AT&T is really trying to fool the FCC. Let's just hope the FCC is smarter than AT&T.

[abcd9009]

You have sadly mistaken. What you should be saying is, let's see who have the power (AT&T or Google) to lobby for their service because at the end, it's NOT about who's right or who's wrong - it all comes down to who can do a better job lobbying because that's the only way corporations can force things upon consumers.

[sailinganfd]

@abcd9009
Sadly true.

[sondun2001]

AT&T is comparing Google to a service provider, it is not. Google has the right to determine what shows up in its search results to give the consumer the best quality listings. It doesn't prevent you from visiting any site, you still have to option to use another search engine, or type in the URL manually. AT&T has the power to block you from visiting a website all together.... Net neutrality doesn't apply to Google, they are not a gatekeeper. That was an ignorant letter, and it will backfire on them!

[theboyr]

This is completely stupid. Google Voice is not a carrier.

Google is providing a service using someone else's dial tone (Probably Level 3 since they're one of the major wholesalers). They're not subject to the same restrictions that carriers are. If Google Voice was providing your dial tone, then yes, they should be charged... but until they're providing the actual dial tone to a phone endpoint or phone system, they have no requirement to connect these calls.

They're not a phone service provider, they're basically a Virtual PBX that uses your existing phones as endpoints.

[Vegaman_Dan]

A telephone is a device that allows you to make a call from your handset to another person. Google Voice allows me to talk to another person by using a phone number they provide to another phone number.

*HOW* it happens in between is immaterial, the results are the same.

Think of it another way-

You need to go from NYC to LA by car. You can either take highways or freeways. Both will get you to your destination. Does it matter which you are using? Both are roads that provide you access. Perhaps that highway is joined by the freeway for a time- it doesn't matter when you get to your destination.

Now include a regulation that says that the freeway has to honor blocked exit requests. The highway, even though it provides the same end user service, can still ignore those blocked exits and go right on through.

Is this fair?

[Dalkorian]

I'm not sure that even made sense Dan. You just made Google Voice a direct competitor with AT&T's phone service on equal footing and it's simply not. Prove me wrong and pay Google for your phone usage, I can't figure out how to do it myself.

[theboyr]

The simpler answer is that Google Voice is a PBX/Phone System and they resell their application, not the phone service. They use another carrier for the trunk-to-trunk connections to bridge calls.

[shootfirst]

I agree the service providers aka AT&T need to allow what the user wants over the internet connection. Net neutrality does not apply to something like Google Voice when the user can use other options over the connection they have. Google is a choice which most people don't pay for and if Google states it will not work with certain conditions the user can go somewhere else. If you are using a connection you should be able to do whatever you want over that connection however. If Google forced you to use Google Voice and supplied the connection this would be different.

[Dalkorian]

If Google Voice actually became a phone provider, like AT&T or Verizon, it would be different. It's not.

[PhaseDMA]

If I was the FCC the sticking point would be cost. Google Voice is free in a market where everything else cost money. If nothing else the FCC should loosen the rules for companies that provide this service for free.

Or just inform AT&T two wrongs doesn't make a right.

[abcd9009]

@PhaseDMA

Excellent point. I would say, if AT&T also wants to block certain numbers, provide your services for FREE and then do what you want.

Of course that ain't gonna happen because Bell is too old and doesn't have the word "free" in it's vocab - just "crappy service".

[calculatorwatch]

thanks at&t for standing up for all the poor little wireless companies (and their money) god knows wireless companies never try to make the FCC think that rules don't apply to them

oh wait, here's one of cnet's related articles with a link on this very page: "Verizon, AT&T: Net neutrality not OK for wireless" (http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-10357806-266.html?tag=mncol;mlt_related)

[Dalkorian]

Aha, someone who is awake and not just spewing excrement from their mouths! Notice the message from AT&T that's forming here - net neutrality shouldn't apply to *US*, but it must apply to *GOOGLE*. Now we see that this Death Star is fully operational!

8-O

[JCPayne]

Think of the TONS of FCC taxes or "fees" you currently see on your cell phone or phone bill and think about that also covering Instant messaging products or other "computer" services.

[JCPayne]

Anyway Google Voice is made for an "over the cell phone" type thing. I see no reason why I should have to pay for the same taxes twice.... Google Voice uses your cell phone's minutes, which means your cell phone company already covers those taxes once already. Also during the sign up of Google Voice I think you have to input a text message that Google sends to you??? So even if you only had a computer I think you have to have had a cell phone too in order to complete the setup at one time on GrandCentral (now Google Voice).

[theboyr]

No because you have to take into account the laws that govern this kind of thing which you obviously have no knowledge of. When Google gets a CLEC certification then you have some sort of case.

However, Google does not fall under this law because Google owns the phone number that you use in this case and you have no right to portability to it. This is a Value Added Feature that Google is adding using telephone services from a CLEC that must follow these rules.

If you don't believe me go look at any of these littled Hosted PBX companies like Jive or Packet 8.. they don't fall under these rules. Hell, I've had clients who can't port their numbers from those two companies. Hosted Phone Applications like Google Voice are not a LEC and have no reason to abide by LEC law.

This may be a case where the law is behind the technology, but Google is 100% in it's own rights to not have to provide 100% dialing parity to networks that don't make sense to their model.

[ofmyony]

ATT is only hurting itself with these shots in the dark. It sucks being in a business where you are always in the sights of FCC regulation and consumer criticism. My recommendation to ATT close shop.

[Haasbat]

Ya know, I could see AT&T's argument about reaching rural areas, if, for instance, AT&T wireless had coverage in all those areas they're claiming Google is deficient. But we all know, you can't even get AT&T in major cities all the time, let alone big chunks of the West.

By their argument, no "national wireless carrier" should be able to operate unless they can physically cover the ENTIRE continent, and guarantee calls will go through (an old landline rule). But wireless companies use the air and fiber! So? You are not guaranteed to have coverage from any wireless carrier everywhere in the country, so I think it's fair that you're also not guaranteed to have Google Voice coverage everywhere in the country. And Google Voice offers a LOT less than a wireless carrier. You say, but cell phones can call ANY landline, and there are no restrictions on that, it's mandated by law!
True, but what good is the law if there is not a signal? Part of me kind of wishes that the FCC rules in favor of AT&T, and then puts all the wireless companies on notice, that thanks to the DeathStar, they now have to guarantee service to all physical locations that are served by landlines.

[dinkeldorf]

This is a diversion / posturing for the AT&T / iPhone palooza. No way this progresses.