AT&T calls Google a hypocrite on Net neutrality
AT&T is accusing Google of being a hypocrite when it comes to Net neutrality because it blocks certain phone calls on its Google Voice service.
The carrier has written a letter to the Federal Communications Commission claiming that Google has violated the agency's Net neutrality principles, which Google has long supported. Google defended its position in a blog post written by Richard Whitt, Google's main lobbyist and telecommunications lawyer in Washington, that basically said AT&T is comparing apples and oranges.
In a letter to the FCC filed on Friday, AT&T said Google is violating the fourth principle in the FCC's Internet Policy Statement, which calls for fair competition among providers of networks, applications, services, and content, as it blocks telephone calls made using Google Voice service to certain rural communities.
"By openly flaunting the call-blocking prohibition that applies to its competitors, 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," Robert Quinn, AT&T's senior vice president focusing on federal regulation, said in a statement. "Ironically, Google is also flouting the so-called 'fifth principle of nondiscrimination' for which Google has so fervently advocated."
In his blog post Friday afternoon, Google's Whitt fired back with an explanation. He acknowledged that Google is blocking calls to some rural regions. He said 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.
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 2008, AT&T and other long-distance phone companies complained to the FCC about the practice. Because most customers of AT&T, Verizon Communications, and Qwest Communications pay a flat fee for unlimited local and long-distance calls, these carriers are often saddled with the added costs associated with connecting calls in these regions. AT&T said it had cost them as much as $250 million in 2007.
The FCC has suspended the rural companies' rates and proposed rules to permanently ban traffic pumping. But the docket is still open on the issue.
Whitt explained that Google Voice, which allows people to keep one phone number and redirects phone calls over the Internet, is also subject to these high rates. But he said the rules that apply to traditional phone companies do not apply to Google.
AT&T and other traditional phone companies are prohibited from blocking phone calls to any number because they must abide by common carrier laws, which require infrastructure providers, such as phone companies, to allow anyone who wants to use their networks access to that "public" infrastructure. The concept of a common carrier is supposed to ensure that the public retains access to fundamental services that use public rights of way, such as telephone service or roadways.
Google says these rules don't apply to Google Voice for several reasons. For one, Google Voice is a software application that rides on infrastructure built by other companies. It is a free service. And it is not intended to be a replacement for traditional telephone service. In fact, the service requires that users have a landline phone or a wireless phone.
AT&T says that if Google argues for Net neutrality, then it must be expected to abide by common carrier rules applied to telephone services.
"While Google argues for others to be bound by Net neutrality rules, it argues against itself being bound by common carriage," Quinn said in a statement. "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."
Google's Whitt fired back that AT&T is trying to equate common carrier laws, which apply to infrastructure, to Net neutrality regulation, which is about keeping the Internet open to all applications and devices.
"AT&T is trying to make this about Google's support for an open Internet, but the comparison just doesn't fly," he said in his blog. "The FCC's open Internet principles apply only to the behavior of broadband carriers--not the creators of Web-based software applications. Even though the FCC does not have jurisdiction over how software applications function, AT&T apparently wants to use the regulatory process to undermine Web-based competition and innovation."
While this particular public spat between AT&T and Google may seem trivial and arcane to some, it is yet another example of a brewing battle between the two giant companies, which appear to be on a collision course.
Google has long been a supporter of an open Internet. It was Google's lobbying efforts that convinced the FCC to include an open network provision as a condition in the 700MHz auction. And the company strongly supports Chairman Julius Genachowski's ambitions to make the current FCC Net neutrality principles official regulation. Google has also been pushing the FCC to open up excess bandwidth between broadcast TV channels known as "white spaces" available to the public for free.
On all of these issues, AT&T and other phone companies have opposed Google.
It's clear that the phone companies are leery of Google's intentions. They see Google as a potential competitor someday. Some bloggers and industry watchers have speculated that this is the reason Google Voice was rejected as an application for the popular Apple iPhone, which runs exclusively in the United States on AT&T's wireless network.
In July, the FCC asked Apple and AT&T to explain why Google Voice had been rejected. Google told the FCC that it was Apple that rejected Google Voice for the iPhone App Store.
The FCC isn't commenting yet on AT&T's most recent letter, nor is it commenting on Google's blog response. But a representative of Chairman Genachowski acknowledged that the agency has seen AT&T's letter and is reviewing it. So stay tuned for more FCC filings and Google blog posts. This is surely not the last of it.
Marguerite Reardon has been a CNET News reporter since 2004, covering cell phone services, broadband, citywide Wi-Fi, the Net neutrality debate, as well as the ongoing consolidation of the phone companies. E-mail Maggie. 
Why only complain about Google though? VoIP isn't new- there's lots of carriers out there that offer it now that AT&T hsasn't said boo about. Skype? MagicJack? Lots of providers other than Google, or does this come down to the Google Voice app for the iPhone?
We're not getting the real story here, only the superficial rants.
This is what Google always says. Face it, Google is a self-serving outlaw. Look no further than the U.S. Department of Justice action against Google for their Google Books scam.
We need to see some legal indictments against Google management for their rip and rape business model.
And when Nancy Pelosi and Bawney Fwank grab yet another layer of control, it won't really matter the outcome of a stupid individual app, because the bigger picture will mean another step away from competition, rule of law, and openness, and another step towards "push politics" where the only "winners" are the ones positioned to receive handouts and favors from the Anointed Ones.
good point....
I'm still trying to figure out what AT&T's accusation has to do with net neutrality.
If Google wants to play in this game they have to go all the way. Right now it looks like they want to make the profit and have none of the expense of getting there and they are capable of finding morons to fight their cause without understanding the principals that apply.
Google is NOT a phone company in any way shape or form. That is why AT&T is not telling the FCC that Google is breaking phone laws, they are dragging net neutrality into it. Also, if Google voice does not connect to your rural buddies, you can still call them. This is because, again, at no point in the process is Google a phone company. Even if you REFUSE to believe this, you have to acknowledge that Google Voice is a free service. A free service should not require the same tight restrictions a costly service does.
I use Google Voice, I pay Tmobile for every minute I'm on the phone. This is NOT about phone calls. This is about texting. GV allows free texting, because sending a text is dirt cheap. This is what is driving AT&T insane, and what is preventing the app from getting on the iPhone. Mobile providers get away with highway robbery when it comes to texting. You already pay for a service, sometimes with a data plan, yet sending one 160 character message costs around $0.25 extra? Insanity.
Free Google Voice
Free e-mail,
Free online mapping,
Free office productivity
Free social networking
Free Utube
Now name one service that AT&T gives away for free.
Hell, you have to pay them $5.50 a month just for an "unpublished phone number".
Google offers:
Free Google Voice
Free e-mail,
Free online mapping,
Free office productivity
Free social networking
Free Utube
Now name one service that AT&T gives away for free."
They are not truly free. Google software and services do have a cost. A very steep cost: your privacy and data.
Welcome to the 21st Century. There is NO such thing as privacy anymore. People sure like to believe that but anybody with the right software and equipment can now tap into your information - thanks to the internet and you don't have to be a genius to do that.
With Google, yes they are collecting data by providing free service, what do you think AT&T and other phone companies are doing? Do you believe they don't collect any information?
Maybe you forgot but it was AT&T that was willing to work with Uncle Sam to do wire tapping WITHOUT A WARRANT. When DOJ requested for all the search data collected by Search Engines, Microsoft and Yahoo gave up but Google fought back. I am not saying Google doesn't sell, in fact if they don't that would be a very stupid move on their part.
The point is, why should I pay AT&T for a service which doesn't promise to deliver what we are paying for - example here service on the iPhone, MMS which everybody in the world is using but it took AT&T forever to get on the iPhone, but that didn't prevent them from charging everyone for it even though they couldn't deliver. And tethering, still not available. My only complain here is, why sell the device when you don't have the capability to leverage on all functionalities.
I would be more than happy to pay AT&T if they can deliver the service for the price they charge. The phone companies cannot accept the fact that today it's all almost leveraging services over the internet. AT&T cannot get that into their head. Frankly I don't understand why people still use landline. I can't remember when was the last time I used landline. Even at work we have VOIP and home it's only cell phones.
There's no question, US has one of the most superior landline connections in the world (if not THE best), but let's face it today it's not about landlines anymore, it's about broadband and wireless, and US is WAY BEHIND in both. It's a little ironic because US is where both wireless and broadband were invented but now of all places, the developing countries like India and China has better wireless services than in US. As for broadband, just go to Finland or Netherlands and you will realize what you should be expecting out of a broadband service then compare that to the service you get from AT&T, Comcast, Verizon for the money you pay. For crying out loud, even Canada (a country which one of my good friend always jokes as the 51st State) provides a much better wireless service than US.
Look who's talking.
Is this a bit of apples & oranges? Perhaps. But there are two reasons for providers to block service. One is that the service competes with the provider. This is why net neutrality is important; to prevent this. The other is because the service in question takes up a large percentage of the provider's resources, which ultimately cost money. Net neutrality doesn't prevent this and that is correct, because providers can't reasonably be expected to provide everyone with unlimited bandwidth forever. This is where Google has mis-stepped, because they seem to be against any kind of provider limitations yet are practicing it themselves. Sure, their reason for blocking these phone calls is reasonable, but is it reasonable that AT&T can't block these calls? AT&T is simply pointing out that there is unfairness in what Google says and what they do.
When the paradymes change, everyone starts again at ground zero. Live in the present and advance to the future, or you will be left behind. ATT is being left behind.
It must be the end of the world.
once google voice charges for those calls it now blocks this discussion is over i guess
I still disagree with AT&T's argument, because services like Google Voice are opt-in endpoint management services for infrastructure. Ie, Google Voice is just a fancy Public Branch Exchange, like you find in most large offices and schools. An office or a school isn't in violation of FCC policy by blocking certain numbers from being called. Likewise, your e-mail provider isn't violating FCC policy by blocking spam.
However, if a company that operates the infrastructure were to start digging in and blocking certain types of e-mail and phone calls, then that would be a violation of FCC policy.
Please explain, with evidence, as to how Google has not been "awesome" to people.
In this case, awesome will mean; fair, giving services which are beyond the realm of expectations, charging less than the realm of expectations leads us to believe is applicable for services rendered.
If you have a different definition for awesome which you believe fits better in this situation, please give it.
Again, Google Voice is a FREE service in which you must have some sort of traditional (cell or landline) phone to utilize. (for calls, at least.) If Google will not connect a certain call for you, (surely in an effort to keep their costs down, and the users cost FREE) You are free to pick up your phone and dial that rural number with your own fingers.
I think it is unbelievable that ATT is accusing Google of being in violation of net neutrality, when they themselves are currently very vocal in opposing the FCC's new net neutrality rules. That sure seems like a nice shiny glass house that ATT is throwing some stones in!
The news doe's not take one story without turning it around for big business'
What Google is doing here is just not connecting to areas which charge in such a way as to make them have to charge for an otherwise free service. You want to call those numbers? Use the number you're paying for.
When Sprint and MCI came on board, prices dropped, and you could get cheap, all you can eat long-distance calls.
To hear Ma Bell complain about GV is like complaining about free apple pie. Sure, you had to watch an ad in order to get your free apple pie, but Ma Bell wants to force Google to have to charge you (or otherwise eat the cost) in order for you to get that piece of pie. They don't like Google's revenue method, because their own revenue system is under attack. Fair is fair.
But AT&T was the same AT&T that complained about Sprint's merger of assets with Clearwire, which is the same that complains about anything that could possibly compete directly with their revenue model and their over-burdened (and antiquated) network.
AT&T is the behemoth in the room that doesn't want competition, bottom line.
Where the f&*k is filthy EU and its head bi$&h? Can you milk some money
from Google please?
let's think simple.
Unless, FEDs are out there to kill all internet providers for the sake of Google and like minded cos.... why on earth, the company which spent millions and billions to setup and maintain the NETWORK should open it to all to make money?
Even on landline network, there are different charges for Phone and Fax.
if you are using the network for different purposes, you are supposed to pay for it as well.
Net neutrality for consumers is good. But, creating law to let eat other business's pie is wrong.
Anyways, google is a leecher by nature. It has leeching in it's DNA, so I am not surprised et al with them justifying.
But as soon as Obama's goverment has completed it's term, Google will be finished. They are creating more foes in business then Eric Scmidt can handle.
It's not about the parties in power anymore. It's about the corporations. Keeping "Dr." Eric Schmitt and Google out of power - this is the only thing the phone companies will side with cable companies on. Paired with Microsoft and Apple (face it, you know the Steve isn't happy with Google announcing Android, and then ChromeOS; Eric even got the boot from the board for that), Google doesn't stand a chance once the coffers are lined with more money from non-Google sources.
Google wasn't kicked off Apple board..
rather Google used Apple to the fullest and the made announcements so that it can get off the Apple's board.
This is a classic case of Manipulative-friendship.
Google sucked good mojo from Apple, used it for their good and then kicked Apple on it's butt.
See the timeline of all the announcements and then Google Voice issue.
Eric will plunge Google down.
Brin's dont know business. It's Eric's show all the way.
That is the basic argument behind net neutrality. If they aren't renting you a direct pipe to the internet, they should give you a contract that clearly states in large print that they are going to control what data and services flow over that pipe. In some ways, they already do, by stipulating that you are not allowed to run a server over your connection. If you want to run a server, you have to pay for a business class connection with a fixed IP address.
Very simple. Your $$$$$ == your connection. Your $$$$$ == your data. Your $$$$$ == your choice.
Network neutrality. Open access. Your service. Your choice.
Funny thing is, I actually use my AT&T phone MORE now that I have Google Voice. If AT&T spent half the time providing services people want at a reasonable price that they spend whining about other companies, they'd really have something going.
- by nicklewisatx September 26, 2009 2:02 AM PDT
- Pfff... I will refrain from listening all the reasons that AT&T would be fundamentally opposed to anything resembling net neutrality. I will suggest, however, that their network is powered by the wimpers of puppies, and the cries of kittens.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by dennisheadley September 26, 2009 6:21 AM PDT
- Anyone that thinks that Google is anything but a for-profit corporation and that they ever do anything that is not in their own self interest to do so and is not above the occasional dubious practice, is a paranoid delusional.
- Like this
-
- by freemarket--2008 September 28, 2009 6:57 AM PDT
- Well in case you didn't notice, Google is a publicly traded company. They are required by law to protect their shareholder's interests. If you want a say in what they do, buy some stock. They are not in any way shape or form a big mushy charity. Get over it.
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 3 pages (86 Comments)Moreover it sucks.Only ATT can make T-Mobile look badass. That's not a compliment to t-mobile by the way -- really its an insult to both of them.
I've never considered buying an i-phone simply because ATT was the one and only carrier and i know too many people who seem to complain, randomly, out of the blue about the coverage, service, and cost. Seriously, I cannot think of one happy ATT customer I know. Not a single one. 0. Actually, i can't think of a merely content one either.
To be honest, i don't know anyone who's actually angry at google right now, who isn't a paranoid delusional.
See how easy it is to make random comments to support your view while insulting others who don't share your view.
So Google, like they always do, wants to have things exactly the way the want them and will spin things so that it seems they are a champion of the people, freedom of ideas and a symbol of everything that is right in the world.
Trouble is that they have a well defined track record of doing anything the want to get their own way.
Take the spectrum bidding a couple of years ago. They screwed up the whole process, got new provisions and clauses put into the licenses that only they wanted all on the premiss that they would be bidding on the spectrums in question. When it came down to the auction they submitted a low bid that made it clear that they never intended to purchase the spectrum in the first place. It was all an sham to get something they wanted and without having to spend their own money to achieve it. It was a bait and switch con job from start to finnish, that cost the american public /government money in the end because many potential buyers did not compete do to their involvement.
The Google book deal is another one. They make it out as a service they are doing for the whole human race, but in fact they are going to make a tremendous amount of money off of it and at the expense of other competing services.
The Google voice app is another example, they want to complain that Apple won't approve it. But in reality if they are saying themselves that it is a BETA application for limited use and not a fully finished and operational program then it never should have been released through the App Store. You can't say on one hand that they shouldn't have to do one thing because its invitation only, beta software so the rules don't apply to it, then on the other hand complain that your application is being withheld from the 16 million iPhone users that could be making use of it at this point. But that is typical of Google, play the angles, spin it so they don't have to follow the same rules and can march to their own drummer.
If someone were to look into search provider practices, they will say they are in advertising, if someone is looking into advertising practices they suddenly become the search leader. They are never the bad guy, its them against all the "evil" corporations. Personally I view them as the "trickster" type entity, with many faces and they swap them out as needed to accomplish their own goals. Which is to make money.... not to be the savour of the human race like some would want you to believe.