Well this is interesting. Fresh off a wave of good karma following the revelation that it was not behind blocking Google Voice on the iPhone, AT&T appears to be looking to draw the ire of consumers with regards to the service once again. The telco giant has sent a letter (attached below) to the FCC asking them to investigate Google Voice. Yes, you read that right. But this actually goes much deeper than that. Once again, this is about net neutrality.
While AT&T may have not blocked Google Voice from being on the iPhone, it clearly does not like the service (no surprise there). From AT&T’s letter:
According to Google, non-discrimination ensures that a provider “cannot block fair access” to another provider.9 But that is exactly what Google is doing when it blocks calls that Google Voice customers make to telephone numbers associated with certain local exchange carriers.
Yes, AT&T is calling out Google for violating net neutrality principles.
Here’s where this gets pretty interesting. AT&T is really upset because they tried to do the same thing a couple years ago. Back in 2007, AT&T and the other telecos were trying to block access to some rural phone customers because the giants felt local carrier fees were too high, WSJ reports. Google has acknowledged that it does block some access, but says that it’s to things like adult voice lines. That’s obviously a big difference, but AT&T is claiming that Google doing exactly what it was banned from doing by the FCC two years ago. From Reuters:
AT&T cited media reports that Google Voice was blocking some calls to phone numbers in certain rural areas in order to cut down on expenses. Phone companies are banned from blocking calls.
And so now we’re stuck with the rather humorous situation where AT&T is playing the net neutrality card. Of course, what’s hilarious here is that AT&T (and Verizon) just got done saying that net neutrality should not apply to wireless communications mere days ago.
AT&T is trying to argue there’s a difference between regular Internet net neutrality and wireless net neutrality, but that’s garbage. More and more, the lines are blurring with the way people access the web. Sure, it used to the case that people used wireless lines only for phone calls and text messages, but the rapid rise of smartphones and other mobile devices that use things like AT&T’s 3G wireless cards have changed everything.
Meanwhile Google, a huge proponent of net neutrality, also appears to be going against it in this case. What a mess. Both of these companies need to realize that you can’t be selectively for and against net neutrality.
Update: Google has responded on its public policy blog. Basically, they are saying that software should not have to be regulated by net neutrality rules, despite what AT&T says. Interesting, but it seems that Google Voice is going well beyond the range of your typical software. We’ll have more on this shortly.
Uno!
And we’re all so glad you took the time to post your thought provoking comment. Cheers!
On the irony.
Your analysis is pretty thin. First, with regard to call blocking: The genesis of this is a scam of FCC rules by certain rural telcos. The FCC sets the rates they can charge long distance companies for delivering calls to their customers based on historical usage. These companies historically had very low usage, so their per-minute rates were very high. They then went out and lined up chat lines, conference calling services, etc. and paid them a cut of the revenues they were getting from the long distance companies to locate their equipment in their areas. AT&T and others wanted to block calls to the chat lines and conference calling services that were participating in the scheme but the FCC said no. Google Voice is now, not only blocking calls to the chat lines and conference calling services but to all other customers served by these same telcos. No one has explained to me why Google Voice ought to be able to play by different rules than everyone else.
Second, your claim that wireless is no different from wireline for net neutrality purposes is facile. First, if I recall, the rationale behind net neutrality was that there was a cable/DSL duopoly and those ISPs might shut down the open Internet. That hasn’t exactly happened, has it? Moreover, with wireless as an alternative, what happened to the duopoly rationale? Second, Google, with 75% of the search market has WAY more opportunity to influence what sites/services users get to and don’t. Anyone who is concerned about Internet openness has to be concerned about Google. Except that the so-called public interest groups that are pushing net neutrality all take money from Google, so they are silent. Third, wireless is different: there is much more of a need to manage bandwidth in wireless than wireline. Wireline carriers can always add capacity; all it takes is money. Wireless carriers have limited spectrum, and voice and data share the same spectrum. At the end of the day, if the FCC imposes net neutrality on wireless carriers, that will be the end of unlimited data usage because carriers will have to control usage to match their spectrum limits through pricing. If you think about it differently, net neutrality will mean that the 1% of users who are hogging most of the bandwidth will ruin things for the rest of us. Hardly a progressive outcome.
however, if i understand the net neutrality issue correctly, it is direct at isps who own the lines, not at the software running on top of it. don’t you need to have some wireless service to begin with before getting the option of running google voice? also, google voice is not a necessity for having wireless service, but dealing w/at&t, sprint, verizon et. al., is. sorry, but i don’t see how net neutrality applies to google no matter how much peeps want (read “choose”) to use their app.
Oh, the irony
Interesting if it’s true. What does Google have to say about the “claim”?
nothing yet.
added google’s response in there.
2007-2010 will be known as the “Years People That Wanted a Good Apple Phone Had To Deal With AT&T”
Bizarre.
I’d really like to know what the guys at the FCC are thinking of all this contradiction of stories.
“… asking them to investigation Google Voice. Yes, you read that right.”
I did?
heh. well now you did.
It’s the weekend. Where’s Paul Carr?
“The telco giant has sent a letter (attached below) to the FCC asking them to investigation Google Voice.”
I am not english but that phrase seems wrong?
It sounds like AT&T is defining Net Neutrality as a black and white issue, and is calling Google out on violating it by blocking some calls to an adult service line. Assuming ATT’s claims are true, Is Google being *too* good by trying to take out the garbage? And, more importantly, deciding what is and isn’t garbage?
You are falling for the fallacy in Google’s argument that obfuscates the issue.
Google blocks calls to certain areas based on termination charges. SOME of those areas may be associated with Adult chat lines, etc.
The above does not imply logically that Google only blocks calls to Adult Chat lines. It could also block calls to areas that are just expensive because of the sparsity of lines in that area. The use of those examples are red herrings here because the decision process for Google is the costs not the type of usage.
Google’s response tries to obfuscate this. They must be learning from Apple.
Google isn’t trying to take out the garbage and they aren’t just blocking calls to chat lines. Google is blocking calls that would otherwise be “terminated” by small, rural telephone companies that charge high fees. In other words, they are blocking calls because it is in their economic interest to do so.
Who is Robert W. Quinn?
The guy is so arrogant he signs without a title.
You blind?
Top-center, first page.
My Google Voice app still works, but for how much longer I wonder
well, this is going to screw up my porting plans
Microsoft should just buy AT&T and get it over with.
And as usual, it’s at the account of the consumer.
I thought these problems were solved many years ago when internet entrepreneur such as Jeff Pulver (then Co-founder of Vonage) had to litigate and regulate their way through Washington to establish VOIP legality principles, as giant telecoms claimed it to be a violation of their turf (some things never change…)
Note how AT&T has no claims against Skype. Is that because the line termination (the connection of Internet VOIP to real phone lines) is being purchased from …AT&T? So much for double standards. Maybe Google cannot access rural areas because they don’t buy termination services from AT&T?
Why won’t AT&T go back to innovation instead of sitting on the sidelines and waiting for other to innovate and then sue and regulate their way to block innovator so that they can remain in their comfortable vegetable state?
Maybe you should educate yourself before posting your opinions. Google is blocking this traffic — it is not an issue of them not being able to complete the calls. They are blocking the calls because the terminating carriers (local telephone companies in various rural areas) charge high fees for terminating them. Other telephone companies, including AT&T, Qwest, Verizon, and all others, were prohibited by the FCC from blocking calls to these same numbers. So the issue is one of simple fairness.
And by the way, did you ever stop and think that maybe AT&T blocked a 3G Skype app for the iPhone because they are selling the subsidizing the phone by almost $400 a phone? It’s simple math, bud. They have to rely on service revenues to make up the subsidy. Maybe they were dumb to do that, though, because Skype on a 3G network wouldn’t be much of a threat anyway. It doesn’t work well on anything except Wi-Fi.
All this venom against AT&T is so juvenile. AT&T spent more cap ex last year than any company in North America because tech nerds (like you?) spend all day streaming video and music on the iPhone, gobbling up all network capacity and then think they somehow have a right to get everything for free. …… Just sayin.
“That’s obviously a big difference, but AT&T is claiming that Google doing exactly what it was banned form doing by the FCC two years ago.”
–from is spelled incorrectly.
Other than that, there is no surprise that At&t is doing this. Nothing like corporate greed.
yep thx.
“software should not be regulated by net neutrality rules”
Isn’t the network infrastructure owned by the telco giants run by “software”?
Interesting how you take Google at face value when they say all they have is software. I didn’t realize all those telecom facilities they own to haul their traffic all over the Internet and all their “server farms” are just software. And what is the point of net neutrality anyway? I thought it was about protecting any entity from influencing which sites/content users get to see. If any company can do that it is Google, with 75% share of the search market.
First: this is about competition, plain and simple. Google is a competitor to AT&T in the same way that, say, papa john’s pizza is a competitor to pizza hut. They’re going to do stuff like this. It’s not about “taking a stance”, it’s about doing what it takes in free enterprise. I don’t agree with it, but that’s what it is. It’s not about “taking a stance” or anything so noble.
Secondly:
>Fresh off a wave of good karma following the revelation that it was not behind blocking Google Voice on the iPhone
Techcrunch pointed fingers left and right at AT&T before the letters became public, but once they did, Techcrunch did very little to go back and correct their erroneous previous “reporting” (which was more like pure speculation). Yes they reported the new facts, but I never saw an apology, correction, or anything that actually came out and head-on accurately reported that previous AT&T blame was wrong. Alluding to it in articles about other issues doesn’t count. [not saying it didn't happen, just I didn't see the article. If one exists, please correct me]
I know Techcrunch hates AT&T but when you accuse a company of something that turns out to not be true, you should go out of your way to correct it.
BTW, I don’t love AT&T or work for them or anything, it just really bothered me that for weeks TC was pointing the finger at AT&T with really no real evidence and then suddenly BAM! it was like it had never happened.
I think you might have missed TC’s point, which was that there is some cahoot between AT&T and Apple, in which mysterious decisions happen all the time (google or not) that implicate innovation and harm developers and investors that want to participate in their marketplace on a fair business basis. The case of the Google Voice app was an example for how these arbitrary mystery decision can be responsible for the blocking of innovations from consumers and harming developers and investors. This still happens
There was no mystery. Apple’s reasons for not approving the Google App were laid out in its letter and had nothing to do with AT&T: (1) the app would have replaced the user interface that was Apple’s iconic interface with the Google Voice interface. Stated differently, Apple wasn’t going to let Google change the user interface for the iPhone. (2) Google never responded to Apple’s request as to what Google was going to do with the contact lists to which it would have access if its app was on the iPhone.
I agree . Siegler takes it in the back front and side from larry, sergey and eric
Google does block access or severely limit the number of calls to the nefarious Iowa 712 numbers which are tied to free conference calling platforms. I recall recently trying to attend a call and it was busied out.
I ended up having to call in from my cell instead. I guess the question I have, is Google considered a carrier in the same context of ATT, Verizon, the RBOCs, etc? FWIW – MagicJack also blocks access. There is a ton of money being charged here for interconnect fees.
B
All of this GV talk lately makes me think of spoiled little kids who are used to getting what they want running to mommy & daddy when a new kid shows up and threatens their status on the playground.
Whether we like it or not, we are capitalists, are we not? So, AT&T, how about you come up with a better product instead of trying to tear down Google’s? You are clearly in a better position to provide any and all telco services between your UMTS/HSPA network and your thousands of miles of cables.
How about you compete instead of complain?
(PS –> You suck.)
I can’t stand AT&T as much as the next guy but they do have a point. The fact that Google is blocking access should be investigated and their excuse that their service is software and not physical lines falls within the gray areas of the definition. At a certain point, their software has to cross the software/hardware threshold and then it is considered as much a voice call as calls made on AT&T’s network. Lets not forget that all of the hardware devices involved in making the call (from the cell phone to the switch) all run software that allows for the call to be made in the first place.
Well said.. its a lame excuse to say that the rules should be different for a software based service
Very well put. If you want net neutrality the way Google wants it, then AT&T should just give access to the copper/fiber to Google and let Google develop/buy all the software needed to run a telephony service with access to the wires. And then we will see if Google can offer a free service.
This is why there is some concern that Google is becoming parasitic on others – first it was content, then it is literature, and now it is communication devices and infrastructure. What it leaves behind is a trail of destroyed business models that it depends on.
Now, from a consumer point of view, this may seem beneficial since everything is free but it is rather myopic when you see the “clear-cutting” effect Google is having for short-term benefits.
A. I think mister “h” deserves reaction.
B. I’m glad AT&T made this move for 1; they’ll lose this case and 2. any future attempts to go against net neutrality will be harder for AT&T.
Wow feels like grade school all over again
The “rural phone companies” that AT&T wanted to block for being too expensive to complete calls into are the *exact same* companies that Google wants to block because they’re 911 porn and the like.
You might not know this unless you know the history of telecom regulation in this country, but in the past it was very common to setup a “phone company” on your farm in the midwest and then charge Ma Bell an arm and a leg to complete calls to it. Unfortunately, corn fields are not a natural destination for people’s calling behavior, so the “rural phone company” in question was left needing to find something that would generate a lot of calls. Enter 911 services and porn BBSs, and suddenly you have a thriving business model, all built on the back of regulating AT&T’s monopoly. The “content providers” in this case are paid a piece of the action (usually on the order of a penny per minute per call or something like that), so high density, low labor cost solutions are ideal. I used to work for an ISP that did this — they offered free Internet access, the only hook was that the POPs were hosted in these “rural phone company”’s “datacenters.” The ISP’s hardware was often right next to a massive CDROM Jukebox with full of discs with titles like “Fabulous Titties #10: Ethiopian Edition.”
So yes, AT&T is probably accurate in saying that Google is trying to get away with the same thing that they couldn’t get away with. The big difference of course is time — AT&T is no longer a monopoly, and neither is Google.
Okay “history” buff… break it down with some hyperlinks.
We’re waiting.
I’m not in any way vouching for the poster’s knowledge, since I really don’t know a damned thing about this topic. I will say, however, that all human knowledge is not contained on the Internet. I get really tired of people who pretend that something can’t possibly be true, unless you have a link to back it up.
Newspaper and other periodical references would suffice as well.
How about this… Did you ever wonder how free conferencing companies make money? You don’t pay them, they don’t advertise, they aren’t working for the phone company you get service from, so how do they do it?
They do it the same way I described above. Check this out:
http://swik.net...ues+AT%26T/1nu3
And this isn’t me being a history buff, I was an employee of a company that made its money this way!
If you don’t believe him/her, simply do your own research. No one owes you any links.
AT&T is the new Enron. Evil, greedy, insane, pathetic company.
I can’t blame AT&T for wanting their money. I’m kind of surprised that they didn’t block access to Google Voice on the iPhone, though. But was that really their choice?
Rural LEC (RLEC) termination fee red herrings aside…
If I read between the lines, I sense that AT&T is actually asking Google for SIP O/T contract outside of the existing Level 3 relationship.
Google is going to monetize minutes in some manner even if it is in ways that are not readily apparent. They just will. So, AT&T wants to make sure they get paid and can divvy up the last remaining spoils of access charges or what they may become as ARPU is pressed into sub $60 ranges (i.e. a massive correction).
I thought Level3 was the company that was providing Google with the pool of phone numbers, call-termination services etc; looks like it is actually Bandwidth.com and not Level3.
How about the following lead for a blog post :
Bandwidth.com finds a big VOIP customer in Google .
*ahem*
http://www.leve....cfm?pageID=360
*ahem*
Try again.
Sure, the link you posted and the following link
http://www.phon...73h1311340.html
seem to suggest that Bandwidth.com might be acting as a mere re-seller for Level 3.
I tried to plug in few Google voice numbers into the following link http://www.fone...p?npa=&nxx=
to see who the carrier of the GV numbers actually is and all the numbers I plugged in point to Bandwidth.comas being the carrier. I am starting to believe that Bandwidth.com has moved beyond being just a Level 3 reseller.
Bandwidth.com has many carriers they resell — including Level 3, Qwest, Verizon, GC… sure… but it’s not the same thing as -being- Level 3 or any of these carriers.
wrong…that seems like old news…they have their own network…
http://www.band...s-networks.html
No. It’s not old news.
I’m fully aware of their website. I am not claiming and did not claim they don’t own their own Sonus switches in addition to much of the legacy pre-Sonus system that built their business in the first place.
Bandwidth.com is -not- a facilities based provider. They do not own the facilities in which they colo their switches. They are simple a CLEC operating without facilities or with them in a limited capacity when it fits the need.
Equating Bandwidth.com with Level 3 is flawed. Bandwidth is privately held, much much smaller, and frankly, more likely to do something innovative.
My point originally (scroll up) is that GV is going to expand outside of -just- Level 3. I’d expect a lot of things to reflect differently over time than any NPA-NXX lookup on a web page might offer.
Okay, done for tonight.
Have fun folks.
May be you are right in that GV is gonna be expanding outside of Level3 and that Bandwidth.com is just a middle man between GV and L3.
Notwithstanding the above assertions, I guess you would not dispute that Bandwidth.com stands to make some serious money.
Maybe. A listing of companies (scroll down) indicates other VoIP oriented CLECs and other parts in the mix as well based on the FCC document /mistake/ made.
The key thing I saw is the relationships that give them greater control over porting with Neustar. After that, it’s no different than any other VoIP provider that isn’t a mega carrier. This is patch work as would be expected for termination and origination.
Can AT&T pass these termination fees on to their customers?
The UK is famed for this very topic.
Once again AT&T shows how much of a bully they are. They try to call out another company for allegedly doing the same thing they tried to do, simply because they weren’t allowed to do it. I don’t work for Google, but I have been screwed by AT&T. It was a billing issue where nobody wanted to take responsibility for Bell South, which is now AT&T routing calls through AT&T and trying to make me pay for them. That was 10 years ago, but I see that AT&T hasn’t changed much in that time. Google, on the other hand, is constantly innovating and improving their services, and all free for what I use, so never any billing issues there.
AT&T isn’t saying they agree with the rules, just that if the govt is going to make the rules, they need to implement them equally.
I can’t stand ATT, but in this case I think they are right.
Wow, AT&T should suck it…..
AT&T are obviously hypocrites, but more and more with Google you see a pattern where they selectively break the rules when they feel it suits them. Maybe they should get a game plan and stick to it.
I don’t know from my opinion Google voice seem more like a middle man service an not the actual service provider, ie. with out the end connection of an actual phone and the network behind it, Google voice is a body with no head.
The analogy that comes to mind here is that Google resembles those Mailbox Etc. stores that provides services such as package drop off and mailing supplies but they don’t actually have trucks and plane or any of the logistics to actually ship the package. AT&T in this case would be like FedEx or UPS and they own the logistics and infrastructure that makes shipping possible and with out them Mailbox Etc, excluding USPS would be useless.
So with this in mind one has to ask, should Mailbox Etc. be subject to the same regulations that FedEx and UPS face? Should FedEx be afraid that people are going there to ship packages as an alternative to FedEx Kinkos or the UPS Store?
I love my Google Voice numbers and appreciate all the services on it like Voice Mail transcription and conference calling. I only wish I could use the Smart Phone app on my Iphone and I can’t wait to start integrating it with my Google Wave service.
Yes, a rough analogy is suppose that Fedex and UPS were REQUIRED to have stores in rural areas even if it was very expensive for them and that is the only way they were allowed to run the business.
Now, Mailbox, etc., comes along and cherry picks locations of where their stores will be and duplicates the service of Fedex and UPS as far as the consumer is concerned but use Fedex and UPS as their carrier. And because they cherry pick for their business model, they are able to provide that service free subsidized by other things.
Why would anyone want to use Fedex or UPS service then?
They don’t and Fedex and UPS business model falls apart because they can no longer afford the rural access with the margins in the choice locations destroyed by Mailboxes, etc.
They go away. Now Mailboxes, etc., has to do its own carrying. Even if it is able to, no more competition and no more access to rural areas.
Similar things are happening in the news industry.
vab technologies is the web development company in india.
“vabinfoit.com provide best quality custom web site design and development services at the most affordable prices. Check out our Basic Website Starter Package starting at just $200. All custom web sites we build are W3C standard compliant, cross browser compatible, highly optimized for load time and created using cutting-edge tableless CSS programming.”
So if Google unblocks the local carrier numbers right now, does that mean AT&T would have to let Google Voice in as a native iPhone App?
No, AT&T is not the one who approves iPhone apps. Apple does.
What I don’t like is the assumption that a carrier has to open up to competitors offering a free calling service. It is just fine to complain about it or drop the service for something that actually allows Google Voice.
But this net neutrality and opposition to tiered services is a bunch of hooey.
AT&T is not the one who approves iPhone apps.
Well…..
ATT could simply go back to being a Telco ONLY and providing voice services and nothing more. Then they wouldn’t have this headache.
I am passing your name along to my reader’s group..there’s 8 of us now..It started with 5 so we are expanding. HAPPY HALLOWEEN. Great to have you here Susan! I have two quick questions,