Earlier today news broke that AT&T had filed a letter with the FCC asserting that Google is violating net neutrality principles with Google Voice by preventing users from calling certain numbers. Google has wasted no time in posting a response to its Public Policy Blog to defend itself against the accusations.
For those who missed the initial letter: AT&T has long had to deal with local phone carriers who charge exorbitant prices to long-distance companies to connect their calls. These local carriers are further exploiting the system by partnering with phone sex operators and similar services to maximize the number of calls to these high-priced numbers. AT&T has tried to restrict such calls but was barred from doing so, and it’s angry that Google Voice â which does restrict calls to some of these pornographic numbers to save money â is getting away with it.
Google’s response outlines AT&T’s concerns over the local operator abuses and actually says that it too believes the current carrier compensation system is “badly flawed.” But then it goes on to say that none of this should apply to Google Voice, because it’s not a phone service.
Google writes that AT&T has tried to “blur the distinction between Google Voice and traditional phone service”, then offers the following bullets as evidence for why they are different:
- Unlike traditional carriers, Google Voice is a free, Web-based software application, and so not subject to common carrier laws.
- Google Voice is not intended to be a replacement for traditional phone service — in fact, you need an existing land or wireless line in order to use it. Importantly, users are still able to make outbound calls on any other phone device.
- Google Voice is currently invitation-only, serving a limited number of users.
Finally, Google closes out the letter by saying:
“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.”
So who is right? Google may well be correct in its interpretation of the current open Internet principles, and given AT&T’s history of fighting against net neutrality it’s hard not to take its arguments for it with a nice big grain of salt. That said, the notion that a call traveling directly over carrier lines should be treated differently than those that go though software applications seems to be a distinction that is quickly blurring. And from the consumer’s perspective, having some phone services that can call any number and others that come with restrictions seems like a setup that’s ripe for confusion.
Google is right. It’s free and you need a phone anyway.
AT&T has also a point, it sees his revenue shrunken by a ap that’s free but uses his infrastructure and cost them 2 times money.
First by higher load on there network, And then by stealing away paying customers whit a free ap that only cost development cost, but doesn’t cost hardware maintenance.
GV does consume ATT minutes though
Google is right. It’s free and you need a traditional phone line anyway. Which is restricted from blocking those same phone calls.
I’m with Google on this one. If network neutrality is present you could use an alternate application which did not block these numbers. That the application blocks certain numbers is not a network neutrality issue unless this is the only application allowed to place the calls on this network.
AT&T and Apple need to stop hating and get off there high horses and accept the google voice app. This is getting to be childish and is going to cause a customer uproar if things get legal on a higher level.
I mean I can still manage my GV account without the app, and still manage to eat my so called iPhone functionality thru AT&T network. The only difference I see is an increase in volume if there were an app. No increase on my end. I had Sean’s terminated app for a week and my call volume hadn’t increased.
What sucks is Apples lack of refunds for apps they decide to terminate after they’ve approved it. Way to rob your loyal customers blind for your mistake!
Let’s hope for a happy ending.
WTF, they need to stop this bickering. Google, go buy AT&T and shut them the hell up!
If only.
Even with Google’s exponential growth, Google cannot buy AT&T. I don’t think even Microsoft (with a market cap of 227.67B could find enough change under the couch to buy a 30% stake in AT&T).
AT&T market cap (NYSE:T) USD 159.06B
Google market cap (NYSE:GOOG) USD 155.91B
T shares = 5.90 B
Institutionally owned = 56%
Current price ~ USD 27
Shares * Price = USD 159 billion, 300 million
Less institutionally held results is USD 70,092,000,000
GOOG shares = 316.57M
Institutionally owned = 61%
Current price ~ USD 490
Shares * Price = 155 billion, 119.3 million
Less intitutionally held results is USD 60,496,527,000
In any case, why would Google want to buy AT&T (except for the customer base)?
I want google voice on my iPhone (not web service)… But after this it will never happen… Damn you AT&T and your 2 year contract and me for loving this damn iPhone… I hate it with a passion
Grow a pair and jailbreak it.
Webheads cannot continue to pose as tech folk and then be scared to actually use their tech gadgets to their potential.
The distinction is not blurry at the legal level. Go look up ILEC, CLEC, etc.
I know my GV number points to McleodUSA, and Google has partnered with Level 3 as their tier 1 supplier (trunk provider).
Google doesn’t have a monopoly on the nation’s airwaves or access lines. AT&T and Google cannot be treated the same as they are VERY different businesses.
This is beyond ridiculous.
This ^^
AT&T is already getting revenue for the Google calls from the Data plan AND it takes ATT minutes to use Gvoice from your cell phone.
They should just shut up about it before Google goes full VOIP on them and they lose the phone minute revenue, too. It is hard to make the case that they call block VOIP calls when you are paying for a data plan.
AT&T no one like you. Get over it. Now go fix my iPhone 3G connection that i pay $50 a month for!
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 .
Why, why, why are you continuing to post this?
He corrected himself from saying Level3 was the company that Google uses. What’s so wrong about that?
Apple must love this. Somehow, they aren’t in the middle. While AT&T and google bicker, apple gets no closer to approving the Google voice app.
I dunno. I love Google and it’s obvious that everyone else in the comments here does too. But I understand AT&T’s argument and somewhat agree with it. If AT&T is banned from blocking calls to certain numbers, Google should be too. Just because it’s “software” instead of a phone company (and what, AT&T has no “software” running their phone operations? please) doesn’t make it OK in my eyes.
Google’s activities, products, or business do not fall under the jurisdiction of the FCC. Google does business with companies whose businesses do, but Google does not have to answer to the FCC.
I believe this is proof of ATT’s involvement with the Google Voice app rejection, and Voice Central and GV Mobile pulled from iTunes.
Agreed. This is a thinly veiled attack on Google Voice.
Google is holding its ground and seems to have the upper hand.
really needed another post for what was already covered below? :p
Competition is always good for customers. I hope one day I could VoIP on my iphone with data plan and no more phone minutes.
1. Get iSip + Gizmo + GrandCentral
2. Enjoy Free outbound calls. Free inbound calls.
3. Downgrade AT&T plan to a low-rent penny saver.
Done!
Google is 100% correct here.
Since one side of the Google Voice transmission is taking place over a user’s personal phone connection, local rates and access to dial or receive calls to any number remain in effect and governed by FCC regulation.
Google Voice is a software solution for routing calls. If you have a cable card on your PC, and you are running Boxee, if suddenly Boxee decided to boycott all local broadcast content and deny recording or tuning privileges to that content from within the app, it wouldn’t be an FCC matter.
I’m sure corporate PBX systems might have filtering rules. Are those treading net neutrality water?
When Google is actually providing the phone service powering the communication, instead of just setting up the call – then it can be a net neutrality issue.
Good analogy with Boxee. If the cable company filtered something, THAT would be a net neutrality violation.
Yeah, you nailed the analogy. ATT provides last-mile, Google does not.
> Google is 100% correct here.
I don’t think so.
Why did not Google get 700MHz?
They are always complaining though they neglected the effort to acquire 700MHz.
They were outbid–by Verizon, right? Plus, by being involved at all, they were able to influence the policies and process to a more favorable outcome for what’s now Google Voice.
I do not intend to discuss the policy and the process. I am requesting the result to payment.
High-quality service is not received to the end user in under-populated areas as well as the city because Google did not do a correct investment as an enterprise.
This realistically shows that Google is baby’s state as the main communications industry.
I want to know why the writer points out this is related to pornography. Is it an effort to diminish the impact? Make Google look better? Nice article on the issue here: http://www.tech...449236112.shtml
I think it is crap that these local service providers can charge these kinds rates for calls and try to make others pay interconnect fees which go through the roof.
god I hate ATT, kick some ass Google
Google is living up to it’s motto, “Don’t be evil.” AT&T modifying traffic on their network because they own the “pipes” is wrong. Just like rural telephone carriers charging more for connection fees is wrong. The telephone system is old and outdated. AT&T can’t think of new ways to make money with it. They like being the gatekeepers, and think of new ways to soak money from their customers. Remember when a long distance call cost more because it was more work for the system to connect you? Remember when someone could call you, and the call was free for you? How is it that when you call someone on a cell phone and talk for 5 mins, AT&T gets paid twice (for both ends of the conversation) on that call?
AT&T is a master of artificially inflating prices, and people will pay it. Google is interested in technology and advancing innovation. I think of Google as the Dewey Decimal System on steroids.
Data should be like the water pipe in your home. Noone has the right to charge you more or less depending on what you decide to use it for. That my friends, is the fundamental difference between infrastructure and content. AT&T has no control over content, only infrastructure, even though a new revenue stream could come from them trying. Google is in the content business, not infrastructure business.
What? AT&T does not “get paid twice” on a call. If a subscriber on an AT&T plan calls another AT&T subscriber, the call will use no plan minutes for either user. If a subscriber calls a non-AT&T phone, the only minutes AT&T has anything to do with is the AT&T subscriber’s.
Actually, the issue has little to do with porno numbers in puerto rico. Calling inter-lata, intra-state can be expensive. Like a call from one part of Arizona to another part of Arizona can really rack up the charges. We ran billions of calls a year at Tellme and this was an issue that we had to deal with in our routing plans (our data centers were located in VA, AZ and CA — one of the main rules was never route a toll-free call from AZ to an AZ data center, in order to avoid certain charges)
I’ve switched to GV, but one really annoying thing is they do block calls to freeconferencecall.com numbers. These lines are used for business.
With the way the system is set up Google probably does need to block them to avoid the enormous fees and keep the service free. I wish they had a paid option ($3/month like Skype) and then allowed these calls. Or simply supported sms from skype so I could set my skype caller id as my GV number.
That’s amazing. At&t recognizing Google as a “Phone Company”.
My, how the landscape has changed over these few years…
yeah isn’t it hilarious, ironic, sad and great all in one. it’s good change is here. i like when people notice that time moves forwards and not backwards. i agree with fred richards, but the lines are all quicly being blurred. imagine if at&t started doring what google does…i bet they’d make sure they charged for everything first and screwed users
.
Some of the most expensive areas to call are in Iowa. Due to federally mandated subsidies, the local companies charge AT&T 15-20 cents/minute to terminate calls. Services like freeconferencecall.com are based in Iowa and are making millions of dollars every month off of AT&T. AT&T can handle these charges, but small VOIP telco’s cannot.
Great Google
Google responded already ? thats cool …
sorry, but att is correct in this approach – all of the carriers are in fact using assorted web services and apps to evolve their own infrastructure and google is simply entering at an advanced starting point – google is a carrier, period.
AT the end of the day, Google is using some sort of telephone lines, at the moment is is NOT possible to make a phone call that is not a skype to skype call without some sort of telephone line/s.
In Google’s case they must have a whole lot of telephone lines.
AT&T has a point and Google does not, at the end of the day it still uses Telephone lines that some company controls. As Google does not own a telephone company.
On top of that, if the telephone company Google pays to rent those lines, find that they are braking the Terms Of Use, Google could see not only their phone system broken but also a big disconnection fee.
At the end of the day, this is costing GOOGLE! and my thought is that Google needs to concentrate on what they do best, just look at how many startups this company has brought and shut down. Including their very own Lively, which they said “it was an experiment”.
Google go back to search, you do that well (but sadly you don’t do live search as well as some other companies)
I’m going with Google here. Why hinder innovation in the software world with restrictions meant for carriers?