The back-and-forth between AT&T, Google, and the FCC over Google Voice’s blocking of some rural telephone numbers continues, and it’s getting even nastier. AT&T’s latest letter to the FCC attempts to undermine Google’s recent argument that it’s blocking exorbitantly expensive calls to some numbers in part because they are associated with sex lines. In fact, AT&T says, some of the numbers being blocked include an ambulance service, church, Benedictine nuns, doctors, and more. Oh, and that’s not AT&T’s only problem with Google — it also thinks that the FCC should consider regulating the search giant on the web as well.
The letter (which we’ve embedded below) is long, first detailing in depth AT&T’s problems with Google Voice, which it says should be held to the same rules as AT&T and other tradional carriers are. The letter then goes on a lengthy argument making the case that if the FCC fails to regulate Google now, the search giant could use its “gatekeeper control” over the Internet to block access to applications:
But Google’s call blocking begs an even more important question that the Commission must consider as it evaluates whether to adopt rules regarding Internet openness. If the Commission is going to be a “smart cop on the beat preserving a free and open Internet,” then shouldn’t its “beat” necessarily cover the entire Internet neighborhood, including Google? Indeed, if the Commission cannot stop Google from blocking disfavored telephone calls as Google contends, then how could the Commission ever stop Google from also blocking disfavored websites from appearing in the results of its search engine; or prohibit Google from blocking access to applications that compete with its own email, text messaging, cloud computing and other services; or otherwise prevent Google from abusing the gatekeeper control it wields over the Internet?
The letter continues after that, detailing all of the times when Google may have exercised its power to somehow restrict free speech or show favoritsm toward certain political views that were in line with its own. AT&T even pulls out Google’s famous “don’t be evil motto”, asserting that Google should have “no objection to abiding by the Internet Policy Statement and other net neutrality principles it advocates with respect to Google Voice and all of the Internet-based services, applications and content that it offers.”
Finally, AT&T summarizes its arguments with a document called “The Truth About Google Voice and the Open Internet Principles“, where it presents four supposed lies being told by Google, each tagged with the heading “What Google Wants You to Believe” (duh duh duh), followed by AT&T’s response, “The Truth“. That document begins on page 9 of the embed below.
It’s all worth a read, but once again it’s hard to listen to AT&T’s argument’s for net neutrality when it concludes the letter by saying it’s against changes in policy in the first place. Still, AT&T does raise some interesting points, and it’s likely we’ll be hearing similar debates as the line between telecommunication services and Internet services continues to blur. For now though, the FCC doesn’t seem to buying the net neutrality angle. From the Washington Post:
Sources at the FCC who spoke on the condititon of anonymity said the FCC inquiry focuses on the question of potential violations of telecommunications law. The agency does not plan to look into potential violations of net neutrality — or open-Internet guidelines — because officials didn’t appear to agree with such claims.
Document via The Washington Post.
something about glass houses
“Indeed, if the Commission cannot stop Google from blocking disfavored telephone calls as Google contends, then how could the Commission ever stop Google from also blocking disfavored websites from appearing in the results of its search engine; or prohibit Google from blocking access to applications that compete with its own email, text messaging, cloud computing and other services; or otherwise prevent Google from abusing the gatekeeper control it wields over the Internet?”
Um… does that sound like the Apple App store to anyone else?
not really.
Google could simply provide a non-free feature for Google Voice, same as for overseas calls, just let users put some money on their Google Voice account to access overpriced non-free numbers.
Also, I want real VOIP version of the Google Voice service, one that works on any Android phone worldwide using data-only networks, no more Voice/SMS contracts needed.
I believe Google is preparing the real-voip transition, at least for countries where consumers can buy a $20 per month HSDPA sim card for 10-20GB of data usage per month, and with no VOIP packet blocking.
this is getting pretty heated!
Lets see, AT&T illegally listened in on citizens of US private phone conversations and now wants everything to be open?
Something is wrong with this picture.
earlwallace
To be precise, AT&T was co-opted to tap traffic by a Government that wanted to listen in on private conversations of US citizens.
I see At&t is trying to reframe the whole issue of Neutrality for its own benefit. See: Google is breaking Net Neutality, so we can, too. When in fact, this has nothing to do with net neutrality.
too long; don’t read.
We are all sooo glad you shared your very interesting laziness with us Travis Moore.
Maybe you should learn to read full sentences.
An ambulance service, church, and a nun?
Oh, boo hoo.
AT&T is getting dirty, and it is pathetic. You can always count on the loser to take things dirty first.
Indeed. This whole situation is ridiculous. “If you can’t compete, litigate. ” Hopefully they’ll go the way of AOL.
Then do you agree that the feds should not have attacked Microsoft in the 90s?
Why should AT&T be forced to compete with restrictions that make them complete calls to any number while its competitor does not have that restriction? Either throw out that rule for both or enforce it for both. Wouldn’t that lead to fairer competition.
ATT dont like paying the same extortionate termination rates for calls that Google are blocking, but AT&T cant.
AT&T dont like Google moving into the telco service space without all of the overheads of telco regulations
AT&T dont really like network neutrality.
AT&T already have a PR problem.
Seriously, where can they lose by going after google like this?
+1
Well put.
guarantee if it was at&t blocking service to an ambulance service, you wouldnt be saying boo hoo
but its your beloved google so they can block whoever, right?j
But what if I need an immediate delivery of a nun from that church by way of ambulance?
You could make a phone call to arrange it. Google voice requires from you to have a phone first, and then using your phone it adds additional services on top. This is why the argument of ATT is wrong, Google is not providing the pipes for your phone, your phone service provider is someone else. Now that someone else is required by law to not discriminate in who you can call, and the reason for this is because he got government subsidies to build the phone lines some 300 years ago. Or thereabout.
Now you can ask how come Google is positioning itself so carefully not to “sell” the end pipes to consumers? Most likely to avoid arcane regulation. But given that it is free, I don’t see why would anyone be angry. Like you get free ice cream, but it does not have oreo crumbles on top?! Thats it – class action law suit!
No, the only ones that are angry are the incumbents used to gauging the consumers and charging more than
what they are providing is really worth.
okay now….I’m starting to doubt the notion that Apple is solely responsible for blocking/”studying” Google Voice in the App Store.
Love my iPhone but Verizon/Android is going to bring spectacular trouble for AT&T/Apple
Google doesn’t get access to those fund collected by ILECs that help fund rural access. Google doesn’t provide last-mile services either. I just don’t understand why ATT misses the reasoning for the FCC to regulate them.
Google Voice is a B2BUA:
http://en.wikip...back_user_agent
The solution is to level the playing field. Either make both be forced to complete calls to all numbers and make the funds available to both or remove that restriction to complete calls to all numbers and get rid of the funds (and then worry about who is going to provide service to rural areas).
Not providing the last mile has nothing to do with it.
Ah yes. The battle cry of a bloated obsolete company desperately trying to draw attention away from their wrong doings and further muddy the waters for net neutrality.
AT&T we don’t want your obsolete analog phone lines and overpriced mobile service anymore. Come up with some innovative products like Google has and you won’t have to write these pathetic whiny letters to the FCC protecting your obsolete business model.
I agree that they “should” be an obsolete business. The truth is that AT&T made $120 Billion officially last year in revenues. Probably much more unofficially (through subsidiaries, off shores and whatnot).
It’s going to take quite a bunch of revolutionary features like VOIP, White Spaces, WiFi Direct roaming, Android, ARM Laptops and more stuff like that to actually start to really hurt AT&T on the obsolete side of their business.
obsolete – LOL
Hated by ppl in this small circle of the world – indeed!
AT&T is an obsolete business? Are you serious?
You quote things such as VOIP and android… both of which rely on wireless network providers (though maybe not AT&T specifically, their direct competitors)
+1
“AT&T we don’t want your obsolete analog phone lines and overpriced mobile service anymore.”
really? theyre the best price and best coverage everywhere
but its ok you can keep crying google fanboy
Best price and best coverage everywhere? Where in the world do YOU live??
Sprint blows AT&T out of the water around Cincinnati. All those people that ran out and grabbed an iphone because they “are cool” and hopped on the AT&T band-wagon because of it are the same people sitting around complaining about dropped calls and no service.
Another letter? Doesn’t AT&T have anything better to spend its money on besides letter writing attorneys? Maybe on bettering its cell coverage?
Anyways, Google Voice is free and it’s entirely optional. I fail to see how they have any sort of argument at all, especially considering if a person really wants to call those blocked numbers, they can use the damn phone they’re receiving/sending their Google Voice calls with instead of the Google Voice number.
As an aside, I think it’s interesting that AT&T is almost asserting that “the Commission -cannot- stop Google”, as if baiting them to do so not just by giving their opinions on the matter, but by questioning whether or not the FCC has any real authority on the matter.
If AT&T switched to a free call model supported by advertising, then are you suggesting that they should not be forced to complete calls to any number? What does the pricing model have to do with the intent of that restriction?
Your not comparing the same thing…AT&T owns the infrastructure as well as the service. (Monopoly) They have to complete the call because there would be no other way to complete the call to some of these locations, and they are paid by the government to do so. Once again google voice would actually help AT&T’s(or any phone company’s) bottom line on this…and likely already is. I know I use GV from my iphone, thus using my AT&T cellular minutes. Google is not a gate keeper, you can use anyone of a hundred different search engines/email/IM/etc…However in many locations around this country you can only use AT&T…come on people Google is trying to make it better for the user(at least for now) AT&T is trying to squeeze the last $ out of lines my 70 year old parents don’t even use anymore.
“Another letter? Doesn’t AT&T have anything better to spend its money on besides letter writing attorneys? Maybe on bettering its cell coverage?”
actually they do. supposedly they have spent/will spend about $18 Billion this year doing just that.
Goggle is taking heat from AT&T, but Microsoft does the same thing when it comes to screening the websites that it will allow you to access as well.
Why isn’t AT&T lambasting Microsoft as well?
Because it has no beef with Microsoft at the moment while Google is threatening its business model? There has to be a simple answer somewhere.
This letter and, frankly, the whole back-and-forth should be a case study in the business climate in America. That a company like AT&T can write this drivel and expect to be taken seriously – and I do believe they think the FCC will very much take them seriously – says quite a bit about our business world. With a track record as lousy as their’s, AT&T shows some amazing bravado here, or….is it something else? Does this not stink of having supreme faith in the FUD factor (even TC says “it’s worth a read” – wait, why?) + lobbying efforts + politicians in their pocket?
The telecom industry has one of the most powerful lobbies in the US. They can move senators and congressmen faster than Google can say Eric Schmidt.
I love it when people use the “access road / gatekeeper” analogy to describe Google. Google provides a search product, they are not an ISP.
“…then how could the Commission ever stop Google from also blocking disfavored websites from appearing in the results of its search engine; or prohibit Google from blocking access to applications that compete with its own email, text messaging, cloud computing and other services; or otherwise prevent Google from abusing the gatekeeper control it wields over the Internet?…”
you don’t have to be an ISP to be an internet gatekeeper.
These are professional lawyers for one of the largest companies in the world, submitting a serious complaint to the FCC.
They still can’t use the phrase “beg the question” properly.
Sigh.
get a grip.
Since telephone calls are overprices bits & bytes this telco dinosaurs is about to die.
like photos on celluloid (Polaroid)
like news on paper (The Economist)
Listen to Darwin if you want to survive: Adapt or go extinct!
I am planning to use my mobile phone trigger a call between my home phone (land line) and my moms home (land line).
Is this possible? I have downloaded Google Voice in my Blackberry storm. Unfortunately all i can do is call my mom’s home only from my blackberry cell.
What I am trying to do is avoid having to go to my laptop to connect my home land line with my mom’s land line.
Nasty, eh? Wonder if their lawyers went to school together and are meeting at Starbucks at the end of the day for a good chortle?
US lawyers bickering, this is NOT a free country. See ATT vs. Google voice.
I’m on Google’s side all the way. AT&T has a history of fighting dirty and that should help the legal beavers at Google – study the enemy and you’ll find a lot of skeletons going way back.
I’m behind Google all the way. AT&T has a history of fighting dirty – so if I were on the legal team at Google I’d make it a point to mull over doc’s that go back to the Carter Phone decision and they will learn a lot.
Infantile statement to compare today’s AT&T to history and saying that is why you are “behind Google all the way”.
And don’t throw up the “those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it” defense. In actuality, the applicability of that defense applies to Google, not to AT&T. In other words, those who did not learn from AT&T and Microsoft, are doomed to repeat it by thinking Google is all rainbows and butterflies.
ATT vs. Google Round 1 http://www.aedesigns.net
Regardless of whether or not you like AT&T (and unless you’re a shareholder, there’s not a lot to like), the real question is whether or not Google Voice should be regulated, and there’s at least a case for doing that. I’d rather see AT&T spend the money arguing that case than the government have to do it, they’ll leave no stone unturned and make sure that if Google is engaging in any kind of censorship, we’ll hear about it.
Whom should I send the letter regarding constant call drops and horrible DSL service to? I am AT&T customer.
Apple
ATT is a pain. They are not competitive, provide terrible service (both reception and customer), and are too highly priced. Frankly, it’s amazing they are still in business.
What the FCC should NOT do is throw the baby out with the bath water. Grand Central got it right with their offering. If Google is violating the law, then the law needs to be changed.
Google Voice is an excellent, innovative product. The FCC should be lauding and promoting such game changing solutions, not protecting the dinosaurs.
AT&T has been a leech on society for way too long.
AT & T may be a company with too many controversies always around it, probably in the Google voice controversy at absolutely in fraudulent side. But it does not mean, we should not clearly investigate, and listen to their side of the Story. Yes, FCC must investigate Googles openness too, Google is not the holy cow here.
Couldn’t AT&T just come up with their own “AT&T Voice” product to beat Google instead of crying to the regulators? No, because its easier to use their larger than life presence on K Street and their well-seasoned legal team than it is to navigate their own corporate bureaucracy and actually produce working software as a service. Truth is AT&T stopped innovating after Alexander Graham Bell. Make no mistake, this is not a tech company with engineers designing the next big thing, this is a lobbying firm with lawyers calling the shots.
AT&T executive management appear to be ignorant of how the Internet works. To devolop an Internet service people want to use means the cost must be competitive. Skype, Toktumi, etc. all use similar strategies in not using costly connections. When you ship a box you look for the lowest cost method; this is fairly normal thinking.
AT&T board of directors should fire the CTO, CEO and anyone else involved in this fiasco.
1. Google Voice ISN’T a voip service!
2. Google Voice is free!
3. No At&t service is free! I know, I have an Iphone!
4. at&t actually stands to make money by people using Google Voice as it requires some sort of existing line to use it. I for example use it directly from my iphone which in turn uses my cellular at&t minutes.
5. Google Voice is Free! I know I repeated it but it’s the key to the whole difference. Don’t like the way they provide service? Get a different one!
6. This is as others have pointed out has nothing to do with Google not being neutral. It has to do with At&t not wanting to have to play by the rules. Google is by default neutral in that I can go to any search engine I choose. I can use any mail I choose. Google for all purposes doesn’t exist if I never point my browser at them. However at&t owns a significant portion of the wired/wireless connections to get to Google or anywhere else on the internet and charges to do so, thus has a responsibility to not block my ability to get to google. At&t is really saying “pay us for your free service”, that by the way isn’t free to Google. I suspect At&t is already making interconnect fee’s off calls being made from Google voice.
7. I hope someone at the FCC is savvy enough to know the difference between these two things that are being compared. I’ve seen so many people calling it a VOIP service, it’s obvious that some people just don’t know what they are speaking of.
8. All public utilities (phones, gas, electric) are monopolies so regulation isn’t a question it’s a requirement. This current letter is just a bigger slight of hand trick. They are just trying to keep the eye’s off their own business.