7 ms·

Google's response to AT&T

28 points by manish 17y ago

karl11 17y ago
The reason AT&T was banned from refusing to connect certain calls is because they have a monopoly-like presence in many areas. With no other means for customers to make those calls, AT&T was taking unfair advantage of the fact that customers could not easily switch to another carrier. Google Voice is free, and requires an existing, non-Google phone carrier. Apples to oranges. I have to give Google the benefit of the doubt in any case, because I like Google's services and use them willingly on a daily basis. On the other hand, companies like Verizon and AT&T have become a necessary evil.
- jrockway 17y ago
  Indeed. To get around AT&T's limitations, you would have to sell your house, buy a new one, and move everything you own to that new house. A lot of work just to call a few phone numbers. To get around Google's limitations, just Google search (oh, the irony) for a new VoIP provider -- there are millions. (Skype is particularly popular.) This is not a lot of work; considering you don't even pay money for GV. If it doesn't work, leaving is very easy. Websites and physical infrastructure are two very different areas. AT&T is just bitter about the fact that the government paid for most of their infrastructure and that the same government is making sure AT&T dosn't use it to hurt the people that paid to have it built.
- sjs 17y ago
  I agree with you, now. It seems like every day I'm switching to some Google product and I fear in the future we might feel about Google the way we feel now about Rogers (or AT&T or whoever). And they'll hold all our email, photos, calendars, contacts, waves, ...
- gojomo 17y ago
  The fact that Google Voice is free should be an aggravating factor, not a defense. Google makes extreme profits in a market where they have a de facto monopoly. (Advertisers may think of AdWords as 'a necessary evil'.) Should Google be able to use those profits to subsidize their entry into another regulated market? And with their offering, not even incur the same call-connection-charges that regulated incumbents are required to pay? I'd say, drop all the regulations and let the titans duke it out. Technology changes fast enough that no monopoly lasts very long without regulator help. But given that Google asked for the FCC to enforce new rules to defend their business, it's just fair turnabout that AT&T is now doing the same to Google.
- endtime 17y ago
  >I have to give Google the benefit of the doubt in any case, because I like Google's services and use them willingly on a daily basis. That's not a good reason to give someone the benefit of the doubt in a legal (or, now that I think about it, just about any) matter.
dminor 17y ago
I think it's long past time to revisit and dispense with the arcanities in telecom law.
gojomo 17y ago
This sentence from Google is priceless: "The FCC's open Internet principles apply only to the behavior of broadband carriers -- not the creators of Web-based software applications." Or in other words: Neutrality and FCC regulations for thee, but not for me.
- zaphar 17y ago
  what you state may be true but it is not necessarily wrong. The physical equivalent is that while everyone should have access to the roads that doesn't mean you get to have access to my house as well. Even though my house is connected to the road doesn't mean the same rules as the road apply.
  - brisance 17y ago
    Read David's and Darkmane's comment on the blog. If GV emulates the functionality of a common carrier, then the same guiding principles with regards to net neutrality should apply.
    - zaphar 17y ago
      GV doesn't emulate the functionality of a common carrier though. Which is the point.
      - gojomo 17y ago
        Then can AT&T offer a cheaper 'AT&T Voice' long-distance, that opts out of 'common-carrier' requirements and doesn't connect to the expensive rural numbers? If "the point" is that Google can choose to offer phone functionality that's less-than-common-carrier-compliant, why can't AT&T be allowed to offer a cheaper service, too?
        jwhite 17y ago
        That may open up a new revenue stream for AT&T, but I don't think it solves the cost issue in their long-haul business that they were trying to address by not carrying calls terminating at expensive LEC's. I don't know the details of it, but it seems like they are obliged by regulation or legislation to provide that service to rural LEC's. It could be compared to Starbucks trying to close down an unprofitable rural store and being told they had to keep it open to satisfy rural coffee drinkers' caffeine addictions.
ekiru 17y ago
The critical question here is "Is a call-forwarding service the same as a telephone provider?" Google has no cell phone towers or phone lines. When you call someone with Google Voice this happens: 1. Google calls the number you're calling with the GV number they've assigned to you. 2. Google calls your actual phone number. 3. Google connects the two calls so you're talking to the person you wanted to call via your actual phone provider's network. 4. Your actual phone provider charges you money. Whereas when you call with a normal phone provider: 1. You dial the number. 2. Your phone provider connects you to the person over their network. 3. Your phone provider charges you money. The only significant difference I see between the two is that with Google Voice, you show up differently on the caller ID of the person you call.

28 points by manish 17y ago

The reason AT&T was banned from refusing to connect certain calls is because they have a monopoly-like presence in many areas. With no other means for customers to make those calls, AT&T was taking unfair advantage of the fact that customers could not easily switch to another carrier. Google Voice is free, and requires an existing, non-Google phone carrier. Apples to oranges. I have to give Google the benefit of the doubt in any case, because I like Google's services and use them willingly on a daily basis. On the other hand, companies like Verizon and AT&T have become a necessary evil.

jrockway 17y ago
Indeed. To get around AT&T's limitations, you would have to sell your house, buy a new one, and move everything you own to that new house. A lot of work just to call a few phone numbers. To get around Google's limitations, just Google search (oh, the irony) for a new VoIP provider -- there are millions. (Skype is particularly popular.) This is not a lot of work; considering you don't even pay money for GV. If it doesn't work, leaving is very easy. Websites and physical infrastructure are two very different areas. AT&T is just bitter about the fact that the government paid for most of their infrastructure and that the same government is making sure AT&T dosn't use it to hurt the people that paid to have it built.
sjs 17y ago
I agree with you, now. It seems like every day I'm switching to some Google product and I fear in the future we might feel about Google the way we feel now about Rogers (or AT&T or whoever). And they'll hold all our email, photos, calendars, contacts, waves, ...
gojomo 17y ago
The fact that Google Voice is free should be an aggravating factor, not a defense. Google makes extreme profits in a market where they have a de facto monopoly. (Advertisers may think of AdWords as 'a necessary evil'.) Should Google be able to use those profits to subsidize their entry into another regulated market? And with their offering, not even incur the same call-connection-charges that regulated incumbents are required to pay? I'd say, drop all the regulations and let the titans duke it out. Technology changes fast enough that no monopoly lasts very long without regulator help. But given that Google asked for the FCC to enforce new rules to defend their business, it's just fair turnabout that AT&T is now doing the same to Google.
endtime 17y ago
>I have to give Google the benefit of the doubt in any case, because I like Google's services and use them willingly on a daily basis. That's not a good reason to give someone the benefit of the doubt in a legal (or, now that I think about it, just about any) matter.

dminor 17y ago

I think it's long past time to revisit and dispense with the arcanities in telecom law.

gojomo 17y ago

This sentence from Google is priceless: "The FCC's open Internet principles apply only to the behavior of broadband carriers -- not the creators of Web-based software applications." Or in other words: Neutrality and FCC regulations for thee, but not for me.

zaphar 17y ago
what you state may be true but it is not necessarily wrong. The physical equivalent is that while everyone should have access to the roads that doesn't mean you get to have access to my house as well. Even though my house is connected to the road doesn't mean the same rules as the road apply.
- brisance 17y ago
  Read David's and Darkmane's comment on the blog. If GV emulates the functionality of a common carrier, then the same guiding principles with regards to net neutrality should apply.
  - zaphar 17y ago
    GV doesn't emulate the functionality of a common carrier though. Which is the point.
    - gojomo 17y ago
      Then can AT&T offer a cheaper 'AT&T Voice' long-distance, that opts out of 'common-carrier' requirements and doesn't connect to the expensive rural numbers? If "the point" is that Google can choose to offer phone functionality that's less-than-common-carrier-compliant, why can't AT&T be allowed to offer a cheaper service, too?
      - jwhite 17y ago
        That may open up a new revenue stream for AT&T, but I don't think it solves the cost issue in their long-haul business that they were trying to address by not carrying calls terminating at expensive LEC's. I don't know the details of it, but it seems like they are obliged by regulation or legislation to provide that service to rural LEC's. It could be compared to Starbucks trying to close down an unprofitable rural store and being told they had to keep it open to satisfy rural coffee drinkers' caffeine addictions.

ekiru 17y ago

The critical question here is "Is a call-forwarding service the same as a telephone provider?" Google has no cell phone towers or phone lines. When you call someone with Google Voice this happens: 1. Google calls the number you're calling with the GV number they've assigned to you. 2. Google calls your actual phone number. 3. Google connects the two calls so you're talking to the person you wanted to call via your actual phone provider's network. 4. Your actual phone provider charges you money. Whereas when you call with a normal phone provider: 1. You dial the number. 2. Your phone provider connects you to the person over their network. 3. Your phone provider charges you money. The only significant difference I see between the two is that with Google Voice, you show up differently on the caller ID of the person you call.