4 ms·

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 customer

by 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.

by karl11 17y ago

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.