AT&T: Google Voice doesn't play fair

By | September 28, 2009, 6:00am PDT

So FCC chairman Julius Genachowski wants fairness, eh? We’ll give you fairness, says AT&T. In a letter filed with the FCC, the company says, Did you notice, FCC, that Google is blocking phone calls from Google Voice users in rural areas? Why are they doing that? Access expense

Google Voice has claimed for itself a significant advantage over providers offering competing services. By openly flaunting the call blocking prohibition that applies to its competitors, Google is acting in a manner inconsistent with the spirit, if not the letter, of the FCC’s fourth principle contained in its Internet Policy Statement. Ironically, Google is also flouting the so-called ‘fifth principle of non-discrimination’ for which Google has so fervently advocated.

While Google argues for others to be bound by net neutrality rules, it argues against itself being bound by common carriage, which the Financial Times aptly recognized as an ‘intellectual contradiction.’ Such a contradiction highlights the fallacy of any approach to Internet regulation that focuses myopically on network providers, but not application, service, and content providers. To the extent ‘net neutrality’ is animated by a concern about ostensible Internet ‘gatekeepers,’ that concern must necessarily apply to application, service, and content providers that, like Google, can exercise their power to control which websites consumers will see and which consumers’ calls will be blocked.

AT&T strongly emphasizes that the existing Internet principles are serving consumers well in their current form and there is no sound reason to radically expand and codify those principles. But if the Commission nonetheless embarks on such a course as it apparently plans to do in an upcoming rulemaking, it absolutely must ensure that any such rules apply evenly – not just to network operators but also to providers of Internet applications, content and services. Anything less would be ineffective, legally suspect and, in all events, a direct repudiation of President Obama’s call for a ‘level playing field.’

Accordingly, the Commission cannot, through inaction or otherwise, give Google a special privilege to play by its own rules while the rest of the industry, including those who compete with Google, must instead adhere to Commission regulations. We urge the Commission to level the playing field and order Google to play by the same rules as its competitors.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Disclosure

Richard Koman

http://government.zdnet.com/?page_id=3731

Biography

Richard Koman

Richard Koman is an attorney admitted to practice in California. As a technology writer since the mid-1980s, Richard Koman has documented the role of computing in the transformation of the graphic arts, the growth of the Web and the birth of the peer-to-peer phenomenon. He worked as a book and web editor for O'Reilly Media throughout the 1990s, editing several influential websites and numerous best-sellers. As a lawyer, as well as a tech writer, he brings a unique perspective to the blog's intersection of law, government and technology.

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
3
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: AT&T: Google Voice doesn't play fair
twaynesdomain 12th Oct 2009
I have to agree with the apples & oranges bit but I'll go one step further and call the comparisons completely wrong, erroneous and short-sighted. I worked intimately with Title 47 and part 68 in particular and also have a decent grasp of what the internet, web, RFCs, FYIs and MOUs mean. It scares me the number of buzz-word users who will pick up on this malarky and perpetuate it. Please, get real data or don't bother with this sort of article in the future.
0 Votes
+ -
What?
SteelTrepid 29th Sep 2009
You actually get paid to write a short paragraph that includes NO information? The uselessness of ZDNet is growing way too fast.
0 Votes
+ -
Comparing apples and oranges
mark@... 30th Sep 2009
ISPs are in a business with a very high cost of entry, and where the market can support a very limited number of competitors in any given market due to the cost of redundant infrastructure. Online service providers are not (yet, anyway) in the same situation; if one company declines to provide service to some customers, a competitor can open up at relatively low cost to support them.

Right now, there is a clear and evident threat to access to internet services for many customers, as they have only one or two broadband providers available and additional providers are not likely to become available in the near future. Thus there is a need for regulatory action to preserve customer options.

The same situation does not exist with online services such as Google Voice. It might exist at some future time, and investigation of regulatory options might be appropriate at that time.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: AT&T: Google Voice doesn't play fair
twaynesdomain 12th Oct 2009
I have to agree with the apples & oranges bit but I'll go one step further and call the comparisons completely wrong, erroneous and short-sighted. I worked intimately with Title 47 and part 68 in particular and also have a decent grasp of what the internet, web, RFCs, FYIs and MOUs mean. It scares me the number of buzz-word users who will pick up on this malarky and perpetuate it. Please, get real data or don't bother with this sort of article in the future.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix