AT&T Whines To FCC That Google Voice Violates Net Neutrality
On Friday, AT&T filed a letter with the FCC accusing Google Voice of violating network neutrality principles. Google Voice doesn't work with certain numbers that AT&T, as an old-fashioned landline and mobile provider, does.
There's an entire world of fees that we consumers never see, but that phone companies fight over. Google's Public Policy Blog sums up the situation relatively succinctly:
Local telephone carriers charge long-distance companies for originating and terminating calls to and from their networks. Certain local carriers in rural areas charge AT&T and other long-distance companies especially high rates to connect calls to their networks. Sometimes these local carriers partner and share revenue with adult chat services, conference calling centers, party lines, and others that are able to attract lots of incoming phone calls to their networks.
Under the common carrier laws, AT&T and other traditional phone companies are required to connect these calls. In the past they've argued that these rural carriers are abusing the system to "establish grossly excessive access charges under false pretenses," and to "offer kickbacks to operators of pornographic chat lines and other calling services."
Whether AT&T's point is valid or not depends on what, precisely, Google Voice is. Is it a phone company? Not really. Is it a broadband provider? No.
AT&T Says Google Voice Violates Net Neutrality Principles [NYTimes]
Response to AT&T's letter to FCC on Google Voice [Google Public Policy Blog]
(Photo: mightyohm)
Post a comment
Comments:
Google, not being a phone company does not have to abide by the same rules as AT&T. (who up until now has been all out against net neutrality) It isn't a phone service by itself, in fact you have to have an existing phone service to use it. They obviously can't afford to pay the high fees those local phone companies charge. Not when they can't pass the cost on to the customer. So if AT&T wins what will happen? Will Google start charging for Google Voice to compensate for the cost?
I think that's what AT&T wants actually. If Google starts charging for Google Voice, then people will stop using it.
AT&T's just upset that Google Voice will be the fall of their massive SMS scam.
Free SMS for all = AT&T needs to find a new scam.
New scam = innovation
Innovation within a carrier = bad
Death to the carriers!
Soooo.. the pot's calling the kettle black?
I think if any net neutrality violation has occurred, it is that our communications networks still treat voice differently from other data. There is no access charge to send an e-mail with a 20 MB attachment to someone with dial-up internet; it just counts as normal phone use for the recipient when that person decides to download the file. Nor is there an access charge to converse with that person via webcam. All the data packets use the same wires, cables, and fiber optics.
Also, consider that a text message is all of 150 bytes of data. That's equivalent to much less than a tenth of a second of a phone conversation, yet carriers charge 10 cents to send it. That's like charging one hundred dollars per minute for a phone call. Why? If anything, SMS should be cheaper than voice, since it doesn't need to be a synchronized, two-way connection.
@Kyin:
Not necessarily. GV does more than make phone calls online. It allows you to consolidate phone numbers, so that calling 1 number makes your cell, house, and work phones all ring. I believe you can also customize which phones ring when particular numbers call you. It will send rough transcripts of voicemails to your e-mail address. These services are valuable, and not available easily elsewhere, so some users will pay for them.
Maybe Google should do what it does with some of it's other services- create a premium version that allows you to connect to the numbers that non-paying users can't reach.
@Kyin:
you are absolutely right... google voice is not a phone service, it offers benefits of better controlling your existing phones, which we are already paying all the service fees for. If google voice had to pay those fees for blindly sending calls through my cell phone, then we would end up paying twice. Oh... AT&T, you still remain evil after all these years!
This has nothing to do with Google Voice but I am held hostage by a rural carrier. If I want to use VOIP my phone # will be long distance to my elderly parents and 911 will not work. Homes less than 10 miles away are long distance. I dont even live in a rural area- maybe 30 yrs ago it was rural- but we are at the mercy of a phone company monopoly. I use my cell phone for all long distance call but I pay $25.00 per month for local phone service. Just venting...
@princesspineisendangered: Most VOIP service provide free long distance, and 911 does work. Besides, you can also get a VOIP number in an area that isn't long distance, even multiple numbers in different states. People have used VOIP to make local calls, even when they are out of the country!
Optionally, you can ditch your land-line, and just use it for 911?
REALLY NOW. With AT&T being against net neutrality in the first place, they certainly have the chutzpah to turn around and complain about a direct competitor using it as a sounding board.
As Kyin has put it. Google is not an ILEC, nor do they compete directly with them. Google might as well go for it, they'll have AT&T's CEO reaching for his Gaviscon more regularly.
So AT&T had better shut up and move on, they are in enough trouble as co-conspirators with Apple in monopolizing and price manipulation of services and sales of the iPhone. Not to mention the ripple factor in regards to customer support, bandwidth issues, and the debacle with voicemail.
@SacraBos: In my area VOIP cannot provide a number that is local. I can only get an interchange ( I dont know if that is correct terminology) that would be long distance for anyone that uses the local phone company. Which is anyone that doesnt use VOIP. You are correct re 911 though.
@Révolution: It's not a scam if people willingly throw money at a non-necessary service. Who cares how much it costs a mobile carrier to send an SMS message? If people are willing to pay for it, then it's at the right price.
With that said, I have the wonderful benefit of free SMS via GV Mobile on my iPhone.
@Persistence:
Filtering engines is not against net neutrality. While it may be suspect, it does not fall into the realm of what net neutrality stands for.
The basics of net neutrality are that if two users pay for a level of access to the internet(read: speed), then those two users should be able to connect to each other at that level of access(speed) with protocols that are agreeable with the terms of service of that ISP.
So, you can connect to any person with protocols that meet the requirements within the ToS without fear of throttling or blocking.
This does not mean you can connect any way at any speed. Protocols that are used and do not meet requirements in the ToS(ex:probably peer-to-peer protocols) may be blocked or slowed.
You don't have to go to google for searching. In fact, you don't even pay google to search using their website. They can show you what they want and if you find they are practicing policies that hurt your searching needs, then you go somewhere else. Either way, their choice to filter searches(which I haven't heard about but I'll take your word on) is not related to net neutrality.
Note on AT&T's point:First of all, net neutrality principles only pertain to broadband providers. Since AT&T is talking about phone lines, their point is instantly void.
I'm just going to pluck a bit from their google voice terms of service.
"You understand and agree that Google Voice is an enhanced call management application and that Google Voice is not capable of placing or receiving emergency services calls."
Just the first part really matters. By accepting the terms of service, you understand that "Google Voice is an enchanced call management APPLICATION". Google Voice is not a telephone provider. They use a telephone line that you provide. They provide nothing except an application that manages your calls and voice mail and other things for you. Applications don't fall under net neutrality principles.
Google Voice, like Google Search, is outside of the purview of net neutrality. Whether what they do with these services is wrong is not something I'm going to argue.
Finaly words: AT&T is a jackass for many reasons.
@Aesteval: Generally, people go with the free option. If people suddenly become unwilling to pay for the messages, then it ends the scam.
@princesspineisendangered: I share your pain. My "line fee" is $9.50/month for living in a "rural" area. Also known as a "city." "Urban" customers pay around $1.60, "suburban" customers pay around $3.25.
@Révolution: Wasn't quite what I was asking at first, but I've managed to piece together that GV offers free SMS with their service, which is what I wasn't aware of.
"Free"'s a bit of a relative term here though. People may not be willing to pay for the messages, but they'll still have to pay for the data plan on their phone to be able to access GV. Unless they have a WiFi enabled phone and adequate access to WiFi. It's still got a ways to go to be really effective.
I remember when termination fees started. It was At&t and the other Bells going to the FCC whining about some "cellular" upstarts in the 70's. The rules were specifically designed to drive up the cost of third party phone providers. The incumbents thought this was a great deal since they had the most phone numbers ergo they would be paid by all the upstarts.
Every time termination rules have become had for the incumbents they get the FCC to change the rules. They have already done so on multiple occasions when the 3rd party providers have found a new way to use the regulations in their best interest. ( ISP's, chat services, IVR, ... ).
So in the end At&t is whining about costs that they themselves were instrumental in creating in the first place.
This post fails to point out that GV refuses to make calls to those local exchange providers. AT&T is still full of it but I didn't quite get it until I read this:
Basically AT&T is saying Google won't make these calls because they cost too much therefore denying Internet users the 'right' to an open Internet.
@snowmoon: So terminate the termination fees. That was a silly structure, anyway (even though it made us a killing in a previous job as an ISP in the dialup days via kickbacks from a CLEC we partnered with).
@supercereal: I agree, Revolution used the wrong word. The correct word usage here is 'swindle,' i.e. "to obtain money or property by fraud or deceit." Since we have a free market, there is no regulation of prices. Essentially a provider could charge four times as much as service providers are charging for SMS and it'd still be legal. Instead the market thrives on uneducated and impulse buyers. Of course, the cell phone market is so saturated now that any sort of "boycott" effort would be just as silly as "boycotting" gasoline. These days both go hand-in-hand with the means to make a living.
Well, I'm too cynical. I will say competition is healthy. Unfortunately when all providers are charging just about the same as each other, then there's really not "shopping around" to be done. It's really more a matter of, "Where can I shop where I won't be ripped off as much as I would be if I shopped there?"
@thrillwill: Yes, but AT&T is an ISP and Google isn't. Net neutrality rules only apply to ISP's. AT&T is just pissed that they won't be able to benefit from the popularity of Google Voice. They won't be able to charge those fees to their land line customers. If I were Google I'd be laughing at their assertions because they are accusing an APPLICATION developer of something that doesn't apply to them. It's like accusing Skype for not providing online banking.
@Kyin: Hearing AT&T, of all people, mouthing Network Neutrality pieties grates worse than a thousand cats clawing a chalkboard.
Between their hostility towards, lobbying against and funding PR missives against Network Neutrality for years, it's stomach-churning to see them use this defense so selectively.
And don't even get me started on their wholehearted support for helping the NSA conduct widespread, illegal spying on millions of Americans - if and only if they are paid off thru taxpayer funds. Just DON'T.
To quote myself "AT&T is still full of it..."
They somehow manage to argue that net neutrality extends to the phone system somehow.
PS. I'm in Athens so props to your handle...
@supercereal: AT&T enjoy protected, oligopoly status, so normal free market rationales don't apply in this instance.
Especially when, as soon as it looks like a company (Google) attempts an end-run around their well-nigh monopoly, they run to the government to protect them from competition beyond what their coddled status already gives them.
@AgamemnonV1: In an oligopoly, they don't need collusion to defeat market forces; they can rely on informal signaling.
The fact that buyers - impulse or not - can't choose a carrier that offers zero-cost SMS messaging for much less (or free) reinforces this point.
In short: "net neutrality" = "network neutrality." AT&T is an ISP, Google is not, ergo AT&T's claims are entirely preposterous.
Redirection; behavior that tries to redirect attention from one's own problematic behavior (say, for example, having a room full of NSA snooping gear) to someone else.
Data different than voice...
Firstly, the EMail download you mention will take a while - and be charged accordingly. Yes, my land-line provider has a time-usage rate even for "local" calls though it doesn't kick in for a while as a certain amount of time is included in the base charge[s], and I strongly suspect yours does too.
Secondly, back when consumer modems were 300baud (that is 0.3kb, vs today's average 50.0kb dialup to megabits cable) Ma Bell wanted to charge users with modems higher rates because they could transfer data: it was shot down then, should be now. A "baud" is basically a recognisable shift of voltage, with voice having a sizeable range of shifts while data has two - which is simpler to handle?
Uh, that was supposed to be a reply to Kyin
11:16 AM.
Data different than voice...
Firstly, the EMail download you mention will take a while - and be charged accordingly. Yes, my land-line provider has a time-usage rate even for "local" calls though it doesn't kick in for a while as a certain amount of time is included in the base charge[s], and I strongly suspect yours does too.
Secondly, back when consumer modems were 300baud (that is 0.3kb, vs today's average 50.0kb dialup to megabits cable) Ma Bell wanted to charge users with modems higher rates because they could transfer data: it was shot down then, should be now. A "baud" is basically a recognisable shift of voltage, with voice having a sizeable range of shifts while data has two - which is simpler to handle?
@Pixelantes Anonymous: Problematic behavior like a current commander-in-chief one year ago voting to give companies like AT&T retroactive immunity for helping to spy on us.
As someone who is in the know, AT&T is 100% correct on this one. Google voice will not let you connect to partylines ran by CLECs that charge these exhorborant rates, yet AT&T is required to. And now google voice is demanding it's app be available to AT&T customers, yet they themselves are breaking the rules and AT&T is the one picking up the bill on this.
This is really quite simple.
Google Voice is a service which runs ON an existing network. It then decides how the service runs on that network, including what it will and will not do.
Claiming this violates net neutrality is like saying that MS Outlook violates neutrality because it won't process connections to Ventrilo servers.
Net Neutrality is about the network PROVIDERS, and how they handle and route data packets. GV is a SERVICE and generates those packets - it does not handle the routing of them, and thus is not covered by neutrality.
"establish grossly excessive access charges under false pretenses,"
Sounds like at&t cellphone service.
So, from now on if a software just works on mac I'm going demand it to work on my PC to comply with net neutrality. Google voice is a software.. And it deals with software limitations. Duh.
@Lucky225: Google is not a phone company At&t is. The regulations apply to phone companies.
If At&t had "phone neutrality" or equal peering then this would not have been a problem in the first place. Termination regulation was put in place by At&t and the other Bells as a way to prevent 3rd party competition... until they found a way to beat them at their own game.
I though At&t had no influence over the app process? If At&t is blocking access to googles application then there are serious anti-trust issues here, as they are using their exclusive arrangement with Apple to prevent competition in other markets.
@henrygates: lol, I have that setup, and the first time I got a call, I was just confused... However, it's not really annoying, unless you have one of those annoying grating cellphone ringtones. In which case someone should pick the cellphone up from your desk and throw it at you...
AT&T accusing someone else of violating net neutrality. Priceless.
I'm an avid online gamer, and recently was in the closed and open betas (as well as launch) for an online game called Aion. A lot of people on AT&T were having issues, and when they called support, were told flat out "oh, yea, we were getting a lot of traffic to the game servers so we're throttling it."
@drizzt380: Extremely thought out and informative.
Shit, I sound like a high-school English teacher.
While Google has definitely gone against the grain of net neutrality (filtered engines for the masses anyone?) I can't speak of Google Voice. It seem though that providing an application that saves people money while allowing more to connect to the rest of the world should be considered with the grain of net neutrality.
AT&T has little room to speak on the subject.