

Google's response to AT&T - manish
http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2009/09/response-to-at-letter-to-fcc-on-google.html

======
karl11
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
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.

------
ekiru
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.

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

------
gojomo
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
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
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
GV doesn't emulate the functionality of a common carrier though. Which is the
point.

~~~
gojomo
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?

~~~
ekiru
Google Voice doesn't offer phone functionality(with the exception of SMS). It
offers bidirectional phone call forwarding functionality. The price isn't the
real issue. The difference in functionality is.

Edit: I was less clear than I meant to be. The price to the customer is not
the issue here.

~~~
gojomo
Then why can't Google's mere "bidirectional phone call forwarding" include the
disputed rural endpoints?

I assure you the dollar costs of complying with the regulation (paying the
rural phone services), and thus the prices at which competing services can be
profitable, are the only "real issue" here. Neither Google nor AT&T are
charities. Everything they do -- even when writing whiny letters to the FCC
(which both are guilty of) -- is motivated by profits.

~~~
ekiru
Google Voice doesn't compete with AT&T any more than a VOIP provider that you
use via your DSL or cable internet competes with your ISP. They provide
different services, and the one you are arguing competes with the telephone
carrier or ISP actually relies on the customer paying a telephone carrier or
ISP.

I don't think we should ask: "Why can't Google's mere 'bidirectional phone
call forwarding' include the disputed rural endpoints?", but rather "Why
should a call forwarding service be held to the same network neutrality
constraints issues as an actual phone provider?". When you make a call with
Google Voice, Google doesn't transmit your voice over the internet or over
telephone wires or via microwaves. Your phone provider does that. Regardless
of whether it would be better for GV to allow you to call those rural
areas(which of course, it would be), we should not expand the jurisdiction of
the FCC to include services that are not actual communication networks of any
kind.

~~~
gojomo
_When you make a call with Google Voice, Google doesn't transmit your voice
over the internet or over telephone wires or via microwaves. Your phone
provider does that._

If true, why are certain numbers blocked, and the right to block numbers at
Google's discretion asserted in the GV terms-of-service? Those calls are _not_
being routed over your existing phone provider, or else Google wouldn't care
about the destination.

And why _shouldn't_ a "forwarding" service -- one that includes a new dialable
endpoint number, SMS, conferencing, free long-distance, and more -- meet the
same regulatory standards as other competitive services offering a phone
number/SMS/conferencing/bundled-long-distance/etc.?

If Google can route an inbound call to any of several numbers purchased from
other providers (mobile/home/office), even switching mid-call, how are they
doing that if their service does not travel over and depend on "actual
communication networks of any kind"?

It's unseemly that Google argues from general principles of fairness when
asking the FCC to make rules in new areas (as with network neutrality), but
then splits semantic hairs to define their quacks-like-a-duck GV offering as
an exempt "Web-based software application".

~~~
zaphar
You make a lot of assumptions there. The only salient point is that Google
does not run the network they just forward calls. If they decide they don't
want to forward calls to certain numbers that is there perogative. It's a
whole lot different than the people running the wires and networks cutting of
portions of the network from access to their users. When AT&T disables access
to those numbers No one with AT&T service can call those networks. The same is
not true for GV. The reasons for AT&T's restrictions do not apply and arguably
should not apply.

~~~
gojomo
GV does far more than forward calls -- they offer a lot of the same value-
added services AT&T charges for. And very importantly: GV includes a dialable
number. People in (for example) those Iowa counties can call GV numbers, but
those GV numbers can't return those calls. Maybe Google's Vint Cerf can
explain how that asymmetry improves the End-to-End Connectivity of the phone
and data networks involved?

If AT&T blocked dialing to those counties, AT&T customers would have to pay
another long-distance provider more to complete their calls. Since Google
blocks dialing those counties, GV customers have to... pay another long-
distance provider more to complete those calls. Exactly equivalent, in
practice.

~~~
sahaj
Mr Mohr, GV has been only around for less than a year. Please give them some
time to grow some legs and feet to stand on. Perhaps the limitation is not
cost at this point, but the infrastructure. Again, they are still in private
beta, meaning they are not claiming to be a legitimate service providing
service to everyone, unlike A&T or Sprint or Verizon.

I've lived in a lot of different places in my life, and AT&T certainly does
not provide DSL or a phone line in all of the United States.

