AT&T Says Google Flaunts FCC Rules

phone xout

AT&T has accused Google of violating common carrier rules as well as net neutrality principles by blocking Google Voice calls to some rural locations.

"We urge the Commission to level the playing field and order Google to play by the same rules as its competitors," AT&T Senior Vice President Robert W. Quinn, Jr. said in a letter sent Friday to the Federal Communications Commission.

But Google says that net neutrality principles apply only to Internet service providers, not companies such as itself. Google also argues that it should not be required to follow the same common carrier rules as telecoms, which must connect all calls.

"Despite AT&T's efforts to blur the distinctions between Google Voice and traditional phone service, there are many significant differences," telecom and media counsel Richard Whitt said Friday in a blog post.

Google acknowledges blocking some rural calls, but says that it does so in order to "provide consumers with free or low-cost access to as many advanced communications features as possible."

Some rural carriers charge extremely high rates to connect calls coming from long-distance or wireless numbers -- up to 100 times more than large local phone companies, according to USA Today -- making it very expensive for companies to put calls through to rural destinations. But AT&T says Google's blocking of calls gives it an unfair advantage over traditional phone companies.

Whitt counters that the FCC should not treat Google like traditional telephone service providers because Google Voice doesn't replace traditional phone connections. "In fact, you need an existing land or wireless line in order to use it," he writes. "Importantly, users are still able to make outbound calls on any other phone device."

AT&T also argues that if Google Voice is not considered a traditional telephone service, it would be an Internet application and governed by the FCC's 2005 Internet policy statement on neutrality. One of the principles set out in that statement specifies that consumers are entitled to competition among application and service providers. AT&T argues that Google is not competing fairly because it "unilaterally appropriates to itself regulatory advantages over its competitors."

In addition, a fifth principle proposed this week by FCC chair Julius Genachowski would ban Internet service providers from discriminating by blocking access to other providers. AT&T says that Google is engaging in discrimination "when it blocks calls that Google Voice customers make to telephone numbers associated with certain local exchange carriers."

But Whitt dismisses those claims, arguing that neutrality principles don't apply to "the creators of Web-based software applications."

AT&T's move comes the same week that Genachowski proposed that the agency issue rules codifying its 2005 neutrality principles. Given the timing, broadband advocacy group Free Press dismissed AT&T's complaint as a "political stunt." Derek Turner, Free Press research director, said that AT&T's letter was intended "to distract attention from the important work the FCC has begun on network neutrality."

He added: "The FCC certainly should not let AT&T's misdirection delay its rulemaking on the separate issue of net neutrality."

4 comments about "AT&T Says Google Flaunts FCC Rules ".
Check to receive email when comments are posted.
  1. Matt Ellsworth from FLMSC Inc., September 28, 2009 at 11:13 a.m.

    I've made calls to areas that I consider rural with google voice, and so I'm not sure which rural locations these are. I'm talking about rural enough that the phone company in that town serves less than 4,000 people in a 10 mile radius. and there is no other phone choices.

    But apparently there are some more rural than that i guess.

  2. John Jainschigg from World2Worlds, Inc., September 28, 2009 at 11:25 a.m.

    I know it marks me as being "an old magazine guy," but re. the title of this piece, isn't the word "flouts?" (i.e., 'ignores derisively'). "Flaunt" means "to display ostentatiously."

    Gah ... I hate myself now. How "not new media" of me.

  3. Jo Holz from The Nielsen Company, September 28, 2009 at 1:52 p.m.

    John, you would do the late William Safire proud! Content, including language, still matters. Unfortunately, spellcheckers can't help an author or headline writer who doesn't know the difference in meaning between two actual words.

  4. Jeremiah Mcnichols from Bloggy Sabi, September 28, 2009 at 5:35 p.m.

    John, Merriam-Webster cites "to treat contemptuously" as an acceptable definition of "flaunt," which is I believe how it is used here. About that definition, they write:

    "Although transitive sense 2 of flaunt undoubtedly arose from confusion with flout, the contexts in which it appears cannot be called substandard <meting out punishment to the occasional mavericks who operate rigged games, tolerate rowdyism, or otherwise flaunt the law — Oscar Lewis> <observed with horror the flaunting of their authority in the suburbs, where men…put up buildings that had no place at all in a Christian commonwealth — Marchette Chute> <in our profession…very rarely do we publicly chastise a colleague who has flaunted our most basic principles — R. T. Blackburn, AAUP Bulletin>. If you use it, however, you should be aware that many people will consider it a mistake."

Next story loading loading..