I was reading this morning article about war between Google and AT&T. Everything started with Google Voice service for iPhone and case went to Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to investigate Google’s alleged policy of blocking high-cost calls to rural areas.
“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.
AT&T Senior Vice President Robert Quinn said: “Google casually dismisses the bureau’s order, claiming that Google Voice ‘isn’t a traditional phone service and shouldn’t be regulated like other common carriers. But in reality, Google Voice appears to be nothing more than a creatively packaged assortment of services that are already quite familiar to the commission.”
That’s a claim Google has now refuted resoundingly, answering the FCC with a statement claiming that Google Voice is not a phone service. Rather, it enhances existing communications by offering a single portal through which to access those landlines, mobiles, IM, texts and other modes. Google’s Richard Whitt, senior counsel, also noted that AT&T and other LECs charge for their services and are the beneficiaries of Universal Service Fund subsidiaries. In contrast, Google Voice is a free application that cannot afford to remain so if it must pay “exorbitant” termination rates for calls to certain exchanges.
Those exchanges, Whitt argued, have higher-than-usual termination rates because they have profitable relationships with adult chat lines and free conference calling services. The result is a large amount of expensive traffic. That reality, Google said, arises from outdated carrier compensation rules that should be fixed.
Depending on the FCC findings, the case could result in any number of free Web services, like Skype, for instance, being regulated as traditional landline or mobile services. That’s a turn of events that Whitt warned would end up slowing innovation significantly. AT&T in turn looks at it as leveling the playing field. Free IP-based services have been steadily cannibalizing a segment of its bread-and-butter voice services, helped along by a lack of competitive regulation.
Fair point for google, but during this article AT & T have highlighted few subject no one wants to talk about. For instance as some people were saying google was blocking ads from certain senators campaigns as well blocking some news channels sponsored by organizations involved rather with competition then google.
This is something most people didn’t know. Is this google filtering really in the spot where it should be? Seems like it’s filtering big money and politics rather then content each ‘gray’ person is interested in. Is this the way to feed people with information they want? And let us think this is information WE WANT. There is simple word for it called manipulation or rather newage subliminal message?
Does google do whatever they want and everyone else have to adjust to them?
Is that freedom if internet?
Robert W. Quinn is not the first one and definitely not the last one putting out words like monopolization describing google politics.
On the end they are replaceable those times, would they change their way of thinking? Will they pick up the point where they have started and seem they forgot about – adjusting to people and stay away from the dirt? Probably not possible in the word ruled by big dollar..hmm?