AT&T's Ridiculous Argument Against Google Voice

from the break-it-down dept

We've been covering the ridiculous attempt by AT&T to sic the FCC on Google for deciding to block certain calls via Google Voice. AT&T is being misleading and incredibly disingenuous. While there are some issues with Google's decision to block certain calls, the issue there has nothing to do with net neutrality -- as AT&T aims to tweak Google for supporting net neutrality -- and everything to do with bad regulations -- which AT&T is just as against as Google is.

But the latest letter/PR play from AT&T sinks to ridiculous lows -- and it's a shame that no reporter I've seen so far calls AT&T on any of the crazy claims. While there's some fun in mocking the use of nuns (who are apparently also blocked), AT&T's "slippery slope" argument isn't just questionable, it's wrong:

Indeed, if the Commission cannot stop Google from blocking disfavored telephone calls as Google contends, then how could the Commission ever stop Google from also blocking disfavored websites from appearing in the results of its search engine; or prohibit Google from blocking access to applications that compete with its own email, text messaging, cloud computing and other services; or otherwise prevent Google from abusing the gatekeeper control it wields over the Internet?

But... uh... that's the thing. The FCC cannot stop Google from also blocking disfavored websites from appearing in its results. That's because Google has every right to determine what sites appear in its index and which don't -- and the courts have said exactly that in the past. Google's rankings and site index are Google's own opinion, and there's no legal right for Google to include anyone if it chooses not to. Google knows this. The FCC knows this. AT&T certainly knows this -- so why is it pretending that this is some big issue?

Then there's the claim about Google "blocking access to applications that compete with its own email, text messaging, cloud computing and other services." Except... Google physically cannot block such things, because Google is not the pipe. If I want to go to another email service provider, I just type that URL into my address bar, and Google isn't a party to that at all. The only one who could block such a thing is (oops) my ISP: AT&T. So why even make this argument? It's totally nonsensical.

Obviously, AT&T is having fun poking at Google over this particular issue, but, honestly it should at least limit its complaints to things that actually make sense.

Filed Under: google voice, net neutrality
Companies: at&t, google

AT&T, Google Spat Over Google Voice Blocked Calls Is Important... But Totally Misses The Point

from the distracting,-but-important dept

Well, well, well. It looks like AT&T's latest line of anti-Google attack is to accuse the company of being hypocritical on net neutrality by not living up to the same principles when it comes to its Google Voice product. The issue is that, apparently, Google Voice is now blocking calls to free conference services like FreeConference.com. This is identical to the problem I discussed a few weeks ago when I noticed that the MagicJack VoIP service blocked calls to those same services. Oddly, at the time, I got around the MagicJack block... by using Google Voice. So if it's now blocking those calls, I haven't yet seen it, but there are numerous complaints. And, just like I said at the time with MagicJack, I think that the FCC has been pretty clear in the past that this is not legal. If you're offering a phone service of this nature, you need to connect it with the phone calls customers are making.

So, I have to admit that I find Google's response to be disingenuous. It basically tries to shrug off the problem by saying Google doesn't have to follow such rules on connecting phone calls because it's a "web-based" offering. First, making such a claim just makes Google look like it's ducking the issue. Second, Google has done a dreadful job letting Google Voice users know that such calls are totally blocked by its service.

However (and this is important), the actual issue here is not net neutrality. The real issue is ridiculous regulatory setups in certain rural areas, that force unnaturally high connection fees on telcos to rural telcos, creating a massive arbitrage opportunity that the Free Conference call offerings making good (and profitable) use of in offering their services. Basically, every inbound call to these telcos requires massive per minute fees from the connecting service provider to the rural telco. It's so expensive that as long as the rural telco can offer a service (such as conference calls) at a cheaper rate, they make money on every inbound call -- but it's all due to outdated regulations that "protect" those telcos. Google mentions this in its response, but it should be the headline, not buried in the details: the issue with net neutrality is the telcos trying to double charge for the use of their network. The issue with these calls is a dumb regulatory setup that forces telephone service providers to pay insanely high rates to a small group of small telcos for any inbound calls.

So, yes, I agree that it's bad that Google (and MagicJack) blocks these calls -- and I believe it may in fact go against some previous statements by the FCC concerning phone services. But... it's not a net neutrality issue where they're doing so to squeeze extra money out of customers by holding part of the access for ransom. Instead, it's the result of bad and outdated local state regulations concerning connection fees that really need to be overturned.

Filed Under: arbitrage, conference calls, connection charges, google voice, net neutrality, phone service
Companies: at&t, google

Dear WSJ: Will You Pay Google's Bandwidth Bill?

from the please,-let-us-know dept

And here we go again... The whole "network neutrality" discussion really burst onto the scene in 2005, when (then) SBC CEO Ed Whitacre made claims that Google was somehow "free riding" on SBC's (now AT&T's) network. Of course, that made no sense. Everyone pays for their own bandwidth. The only way that would make sense is if the bandwidth you paid for only brought you to the internet backbone, but never to an end point. Yet, that seemed to be exactly what Whitacre was claiming. You see, the bandwidth you pay for is only supposed to get you onto the internet. To actually reach a site, in this logic, the site owners then should have to pay to let you reach from the internet to their site (never mind that they already pay bandwidth themselves... in this logic, that's only the bandwidth from themselves out to the network, but not from the network for you to reach the site).

This, of course, makes no sense at all. And yet, PR people and telco lobbyists know that it makes for a good soundbite. Mike McCurry, a former Clinton aide who went on to run a telco lobbying group (and now runs an entertainment industry lobbying group) declared in 2006 that Google was getting such a free ride that they "never have to pay a dime no matter how much bandwidth they use." In response, I challenged McCurry and his organization (Hands Off The Internet) to pay Google's bandwidth bill. While the group clearly read (but did not understand) Techdirt, they never responded to the challenge (shocker), and Google had to go on paying its own bill -- though, McCurry assures us that it's not even a dime.

We had thought that such ridiculous reasoning had finally been taken away from the debate, but with the FCC back to pushing for net neutrality, we're seeing the argument pop up again. Holman W. Jenkins Jr., a WSJ editor has an editorial making the same bogus free rider arguments yet again, and accusing Google of wanting "internet socialism." Karl Bode, over at Broadband Reports provides a rather epic response (this is just a snippet -- read the whole thing):

It doesn't matter how many times you point out that companies like Google pay millions of dollars for bandwidth and their own infrastructure, the paid talking heads who work for Verizon and AT&T simply keep repeating the same myth. Telling these individuals that AOL users paid phone companies billions in tolls and long-distance fees will get you nowhere. By demonizing Google and repeating nonsense, Jenkins and AT&T can distract marginally unintelligent lawmakers, journalists and the public from the real issues. Unfortunately, they're right.

Yes, companies like Google are not saints. Yes, Google is solely interested in dominating the advertising industry. Yes, companies like Google can and possibly will turn into anti-competitive tyrants over time who violate user privacy and do everything in their power to obliterate competitors. However, the network neutrality debate was not started by Google. It was started by a very confused Ed Whitacre.

Network neutrality has always been about phone and cable companies trying to maintain power in the face of Internet evolution. If network neutrality confuses you (and it pretty clearly confuses Mr. Jenkins), at least understand one thing: network neutrality has always been about phone and cable companies trying to maintain power in the face of Internet evolution. You can't blame phone company executives for being terrified. They should be.

The evolution of the Internet is strangling decades old cash cows, herded across analog fields by monopoly dinosaurs who've been pampered by Uncle Sam for generations. As voice becomes simply data, charging nine dollars for services like caller ID or call waiting (both of which costs pennies to provide) becomes untenable. Suddenly, programs like Google Voice allow users to send free SMS messages, eroding hugely profitable SMS revenue. AT&T and Verizon, protected from competition for so long, are coming face to face with reality for the first time in generations.

With voice, video and other services all just bits, broadband has made cable and phone company empires as service providers irrelevant, whether they know it yet or not. That leaves them with one purpose: running a network. And while the baby bells make a perfectly healthy fortune simply selling flat-rate bandwidth in this new paradigm, investor pressure and the need for quarter over quarter stock improvement makes simply being incredibly profitable not good enough.

I have to admire one trick, however. Jenkins did flip one of the common stories. Usually the anti-net neutrality stories focus on the massive rise in internet growth and the threat of some non-existent "exaflood." Jenkins admits that's bogus: "Broadband growth is leveling out in the U.S." But... rather than note how telcos have been using the exaflood story to push for the right to break net neutrality, he pretends that this also is a reason to break net neutrality, because it means that broadband providers have to compete to steal customers from each other, and can't risk pissing off customers by blocking sites. Of course, that only works if there's real competition. And, in most markets, people have at most 2 providers. If both of them break net neutrality... then what?

While some will now insist that I support the legislation being proposed, let me make it clear that I do not. I am worried about the long term impact here. But, I do believe that the principles of network neutrality should be preserved, even as I worry about how the government might do it. And I am most certainly not convinced by the ridiculous arguments put forth about such "free riding." So, let's make the same offer to the WSJ that we made to Mike McCurry all those years ago. If you honestly believe that Google is "free riding" thanks to net neutrality, will you agree to pay Google's bandwidth bill? How about you exchange yours for theirs and make it a fair trade? Since they're doing so much free riding... it's cheap, right?

Filed Under: ed whitacre, free ride, holman w. jenkins jr., mike mccurry, net neutrality

Clearwire Supports Net Neutrality? Does No One Remember Its History?

from the that's-funny... dept

How quickly people forget. With the FCC's announcement about support for net neutrality legislation the PR and lobbying machines of the major telco and cable providers have cranked up, putting out all sorts of fear mongering letters and reports about the damage such a law will do. There was one interesting exception. Some noticed that wireless broadband provider Clearwire appeared to support the FCC's position (though, I'd argue that the statement's wording is a bit vague). While the article at Moconews suggests this "isn't surprising," I'm wondering how everyone seems to have forgotten that Clearwire, in the past, was one of the most aggressive broadband providers to support a non neutral network. A few years back, it was blocking VoIP and streaming media and proudly promised to block any type of traffic or application it didn't like. It also tried to get VoIP providers to get "certified" before promising they could work on Clearwire's network. Of course, plenty can change in a few years, but it's quite noteworthy that Clearwire may have changed its tune on net neutrality entirely.

Filed Under: net neutrality, traffic shaping, voip, wimax
Companies: clearwire

FCC: We Want Net Neutrality

from the yes,-but... dept

As was rumored last week, FCC boss, Julius Genachowski, gave a speech where he pushes to have the FCC's "principles of network openness" codified into law. Basically, he's come out in support of a net neutrality law, giving the FCC the power to regulate the issue. In the speech, he suggests that the four principles that were already put forth by former FCC chair Michael Powell get two additions, and have all six codified as law. The first four are:

• Freedom to Access Content. First, consumers should have access to their choice of legal content
• Freedom to Use Applications. Second, consumers should be able to run applications of their choice.
• Freedom to Attach Personal Devices. Third, consumers should be permitted to attach any devices they choose to the connection in their homes.
• Freedom to Obtain Service Plan Information. Fourth, consumers should receive meaningful information regarding their service plans.

To that, Genachowski adds the following two:

• The fifth principle is one of non-discrimination -- stating that broadband providers cannot discriminate against particular Internet content or applications.
• The sixth principle is a transparency principle -- stating that providers of broadband Internet access must be transparent about their network management practices.

I have to admit that the sixth principle sounds a lot like the fourth, and the whole thing remains pretty vague. The more interesting bit is the plan to include wireless technologies in what's covered here, something the FCC hasn't paid nearly as much attention to in the past.

While I believe that the basic concept of a neutral internet is very important to keeping the internet as a platform for innovation, I have to admit that I'm quite nervous about any attempt to put it into the law. First, many are noting that the telcos will undoubtedly heavily lobby the process to make sure that the final legislation has plenty of loopholes and quid pro quo aspects in it. As Broadband Reports notes:

While anyone and everyone will participate, you can expect lobbyists for AT&T, Comcast and Verizon to continue to get the best seats. Be mindful that lobbyists will likely work very hard to make these principles as weak as possible so they can only be used in the most egregious instances of foul play. This is a perfect opportunity for telecom lobbyists to pre-empt tougher federal laws, that not coincidentally picked up steam in Congress last week.

Also be aware that when lobbyists see discussions of "transparency," their immediate thought is that it's a perfect opportunity to push harder for low usage caps and high per-byte overages. Mega-carriers believe that as long as they're facing expectations of honesty when it comes to network management, they might as well use the opportunity to their advantage in almost vindictive fashion. Expect the industry's continued dream of shifting from flat-rate pricing to metered billing to play a starring role as the rules get hashed out.

Not surprisingly, the broadband providers rushed out prepared statements that all start off with "applause" for Genachowski, followed by something rather different than applause... each positioning reasons for why putting such principles into law is a bad, bad idea. In other words, expect a big fight and any law to be greatly watered down.

My biggest fear, honestly, isn't in what happens with this particular law, but what happens down the road. I believe that Genachowski really is committed to reasonable internet principles. But once we've given the FCC a mandate to regulate how the internet works, then those laws can and will be updated and changed. What if the next FCC chair is a former telco exec -- certainly not outside the realm of possibility. Opening up that door is likely to result in some very bad legislation down the road.

Filed Under: julius genachowski, lobbying, net neutrality, regulatory capture, telcos
Companies: fcc

Will Comcast's Own Words Kill Its Lawsuit Against The FCC?

from the seems-pretty-damning dept

Last year, when the FCC was busy slapping Comcast's wrist for its traffic shaping policies, Comcast pointed out that it wasn't clear the FCC had the authority to do so. I tend to agree, actually. It's not at all clear that the FCC really has a mandate to tell private network operators what they can do with their network -- though, if that argument gets anywhere, it seems likely that a net neutrality-friendly Congress will quickly adjust and add it to the FCC's mandate. However, what was odd was that Comcast waited over a year before finally going to court over this issue. To be honest, I can't see what Comcast "wins" here, even if it wins the case. Congress would likely change the FCC's mandate. Separately, the FTC actually might have a stronger case here, as the real problem wasn't necessarily the traffic shaping, but Comcast's refusal to tell users about it, effectively providing false advertising to customers. That's an FTC issue.

But a much bigger problem for Comcast may be the fact that the company has had no problem actively promoting the FCC's supposed "mandate" over them when it suits them. In a separate lawsuit over the very same traffic shaping, Comcast tried to get out of the lawsuit by claiming it was an issue covered by the FCC:

This issue "i.e., the reasonableness of a broadband provider's network management practices" has, however, been firmly placed within the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC"), an administrative agency whose authority to regulate internet broadband access companies' services is well-established.

You have to imagine that this quote from Comcast will be prominently displayed by the FCC in response to Comcast's latest action.

Filed Under: fcc mandate, net neutrality, traffic shaping, truth in advertising
Companies: comcast, fcc

AT&T Blocks 4chan Over DDoS... But May Not Like What Happens Next...

from the that-would-not-be-a-good-thing... dept

A few folks have submitted the news that, apparently, AT&T is blocking access to a certain subdomain of 4chan. I just checked on my own AT&T DSL account and it's true that I can't get there (I can get there if I don't go via AT&T). That doesn't mean that AT&T definitely is blocking it, but there are reports that folks at AT&T have admitted that it's true. If you don't know what 4chan is, the 4chan Wikipedia page is probably the best way to understand it. Even if the site is controversial for some, it does seem quite extreme for AT&T to do an outright block, without any official warning or immediate explanation. Outright blocking of websites, without recourse and without a clear explanation of why, is extremely questionable and the sort of "net neutrality" violation that the FCC would likely come down hard against. If it's true that there's a block, perhaps AT&T is assuming that no one serious (such as the FCC) would come to the defense of 4chan, but that might be a mistake (in part because AT&T probably won't like what happens when 4chan decides to come to its own defense). Hopefully this will be explained away as a mistake. So far, the best explanation I've seen is (via 4chan) the claim that the subdomain was involved in some sort of DDoS attack, but you would think that, if that were the case, AT&T would have just made that clear from the beginning. Not coming out with a clear and concise explanation just looks bad, and seems to be stirring up 4chan folks to make a statement -- something AT&T almost certainly does not want. AT&T may be able to tap your phones, but getting on the wrong side of 4chan seems like a bad, bad idea.

Update: As expected, AT&T has confirmed (as we believed) that this was over a DDoS attack:

Beginning Friday, an AT&T customer was impacted by a denial-of-service attack stemming from IP addresses connected to img.4chan.org. To prevent this attack from disrupting service for the impacted AT&T customer, and to prevent the attack from spreading to impact our other customers, AT&T temporarily blocked access to the IP addresses in question for our customers. This action was in no way related to the content at img.4chan.org; our focus was on protecting our customers from malicious traffic.

Overnight Sunday, after we determined the denial-of-service threat no longer existed, AT&T removed the block on the IP addresses in question. We will continue to monitor for denial-of-service activity and any malicious traffic to protect our customers.

That said, I still think AT&T failed here, in that they did not make this clear from the outset. If they had stated upfront what the situation was, in conjunction with the temporary block, they would have been much better off. But by silently blocking, they kicked off a firestorm that had to have been expected by anyone aware of 4chan.

Filed Under: 4chan, blocking, ddos, isps, net neutrality
Companies: at&t

If AT&T Mobile Broadband Banned TV Streaming, Why Does It Allow MLB Streaming?

from the net-neutrality? dept

Earlier this year, we covered AT&T's back and forth over its terms of service, concerning whether or not services like SlingMedia's place shifting (streaming from your TV to a phone or laptop) was allowed. Some had noticed that AT&T's terms of service appeared to forbid it -- but then AT&T said it was a mistake and took it out, only to change its position a little later, and reinsert the language. Because of that, Sling had to disable its own player from working when an iPhone is connected via the 3G cellular network, rather than a WiFi connection.

Yet, recently, Major League Baseball's digital arm, MLB.com announced that it was going to start streaming video of games to its iPhone app, even on 3G connections -- and AT&T seemed fine with it. However, this differential treatment is leading to charges of favoritism and discrimination, even bringing out the dreaded charges that "net neutrality has been broken." The specific question is why AT&T gets to choose which streaming video apps are allowed, and which are not. If your regular ISP told you that you could watch Hulu, but not YouTube, there would be quite an outrage.

AT&T's response is disingenuous, at best, claiming:

AT&T said the MLB app streams video from MLB's website, while SlingPlayer streams from the TV set-top box Slingbox. AT&T also said the company is only trying to ensure all users on its network get the best possible service.

"We're certainly not crippling any apps," an AT&T spokesman said. "This is an issue of fairness.... While we would like to support all video services across our network, the reality is that wireless networks simply lack the capacity to support customers streaming hours of cable, satellite or IPTV video programming to individual users."

While this -- once again -- highlights the point that mobile cellular services are nowhere near legitimate competitors for real broadband services, note that the AT&T person never actually answers the question. The fact that Sling streams from a settop box and MLB streams from MLB's website is functionally meaningless to the iPhone. To the iPhone user it's the same thing. It doesn't care where the server is placed -- it's just receiving a video stream. So AT&T is not being honest or upfront about this at all. If the network is a problem, then it shouldn't allow video at all. Picking and choosing who gets to run video certainly smacks of discrimination and favoritism -- exactly the sort of thing the FCC claims is not allowed.

Filed Under: fairness, mobile, net neutrality, streaming video
Companies: at&t

Do We Need A Technology Bill Of Rights? Or Just More Common Sense?

from the one-or-the-other... dept

A bunch of folks have sent in a proposal by Paul Venezia at Infoworld, suggesting a special "Technology Bill of Rights." While I actually tend to agree with a lot of what he talks about preserving in this Bill of Rights (online anonymity, net neutrality -- especially if there's no competition, and a right to make copies of content you bought, software used for public policy needs to have its source available, etc.) I don't see how it helps to necessarily have it set as a special "Bill of Rights" (not that anyone is seriously considering it). Instead, many of these issues seem like ones that we should strive for through good competition in the market, not enforce by any sort of law.

Filed Under: bill of rights, drm, net neutrality, privacy, security, technology

Are Industry Best Practices Enough To Protect Net Neutrality?

from the no-sticks-anymore,-just-carrots dept

For the supporters of net neutrality, an Obama White House, Genachowski FCC and Democratic Congress seemed to be the magic combination to ensure an open, non-discriminatory Internet. However, one of the key proponents, Representative Boucher, has recently suggested that he is switching tactics, "scrapping the idea of pursuing legislation mandating an openly accessible Internet in favor of negotiations with stakeholders aimed at reaching a comprehensive accord." An agreement upon industry best practices could, in theory, be a good way to protect net neutrality, but there are causes for concern.

As Techdirt contributor Tim Lee pointed out in his paper on net neutrality, the unintended consequences of legislation may be costly and inefficient. So, voluntary agreements could create a flexible, realistic approach to protecting an important principle. Something similar happened with the Global Network Initiative that brought together Google, Microsoft and Yahoo!, along with academics and human rights organizations, to agree to a set of principles and enforcement mechanisms to protect and promote free expression and privacy around the globe. But the motivating factor of this agreement was the threat of legislation following very humiliating Congressional hearings on American Internet companies' dealings in China. By creating a voluntary set of best practices, the Global Network Initiative sidestepped the unintended consequences of poorly drafted legislation. The ISPs could do similarly, but by publicly stating his change of tactics, Boucher may have removed the motivating factor.

Another key to any agreement would be competition in the ISP marketplace. In Norway, where they recently created a similar agreement between ISPs and consumer protection agencies to mandate non-discrimination of networks and endpoints, the ISPs are in a competitive sector. Because ISPs there recognize the competitive advantage of staying neutral, there is a force pushing them in that direction. In the United States, the driving force was largely the threat of legislation, and hopefully that is still there as Boucher guides the ISPs towards his comprehensive accord.

Filed Under: best practices, legislation, net neutrality, norway, rick boucher