News >> Browse Articles >> Apple
News >> Browse Articles >> Business
News >> Browse Articles >> Hardware
News >> Browse Articles >> OS
News >> Browse Articles >> Phones
News >> Browse Articles >> Web Sites
AT&T: Google Abuses its Power, Manipulates Media
Photo illustration by Isaac Lopez and Sarah Feinsmith , via NY Daily News
Jason Mick
October 16, 2009
If there’s one thing clear from the
Google Voice iPhone debacle, it’s that there’s no love lost between
AT&T and Google. AT&T, to date, is accusing Google of
everything from political and news manipulation, to violating net
neutrality.
The drama surrounding the rejection began shortly
after when the Federal Communications Commission opened
an inquiry into who was responsible for the rejection of Google/03/13/2009-03-13_is_go
Voice and whether the rejection violated any federal laws or rules.
AT&T quickly responded that it did not mastermind the rejection, and that it
was Apple’s doing. Apple followed up, taking
the blame and say it was working to get the app approved.
Then
came a second
response from AT&T. Apparently in a sharing mood, AT&T
sounded off against Google and complained to the FCC that it believes
Google Voice breaks the law. Since AT&T has allowed
VoIP apps onto the iPhone, but Google Voice is still no where to
be found. Now AT&T has delivered a third
letter to the FCC further attacking the internet giant.
While
Google has been attacked by many — newspaper moguls, telecoms, and
internet rivals — the new letter is perhaps the harshest
conglomerated criticism leveled against the company to date.
Written by Robert W. Quinn, Jr., an AT&T Senior Vice President,
the letter entitled “Google Voice; Establishing Just and
Reasonable Rates for Local Exchange Carriers” opens claiming
Google is a hypocrite when it comes to net neutrality.
Mr.
Quinn writes:
As the debate regarding “net neutrality” has evolved, it appeared on the surface that all parties shared the same desire to preserve the “free and open” nature of the Internet, a goal enunciated by [FCC] Chairman Genachowski with which we heartily agree."
As communications services increasingly migrate to broadband Internet-based platforms, we can now see the power of Internet-based applications providers to act as gatekeepers who can threaten the “free and open” Internet. Google’s double-standard for “openness” – where Google does what it wants while other providers are subject to Commission regulations – is plainly inconsistent with the goal of preserving a “free and open” Internet ecosystem.
The letter claims that Google’s explanation that it is only
blocking certain kinds of rural calls like adult sex-chat lines, to
avoid high fees leveled against the free service, is a lie. The
letter accuses Google of conspiracy, saying it also blocked calls to
an ambulance service, church, bank, law firm, automobile dealer, day
spa, orchard, health clinic, tax preparation service, community
center, eye doctor, tribal community college, school, residential
consumers, a convent of Benedictine nuns, and the campaign office of
a U.S. Representative.
According to AT&T, Google is
“abus[ing] its market power”. AT&T insists Google
is not exempt, either from being free or being internet-based, from
federal regulations that prevent such call blocking.
The
letter also calls Google a monopoly, citing, “In preparing a
complaint to challenge the Google/Yahoo arrangement, the [U.S.]
Department [of Justice] reportedly concluded that Google had a
“monopoly” in these markets and the proposed arrangement “would
have furthered [Google’s] monopoly.”
Furthermore, AT&T
accuses Google of practicing broad-scale manipulation of the media.
It says that Google blocked political advertisements from Senator
Susan Collins, due to her criticism of Moveon.org, a Google net
neutrality partner. It also accuses Google of blocking the
Inner City Press from Google News, as the publication criticized the
United Nation Development Programme, a Google-sponsored program.
It
then goes on to accuse Google of illegitimately “buying”
ads in its own auction to push its agenda for keywords such as “net
neutrality”. The letter concludes, “Ironically, Google
appears oblivious to the hypocrisy of its net neutrality advocacy
relative to its own conduct. [A]t the same time, Google exploits the
dominance of its search engine and its gatekeeping power over other
applications to give its preferred content greater visibility than
its political opponents’ content or to simply block its
competitors’ applications altogether.”
“Deliberately
narrowing the principles to award Google a special privilege to play
by its own rules – or no rules at all – would be grossly unfair,
patently unlawful, and a renunciation of President Obama’s
assurance that the Commission’s Internet Policy Statement would be
used to “ensure there’s a level playing field” between
competitors. Thus, the Commission’s first fundamental step in
leveling that playing field must be to unequivocally re-affirm in its
proposed rulemaking that it will not exempt Google from whatever
rules it ultimately adopts.”
_© 2009, DailyTech

verakot
20 days ago
116 comments
delpi99999, what's up with the links to shoes and watches - are you selling them?
delpi99999
21 days ago
46 comments
Stated a spokesman for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, a government organization currently headed by Labour Party appointees, “The scale of unlawful file-sharing poses a real threat to the long-term sustainability of our creative industries. While surveys asking people about unlawful behaviour should be treated with caution, it’s encouraging that the findings signal that the three-pronged approach set out by the Government this week – a mix of education, enforcement and attractive new commercial deals – provides the best way forward
Discount Tag Heuer Watches
Discount mbt shoes
cheap mbt shoes
mbt shoes clearance
clarks shoes
jeffdiaz2000
about 1 month ago
2 comments
How is Google now, or rather how would Google be a monopoly??? I am certainly against all corporate monopolies, however, by definition, a monopolistic corp must be the lone provider of a product or service making competition impossible either by law (patents) or by financial means (competition cannot afford to compete).
With that said, Google does not charge for its use of their website or basic services, and was not the first or last search engine available on the market. So I am at a loss as to how they are being accused of monopolizing the market....If you have mobile wifi internet service you can run voice-over-IP apps and use your mobile wifi device as a phone to call anywhere as if you were sending an e-mail. If a provider that you get wifi service from prevents you from using a VOIP app on your mobile wifi device...then it is they [service provider] who are attempting to monopolize us by way of phone charges as they are blocking data just because it happens to be voice data.
Jeff D. - Massachusetts