AT&T Inc. and Google Inc. ratcheted up the volume in an ongoing war of words over net neutrality and the Google Voice application. In documents filed Friday, AT&T went on the offensive, saying that Google Voice fails to comply with the government’s open Internet policies, even as Google pushes for regulations to force network providers to allow any application to work on their networks. For its part, Google said AT&T’s argument is flawed because Google Voice is not a traditional phone service.
The Federal Communications Commission launched an inquiry into why the Google Voice application was denied on Apple Inc.’s iPhone App Store. The iPhone runs on AT&T Mobility’s network. Depending on whose answers you believe, AT&T said it did not deny the application; Apple says the application is still being studied but has not been denied, and Google says that the application flatly has been denied.
In a letter to the FCC, AT&T accuses Google of routinely blocking calls to some local exchange carriers in rural areas, where it is more expensive to connect to the LEC network. AT&T and other long-distance providers are governed by common-carrier regulations that say they cannot block calls to any local exchange carriers. At this point, Google Voice is being treated as an Internet application and not bound by common-carrier rules.
“AT&T has long supported both the goal of a vibrant, open Internet and the four principles contained in the Commission’s Internet Policy Statement,” wrote Robert Quinn Jr., a senior VP at AT&T. “This vision is apparently not shared by one of the most noisome trumpeters of so-called ‘net neutrality’ regulation, Google, at least when it comes to its own services. Numerous press reports indicate that Google is systematically blocking telephone calls from consumers that use Google Voice to call telephone numbers in certain rural communities. By blocking these calls, Google is able to reduce its access expenses. Other providers, including those with which Google Voice competes, are banned from call blocking because in June 2007, the Wireline Competition Bureau emphatically declared that all carriers are prohibited from pursuing ‘self help actions such as call blocking.’ The Bureau expressed concern that call blocking ‘may degrade the reliability of the nation’s telecommunications network.’ Google Voice thus has claimed for itself a significant advantage over providers offering competing services.”
AT&T argues that if the commission is going to look at more regulations to ensure an open Internet policy, it needs to look beyond the networks to content and services. “AT&T strongly emphasizes that the existing Internet principles are serving consumers well in their current form and there is no sound reason to radically expand and codify those principles. But if the Commission nonetheless embarks on such a course as it apparently plans to do in an upcoming rulemaking, it absolutely must ensure that any such rules apply evenly – not just to network operators but also to providers of Internet applications, content and services. Anything less would be ineffective, legally suspect and, in all events, a direct repudiation of President Obama’s call for a ‘level playing field.’ ”
For its part, Google on its public policy blog said common-carrier regulations are flawed but said so is AT&T’s argument for Google Voice. Google said its application does restrict “certain outbound calls” but said it is not a traditional telephone service. “But despite AT&T’s efforts to blur the distinctions between Google Voice and traditional phone service, there are many significant differences:
• Unlike traditional carriers, Google Voice is a free, Web-based software application, and so not subject to common carrier laws.
• Google Voice is not intended to be a replacement for traditional phone service — in fact, you need an existing land or wireless line in order to use it. Importantly, users are still able to make outbound calls on any other phone device.
• Google Voice is currently invitation-only, serving a limited number of users.”
