dslreports logo
 story category
AT&T Pays For Congressional Investigation Into Google
The very best Congress that money can buy...

Last week we noted how AT&T managed to very cleverly deflect attention from AT&T and Apple's own anti-competitive behavior by highlighting how Google Voice blocks FreeConferenceCall.com. Of course everybody these days is blocking such services, including Speakeasy, Level 3, Viatalk, Magic Jack, Google and even at one point AT&T, but don't tell a well lobbied Congress that.

Such services exist due to regulatory loopholes that allow "traffic pumping," a practice that allows small phone companies to sock bigger phone companies with huge bills for voice connections. AT&T's now extending their campaign by lobbying lawmakers to investigate Google for being naughty:

quote:
A group of Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives called on the Federal Communications Commission to investigate Google Inc's ability to block calls to rural telephone exchanges. . .In the letter, the lawmakers including House Energy Commerce Committee members Steve Buyer, an Indiana Republican and Charlie Melancon, a Louisiana Democrat, said they find Google's position "ill conceived and unfair to our rural constituents."
The letter essentially mirrors the letter (pdf) sent to the FCC last week by AT&T, showing you how quickly AT&T lobbyists can get their personal bipartisan butlers in Congress to help them. The push for an "investigation" also runs simultaneously with a smear campaign being waged by paid AT&T policy wonks like Scott Cleland or the Discovery Institute's Bret Swanson. While AT&T does want traffic pumping rules reformed, the primary goal here is to deflect attention toward Google and away from AT&T, while conflating traffic pumping with net neutrality.

Perhaps the attention will bring pressure on the FCC to finally get around to shoring up the regulatory loopholes that allow traffic pumping to occur in the first place. The FCC has been looking into refining the rules since 2007, but it's a touchy issue because such services are so popular among consumers. Regulation is inconsistent on this front, and most everybody agrees (including both AT&T and Google) that the rules allowing such services need reworking.

On the other hand, AT&T is using these Senators (whose understanding of campaign contributions far exceeds their understanding of telecom) as marionettes in a campaign aimed at deflecting criticism of AT&T's practices on the network neutrality front. An "investigation" into why Google is being "unfair to our rural constituents" superficially omits the fact that this is something a huge number of companies are doing, and why exactly they're doing it. It does however put Google's name in the press as a "bad guy," which would seemingly be the point.
view:
topics flat nest 
ackman
join:2000-10-04
Atlanta, GA

ackman

Member

Yes, let's investigate

right behind the investigation of illegal wiretapping by AT&T.

seadone1
@bellsouth.net

seadone1

Anon

Re: Yes, let's investigate

AMEN TO THAT!!!!
Long live the GREAT Mark Klein for having the balls to do what he did!!!

GoDx
@mindspring.com

GoDx to ackman

Anon

to ackman
HELL YEA!!!

Rip AT$T and show ALL the ILLEGAL crap that have done and are still doing

NOVA_Guy
ObamaCare Kills Americans
Premium Member
join:2002-03-05

NOVA_Guy

Premium Member

This almost makes me...

...want to try and get local phone service from AT&T, dial up a FreeConferenceCall.com number, start a conference, and just sit on there all day long.

If I had them for service right now, that's exactly what I'd be doing. If AT&T is going to try to continue to screw consumers in any way possible, perhaps it's about time for some of their consumers to go ahead and return the favor.

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02

Karl Bode

News Guy

Re: This almost makes me...

That's kind of the irony of them wanting reform of these particular rules. While the regulation is bad here, I can't really list the number of federal and state laws that puts AT&T's well-being ahead of consumers.

morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000

morbo to NOVA_Guy

Member

to NOVA_Guy
you just gave me a great idea.

screavic4
Premium Member
join:2006-08-11
Paron, AR

screavic4

Premium Member

Re: This almost makes me...

uh oh

fifty nine
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ

fifty nine

Member

Re: This almost makes me...

Phone party?

hmmmm

Noah Vail
Oh God please no.
Premium Member
join:2004-12-10
SouthAmerica

Noah Vail

Premium Member

Re: This almost makes me...

said by fifty nine:

Phone party?hmmmm
I think I might have a Captain Crunch whistle around here somewhere...

NV

Mr Fel
INTJ - The Architect
Premium Member
join:2008-03-17
Louisville, KY

Mr Fel to NOVA_Guy

Premium Member

to NOVA_Guy
Since I do have service from AT&T I will be doing this, not like I have anything better to do on my one weekday off.

cableties
Premium Member
join:2005-01-27

cableties to NOVA_Guy

Premium Member

to NOVA_Guy
Remember to forward the calls to your congressional reps. And if busy, have a message waiting for them to call ya back on your Google Voice number!
ISurfTooMuch
join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL

ISurfTooMuch to NOVA_Guy

Member

to NOVA_Guy
Can you say "free nights and weekends"? I knew you could!

Anyone care to set up a continuous phone party ad post the details here? It could just keep going...and going...and going as people enter and leave. Think of it as a never-ending conference call to discuss all sorts of important and trivial things.

Mr Fel
INTJ - The Architect
Premium Member
join:2008-03-17
Louisville, KY

Mr Fel

Premium Member

Re: This almost makes me...

A watercooler phone forum

Epoe
@covad.net

Epoe to NOVA_Guy

Anon

to NOVA_Guy
Check out the Hank from AT&T and Dave from FreeConferenceCall.com going at it on a phone call about Google blocking calls and how ATT is connecting the calls but not paying »blog.freeconferencecall.com

EPoe
@covad.net

EPoe to NOVA_Guy

Anon

to NOVA_Guy
It funny how some may people think AT&T pays for the bill for long distance and not the customers. Do the customers not pay for the call to FreeConferenceCall.com. So how have long distance companies stepped up to where they are paying for the consumers calls and if the consumer wants to make a call to a free application like google or freeconferencecall are they not paying for the call. Tell me that it is the consumer that wants to call FreeConferenceCall.com and the consumer that pays for the call... or am I missing something
kerton
join:2003-05-15
Pleasanton, CA

kerton

Member

Re: This almost makes me...

"am I missing something?"

Yes. Mostly sentence structure, punctuation, and a cohesive point or question.

Many consumers have unlimited nationwide long distance, either on their cell or on their landline. They can call Freeconference.com for...free (or at least no per-minute cost) and their carrier must pay very high per-minute call termination rates to the small phone co in Iowa or wherever.

This is precisely why these free conference bridges are placed in these small telcos: as call termination bait.

damnATT
@sigmanet.com

damnATT

Anon

I'm really starting to hate the telcos more and more....

and our judiciary system. Why are these knobheads allowed to payoff politicians to make things more rosy for them.

They need to compete on innovation and price not by paying off lobbyists.

Total BS.

These types of antics make me never want to be a customer of AT&T.
matrix3D
join:2006-09-27
Middletown, CT

matrix3D

Member

Re: I'm really starting to hate the telcos more and more....

This is what we Americans deserve, since we're the retarded sheep who keep voting the same assholes back into office every time they're up for re-election.

KICK THEM ALL OUT!!!

fifty nine
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ

fifty nine

Member

Re: I'm really starting to hate the telcos more and more....

said by matrix3D:

This is what we Americans deserve, since we're the retarded sheep who keep voting the same assholes back into office every time they're up for re-election.

KICK THEM ALL OUT!!!
Actually the best solution is to not give them any more spectrum until there are some guarantees in place that they will properly serve the public interest.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

Re: I'm really starting to hate the telcos more and more....

Serve the public interest? Could such a rule not apply to just about every spectrum license holder that doesn't provide emergency services for the government?

fifty nine
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ

fifty nine

Member

Re: I'm really starting to hate the telcos more and more....

said by openbox9:

Serve the public interest? Could such a rule not apply to just about every spectrum license holder that doesn't provide emergency services for the government?
It should.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

Re: I'm really starting to hate the telcos more and more....

And what's your definition of "properly serve the public interest"? What kind of guarantees are you looking for? Sounds like potential for a huge step backwards for innovation if you ask me.
jjeffeory
jjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
Bloomington, IN

jjeffeory to matrix3D

Member

to matrix3D
Gotta do it at the same time, though... Also, gotta pick someone from a party OTHER than democrat OR republican...

anon
@pdx.net

anon to damnATT

Anon

to damnATT
Welcome to politics in the US. Government always has been and always will be by the corporations and for the corporations. Why? Simple economics. He who has the money to put into power who they want will always win.

Yes, I'm a cynic, I know. It doesn't make it untrue.
ISurfTooMuch
join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL

ISurfTooMuch

Member

Re: I'm really starting to hate the telcos more and more....

You're half right. Money buys the lobbying and political advertising, but that doesn't win an election. To do that, you need a large supply of easily-swayed people who vote based on nothing more than those ads, and we happen to have those kinds of folks in spades.
old_wiz_60
join:2005-06-03
Bedford, MA

old_wiz_60

Member

Not surprising...

Telcos, record labels, movie studios, and just about every business likes to lobby for their own benefit. Usually they contribute money to "charities" (which goes direct to politicians), or hookers, or drugs. It usually works since the government is far more interested in getting money than taking care of voters.

Wizeguy7
join:2008-08-23
Safety Harbor, FL

Wizeguy7

Member

Clash of the Titans the continuing story...

Perseus has to rescue Andromeda, before she has to marry a monster. Zeus has set up a few tests for Perseus on the way, like capturing Pegasus, defeating Medusa, and finding a way to kill the dreaded Kraken...

Insert AT&T, Google, Verizon or Sprint in any name..

The big boyz are fighting to finish, life is imitaing art "there will be blood" !!
jaminus
join:2004-10-14
Arlington, VA

jaminus

Member

Bret Swanson no longer with Discovery Institute

Bret Swanson resigned from the Discovery Institute over 1.5 years ago. He now owns a consulting firm called Entropy Economics (»entropyeconomics.com/)
MyDogHsFleas
Premium Member
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX

1 recommendation

MyDogHsFleas

Premium Member

What's good for the goose....

So where's the reporting on Google and other dot-com content providers lobbying intensively for "network neutrality" (which favors them as a business over the carriers), and contributing heavily to the Democrats?

I say what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If Google wants to play the "regulate thee but not me" game, pointing out where the regulations intersect with Google is completely fair. And if Google wants to lobby and contribute, AT&T lobbying and contributing is fair too.
notwrth10
join:2007-03-03
1001EB

notwrth10

Member

Answer me this

If AT&T has to allow the calls per FCC order, how come Google and the rest of the VoIP's block them? I would figure what's good for the goose, is good for the ganderer. It should be equal on both sides of the plate.

Oh right I forgot where I am at. DSLreports.com the #2 Anti-AT&T site on the net!

Nevermind!

ArrayList
DevOps
Premium Member
join:2005-03-19
Mullica Hill, NJ

1 recommendation

ArrayList

Premium Member

Re: Answer me this

um GoogleVoice is not phone service.
notwrth10
join:2007-03-03
1001EB

notwrth10

Member

Re: Answer me this

said by ArrayList:

um GoogleVoice is not phone service.
Bzzzzt! wrong! they wanted to replace the "dialer" with their own. That move right there classified it as voip.

However I do invite you to try again and...... FAIL!
MRCUR
join:2007-03-09
Lancaster, PA

MRCUR to notwrth10

Member

to notwrth10
Well not only is GVoice not a VoIP service, it's also in beta and FREE. Google has to pay extra to connect these calls (the conference ones specifically) and won't do that given you're not giving them anything in return. The argument could also be that it's a beta and thus not feature-complete or meant for general public consumption.

AT&T is wrong. Period.

Noah Vail
Oh God please no.
Premium Member
join:2004-12-10
SouthAmerica

Noah Vail to notwrth10

Premium Member

to notwrth10
said by notwrth10:

Oh right I forgot where I am at. DSLreports.com the #2 Anti-AT&T site on the net!
The same way the FBI was anti Ted Kaczynski.

Karl's just like the FBI. He's da MAN; always oppressing the little guy.

I wouldn't wait for the knock at your door, if I were you.

NV

spewak
R.I.P Dadkins
Premium Member
join:2001-08-07
Elk Grove, CA

spewak

Premium Member

Look APPLE

We'll sue Google to kiss your behinds. Don't end our exclusive agreement, Puhlease! We'll bend over for you in the END!

John Thacker
@northgrum.com

John Thacker

Anon

Unworthy argument

Of course everybody these days is blocking such services, including Speakeasy, Level 3, Viatalk, Magic Jack, Google and even at one point AT&T, but don't tell a well lobbied Congress that.
And the FCC banned AT&T and the other POTS telcos from blocking those ripoff services, a practice that I think was a mistake. (As a side note, the only reason those ripoff services exist is because of Congressional-written subsidies for rural telcos; I oppose the subsidies too.) As far as I can tell, you're admitting that AT&T's particular brief is 100% accurate and justified, you just want to ignore it because you don't like them for other reasons.

Sure, there are lots of areas where branches and levels of government favors AT&T or other incumbents. I don't understand why that means that Karl Bode and others expect that I should cheer on unfairness in a particular case. "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth," eh, Karl Bode? Such an attitude doesn't help these terrible laws and regulations get reformed, since everybody will always have an argument as to why they're being treated unfairly. Some else always started it if you go back farther, just like in international relations.

The same criticism applies to AT&T, of course; having lost and had an unfair ruling against them by the FCC, they're now pushing for the same ruling to cripple competitors so it will be a level playing field.

Upoe
@covad.net

Upoe

Anon

Re: Unworthy argument

I come from a world where I pay for my long distance not AT&T. To some how think that AT&T is getting screwed by FreeConferenceCall is crazy.

I pay my long distance and I should be charged for every minute I use. To some how have AT&T (or Google) say that they don't charge me enough so they won't connect certain calls is limiting what I can do. If the FreeConferenceCall.com bridges are located in high price areas charge high price rates for the people that use them.

What's the problem?

I don't need anybody doing me favors saving me money to tell me what I can and can't do