Someone at AT&T is a reader of this blog, it seems.
One of my posts was last week picked up by AT&T and quoted at length in a complaint that the company made on Friday to the Federal Communications Commission about Google Voice. The first I knew about it was when I read news reports at the weekend.
The point AT&T seized upon was my argument (drawing on James Surowiecki) that Google was caught in an intellectual contradiction over its Google Voice service. You can read the post here and the AT&T complaint quoting it here.
The AT&T complaint says that if Google Voice is a telecoms service, then it ought to be covered by common carriage rules. If it is not, as Google claims, then it is an internet application that should be covered by the network neutrality principles for which Google has lobbied.
Unsurprisingly, since AT&T is using my blog as supporting evidence, I think that is a smart argument. It may or may not convince the FCC but it puts Google on the spot publicly.
Incidentally, although the AT&T letter quotes me accurately, it misleadingly attributes the argument to the Financial Times. These are my views, not those of the FT as a whole.
Richard Whitt, Google’s Washington media and telecoms counsel, responded on its public policy blog that Google is not bound by the same rules as AT&T:
AT&T is trying to make this about Google’s support for an open internet, but the comparison just doesn’t fly. The FCC’s open internet principles apply only to the behavior of broadband carriers – not the creators of Web-based software applications.
Mr Whitt could be right in law but it does not come across well as a defence. The first commenter on the Google blog, Visnhu Gopal, gently pointed this out:
Not to sound offensive, but that sentence does sound a bit disingenuous doesn’t it? Open internet doesn’t apply to web-based software applications? What should it apply to, then?
In fact, Mr Whitt’s argument last week in the Wall Street Journal for why Google Voice should not be covered by common carriage rules, allowing it not to connect some high-cost calls, was reminiscent of AT&T’s own argument against network neutrality.
Mr Whitt said it would become “a real challenge” to justify Google’s investment in Google Voice if the FCC declared it was subject to common carrier rules. “Imposing legacy common carriage requirements would be unfortunate not just for Google Voice, but also for lots of innovative companies, large and small, who are using the Web to revolutionize the way people communicate with each other.”
Telecoms and cable companies argue that network neutrality rules would, by preventing them from charging for faster delivery of services, weaken their incentive to invest in new networks.
When you find yourself in an intellectual hole, Mr Whitt, stop digging.
