Slashdot Log In
AT&T Slams Google Over Open-Access Wireless
Posted by
Zonk
on Fri Jul 13, 2007 11:39 AM
from the wham-wham-wham dept.
from the wham-wham-wham dept.
Robert writes with a CBROnline article on AT&T's objection to opening up a nationwide wireless spectrum. Their statement is made on the grounds that it will aid Google in their bid to get bargain-basement broadband prices. Google is just one company asking for open-access requirements on wireless signals; Skype, DirecTV, and EchoStar are others. From the article: "Yesterday, AT&T weighed in. In a letter to the FCC, AT&T said Google's "eleventh hour request" was self-serving because it would encumber licenses in the forthcoming auction 'with a laundry list of intrusive 'open access' requirements that would, perhaps, entice Google to participate in the auction. By its own admission, Google's request is intended to diminish the value of those licenses, thus preventing wireless service providers such as AT&T from bidding on them and clearing the path for Google to obtain them at below-market rates.' AT&T also said an open-access network would deprive taxpayers of billions of dollars, and inhibit the growth of wireless broadband in the country."
Related Stories
[+]
Technology: Google Set to Bid $4.6 Billion for Airwaves 156 comments
Nrbelex writes "The Associated Press is reporting that Google has offered to bid at least $4.6 billion on wireless airwaves being auctioned off by the federal government, as long as certain conditions are met. 'The Internet search company wants the Federal Communications Commission to mandate that any winners lease a certain portion of the airwaves to other companies seeking to offer high-speed Internet and other services. Such a provision, Google argues, will give consumers — who traditionally get high-speed Internet access via cable or telephone lines — a third option for service.'" We discussed AT&T's objection to Google's acquisition of these airwaves last week; this article would seem to confirm Ma Bell's worst fears.
[+]
News: FCC Looks To Offer Consumers More Wireless Choice 65 comments
An anonymous reader writes "The FCC is butting heads with wireless phone companies over 'wiggle room' the government organization wishes to allow consumers. Along with the move to the auction system, the government is removing restrictions on pieces of the wireless spectrum, which will allow a freedom of choice not usually seen with wireless communication devices. 'In the past, when the F.C.C. auctioned spectrum for cellular service, it allowed the winners to determine the equipment and applications that would run on their networks. That created the current status quo, in which a vast majority of American consumers buy a handset from a wireless service provider. The open-access rules, which will apply to about one-third of the spectrum being sold at the auction, represent a significant departure from past practice. They require the winners to let consumers use any tested, safe and compatible device or application on its network. Entrepreneurs could sell handsets with capabilities that are unavailable -- or unavailable at affordable prices -- from current carriers.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Yeah right (Score:5, Funny)
Isn't it good to know AT&T is looking out for us?
Re:Yeah right (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Yeah right (Score:4, Insightful)
Meanwhile, AT&T sees a lapse in the way they can gouge customers and don't like the potential hit to them. Plus it's another way they can slow down what they see as a major competitor.
They are both looking out for themselves. Nobody else. Obviously if there aren't customers, they don't make money. That's the only thing that keeps either of them in line. But either of them would also squeeze you dry if they could. It's the American way.
Parent
Re:Yeah right (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing is, it appears the way Martin has written his recommendation so far...that AT&T or Verizon, or anyone could buy one of the 6 geographical chunks...and block a nationwide competitive network. From the article:
"Whether or not Google is readying to build a nationwide wireless network may be a moot argument. Martin's proposal reportedly contains provisions that would divide up the spectrum into six large geographic regions, rather than a single nationwide block. That would mean an incumbent operator could buy just one region to prevent such a network.
There also, reportedly, is no language in the proposal that requires an auction winner to build a network at all. This means an incumbent could buy a regional spectrum merely as a way to block any such nationwide network."
So, while this is all conjuncture at this point...there are some risks out there that could really blow it for the consumers in the US. I hope they do some serious thinking at the FCC before putting this out to bid...too bad the general public doesn't have a lobbiest we could all contribute to, to lobby for the general public's best interests!!!
Parent
Re:Yeah right (Score:4, Insightful)
Like the benefit from their free mail service which gave users more storage than any other service on the market, forcing other vendors to improve their offerings?
Like the benefit from their continued contributions to open source software projects over the years (in terms of developers, contributed code, contributed subsystems, advocacy, financial support, sponsored development, etc.)?
How much more than every other company does Google have to do before folks like you will even notice? If we spent half as much time finding fault with AT&T, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
Parent
Re:Yeah right (Score:5, Informative)
Sure, some taxes might be lost during the SALE of those bands... but it would save the taxpayers TRILLIONS of dollars by providing a true level playing field which promotes competition and innovation instead of treating 'locked-in' customers like fish in a barrel.
Parent
Re:Yeah right (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Yeah right (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, the difference is that European officials mandated interoperability and pushed for 3G. Here, our Congress pushes for whatever is in the best interest of AT&T, Verizon, or Comcast. And those companies are looking to maximize profits with as small of an investment as possible.
Since most folks don't have a lot of choice: be it cable where you choices are between Cable and uh, nothing if you're not close enough to DSL ; or wireless where you are locked into a contract for 2 years and the contract is automatically extended anytime you make ANY change. The result is there is no driving force behind getting end users true broadband. Also, it doesn't help that our gov't defines broadband as something like 200Kbps.
Parent
Re:Yeah right (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Yeah Sure (Score:4, Funny)
Redundant (Score:4, Interesting)
ahem (Score:5, Interesting)
AT&T also said an open-access network would deprive AT&T of billions of dollars, and inhibit the growth of AT&T in this country.
Anything that's bad for AT&T is probably good for everyone else. I know that comes off a bit prejudiced but Ma Bell pt. II is alive and well in this country. (Love the kinder, gentler death star logo, too.)
I know that google is just another corporation, but honestly, does anyone believe they're more 'evil' than AT&T?
oh noes! (Score:3, Interesting)
Showdown (Score:5, Funny)
We lose either way of course. Capitalism rocks.
.
Don't be blind. Ma Bell is Evil. (Score:4, Insightful)
We lose either way of course. Capitalism rocks.
Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Google is absolutely angelic next to ATT and friends. Really though, the problem is not capitalism so much as it is corporate government interference. There would not be a problem if auctions were not rigged or did not exist to begin with. [slashdot.org]
Parent
Re:Don't be blind. Ma Bell is Evil. (Score:5, Insightful)
Capitalism is basically financial engineering: figure out a way to get "the most buck for your bang/product." In a lot of instances, the most cost-effective way to do that is to rig the playing field in your favor. Capitalism is premised on a Free Market; however, once a company is successful beyond a point, it gains the power to tie up the Invisible Hand (with monopoly practices, collusion, government interference, subsidies, etc.) and thereby destroy the Free Market*, which is how they rig the playing field in their favor. It is actually in the best interests of a corporation to not have a free market. They all want captive markets where they can wring as much profit as possible. Capitalism is the problem because it is capitalism that brought about corporate government interference in an effort to maximize profits. The other problem is that corporations do not give a fig about consumers (beyond the fact that they must be kept happy enough to keep consuming); it is, however, the government's sworn and bounden duty to protect its citizens, at least according to the principles espoused by John Locke, whose thinking, coincidentally, greatly influenced the Founding Fathers of the US.
I'm so sick of all this libertarian "The Government Scares Me" tripe. The government scares me too, but when I look at what's bad in the government, it has all been brought about by powerful lobbies, the vast majority of which are corporations or industry groups. Those scare me so much more because in this day and age, they are (almost) effectively puppet-masters.
However, I completely agree that this problem wouldn't exist if we didn't have auctions or we had completely fair auctions. And also that Google is much much better than AT&T. It's just the tired, fallible libertarian claptrap that gets to me. I'm sorry for venting on you; believe me, it's not personal.
*As an aside, I find it ironic that
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No, they can obtain it if *anyone* happens to give it to them, and it doesn't even have to be accurate. There are a lot of cases out there of some person getting mad at some other person and posting all sorts of unplesant, untrue things about that person online causing them to show up when people search for the affected person.
Yes, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Speaking as a taxpayer, it seems to me that a nationwide open-access spectrum would be a very worthwhile thing to get by forgoing those "billions of dollars".
(Nice to see that AT&T is looking out for my interests, though.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Their argument is that the government will get more money if we give them a monopoly. Which is certainl
So much iron in that statement, it's starting to.. (Score:5, Interesting)
And then he has the gall to claim that the oligopoly of telecoms has not failed consumers.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, I think their argument against Google was fairly innovative - oh, sorry, you meant technological innovation.
Summation (Score:5, Funny)
Please do not allow others to compete in communications. We are a monopoly and like it.
Sincerely,
AT&T
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
PS: Attached is a check for a $LARGE amount of money and some wine for our buddies at the NSA.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't make us release the contents of your cellphone calls, landline calls, internet usage, and emails. STFU and do as you're told.
Your Master,
AT&T
From the article: (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the same BS talk that these telecoms use in the net neutrality debate. "Innovation" and "creativity" seem to be the new corporate-speak for "monopolize" and "profit".
Selfserving much? (Score:3, Insightful)
-Rick
AT&T A Cursed Name? (Score:4, Interesting)
But within like 3 weeks of them becoming AT&T they've turned into AT&T. Bad service, bad policies, bad politics. It's like the AT&T trademark requires a company to be assholes and give out terrible service.
I don't get it. Cingular wasn't like this last year, or at least they were so blatant about it.
they forgot to mention (Score:5, Insightful)
Most companies nowadays (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe if AT&T would build a FTTH network (Score:4, Informative)
AT&T also said an open-access network would deprive taxpayers of billions of dollars
AT&T's just cranky that the feds extorted $billions from them and the rest of the cellphone companies in prior spectrum auctions and it wouldn't be fair if everyone else didn't get screwed just as hard. Actually, they have a point. I only take issue with the pretension that taxpayers aren't ultimately paying for that spectrum in higher service bills.
I'd like to see that 700MHz spectrum opened up using 2.4GHz spectrum rules and skip the auction bit entirely, but there are certainly good alternatives to that. We don't necessarily need to set up the entire block of spectrum with the same rules. Maybe reserve an open chunk for directional antenna use only for fixed long-range wireless use?
"Google's request was self-serving"... WTF? (Score:3, Insightful)
Or perhaps AT&T would like to suggest that they provide telephone services out of the goodness of their black little hearts?
Not in my rice bowl (Score:3, Insightful)
AT&T whining (Score:5, Insightful)
This is really about the same as MS embedding IE to kill off other companies who were solely browser developers (Netscape?).
I think the big different here, and I may stand corrected, is that google isn't doing it as a lost leader to lock someone in, but to better their product. So if that's the case I support it. Only time will tell though as things roll out.
The FCC should understand (Score:5, Funny)
corporate speak is funny (Score:5, Interesting)
If you want to know the true meaning of a corporation's PR or marketing, just translate it to the opposite of what they say.
Fixed versions:
"AT&T also said an open-access network would SAVE taxpayers of billions of dollars, and ENCOURAGE the growth of wireless broadband in the country."
Easy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, as in all things, you have to consider the source.. what is the primary focus of PR and Marketing (the only 2 groups who actually are allowed to speak for a company)?
PR is there to make a company's image more palatable or smooth over indiscretions. If people liked the company already or had no indiscretions then this would not be needed.. so it must be that PR is just lying to make a company look good.
Marketing is to make people desire your produc
Google Public Policy Blog (Score:4, Informative)
People here keep mentioning the cost of broadband, so here's a recent chart comparing costs worldwide [dailywireless.org]. (Example: 34 cents/Mbps in South Korea versus $10/Mbps in the U.S., if it's even available where you live, which is why Open Access really matters.)
I relate the FCC's position to all the news about Dick Cheney a few weeks ago, how he relentlessly pressures political appointees who ought to be impartial. Could it be happening again?
What???? (Score:5, Interesting)
Inhibit? (Score:4, Insightful)
It didn't think it could get much more inhibitted than it already is.
Oh, Google, how could you? (Score:4, Funny)
Google, you scamps.
Say it ain't so! I'm ashamed of you. Do no evil, indeed. How can you not follow the example of fine, upstanding, generous, social-minded, humble, helpful, concerned, responsible, AT&T?
AT&T - now there's who you should take your cue from. They've never had anything other than the general welfare and the good of the little guy in their warm, altruistic hearts. I can't believe the FCC would even deign to hear the recommendations of anyone else, since AT&T has proven time and time again that all they want - all they've ever wanted - is what's best for everyone, even at great peril to their bottom line.
Google already has the network (Score:3, Informative)
How the hell (Score:3, Insightful)
That AT&T doesnt want to do anything open is THEIR problem, and if they choose to spurn new spectrum if that is part of their requirement then that is there choice.
We, the public, WANT open access wireless, we WANT there to be healthy and robust competition
Take the iPhone. Now why Apple chose to let it be locked (at least until its hacked) into AT&T only for service I dont know. But there is no question why AT&T wanted it. And as far as I'm concerned it reduces the desirablity of an iPhone to below zero (at least until its fully hacked, *maybe*[ becuase maybe I'd like to get a device that is supposed to be open, as opposed to one that had to be hacked to be so])
AT&T (and Verizon, and all the other monopoly-bells, and hell Microsoft, and Yahoo[although they are in bed with AT&T anyway]) only whine about Google becuase Google might actually have the balls and the cash to do what people want, and to begin to put just the tiniest crack into the monopoly telecom and computing monopolies.
And Google is NOT a monopoly. I cant think of any instance where one person (or company) choosing to use any of Google's services or products makes it impossible for someone else to communicate or do business with them to use anything other than Google (Im talking about proprietary non-standard undocumented MS file formats and network protocols here), nor are there any cases where Google has exclusive control over some critical resources that the existence of was financed by regulated non-competition (I'm talking about last mile copper here) that prevents anyone else from using it.
Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
1) Taxpayers will make billions of dollars off of this plan.
2) Wireless Broadband will explode across the country
3) You will not pay 50% of your bill in fees.
Google want to buy the frequencies. (Score:5, Informative)
But the auctions have serious flaws that allow the incumbents to rig them. Google is trying to reduce ATT and Verizon's ability to co-operate and screw others like Google. It would lower the price of spectrum to something more like a free market value. What you have now is more like a monopoly price from the people who fought tooth and nail against analog modems. I can correct the assertion of ATT reps to make it more like reality:
A fair auction is in everyone's best interest.
A better system would completely eliminate government interference, because it there is not spectrum scarcity and it's regulation no longer serves a purpose [slashdot.org].
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Google can out-bid AT&T all they want. What happens if a telco loses is the auction is, at some point, declared null and void. So they can go in with barrels full of cash, win the auction then spend the next 25 years in court with AT&T while the spectrum they won languishes.
There are a number of cases where an
Re:Why doesn't Google buy the frequencies? (Score:5, Interesting)
Google also wants provisions for national "open" channels if they can't get a nationwide one. That way a group of small people could buy them up for a "community" network and be able to mass-market devices without corporate interference. In effect Google is asking for what would amount to "wireless internet". It's right there, the FCC could create a wireless, pervasive, on good frequencies with high end spread-spectrum like wireless "n" uses.. on a national scale! It's too bad this is all going on in board rooms, it could be the biggest public sector news story not being reported!
Parent
Re:Google is like anal sex without lube (Score:4, Funny)
Clearly, no one's ever pounded YOU in the ass.
Parent
Re:Google is like anal sex without lube (Score:5, Funny)
Well, if you accept his premise, then you really don't know, do you?
Parent
Re:Google is like anal sex without lube (Score:5, Insightful)
The incumbents (AT+T, Sprint and Verizon) cry and scream every time anyone says anything about opening up the spectrum. They will lie, cheat and steal to make sure that no one can set up shop on that spectrum and not pay the incumbents for it.
There is a perfect example of their outright lying right in this quote. The incumbents say doing it Google's way will devalue the spectrum itself. They say that it will cost the taxpayers billions if Google gets it way.
Wrong.
Every time, they say this very same thing in an effort to scare the committee into thinking that they won't get those billions from the incumbents, knowing all the while that the committee has strong political pressure to get the most money out of the auction that they can (even the US governement notices 15 or 20 billion dollars).
Not only is it a lie about devaluing the spectrum (after all, if it is devalued, why would they care to buy it?) but it is a lie about who is going to lose money. The money for the auction goes to the government, not the taxpayers. The "taxpayer" in the end gets nothing but higher cellular bills due to lack of competition...in fact, the incumbents aim is to buy up all the spectrum and pave over it with a parking lot, which makes sure no one will ever be able to use it.
Take it from me, a guy very close to this industry. Google is certainly not the evil ones here.
Parent
Re:Google is like anal sex without lube (Score:4, Funny)
He's making an anal sex joke.
2. Why...comment modded up?
He's making an anal sex joke.
Parent