AT&T Slams Google Over Open-Access Wireless 214
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."
Yeah right (Score:5, Funny)
Isn't it good to know AT&T is looking out for us?
Re:Yeah right (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
What a world worthy of pride have we built..
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!!!
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.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Go get em Google!
Re:Yeah right (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ultimately it goes back to what I was saying, companies are looking for how they can put forth the smallest amount of capital for the highest return. Since they have a virtual monopoly (at max a dualopoly), there is no need to put forth anything but the minimal effort
Re: (Score:2)
Any time a corporation tries to state that less competition is better for the consumer, they're lying through their teeth.
Re: (Score:2)
My favorite is when they try to pass off their monopoly as "competition." Lately there have been ads on Comcast talking about how "When cable companies compete, you win." Uhh, yeah, except none of them are competing. They've carved out their niches and they guard them very carefully.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Yeah right (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In my opinion, The FCC is one of the few government regulatory bodies that actually serve a reasonable purpose.
Now, in the current climate, they have overstepped those bounds by an order of magnitude. (In the form of censoring the airwaves.) However, that was nev
arms race (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree in theory, but if the FCC didn't regulate the airwaves, then it would be too easy for your competition to just jam you. Or else, everyone would try to use the same frequencies and the end result would be that nobody could use anything.
Actually broadcasters, those who use the airwaves, would eventually come up with an agreement on how to alocate the airwaves. If there wasn't an agreement it would lead to an arms races driving their costs skyward which would bankrupt them. If I recall right IEEE'
Re: (Score:2)
judging by it's behavior in the last two years, i would say the FCC's job is to be the Telcos' bitch. thus far, they have had plenty of freedom to do their job and they doing it well.
Why doesn't Google buy the frequencies? (Score:2)
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].
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!
Yeah Sure (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Someone mentioned the word Trillions earlier on, and I believe this is just at the lower end of how much the consumers will lose if the current spectrum assignment model persits.
oh noes! (Score:3, Interesting)
Showdown (Score:5, Funny)
We lose either way of course. Capitalism rocks.
.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Try actually reading what I wrote and what I responded to before jumping to the defense of something I wasn't attacking.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is wrong. What he said is that anyone can give it to them, not just "you". There is a difference between the two statements but I get the feeling that you are both on the same side and arguing over semantics
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]
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Libertarianism is about no government interference in anything, especially the lives of citizens. I said nothing about Libertarians wanting big government. However, the idea that "everything is better is the government does nothing" is Libertarian, and in this case, not supported by facts. I am all for a complete lack of lobbying, and a reasonable restriction on laws and a flourishing of a citizen's right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bug in googlefight. Everything from the ampersand onwards is getting dropped. Write the maintainers an email.
Anyway, if you work around the problem by preencoding it with a URL syntax (at%26t), you get a very different [googlefight.com] answer.
Language (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
That was my first thought, too. You're talking about a nation with a budget of, what, a couple trillion dollars a year? If they're implying that keeping our future nationwide wireless internet access open will cost a couple billion, I'd say that's the most worthwhile couple billion dollars our government could spend.
Hell, I bet lots of aspects of our economic and social freedom "costs" us billions of dollars every year. I, for one, wouldn't choose to sell that freedom for a mere couple billion dollars.
No. Let AT&T pay the monopoly price. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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:2)
Like it or not we have Verizon at least developing and pushing FIOS but what R/D is ATT doing that will suffer so much if people have more and better access to wireless?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, I think their argument against Google was fairly innovative - oh, sorry, you meant technological innovation.
Re:So much iron in that statement, it's starting t (Score:2)
Of course not. They simply want fewer rules which apply to them so they can squeeze more money out of the consumer. Open markets just cut into profits and force them to compete on quality instead of having a monopoly.
Cheers
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
Re: (Score:2)
We will fucking PAY to keep AT&T on top, whether we like it or not.
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.
You got that right (Score:2)
You got that right. That's why we call them Assholes Through & Through.
Re: (Score:2)
They like to call it a perk, not a requirement.
Cheers
they forgot to mention (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Most companies nowadays (Score:4, Interesting)
Translation (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's pretty scary for AT&T that Google could wipe out their business model in a few months!!
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's breathtaking assertion of rights (Score:2)
Yeah, well, if AT&T doesn't pay me $20897678937 per year for being a smart guy, they're depriving the employees of a bunch of airplane and bicycle companies *enormous* incomes, which is immoral and unethical. I'm sure AT&T will see the righteousness of this stance.
If Google manages to get the value of licensed spectrum licences reduced, then at va
Trust AT&T. No, really. Aw, come on! (Score:2)
AT&T also said an open-access network would deprive AT&T of billions of dollars, and encourage the growth of wireless broadband in the country
AT&T: fyp
Your world, delivered... to the NSA
Looks like (Score:2)
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.
I know that smell (Score:2)
On an odd note (Score:2)
The FCC should understand (Score:5, Funny)
I am so dam tired (Score:2, Insightful)
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:2)
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
Surprise, surprise! (Score:2)
Hold on while I give myself CPR.
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?
Re: (Score:2)
What???? (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder if lawmakers feel the same (Score:2)
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.
"self serving" ???? (Score:2)
Ad Revenue (Score:3, Insightful)
Google's goal is to get EVERYONE online, because they make revenue on search ads. If there are more people online, they get to charge more for ads. It must appear to them that providing internet access will cost less than the improved ad-income they will earn.
AT&T, on the other hand, sells internet access -- not advertising space. All their income comes from the cost to join an infrastructure. They want to maintain barriers to entry that keep the industry a monopoly/oligopoly rather than a more open market.
Ultimately -- both firms are looking out for their VIPs, the shareholders.
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.
Re:Google is like anal sex without lube (Score:4, Funny)
Clearly, no one's ever pounded YOU in the ass.
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?
Re: (Score:2)
1. Why are you painting Google as the bad guy here, when they're in the process of trying to wrest control of spectrum from AT&T... which Slashdot has endlessly complained about... by adding provisions for open use... which Slashdot has endlessly screamed for.
2. Why on earth was such an empty comment modded up?
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.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Never mind "taxpayers"- what's the real name of the stupid company that is calling themselves "AT&T" this week? Is it still Cingular?
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that sentence wrong?
Shouldn't that say, "...would deprive the government of taxpayers money"? As far as I know, the U.S. Government is very good at depriving the taxpayers of billions of dollars and showing nothing for it. Unless you count the Robert Byrd Memorial Camp Ground as something worthwhile.
Re: (Score:2)
I may be wrong, but, as I understand it, the auction IS to raise revenues for the govt. This sale off of the old analog TV spectrum has been in the Federal budget projections for quite a few years now...they've been counting on this $$ for quite awhile.
You don't think the feds are pushing digitial tv for the benefit of the citizens do you? Nope...revenue gene