backtop


Print 116 comment(s) - last by azamduccati.. on Oct 22 at 4:51 AM


AT&T accuses Google of a vast conspiracy, including using its "monopoly" to control the media, control user's internet traffic, and silence its opponents.  (Source: The Independent)
A new letter from AT&T to the federal government makes it clear that the company has little love for Google

If there's one thing clear from the Google Voice iPhone debacle, it's that there's no love lost between AT&T and Google.  AT&T, to date, is accusing Google of everything from political and news manipulation, to violating net neutrality.

The drama surrounding the rejection began shortly after when the Federal Communications Commission opened an inquiry into who was responsible for the rejection of Google Voice and whether the rejection violated any federal laws or rules.  AT&T quickly responded that it did not mastermind the rejection, and that it was Apple's doing.  Apple followed up, taking the blame and say it was working to get the app approved.

Then came a second response from AT&T.  Apparently in a sharing mood, AT&T sounded off against Google and complained to the FCC that it believes Google Voice breaks the law.  Since AT&T has allowed VoIP apps onto the iPhone, but Google Voice is still no where to be found.  Now AT&T has delivered a third letter to the FCC further attacking the internet giant.

While Google has been attacked by many -- newspaper moguls, telecoms, and internet rivals -- the new letter is perhaps the harshest conglomerated criticism leveled against the company to date.  Written by Robert W. Quinn, Jr., an AT&T Senior Vice President, the letter entitled "Google Voice; Establishing Just and Reasonable Rates for Local Exchange Carriers" opens claiming Google is a hypocrite when it comes to net neutrality.

Mr. Quinn writes:

As the debate regarding “net neutrality” has evolved, it appeared on the surface that all parties shared the same desire to preserve the “free and open” nature of the Internet, a goal enunciated by [FCC] Chairman Genachowski with which we heartily agree."

As communications services increasingly migrate to broadband Internet-based platforms, we can now see the power of Internet-based applications providers to act as gatekeepers who can threaten the “free and open” Internet. Google’s double-standard for “openness” – where Google does what it wants while other providers are subject to Commission regulations – is plainly inconsistent with the goal of preserving a “free and open” Internet ecosystem.

The letter claims that Google's explanation that it is only blocking certain kinds of rural calls like adult sex-chat lines, to avoid high fees leveled against the free service, is a lie.  The letter accuses Google of conspiracy, saying it also blocked calls to an ambulance service, church, bank, law firm, automobile dealer, day spa, orchard, health clinic, tax preparation service, community center, eye doctor, tribal community college, school, residential consumers, a convent of Benedictine nuns, and the campaign office of a U.S. Representative.

According to AT&T, Google is "abus[ing] its market power".  AT&T insists Google is not exempt, either from being free or being internet-based, from federal regulations that prevent such call blocking.

The letter also calls Google a monopoly, citing, "In preparing a complaint to challenge the Google/Yahoo arrangement, the [U.S.] Department [of Justice] reportedly concluded that Google had a “monopoly” in these markets and the proposed arrangement “would have furthered [Google’s] monopoly."

Furthermore, AT&T accuses Google of practicing broad-scale manipulation of the media.  It says that Google blocked political advertisements from Senator Susan Collins, due to her criticism of Moveon.org, a Google net neutrality partner.  It also accuses Google of blocking the Inner City Press from Google News, as the publication criticized the United Nation Development Programme, a Google-sponsored program.

It then goes on to accuse Google of illegitimately "buying" ads in its own auction to push its agenda for keywords such as "net neutrality". The letter concludes, "Ironically, Google appears oblivious to the hypocrisy of its net neutrality advocacy relative to its own conduct. [A]t the same time, Google exploits the dominance of its search engine and its gatekeeping power over other applications to give its preferred content greater visibility than its political opponents’ content or to simply block its competitors’ applications altogether."

"Deliberately narrowing the principles to award Google a special privilege to play by its own rules – or no rules at all – would be grossly unfair, patently unlawful, and a renunciation of President Obama’s assurance that the Commission’s Internet Policy Statement would be used to “ensure there’s a level playing field” between competitors. Thus, the Commission’s first fundamental step in leveling that playing field must be to unequivocally re-affirm in its proposed rulemaking that it will not exempt Google from whatever rules it ultimately adopts."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Not a complete lie
By DoctorDavid on 10/16/2009 11:23:38 AM , Rating: 4
Interest free loans are being made from the fed to the private financial companies that took the world economy to the edge of disaster. That near collapse occured on Bush's watch and he tried to ignore it until he was out of office. When it was clear he couldn't run out the clock he sent his federal reserve chairman to congress to demand nearly a trillion dollars with no oversight. It's true the financial institutions didn't want to take the money, they all wanted the other companies to take the loans and put up with the oversight that corperate welfare demands, but they all were soaking in red ink and they all would have failed without vast quantities of cash. I think they should have been allowed to fail. But again it was the Bush administration that forced them to take the money.


RE: Not a complete lie
By straycat74 on 10/16/2009 11:32:41 AM , Rating: 1
Research fannie and freddie and see who was in charge. Hint: the democrats. And don't forget they accept no responsibility for their failed socialist policies.


RE: Not a complete lie
By teldar on 10/16/09, Rating: -1
RE: Not a complete lie
By MrBlastman on 10/16/09, Rating: -1
RE: Not a complete lie
By Lucafer on 10/16/2009 1:27:58 PM , Rating: 1
1. Clinton was to busy getting impeached for a blow job to spend political capitol on assassinating terrorists.

2. the deregulation drum was started by Ronnie senile sacred republican cow Reagan and mostly accomplished with a republican run congress

3. and my pecker is bigger than yours is not a foreign policy

4. Bush was such a predictable Moron you could always tell when he was up to something because he always put a minority in charge of it.

5.Bush & Cheney's use of Torture is probably the biggest most shameful thing this country has ever done and they and every one involved should be tried for war crimes.



RE: Not a complete lie
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/16/2009 1:47:35 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
5.Bush & Cheney's use of Torture is probably the biggest most shameful thing this country has ever done and they and every one involved should be tried for war crimes.

I fully support the use of torture on certain targets that prove to be high value and uncooperative. Besides, our form of torture is quite tame. Water boarding is very very tame compared to say hooking your nuts up to a car battery.


RE: Not a complete lie
By dark matter on 10/16/2009 2:54:09 PM , Rating: 4
Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Reminds me of what the used to do with witches in England. They used to strap them in a wooden cage, force their mouths open and plop them in a lake. If they drown they were innocent, if they lived they were a witch. Hey, lets torture this guy, if he doesn't know anything he is innocent...

Besides, the evidence from someone who is being tortured is completely unreliable.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/torture/et...

If I were to strap you up to a car battery, you would pretty tell me anything I wanted to hear. Not what is the actual truth.

You also lose any moral high ground that you claim to have and become no more barbaric than those attempting to inflict terrorism on you.

But then, dear Master Kenobi you are a complete ill educated douche bag. I think you have watched too much Hollywood. In fact, your very title gives it away.


RE: Not a complete lie
By MrBlastman on 10/16/09, Rating: 0
RE: Not a complete lie
By Alexstarfire on 10/16/2009 8:09:04 PM , Rating: 2
I think you should quantify that with PROVEN.

If their guilt is still in question then it's just not right, period.


RE: Not a complete lie
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/17/2009 2:48:02 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

You are trying to apply domestic law enforcement measures to a war zone. I'm sure the number of people captured with good intelligence information is small, but they still need to be run through the same interrogations to make sure they don't have any tidbits of information we might find useful later. You've been watching too many cop shows.

quote:
Hey, lets torture this guy, if he doesn't know anything he is innocent...

If he doesn't know anything he's still an enemy combatant and is likely going to do hard time. This innocent or guilty fallacy is just that, false. These guys were picked up in a war zone, intelligence either pointed to them, or they were caught in the act of doing something. Last time I checked we didn't patrol the streets and pickup every random individual we came across.

quote:
If I were to strap you up to a car battery, you would pretty tell me anything I wanted to hear. Not what is the actual truth.

Information is information. It's up to the interrogator to see if the information obtained pans out. Should we not even bother with these guys if the information they would be giving might not be accurate? In that case, why bother taking them prisoner? Intelligence gathering is very messy and is far from clear cut. Collecting information from people is every bit as inaccurate as collecting it elsewhere in the field.

quote:
You also lose any moral high ground that you claim to have and become no more barbaric than those attempting to inflict terrorism on you.

I don't claim any moral high ground. It's not like our guys aren't being tortured/beheaded/mutilated if they are captured. They can rest easy that we probably aren't going to kill them, but their capture will be no less of a picnic. The first rule of warfare is that there are no rules. It would be good for people to understand that war is a messy business.


RE: Not a complete lie
By Looey on 10/16/2009 7:24:05 PM , Rating: 1
3. and my pecker is bigger than yours is not a foreign policy

The Russians worked Obama over. First they got him to take down the missle shield in Eastern Europe promising Obama help with Iran. Now the Russians are saying wait a minute, we're not going to do that. Obama has no pecker and he is a big chicken s**t. What has he done with North Korea? He tried to talk them to death and they just shot off some missles. He kissed up to Iran and they also tested their long range missles. The world knew Iran had a second nuclear site. France, UK and Germany wanted to expose it in the UN when Obama gave his disarmament speech. Obama said no, it would spoil his speech. lets do it in Pittsburgh. Hey it's all about obama. His EU buddies got upset with him. What a joke Obama is.

5.Bush & Cheney's use of Torture is probably the biggest most shameful thing this country has ever done and they and every one involved should be tried for war crimes.

Have you ever seen the torture you are talking about by Bush & Cheney? Was it anything like the videos I have seen of Americans being be-headed by Islamist radicals? You should go fight Al-Qeada and the Talibans and you will want to either hide or kill them, much worse than water boarding. I have a video of some of the be-headings in Afghanistan before 9-11 that were carried out by the Taliban. Splashing some water on a few of these radicals means nothing to me after seeing the horrific torture carried out by them.

Obama should be expelled from his throne. He is not protecting America.

4. Bush was such a predictable Moron you could always tell when he was up to something because he always put a minority in charge of it.

Obama is such a predictable moron. You can tell when he is up to something because he always he goes on TV to campaign or calls out his union goons to intimidate people. Obama and Acorn are best buddies. Acorn is one of the most corrupt organizations in the world. Wonder where our tax money to Acorn went.

Obama is trying to make America a liberal state where everyone is dependent on the government. He is trying to make slaves out of all of us. He wants to redistribute the wealth in America. It is time to invest in gold and hide it.


RE: Not a complete lie
By omnicronx on 10/16/2009 1:49:51 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Bush didn't cause 9/11: Clinton did. It was Clinton's "ignore it" philosophy of foreign policy that got us in this mess.
Haha.. ya Clinton just totally ignored everything, of course he was involved in more peace talks and foreign policy than either Bush ever was, but sure lets blame him. Playing the 9/11 blame game is nothing but childesh, it was no single Presidents fault, it was the result of 50+ years of terrible foreign policy.

Blaming Clinton for the economic crash is nothing but childish too. Pull your heads out of your ***'s, it was bad decisions compounded by both parties over the years.

Playing the blame game never helped anyone or anything, its not going to make your country better, quite the opposite actually, its the best stall tactic known to man..
quote:
Bush sent the message out that we weren't going to bend over and take it anymore. So the rest of the world hated it? I don't care. I DO care that nearly 3000 Americans lost their lives to something stupid that COULD have been prevented if action was taken years earlier
*shakes head* And how many innocent lives were lost in Iraq and Afghanistan since then? Instead of resolving the reason for conflict, you feel that sending a message is the better idea. Please tell me how that has worked out for all the rest of the worlds previous super powers and get back to me. (*hint* not very well)


RE: Not a complete lie
By MrBlastman on 10/17/2009 1:12:04 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
*shakes head* And how many innocent lives were lost in Iraq and Afghanistan since then? Instead of resolving the reason for conflict, you feel that sending a message is the better idea. Please tell me how that has worked out for all the rest of the worlds previous super powers and get back to me. (*hint* not very well)


Going in to Iraq in the first place was a zealous attempt by Bush to make up for his Father's failings. That is all it was. I was against going in there in the first place but... we did.

So, since we were there, we might as well try to make the place better. Ask some Iraqi's and they'll probably tell you we have. As some soldiers and they'll probably tell you they are doing some good. I have. I've asked a few actually. Have you?

I even go out of my way to thank them for serving our nation in public. They've earned it, moreso than most of us.

Afghanistan... That was sending a message. Unfortunately, Bush had his head lodged up his behind about Iraq and sent us in there before properly securing Afghanistan. As a result, the nation is still in conflict and the Taliban has grown stronger again. We tried to fight a war on two fronts and wonder why the enemy had time to regroup and come back at us with even more.

However, our Soldiers were doing as they were told. They took the orders and ran with it. I can't fault them for doing that and now that it has been done, we can't exactly just run away from the mess we have created without trying to patch it up and fix it. To do so would be wreckless and the least responsible thing we could do. We owe it to the people over there to try and make it better.

It is like that old saying when you were a child visiting the expensive crystal section of a department store: "Break it, you buy it."

Well, we broke it and now we've bought it. I think we're seeing some positive things come out of it finally but not without lives lost, both civilian and military.

The funny thing is--sitting around and trying to talk to Terrorists is a waste of time. The only thing they understand, the only thing they respect, is a lead core covered with a full metal copper jacket. That is all they deserve for senselessly murdering our people out of cold blood. I'm not talking just about 9/11, I'm talking about other incidents such as that Pan Am flight, the USS Cole or how about the Embassy bombing. All of those people died for what? For some terrorist to send us a message?

Going up to them and trying to apologize for whatever pissed them off and trying to make peaceful amends is a joke. There is no negotiation and they're better off looking down our barrels as our bullets exit at them. The Middle East has been at war for centuries and it will never change. We need to fix the mess "we" created as best we can and get out. They retaliate, we hit them back again.

I'm convinced that really the only ultimate solution is to build a wall around the whole place and arm it with sentry guns. Somehow though, I don't think that will happen.


RE: Not a complete lie
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/17/2009 2:50:43 AM , Rating: 2
Your correct on the terrorists. Negotiation and appeasement will get us nowhere fast. Somehow though many people still believe it will.


RE: Not a complete lie
By lco45 on 10/18/2009 9:02:25 PM , Rating: 2
Dude are you serious?

Bush was the laughing stock of the entire world for 8 years. At best a lovable buffoon, at worst a crony-loving oil man.

Luke


RE: Not a complete lie
By DoctorDavid on 10/16/2009 1:01:12 PM , Rating: 2
It appears the reality I live in is one where smarmy replies to my comments are common. Sarcasm and words in all caps. Sigh. Certainly the Dems can take some blame for the Fannie Freddie portion of this mess and other catastrophies also.
Well maybe I am living in my own reality,I remember that Bush had 6 years with a republican majority in congress. Putting regulations on financial institutions however isn't something the conservatives in Washington are usually interested in.
It was bush who sent his fed. chairman to demand nearly a trillion dollars with no oversight to be forced onto the top financial institutions.


RE: Not a complete lie
By MrBlastman on 10/16/2009 1:10:03 PM , Rating: 4
Let's play complete the sentence.

quote:
It was bush who sent his fed. chairman to demand nearly a trillion dollars with no oversight to be forced onto the top financial institutions...


... and if hadn't, these institutions would have been devoid of any foundation to prevent them all from toppling sending Americans into a panic whereupon chaos would ensue causing the next Great Depression.

;)

Be fair. Things could be a whole lot worse right now than they are. Read my other post btw, Bush _did_ try to change things.

I'll also be fair. Bush did waste 6 years where he had a majority and could have done a lot but didn't. Instead, he bloated our government and spent money freely. He also refused to listen to the people and went on his own agenda.

This is a fun game, huh?


RE: Not a complete lie
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/16/2009 1:49:34 PM , Rating: 2
Ironically, as much as people complained about Bush's spending, Obama seems to be on track to make him look like an amateur.


RE: Not a complete lie
By Hieyeck on 10/16/2009 2:00:29 PM , Rating: 2
Proof that Democrats really do do everything better.

[/ITS A JOKE. GOOD GOD DON'T YELL AT ME]


RE: Not a complete lie
By DoctorDavid on 10/16/2009 2:13:24 PM , Rating: 2
It is certainly more fun with reasonable responses such as yours. The smarm and sarcasm of some other replies to my comment are frustrating.
Your completion of my sentence was clarifying. I was originally commenting on , I believe it was fit camero, who said it was liberals that forced the money on the financial institutions.

I also wonder if the incredible amounts of money given to the failed banks would have been more useful if we had given it to healthy insitutions. I honestly don't know if that would have helped more but giving tax money to companies that failed in such a dramatic fashion just seems so wrong.

Bush, I believe, did try to do something about Fannie/Freddie and that could have helped some but they were a minor player compared to wall street and the insurance companies.I don't believe Bush tried to pass any regulations on them. I do thank God that he failed to put social security in the stock market.Disappearing 401k's are bad enough.


"I want people to see my movies in the best formats possible. For [Paramount] to deny people who have Blu-ray sucks!" -- Movie Director Michael Bay














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki