Slashdot Mirror
AT&T Slams Google Over Open-Access Wireless
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."
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.
Isn't it good to know AT&T is looking out for us?
Practically every company is trying to oppose anything Google does since it's a risk for them. Google has a cash cow with adsense similar to what MS has with Office/Win... with billions of $ in unused cash AT&T probably thinks with some justification it's only a matter of time before they get bored and move in on their markets with some VOIP services that could hurt their core business.
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?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Evil monopolistic empire vs. evil all knowing empire. This is gonna be entertaining!
We lose either way of course. Capitalism rocks.
.
- Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
"[...] an open-access network would deprive taxpayers of billions of dollars [...]"
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.)
With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
And then he has the gall to claim that the oligopoly of telecoms has not failed consumers.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Dear Congress,
Please do not allow others to compete in communications. We are a monopoly and like it.
Sincerely,
AT&T
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".
AT&T forgot to mention how open access would increase competition and reduce their stranglehold on the market. We have been down this path before when AT&T was broken up, anyone old enough to remember having to essentially rent your phone from Ma Bell? AT&T and SBC managed to gobble up Ameritech, Southwestern Bell, Pacific Telesis, Bell Shouth and after merging themselves we are right back were we started, yet they have the nerve to call Google's request self-serving. Maybe its time for the FCC to wake up and realize that open access isnt going to inhibit growth, it will enhibit AT&T's version of growth which has always been expand and strangle out competition in markets they want to be in and own enough spectrum to make expansion into area's they may not even see as worthwhile difficult for anyone else to grab a foothold in.
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.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
google won't bid unless they can get "lots" of channels across the country. If they're biding say 20 channels per market, Google would like the FCC to make 3-4 channels have a franchise across ALL the markets. For example then gooogle would bid on the lot of "channel 1" in every market at once. Google is interested in devices, not "phone" that scares the bejeebers out of the phone companies.
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!
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.
since the head of the FCC is a former AT&T lobbying professional, I'm sure they will be able to see the evil in Google's willingness to compete and provide better services. Poor AT&T keeps facing new competitors every year. Its a tough playing field when other people keep bringing out new and better services. The FCC needs to put an end to Google's ideas and bring us back to the old telephone and online pricing models.
Black is white, up is down, left is right.
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.
Well, if you accept his premise, then you really don't know, do you?
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
So Google is asking to make the spectrum cheaper. And AT&T is complaining about that. Why? Nothing is stopping AT&T from competing in the auction. If they can compete in the auction for expensive spectrum they can compete in an auction for cheap spectrum. You know what this really sounds like? AT&T is whining because what Google is suggesting means that AT&T actually has to compete for a change.
I hate this about /.
/.ers don't like invisible hands that Create or Intelligently Design things, but are downright chummy with other invisible hands.
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
It has been a nervous year, with people beginning to feel like Christian Scientists with appendicitis.
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.