A hero shall rise?

Rural Americans awoke a couple weeks ago to find themselves with an unlikely champion against a threat they likely did not know nor care about; having their numbers blocked from Google Voice users. AT&T had risen to their defense, however, selflessly giving voice to those whose voices could not be heard. At least not through Google Voice.

AT&T complained in a letter to the FCC on September 25 that Google Voice was unfairly preventing calls to certain numbers, in violation of the net neutrality prohibitions on telecommunications services restricting access to other telcos. Specifically, the calls are to rural areas. AT&T is very familiar with this issue as it has recently argued the EXACT OPPOSITE, saying that wireless communications — clearly closer to traditional phone services than a pure software service like Google Voice — should NOT be subject to those same regulations. Furthermore, AT&T is hardly a sincere advocate of the little guy, having attempted in 2007 to stop providing service to the same rural customers but being forced by the FCC to provide universal service.

TechCrunch’s Jason Kincaid breaks it down for us:

Google’s decision to block certain numbers stems from the way some rural local carriers have been exploiting current FCC rules. Some local carriers charge very high prices for AT&T, Google Voice, and other services to connect their calls. Few people would normally call these rural numbers, so these local carriers team up with conference calling centers and sex lines to further drive traffic. AT&T has previously tried to block these numbers but was barred from doing so, and is upset that Google Voice is getting away with it. AT&T has framed this as part of the Net Neutrality debate, though given their past stance on the issue it’s hard not to take their arguments with a grain of salt.

I have little sympathy for AT&T, but they might be getting a bad rap here. They are being painted as a fox guarding a henhouse but I think the more appropriate avian proverb would probably be that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. I think that AT&T is — poorly — arguing that if they have to be held to these standards, Google should too. I don’t find that particularly compelling, but it is less hypocritical.

Popularity: 17% [?]