Some Unsolicited Advice for AT&T re Google Voice

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Rob Frieden <rmf5 () psu edu>
Date: August 2, 2009 5:06:40 PM EDT
To: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Cc: ip <ip () v2 listbox com>
Subject: Some Unsolicited Advice for AT&T re Google Voice

Hello Dave:

       For IP if you'd like:

        The FCC has posed a number of provocative questions to AT&T  
regarding the fact that iPhone subscribers cannot download and use the  
Google Voice application. Seehttp://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/01/technology/companies/01google.html 
.  AT&T should stifle every motivation to play cute or clever with the  
FCC.  Apple adopted such a strategy when it suggested to the Library  
of Congress and others that it would be curtains for the free world if  
iPhone owners could hack, jailbreak, tether, and otherwise use their  
handsets without fear of violating the prohibition on circumventing  
copyright laws contained in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Seehttp://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/07/jailbreak/ 
  Apparently the ability to treat an iPhone as the equivalent to a  
mobile computer risks opening the AT&T network to terroristic damage.

            AT&T already has implied that it has nothing to do with  
applications Apple decides to make available, so one could infer that  
AT&T had nothing to do with the Google Voice decision.  Yeah, right.   
AT&T stands to lose millions of dollars if captive subscribers can  
avoid paying dollars or tens of cents for calls that Google and Skype  
otherwise would charge pennies.

            This “pass the buck” strategy will come to haunt AT&T if  
the FCC does its job.  By claiming that it has no involvement in  
content and software decisions AT&T may back itself squarely into  
wireless common carriage, a regulatory classification that should  
apply to the company in its capacity as a wireless telephone company,  
but which typically gets ignored.  In its capacity as a provider of  
wireless radio transmission capacity, AT&T operates as a provider of a  
regulated telecommunications service.

AT&T usually wants to emphasize its information processing and content  
access function that deflects its regulated, common carrier status and  
also positions the company to be more than the purveyor of a  
commodity: airtime.  When AT&T claims that it operates merely as a  
neutral conduit, it confers upon Apple the information processing  
functions leaving AT&T to offer nothing more than the commodity of  
transmission time.

    Regards,

    Rob Frieden






















--
Pioneers Chair and Professor of Telecommunications and Law
Penn State University
102 Carnegie Building, University Park, PA  16802
Web Page:                       http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/r/m/rmf5/
Faculty Profile:                 http://comm.psu.edu/people/rmf5
SSRN Papers Site:            http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=102928
Blog Site:                         http://telefrieden.blogspot.com/














-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com