[governance] AT&T: Google Manipulates Media, is an Abusive,

Sun Oct 25 16:13:25 EDT 2009

Yehuda and all,

  Googles many and varried problems are of it's own making,
as is AT&T's, especially in the past, see Judge Green decision.

  Recently Google/Yutube stepped into it yet again.
See:http://newteevee.com/2009/10/23/achtung-criminal-investigation-against-youtube-underway-in-germany/
and
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=09/10/24/1153215

-----Original Message-----
>From: Yehuda Katz <yehudakatz at mailinator.com>
>Sent: Oct 24, 2009 8:08 AM
>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>Subject: [governance] AT&T: Google Manipulates Media, is an Abusive, Power Hungry Monopoly
>
>AT&T: Google Manipulates Media, is an Abusive, Power Hungry Monopoly
>Jason Mick (Blog) - October 16, 2009 8:45 AM
>
>Art,Ref.:
>http://www.dailytech.com/ATT+Google+Manipulates+Media+is+an+Abusive+Power+Hungry+Monopoly/article16524.htm
>
>Google's cache:
>http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:L_ETkxBglDkJ:www.dailytech.com/ATT%2BGoogle%2BManipulates%2BMedia%2Bis%2Ban%2BAbusive%2BPower%2BHungry%2BMonopoly/article16524.htm+AT%26T+Google+Manipulates+Media&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
>
>Cover JPG:
>http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/12400_google-big-brother1.jpg
>
>-
>
>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."
>
>---
>
>-30-
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Regards,

Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 294k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very
often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability
depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of
Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
Phone: 214-244-4827

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance