Meeting Expectations
Free Press and Public Knowledge have been hopping mad over what they view as secret meetings between FCC Chairman Julius Genachwoski’s chief of staff and industry players over network neutrality legislation that could clarifying the FCC’s regulatory authority over broadband.
Free Press even took out a full-page ad in the Washington post to rip into cable and telcos, comparing them to Oil companies and financial firms in a gigantic headline font usually reserved for armistices in world wars.
But one industry player pondered what all the fuss was about given a meeting last fall with White House Tech Policy advisor Susan Crawford that seemed heavy on public interest and online content folks but light on industry players with skin in the game.
According to a White House meetings list posted online at socrata.com, representatives of Free Press and Public Knowledge, as well as Google and Skype and the Open Internet Coalition–of which Free Press and Pubilc Knowledge are members–were all at a meeting with Crawford on Oct. 20, 2009.
That was only two days before the FCC issued its notice of proposed rulemaking to expand and codify its network neutrality guidelines.
“Curious why there wasn’t a full page ad complaining of lack of transparency and closed door meetings for [that] meeting, “said the industry player, [a meeting] which no one knew about at the time, lacked transparency, and was held two days before FCC launched its network neutrality NPRM.”
“The White House does not have oversight duties, but the FCC does, and met with the companies it oversees to help them avoid future oversight,” said a Free Press spokesperson.
Zani commented:
First, It all depends on how the term "Telco" is deienfd plain and simple. If Google are within the letter of the law then they should be fine. What might cause less friction is simply charging a fee for terminating calls in in rural higher cost areas. If anything, GV is no different in practice than using a calling card. You add minutes to your card and then make calls on top of their supplied 800 number. Whatever laws govern that *might* also apply to GV *maybe*.Second, as for AT&T's take on this, they're just trying to deflect some heat from this whole "GV kicked from the appstore mess" but, again depending on the wording of the law on what constitutes a telco, I don't see GV as a telco. Again, no dial tone, only a voicemail service. (Is this part of the telco definition? Whether or not the spirit rather than the letter of the law is violated is smoke and mirrors - companies including AT&T do it and have done it for years, Google just happens to be more visible about it than most. Here's a similar illustration: a *new* service provider goes into an established market and low ball's their price under what the other *established* service providers have unofficially agreed upon. In so doing, they are not breaking a law, however they are pissing off their competitors, showing them up. In turn, ANY fault, or sidestep of the law by the *new* service provider becomes the subject of a complaint made by *established* service providers to whoever regulates the business as a matter of protecting their own market share.Third, by using GV the consumer also avoids certain lock-in problems the true telcos almost rely on as an unofficial part of the business model. To the consumer, it means it no longer matters what number you use. If anyone trying to reach you has your GV number then you can use whatever company is cheapest (possibly not AT&T) and still keep your number, and key features like voicemail and sms independent of them. (In that specifically I say 'cry me a river AT&T')The problem is the playing field is changed completely because in times past, any network that anything happened on was owned by some company who could charge. No one *Owns* the internet and so how you make money is, *complicated*. It's the digital wild wild west with no physical boundaries or borders and everyone, including the FCC is trying to figure it out and revamp laws made when the only computers were owned by the government, or universities - not to mention the size of tractor trailers :-)Google is basically doing for the consumer, what many companies should have done, and either can't or won't do. I just hope as the company grows up, that they don't become guilty the same as the companies they are trying to positively :-) influence. Lastly, I think Bastions comments are mostly right on. Each of these companies are 'for profit' businesses out to make money in the end and none of us should become zealots developing emotions that are shaped by bloggers or the media. If we do, then we're sheep that deserve to be herded along.