I have supported Google’s efforts to further its role in telecom. However, I do not believe in giving guys as big as Google a “pass”. AT&T has basically taken off the gloves and begun loudly objecting to Google’s position regarding Google’s voice business.

I believe in competition and the free market. However, I do not believe in simply handing giants whatever they want. Yes, I do believe in a little regulation in telecom. Let us not forget that telecom is still an infrastructure service.

Recently (October 14, 2009), AT&T sent the Sharon Gillett, Chief of the FCC’s Wireline Competition Bureau a letter where it outlined its case against Google’s effort to launch its own voice business outside of Titles I and II of the Telecom Act of 1996 and change net neutrality rules in Google’s favor. AT&T’s letter has a subject heading of: Google Voice; Establishing Just and Reasonable Rates for Local Exchange Carriers, WC Docket No. 07-135; Broadband Industry Practices, 07-52

I see a great deal of benefit to net neutrality and also downsides to net neutrality. However, any analysis on this topic is for another article. What I want to focus on is the validity of AT&T’s concerns regarding Google. When you read the first couple of paragraphs of AT&T’s letter it kind of starts off in a bit of a loopy rant. However, it settles down fairly quickly into a well thought out set of arguments for handcuffing Google now.

I do not agree with any carrier that it automatically operates outside of the Telecom Act as a carrier simply because your network is Internet-based. In today’s environment, voice is simply nothing more that non-text data but still data. Voice is a staple service and an infrastructure service. When I say voice is an infrastructure service I am referring to its critical nature in a society; you cannot live without it.

Any carrier supporting voice should be treated as a common carrier. The provisions within the Telecom Act of 1996 are designed to protect the consumer from predatory and irresponsible carriers seeking to dodge their obligation to the telecom public. For all practical purposes, telecom is not a privilege but a right. For those old enough to remember the 2nd Avenue Fire in 1975 of New York Telephone Company, the events that followed the fire would have long lasting affects on how telecom would be perceived.

Getting back to Google, frankly the minute an Internet-based company carries voice the whole nature of what it does changes. It is no longer an information (text-based) only company rather the company becomes a critical link in the social chain. Voice is the one service that everyone uses and hence the company and service become a key component of how people call for help. Think 9-1-1. If you believe that Google should not be a responsible for carrying a 9-1-1 call, you and I will definitely mix it up. Telecommunications is infrastructure and therefore has an element of social responsibility. Google looks like it is trying to operate a full service voice business without having to pay for or perform all of those things we have expected a voice service provider to do.

AT&T has made valid arguments for putting Google under the umbrella of the common carrier.