Frontier Communications filed suit Tuesday against Google claiming the search giant stole its patent for giving users one phone number connecting their home, work and cell phones, the core feature of Google Voice.
Frontier, the independent phone company based in Stamford, Connecticut, claims it holds the patent for allowing a subscriber to “be reached on multiple telephone lines from a single dial-in number.”
“Google’s deliberate infringement of the patent has greatly and irreparably damaged Frontier,” the lawsuit charges. Frontier is seeking unspecified damages and an injunction to stop the use of the technology.
The lawsuit distracted from Google’s announcement that Google Voice was out of beta and now available to anyone in the United States. Google Voice lets users obtain a free phone number that will ring multiple telephones and screen calls.
<
p style=”text-align: center;”>
The one number follow-me feature is hardly new to either Google or Frontier. Phone companies have offered similar features to businesses through telephone products like Centrex since the 1960s.
Frontier filed its lawsuit hours after the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued Frontier’s requested patent.
“We believe these claims are entirely without merit, and we’ll defend against them vigorously,” said Google spokesman Andrew Pederson.
Frontier will likely face an uphill battle in its lawsuit, because the company’s patent request from 2007 comes two years after Google Voice’s predecessor, GrandCentral launched service in 2005. Google acquired GrandCentral in 2007, rebranding it as Google Voice. GrandCentral offered the same “one number” feature Frontier is complaining about two years before the phone company applied for its patent.
Perhaps Frontier’s lawyers might acquaint themselves with the concepts of “prior art” and “first-to-invent.”
Telstra is Australia's largest telecommunications company. (Photo: Telstra)
It’s not as if the Australian government didn’t warn private broadband providers, notably Telstra. For the past several years, Australians have endured expensive, slow, heavily usage-limited broadband service that has put the country well behind many other Commonwealth nations. Australian Communications Minister Stephen Conroy finally warned the nation’s largest telecommunications provider if it didn’t move forward on upgrades and improved service, the government would be forced to step in to protect the national interest.
Instead of improving service, Telstra spent years stonewalling the government and the Australian public, while banking high profits for broadband service. That’s a familiar story for North Americans, stuck with companies like Bell, Rogers, AT&T, Comcast and Verizon — all of whom seek ultimate control over what kind of service you receive, what you pay for it, and what websites you can and, perhaps down the road, cannot visit without paying a surcharge.
Australia is closing the chapter on this story with a happier outcome for its 22 million citizens. Perhaps the United States and Canada could learn a thing or two from the folks down under.
Bringing U.S. Oligopoly-Style Management to Australian Broadband: The Sol Trujillo Years — 2005 to 2009
Telstra, a former government monopoly comparable to the American Bell System, was privatized in the late 1990s. Telstra looked to the United States for a chief executive that had experience navigating that transition. They found Sol Trujillo working his way up the management ladder at AT&T, finally culminating in chairmanship of former Baby Bell Qwest Communications. Would Trujillo like to take on the challenge of managing Australia’s largest phone company? Trujillo signed on with as Telstra’s CEO in 2005 promising to modernize the business and to bring American-style innovation to the South Pacific.
Instead, Trujillo established an American-style rapacious oligopoly.
[flv width=”424″ height=”260″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Nine Australia Trujillo War on Unions.flv[/flv]
Channel Nine in Australia reported on Telstra’s sudden interest in union-busting after Sol Trujillo arrived in 2005. (1 minute)
Sol Trujillo
In his first year at the company, Trujillo started an all-out war to get rid of Telstra’s organized labor, slashing 10,000 jobs to “save the company money” all while boosting his own salary. What started as $3 million in compensation in 2005 would rise to more than $11 million dollars just four years later, even as the value of Telstra declined by more than $25 billion on his watch.
Trujillo alienated his employees and officials in the Australian government. Then-Prime Minister John Howard attacked Trujillo’s salary boost as abusive.
“I’m not complaining about the salary I get but I do think the average Australian, who gets paid a lot less than I do … regards that sort of salary as being absolutely unreasonable,” Mr Howard said on Southern Cross radio. “And it doesn’t help the capitalist system, which I believe in very passionately, that some people appear to abuse it.”
Trujillo’s salary was 38 times greater than the highest official in Australia’s government.
The average Australian retiree gets by on $219AUS a week.
Trujillo had to make due with more than $211,000 a week.
[flv width=”424″ height=”260″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Nine Australia Telstra Salary Hike.flv[/flv]
Channel Nine ran this report on the controversy over Sol Trujillo’s compensation package. That old meme about having to pay high salaries to attract quality talent would have been more convincing had Trujillo’s policies not caused a $25 billion reduction in Telstra’s value. (2 minutes)
Customers weren’t exactly endeared to spending more of their money on Telstra products and services. Telstra had already embarked on cost controls for network upgrades, leveraged its monopoly power in many parts of the country with high rates for usage-restricted service, and bungled a critical application to participate in Australia’s National Broadband Network.
Australia’s National Broadband Plan, a roadmap for broadband improvements, set pre-conditions to involve small and medium-sized businesses in network construction. Trujillo balked, demanding that Telstra — and only Telstra — should have the right to determine what kind of network should be built in the country. More importantly, unless they exclusively ran it, the company would do everything in its power to block or destroy it.
Internet Overcharging schemes limit enjoyment of broadband usage across Australia. Telstra provides a usage meter estimator that includes all of the useless measurements for e-mail, images, and web browsing. But throw in some movie watching and the gas gauge really starts to spike.
The Sydney Morning Herald business reporter Ian Verrender was stunned:
Telstra has employed a three-step strategy to muscle out any competition.
It can be neatly condensed into three words: Bluster, Belligerence and Obfuscation. We [just] saw it again in spades.
Telstra has been excluded from one of the most ambitious infrastructure projects announced by a Federal Government in decades: the construction of a national broadband network.
Could it really be that Telstra’s board and management were so incompetent that they could not get past stage one in a tender process of this magnitude?
After all, there were only four main criteria that had to be met. The first was the proposal had to be lodged in English. The second and third had equally low hurdles. Metric measurements – not the old inches, feet and miles – were required and the bid had to be signed. Nothing too difficult there.
But the fourth criterion appeared to stump Telstra. It didn’t include any plan for the inclusion of small business. And so the Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy, was obliged to exclude Telstra, an announcement that shook 12 per cent from the value of the country’s biggest telecommunications company.
This was no accident on Telstra’s part. It knew it was lodging a non-conforming proposal. Why, you ask?
The answer is simple. Telstra does not want a national broadband network, particularly one that involves anyone else. That includes taxpayers.
And if one has to be built, Telstra will do everything in its power to delay or kill the process. Yesterday marked stage one in a protracted war, ultimately designed to defeat one of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s key election promises.
Trujillo claimed yesterday that Telstra had been unfairly excluded from the process on a technicality. That’s just rubbish.
In recent months, the company, its chairman, Don McGauchie, and Trujillo repeatedly threatened to walk away from the tender process, and lodged the proposal only a few hours before the deadline.
Trujillo’s rhetoric yesterday was laced with the usual mixture of bravado and threats. He compared Australia to North Korea or Cuba. He declared only Telstra was capable of building the type of network required by the Government.
But two lines stand out. First this: “Customers make the choice of who they do business with; regulators and governments and others do not.” And then: “We reserve our rights regarding future action.”
The message is clear. Telstra will launch legal action at every opportunity – and even when there aren’t opportunities.
That time-honored American practice of simply suing your way through any legislative or regulatory roadblocks threatened to come to Australia.
The exclusion of Telstra from such a revolutionary broadband project didn’t sit well with the board or shareholders, and directly led to Trujillo’s ouster in 2009. By then, he had alienated customers, the government, and just about everyone else. Perhaps the government would allow a second look at a Telstra broadband application if it was submitted by someone other than Sol Trujillo? It couldn’t hurt to find out.
[flv width=”424″ height=”260″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Nine Australia Telstra Trujillo Quits 2-26-09.flv[/flv]
Channel Nine covers the ousting of Sol Trujillo, wondering what sort of golden parachute he’d receive on the way out the door. (3 minutes)
Just weeks after leaving, Trujillo decided to settle scores with Australia, telling reporters that he thought the country was backwards and racist.
[flv width=”424″ height=”260″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Nine Australia Trujillo Calls Australia Racist 3-09.flv[/flv]
Payback time. Trujillo threw a hissyfit in a BBC interview calling Australia’s lack of laissez-faire regulatory policies backwards, and treatment towards him racist. (Channel Nine – 1 minute)
The Post-Trujillo Era: More Arrogance and Ruthlessness, But a Communications Minister Outmaneuvers the Telecom Giant — 2009 to Present Day
Telstra spent the summer of 2009 attempting to heal the Trujillo-caused wounds with conciliatory statements in the Australian media. Telstra’s new chief executive, David Thodey, admitted the company’s customer service record needed improvement. He distanced himself from some of the more caustic comments from the former CEO, and claimed the company was on-track to be a major participant in improving Australia’s broadband experience.
Conroy
But as the months progressed, Australia’s Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy ultimately concluded he was getting the lip service treatment that Telstra had delivered Australians for years. Conroy, already suspicious of the company’s control-minded tendencies, quietly began bending the ear of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. Conroy had watched Telstra’s steadfast refusal to work constructively towards a National Broadband Network (NBN). By last summer, the company was making proposals for underwhelming broadband expansion. Fiber optic broadband was unnecessary and expensive, they said. Besides, the service Telstra was providing was already good enough.
Australians didn’t agree. Part of the platform that brought the Rudd government to power was the promise of better broadband service in Australia. Waiting for Telstra to provide it was a futile exercise.
Conroy told Rudd the government should not be setting its broadband policy agenda based on what worked most conveniently for private providers. If they won’t move, then let’s get them out of the way, Conroy suggested. Rudd, working for the interests of the Australian people — not just a handful of telecom companies seeking riches with substandard service at monopoly prices, agreed.
After reviewing the proposals submitted to design and construct 21st century broadband service for Australia, Rudd dismissed them all, calling them inadequate. The government, he announced, would go it alone and build the network itself — delivering a fiber to the home network for 90 percent of Australians on an open network available to any provider that wanted to rent access at wholesale rates.
More importantly, Conroy was not going to allow Telstra to continually block progress on the NBN. Conroy was not some supine minister willing to compromise away the goal of super-fast affordable broadband. His critics called him Machiavellian, slashing and burning anything that stood in his way. But Conroy was steadfast — corporations would never be allowed to dictate broadband terms to the government. He warned Telstra to cooperate or face the consequences.
Telstra continued to stall and stonewall, and last September, the Rudd government delivered what it promised — a forced break-up of Telstra. The company was given a choice — either sell back its copper wire landline network to the government or divest itself of satellite TV service Foxtel and lose access to any additional wireless mobile frequencies for Telstra’s cellular service.
The equivalent in the United States would be to declare fiber to the home to be in the national interest, and if AT&T and Verizon didn’t deliver it to nearly every home in their service areas, the government would move in and do it themselves, taking back ownership of the AT&T and Verizon’s infrastructure along the way.
[flv width=”512″ height=”308″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Network 10 Aus Telstra Break-Up 9-15-09.flv[/flv]
Network Ten covered the announced break up of Telstra by the federal government. (2 minutes)
Channel Nine ran several reports on the announced breakup of Telstra, including an interview with the opposition. (6 minutes)
Australia Declares Broadband a Utility Service that Private Providers Cannot Control
Monday marked a day in history for Telstra, agreeing to sell back its copper wire landline business (for which it will receive $11 billion in compensation). In return, Telstra is assured wholesale access to the new fiber broadband network, and can market products and services on it. It cannot, however, serve as a gatekeeper to keep competitors out nor maintain virtual monopoly service, especially for less suburban and rural customers.
Some telecom analysts believe the deal is actually good news for Telstra, if they’d see beyond their control tendencies. After all, they say, Telstra gets to rid itself of a legacy copper-wire landline network that is expensive to maintain and serves a dwindling number of consumers, many who have switched to wireless. They also get to develop and market new high bandwidth applications on a network they are no longer responsible for financing.
It’s a win for the government as well who gets a single, national fiber network built in the public interest, which makes it far easier to recoup the billions in costs to build it. They’ll even likely make a profit suitable to defray the costs of subsidizing wireless broadband service for Australia’s rural residents, to be served with at least 12Mbps connections. No cost-recovery fees on customer bills, no usage limitations that restrict innovation, and broadband that serves everyone, not just a handful of corporations that seek to monetize every aspect of it.
Conroy wouldn’t think much of America’s National Broadband Plan, which relies near-exclusively on private providers voluntarily doing the right thing. Conroy stopped putting blind faith in Australia’s large telecommunications companies. The Obama Administration hasn’t.
We’ve seen millions spent lobbying to permit a handful of providers to control broadband service on their terms. Few will provide fiber to the home service and many are content leaving rural Americans with dial-up service. With dreams of Internet Overcharging schemes to manipulate usage to maximize profits even higher, things could get much worse. What’s right for AT&T isn’t right for us.
For Australia, who has lived under such monopolistic broadband regimes for over a decade, a National Broadband Network without arbitrary usage limits and available to all — rural and urban — is the promised land. It will leapfrog Australia well ahead of the United States and Canada, with far faster speeds and better prices, all because a government stood up to a corporate provider that preferred to overpay its executives instead of getting the job done right.
Australia had a reality check — broadband is a utility service necessary for every citizen who wants it. Just as electrification and universal phone service became ubiquitous in the last century, broadband will also join those services in the years ahead as commonplace in nearly every home.
If only the strength and conviction that is fueling Australia’s broadband future could also be found in the United States, where too often what is urgently needed today gets frittered away into “maybe we can have it someday” compromises with big telecom and their lobbyists. That isn’t good enough.
ABC National Radio interviewed telecom analysts about the implications of today’s deal with Telstra to retire Australia’s copper wire phone network (June 21, 2010) (4 minutes, 17 seconds)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.
Australia’s current Labor government has refused to compromise on its goal of delivering super-fast broadband service to nearly every Australian, declaring they will get the job done no matter what it takes.
“This government is determined to build a national broadband network and will not let anything get in its way,” declared Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.
Rudd was responding to critics from opposition political parties and some private providers who had been trying to throw up roadblocks to stop the government effort, which many private providers felt ceded too much control to the government.
Rudd’s plans to construct the network were bolstered with the release of a new study showing the construction and operating costs to be lower than previously thought.
Stephen Conroy
Lindsay Tanner, Australia’s Finance Minister, told colleagues, “The government would get its investment back and also, over the course of the investment, earn a modest return.”
Stephen Conroy, Communications Minister, promised wholesale pricing for the unlimited fiber-based service would range between $17.50-26.30US per month. Retail pricing for entry-level ADSL broadband service from Telstra currently runs $35US per month, with a 2 GB monthly usage allowance.
Conroy previously threatened Telstra that if it didn’t want to help build the national network at a reasonable price, the government would do it themselves.
Tony Smith, opposition Shadow Communications Minister called Rudd’s insistence on a national fiber network reckless, irresponsible, and risky.
But for Australian consumers long subjected to expensive monthly prices for heavily usage limited service, 100Mbps service — or even slower, unlimited service — represents a major improvement.
[flv width=”512″ height=”308″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Network 10 Aus Cheap Broadband 6-21-10.flv[/flv]
The Ten Network in Australia ran this report on the current Australian government’s unwillingness to compromise away its goal for a national fiber network. (2 minutes)
[flv width=”512″ height=”308″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Nine Australia National Broadband Plan Study 5-6-10.flv[/flv]
Channel Nine reports on the release of the broadband study showing Australia would save money building their own national broadband network instead of letting Telstra build it. (1 minute)
Australia is set to leapfrog over the United States and Canada, declaring its intent to deliver fiber broadband service to the vast majority of its citizens within eight years. The country embarked on a National Broadband Plan more than a year before the United States, declaring the current state of usage-limited, slow, expensive, and incomplete broadband coverage to be unacceptable.
Australia discarded an earlier plan to work with private providers to build the network when government officials faced opposition from private providers who did not want to lose control of the broadband market. In a surprising decision last September, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd announced the government would commence construction of a fiber to the home network itself, excluding private providers from participation.
NBN Company, a government-owned entity, will construct the $43 billion network over eight years, delivering 100Mbps speeds on a fiber network. The infrastructure will be designed for an easy upgrade to 1 Gigabit service as bandwidth demand intensifies.
A separate deal concluded today with Telstra, Australia’s largest telecommunications company, will retire the nation’s copper wire landline network and cable systems, to be replaced by NBN fiber.
Up to 37,000 jobs will be created to build the network across the country, supplemented with wireless broadband for Australia’s most rural areas.
But some are complaining the network is too extravagant and expensive, adding their displeasure with the Rudd government’s strong-arming of Telstra to give up its network.
Opposition finance spokesman Andrew Robb said taxpayers would be on the hook for the project.
“It’ll come with a multi-billion dollar taxpayer debt that will have to be paid off over decades,” Robb said, adding if elected, the opposition promises to scrap the plan.
[flv width=”424″ height=”260″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Nine Network New National Broadband Plan 4-6-09.flv[/flv]
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd originally introduced his nationwide fiber network proposal in April 2009. Channel Nine provides this roundup of the original announcement, media reaction, and a few insults from the opposition. Just a day after the plan was introduced, Communications Minister Stephen Conroy warned Telstra to “back off,” referring to the company’s immediate lobbying effort to block the proposal. (11 minutes)
Prime Minister Rudd announcing the deal between Telstra and the federal government.
Australia has taken the first step towards 100Mbps unlimited broadband service this weekend as an agreement was reached to decommission the country’s copper wire phone network, replacing it with fiber connections to 90 percent of Australian homes.
After months of heated negotiations between Telstra and the federal government, Telstra CEO David Thodey this morning joined Prime Minister Kevin Rudd at the podium to announce the $11 billion deal. Telstra will agree to scrap its copper-wire phone system and make way for the federal government’s new fiber network.
Rudd claimed the deal would benefit everyone because it would permanently retire an obsolete network with easily-upgradable fiber, connected right to the home. Under Rudd’s previously announced National Broadband Plan, the government would finance the construction of the fiber network and lease access to any provider, including Telstra, at wholesale pricing.
In addition to an $11 billion offer, Telstra is expected to keep the estimated $580 million the company could earn from recycling more than 70 million kilometers of copper phone wiring no longer needed. Another $1 billion will be earned from real estate sales. At least 3,000 telephone exchange offices are expected to be declared redundant after switching to the fiber network, bringing Telstra plenty of additional earnings as those properties are sold off.
“I can’t stress enough just how complex this certain negotiation has been, because we’ve had to look at commercial issues, what the future of the business would be, what the structure of the industry would be, but we have got to this position and we are pleased to have done so, because it does give us clarity, and that’s what this company needs,” Thodey said. “Firstly we’ve got to grow our share of the market, we’ve got to simplify this business to take the unnecessary complexity [out], and we are going to continue now to build and invest in building new products and services to work in an NBN world.”
The agreement gives NBN Company, the government-owned entity building the fiber network, access to Telstra’s outdoor facilities to house the fiber network, saving the government billions in construction costs. Telstra has also agreed to purchase wholesale access to the new network and will also decommission its coaxial cable-based systems, moving customers to the new fiber facilities as built.
Telstra will continue to operate its wireless mobile network and satellite TV business independent of the government broadband project. For Telstra, in return for giving up control of broadband, the company is also freed from its universal phone service obligations which required it to provide service to any Australian that asked.
Telstra shareholders liked what they saw as the stock soared in value earlier this morning, but Thodey urged some caution.
“We believe that this is an important milestone towards getting [the deal done], but I want to stress it’s only a milestone, because it’s a non-binding financial heads of agreement that sets us on a road to get to a definitive agreement over the next period,” Thodey said.
[flv width=”512″ height=”308″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Network 10 Aus Broadband Deal 6-21-10.flv[/flv]
Network 10 covered the deal between Telstra and the federal government in its weekend news report. (4 minutes)
Be Sure to Read Part One: Astroturf Overload — Broadband for America = One Giant Industry Front Group for an important introduction to what this super-sized industry front group is all about. Members of Broadband for America Red: A company or group actively engaging in anti-consumer lobbying, opposes Net Neutrality, supports Internet Overcharging, belongs to […]
Astroturf: One of the underhanded tactics increasingly being used by telecom companies is “Astroturf lobbying” – creating front groups that try to mimic true grassroots, but that are all about corporate money, not citizen power. Astroturf lobbying is hardly a new approach. Senator Lloyd Bentsen is credited with coining the term in the 1980s to […]
Hong Kong remains bullish on broadband. Despite the economic downturn, City Telecom continues to invest millions in constructing one of Hong Kong’s largest fiber optic broadband networks, providing fiber to the home connections to residents. City Telecom’s HK Broadband service relies on an all-fiber optic network, and has been dubbed “the Verizon FiOS of Hong […]
BendBroadband, a small provider serving central Oregon, breathlessly announced the imminent launch of new higher speed broadband service for its customers after completing an upgrade to DOCSIS 3. Along with the launch announcement came a new logo of a sprinting dog the company attaches its new tagline to: “We’re the local dog. We better be […]
Stop the Cap! reader Rick has been educating me about some of the new-found aggression by Shaw Communications, one of western Canada’s largest telecommunications companies, in expanding its business reach across Canada. Woe to those who get in the way. Novus Entertainment is already familiar with this story. As Stop the Cap! reported previously, Shaw […]
The Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission, the Canadian equivalent of the Federal Communications Commission in Washington, may be forced to consider American broadband policy before defining Net Neutrality and its role in Canadian broadband, according to an article published today in The Globe & Mail. [FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s] proposal – to codify and enforce some […]
In March 2000, two cable magnates sat down for the cable industry equivalent of My Dinner With Andre. Fine wine, beautiful table linens, an exquisite meal, and a Monopoly board with pieces swapped back and forth representing hundreds of thousands of Canadian consumers. Ted Rogers and Jim Shaw drew a line on the western Ontario […]
Just like FairPoint Communications, the Towering Inferno of phone companies haunting New England, Frontier Communications is making a whole lot of promises to state regulators and consumers, if they’ll only support the deal to transfer ownership of phone service from Verizon to them. This time, Frontier is issuing a self-serving press release touting their investment […]
I see it took all of five minutes for George Ou and his friends at Digital Society to be swayed by the tunnel vision myopia of last week’s latest effort to justify Internet Overcharging schemes. Until recently, I’ve always rationalized my distain for smaller usage caps by ignoring the fact that I’m being subsidized by […]
In 2007, we took our first major trip away from western New York in 20 years and spent two weeks an hour away from Calgary, Alberta. After two weeks in Kananaskis Country, Banff, Calgary, and other spots all over southern Alberta, we came away with the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: The Good Alberta […]
A federal appeals court in Washington has struck down, for a second time, a rulemaking by the Federal Communications Commission to limit the size of the nation’s largest cable operators to 30% of the nation’s pay television marketplace, calling the rule “arbitrary and capricious.” The 30% rule, designed to keep no single company from controlling […]
Less than half of Americans surveyed by PC Magazine report they are very satisfied with the broadband speed delivered by their Internet service provider. PC Magazine released a comprehensive study this month on speed, provider satisfaction, and consumer opinions about the state of broadband in their community. The publisher sampled more than 17,000 participants, checking […]