FCC To Probe Google Voice Over Call Blocking 86
Over the past few months, we've been following the FCC's inquiry into Apple and AT&T after they rejected Google Voice from the App store. A couple weeks ago, AT&T did their best to deflect the FCC by dangling a shiny object in front of them — the use of Google Voice to block calls. It now appears the FCC has taken the bait, as they've sent an official inquiry to Google asking why the service restricts connections. "In its letter, the FCC asked Google to describe how its calls are routed and whether calls to particular numbers are prohibited. It also asks for information on how restrictions are implemented, how Google informs customers about those restrictions, whether Google Voice services are free, and if Google ever plans to charge for them in the future." Richard Whitt has already posted a brief explanation on Google's Public Policy blog. "The reason we restrict calls to certain local phone carriers' numbers is simple. Not only do they charge exorbitant termination rates for calls, but they also partner with adult sex chat lines and 'free' conference calling centers to drive high volumes of traffic." The FCC also received a push from members of the House of Representatives on Wednesday.
Fine (Score:5, Informative)
AT&T receives goverment aids so the rural area's get supported too, and then by law they have to support them. Google doesn't receive any money to run the *free* service, and they couldn't provide it as free if they had to support calls to those rural areas too (who are obviously abusing the system with their premium priced sex lines and so on)
Google could always make a system where users could call to those areas with credit so users cover the costs themself, but I dont see why they would need to.
The history of long distance charges (Score:5, Informative)
The ability to make money on a number and charge it to the phone company goes back to old traditions in how phone systems work. When your phone company cannot connect a call directly they pay another company to do it for them. For example, if you called another country and your phone company did not operate in that area, your company would pay the company operating in that area to route the call. The company that completed the call would charge back to your phone company. Your phone company would charge a rate that would generally cover those charges. Since everyone was paying per/min it was pretty easy to figure out rates. As more and more long distance companies popped up over the years this tradition continued.
What audio text businesses discovered is that they could register themselves as long distance companies and terminate calls in their down systems (no real routing was happening). The numbers were non-explicit chat lines or up-sell ads to adult numbers. They could *still* make money even if the person never uses the 900 adult content number they are upselling.. As it has become easier and easier to purchase equipment to qualify as a long distance carrier people have setup "free" services. Many times these companies are heavily into the audio text business and the "free" services are simply a more "legitimate" way to make money.
As you can see, this can start to become a big problem for companies that sell flat rate service for domestic calls. The calls are terminating within what would normally be a local call, but the audio text company is charging back a fee that would normally be associated with calling a third world nation with limited phone services.
AT&T does have some what of a point. Google is treating some numbers differently than others.
Re:So let's get this straight... (Score:5, Informative)
Well... no. There's no real bad guy here, but it isn't such a cut and dry blame game.
The FCC starts asking why AT&T is blocking Google Voice on the iPhone.
AT&T tries to shed some of the heat by changing topics and asking why Google doesn't have to connect these expensive rural providers that AT&T is legally forced to connect to.
Now, these expensive rural end points are apparently a little slimy since they like to partner with high volume services to draw calls into their network which they can then charge a premium for.
Of course, Google and AT&T aren't exactly analogous. So it's not clear that Google should be held to the same standards. One company is providing a completely free service while the other receives subscription fees. Also one is providing full phone service complete with a dial tone, while the other is fancy routing for your existing services. Finally, one has gotten government subsidies to support expensive coverage of rural areas while the other has received nothing.
I appreciate that the FCC is asking these questions though. They're fairly reasonable questions. In fact, the FCC has been fairly competent as of late. They might still be a little weak when it comes to laying the smackdown and righting the wrongs of telecom industry (of which there are a lot). But they have shown active interest in investigating possible abuses, and know the right questions to ask when they show up.
Re:Fine (Score:2, Informative)
Apparently AT&T misplaced or spent that cash on something other than rural service. I would guess 90% of the people in my county do not have access to any wired broadband. I talked to the telco reps and they stated they need at least 300 customers. That's difficult when the minimum lot size is 5 acres.
Re:this isn't about apple (Score:5, Informative)
You don't really understand how google voice works do you?
Here's a sarter -- there is nothing about google voice that will ever enable free phone calls on a cellphone unless the cellphone service independently allows free phone calls.
Re:Fine (Score:3, Informative)
Does AT&T respond to congressional pressure? Sometimes you can get your congressman to give 'em a phone call or whatever it is they do. It's called "Constituent Service" and in rural areas it's kinda what they're supposed to be doing. Why do you think they build "bridges to nowhere" in Alaska and stuff like that. I used to always get my way with the phone providers (after the usual hellish delays) by calmly and persistently explaining that they were incorrect, and if I couldn't wear them down into acquiescense, I'd inform them that they were a public utility, & I was going to take it up with the (California) P.U.C. YMMV, but it works out here.
Re:network neutrality (Score:5, Informative)
That's the problem. AT&T has to pay the fees because they are a phone company and a phone company *has* to connect those calls. Google is setting itself up as a phone company, but is excluding itself from the rules that phone companies have to play by.
No, Google is not "setting itself up as a phone company" any more than having answering machine makers are phone companies either.
Google provides a set of services that is layered on top of POTS, without POTS, google voice would be just as useful as an answering machine without a phone line.
Re:network neutrality (Score:4, Informative)
Re:network neutrality (Score:5, Informative)
It would be like dialing a 10-XXX prefix and then a number. In this way, Google Voice is *exactly* like a 10-XXX long distance provider.
Except that google's outgoing calls are carried by an actual long distance provider, google does not have any 'peering' equivalents with local telcos, if they did then they would be subject to the same tarifs that actual long distance carriers are.
Re:Fine (Score:3, Informative)
The Universal Service Fund [wikipedia.org] is what you are thinking of. It is a tax imposed on phone companies, and some of this money does go to subsidize phone services for low-income and high-cost consumers. The USF is clearly flawed [tmcnet.com], but it does not require that wireless carriers provide rural service. Wireless carriers who get money from the USF do so as "competitive" carriers to the local telephone company...
Re:got my gvoice number this week (Score:3, Informative)
The problem is that Google has made themselves into a phone company, [emph. added] but don't want to play by phone company rules.
This is fundamentally wrong. There is no way to place or receive phone calls without an existing phone service.
(SMS messages are slightly different because with Google Voice you can send and receive SMS without another phone service. However, no landline phone services (that I know of) support SMS, so I don't believe that's relevent.)
Re:got my gvoice number this week (Score:1, Informative)
Gizmo being a "phone service"...