Slashdot Mirror
FCC To Probe Google Voice Over Call Blocking
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.
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.
FCC finally investigating companies and following up claims of other companies! It must be cold down in hell these days.
For instance, a relative switched to VOIP due to significant costs saving. Though this relative is good at asking questions, several hidden and opportunity costs were never fully disclosed. This person still uses primarily a land line, so when the land line went out for several weeks due to a power disruption, there was very limited phone since she was not comfortable with a cell phone, and many friend in foreign land were never given this number. There there was the excessive costs to make foreign calls, and complex prepaid cards were not an option.
No matter what we think of Google, we have to admit they play fast and loose with their free services. Long outages, removal of service at the drop of hat by any arbitrary third party. The business model does not allow for end user services, since the end user is not the customer. If Google plays such a game with the phone app, who is going to be blamed? Not Google. Apple will have to take the calls.
In any case the point is moot. Android sales are expected to dwarf iPhone sales within a few years. There are expected to be many models out this year. Google can supply all these phones with Google Voice and prove that they can reliably serve customers needs. In fact, if Google Voice is as great as everyone says, it would likely be the killer app, the market differentiation, that would make Adroid phones an unbeatable value. Free phone calls. Free email. Why would anyone want anyone else. At that point, Apple would have to include the App.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
It's a pretty interesting idea and I'd love to see what improvements are made to it over time.
I hear Verizon is bragging about their new deal with Google and Android while also stating they're going to support Google Voice. As a Verizon customer I hope that means I can eventually have other Verizon customers call my Google Voice number and get connected to my Verizon cell and not burn any out-of-network minutes. That's definitely a marketable stance to take in contrast to AT&T's.
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
Would be nice to know who the sellouts are.
The FCC was blaming AT&T...
AT&T said don't look at us, blame Google Voice!
Google Voice said it's not our fault, it's the use of "traffic pumping" thats causesing high fees
The guys going the traffic pumping are probably blaming the people running the rural telephone systems...
The people running the rural telephone systems are just trying to turn a profit in a rural area with few calls being made...
When everyone is really just trying to make a profit, who is really the bad guy here?
google.slashdot
land of the fee
home of the paid.
its always a new player that wants to shake up ma bell, to innovate in ways theyve never tried and to level the playing field for real competition. time and time again its proven by pre-paid legislators, lobbyists and interest groups: you dont fuck with the megacorps. especially not the bells.
if google manages to get anything out of this, which judging by their resistance to the bush administration in the past they may just, I will be very surprised indeed. Once, just once, id love to see something new happen to the communications industry...real competition that follows the lines of the capitalism ive been taught, not the cronyism ive come to expect.
off topic, but id like to see real competition in any industry with a government sanctioned monopoly as well.
Good people go to bed earlier.
I talked to someone that has been in the audio text business (aka 976 or 900 numbers) for years. He explained how this works.
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.
It's really simple. If you want to be like a phone company, then you need to follow the rules of a telephone company.
Kriston
Those who have been begging for government enforced network neutrality are reaping what they sow, although I'm sure these aren't the fruits they had in mind.
As a Google Voice user, I was confused when I tried to call a free conference call service and my phone never rang. No error message and the web UI acted like it was placing the call. I tried through the dial-in interface and got "that number is not valid" or something to that extent. They could at least explain WHY they're not allowing the call to go through.
Like chickenshit?
...then why does it still work?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Google+Voice+restrictions
It's free folks. Not intended to replace your phone line but to enhance it. If you want something better then fork over the money for it and then you should be allowed to connect to whoever you like according to your contract.
Until they start charging for service and claiming that this can replace you phone service then I don't see a problem.
These call services (adult chat, conference, fax to email) are simply a way for a rural telco to pump up their carrier access revenue and keep themselves alive when they should have died out long ago because of their lack of foresight and adherence to outdated policies. When a call is placed from your local phone to a number outside the rate center, the call has to be carried by a long distance provider. Why do long distance providers still charge 10 cents or 12 cents a minute in some areas - because the terminating carrier (the one hosting the conference service) charges 10 cents (some places more) a minute for carrier access fees. That means you pay 12 cents a minute to your LD carrier who then turns around and pays 10 cents to the local carrier. This local carrier, the long distance company and your local carrier all receive USF (universal service funds) that you and everyone else has been paying on their phone bills for years. The intercarrier compensation rates have been kept artificially high for rural telcos for years. Because of this, rural subscribers have opted to either stop using their land lines to make long distance calls and start using cell phones (in some cases, this LD call might be to the next town 10 miles away) or drop their land line completely and use a cell or a voip service. The corresponding drop in revenue makes the rural telco then look for other ways to increase their revenue and the easiest way to do this is drive traffic to their switch to increase the carrier access billing. So, Google shouldn't play along. They don't get USF funding, are not a CLEC, ILEC, RBOC or LD carrier and should not have to play by the same rules.
Oh, and the Google service is free ($) to you. If you are bitching that your free service cant be used to call a free adult porn line or free conference service, then pay for a regular line and you can use that all you want. All this could be solved by carriers (all carriers) simply charging a flat rate for unlimited services. A regional cellular carrier where I live charges $50 a month for unlimited talk and text and $100 a month for unlimited talk/text/data (blackberry, android, etc) and it is truly unlimited. I have had the service for 2 years and my bill is exactly the same each month, never any overages, no worrying about who is in my fave 5's or my network or if I am roaming or not. Oh, and my phone bill is a single page - not the book that ATT/Cingular used to send me every month.
I was pretty mystified by the mechanics of the whole scheme described here, so I read a bunch of the sources cited here, and wrote a Wikipedia article on Traffic pumping. Hope it will be useful to others trying to understand this weird regulatory scam.
My bicyles