Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FCC To Probe Google Voice Over Call Blocking

Posted by Soulskill on from the keep-your-eye-on-the-ball dept.

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.

8 of 86 comments (clear)

  1. this isn't about apple by fermion · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I see this more about disclosure than about whether free calls exist on the iPhone(of course, over WiFi they do). Despite the clearly myopic tone of the article, the issue is disclosure.

    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
    1. Re:this isn't about apple by Firehed · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unless you have one of those "favorites" things in your cell plan, where you have unlimited calls to 5 numbers (or whatever). Add your GV number as one of your favorites and config your GV account so incoming calls pass the GV caller ID instead of the normal caller pass-through it does, and you effectively have unlimited calling on the cheapest possible plan (not free, but close enough). At that point, it's as cheap as, if not cheaper than, Skype. Couple that with the fact that you can have all of the GV SMS services go over email and that Google now offers push services for many phones, and you're as close to free as you can ever hope.

      I think T-Mobile started it; I saw an ad from AT&T offering a similar thing a couple days ago. I can't imagine Verizon and Sprint are too far off if they're not offering it already since the carriers all seem to mimic each other pretty quickly.

      It's neither perfect nor foolproof, but until you can rig it up so that you have end-to-end VOIP (which is probably only a couple years out; carriers are starting to realize their future is data, not minutes), it's a decent approximation.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
  2. So let's get this straight... by Kickboy12 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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
  3. Re:If you want to be like a telephone company... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So...if you're providing a free service that is not what the telephone company provides, then you follow the same rules? Good logic, bro.

  4. Re:got my gvoice number this week by thule · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The problem is that there are regulations for phone companies. These would have to be completely revamped for your idea to work. What is happening with Google is that they are thinking like you are. The problem is that Google has made themselves into a phone company, but don't want to play by phone company rules. They want to treat some phone numbers different than other numbers. A real phone company can't do that. They have to pay the charge back rules no matter what. They have to charge the customer as regulated by the utility commissions. AT&T wants Google to play by the same rules they have to.

    This is similar to net neutrality. The difference is that the Internet has a flat rate model already. AT&T wants to be able to differentiate traffic if they need to, but Google says that they should have to handle all traffic the same way. Okay, fine, then Google must handle all phone traffic the same way.

    The FCC could fix this by changing how "long distance" companies that terminate domestically charge back the phone company. I don't know what this would look like though.

  5. network neutrality by HazelMotes · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:network neutrality by thule · · Score: 2, Insightful

      AT&T has been paying those fees. 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. The reason there isn't "neutrality" on the phone network is because it really did cost more money to connect to different parts of the world. It wouldn't make sense for a phone company to charge back the same amount to connect the call from US to Canada or US to Moldova. If long distance companies couldn't charge differing rates then there would be parts of the world that be even farther behind in their communication networks.

      AT&T is in a situation right now where they unleashed the iPhone on their wireless data network. Wouldn't it be better if they could classify the network traffic so they can mange the growth? Eventually they will have their network built out to support the devices, but until then, wouldn't better if you got some service rather than no service?

      I just see issues with network neutrality over reaching. There are times where an ISP may have to mange their network and de-prioritize some types of traffic. Who is to say they can't do this as long as the classes of traffic are treated equally? What happens if an ISP just builds a separate network for traffic they want to prioritize. No QoS, just straight routing rules. Would this violate network neutrality? Yahoo does this all the time by direct peering their content network with consumer networks. They are able to bypass potential bottlenecks so that their traffic gets to end users fast. Would these peering agreements violate net neutrality?

  6. Re:If you want to be like a telephone company... by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's really simple. If you want to be like a phone company, then you need to follow the rules of a telephone company.

    At exactly what point is one "like a phone company"? When you enable communication? Voice? Connect to a phone network? Provide a phone number? Do I need to start following FCC carrier rules because I run a Mumble server?