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.
AT&T apparently now wants web applications -- from Skype to Google Voice -- to be treated the same way as traditional phone services. Their approach is what a former FCC chairman has called "regulatory capitalism," the practice of using regulation to block or slow down innovation. And despite AT&T's lobbying efforts, this issue has nothing to do with network neutrality or rural America. This is about outdated carrier compensation rules that are fundamentally broken and in need of repair by the FCC.
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
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.
I would be too, if someone kept trying to probe me.
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.
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.
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?
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.