Industry


Ads by TechWords

See your link here


FCC turns its attention to Google Voice

Remember when AT&T petitioned the FCC to investigate Google Voice? Well, now it is official, the FCC is investigating Google Voice...for the reasons laid out by AT&T.

In the complaint, AT&T noted that press reports have suggested that Google "is systematically blocking telephone calls from consumers that use Google Voice to call telephone numbers in certain rural areas."

Google's reply via blogpost:

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. This practice has been called "access stimulation" or "traffic pumping" (clearly by someone with a sense of humor). Google Voice is a free application and we want to keep it that way for all our users -- which we could not afford to do if we paid these ludicrously high charges.

Both sides seem to have pretty legitimate gripes: AT&T wants Google to have to pay the same fees it does for calls and Google stating it is a free service and those rural/sex numbers charge rates so high, it could no longer keep its service free.

Who is right?  Depends on how you look at it.  The overreaching problem in the situation is the high cost of termination charges levied by rural operators.  Hopefully this conflict will shed light on the inequity and perhaps something can be worked out.  

For instance, to offset the high cost of laying line to rural areas, perhaps the phone companies could set up wireless towers instead of running wires to homes with part of the US recovery money.  That way their last mile charges are brought into line with the rest of the country and there would be no overcharging areas that sex lines could hide behind.

At that point costs would be brought down and Google could service the whole country.  AT&T would also save lots of money in the long run.

As Google's Richard Whitt, Washington Telecom and Media Counsel stated, "This is about outdated carrier compensation rules that are fundamentally broken and in need of repair by the FCC."

This Administration's FCC has taken a much stronger role in investigating corporate practices in the telecommunications industry.  Google Voice was already part of a different investigation where the FCC questioned Google and Apple (and AT&T!) about their roles in Google Voice getting rejected from Apple's App Store.

AT&T, for what it is worth, just announced it would allow VoIP traffic over its signals, most likely in an attempt to avoid net neutrality investigations.

What People Are Saying

Rural Telephone Service

Mr. Weintraub's dismissal of AT&T's complaint with the assertion that they could merely "set up wireless towers instead of running wires" ignores the facts. The wires exist, wireless would cost more, there are hundreds of rural ILECs (AT&T and Verizon have been trying to shed that business for years). Besides, AT&T is not complaining that Google should pay them, but that Google should be required (a) terminate all calls and (b) to pay the same termination charges that they (AT&T) is required to pay the ILECs.

The long distance carriers have been complaining for years about termination fees charged by ILECs. The FCC and state regulators have staunchly resisted their complaints. The LD carriers would like nothing better than to be able to discontinue terminating calls to rural ILECs, but they are not allowed to by law.

Google would like to play like a long distance carrier without having to play by the same rules everyone else does. They only want to terminate calls to ILECs that don't charge "too much", i.e., ILECs in urban areas.

AT&T's complaint is justified - either Google is required to pay to terminate calls everywhere, just as the real telephone companies, or they don't get to terminate calls anywhere.

If the FCC lets Google slide, the LD carriers will have ammunition to do the same thing - essentially bankrupting rural phone companies who depend on the call termination fees to fund their operations, and eliminating rural phone service.

There is a huge difference

There is a huge difference here though, in terms of service provided. You can't get your home phone service from Google Voice. Every home phone (or business phone for that matter) needs to be able to contact every other phone in the PSTN. Google Voice isn't providing a phone line; they are just a middle man connecting your existing line to another existing line. They should not be coerced into making connections that would cost them excessively and prevent the service from operating for free. If Google wants to sell you a home phone or even a mobile phone, then yes, they should be held to the same standard. That is not what they are selling, so there are no grounds to claim Google is denying a necessary utility to rural customers as would be the case if those customers could not get a line from their local telco. I've heard stories of wireless carriers terminating contracts of customers who "roam too much". Should we attack that practice as well? Yes, all Americans should have access to the PSTN. But not all carriers need to service all areas.

Hmmm...... What happened to

Hmmm...... What happened to "FREE ENTERPRISE?? Sounds like some squawking children..... " HEY..... that's no fair!! He should have to because I have to!!"
The FCC, ( governmental control ) needs to stick to running the government!!
If I have a business it's none of anybody elses business what I do. If I want to run 10 lines or 100 lines wherever I so choose,and if I don't want to connect to the expensive service I won't!!

There is nothing childish

There is nothing childish about this conflict; it is maneuvering typical of the telecom business and other businesses as well and can't be dismissed out of hand.