Two weeks ago AT&T wrote a letter to the FCC about Google Voice, complaining that the service was preventing users from calling certain numbers, which is against FCC policy (AT&T has previously attempted to do the same thing but was prevented from doing so). Google promptly responded, explaining that it was not a traditional phone carrier and thus should not be held to the same rules as AT&T. Earlier this week AT&T’s complaints (along with some greasing from lobbyists, no doubt) prompted a number of members of Congress to decry Google’s actions. Today, the FCC has decided to follow up on the matter, issuing a letter to Google with the subject line “Google Voice Calling Restrictions”.
The letter begins with an explanation that “in light of pending Commission proceedings regarding concerns about so called “access stimulation”, the Commission’s prohibition on call blocking by carriers, as well as the Commission’s interest in ensuring that “broadband networks are widely deployed, open, affordable, and accessible to all consumers,” we are interested in gather facts that can provide a more complete understanding of this situation.”
The letter’s first question asks how Google Voice’s functions work from a technical standpoint, and how Google informs users about any numbers they may be restricted from calling. Question two asks what Google means when it says that Google Voice is currently “invite only”, which was one of the defenses Google offered in its Public Policy Blog to AT&T’s initial accusations, and how many people are on Google Voice. The third question will likely be a key one — it asks how Google Voice fits in with the classifications in the Communications Act of 1934, and if Google competes with any services classified as “telecommunications services”. Question four asks how Google actually identifies the numbers it restricts. The final question explores if Google contracts with any other services to function.
For those that haven’t been following the story so far: Google’s decision to block certain numbers stems from the way some rural local carriers have been exploiting current FCC rules. Some local carriers charge very high prices for AT&T, Google Voice, and other services to connect their calls. Few people would normally call these rural numbers, so these local carriers team up with conference calling centers and sex lines to further drive traffic. AT&T has previously tried to block these numbers but was barred from doing so, and is upset that Google Voice is getting away with it. AT&T has framed this as part of the Net Neutrality debate, though given their past stance on the issue it’s hard not to take their arguments with a grain of salt.
Update: Google has responded to the letter by writing a blog post outlining AT&T’s hypocrisy.
You can find the full letter below.
I have a Google Voice invitation if the FCC needs one.
Somehow that comment totally feels irrelevant… :/ oh well… still I would say that as long as google voice is free they have every right to do this, on the other hand once they will become payed for businesses then I guess they should really be nationwide equal (although its kinda weird that a business is forced to be equal inside the nation, but its worldwide actions are ignored, in essence its a persons decision where he lives, I ain’t taking offence that I can’t use google voice here in the netherlands, so if you live in a particular part of the usa there is no reason that you should have the right by law to have access too google voice.). Oh well… it feels like one big joke.
Hahaha
Google still wins.
Ok, that was funny!
Joe Brooks > Ha!
Grand Central is now Google Voice which has been around for years. I’m surprised these questions are just now being asked. Oh… wait… The Telcos with $ finally woke up. They must be losing market share to other players that have the internet figured out. I wonder when they’ll start jacking up MagicJack.
Google is the Walmart of the internet. Woolworths went out of business because they stayed in the Mall. The Telcos need to wake up and innovate.
Woolworth didn’t go out of business they changed there name to Foot Locker
Why is it that so few people really understand that the original build out of wireline services was not only subsidized (tax breaks) but in some cases (in rural areas) paid for using tax payer’s $? This means that Google (nor anyone else) should get a “free ride” on those wires…
Telecoms manage & pay for the maintenance on those lines (handed over by the gov’t years ago) – Google should have to pay (like other telecoms) for access to those lines (that are maintained by other carriers). Shutting off “service” to certain rural areas because they don’t want to pay shouldn’t be an option for the same reasons that the original telecoms who didn’t want to provide access to rural areas had to “pay to play.”
Face it: Google has stepped into the telecom space – they should be held to the same rules…
I’m not an expert on the PSTN and nor do I have anything but a cursory knowledge of exactly how Google Voice works.
HOWEVER, it is my understanding that it is NOT VOIP, and is quite simply a forwarding service. You can register with Google Voice to get a single number that redirects any calls/sms to that number to a different phone number of the user’s choosing.
Its as if somebody (a user) with a work mobile, a personal mobile, and a landline (so 3 different phone numbers) just told people to call MY phone number, and then based on what the user told me to do (whether by time or by incoming number) I politely redirected their calls to the appropriate phone number.
They aren’t shutting off “service” to areas, they are just saying that they don’t offer their redirection service to those areas. You can still make and receive calls from those areas directly via your telecommunications company provided service.
You are describing the main aspect of their service. To enhance the user experience, many wanted their GV phone number to appear when they call out. So they added outgoing call service as well. This aspect of the service is under question.
I think they are providing interconnect service or a calling card service. It is immaterial that the service is free: even free services are regulated.
I think GV will be exempted as long as it is only under invitation and it is generally accepted that they are conducting tests.
I don’t entirely agree, i hope the outcome of this changes these old billing systems where someone (whoever it is) is gouging to provide phone access to remote shanty towns and shacks that people choose to live in.
This is really socialist, the cost to service these remote areas should nut be a burden of the average consumer, and I don’t think it should be some cost that the telco assumes and distributes to the public (they do, they charge your bills with fees for development for these hicks).
I think that if you choose to live in the wilderness, you do so at your own cost. Maybe those people should pay 100 / mo for phone service. Regardless, its their liability, not the telco’s and CERTAINLY not the general public or the rest of the user base.
A key issue in the FCC’s investigation will be whether Google Voice is actually a commercial service that competes with traditional phone services. That will be tricky to decide, because the service is free, and Google itself hasn’t yet revealed how it’s going to earn revenue from it.
http://bit.ly/sa4B8
I agree with you Robert. At the heart of it, what if Google cloaks their disregard for (albeit costly) complainces that the traditional telcos have to align with, just until they win a signficant market share. Then, they start charging for services?
That’s what the FCC is concerned about: do free services that impact the market of paid services have an obligation to play within the same rules?
I think the general answer is ‘yes’, but the situation does require the FCC to consider whether some of the current obligations put on the Telcos are outmoded and preventing them from playing in the same field as Google.
Apple give us back our Google Voice you fucking assclowns
Google Voice is phone service designed by assclowns for assclowns, sorry kevin the assclowns. You should apply to google for the assclown position which writes attacks on competitors who are kicking their ass, clown.
thx for information
http://european...om/liujiao.html
thx for u sharing!
If GOOG is going to block on the grounds that telcos are phone service and GOOG is merely a service OVER the line then GOOG should have nothing to do with regulating service OVER the line.
If GOOG is regulating the line then GOOG is danged well a telco and danged well should be called a telco with rights to own and provide service and regulate service.
Can’t regulate what one doesn’t own. GOOG should be subject to telco rules.