FCC looking into Google Voice and rural calls

Should Google Voice have to follow the same rules as AT&T?

(Credit: Screenshot by Tom Krazit/CNET)

The Federal Communications Commission is looking into how Google Voice treats calls to certain rural areas that landline phone companies are required to connect.

AT&T placed this complaint before the FCC, accusing Google of failing to live up to the Net neutrality rules it has long supported before the U.S. government. On Thursday, several members of Congress implored the FCC to look into the matter, and their concerns have been heard, according to a report from the Associated Press that Google has confirmed.

The dispute is over Google's practice of blocking calls to certain rural phone networks that are allowed to charge a disproportionately high rate for calls connected to those networks. Some rural carriers, in a practice known as traffic pumping about which AT&T has long complained, partner with companies that draw a high volume of network traffic, such as phone sex operators and conference-calling firms, charge a much higher connection rate, then split the revenue with them.

AT&T is required to connect such calls because it is considered a "common carrier" that is required to ensure open access to networks that were created with public money. "By openly flaunting the call-blocking prohibition that applies to its competitors, Google is acting in a manner inconsistent with the spirit, if not the letter, of the FCC's fourth principle contained in its Internet Policy Statement," Robert Quinn, AT&T's senior vice president focusing on federal regulation, said in a statement last month when it filed its original complaint with the FCC.

Google argues that it is not subject to the same laws because it's a software company and because Google Voice doesn't replace phone service; it still requires phone service to work properly. It addressed the inquiry in a blog post Friday.

"AT&T apparently now wants Web applications--from Skype to Google Voice--to be treated the same way as traditional phone services," wrote Richard Whitt, Google's Washington media and telecom counsel. "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 This is about outdated carrier compensation rules that are fundamentally broken and in need of repair by the FCC."

So now it appears that the FCC will attempt to referee the matter. Google's no stranger to federal authorities at the moment, with just about everything it does falling under the watchful eye of an administration that seems determined to examine dominant companies in the tech industry.

[slickuser]

calls are calls. it doesn't matter how they are placed. Investigate Google!

[tm_anon]

Unless you have Google Voice running completely by itself, no external telephone network connected to it, then your argument doesn't work.

A call is a call, sure. The difference between using Google Voice and using AT&T to place is a call is just the number. You've still got the pay AT&T.

Now, if AT&T will be willing to forward payments from customers since they are using a completely separate telephone network (at least, if AT&T's argument is to be believed), then I'd say Google should connect the calls. Otherwise, it's a free service which forwards calls to your phones, all of which must be functioning, provided by you, with a working telephone number to be forwarded to.

[cmiller57]

Have to agree with google here. They are not a provider but an aggregator to existing voice accounts, be they POTS, cellular, VOiP, etc. The question is...why would someone use GV to connect some of these calls instead of directly from their POTS or mobile phone?

[tm_anon]

Using GV allows you to switch phones mid-call. That's one very good reason why I could see making a call using the service.

[MagiMamoru]

With the WiMax network slowly being built, isn't this rather pointless?

[eswinson]

WiMAX is only the "last mile" and is irrelevant for this application as this is mainly IP to POTS/Mobile. Additionally WiMAX is not best suited for heavy VoIP traffic almost for the same reasons as GSM/CDMA is not suited for high bandwidth data. It will be one day but for now sick to cable and fiber if you can.

[bxwatso]

Most people are probably not aware of the call completion scam that is rural telecom. Rural carriers sometimes charge 100x the price to complete an inbound call than can a non-rural carrier (like AT&T).

The rurals are politically protected and get away with charging up to $.25 per minute to complete calls. That is why nobody likes to send calls to them, but the FCC forces it.

[OctoChops]

just another area of technological blur. google will get out of this fine.

[gthiruva]

I hope by investigating this, the FCC will be actually be probing the rural phone carriers' traffic pumping fraud - this is the root of the problem. Eliminate the fraud and AT&T will have nothing to complain about with regard to the termination rules. Furthermore, Google will also connect those calls since it won't cost an arm and a leg for a free service.

In the end it's the rural customer that's the victim here. Local phone service is still a monopoly. They can't ditch the land line and switch to cellular since since rural coverage is bad. So they're stuck with a fraud-ridden telecom company and new technologies like Google Voice are financially prohibited from terminating calls to them.

[Police_States_of_America]

i hope this doesnt result in Google Voice, a FREE service being shut down

[libertyforall1776]

Give me a break! GV is not even open to general user sign-up yet!

[EvanSei]

exactly

[dennisheadley]

I'm not against Google on this as I am not sure how the wording of the regulations apply in this case. I'll leave that up to the FCC as it should be. They use the FCC when they want something their way so it is only fair that others can do so also. That is what they are there for after all.

I am against all these "its a BETA product so it is exempt" , "its invitation only" or the best "its not open to the general public" excuses. They cry all the way to the FCC about not being able to offer their app to 20+ million iPhone users and have released Google voice apps on other smart phone platforms, BUT its not really available to the general public "wink, wink".

I am as OK with Google as I am with any other for-profit corporation, but I personally feel that they have never done anything to warrant getting a break on any rules.

If something is being applied to anyone else than it definitely should be applied to them. They should never be allowed to have a product in the market that competes with any other company regardless of size without being held fully accountable to all the same rules and regulations.

If some small software company is making a living serving 100k customers with a product, Google or any other company should never be allowed to serve tens of millions of people for any extended length of time and call it a "beta" product to avoid certain negative aspects of the competing services.

[EvanSei]

google is not an actual phone company, they are not available for everybody (still by invite) and they are FREE come on people!

[stjohnson14]

What many forget, is that rural maintenance and operation is very expensive. Moreso than in urban areas. Fewer people and larger geographies is harder and more expensive to deal with. They do have a right to charge more for call termination. But, the monopolistic operation of these rural carriers does lend to corruption and one would be ignorant to believe that they would regulate themselves with the customer's best interests in mind. It is time to revisit that and hopefully a positive outcome will be spurred from all of this. But that's hardly guaranteed. So ATT has a point, if they have to pay it, Google should as well instead of being able to selectively boycott certain area codes.. The solution is to charge the higher tariffs to GV callers wishing to call these rural areas. This way GV would not need to boycott and the world would be happy. You don't get something for nothing, and if you're not going to pay for it Google doesn't need to foot the bill for your call.

[tm_anon]

GV is not a carrier, they're an aggregator. You must have telephone service prior to connecting to GV.

Since they're not providing infrastructure, not charging to connect your calls, not controlling your line access, not sending you a monthly bill for any reason, they shouldn't be forced to connect calls anywhere.

ATT, on the other hand, provides infrastructure, charges to connect calls, controls your line access, sends you a monthly bill and is forced to connect calls to these rural areas, just like every other carrier.

Personally, if Google were a carrier, I'd use the service. Judging from most of the products I've seen come from Google, the service would be outstanding.

[Darthfett]

I'm calling Google Voice. I'm not even technically calling the rural Phone Carriers. Google Voice just happens to not forward me to them.

Should the FCC also investigate people who refuse to give a friend's Ex their friend's phone number?

[richard993]

Sorry but the article is really confusing... I had to read the link to the other article to understand what you are saying. So the problem is that Google is not allowing equal access to all carriers or all regions. They are targeting cheaper connection rates so that they can advertise lower rates than AT&T, whereas AT&T must comply with regulations and allow access to all regions regardless of the cost of the connection fee. Assuming I've got it right, then it shouldn't be too difficult to rule Google as being in violation of the FCC rules. I should be able to call any number (VOIP or otherwise) and the call should be connected unless the person on the other end has set up his line so that he blocks my calls. If there is a hospital that I wish to call because my mother is ill, or if I want to call my relatives because of some emergency, what right does Google have to block my call? I think this is a serious problem and Google should not be allowed to get away with it, even though they are only a small player and not a telco, they can't hide behind software and VOIP to get away with violating FCC rules.

[psm0110]

As Google is finding out with Books, Newspapers, and now telephony, there is a huge about of regulation and case law that must be addressed. Sometimes this mega-huge-company acts like a teenager releasing little cool apps without thinking about the legal ramification or impact on the industry. You can't cry "but I'm just a little software firm" everytime - no one is buying it anymore. Especially with telecom, understanding the regs is a specialty in itself - and ATT is just being diligent, they won't want to be found at fault for allowing a non-complaint piece of software running on its network.

[perfectblue97]

I'm with Google on this. Google voice is a free is a data service, not a carrier or an infrastructure provider. The FCC needs to stop messing about with sour grape complaints and to start looking at important issues.

Making demands like this on Google is like demanding that Blockbu delivers to oil rigs or remote islands with no regular postal service. Nobody is expecting Net Flix to charter a boat to an off shore rig, so why should Google pay a premium to deliver voice calls?

People need to stop confusing essential service such as voice calls with luxury services such as mobile VOIP.