In case you’re living under a rock, here’s the 20 word or less version:

Google Voice blocks numbers that have high fees, such as free conference calls, etc. AT&T hates this. (17 Words)

So, remember how Google wrote that letter to the FCC complaining that AT&T blocked it’s voice app? Well, look at those tables and watch them turn. FCC now gets to play mommy/daddy to AT&T complaining about Google’s blocking of numbers that AT&T is required to connect.

FCC Letter to Google

(download the pdf)

…To that end, please provide answers to the following questions by close of business on Wednesday, October 28, 2009.

1. We understand that Google Voice offers a number of different functionalities, including: (a) the ability to have calls to a Google Voice telephone number forwarded to designated telephone numbers; (b) the ability to place outgoing calls from the Google Voice website; (c) the ability to place outgoing calls from the Google Voice mobile site; and (d) the ability to place outgoing calls by calling your own Google number and signing into the Google voicemail system.
   • (i) For each of these functionalities, and any other functionalities that allow Google Voice users to place calls, please describe how the Google Voice call is routed and whether calls to particular telephone numbers are restricted. For each functionality for which calls to particular telephone numbers are restricted, please describe the technological means by which those restrictions are implemented.
   • (ii) How does Google inform Google Voice users about any restrictions in the numbers to which calls can be placed using Google Voice?
   • (iii) To what extent are each of these Google Voice functionalities offered for free? To what extent, if any, does Google charge for any of these services? Does Google intend to charge at some point for the service? How does Google currently pay for the service?
2. Please explain specifically what is meant by “invitation-only.” How many users of Google Voice are there at this time? Are there any plans to offer Google Voice on other than an invitation-only basis?
3. How does Google believe its various Google Voice services fit within the statutory classifications in the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act) and the Commission’s regulatory classifications (e.g., interconnected VoIP)?6 Do you believe its “invitation-only” subscribership affects the classification of Google Voice in any way? If so, please explain. Does the Google Voice service compete with any services classified as “telecommunications services” under the Act? Is Google Voice a reseller of “telecommunications services?” Please explain your answers.
4. How does Google identify the telephone numbers to which it restricts calls? Does it restrict calls to individual telephone numbers, or to particular exchanges or NPA-NXXs? Why does Google Voice restrict calls to these numbers?
5. Does Google contract with third parties to obtain inputs for its Google Voice service, such as access to telephone numbers, transmission of telephone calls, and interconnection with local telephone networks? Please provide the names of such third parties.

…

There’s a lot more in the letter… and you can download it here.

Google Responds…

I can’t seem to find the “official” response, but here’s what google posted on their blog:

Response to AT&T’s letter to FCC on Google Voice

Friday, September 25, 2009 at 4:13 PM ET

Posted by Richard Whitt, Washington Telecom and Media Counsel

This afternoon AT&T filed a letter with the Federal Communications Commission, alleging that Google Voice is preventing its users from making outbound calls to certain phone numbers with inflated access charges, and asking the Commission to intervene.

Here’s the quick background: Local telephone carriers charge long-distance companies for originating and terminating calls to and from their networks. Certain local carriers in rural areas charge AT&T and other long-distance companies especially high rates to connect calls to their networks. Sometimes these local carriers partner and share revenue with adult chat services, conference calling centers, party lines, and others that are able to attract lots of incoming phone calls to their networks.

Under the common carrier laws, AT&T and other traditional phone companies are required to connect these calls. In the past they’ve argued that these rural carriers are abusing the system to “establish grossly excessive access charges under false pretenses,” and to “offer kickbacks to operators of pornographic chat lines and other calling services.” (This is a complicated issue, but these articles from USA Today and the Associated Press explain it well.)

We agree with AT&T that the current carrier compensation system is badly flawed, and that the single best answer is for the FCC to take the necessary steps to fix it.

So how does any of this relate to Google Voice?

Google Voice’s goal is to provide consumers with free or low-cost access to as many advanced communications features as possible. In order to do this, Google Voice does restrict certain outbound calls from our Web platform to these high-priced destinations. But despite AT&T’s efforts to blur the distinctions between Google Voice and traditional phone service, there are many significant differences:

Unlike traditional carriers, Google Voice is a free, Web-based software application, and so not subject to common carrier laws.

Google Voice is not intended to be a replacement for traditional phone service — in fact, you need an existing land or wireless line in order to use it. Importantly, users are still able to make outbound calls on any other phone device.

Google Voice is currently invitation-only, serving a limited number of users.

AT&T is trying to make this about Google’s support for an open Internet, but the comparison just doesn’t fly. The FCC’s open Internet principles apply only to the behavior of broadband carriers — not the creators of Web-based software applications. Even though the FCC does not have jurisdiction over how software applications function, AT&T apparently wants to use the regulatory process to undermine Web-based competition and innovation.

* Note: This blog post was updated at 4:55 PM ET to clarify the FCC’s open Internet principles.

Additional readings:

• Google’s Blog Post
• VoIP Watch – Andy Abramson’s 2 cents
• Exhaustive Articles…

What? Where?

On Sunday December 29th, Level3 Communications, one of the largest IP transit networks in North America and Europe, suffered an outage affecting sites such as ESPN, Amazon, and CNN. Noticeable missing from Level3? Any official acknowledgment or discussion of the incident; and an outage that disrupts ESPN on a Sunday will definitely be noticed.

When one of the largest internet backbones shows trouble, there are two ways to handle the situation (after fixing the issue of course). The first would be what we here call the “Duck and Cover” method (sometimes referred to as the Vinnie Barbarino approach). In this method, the company either makes no mention of the incident or does a classic Vinnie impersonation… such as:

Concerned User: I think there’s an outage.
Level3: What? Where?
Concerned User: I think there’s a problem with the network.
Level3: I’m So Confused. 
(mugs to the camera and audience goes crazy)

The other approach would be to acknowledge the incident, explain what is known, and explain what will be done in the future to prevent similar issues. This approach is, to paraphrase Billy Joel, is hardly ever heard but mostly what we need. We’re not sure why so few companies use the “acknowledge” approach — maybe it’s an old school, big business ideal that’s ingrained into company culture, but who knows? Open source companies, such as Digium, tend to disclose issues and discuss them, well, openly.

Open discussion tends not to turn folks away. Problems happen. How companies handle issues can either increase customer loyalty or send customers searching for alternatives. In our tech circles, most people seem to embrace the companies they can trust — and those companies tend to avoid the duck and cover approach.

So, where does that leave us with Level3?

Well, sadly, Level3 reminds us that your VoIP powered telephone system depends on Internet. Choosing several providers can certainly increase uptime, and choosing a company you can rely on will certainly help you sleep better at night. As for the 12/29 incident, we here (much like others) can only speculate. Current theories suggest a weather storm in Michigan may have been ground zero.

Other readings:

• Level3 Press Releases (notice no mention) 
• TechCrunch reports “The Tubes are Clogged”
• Broadband Reports “Outages Plague AT&T and Level3”
• SANS “Level3 Outage Confirmed”
• Slashdot “Storm Causes AT&T Outage Across Midwest”

About Level3:

Level 3 Communications (Nasdaq: LVLT) is an international communications company headquartered in Broomfield, Colorado. The company operates one of the largest communications and Internet backbones in the world.

Broadsoft announced the acquisition of competing company Sylantro Systems. In a press release shortly before the New Year, Broadsoft states:

“Sylantro has been a strong competitor of BroadSoft for 10 years. This acquisition further advances our market and innovative leadership position.”

Broadsoft provides VoIP application software, including the “flagship” BroadWorks platform. Marketing as Carrier Grade, Broadsoft provides a license based VoIP platform for many telecommunication carriers; with a list available at their website (broadsoft.com). Sylantro Systems also provides VoIP software to many carriers including AT&T and Quest. Their website is located at sylantro.com.

Payment terms and personnel were not discussed in the release; although Broadsoft did announce that it intends to support the Sylantro platform through direct sales and authorized partners.

Citing “economic pressures, a changing business mix and a more streamlined organizational structure,” AT&T announced today the elimination of 12,000 jobs; or approximately 4% of their workers.

The layoffs start this month and continue throughout 2009. A 4th Quarter 2008 allocation of 600 million dollars will be used for severance packages.

Although AT&T did not identify the specific areas of the layoffs, they did mention that new jobs will be added in the wireless, video, and broadband sections of the company. Our best guess shows that most reductions will most likely occur within the landline areas of AT&T.

AT&T ends their announcement with the following:

Many nonmanagement employees affected by these reductions have a guaranteed job offer under union contracts. All employees will receive severance in accordance with management policies or union agreements.

For more information, read their press release.

Hotspot users, there’s a new merger in town. Andy Abramson at VoIP Watch shares his views on the new merger. He also uses the word Machiavellian. Very nice.

Pike & Fischer recently published their Residential VoIP Market Outlook. The reports advises that more than 8.5 million household will start using VoIP within 2 years — bringing the estimated number of US residential VoIP users to 30 million by 2010. Clearly 2010 will be a VoIP odyssey.

Traditional POTS providers such as at&t and Verizon will notice decreasing numbers of residential customers while stand alone VoIP providers (such as Vonage, Packet 8, and voip.com), Cable companies, and wireless providers pick up the slack.

Imagine this scenario — You’re the bus driver. At your first stop, half of your passengers get off the bus and none get on. You keep driving and on the next stop, half of the remaining passengers get off, and again, no new passengers get on the bus. At the next stop, the same thing happens. You keep seeing passengers get off the bus, but no one is getting on. Now, what do you do? If you’re at&t, you raise the price of bus service. (For extra credit, who’s the bus driver?)

The Tennessean posted today that at&t is raising the rates of basic phone service and calling features in the hopes of increasing profits. Although basic phone service would increase by “pennies,” other features would see a much more significant increase. For example, Caller ID and Call Forwarding would increase about a dollar and bundle packs would increase about 2 dollars. Oh, and at&t reported a profit of 3.46 billion dollars — in just the first quarter.

So now, you’re a landline service provider. People are dropping landline service for VoIP and Wireless Only plans. You’re making an average of just over a billion dollars a month profit. You want that number to increase. So, you raise rates? Wouldn’t that make people jump ship even more? So, instead of making your services more attractive, you’re going to jack up prices on your loyal customers who are chosing to stay with you despite cheaper alternatives. Nice.

We love this quote:

A spokeswoman for AT&T, Dawn Benton, said the company’s decision to raise rates had nothing to do with the loss of landlines.

“Our focus is to bring greater value to our plans: a unified portfolio, greater consistency and simpler pricing right up front,” she said in a statement. “Even with these changes, we still offer some of the best values and offers in the market today.”

VoIP providers like voip.com, Vonage, and Packet8 bundle residential service and include more features than you’ll ever need. Oh, and most plans include long distance, too. Someone needs to help Dawn Benton find a clue.