The 36 page ruling written by Judge Tatel (download here), cites many cases and regulations concerning both the FCC and their powers. While acknowledging that Congress gave the FCC broad powers to regulate rapidly changing technology, the Court stated that the FCC failed to tie it’s authority to regulate Comcast’s Internet service to any “statutorily mandated responsibility.”

Although I wished to have a stronger decision for Net Neutrality, I do welcome the reigning in of the FCC. It’s a lose/lose case (in my humble opinion). Either Comcast loses and the FCC grows stronger. Or Comcast wins and Net Neutrality grows weaker. Can’t say that the Average Joe would have won in the long run either way.

Additional Information:

• Download the Court ruling (VoIP Tech Chat)
• Court: FCC has no power to regulate Net Neutrality (cNet)
• US court rules against FCC on ‘net neutrality’ (AP via Yahoo!)

Be careful out there

A older scam gains popularity — or at least that’s what recent reports indicate. Targeting American cellphones, the goal of the scam is to have you make an international call and rack up your phone bill. Here’s how it works:

1. Your phone rings and becomes a missed call within 2 rings
2. You call back the number, assuming it’s in the US
3. Your phone bill imitates Cheech and Chong (aka becomes very high)

The recommendation is that you only call back numbers you either recognize or can identify by area code.

Here’s the FCC release:

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has recently learned that an old long distance phone scam that leads consumers to incur high charges on their phone bills may now affect wireless consumers. In the past, consumers have been fooled into making expensive international calls by scam artists who leave messages on consumers’ answering machines or their e-mail accounts. The messages urge consumers to call a number with an “809,” “284,” “876,” or some other area code to collect a prize, find out about a sick relative, or engage in sex talk.

Wireless consumers are now receiving similar calls from phone numbers with three-digit area codes that appear to be domestic, but are actually associated with international pay-per-call phone numbers. While wireless companies are working to block suspicious numbers on their networks, some consumers may become victims of this scam.

The Scam Works Something Like This:

• Your wireless phone rings once or twice and then disconnects the call. When the number appears in your wireless phone log as a missed call, it appears to be a typical domestic telephone number starting with a “649” area code; or you get an e-mail or voicemail (on your residential wired telephone) telling you to call a phone number with an “809”, “284”, “876,” or some other three-digit international area code.
• When you return the call, you assume you are making a domestic long distance call – as “649,” “809,” “284,” “876,” and other area codes involved in this scam, appear to be typical three-digit U.S. area codes.
• When you dial the three-digit area code plus the number, however, you are connected to a phone number outside the United States, often in Canada or the Caribbean, and are charged expensive international call rates, and may be charged for pay-per-call services as well. (In this case, “649” goes to the Turks and Caicos, “809” goes to the Dominican Republic, “284” goes to the British Virgin Islands, and “876” goes to Jamaica.)
• You don’t find out about the higher international call rates until you receive your phone bill.

What You Can Do to Minimize the Risk of This Happening to You:

Check any unfamiliar area codes before returning calls.

Be aware that there are many 3-digit area codes (mostly in the Caribbean) that connect callers to international telephone numbers.

If you do not otherwise make international calls, ask your local or wireless phone company to block outgoing international calls on your line.

Filing a Complaint with the FCC

If you are billed for a call you made as a result of this scam, first try to resolve the matter with your telephone company. If you are unable to resolve it directly, you can file a complaint with the FCC. There is no charge for filing a complaint. You can file your complaint using an FCC on-line complaint form found at esupport.fcc.gov/complaints.htm. You can also file your complaint with the FCC’s Consumer Center by e-mailing fccinfo@fcc.gov; calling 1-888-CALL-FCC (1-888-225-5322) voice or 1-888-TELL-FCC (1-888-835-5322) TTY; faxing 1-866-418-0232; or writing to:

Federal Communications Commission
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau
Consumer Inquiries and Complaints Division
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554.

The best way to provide all the information the FCC needs to process your complaint is to complete fully the on-line complaint form. When you open the on-line complaint form, you will be asked a series of questions that will take you to the particular section of the form you need to complete. If you do not use the on-line complaint form, your complaint, at a minimum, should indicate:

• your name, address, e-mail address, and phone number where you can be reached;
• the telephone and account numbers that are the subject of your complaint;
• the name and phone numbers of any companies involved with your complaint;
• the amount of any disputed charges, whether you paid them, whether you received a refund or adjustment to your bill, the amount of any adjustment or refund you have received, an explanation if the disputed charges are related to services in addition to residential or business telephone services; and
• the details of your complaint and any additional relevant information.

Filing a Complaint with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)

If you feel that you are a victim of an international phone scam, you can file a complaint with the FTC online at https://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov. You can also submit a complaint by calling the FTC toll-free at 1-877-382-4357 (voice) or 1-866-653-4261 (TTY), or writing to:

Federal Trade Commission
CRC – 240
600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20580.

For More Information

For information about other telecommunications issues, visit the FCC’s Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau Web site at www.fcc.gov/cgb, or contact the FCC’s Consumer Center using the information provided for filing a complaint.

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…

Look. Its Kevin Martin of the FCC. Hi Kevin.

The US Congress Committee on Energy and Commerce released a scathing report of the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) under Chairman Kevin Martin. The report, titled “Deception and Distrust: The Federal Communications System Under Chairman Kevin J. Martin” (sounds like a Lifetime movie), harshly criticizes both the FCC and Kevin Martin. Although, from the title alone, you had to have guessed the report wasn’t going to be flattering.

The committee found (among other things):

• FCC Chairman Kevin Martin manipulated, withheld, or suppressed data, reports, and information from other FCC commissioners and Congress.
• Important Commission matters have not been handled in an open and transparent manner; raising suspicions on unfair treatment.
• The Commission has failed to carry out important responsibilities regarding oversight of the Telecommunications Relay Service Fund (allowing customers to be overcharged while companies are overcompensated).
• FCC Chairman Kevin Martin’s “heavy-handed” management style has created distrust, suspicion, and turmoil among the five current Commissioners.
• Commission staff have not been efficiently managed.

The report uses such statements as “classic fleecing of America” (regarding overcharging customers), “undermined the ability of the FCC to accomplish its mission” (describing Martin’s management style), and “Chairman Martin’s manipulation of the Second Report calls into question the reliability of telecommunications information and analysis provided by the FCC to Congress.” Ouch.

The investigation was launched after allegations were received from FCC employees (current and former), other FCC Commissioners, and telecom reps. The Bi-Partisan Congressional committee launched the investigation in January, however did not hold the typically expected hearings “due to the climate of fear that pervades the FCC.” Apparently, witnesses were too scared to publicly testify.

The FCC provides authoritative rule making over VoIP, telecommunications (such as Cable, Wireless Phones, Telephones, POTS, etc.), television, and almost some part of electronic life that we touch daily.

More reading:

• Download the Report (PDF)
• CNET.com: Congressional report: FCC chair abused power
• Associated Press: House report finds leadership breakdown at FCC

Although the FCC does not have a track record of following public opinion, it never hurts to try. Listening to one person’s voice versus a heavy lobbyist? Chances are very, very, very small that our Mr. Smith’s opinion will prevail — but then again, without voicing at all, the chance is zero.

Proposals range from taxing a flat fee of $1.00/month per telephone number to a cap of fees at $0.0007 per minute.

Our proposal is no taxes on telecommunication. Period.

By the way, for more information on how a bill becomes a law, please listen, read, and buy School House Rock’s “I’m Just a Bill.” Everyone together now, I’m just a bill, Yes I’m only a bill….

So, back in 2005 when Vonage started gaining popularity in the residential telephone game, the FCC decided that VoIP providers should be required to provide enhanced 911 to their subscribers by 2006. Well, VoIP providers did their best, but 911 routing definitely does not come in a one-size-fits-all type of system. Every 911 center has their own integration and traditionally had been controlled specifically by brick and mortar POTS companies; who weren’t super pleased with integrating their services to companies stealing their customers.

VoIP providers asked the FCC for extensions and basically Congress came in and decided that more laws should be created to help the process.

The Act (H.R. 3403) requires the FCC to regulate VoIP to 911 connectivity and ensure VoIP providers receive access to 911 and enhanced 911 centers.The bill also sets into place how much local governments can charge VoIP carriers for these connections.

So, the bottom line?

Get ready for improved access to 911 from VoIP providers and get ready for more 911 taxes on your VoIP line.

A copy of the 911 Modernization and Public Safety Act of 2007 report can be downloaded right here from VoIP Tech Chat.