VoIP Tech Chat

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…