Google Voice Debate Turning into Telco Tennis Match
More than two months ago, the Federal Communications Commission put Apple's and AT&T's feet under the fire, trying to find out which one of the brothers-in-arms was responsible for rejecting the Google Voice call management application. The FCC sent letters to Apple, AT&T and Google, demanding to know how Google's phone management application was shut out of the market, stirring up trouble among mobile application developers. Apple proved to be the culprit in that case, but my, how times have changed. This telco tizzy has flipped, folks. More than two weeks ago, AT&T, which Apple stuck up for, assuring the FCC the phone carrier had no say in rejecting Google Voice from the iPhone App Store, complained to the commission that Google Voice was unfairly blocking calls in rural areas. Google and other companies do this to avoid getting gouged by "traffic pumping," which allows small phone companies to charge phone companies exorbitant fees for voice connections. GigaOm has a detailed take on that practice, which the FCC expressly forbids. It was the, if-we-can't-flout-net-neutrality-why-can-they play. The FCC, observing its due diligence as a political machine, fell for it and sent Google a letter demanding to know if and how Google Voice calls are restricted, and several other things, such as:
Basically, as TechDirt pointed out, the FCC took AT&T's letter and rewrote the statements and claims as questions. The FCC could have saved itself a lot of time by forwarding AT&T's original complaint to Google with a sticky note saying asking: Is all of this true? Please explain. So, why did the FCC do this? First, the FCC is lost at sea with regard to Internet applications. They need to have this stuff explained to them, like they're 6-year-olds. That's OK, they've had decades to learn how the telcos work. This Web stuff is pretty new. Second, DSL Reports' Karl Bode has a great, if not conspiratorial, take on this, noting that the FCC letter mirrors AT&T's letter, "showing you how quickly AT&T lobbyists can get their personal bipartisan butlers in Congress to help them." Bode also notes:
Perhaps the attention will bring pressure on the FCC to finally get around to shoring up the regulatory loopholes that allow traffic pumping to occur in the first place. The FCC has been looking into refining the rules since 2007, but it's a touchy issue because such services are so popular among consumers. Regulation is inconsistent on this front, and most everybody agrees (including both AT&T and Google) that the rules allowing such services need reworking. AT&T may in fact be painting Google as the bad guy (to score points with Apple?), but Google shouldn't be allowed to block calls because Google Voice is a Web app unfettered by common carrier and net neutrality restrictions. Of course, Google and pundits accuse AT&T of unfairly using the network neutrality angle in its argument when it's actually about broken telco laws. This may be so, but the motive doesn't matter to me. Offering calling management services as a Web app to work around the carrier system is sneaky despite Whitt's amusing protestations. Restrict all or restrict none. It's just bits, as some folks say. The FCC rules that govern telco practices and data are severely wanting in balance, common sense and, most egregiously, simplicity. Chairman Julius Genachowski can't rewrite the rules fast enough, in my opinion. There is another angle at play here that merits consideration. I've already tossed out the notion that Google wants to disrupt the antiquated, old-line telco foundation. What if Google has deliberately crafted its Google Voice Web app to force the FCC to make amendments to its outdated telco rules? It's still sneaky, but it's ingenious. Given Google's smarts and savvy, I wouldn't discount it. |
Comments (5)
Google Voice is not a phone company: it provides no connectivity to anybody. It's a service that's built on top of existing phone service.
The underlying problem is, of course, the financing of rural phone access. Really, if people live in rural areas, they should bear the cost for that themselves; city dwellers shouldn't have to put up with bad air and also pay so that people can enjoy mountain vistas, clean air, and low cost phone service. But if rural phone service is to be subsidized, it should be subsidized from the general funds, not by imposing a special fee on phone carriers. After all, the policy decision to subsidize phone service is not based on enhancing phone service, it's based on some general societal goals (nebulous as they may be).
A good way of letting the rural phone service regulations die is to become increasingly lenient in enforcing them. And the sooner the better.
Posted by Mike | October 12, 2009 3:18 AM
Google Voice is a value-add on top of existing phone services. This is obvious because you must have an existing phone service (landline or mobile) in order to use the service.
As a value-add over existing service, why should they be subject to existing telco regulation? Seriously, what's your justification for this? The "problem domain" of a value-add over existing services and actual telco providers is different so you really need solid justification for why the same set of rules should apply.
Posted by Confused | October 12, 2009 3:31 AM
Too much hair splitting for my taste. Voice does a lot of things we do with our phones. being a "value add over existing service" is a loophole Google has exploited, even if it is on the up and up.
Posted by Clint Boulton
| October 12, 2009 8:19 AM
excellent points.
Posted by Clint Boulton
| October 12, 2009 8:20 AM
Clint,
As a past telco developer, Google Voice's impact is in unified communications. ATT likes to charge extra fees for forwarding, etc. Where as Vonage offers forwarding, etc in its basic plan for one fee. When Google offers forwarding, etc for free, its hitting at ATT's revenue stream.
Whether Google is using this to push the FCC into update the rules, who knows? But the rules do need updating, this is not 1865 and ATT is not the only game in town.
Wireless has further lessened need to subsidize rural land line service and the subsidy should be ended. In fact, many users, rural and city, have opted to eliminate their land lines all together. The fact that Verizon encourages users to keep their land line for 911 service at $5/month says a lot. ATT is doing nothing to stem the loss of its land lines.
And I am a Google Voice user and have always liked the idea of a single contact # which was the goal unified communications anyway. My past employer built such a system, but for voice mail only.
Posted by Past VOIP developer | October 12, 2009 12:22 PM