Google Voice Should Be Treated Like Other Phone Service, AT&T Tells FCC
AT&T asked the FCC to investigate “call blocking” by Google Voice and to treat that company and other new phone service providers the same as traditional telcos. AT&T said Google Voice and others also should be covered by a June 2007 Wireline Bureau order prohibiting “self help actions such as call blocking.” Google replied that Google Voice is fundamentally different from AT&T voice service.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
The AT&T arguments highlight what is expected to be a recurring argument by wireline and wireless carriers as the debate begins on new net neutrality rules proposed by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski Monday: The rules for conventional phone companies should apply to new players like Google Voice and Skype.
“As Internet apps like Google Voice start threatening carriers’ revenues, carriers are pushing back and arguing for comparable regulatory treatment,” Washington Research Group analyst Paul Gallant said. “AT&T’s request is probably the beginning of a larger debate about how the FCC should classify Google Voice and perhaps other voice apps.”
“We've been complaining about access pumping for a long time,” Robert Quinn, AT&T senior vice president, said in an interview Friday. “How can Google be blocking calls to these numbers?” Google argues “that they can do it because they are a Title 1 service,” he said. Even if the company has a Title 1 service, allowing Google Voice to block calls that AT&T must complete would be inconsistent with the fourth net neutrality principle, which requires fair competition among application providers, Quinn said.
“Google is systematically blocking telephone calls from consumers that use Google Voice to call telephone numbers in certain rural communities,” AT&T told the FCC by letter Friday. “By blocking these calls, Google is able to reduce its access expenses. Google Voice thus has claimed for itself a significant advantage over providers offering competing services.”
Google has had a contradictory message, AT&T said. “Google is … flouting the so-called ‘fifth principle of non-discrimination’ for which Google has so fervently advocated,” the letter said. “According to Google, non- discrimination ensures that a provider ‘cannot block fair access’ to another provider. But that is exactly what Google is doing when it blocks calls that Google Voice customers make to telephone numbers associated with certain local exchange carriers.”
AT&T said the best course would be for the FCC “to end, once and for all, the patently unlawful ’traffic pumping’ schemes that drive carriers to block calls in the first place. … There are several sound proposals and copious data in the record that provide a basis for expeditious action.”
Google agrees 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,” Rick Whitt, Google’s Washington telecom and media counsel, said in response to the AT&T letter. But he also said the Google Voice Service isn’t the same as AT&T phone service.
“Unlike traditional carriers, Google Voice is a free, Web-based software application, and so not subject to common carrier laws,” Whitt said. “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.”
Public Knowledge Legal Director Harold Feld said the AT&T arguments are a “red herring,” intended to make the net neutrality fight about Google. “If they think Google Voice is a Title II service, let them file a petition for declaratory ruling and get in line behind our petition to have SMS text messaging declared a Title II service,” he said. “A letter in a docket is all well and good, but if they want specific action they should go about it properly and not jump the queue.”
“Google’s position is really rooted in the 1980 computer II decision and the decisions of the FCC that essentially said that applications like its application could avoid being treated like a common carrier,” Free State Foundation President Randolph May said. “It just illustrates that in today’s digital environment that distinction doesn’t make any sense at all. It requires making essentially metaphysical type arguments that have no relevance a competition analysis and the competitive environment that we live in.”
“The hubris of Google’s ‘do as I say, not as I do’ approach to public policy would be laughable if it were not so serious,” USTelecom President Walter McCormick said. “In offering voice service, and then engaging in call blocking … the nation’s number one promoter of increased broadband regulation has arrogated to itself freedom from existing telecommunications regulation, a personal exemption from the FCC’s Internet principles, and a pass on the public interest in competitive parity.”