FCC Asks Google Battery of Questions About Call Blocking by Voice App
The FCC asked Google a series of questions about its practice of preventing calls to some phone numbers from Google Voice. AT&T last month asked the commission to investigate “call blocking” by Google Voice and to treat it and other new phone service providers the same as conventional telcos. The Wireline Bureau asked technical and other questions going to the regulatory status of Google Voice. The response is due Oct. 28, six days after an FCC meeting where the commissioners will vote on a notice of proposed rulemaking on expanded net neutrality rules.
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.
“Recent reports indicate that Google’s Google Voice service restricts calling from consumers to certain rural communities,” said a letter to Google by Wireline Bureau Chief Sharon Gillett. “In light of pending Commission proceedings regarding concerns about so called ‘access stimulation,’ the Commission’s prohibition on call blocking by carriers, as well as the Commission’s interest in ensuring that ‘broadband networks are widely deployed, open, affordable, and accessible to all consumers,’ we are interested in gathering facts that can provide a more complete understanding of this situation.”
The letter asks Google how it believes “its various Google Voice services fit within the statutory classifications in the Communications Act of 1934 … and the Commission’s regulatory classifications.” The letter asks what Google means when it says the service is “by ‘invitation-only.” It continues: “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?” The letter asks whether Google tells users about limitations on calls they can make.
The letter also asks a series of technical questions: “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? 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?”
Rick Whitt, Google’s Washington telecom and media counsel, defended the service in a blog entry after the letter was made public. “The reason we restrict calls to certain local phone carriers’ numbers is simple,” he said. “Not only do they charge exorbitant termination rates for calls, but they also partner with adult sex chat lines and ‘free’ conference calling centers to drive high volumes of traffic. This practice has been called ‘access stimulation’ or ’traffic pumping’ (clearly by someone with a sense of humor). Google Voice is a free application and we want to keep it that way for all our users -- which we could not afford to do if we paid these ludicrously high charges.”
Whitt took a shot at AT&T. “Some have pointed out that AT&T’s complaints are hypocritical given that in the past they have asked the FCC for permission to block calls to these rural areas as well,” he said. “AT&T apparently now wants web applications -- from Skype to Google Voice -- to be treated the same way as traditional phone services.” The approach is what former FCC Chairman William Kennard called “regulatory capitalism” -- “the practice of using regulation to block or slow down innovation,” Whitt said. “And despite AT&T’s lobbying efforts, this issue has nothing to do with network neutrality or rural America. This is about outdated carrier compensation rules that are fundamentally broken and in need of repair by the FCC.”
“The FCC’s Wireline Competition Bureau today asked some very legitimate questions about the nature of Google Voice,” Public Knowledge said. “We should be clear that the Commission’s inquiry has nothing to do with issues of an open, non-discriminatory Internet, as AT&T alleged when it brought the issue of Google Voice to the Commission’s attention last month. Neither does it have anything to do with denying service to rural customers, as others have said. It has to do with the clash between traditional telephone services and new technological realities.”
The letter “echoes the August inquiry to Apple, AT&T, and Google regarding Apple’s decision whether to allow Google Voice on the iPhone.” Stifel Nicolaus said in a research note. “Similarly, today’s letter, although over a relatively minor aspect of a relatively minor service, raises an issue of far greater magnitude: the scope of the agency’s regulatory authority, and the continued erosion of lines dividing regulated and unregulated services as the Internet ecosystem continues to multiply and divide.”
An AT&T spokesman said the company has no comment beyond its filing last month. USTelecom also declined to comment. - - Howard Buskirk