rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | AT&T has a point... I'm not sure if Google can/should be classified the same as AT&T and held to the same rules. However it should be vigorously debated whether or not the FCC should force AT&T (or any other carrier) to connect calls to a "rural provider" (using this term loosely) that charges excessive interconnect fees.
Somehow market forces are not in play. That is, normally the fear of a reciprocating fee would seem adequate to keep interconnect fees fair and balanced. However, that only works if the "rural provider" has balanced incoming and outgoing call volumes. If the rural provider is specifically hosting large inbound call services with relatively little outbound call services, there is little incentive to keep fees reasonable.
Somehow we need to restore competitive forces. If AT&T and other carriers cannot block the calls, perhaps they can exclude them from their "unlimited" long distance plans. If folks paid long distance charges on these calls, competitive forces would be restored and these services would quickly move to host their offerings with local numbers and issue would go away. | |
|
  kapilThe Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL | Re: AT&T has a point... AT&T most certainly does not have a point. AT&T is a regulated phone company - a "common carrier". It HAS to interconnect with every provider. Google, on the other hand is a software company...it is under no obligation to do so. Not saying what Google isn't being a hypocrite....just that the legality of AT&T's point is a little weak.
--
»www.VoIPTrunk.com | |
|
 |
1 edit | Re: AT&T has a point... said by kapil:AT&T most certainly does not have a point. AT&T is a regulated phone company - a "common carrier". It HAS to interconnect with every provider. Google, on the other hand is a software company...it is under no obligation to do so. Not saying what Google isn't being a hypocrite....just that the legality of AT&T's point is a little weak. VOIP providers, including Google with its Google Voice service(and it is a service & NOT just software), should follow the very same rules that apply to AT&T, Verizon, Qwest, etc. They all provide phone service and should face the same regulatory rules.
»AT&T wants Net Neutrality to apply to Google & others
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
| |
|
| | kapilThe Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL | Re: AT&T has a point... We "should" do a lot of things when it comes to sensible regulation of and restraint on commerce.
Level playing field. It's a bitch, ain't it.
ILECs are getting screwed by the same rules they bought with lobbying dollars...sweet irony.
--
»www.VoIPTrunk.com | |
|
| | KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | no honestly what should be done is the FCC should step in on these local carriers that charge extra extra high connect fees. they dont charge them out of operating costs they charge them because of their conference call partners.
if anything the FCC should regulate interconnect fees rather then forcing google to connect with someone who clearly makes connecting over priced compared to the rest of the industry.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
| | | | | Re: AT&T has a point... said by Kearnstd:no honestly what should be done is the FCC should step in on these local carriers that charge extra extra high connect fees. they dont charge them out of operating costs they charge them because of their conference call partners. if anything the FCC should regulate interconnect fees rather then forcing google to connect with someone who clearly makes connecting over priced compared to the rest of the industry. Looks like you are going to get your wish:
»Traffic pumping ruling in Iowa
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
| |
|
| |  firephotoKDEPremium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA
 ·Frontier Communi..
| said by fAcEtIOUs:VOIP providers, including Google with its Google Voice service(and it is a service & NOT just software), should follow the very same rules that apply to AT&T, Verizon, Qwest, etc. They all provide phone service and should face the same regulatory rules. » AT&T wants Net Neutrality to apply to Google & others I can't use google voice for telephone calls unless I have telephone service with someone else. Google does not provide me telephone service. Period. I get managment of voice calls and some network features and text and media aren't regulated telephone service.
--
Say no to JAMS! | |
|
| | |
2 edits | Re: AT&T has a point... said by firephoto:said by fAcEtIOUs:VOIP providers, including Google with its Google Voice service(and it is a service & NOT just software), should follow the very same rules that apply to AT&T, Verizon, Qwest, etc. They all provide phone service and should face the same regulatory rules. » AT&T wants Net Neutrality to apply to Google & others I can't use google voice for telephone calls unless I have telephone service with someone else. Google does not provide me telephone service. Period. I get managment of voice calls and some network features and text and media aren't regulated telephone service. You get FREE unlimited long distance VOICE calls(in the US) from Google Voice. That is more than call mgt. That makes them a long distance telephone carrier.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
| |
|
| | | | kapilThe Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL | Re: AT&T has a point... said by fAcEtIOUs:That makes them a long distance telephone carrier. No. It doesn't. And you know that. Google isn't a LEC...it uses an underlying, fully licensed local exchange carrier for its telephony services. Google's product merely enhances telephony services.
Again, what Google's doing is hypocritical....but it's not what AT&T is trying to pin on them.
--
»www.VoIPTrunk.com | |
|
Reviews:
 ·Verizon Wireless..
| Is it relevant that for domestic local and long distance calling Google Voice has operated up to this point as a no-charge service? Perhaps AT&T would like to begin providing similar services.
I have also found the international long distance rates available from Google Voice to be attractive when compared to land line, VoIP and phone card alternatives. | |
|
| openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | Re: AT&T has a point... said by kingfisher:Is it relevant that for domestic local and long distance calling Google Voice has operated up to this point as a no-charge service? Perhaps AT&T would like to begin providing similar services. Perhaps Google would like to submit to the same regulations that encumber AT&T. | |
|
|
 joakoPremium
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null
kudos:5
 ·Comcast
| said by rradina:I'm not sure if Google can/should be classified the same as AT&T and held to the same rules. I don't think they should in this case. If providing users FREE calls to certain destinations is unreasonably expensive, oh well. There are thousands of other search engines and VoIP services one can use.
AT&T practically has a monopoly on GSM networks in the US. Yes there is T-Mobile but their coverage is horrible. Verizon severity restricts their devices and while Sprint doesn't as much you are still forced to use their devices. So ironically AT&T has the most open nationwide network in this country. I would blame iPhone shenanigans more on Apple than anything.
--
PRescott7-2097 | |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | To those that said AT&T did not have a point...
You dragged this thread into the symptom. I specifically tried to avoid the discussion of whether or not Google should/should not be forced to complete calls to these "rural providers". This is a symptom of an underlying problem. I wanted to stick to the root cause which is the carriers who are somehow side stepping market forces to milk excessive fees. Regardless of whether one agrees AT&T has the money to pay these fees or should pay them because they are a victim of the 1996 telco legislation and related lobbying, Google blocks these calls because of cost. If there wasn't a cost element, they wouldn't block the calls and there wouldn't be an issue of whether or not the FCC should classify them as an AT&T equal and force them to complete the calls.
I'm no AT&T fanboy. I have always been served by SBC (the root of the new AT&T and a sprout of the original AT&T) and I personally dislike their approach to pricing residential service in my area. They base it on obscure tiers that no longer make logical sense other than the typical rally cry of milking those who can afford to pay more. As a result, I haven't used their service since 2003. I've used VOIP and now I have telephone service provided by my television cable TV provider.
Regardless of how I feel about AT&T, I believe these "rural providers" are no different than those who feed at the USF trough. This behavior should be stopped or regulated. | |
|
|
|
·