Google: We're Blocking Fewer Nun Calls > Why were rural teleco's allowed to charge higher rates?

Why were rural teleco's allowed to charge higher rates?

And what's the problem with Google Voice deciding to do this? They provide a free service to people that does not fall under the government regulations we're talking about, so as far as I can tell they're free to do what they want.

reply to NOVA_Guy
I agree that Google Voice has a right to block high cost calls but failed to mention that it is my belief that a company that selectively blocks calls to certain telephone companies can cause complete chaos. How will a customer know whether a call does not go through because of a translation error in the central office or the service provider blocking traffic to that telephone exchange. If any service provider wants to selective block calls they should provide a recorded announcement why the call is being blocked.

reply to Mr Matt
I don't have numbers to back this statement, but I have been told by an expert that rural companies charge more due to historical lower incoming call volumes. Since more rural carriers customers call into the larger ILEC exchanges, in order to even out the costs, they charge higher rates when larger ILEC customers call into the rural carriers. This worked to keep the costs even over the years, so the large ILEC and the rural carriers were close to a net of zero for payments to connect calls to each other. Today, we have the conference calling compaines that have shifted the incoming call volumes to an extreme in ways that were never thought to be a problem.

reply to amigo_boy
However these rural carriers really are truly ripping off the common carriers. I don't blame Google one bit. I'd do it in a heartbeat (as would AT&T if they were allowed too.)
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

reply to Mr Matt
Stop crying about it.

People know that those sex and conference numbers cannot really be free and have no reason to complain when voip companies block those scammer numbers.
--
Democrats are not Socialists any more than Republicans are.

reply to Telco_Eng
The big phones companies did not want to serve an area of 50 farm families because it is not profitable.
In retaliation, the states created the incentive of allowing anyone who would provide service in those areas to charge 6 cents a minute instead of the normal less than a penny a minutes for call terminations.
The big phone companies are basically forced to subsidize those areas when their customers call there. It never really mattered when it was only 50 farm families living there, but now that there are 1,000s of extra scammer phone lines for sex and conference lines the high fees are simply stealing from the big phone companies and now voip providers.
--
Democrats are not Socialists any more than Republicans are.