dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
2035
share rss forum feed

pandora
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
kudos:2
Reviews:
·ooma
·Google Voice
·Comcast
·Future Nine Corp..

GV only blocking about 100 numbers nationally

I was reading this in my google news search today, it is about the dispute between AT&T, the FCC and Google over blocking high termination fee phone calls.

Most of the article is stuff we already know, that has been gone over a lot in dslreports and elsewhere. At the end of the article is a change I didn't know about. I'm uncertain if it has been discussed, if I missed it here, please accept my apology in advance.

Google claims it is now blocking only about 100 numbers nationally. It is no longer blocking GV calls by exchange.

Personally I think this is very reasonable, and I wish AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Sprint and the rest were also able to block the few who ruin it for the many. The article also mentions that some termination fees google encountered were up to 25 cents per minute.

I don't mind google blocking 100 scammers. I can't believe the FCC can't see the common sense google voice is applying to a problem.

Story here - »www.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/busin···4+Z/vyQA

Google has responded with improvements in its blocking technology. Instead of blocking by phone number prefix, it blocks only individual numbers, and fewer than 100 nationally are restricted, it reported to the F.C.C. in a filing last week.

It’s only an improvised solution, however, to the problem of traffic pumping, which the F.C.C. should root out. In the meantime, calls to Grandma and to the Benedictine convent now go through; those to highwaymen do not.

--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."


prestonlewis
Premium,MVM
join:2003-04-13
Sacramento, CA

I agree. Blocking 100 numbers to those ripoff rural telcos in Iowa is not a problem for me.


OmagicQ
Posting in a thread near you

join:2003-10-23
Bakersfield, CA
kudos:1

My Freedigits did is working with Google voice again, its still stuck forwarded to Gizmo5 but I can re-forward it from there.


josephf

join:2009-04-26
Reviews:
·VoicePulse

4 edits
reply to pandora

They said some termination fees were as high as 39 cents per minute.

»www.scribd.com/doc/21776911/10-2···r-to-FCC (The Google letter to the FCC.)

(Also, they said "under" 100 numbers are being blocked.)

PX Eliezer earlier started a similar thread to this one:

»GoogleVoice secrets accidentally revealed


pandora
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
kudos:2
Reviews:
·ooma
·Google Voice
·Comcast
·Future Nine Corp..

Thanks for the link to the letter, I wish there was a link to the un-redacted letter. It seems on reading it that google voice may not be a telecommunications service IF they don't charge a fee to their customer per their cited case law. I wonder sometimes about Ooma and if it isn't using something similar to escape some regulation and rules.

At the same time, Google seems to be playing a game, pretending users can't use google voice to make and receive calls without service from another provider. They admit gizmo5 SIP as a free termination for calls. Anyone who searches internet via google will find numerous explanations about how google voice can be used to initiate a call via script and SIP as well. For google to claim it doesn't provide full call service seems disingenuous to me. The script dialer's, are well understood in this forum and just about everywhere.

As long as Google permits any SIP access to any google voice user, it will probably be creating and terminating calls and used as a complete phone provider IMO by SIP and script.

I can't wait to read AT&T's rebuttal.
--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."


josephf

join:2009-04-26
Reviews:
·VoicePulse

2 edits

Only BusinessWeek got hold of a non-redacted copy of the letter, but they have not published the actual non-redacted letter. They did, however, publish some of the relevant information that was in the redacted sections, in an article at:

»www.businessweek.com/technology/···9665.htm


mr_jbloggs

join:2005-01-21
Alpharetta, GA
reply to pandora

The other option is to publish those numbers with high termination fees and the company responsible. Bad publicity will always act as a deterant.


PX Eliezer7
Premium
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River
kudos:13
Reviews:
·callwithus
·voip.ms

1 edit

said by mr_jbloggs:

The other option is to publish those numbers with high termination fees and the company responsible. Bad publicity will always act as a deterrent.
You underestimate the human capacity for chutzpah, as well as the capacity for greed, and the lack of any sense of shame in society today.

Witness, for example, the Governor of South Carolina.

nitzan
Premium,VIP
join:2008-02-27
kudos:8
reply to pandora

said by pandora:

As long as Google permits any SIP access to any google voice user, it will probably be creating and terminating calls and used as a complete phone provider IMO by SIP and script.
Google doesn't permit SIP access. Technology-speaking you cannot connect to GV via SIP. You can connect to Gizmo5 via SIP and initiate a callback to it via the GV web interface (which wasn't intended to be used by a script!) - but nowhere in this pattern is an actual SIP connection to Google Voice.

All the Sip Sorcery/Gizmo5 hacks and such are just that - hacks. Just because a few users are abusing the service for something it was never intended to do - does not mean the service should be reclassified as something it is clearly not.

Having said that- Google should get off their asses and block these hacks to stop the FCC/ATT/whoever from going along your thought path.


kieranmullen
Premium
join:2005-12-12
Portland, OR
reply to pandora

Any idea what these 100 numbers are so others can block them? OR anyone know the exchanges that we could block too in our pbx systems? That would be interesting to know.
--
KieranMullen »360oregon.com


DaveSin

join:2009-07-17

said by kieranmullen:

Any idea what these 100 numbers are so others can block them? OR anyone know the exchanges that we could block too in our pbx systems? That would be interesting to know.
From what I have read, most VOIP providers also block these numbers...it's not only GV that is doing it.

PX Eliezer7
Premium
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River
kudos:13
Reviews:
·callwithus
·voip.ms

Here is Google's response to the FCC (portions redacted):

»google.com/googleblogs/pdfs/goog···2809.pdf

It does NOT have a list of blocked numbers, but is still very interesting reading!



kieranmullen
Premium
join:2005-12-12
Portland, OR

Ok?

said by PX Eliezer7:

It does NOT have a list of blocked numbers...
--
KieranMullen »360oregon.com

pandora
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
kudos:2
Reviews:
·ooma
·Google Voice
·Comcast
·Future Nine Corp..
reply to nitzan

said by nitzan:

All the Sip Sorcery/Gizmo5 hacks and such are just that - hacks. Just because a few users are abusing the service for something it was never intended to do - does not mean the service should be reclassified as something it is clearly not.

Having said that- Google should get off their asses and block these hacks to stop the FCC/ATT/whoever from going along your thought path.
Nitzan,

I respect, like and usually agree with you. On this we will have to agree and disagree. I see virtually no distinction between free SIP calling via GV with automatic script and calling via Future-Nine (or any other VOIP provider) without script. If either solution will make and answer calls, IMO they are phone services.

Google has deliberately left a door open for this sort of stuff IMO. Having SIP access isn't necessary for google voice. I suspect google is trying to see how far it can push the limits of FCC oversight.

Google may have political connections, I'm certain AT&T, Verizon and Comcast do as well. Initial resolution of this issue will probably be political, after that it will go to the courts where other politics control.

Personally I'm hopeful that the google arguments prevail, as this would open the door to greater innovation. However, it appears to me that google must be very aware it is serving as a phone company to many. AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, FCC staff and others must also be aware. It'll be interesting to see how this resolves over time. At least the FCC is moving along at a reasonable pace.

I wish the 100 phone numbers google is blocking were released. For a company that preaches about openness, I don't understand why google doesn't announce in their GV TOS the 100 numbers that are banned (and update the list regularly).

I also have to wonder if any of the services blocked by google advertise with google. Can google legitimately advertise for a service which it claims is a scam?
--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."

josephf

join:2009-04-26

1 edit

Another solution for Google would be they could put a clause in their Terms & Conditions for GV, that calls to this list of (under 100) numbers is billed at a rate of 50 cents per minute.


PX Eliezer7
Premium
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River
kudos:13
Reviews:
·callwithus
·voip.ms


Barney Google, the ORIGINAL Google!
.

These "raunchy rural ripoff" numbers are the functional equivalent to premium-charge numbers such as area code "900", and also the "976" telephone exchange numbers.

No carrier is required to serve 900-xxx-xxxx or xxx-976-xxxx numbers. Especially not for free!

Why should GV be required to serve something that is functionally equivalent to such numbers?

AVonGauss
Premium
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL

The 900 / 976 numbers are classified for use as paid services, are they not? The numbers in question look no different than any other number in that block yet for some, unknown, mysterious reason seem to cost more for termination.

IMHO, the FCC needs to smack Google just like it previously did with AT&T - blocking, especially without disclosure is bad. Then the FCC needs to smack itself twice for letting this issue persist for so long. It ain't no rocket science...


josephf

join:2009-04-26

1 edit

I think the easiest solution would to be charge 50 cents per minute for this small list of numbers. (Not all DID's in the block or exchange, but rather to the list of known teleconference or other abusive service uses.)


AVonGauss
Premium
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL

I agree charging the user appropriately, with disclosure, is far better than just out right blocking numbers - however, I would really like to see the root and original problem corrected.



kieranmullen
Premium
join:2005-12-12
Portland, OR
reply to PX Eliezer7

Perhaps you replied to the wrong conversation? I do not believe anyone is saying that Google should provide access to this numbers.

said by PX Eliezer7:

.
No carrier is required to serve 900-xxx-xxxx or xxx-976-xxxx numbers. Especially not for free!

Why should GV be required to serve something that is functionally equivalent to such numbers?
--
KieranMullen »360oregon.com

PX Eliezer7
Premium
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River
kudos:13
Reviews:
·callwithus
·voip.ms

said by kieranmullen:

Perhaps you replied to the wrong conversation? I do not believe anyone is saying that Google should provide access to this numbers.
You are incorrect.

AT&T is certainly saying that GV should provide access.

Several members of Congress representing rural states said that GV should provide access.

The FCC has indicated its concern regarding the issue.

AVonGauss seems to be saying that GV should provide access, unless I am misreading his post.

-----------------------------------------

said by kieranmullen:

Perhaps you replied to the wrong conversation?
People can engage in the general discussion of the topic without worrying about who is replying to what post.

I was not "replying" to anyone in particular, especially not you.

PX Eliezer7
Premium
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River
kudos:13
Reviews:
·callwithus
·voip.ms
reply to AVonGauss

said by AVonGauss:

The 900 / 976 numbers are classified for use as paid services, are they not? The numbers in question look no different than any other number in that block yet for some, unknown, mysterious reason seem to cost more for termination.
Respectfully, it is not an unknown, mysterious reason.

It is a deliberate racket.

Again, see:

»www.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/busin···tml?_r=1

Here in Jersey, we know a racket when we see one.


kieranmullen
Premium
join:2005-12-12
Portland, OR
reply to PX Eliezer7

Perhaps I was wrong. I was just trying to figure out who you were trying to reply to. Not that I disagree with any of your points.

In other news firetrucks are often red.

said by PX Eliezer7:

said by kieranmullen:

Perhaps you replied to the wrong conversation? I do not believe anyone is saying that Google should provide access to this numbers.
You are incorrect.

AT&T is certainly saying that GV should provide access.

Several members of Congress representing rural states said that GV should provide access.

The FCC has indicated its concern regarding the issue.

AVonGauss seems to be saying that GV should provide access, unless I am misreading his post.

-----------------------------------------

said by kieranmullen:

Perhaps you replied to the wrong conversation?
People can engage in the general discussion of the topic without worrying about who is replying to what post.

I was not "replying" to anyone in particular, especially not you.
--
KieranMullen »360oregon.com

AVonGauss
Premium
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL
reply to PX Eliezer7

You're not misreading it, I am not in favor of providers selectively providing access to destinations (telephone or Internet). While in this case I empathize with the providers (Google, AT&T), that doesn't make it right in my book and is an extremely bad precedent. I really think the FCC / industry just needs to fix the root problem and be done with it. Until or in lieu of the root problem being fixed, providers should just pass the additional cost on to the consumer and let the market effects take play.


AVonGauss
Premium
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL
reply to PX Eliezer7

said by PX Eliezer7:

Respectfully, it is not an unknown, mysterious reason.

It is a deliberate racket.

Again, see:

»www.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/busin···tml?_r=1

Here in Jersey, we know a racket when we see one.
Apparently I did a bad job, but that was intended as sarcasm.

PX Eliezer7
Premium
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River
kudos:13
Reviews:
·callwithus
·voip.ms
reply to AVonGauss

said by AVonGauss:

You're not misreading it, I am not in favor of providers selectively providing access to destinations (telephone or Internet). While in this case I empathize with the providers (Google, AT&T), that doesn't make it right in my book and is an extremely bad precedent. I really think the FCC / industry just needs to fix the root problem and be done with it. Until or in lieu of the root problem being fixed, providers should just pass the additional cost on to the consumer and let the market effects take play.
Agreed, in one sense.

But if it meant that GV could no longer offer its services, or had to charge for them, it would be a damn shame. It would mean that the bad guys won.

When you say "pass the additional cost on", wouldn't that be rewarding the bad guys?

Is it better to follow a policy of appeasement (Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain; President James Buchanan) or to stand up to evil (President Ronald Reagan---and BTW I'm a Democrat but Thank God for Reagan).

AVonGauss
Premium
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL

I prefer if the industry/FCC just corrected the problem, however in lieu of that passing the cost on the consumer through direct additional costs for calling those numbers would allow normal marketplace effects to take place. Right now, the carriers are footing the bill thus isolating the consumers for those business that advertise "free" services. Somehow, I doubt they will be as successful if the consumer is directly paying for the service.


PX Eliezer7
Premium
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River
kudos:13
Reviews:
·callwithus
·voip.ms
reply to AVonGauss

said by AVonGauss:

Apparently I did a bad job, but that was intended as sarcasm.
Understood. Mea culpa.

Again regarding GoogleVoice, if someone is offering a service for free I think they deserve a lot more leeway.

And it is not as if they were blocking calls to a particular political party, or blocking calls to family planning clinics, or blocking calls to the NRA (or PETA), or blocking calls to certain religious institutions.

They're just trying to block calls to some folks who are abusing the system.

A long time ago, a Supreme Court justice commented, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact".

GV should not be put in that position either.

----------------------------------------

Y'know, they framed it wrong. If GV had just said at the start, "No calls to conference call services, and no calls to sex lines" that would have solved most of the problem, and few people would have objected.

Even an Iowa Congressman does not want to be defending sex lines.


kieranmullen
Premium
join:2005-12-12
Portland, OR
reply to AVonGauss

Free Market Solution = Blocking (If you dont like it dont use their free service)

Bigger Government - Write up some new laws and while you are add it add a side of pork in there. Appropriate some money for a new jet.

One method is quicker, easier and more cost effective.
--
KieranMullen »360oregon.com


AVonGauss
Premium
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL

said by kieranmullen:

Free Market Solution = Blocking (If you dont like it dont use their free service)
I don't think that is an accurate representation, the entities involved are charging a significantly higher termination rate that traditional carriers are forced to pay due to government regulations. Google is claiming that they don't need to abide by those rules because they are not a carrier. Even if that argument is true, the Google Voice service (a la "web application") must be using underlying service carriers to provide their service which more than likely do have to abide by those rules. The Google Voice service is not free, but I don't really see how that plays in to the situation one way or the other.

This is by far not a new issue, it just now has the Google name and scope and Google's quite public stance on other neutrality issues driving it to the forefront. If regulations and or clarifications are issued, they will most likely extend beyond the current "Google" situation.

Back to the underlying issue, the abnormal rates charged for some destinations. Technically, in the end, correcting the root problem should erase more regulation lines than it will add. This is already not a free market situation as the "alternative service providers" such as the conference call companies are shielded from the market by the government rules which force the traditional companies to pay abnormally high termination rates.

A quick fix today more often than not means you will just have a bigger low tomorrow.