U.S. lawmakers want tables turned on Google Voice

[AppleInsider]

Though the absence of Google Voice from the iPhone App Store previously prompted an FCC probe, a group of lawmakers now want the service itself investigated for blocking calls to rural areas.

AT&T, the exclusive carrier of the iPhone, has complained that Google Voice would have an advantage over other carriers if is not required to follow the same rules as other telephone service providers. Currently, Google's telephony service has the ability to block calls to rural areas where it is more expensive to connect. Federal law prohibits traditional U.S. carriers from blocking such calls.

According to Reuters, a bipartisan group of 20 legislators from rural areas in the U.S. House of Representatives wrote a letter to Julius Genachowski, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, to investigate the matter.

In September, AT&T wrote a letter to the FCC over its proposed rules for net neutrality. The nation's second-largest wireless carrier argued that Google must comply with the same regulations AT&T must if it plans to compete with traditional telephone operators.

The FCC has already investigated both AT&T and the Google Voice service after Apple refused to accept Google's Voice application into the iPhone App Store. AT&T has denied any role in the program's non-acceptance.

Apple has said that it alone has not accepted the Google Voice application. It has justified that decision by stating that the software too closely replicates the core functionality of the iPhone.

After AT&T, Google and Apple all filed formal letters with the FCC over the matter, discrepancies in each company's version of the events arose. Google claims that Apple outright rejected its application from the App Store, while Apple has countered that it has simply not accepted the application, but continues to review it.

Following a recent push by Genachowski, the FCC chairman, to preserve Net neutrality on all networks, including wireless, AT&T responded by announcing it will allow voice over IP calls via its 3G data network for iPhone users.

[parky]

I still don't see why Apple have to approve ANY application they don't want on the App Store.
Just as Apple can't be forced to sell products through the Retail Stores, why should they be forced to have App in the App Store?

I don't see anyone forcing Apple to sell Google Android Phones in the Retail stores, so why do they have to carry a Google App?

Online Stores are not covered by some extra rules.

Nor does Apple have the accept every application that is submitted to it.
They have made the rules, they provide the software fro free, they choose what is made available.
All developers know that when they sign up to be a developer, so what is the issue?

[dagamer34]

Originally Posted by parky

I still don't see why Apple have to approve ANY application they don't want on the App Store.
Just as Apple can't be forced to sell products through the Retail Stores, why should they be forced to have App in the App Store?

I don't see anyone forcing Apple to sell Google Android Phones in the Retail stores, so why do they have to carry a Google App?

Online Stores are not covered by some extra rules.

Nor does Apple have the accept every application that is submitted to it.
They have made the rules, they provide the software fro free, they choose what is made available.
All developers know that when they sign up to be a developer, so what is the issue?

Because when you start involving the airways, it no longer continues to be "a private issue" when there are clear and obvious regulated interests at stake. And lying to the FCC further proves that a wrong is being committed.

Sure, if this were an app that didn't have a telephony component to it, the FCC would have no business here. But, Google Voice DOES deal with communications, and it's pretty obvious they have a stake in this issue, even as they try to pass the control to Apple which isn't as strongly and clearly regulated as AT&T in this case.

[noexpectations]

Aha Google! You wanted fairness, you got it.

[anonymouse]

Originally Posted by dagamer34

Because when you start involving the airways, it no longer continues to be "a private issue" when there are clear and obvious regulated interests at stake. And lying to the FCC further proves that a wrong is being committed.

Sure, if this were an app that didn't have a telephony component to it, the FCC would have no business here. But, Google Voice DOES deal with communications, and it's pretty obvious they have a stake in this issue, even as they try to pass the control to Apple which isn't as strongly and clearly regulated as AT&T in this case.

I'm beginning to find this "lying to the FCC" charge almost amusing. It's quite clear that GV wasn't allowed on the iPhone for precisely the reason Apple gave. I really don't see how anyone looking objectively at the matter could conclude otherwise. Google has their own mobile platform, so let them offer their full GV experience there. There's no reason Apple has to let a direct competitor take over the iPhone telephony user experience.

If Google wants to be directly in the business of being a phone carrier (which Apple is not), they should operate according to the law just like everyone else.

[aplnub]

Originally Posted by noexpectations

Aha Google! You wanted fairness, you got it.

I am a big fan of getting the App on the iPhone but I agree with you totally. They should play by the rules.

[iphonedeveloperthailand]

I agree too. Be careful what you ask for.

[bongo]

curious as to why the article writer slyly kept the names of the twenty representatives secret ?

[anonymouse]

Originally Posted by bongo

curious as to why the article writer slyly kept the names of the twenty representatives secret ?

Right, because only AI knows who they are!

Slyly? Not specifically mentioning some detail is not exactly the same as slyly keeping it secret. My guess is that no one would know the name of more than one of a, "group of 20 legislators from rural areas in the U.S. House of Representatives", so why clutter up the article with a list of names no one will recognize.

[bfc]

Not sure how this applies to GV or Google. Google is not a Telco... And definitely not a carrier as AT&T implies.

[grumpyhighlander]

For those of us stuck out here in the rural divide we welcome this prod to balance out the concentration of services. In the Rocky mountain west many of us still can't get high speed access. I have bee waiting months for this service to be available for my business. Heck their is no way I can even get an I phone here. This is a good start to equalizing the digital divide. At least my Blackberry can sync easily with my Mac as of this month. Woo HOOO!

[John_Reed85]

Feel free to tell me I'm wrong...

Isn't there a bigger issue here.... from a high level, Google is running its services on top of the telco, "filtering" phone numbers that it feels are "bad". If the FCC judges that this shouldn't be allowed and proceeds with the Net neutrality act (bill, law.. whatever). Doesn't that set a precedent that web filters that most employers, parents and others use (like web sence) should be banned?

[anilsudhakaran]

Originally Posted by dagamer34

Because when you start involving the airways, it no longer continues to be "a private issue" when there are clear and obvious regulated interests at stake. And lying to the FCC further proves that a wrong is being committed.

Sure, if this were an app that didn't have a telephony component to it, the FCC would have no business here. But, Google Voice DOES deal with communications, and it's pretty obvious they have a stake in this issue, even as they try to pass the control to Apple which isn't as strongly and clearly regulated as AT&T in this case.

First of all how do you know who lied and who did not to the FCC.

Secondly good Google Voice got shafted. It is one of the most overrated piece of junk software. Google itself is a junk company, who do nothing but find loopholes in the system to benefit themselves. They steal people's personal information and sell it to advertisers. Almost all of their products are half baked implementations of stupid ideas.

I hope they can shut down Google at the earliest.

[anonymouse]

Originally Posted by anilsudhakaran

First of all how do you know who lied and who did not to the FCC.

No one has presented even the smallest shred of evidence that anyone -- i.e., Apple, AT&T or Google -- lied to the FCC in their responses to the inquiry on GV. Yet, the charges that Apple lied! AT&T lied! Google lied! fly about left and right.

If you have any actual evidence that one of them did, I'm sure we'd all be excited to hear it. But, the explanations given by the 3 companies all make perfect sense for each of them, so I doubt very much that such evidence exists to produce.

EDIT: Well, actually, this should have been in response to the post to which the quoted post responded.

[JasonBee]

Originally Posted by bfc

Not sure how this applies to GV or Google. Google is not a Telco... And definitely not a carrier as AT&T implies.

That's not so cut and dry. In Canada, similar issues abound now that new technologies have stretched the meaning of such things as "broadcaster", "carrier", and "reseller". Bell filters and shapes network traffic but their resellers don't...unless they end up being a victim of Bell's own shaping...what happens when I want to do business with Rogers web services using data lines leased from a reseller leased from Bell?

So many services are repackageable or repurposeable these days. you may not be the carrier in Apple's or Google's case, but you are able to act as one when you provide a wholly new conduit, through which new and critical services must flow, or in retrospect block the implementation of a new service like Skype.

The telcos are performing an infrastructure role now to multiple parties using the same lines. It no longer matters that Google only USES the networks to connect voice calls. They are playing the role of carrier by providing the service, now they must step up to provide the legislated services a carrier must account for. It's a nice reality check that they have to conform to legislated duties...but a necessary one.

In all due course the laws will adjust and so will the ways carriers fulfil their responsibilities, and hopefully everyone will be able to choose voice and data services as they see fit...rural or not.

[bobkoure]

Google's not a carrier. Offering free outbound calls doesn't make it a carrier. There's plenty of regulation on dial-back and dial-around services that make this clear. GV's a dial-back - but being primarily controlled via the web rather than touchtone.

I think the issue is that they provide free outbound calls - and they can only do it to places that are within their budget (whatever that might be).
There's already a mechanism in place in GV to charge for non-free calls. Currently these are all international calls (BTW some of the best rates I've seen to the few places I track int'l call rates to). I'd guess that the easiest way to handle this inside the current app would be, instead of blocking, to put up a message "that telco charges $0.nn/min, which we have to bill to your account - do you want to make this non-free call?
Yes, if you have a cellphone with all-USA free dialing plan, then the cell operator ends up eating this - but they are getting money from you. GV is free.
If you're using GV from a cellphone with this plan, then, hopefully, you'd be smart enough to tell GV "no" and just dial the number yourself.
If the person you're calling has gone to the trouble/expense of getting access to the interent and installing a sip-phone (or is running a sip phone app on their PC) you can call that for free (except, again, if you're on a cell, you're paying minutes)

I'm not saying that it's unreasonable for rural carriers to charge more. It's more expensive to support subscribers when they're miles apart. These higher rural costs are something that "ma bell" used to cover - by charging us all inflated long distance rates. Ma Bell is gone, the cost differential's still there - but there aren't inflated LD rates to pay for it any more...

[doyourownthing]

Originally Posted by anilsudhakaran

First of all how do you know who lied and who did not to the FCC.

Secondly good Google Voice got shafted. It is one of the most overrated piece of junk software. Google itself is a junk company, who do nothing but find loopholes in the system to benefit themselves. They steal people's personal information and sell it to advertisers. Almost all of their products are half baked implementations of stupid ideas.

I hope they can shut down Google at the earliest.

I totally agree...

[John.B]

Paging Tulkas... ... Tulkas to the white courtesy phone...

[John.B]

Originally Posted by bobkoure

Google's not a carrier. Offering free outbound calls doesn't make it a carrier. There's plenty of regulation on dial-back and dial-around services that make this clear. GV's a dial-back - but being primarily controlled via the web rather than touchtone.

Google is a carrier if the FCC decides they are. Google has inserted themselves into the periphery of this -- for whatever reasons -- and at some point they'll run afoul of some adjacent jurisdiction. Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc. The fact that they bid on the 700 MHz spectrum makes them an obvious player in that space, regardless of whether they own the backbone or build their business by taking free rides on someone else's network.

[justbobf]

It looks like Apple should allow Google Voice on the iPhone.

[GQB]

Originally Posted by bongo

curious as to why the article writer slyly kept the names of the twenty representatives secret ?

Just Google states with a low person/cow ratio, and that's your list.

[souliisoul]

Originally Posted by doyourownthing

I totally agree...

you seem to agree to any comments that against a competitor of Apple. Maybe you should get an opinion of your own.

[kpluck]

Originally Posted by noexpectations

Aha Google! You wanted fairness, you got it.

I don't think so.

AT&T's argument basically amounts to "If you are competing with some of our services you should be regulated like us." which to me is BS. Google is not a wireless carrier. They are not a phone company even though they may offer phone-like services over the internet.

If AT&T gets their way, anyone offering services over the internet that replicate the functionality of a phone could be regulated and taxed like a phone utility.

To all the dullards out there saying "be careful what you wish for" to Google, you might want to take that to heart.

-kpluck

[the cool gut]

Originally Posted by dagamer34

Because when you start involving the airways, it no longer continues to be "a private issue" when there are clear and obvious regulated interests at stake. And lying to the FCC further proves that a wrong is being committed.

Sure, if this were an app that didn't have a telephony component to it, the FCC would have no business here. But, Google Voice DOES deal with communications, and it's pretty obvious they have a stake in this issue, even as they try to pass the control to Apple which isn't as strongly and clearly regulated as AT&T in this case.

Apple does not have to make Google Voice available on the iPhone. The reason the FCC is investigating, is that it wants to be sure that AT&T are not stopping Apple from offering Google Voice. But the FCC has no power at all if Apple does not want to offer it.

[noexpectations]

Originally Posted by kpluck

I don't think so.

AT&T's argument basically amounts to "If you are competing with some of our services you should be regulated like us." which to me is BS. Google is not a wireless carrier. They are not a phone company even though they may offer phone-like services over the internet.

If AT&T gets their way, anyone offering services over the internet that replicate the functionality of a phone could be regulated and taxed like a phone utility.

To all the dullards out there saying "be careful what you wish for" to Google, you might want to take that to heart.

-kpluck

To the consumer, Google is a Telco. I am going to send and receive calls via their front-end app. Oh wait....many of my calls will be blocked. Let's call them an iTelco (Incompetent Telco).

[souliisoul]

Originally Posted by kpluck

I don't think so.

AT&T's argument basically amounts to "If you are competing with some of our services you should be regulated like us." which to me is BS. Google is not a wireless carrier. They are not a phone company even though they may offer phone-like services over the internet.

If AT&T gets their way, anyone offering services over the internet that replicate the functionality of a phone could be regulated and taxed like a phone utility.

To all the dullards out there saying "be careful what you wish for" to Google, you might want to take that to heart.

-kpluck

This has nothing to do with AT&T involvement, but due to Google Voice blocking rural calls, which is no no. If you want to compete in someones space, you have to play by the rules. Google blocking rural calls is not being fair to consumer, nothing to do with AT&T.

Btw Vonage has been approved for iPhone and you can use Skype and there are using internet to make calls, not the same way as Google Voice, but still offer services.

[anonymouse]

Originally Posted by kpluck

AT&T's argument basically amounts to "If you are competing with some of our services you should be regulated like us." which to me is BS. Google is not a wireless carrier. They are not a phone company even though they may offer phone-like services over the internet.

So, at what point does a company offering telephony services become a phone company?

If AT&T gets their way, anyone offering services over the internet that replicate the functionality of a phone could be regulated and taxed like a phone utility.

Why shouldn't they be?

[Hudson1]

Originally Posted by parky

I still don't see why Apple have to approve ANY application they don't want on the App Store.
Just as Apple can't be forced to sell products through the Retail Stores, why should they be forced to have App in the App Store?

I don't see anyone forcing Apple to sell Google Android Phones in the Retail stores, so why do they have to carry a Google App?

Online Stores are not covered by some extra rules.

Nor does Apple have the accept every application that is submitted to it.
They have made the rules, they provide the software fro free, they choose what is made available.
All developers know that when they sign up to be a developer, so what is the issue?

I think the argument centers on the fact that Google can provide a handset via many different outlets, including directly from them if they wish. So if Apple doesn't sell it then it doesn't matter to the consumer. OTOH, the only way you can get an application for your iPhone is through Apple.

This is not to say Apple should approve Google Voice for iPhones but a recognition that they are the one and only gatekeeper.

[Hudson1]

Originally Posted by bobkoure

Google's not a carrier. Offering free outbound calls doesn't make it a carrier. There's plenty of regulation on dial-back and dial-around services that make this clear. GV's a dial-back - but being primarily controlled via the web rather than touchtone.

I think the issue is that they provide free outbound calls - and they can only do it to places that are within their budget (whatever that might be).
There's already a mechanism in place in GV to charge for non-free calls. Currently these are all international calls (BTW some of the best rates I've seen to the few places I track int'l call rates to). I'd guess that the easiest way to handle this inside the current app would be, instead of blocking, to put up a message "that telco charges $0.nn/min, which we have to bill to your account - do you want to make this non-free call?
Yes, if you have a cellphone with all-USA free dialing plan, then the cell operator ends up eating this - but they are getting money from you. GV is free.
If you're using GV from a cellphone with this plan, then, hopefully, you'd be smart enough to tell GV "no" and just dial the number yourself.
If the person you're calling has gone to the trouble/expense of getting access to the interent and installing a sip-phone (or is running a sip phone app on their PC) you can call that for free (except, again, if you're on a cell, you're paying minutes)

I'm not saying that it's unreasonable for rural carriers to charge more. It's more expensive to support subscribers when they're miles apart. These higher rural costs are something that "ma bell" used to cover - by charging us all inflated long distance rates. Ma Bell is gone, the cost differential's still there - but there aren't inflated LD rates to pay for it any more...

Maybe I'm just a naturally suspicious person but when someone claims in their very first post on here that they "track int'l call rates", I kinda start to wonder what the agenda is.

[yuusharo]

Originally Posted by parky

I still don't see why Apple have to approve ANY application they don't want on the App Store.
Just as Apple can't be forced to sell products through the Retail Stores, why should they be forced to have App in the App Store?

I don't see anyone forcing Apple to sell Google Android Phones in the Retail stores, so why do they have to carry a Google App?

Online Stores are not covered by some extra rules.

The biggest difference here is if Apple will refuse your product in their retail stores, you can go somewhere else and sell it there. With the App Store, if Apple rejects your application for any reason, even if they were selling it for MONTHS prior to pulling it, that's the end of the line. You can't take your application and sell it somewhere else. The App Store is the only way to sell that iPhone application.

Now you can argue that Apple doesn't have to sell a Google Voice application, but come on. They had Voice Central and GV Mobile in the store for months before pulling it for "duplicating functionality." At the same time, VOiP applications like Skype that offer SMS and Unlimited calling are still there. Not to mention both the Google Voice applications were pulled on the same exact day, while no other dialer was removed.

[SpamSandwich]

Originally Posted by bfc

Not sure how this applies to GV or Google. Google is not a Telco... And definitely not a carrier as AT&T implies.

Although the sooner Google buys up AT&T, the better.

[charlituna]

Originally Posted by bfc

Not sure how this applies to GV or Google. Google is not a Telco... And definitely not a carrier as AT&T implies.

not at the moment. but that is what ATT and these other folks are charging. that Google is acting like a Telco but not wanting to follow the same rules.

so now Google has to show how their service is not the same as a Telco, or they have to drop this 'but only in areas where it is cheap for us to provide the service' game. if it is that expensive then perhaps they should charge for it. if everyone pays $5 a year that would pay for at least some of the cost. and it's not a crazy amount to pay.

[Damn_Its_Hot]

Originally Posted by parky

Nor does Apple have the accept every application that is submitted to it.
They have made the rules, they provide the software fro free, they choose what is made available.

I agree that it is Apple's store so they should be able to sell (or not sell) what they want. What I am curious about though is just exactly what software is free? I am not aware of ANY! Maybe I missed something.

[anonymouse]

Originally Posted by yuusharo

The biggest difference here is if Apple will refuse your product in their retail stores, you can go somewhere else and sell it there. With the App Store, if Apple rejects your application for any reason, even if they were selling it for MONTHS prior to pulling it, that's the end of the line. You can't take your application and sell it somewhere else. The App Store is the only way to sell that iPhone application.

Now you can argue that Apple doesn't have to sell a Google Voice application, but come on. They had Voice Central and GV Mobile in the store for months before pulling it for "duplicating functionality." At the same time, VOiP applications like Skype that offer SMS and Unlimited calling are still there. Not to mention both the Google Voice applications were pulled on the same exact day, while no other dialer was removed.

Those risks are, I believe, part of the terms of the developer program. Clearly the other GV apps slipped under the radar, but further review caused them to be pulled from the store. And these aren't the only apps that have been pulled after further review.

Google has its own platform it can release GV on. If people want it badly enough, they can switch to Android, or use the promised iPhone web app from Google. (Apple did not induce anyone to buy an iPhone with a promise of a GV app.) There are also a number of other platforms that seem welcoming of GV as well, so the iPhone is not the only option for them, nor is Apple "leveraging" the iPhone to hold or gain a monopoly over some market.

Quite simply, Apple doesn't want Google subverting it's platform with a GV app that turns the iPhone into an Android clone. As they said in their response to the FCC, they have invested considerable resources into designing the user experience on the iPhone, and they aren't interested in Apps that make the iPhone essentially the same as any other phone for telephony.

[hill60]

Such as Android, Symbian, RIM, WinMo etc?

Is that what you mean?

How is Apple stopping Google from doing that?

btw YOU CAN USE GV ON THE iPHONE without the App, it is not essential for GV use.

Originally Posted by yuusharo

The biggest difference here is if Apple will refuse your product in their retail stores, you can go somewhere else and sell it there...

[bigdaddyp]

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

Although the sooner Google buys up AT&T, the better.

It could happen, but only under fire sale prices. If a major carrier goes ti*s up then I could see Google making such an acquisition but it exposes google to much stricter regulations then I think Google wants to deal with. They certainly have the cash to make a play at a major telco/wireless company already, and certainly seem to have a desire to get into the biz. So what is stopping them? Most likely its the threat of increased regulation.

[camroidv27]

First off, this is not Apple news, this is Google news. Ugh.
Second off, only half of the text here pertains to the actual information. The other half is re-hashing of your own articles... we know where to find all that stuff.
Third off, it seems that this is becoming a "Bash anything that is non-Apple".

Anyhow, now that rants are done: I like Google, but they too should play by the same rules as other telecoms and allow rural connections. I also think Apple should let GV into their Apps. The more they do stupid stuff like this, the less I'm inclined to do business with them.

As of this weekend, my house will finally be Macintosh free! Yes!

[NonVendorFan]

Originally Posted by camroidv27

First off, this is not Apple news, this is Google news. Ugh.
Second off, only half of the text here pertains to the actual information. The other half is re-hashing of your own articles... we know where to find all that stuff.
Third off, it seems that this is becoming a "Bash anything that is non-Apple".

Anyhow, now that rants are done: I like Google, but they too should play by the same rules as other telecoms and allow rural connections. I also think Apple should let GV into their Apps. The more they do stupid stuff like this, the less I'm inclined to do business with them.

As of this weekend, my house will finally be Macintosh free! Yes!

Congratulations! Welcome to a world with choice.

[John.B]

Originally Posted by camroidv27

As of this weekend, my house will finally be Macintosh free! Yes!

Enjoy your time at WindowsInsider or GoogleInsider or wherever you decide to start hanging out.

[Tulkas]

Originally Posted by hill60

Such as Android, Symbian, RIM, WinMo etc?

Yes, because an iPhone app would run on those platforms...oh wait.

Originally Posted by hill60

Is that what you mean?

Obviously it wasn't what he meant.

Originally Posted by hill60

btw YOU CAN USE GV ON THE iPHONE without the App, it is not essential for GV use.

Exactly. So, then why ban it?