AT&T, Google Spat Over Google Voice Blocked Calls Is Important… But Totally Misses The Point

from the distracting,-but-important dept

Well, well, well. It looks like AT&T’s latest line of anti-Google attack is to accuse the company of being hypocritical on net neutrality by not living up to the same principles when it comes to its Google Voice product. The issue is that, apparently, Google Voice is now blocking calls to free conference services like This is identical to the problem I discussed a few weeks ago when I noticed that the MagicJack VoIP service blocked calls to those same services. Oddly, at the time, I got around the MagicJack block… by using Google Voice. So if it’s now blocking those calls, I haven’t yet seen it, but there are numerous complaints. And, just like I said at the time with MagicJack, I think that the FCC has been pretty clear in the past that this is not legal. If you’re offering a phone service of this nature, you need to connect it with the phone calls customers are making.

So, I have to admit that I find Google’s response to be disingenuous. It basically tries to shrug off the problem by saying Google doesn’t have to follow such rules on connecting phone calls because it’s a “web-based” offering. First, making such a claim just makes Google look like it’s ducking the issue. Second, Google has done a dreadful job letting Google Voice users know that such calls are totally blocked by its service.

However (and this is important), the actual issue here is not net neutrality. The real issue is ridiculous regulatory setups in certain rural areas, that force unnaturally high connection fees on telcos to rural telcos, creating a massive arbitrage opportunity that the Free Conference call offerings making good (and profitable) use of in offering their services. Basically, every inbound call to these telcos requires massive per minute fees from the connecting service provider to the rural telco. It’s so expensive that as long as the rural telco can offer a service (such as conference calls) at a cheaper rate, they make money on every inbound call — but it’s all due to outdated regulations that “protect” those telcos. Google mentions this in its response, but it should be the headline, not buried in the details: the issue with net neutrality is the telcos trying to double charge for the use of their network. The issue with these calls is a dumb regulatory setup that forces telephone service providers to pay insanely high rates to a small group of small telcos for any inbound calls.

So, yes, I agree that it’s bad that Google (and MagicJack) blocks these calls — and I believe it may in fact go against some previous statements by the FCC concerning phone services. But… it’s not a net neutrality issue where they’re doing so to squeeze extra money out of customers by holding part of the access for ransom. Instead, it’s the result of bad and outdated local state regulations concerning connection fees that really need to be overturned.

Filed Under: , , , , ,
Companies: at&t, google

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “AT&T, Google Spat Over Google Voice Blocked Calls Is Important… But Totally Misses The Point”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Me says:


Let’s not overlook the fact that the reason google voice exists is because THEY collect high access fees from the telcos on inbound calls to them. They are playing a dirty arbitrage game here.

The problem is all the regulation, yes, but that is the reason we don’t want the FCC to get involved writing rules we don’t need which will devolve into some absurd situation down the road like we see here.

Me says:

Re: Re: However

Proof of what? That they are collecting access fees? The proof of that is that you can get your own phone number from them, which means that they are charging telcos terminating access fees when somebody calls that number.

In this situation, as in the question of whether net neutrality rules are needed now, AT&T is in the right, not google. Someday google will be hoisted on their own petard, and no one will be able to say they didn’t have it coming.

mertz says:

just finished reading this on tech crunch moments ago and getting caught up. i saw the post you put up a couple days ago on this net neutrality issue. one commenter pointed out that att failed by implying that they were a monopoly when they took on this issue the first time, and now at&t nor google are monopolies. i will admit that net neutrality is not my strongest point (neither is making sense it seems), but i’ve been following the talk about it on geist’s website. i get that it’s important to me because i use the net and it’ll me as a user i guess more than the telecoms. what i find funny about this is that at&t supposedly wasn’t involved in the whole google voice apple rejection/in limbo apps store review land, but at&t obviously fears google and whatever google has cooking up at mountain view..if they didn’t why would they be responding so childishly and for it’s part google is no better than at&t respnding to this in a complete unrealistic manner. they are being literal and parcing definitions, but they’re both basically talking about the same thing because as many people have pointed out the line between phones and computers are blurring. apparently google really isn’t trying to tiff at&t or other telcoms with it’s google voice or it’s future products because their intent is to do no evil (right?), but as another commenter brought up, is google going to be come a telecom company…are they going to buy towers and provide their own service? i think my favourite comment was someone saying google should shut up and buy at&T :D. (reading your post now).

Fred McTaker (profile) says:

Re: Re:

There are plenty of free conference call services, including those that are handled entirely in VoIP space, and thus don’t involve any telco charges whatsoever. Google should just direct you to one of those. Google Voice already supports Gizmo VoIP accounts as a call-in option, and Gizmo VoIP already has a similar free conference call service.

AT&T is just whining because they want to keep their telco monopoly cake and don’t want to share, neither with the rural telcos nor Google.

Ima Fish (profile) says:

If you’re offering a phone service of this nature, you need to connect it with the phone calls customers are making.

I’ve went over this before. What law says VoIP services have to connect every call? Telcos must connect such calls because their bound by common-carrier laws. Such laws do not apply to VoIP services such as Google’s. If you know of such a law, please provide it.

What’s really sad is that you’ve argued the opposite position previously. Remember back when you agreed that VoIP services were not analogous to Telcos? It was only last May.

mertz says:

Re: Re:

> Telcos must connect such calls because their bound by common-carrier laws.

this is what google said in their blog. i thought they were being picky about what they chose to recognize but this is actually written down and is law? but i also thought people were saying google voice isn’t voip? do you know where i can go to read about this so i can be more informed? the difference between google and at&t, aside from google providing a software for people to use on their phones, is that at&t owns it’s towers and provides call lines, while google is still just a tech company…i think i’m confusing things. hmm.

Anonymous Coward says:

“Lets just make them government contractors instead: hire them to build the Internet “Highway” and “Surface Streets” to our homes.”

So who would hire them as government contractors? The government? They can’t pay for the roads, bridges and levies that need to be repaired or built, you think the government can pay to have fiber put in?

Fred McTaker (profile) says:

Re: Re:

“you think the government can pay to have fiber put in?”

Yes, I do. What most people don’t realize, especially Anonymous Cowards, is that taxes don’t just go to government. When government grants any kind of monopoly to a corporation, that is a tax that you pay directly to that corporation, but they get to call it a “fee” instead of a tax. Governments often give them part of their tax money as well, in the form of a “subsidy.” They both try to hide that fact that our tax dollars are going to private profits, by claiming these monopolies are a “service”, as if they were optional. Let’s take a survey of how many people think “services” like water, electricity, roads, insurance, health, and phones are “optional”. If there are above 20% of people who think these things are seriously optional, and still maintain full-time employment, then I’ll stop calling them taxes.

I would rather have these taxes go to elected representatives and public servants, not local monopoly CEOs. I would rather have my ISP taxes spent in ways I can vote on. Right now we have what I call “taxation without representation.” Does that ring a bell?

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Older Stuff
09:32 AT&T Whines That California Net Neutrality Rules Are Forcing It To Behave (11)
06:23 The New York Times (Falsely) Informs Its 7 Million Readers Net Neutrality Is 'Pointless' (51)
15:34 Facebook's Australian News Ban Did Demonstrate The Evil Of Zero Rating (18)
04:58 'Net Neutrality Hurt Internet Infrastructure Investment' Is The Bad Faith Lie That Simply Won't Die (11)
05:48 Dumb New GOP Talking Point: If You Restore Net Neutrality, You HAVE To Kill Section 230. Just Because! (66)
06:31 DOJ Drops Ridiculous Trump-Era Lawsuit Against California For Passing Net Neutrality Rules (13)
06:27 The Wall Street Journal Kisses Big Telecom's Ass In Whiny Screed About 'Big Tech' (13)
10:45 New Interim FCC Boss Jessica Rosenworcel Will Likely Restore Net Neutrality, Just Not Yet (5)
15:30 Small Idaho ISP 'Punishes' Twitter And Facebook's 'Censorship' ... By Blocking Access To Them Entirely (81)
05:29 A Few Reminders Before The Tired Net Neutrality Debate Is Rekindled (13)
06:22 U.S. Broadband Speeds Jumped 90% in 2020. But No, It Had Nothing To Do With Killing Net Neutrality. (12)
12:10 FCC Ignores The Courts, Finalizes Facts-Optional Repeal Of Net Neutrality (19)
10:46 It's Opposite Day At The FCC: Rejects All Its Own Legal Arguments Against Net Neutrality To Claim It Can Be The Internet Speech Police (13)
12:05 Blatant Hypocrite Ajit Pai Decides To Move Forward With Bogus, Unconstitutional Rulemaking On Section 230 (178)
06:49 FCC's Pai Puts Final Bullet In Net Neutrality Ahead Of Potential Demotion (25)
06:31 The EU Makes It Clear That 'Zero Rating' Violates Net Neutrality (6)
06:22 DOJ Continues Its Quest To Kill Net Neutrality (And Consumer Protection In General) In California (11)
11:08 Hypocritical AT&T Makes A Mockery Of Itself; Says 230 Should Be Reformed For Real Net Neutrality (28)
06:20 Trump, Big Telecom Continue Quest To Ban States From Protecting Broadband Consumers (19)
06:11 Senators Wyden And Markey Make It Clear AT&T Is Violating Net Neutrality (13)
06:31 Net Neutrali-what? AT&T's New Streaming Service Won't Count Against Its Broadband Caps. But Netflix Will. (25)
06:23 Telecom's Latest Dumb Claim: The Internet Only Works During A Pandemic Because We Killed Net Neutrality (49)
13:36 Ex-FCC Staffer Says FCC Authority Given Up In Net Neutrality Repeal Sure Would Prove Handy In A Crisis (13)
06:27 Clarence Thomas Regrets Brand X Decision That Paved Way For The Net Neutrality Wars (11)
06:17 The FCC To Field More Comments On Net Neutrality. Maybe They'll Stop Identity Theft And Fraud This Time? (79)
08:56 AT&T, Comcast Dramatically Cut Network Spending Despite Net Neutrality Repeal (16)
06:18 Ajit Pai Hits CES... To Make Up Some Shit About Net Neutrality (24)
06:24 Mozilla, Consumer Groups Petition For Rehearing of Net Neutrality Case (22)
06:49 AT&T Exec Insists That No Broadband Company Is Violating Net Neutrality Even Though AT&T Is Absolutely Violating Net Neutrality (19)
06:45 Shocker: ISPs Cut Back 2020 Investment Despite Tax Breaks, Death Of Net Neutrality (61)
More arrow