NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Some questions answered re Google Voice and WSJ on Net Neutrality
Greetings. I received a number of queries related to my short posting
yesterday on the issue of the Wall Street Journal's latest anti-Google
piece. That WSJ article appeared to conflate Net Neutrality issues
with AT&T's claim that Google is in violation of law by reportedly
refusing to terminate Google Voice calls to certain rural exchanges
( http://www.nnsquad.org/archives/nnsquad/msg02134.html ).
The nature of the questions suggested that a bit more background
explanation would be useful.
First, to be very clear, the FCC's current actions related to Network
Neutrality only involve Internet data traffic per se. They are
specifically aimed at ensuring that ISP subscribers have access to
Internet sites without unreasonable restrictions. In particular, these
FCC actions do not relate to voice call telephone issues, except to the
extent that actions by ISPs might interfere with use of VoIP-based
services by ISP subscribers.
Most users of conventional voice telephone services are unaware of the
complex, arcane, and bizarre interexchange compensation system that
has developed over many years. In a "close enough for jazz" nutshell,
this system of "per minute" charges moving between firms is supposed
to appropriately compensate the various entities involved in placing
and terminating voice calls. For a variety of reasons, these rates
can vary quite significantly, with rural exchanges typically being at
the high end -- that is, receiving the most compensation for calls
terminating in those areas.
This disparity has long been of concern, but the issue has in recent
years gone critical as some rural telcos found a way to "game" the
system to their advantage. By enticing high volume call services to
their exchanges (chat lines, sex lines, "free" international calling
services, etc.) and then kicking part of the received termination
payments back to those services, quite a nice little scam was created
at the expense of the other players in the telecom ecosystem. This is
the process that is generally known as "traffic pumping" (uh, the term
applies whether you're dealing with sex lines or not, by the way ...)
AT&T and other carriers would very much prefer not to feed money
into these scams -- and I don't blame them one bit. I'm not a lawyer,
but my understanding of current law says that as common carriers
they are nonetheless required to allow those calls to proceed and
to pay the associated outrageous fees.
Now we come back to Google Voice, an application that is accessed via
existing phone lines. It's not a common carrier, so doesn't fall into
the legal requirement discussed above. Google has reportedly
chosen -- in the same manner that AT&T and other common carriers would likely
choose if they were permitted to do so by the FCC -- not to terminate
calls into those "scam" service exchanges.
AT&T's attempt to equate this decision with a violation of network
neutrality is specious. And Google is under no legal obligation that
I can see to terminate those calls. Is there a "moral" obligation to
participate in that scam, simply because common carriers are required
to terminate into those exchanges? I don't believe so, but more to
the point the real issue should be ending the interexchange
compensation scams for everyone.
A number of persons asked me about number portability issues. Google's
official position on porting numbers to Google Voice would seem to be:
http://www.google.com/support/voice/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=115102
"Although you can't currently port your existing number to Google
Voice, we hope to offer this option in the near future."
One technology Web site has claimed that they know of a few people who
have ported their numbers to GV on a purely experimental basis -- I have no
independent information to confirm or refute that.
You may recall in my previous posting that I said:
"It might be argued that if it were possible to 'port' your existing
conventional phone numbers directly into Google Voice --
effectively making Google your local phone company -- this analysis
might change."
To better understand this, it's necessary to realize that there are
different scenarios for porting numbers. If a number is ported
strictly for inbound calls (e.g., to Google Voice or another service),
it effectively amounts to a form of "permanent" inbound call
forwarding -- and conventional call forwarding is widely used with all
of these services, as you'd expect.
Live inbound calls would still actually terminate to users via local
telco landline or wireless lines. Outbound calls would be made via
those same lines, and would show the ANI/CNID number identification
information associated with those lines (though if the calls were
completed via a third party service, the ultimate person called would
likely be presented with the ANI/CNID number generated by that
service).
This sort of "call forwarding number port" is unlikely, in my opinion,
to trigger common carrier requirements on Google Voice or other third
party services of the same type.
Another form of number portability is the kind with which most people
are more familiar, and is used when you switch a primary access line
between landline and/or wireless telcos. This is the scenario I
was referring to when I said:
"... effectively making Google your local phone company."
In other words, if Google offered a service which provided you
directly with local dial tone or direct wireless access, replacing the
primary access telco previously providing those services to you, I
can visualize scenarios under which Google might then be potentially
classified as a common carrier and become subject to the same termination
requirements as, for example, AT&T. However, I've seen no indication
to date that Google has plans to take on such a direct "telco" role.
As always in these situations, the devil is in the details, and the
above is merely a summary. But I hope it clarifies some of the issues
involved, especially for those readers who weren't -- or aren't --
traditionally trained phone phreaks!
--Lauren--
NNSquad Moderator