AT&T Google Voice Complaint Partly About Traffic Pumping

In asking the Federal Communications Commission to investigate Google's refusal to terminate some calls placed to high-cost rural areas, AT&T is not simply sparring with Google over network neutrality, but rather pointing up a pricing anomaly that distorts behavior and reduces carrier profits.

while suggesting current regulatory rules do not fairly treat competitors in the market, and arguing for narrowing the regulatory differences between VoIP and other carriers and between access, application and content providers, AT&T also is highlighting what it and other carriers say is a pricing distortion in the termination rate regime that directly underpins the businesses of free conference calling services.

At immediate issue here is Google's refusal to terminate some calls in high-cost rural areas. Many of you are familiar with free conference calling services that use area codes in rural areas. You might have wondered what the business model is. Simply, it costs carriers enough money to terminate calls in those rural areas that conferencing services can afford to give away the service and make their money on the termination fees.

Over the last couple of years other skirmishes have been fought about high termination rates in some rural areas of Iowa and some other areas.

Services such as Free Call Planet, freeconferencecall.com and others teamed with Iowa telcos to set up inexpensive or free calling services that generate profits for the providers primarily by collecting millions in access fees.

The local telcos provide the Iowa telephone numbers and voice gateways for the services, bill long-distance companies to terminate calls and then pay“marketing fees” to the conference calling services.

AT&T said in 2007 that the arrangements were costing it $250 million a year. AT&T, Verizon, Qwest and Sprint Nextel have opposed the "traffic-pumping" schemes, and the Federal Communications Commission did move to limit the practice.

Rural phone companies are allowed to charge about 2 cents to 8 cents a minute to connect long-distance and wireless calls to their networks. The fees, up to 100 times higher than rates charged by large local phone companies, are intended to offset the rural companies' high costs and low call volumes.

But that's where the arbitrage opportunity arises. Specialty calling services teamed with some rural phone companies to offer free conference calling, adult chat and other services, splitting the call-connection revenues with the rural carriers.

The FCC did move to suspend the rural companies' rates. But new providers have set up shop.

About 160 million minutes of calls by AT&T customers were routed to rural CLEC networks in March, 2008, surpassing the peak level of calls to rural incumbents, about153 million minutes, in January 2007, AT&T says. Sprint told the FCC that its bill from 11 competitive carriers soared 5,000 percent in 21 months.

Recently, even other rural telephone companies have decided they'd better side with the large tier one providers as well, as the practice might damage the wider rural termination regime.

Google tariff specialists know that, and apparently want to avoid those costs by restricting termination to such numbers, as the tier one carriers themselves did until forbidden to do so.

So aside from the other clear issues about treating like entities in similar fashion, there is the outstanding issue of high termination rates in some jurisdictions.