The Federal Communications Commission has opened an inquiry into Google Voice's call blocking of traffic to some high-cost numbers used by free conference calling services.
Google does not deny blocking access to those numbers, but argues it is a Web service offering an optional call connection service, and does not have a common carrier obligation to deliver calls to virtually any phone number.
AT&T obviously believes Google Voice has to terminate those calls, even though it is an application, not a common carrier provider of voice services.
Google says its phone management service isn't subject to common carrier telephone rules because it is free and consumers can use it only if they have a traditional telephone line.
AT&T and other carriers say they don't want to pay high access charges either, and do not believe any providers of termination services should be able to selectively block calls.
It isn't yet clear where the inquiry might lead, but it is another reminder that the regulatory framework that treats common carriers differently from application providers is intellectually incoherent.
The only issue is whether we are yet at a regulatory tipping point where some drastic revision is needed.
For at least three years, regulators have debated--without clear conclusion--where voice services over the Web fit in. Web services, which can include Skype, maybe Google Voice, and Comcast Digital Voice, are for now viewed as information services and not subject to the more heavily regulated treatment "service providers" are subjected to.
What is clear is that the old distinctions are becoming unworkable.
"Much as the FCC wishes there was still a clear distinction between 'the Internet' and 'the telephone network,' technology has obliterated that difference," Larry Downes, a non-resident fellow at the Stanford Law School Center of Internet and Society, notes.
He proposed the FCC wipe the slate clean: "Hold everyone to the same rules regardless of what information they are transporting-whether voice, video, television, data. Because regardless of who's doing what, these days it's all bits."
Such a sweeping reform necessarily would mean ending the way the nation now regulates cable TV, telephony and the Internet. That will ruffle lots of feathers, but it has been clear for some time that the differing regulatory frameworks increasingly are old of step with market realties.
To wit, we use one set of rules for "telcos," a different set of rules for "cable companies" and a third set for application providers, even when they offer similar, iidentical, overlapping or functionally similar services and applications.
"If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, it's a duck" is a non-technical way of dscribing how the FCC traditionally has looked at resolving questions within the common carrier world. As more providers enter that business, but with different regulatory treatment, there has to be pressure to treat all ducks as ducks.
Friday, October 9, 2009
FCC Opens Inquiry into Google Voice Blocking
Labels:
business model,
consumer VoIP
Gary Kim has been a digital infra analyst and journalist for more than 30 years, covering the business impact of technology, pre- and post-internet. He sees a similar evolution coming with AI. General-purpose technologies do not come along very often, but when they do, they change life, economies and industries.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Will AI Fuel a Huge "Services into Products" Shift?
As content streaming has disrupted music, is disrupting video and television, so might AI potentially disrupt industry leaders ranging from ...
-
We have all repeatedly seen comparisons of equity value of hyperscale app providers compared to the value of connectivity providers, which s...
-
It really is surprising how often a Pareto distribution--the “80/20 rule--appears in business life, or in life, generally. Basically, the...
-
One recurring issue with forecasts of multi-access edge computing is that it is easier to make predictions about cost than revenue and infra...
No comments:
Post a Comment