Google says it's now blocking 'fewer than 100' numbers in Google Voice
By Chris Ziegler 
posted Oct 29th 2009 2:21AM
posted Oct 29th 2009 2:21AM
The crux of AT&T's recent complaint to the FCC regarding Google Voice was that Google -- not being subject to the common carrier rules that help facilitate fair, open telephone networks -- was blocking customers from accessing numbers managed by rural carriers that charged higher connection fees, thereby giving it a leg up on its Old Guard competition by saving cash in ways AT&T and others are legally barred from doing. Google's hitting back today, not by agreeing to submit to common carrier rules (come on now, don't be ridiculous) but by saying in a statement to the FCC that it's now blocking calls to "fewer than 100" numbers in total now that it has finished implementing new back-end capabilities that allow it to single out specific numbers rather than entire exchanges. Google complains that calls to the top ten exchanges accounted for 26 percent of its entire connection fee outlay -- but yeah, that's pretty much what telcos have been dealing with since time immemorial, so the bellyaching's likely to fall on a lot of deaf ears. For what it's worth, the company is still asking the FCC to make sweeping changes to connection fee policy, but whether this ends up getting them out of AT&T's more immediate concerns remains to be seen.[Via Phone Scoop]
any service that provides a means of communicating to someone via a telephone number should be subject to the same common carrier rules. end of story. i love google, but blocking even 1 number eliminates the even playing field.
You aren't forced to use Google Voice. If you don't like their service, including blocking, then go somewhere else. Let them run their business and if you don't like it then take your money somewhere else. And domestic calls and SMS are free, how can you complain? I have no complaints myself becuase I'm not paying a dime for them and if they did block numbers I needed to call I would just take my business elseware.
Even if phone companies where able to block you still have other phone companies to take your business to. It's like like before when no one had cell phones and you only could go with your home land line phone company. I have AT&T and if they blocked, well I will go to another company that didn't.
@Brian. Nothing is free. Somewhere, somehow, someone is paying someone else something.
If you own one of these 100 numbers or are calling one of these numbers then your choices are restricted based on a corporate decision, not freedom of choice by the end user.
@Brian -- Correct, Google Voice is a free service that supplements, but does not replace, traditional phone service. It doesn't actually prevent you from making calls, it just blocks certain numbers from their FREE service.
@Izzy -- TINSTAAFL. In this case, Google and/or their advertisers are paying for the service. Google Voice may be generating a small amount of revenue for some calls (international?) but like all of Google's services it is generally a free service to the consumer. If I use almost ANY service, I face restrictions that are "corporate decisions" -- Google is not required to provide the Voice service at all, and the fiscal burden of compliance with archaic FCC regs could very well make it not viable for providing the service free to anyone.
The day that Google runs a wire to my house and provides the actual backbone for calls is the day they should comply with the same regs that AT&T has to. Until then, it is a virtual service that is ultimately replaceable by any number of competitors (Vonage, Skype, etc.), so either enjoy the free service or STFU.
Do people even realize why those numbers are being blocked (and why AT&T and others wanted to block them)? It's because they're conference-call scams, taking advantage of the government regulations on rural interchange fees.
The government subsidizes rural phone companies by allowing them to charge much higher interchange fees. This is meant to subsidize the high fixed costs of providing phone lines in the remote areas with low density. The interchange fees are substantially higher than the marginal cost of providing a minute of services, but are set up so that with normal call volume they cover the fixed price of line maintenance, etc.
What some of the rural phone companies and certain customers realized was that they could set up "free conference-call" numbers abusing these regulations and the prevalence of unlimited calling plans. They allow people from all over the country to call one of their special numbers to set up a conference call, allowing people to call in for free. The conference call company and the rural phone company split the absurdly high interchange fees, which are much greater than their costs of hosting the call. Free profit by driving up their call volume to provide conference calls to people who don't live in their calling area. Profit that they'd never get except for regulations designed to ensure phone service to people who do live in their rural calling area.
"If you own one of these 100 numbers or are calling one of these numbers then your choices are restricted based on a corporate decision, not freedom of choice by the end user."
If you own one of these 100 numbers or are calling one of them, then your choices are restricted based on the fact that you're trying to participate in the abuse the regulations in a legal scam. Granted, people calling in to the number often don't realize that regulation abuse is going on, they just know that they're getting a good deal on free conference calling.
I understand why the telcos want Google to face the same restrictions as they do, though I think that these calls should be blocked, or else the rural subsidies should just go away.
john, ya i know about the scams and subsidizing bs and all of that.
652059, the google service does run through the phone lines. how do u think it calls the party on the other end? how do u think your phone will ring if someone on the service calls you? google pays a third party company to provide them with access to the phone lines. therefore it runs through the phone. therefore it should be subject to regulations.
izzy, rank up
brian, thats the point, at&t CANT block any numbers. no phone company can. its illegal.
The same govt regs on rural phone lines is why in the 1990s many larger BBS systems (remember those?) were courted to use a different set of phone numbers, but all still in local calling area (users would not be charged long distance). The rural phone companies set these up with a much lower cost per phone line for the BBS owner/operator.
The reason? The FCC regs require telcos to pay each other for INBOUND calls. BBS services were around 99.99% inbound (system would usually call out nightly on a single line to get forum updates). This means the telco would get paid a pile of cash, and the same lines would very rarely, if ever, make an outbound call. Lots of money in, no money out.
For those born after 1978: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulletin_Board_System
I am surprised no one else has mentioned this, but I have to call into a "free" conference bridge that my company uses, and as of about three weeks ago, if I use GV, it informs me the cost of the call is 25 cents/minute ! Ouch ! That isn't call blocking, but it stopped me from using them. BTW, for the same number, Skype just refused to route the call. No message or anything. I ended up making the call on my mobile.