Posted on 10/10/2009 3:40:11 AM PDT by Leisler
WASHINGTON — Federal regulators will look into complaints by AT&T Inc. that Google Inc.’s free messaging and calling service, Google Voice, blocks calls to rural communities where local phone companies charge high connection fees.
The Federal Communications Commission on Friday sent a letter to Google requesting information about its Voice service, which lets people sign up for one number that can route incoming calls to cell, office or home phones. The service also lets users place calls, including international calls, at low rates.
As part of a broader quarrel with Google, AT&T has complained that Google Voice blocks calls to phone numbers in some rural communities to reduce the access charges it must pay. .........
(Excerpt) Read more at knoxnews.com ...
There is a term for price discrimination. It's called free enterprise.
This is how big business likes to compete. Mommy (Big Governemnt), he stole my lunch (by out-competing me). Do something!
Is there anything that prevents rural users from using satellite Internet? No.
People make choices. You want to live in the city, you might not be allowed to have chickens. You live up bum fuk mountain, you might not have take out Indonesian restaurant, or these days, a GM dealer with in a 150 miles.
I wonder how ATT has a right to demand performance of a Federal Police FOrce to protect their market share.
Has anyone used this service, and is it a good one to sign up with? I haven’t heard of it before.
Actually its Mommy who tells big business they are required to provide service to remote locations if they want a business license.
Then another business comes along and seeks to bypass the laws.
its google, they probably sell your call history and what you talk about
Because ATT is not allowed, by law, to block calls to any number.
This is the old technology (and FCC licenses) conflicting with new technology.
Read the article. The problem is government, not competition.
Corporatism at its finest. The government grabs erstwhile private enterprise by the jewels, and the strongest in private enterprise turn around and insert the cattle prod into government, and can now tell the government where, when, and how to squeeze.
A company cannot force anyone to do SQUAT except at the gunpoint of government. Our benevolent, paternalistic “leaders”, past and present, are to thank.
“It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our
own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences.”-—C. S. Lewis
Isn’t that what I stated????? perhaps you should read
Government imposes a law that anybody providing phone service must provide it to all people living in an area, so they can’t skip houses that would cost more to wire up.
Is this a good thing, or a bad thing? Is this a reasonable function of government, to ensure that every citizen has access to phone service?
I also think government requires that there not be extra fees for wiring houses up that are in rural areas. Again, is this a good thing? Should government ensure CHEAP access to phone service for everybody?
Of course, nowadays there are many solutions to getting phone service; but the question I think is irrespective of the new technology. I’m not asking if government SHOULD do this, just if this is a reasonable power for government.
I’m tempted to say that yes, government has an interest in ensuring phone service for everybody. But maybe to say no about costs — which in the end would probably be the same as denying service, since if they can charge what it costs, they’d do it without the law, you’d think.
I might think no though, because people in rural areas choose to live there, and should have to foot their own bill; except a lot of people living in rural areas didn’t choose it.
Of course, this all happened long ago. And one thing I AM sure of — if there is going to be a law requiring universal service, EVERY phone provider should have to meet that requirement; it’s not fair for government to impose restrictions on some business and not others.
This is why I, like few other people here, think that if a state charges sales tax, they should also charge sales tax for internet stores, and the feds should set up a way to facilitate that. Not that I want to raise taxes, but because it’s unfair that the guy who opens a corner store has to compete for customers with a store in the next state which doesn’t have to charge sales tax.
Yep, no lobbyists in Washington. Transparent, Honest Government. Really going to take it to “Big Business”.
And they go after Joe Wilson. The whole nation needs to be screaming LIAR at every one of them.
And even if you go into your local store to buy what you need, the store should be required to charge you for shipping. That would make it more fair for internet stores...
/sarc
I used Wildblue for two years. When Alltel put up a tower within my reach, I jumped ship as soon as I could. THAT is competition.
I watch this issue closely because it will impact me eventually. Alltel was eaten by Verizon and if I don't find an alternative ISP in a year it'll mean I get capped to 5000MB a month, which is why I ran from Wildblue.
Caps could be an economy killer, much like +$4 a gallon gasoline. Look at all the applications going online, "cloud" computing, software updates, etc. that require a lot of bandwidth. THIS is the issue to watch.
Your "but" negates "Not that I want to raise taxes"
I use google voice every day to make free long distance calls.
Quality is excellent. There are other free services that will create a local number for you in many large cities in the US. Anyone calling those numbers locally will get connected to your phone at home...pretty cool.
Here is an anonymous, auto expiring (or not) free service.
http://inumbr.com/
The store does charge you for shipping. How do you think the product got into the store?
Sure, it costs less to ship in large quantities, but then they have to pay to stock shelves, while the mail order company has a cheap warehouse.
But shipping, storage, stocking, sales force, advertising — these are all business expenses, and businesses can compete by working through these costs and making a better business model.
Taxes are something government claims from the business as a cost of doing business, and taxes should be the same for all businesses. The local company can’t find a way around their sales tax burden, and the internet company shouldn’t be subsidized.
Of course, you could also level the playing field by removing sales tax. However, I do believe there are legitimate requirements for government, that government NEEDS money to perform the jobs it is required to do, and therefore a sales tax, or an income tax, or some other tax, IS necessary for society to exist.
Conservatives are against wasteful spending, against government doing what it isn’t supposed to do, against excessive taxes. We aren’t against taxes altogether. Anarchists are against taxes altogether, because they want government gone.
But conservatives think the military is necessary, police are necessary, laws protecting private property are necessary, courts are necessary, jails are necessary.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.