From t last week it is coming in news that there is a discussion initiated between Google and the telecom operator Verizon around the principle of Net neutrality, which is a “guarantee against discrimination with respect to the source, destination or content information transmitted over the network “, as defined by the ASIC, the Association of Community Internet Services.
According to the New York Times, the agreement would have been intended to give priority to services from Google on Verizon’s network in exchange for a fee.

The two players in the field of telecom and the Internet faces rumors by issuing a “legislative proposal” that would hurt some principles of Net neutrality.

Google and Verizon would the legislative proposal” to be implemented in the United States, with the approval of the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) relaxed rules and scalable on Net Neutrality.”Google and Verizon have worked together to find ways to preserve the neutrality of the internet” while “continuing to promote investments in access to broadband Internet”, Google said on its blog.

Both groups agree on an important principle: it can be shown restraint and discrimination legal content for operators and ISPs in the direction of Internet users. The Only problem with it is on how to identify these “legal content” circulating on the Internet? They do not say … The filtering of content perhaps?

“Provide additional services differentiated” … and priority?

However, Verizon and Google also believe that Internet access providers “have the right to a reasonable use of their network, at a time when ISPs want to implement a congestion of their networks to cope with the explosion of web traffic.

This could likely enhance health care in remote regions.The national broadband plan includes a 25-page chapter on health care and the FCC has asked the Department of Health and Human Services to make e-care projects a top priority.

One suggestion is the creation of a health care broadband infrastructure fund to make sure all health care facilities — including rural ones — have adequate connectivity.

Clinics, hospitals and even doctors’ offices are expected to put health records into a secure database, which can be accessed by patients and their authorized care providers, wherever they happen to be located.

In addition to saving lives, video consultation and other “telehealth” techniques can save money by giving facilities remote access to world-class specialists without having them on their payroll.

The FCC said that avoiding the costs of moving patients from correctional facilities and nursing homes to emergency departments and physician offices could result in $1.2 billion in annual savings.

National adoption of electronic health records could save more lives by alerting physicians and patients of dangerous drug allergies and drug interactions when the doctor is entering the prescription.

In a study referred to in the FCC’s report, it has been found that by simply opting to electronic health systems with on-screen reminders to prompt doctors to recommend influenza and pneumonia vaccinations can save up to 39,000 lives yearly.

Mobile health delivery through laptops, smart phones and other devices is also seen as a possibility.

Lifescan, a Johnson and Johnson company, offers an iPhone application that connects to a glucose monitor to transmit data to a patient’s caregiver or physician. And there are many other such examples.

The Federal Communications Commission will also propose to revamp the Universal Service Fund as part of a national broadband plan.

The USF was established to ensure that all Americans have access to a basic telephone line. Today, the program subsidizes phone service for the poor, funds Internet access in schools and libraries and pays for high-speed connections for rural health clinics. But its biggest function is to bring telephone service to remote, very less populated regions of America.

This proposal would create a Connect America fund inside the Universal Service program to subsidize broadband, and a Mobility Fund to expand the reach of so-called 3G, or third-generation, wireless networks.

The FCC official, Blair Levin, said that FCC needed to move from the traditional networks to the new networks.

Levin also reported that Connect America would not favor one technology over another, be it cable, DSL or wireless.

The FCC proposal also envisions revamping the multibillion-dollar “intercarrier  compensation” system, the Byzantine menu of charges that telecom carriers pay to access each other’s networks and connect calls.

The FCC’s latest proposals will be part of a sweeping national roadmap for bringing universal, affordable broadband connections to all the citizens.

Although the plan is due on March 17, the agency has already begun releasing details, including a proposal to make more wireless spectrum available for mobile broadband connections.

Frontier Communications Corporation has announced initial support for the FCC’s plan to create a fund to support Broadband Deployment to non-served rural areas and to reform Universal Service Fund (USF).

Maggie Wilderotter, Chairman and CEO of Frontier Communications said that they are pleased with the efforts of FCC in expanding broadband throughout rural America.

She also added that Frontier Communications Corporation knew the importance of reforming the USF and ICC over an extended period of time, and they would continue to work with the FCC on this plan.

Earlier Termination Fee (EFT) is the charge customers have to pay when they want to end their contract before the ending terms. The provision of EFT supports the wireless company to offer phones to customers at lower and discount prices than the original retail prices and minimizes its losses when customers break the contracts before termination.

In its filled response to FCC Verizon mentions that even with this increased fee they would also be the suffers as they will still be losing money for every termination because carrier prorates the EFT.

Defending their hike they also mentioned that additional revenue from the ETFs is useful to keep its broadband network strong and reimburse costs associated with advertising, sales commissions, store costs which are higher for advanced devices as they need to spend more on customer service for helping those tied in an issue with web-enabled phone.

Verizon increased the EFT for advanced devices like those including HTML browser; high-resolution MP camera with optical zoom; dual processor chipsets; Wi-Fi etc. those like Motorola Droid and Blackberry. Earlier they use to charge $170 which is increased to $350 now.

According to Kathleen Grillo, senior vice president of federal regulatory affairs for Verizon, “It would generally be more economic for them (customers) to do so… Moreover, customers who terminate walk away with a device that retains value.”

Richard Whitt, Washington Telecom and Media Counsel wrote in a blog post that “extremely high number of calls were being made to an extremely small number of destinations… generated more than 160 times the expected traffic volumes, and accounted for a whopping 26 percent of our monthly connection costs.”

Earlier in September AT&T asked FCC to look into the matter as they and other telecom companies are bounded by the rule that they cannot block call to any numbers so to provide customers with seamless communication.

Though seeking FCC concern Google lessened the restricted numbers but advocated the idea that FCC should work to bring some reform in present communication system “Commission needs to repair our nation’s broken carrier compensation systems. The current system simply does not serve consumers well and these types of schemes point up the pressing need for reform.” said Mr. Whitt.

The inquiry asked Google to explain Google’s Voice behavior over the restriction it put on particular telephone numbers including functionality and technical description how these restrictions are implemented. They need to mention “how Google inform Google Voice users about restrictions on various numbers and to what extent are each of these Google Voice functionalities offered for free? To what extent, if any, does Google charge for any of these services? Does Google intend to charge at some point?”
The letter also demanded details on various other issues like invitation-only, reason for the restriction on calls, is Google Voice a reseller of “telecommunication services” and how does it fits within current telecommunications law.

Prior to the issued date from FCC Google has publicized there clarification to the its public blog which says “ Google Voice is a free web application, one intended to supplement and enhance existing phone lines, not replace them. The goal of Google Voice is to provide a useful, unified communications tool (including for, among others, soldiers and the homeless). Some have observed that Google Voice is “something a real phone company should have offered years ago”

Defending their restrictions to the outbound calls Richard Whitt, Google’s Washington telecom and media counsel, penned in the blogpost “The reason we restrict calls to certain local phone carriers’ numbers is simple. Not only do they charge exorbitant termination rates for calls, but they also partner with adult sex chat lines and “free” conference calling centers to drive high volumes of traffic. This practice has been called “access stimulation” or “traffic pumping” (clearly by someone with a sense of humor). Google Voice is a free application and we want to keep it that way for all our users — which we could not afford to do if we paid these ludicrously high charges.”

Google argued that it should not be regulated like telephone companies as Google Voice service is not a traditional phone call because it originates from a Web software tool.

Google Voice, allows people to link all of their phones to a common number and to manage calls and messages through a single Web site. The service can also be used to send and receive phone calls and text messages.

AT&T along with other wireless providers like Verizon is already restricted to limit any outgoing calls according to FCC’s rulebook. Although in past they had demanded the power to decide the connectivity to various channels but didn’t succeeded. Next in the line is the awaited decision of FCC as in which direction would they step ahead to give an unbiased decision without hampering innovation.

Google voice, an Internet call-forwarding system restricts outgoing calls to some phone numbers, including adult chat lines and conference-call centers, which charge higher access fees to carriers. Blocking such calls reduces its access expenses. But it creates long barrier for AT&T to compete with Google on price.

Google’s Response

Although Google agreed with AT&T that the current carrier compensation system is badly flawed, as the FCC has suspended the rural companies’ rates and proposed rules to permanently ban traffic pumping. But the agenda is still open on the issue and the single best answer is for the FCC to take the necessary steps to fix it.

But they defended of themselves. Richard Whitt, Washington Telecom and Media Counsel posted on Google blog that Google Voice do restrict some calls keeping in mind provision of providing free or low cost access. Google differentiates its Google voice from traditional phone services on various accounts thus exempting themselves from rules that bind phone carriers.

GV is not subjected to common carrier laws as it is a free web-based software application.
For using GV a landline or wireless line is required which makes it a supporter of traditional phone services rather than being a replacement to it.
Google Voice is currently invitation-only, serving a limited number of users.

AT&T used its net neutrality card accusing Google of violating “net neutrality” principles, which are designed to ensure consumers can use any legal Internet services they want.

AT&T’s Senior Vice President-Federal Regulatory Robert Quinn commented on the issue “While Google argues for others to be bound by net neutrality rules, it argues against itself being bound by common carriage, which the Financial Times aptly recognized as an ‘intellectual contradiction.’ Such a contradiction highlights the fallacy of any approach to Internet regulation that focuses myopically on network providers, but not application, service, and content providers.”
Furthermore discussing on the net neutrality Google blog post proceeds as follows
“AT&T is trying to make this about Google’s support for an open Internet, but the comparison just doesn’t fly. The FCC’s open Internet principles apply only to the behavior of broadband carriers — not the creators of Web-based software applications. Even though the FCC does not have jurisdiction over how software applications function, AT&T apparently wants to use the regulatory process to undermine Web-based competition and innovation.”

The FCC’s net-neutrality guidelines require companies to allow consumers to use the Internet as they please. They also say that “consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers and content providers.”

Although both the companies have placed their opinions on the issue it is yet to be seen that will FCC gives a clear chit to Google or goes with AT&T???

Google Voice is a number that simultaneously rings your existing phone lines, mobile number, work, home, etc. If none of those lines pick up, it then goes into a Google Voice Mail. It also facilitates transcription of voice mail and then emails it to you or can send it as a text message on your cell. When your Google Voice is called and you answer on your mobile phone, you are using your mobile phone’s minutes. There are many more things which this app can do for you.

The new update explains imitation of the core dialer functionality of iPhone in Google Voice application as the reason of rejection.

On the other side of wall Apple is still glued to its words that they have yet not rejected Google Voice and the app is still under consideration.

While AT&T had already declared it had no involvement in the matter in its own letter to the FCC released in August.

Google’s letter includes yet another application rejected by Apple – Google Latitude. They reason pointed for this rejection is that Apple finds it would cause confusion with the built-in Maps application that every iPhones provide. Google Latitude is a finely tuned version of Google Map especially designed for Apple.

The state commission in earlier July had requested information from Apple, Google, AT&T on the matter of rejection. Each one had sent their piece of information in letters which were later publicized. But on Friday Google revealed the hidden part of its letter which brought the whole issue in limelight.

It purely appears that Apple is trying to fool but the question remains whom they are fooling will FCC let them go bare handed or do they really have any clause that would defend them from this situation??? It’s still awaited who gets benefited from all these commotion is it Google to make or Apple?????