No need to punish the consumer with charging them 50 times more.

The problem is that you only know what google pays and you don’t know what the tariffs are or the commercial agreement rates.

Which makes your solution crazy!

No building next door. No loophole. No need to pay 25 cents.

So why do they say they have to pay 25 cents… So they have a reason to block?

Rates between 2 and 3 cents to the locations Google is blocking are available. so why block?

For a very small amount of phone numbers there would be a charge. That way the call could go through and the costs would be covered.

First, AT&T requires direct access to public properties for their wiring and cell towers, and companies that require such access must make concessions.

Second, as others have pointed out, Google’s restricting certain numbers does *not* restrict people from dialing those numbers, since callers can still use the primary carriers (wireline and cellular carriers) currently required for any Google Voice call. They just can’t do it for free.

Google is offering a free service that does not require public subsidy (access to roadbeds), and the way they configure that service only alters pricing and does not restrict access. Do we really want our government to tell such a business that they have to pay off scammers in order to continue operations?

1934 act of Congress granted Federal government limited jurisdiction over equipment used in the transmission of wire and radio communications.

Anytime the FCC tries to fuck with (i.e. “censor”) any aspect whatsoever of the communications themselves, especially the DISCRETIONARY RECEIPT of PRIVATE communications (LOL, i.e., “picking up your phone”), they just end up getting f’d right back:

FOR example:

WASHINGTON, D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals:
American Library Association v. Federal Communications Commission:

“The FCC argues that the Commission has “discretion” to exercise “broad authority” over equipment used in connection with radio and wire transmissions, “when the need arises, even if it has not previously regulated in a particular area.” FCC Br. at 17. This is an extraordinary proposition. “The [Commission’s] position in this case amounts to the bare suggestion that it possesses plenary authority to act within a given area simply because Congress has endowed it with some authority to act in that area. We categorically reject that suggestion. Agencies owe their capacity to act to the delegation of authority” from Congress. See Ry. Labor Executives’ Ass’n, 29 F.3d at 670. The FCC, like other federal agencies, “literally has no power to act . . . unless and until Congress confers power upon it.” La. Pub. Serv. Comm’n v. FCC, 476 U.S. 355, 374 (1986). In this case, all relevant materials concerning the FCC’s jurisdiction – including the words of the Communications Act of 1934, its legislative history, subsequent legislation, relevant case law, and Commission practice – confirm that the FCC has no authority to regulate consumer electronic devices that can be used for receipt of wire or radio communication when those devices are not engaged in the process of radio or wire transmission.”

(http://bit.ly/H8MHL)

Once you offer that service to a user if it is connected to the Public Switched Telephone Network that service should play by the rules of the PSTN or it should not interconnect