Will Google Voice be free in 2013
hogfanboy:
My guess is they would terminate the out going calls before they would charge for it.
If they start charging they would most likely be around the magic jack rate (under $2 a month)
There are issues Google would have to address if they start charging
One main concern is AT&T will start saying your a real phone company and you have to do things that are required by law to all phone companies. ( 911 and deliver calls to everywhere no matter what the termination costs are)
So long as products like obi don't become main stream, most of the outgoing calls will be through "Gmail" Google wants you to spend more time in Gmail (the use it to target ads to you). That said they could try to shut the door that obi is currently using to tap into google voice.
So charging is the least of my worries (if they do it won't be much). I worry more about them ending the outgoing calls or locking obi out of using it.
Ostracus:
They could in that case open a Skype hole. Anything hitting the PSTN will cost but it will open up the market to all the Skype users not doing so, and that's a pretty big market in itself.
JohnBowler:
Quote from: carl on July 01, 2012, 09:22:13 pm
@JohnBowler : While the wholesale costs of VOIP traffic might be near zero, there is something called termination charges = money you have to pay to the local telco to get the call processed through the local PSTN or cellular network. Those charges can be steep, that's why Magic Jack does not service many area codes or exchanges and that's why the calls to European cell phones are so horribly expensive.
My understanding is that in the US termination charges must be symmetric; so what GV gets charged by local telco xyzzy to terminate a GV call equals what GV gets paid when a user of local telco xyzzy makes a call to a GV number.
I suspect this is why GV gives away numbers for free in the US (but not elsewhere) and why they are very happy indeed with users like me who get incoming on GV but use another provider for outgoing. (In the worst case their cost for incoming is zero - one termination charge in, the other out - but for outgoing they probably suffer a small net loss.)
It's not clear that wireless operators are actually charging any call termination charges. Rates are negotiated between Google and the operator and, in the US (unlike Europe) wireless operators charge to receive a call as well as make one, compared to which the call termination charge is small change. (This is why European rates are apparently higher - because Europe is currently caller-pays so that instantly doubles the cost to make a call because there is no cost to receive one.)
The math of GV is tricky, but here are some facts:
1) If GV negotiate a zero call termination charge then GV has no problem passing this on to the customer, because the actual cost of the VOIP traffic is minimal and they can make profit in other ways.
2) If an incoming call goes to GV VM then GV pocket the termination charge (profit.)
3) If an incoming call goes to Google Talk (including an Obi) then GV pocket the termination charge (profit.)
Of course there could be other details here. So far as I can see US call termination charges are kept highly secret because they are negotiated bilaterally between call terminators. It's also not clear to me exactly what happens when GV has a point of presence in a local exchange and routes a call to the local number. I suspect GV has a lot of PoPs to provide local numbers, to allow it to participate in local number portability and, probably, to obtain favorable rates for call termination.
If GV can use a PoP to obtain zero cost call termination to a non-GV local number then clearly it now profits in the case where an incoming call is answered (whereas before it only broke even.) If that is possible it is now (effectively) sucking up part of the monthly subscription fee paid by US landline (wired) telephone users.
There are too many unknowns, at least so far as I am concerned, in the actual payments that really happen in the US telecom market. However every time I find out something it seems to back up my initial suspicion that GV has a sound business model - they can continue what they are doing and be confident of not losing money. However they are vulnerable to any number of restrictive practices that other parts of the industry might initiate. (Particularly de-prioritizing time critical traffic on regular consumer internet connections; short, maybe only 0.25s pauses in traffic to a single consumer would, I think, be enough to kill VOIP.)
Ostracus:
Quote from: JohnBowler on July 08, 2012, 11:13:04 pm
However they are vulnerable to any number of restrictive practices that other parts of the industry might initiate. (Particularly de-prioritizing time critical traffic on regular consumer internet connections; short, maybe only 0.25s pauses in traffic to a single consumer would, I think, be enough to kill VOIP.)
That's were the discussion on Net Neutrality comes in. It would also be something that technically could be gotten around by the knowledgeable.
Haloman800:
Quote from: JohnBowler on June 29, 2012, 10:53:57 pm
"Will Google be free."
Quote from: jeff@jeffmusto.com on June 29, 2012, 04:59:40 pm
I am just curious if anyone has heard any rumors or talk of what Google is up to in 2013.
That is "free" as in "free beer". No, it won't cost any less in 2013 that it does today, which means it won't be free.
GV costs are comparable with other VOIP providers, but GV isn't primarily a VOIP provider, rather it is a number aggregator (it gives you one number that connects to multiple telephones) and voice mail service. It doesn't, currently, charge for either service. I believe the business model is that by providing the added value it can retain customers while charging the going rate for VOIP. It makes the money on the VOIP.
The idea that it is "free" is marketing scam. It's not new scam either; US telephone companies have been lying to the purchasers of their services that they provide free telephone calls for, well, I think for ever. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
John Bowler <jbowler@acm.org>
John, he asked if Google Voice would remain free in 2013, he didn't ask for a 3 paragraph response on U.S. politics. We know we have to pay for the internet, but at least in my case (and I'm sure many others) we have an unlimited plan, so it doesn't cost us any more to use the Obi + Google Voice for FREE CALLS.
I suspect next you'll say the "Free Samples" at a store aren't really free because you have to use energy to reach your hand out and take one.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page