dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
2459
PX Eliezer704
Premium Member
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River

1 edit

PX Eliezer704

Premium Member

GoogleVoice secrets accidentally revealed

News story:

"Despite the fact that Google Voice remains an "invitation only" service, it has grown to well over 1.4 million users with a cool 570,000 folks using it daily.

But you're not supposed to know that.

As The Register reported yesterday, Google on Wednesday sent a letter to the US Federal Communications Commission in response to the FCC's questions about, among other things, Google's blocking of certain rural phone numbers from using Google Voice.

The public version of that letter was supposed to have had chunks of sensitive info redacted and replaced by empty sections bracketed by "Begin Confidential" and "End Confidential."

But not in the copy that BusinessWeek got their hands on...."

FULL STORY:

»www.theregister.co.uk/20 ··· f_error/

tom thomas
@lbtmail.com

tom thomas

Anon

i am quite surprised that over 40% of users use it every day. most people i know with accounts never use it or use it as a voice mail service when they do not want to reveal the actual number.

i wonder if there may be an error here and that the truth is 570,00 calls pass through everyday. the few people i know who use it every day do use it a lot.

burgerwars
join:2004-09-11
Northridge, CA

burgerwars

Member

Maybe if 40% have at least set it up to forward to one number, that count that as being used. I'm skeptical that 40% of the numbers get at least one call since you can't port yet and another big section of people just signed-up because it was free but don't utilize it. But I guess it's possible that enough of a percentage of the phone numbers issued are dialed enough in error, that maybe they can get to the 40% figure.

soccerdad62
Premium Member
join:2005-04-16
Saline, MI

soccerdad62 to PX Eliezer704

Premium Member

to PX Eliezer704
Thanks for posting; interesting article!

One thing at the end I didn't understand though:

"Despite Google's protestations to the FCC that it isn't a telecommunications service and thus isn't subject to regulations placed on such services by the US Communications Act, with 1.4 million current users and with intimations of global expansion, it's certainly beginning to look like one.

If it looks like a telecom, quacks like a telecom, and walks like a telecom, Google deserves to be treated like a telecom."

Now granted, the only thing that would make me care whether or not Google Voice was indeed a telecom was whether or not it affected my ability to use it, but I wonder why having 1.4 million users and the possibility of international expansion makes it seem like a telecom? Playing with telephony features, for sure, but I never thought of it as a carrier with service origination or termination, that's what I use Vonage or AT&T for.

burris
Premium Member
join:2000-08-22
Palm Beach Gardens, FL

burris to burgerwars

Premium Member

to burgerwars
said by burgerwars:

Maybe if 40% have at least set it up to forward to one number, that count that as being used. I'm skeptical that 40% of the numbers get at least one call since you can't port yet and another big section of people just signed-up because it was free but don't utilize it. But I guess it's possible that enough of a percentage of the phone numbers issued are dialed enough in error, that maybe they can get to the 40% figure.

I've had it since the beginning, but have never made an outbound call. However, although I have never published or shared my number anywhere, I get numerous inbound calls that I continue to block as I discover them.
I wonder if this adds to their total.

burgerwars
join:2004-09-11
Northridge, CA

burgerwars

Member

said by burris:

said by burgerwars:

Maybe if 40% have at least set it up to forward to one number, that count that as being used. I'm skeptical that 40% of the numbers get at least one call since you can't port yet and another big section of people just signed-up because it was free but don't utilize it. But I guess it's possible that enough of a percentage of the phone numbers issued are dialed enough in error, that maybe they can get to the 40% figure.

I've had it since the beginning, but have never made an outbound call. However, although I have never published or shared my number anywhere, I get numerous inbound calls that I continue to block as I discover them.
I wonder if this adds to their total.
I can safely say on many numbers I have that they at least get one wrong number on 40% of the days. Add to that those auto-dialer/solicitation calls you get even if you're on the "Do Not Call" list, it's probably easy for Google to say 40% are users every day.
khabibul35
join:2009-09-06
sweden

khabibul35

Member

Neither me, my wife, my father, or anyone else that I know has ever received an unsolicited call.

I mean, how many misdials land specifically in Google's network as a percentage of their total numbers? I would guess it's less than 1%, and my guess is that it's more like .1% (1 out 1,000 seems about right to me based on my experience).

blohner
join:2002-06-26
Lehigh Acres, FL

blohner to PX Eliezer704

Member

to PX Eliezer704
No mis-dialed calls here either - but two actively used (and one little used) GV numbers in the family....

josephf
join:2009-04-26

4 edits

josephf to PX Eliezer704

Member

to PX Eliezer704

Intresting section of Google letter to FCC

This statement is part of the the Google response to the FCC inquiry:

All of the the GV functionalities described above are offered for free for all outbound calls to telephone numbers in the US. For functionalities that involve placing poutbound calls to international numbers, a fee is charged.

Google pays for the costs of operating GV and treats the service as part of its larger suite of free Web-enabled software applications for consumers. GV's philopsophy regarding pricing is to provide as much functionality and service as possible for free to all of our users. When underlying costs do not allow this, GV may decide to charge a fee in order to continue to provide the features and functionalities currently offered by GV. Google has no near-term plans to charge its users for using GV services.

»www.scribd.com/doc/21776 ··· r-to-FCC

ReVeLaTeD
Premium Member
join:2001-11-10
San Diego, CA

ReVeLaTeD to burris

Premium Member

to burris

Re: GoogleVoice secrets accidentally revealed

said by burris:

said by burgerwars:

Maybe if 40% have at least set it up to forward to one number, that count that as being used. I'm skeptical that 40% of the numbers get at least one call since you can't port yet and another big section of people just signed-up because it was free but don't utilize it. But I guess it's possible that enough of a percentage of the phone numbers issued are dialed enough in error, that maybe they can get to the 40% figure.

I've had it since the beginning, but have never made an outbound call. However, although I have never published or shared my number anywhere, I get numerous inbound calls that I continue to block as I discover them.
I wonder if this adds to their total.
My GV number is the only number I ever give out. In truth I owned 6 separate numbers: One Verizon cell phone, one Verizon MiFi, One Verizon Hub (defunct), One netbook from Verizon, my work cell phone from T-mobile, and my toll-free fax number (defunct). That's just too many numbers to have to think about, which is why the GV number is critical for me. I make outbound calls from it all the time, since the Blackberry Google Voice app lets you do that fairly easily. I would say that unless you are a heavy user of multiple phones and have need to consolidate, Google Voice is not that valuable an option for you. The only two good things for a casual user are the voicemail transcription and the centralized, free SMS.

prestonlewis
Premium Member
join:2003-04-13
Sacramento, CA

prestonlewis to PX Eliezer704

Premium Member

to PX Eliezer704
We're a cell phone family with no landline. I like GV for incoming calls with a number that will never go away. Cell phone number change periodically but my GV hasn't changed since the early, early days before Google even bought the service.

However, I do get few incoming calls with my GV number.

My kids have limited minutes with Verizon. I plan to use my GV as a "friend and family" number so they can call my GV number, press 2, and then dial whoever they want for free.
PX Eliezer704
Premium Member
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River

1 edit

PX Eliezer704

Premium Member

Here's an excellent NY Times article today on the GoogleVoice problem with the so-called rural companies that charge ridiculously high connection fees:

»www.nytimes.com/2009/11/ ··· igi.html

(Brief ad is played first).

-------------------------

The article actually manages to get things right!

josephf
join:2009-04-26

1 edit

josephf

Member

Only BusinessWeek got hold of a non-redacted copy of the letter, but they have not published the actual non-redacted letter. They did, however, publish some of the relevant information that was in the redacted sections, in an article at:

»www.businessweek.com/tec ··· 9665.htm

The redacted letter can be read at:

»www.scribd.com/doc/21776 ··· r-to-FCC
engineerdan
join:2006-12-07
Washington, DC

engineerdan

Member

said by josephf:

Only BusinessWeek got hold of a non-redacted copy of the letter, but they have not published the actual non-redacted letter.
The FCC's web site automatically makes most electronic submissions (such as Google's) available to the public. Their electronic filing system also has provisions for the submission of redacted comments that are not made public.

The BusinessWeek article suggests that this process was somehow mixed up, making the non-redacted version available to anyone who knew to look for it.

ArgMeMatey
join:2001-08-09
Milwaukee, WI

ArgMeMatey to josephf

Member

to josephf
said by josephf:

Only BusinessWeek got hold of a non-redacted copy of the letter, but they have not published the actual non-redacted letter.
The article says the unredacted pdf was posted on the FCC site before the error was found, so hopefully some TSG-like source gets their hands on it and posts it. But I haven't found it yet.
jay_rm
join:2002-04-12
Netville

jay_rm to khabibul35

Member

to khabibul35
said by khabibul35:

Neither me, my wife, my father, or anyone else that I know has ever received an unsolicited call.
I "own" several GV numbers and have received unsolicited calls on almost all of them. BUT...they sounded like legit 'wrong number' calls, or, calls to a number that had been issued prior and then 'recycled' to GV (and me). I have never (as far as I know) received any telemarketing calls to any of my GV numbers.

DogFace056
join:2005-12-09
Cary, NC

DogFace056 to josephf

Member

to josephf
For those who want to access the letter directly from the FCC, rather than from an unknown and potentially questionable third party's post through a site that force use of a browser plugin known for being a premier and leading conduit for malware distribution and infection, you may choose to go here: http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/archives/whatsnewarchive09.html. Then select the link to the PDF file under "Google's Response to Wireline Competition Bureau's Request for Information About Google Voice," dated 10/28/2009.

josephf
join:2009-04-26

josephf

Member

Or you can retrieve it more easily directly from Google's website at:

»google.com/googleblogs/p ··· 2809.pdf