dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
19
rblizz
join:2001-12-16
North Richland Hills, TX

rblizz to ConstantineM

Member

to ConstantineM

Re: [General] Google voice going paid?

said by ConstantineM:

How lame, nitzan See Profile! Google Voice is about the only provider ever discussed on this forum that provides:

1. SMS.

Well, there you go. For the one of us that cares, GV offers SMS. My problem with Google Voice is I never know what they're going to be doing next year -- or next week. They've committed to nothing. So why would you plan anything around them?

The best that can be said about GV is that (for now) you can get an OBi and make free outgoing calls. If you want a number that you know is going to be there next year, go with someone else.

I like picking a vendor and settling in with them. I don't want to worry about when (because it's a matter of "when" not "if") Google decides to either charge (how much, no one knows) or just give up on the experiment.

But I'm not looking for SMS in a VoIP provider, so what do I know?
ConstantineM
join:2011-09-02
San Jose, CA

ConstantineM

Member

said by rblizz:

The best that can be said about GV is that (for now) you can get an OBi and make free outgoing calls. If you want a number that you know is going to be there next year, go with someone else.

I like picking a vendor and settling in with them. I don't want to worry about when (because it's a matter of "when" not "if") Google decides to either charge (how much, no one knows) or just give up on the experiment.

What a bunch of FUD-spreading.

Do any PAYG VoIP providers that are ALREADY cheap offer any kind of price guarantees for the future?

Then why do you expect Google to be any different?

You guys are so biased against Google Voice, it's just ridiculous!

bbbc
join:2001-10-02
NorthAmerica

bbbc

Member

said by ConstantineM :

You guys are so biased against Google Voice, it's just ridiculous!

You're making me snicker. I use Google Voice a ton for North American long distance. I revert to VoIP.ms when I'm calling overseas. I remember the day when calling Europe cost a ton. Hell, I pay under 2ยข a minute, billed in seconds, to call England.

Texting through a VoIP provider is really a niche service. Out of curiosity, do you have a honey in some country that you can't text them without it costing a fortune through your mobile provider?
rblizz
join:2001-12-16
North Richland Hills, TX

rblizz to ConstantineM

Member

to ConstantineM
said by ConstantineM:

What a bunch of FUD-spreading.

Do any PAYG VoIP providers that are ALREADY cheap offer any kind of price guarantees for the future?

Then why do you expect Google to be any different?

You guys are so biased against Google Voice, it's just ridiculous!

What FUD have I spread? Google has been purposely coy about their long-term plans for GV -- this is not something I've done, it's something they've done.

Do you think I'm anti-Google? I'm currently using Google Chrome, I own an Android -- I got my wife and brothers and a nephew to buy Android phones and two nephews to buy Android tablets. I almost exclusively use Google Search.

Fact is, as of now (in the 2nd week of December) no one knows for sure if Google Voice will free in 2013 or not -- and it its like this every year. That's my problem with GV.
PX Eliezer704
Premium Member
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River

1 recommendation

PX Eliezer704 to ConstantineM

Premium Member

to ConstantineM
said by ConstantineM:

You guys are so biased against Google Voice, it's just ridiculous!

You said "By giving unwarranted advise against APNS with their telco hat on, OnSIP ruins SIP for everyone."

You likewise said:

why OnSIP thinks that the whole NAT44 and 3GPP industry, together with Apple, should change just for the sake of letting stubborn companies like OnSIP to not have to invest a cent into actually doing some innovation in the mobile space, and for the sake of letting OnSIP to basically just run the solutions created by others decades ago.

Your complaints against CC are legendary. I'm not talking just about recent stuff. It began over a year ago over esoteric matters like having a [+] sign in CID.

You also said:

And, yes, other than Google Voice, there is no other single PAYG VoIP provider in North America that I'm completely happy with on all fronts — they all offer varying degrees of features, reliability, stability....

said by ConstantineM:

You guys are so biased against Google Voice, it's just ridiculous!

The reverse could be said of you.
ConstantineM
join:2011-09-02
San Jose, CA

ConstantineM

Member

the balance!

said by PX Eliezer704:

… Your complaints against CC are legendary. I'm not talking just about recent stuff. It began over a year ago over esoteric matters like having a [+] sign in CID. …

LOL. I'm flattered you remember my every complaint, especially those against CallCentric!

I'm trying so hard in order to bring the slightest balance to the table. Google-Voice-and-IPKall-are-bad-'cause-free-no-support, noone-needs-SMS, which-rate-center-do-you-require, don't-forget-to-dial-011, why-would-anyone-need-TCP and Apple-is-bad is basically the never-ending theme of the regulars in this forum! :-p
Stewart
join:2005-07-13

Stewart

Member

Unfortunately, rate centers still do matter. Suppose your mom lives in Palo Alto. She has an AT&T landline with unlimited local calling and a prepaid cell phone, calls you frequently (using the landline, of course), and talks for a long time. If you choose a number in SNJS NORTH, those calls would be local and free for her; SNJS SOUTH would be a message rate toll call.
ConstantineM
join:2011-09-02
San Jose, CA

ConstantineM

Member

Do you actually know if there is a difference between SNJS NORTH and SNJS SOUTH, or is it just hot air? Why would calls between Palo Alto and SNJS NORTH be free; they're not even in the same NPA.

Moreover, your example doesn't pass a simple BS test. Unlike still in Canada, in the US it's been a long time as US-wide long distance is completely complementary with every single wireless provider; plus, last I checked, even Embarq offered relatively affordable long distance plans on their landline back in the day when I was forced to have one; I'm sure AT&T does, too. Nowadays everyone has a phone with some kind of unlimited minutes; noone even knows what a ratecenter is, or which one they're "assigned to".

I know of noone in the US who would switch their mobile phone number from SNJS NORTH to Palo Alto if they ever move from one city to the next; if I ever meet such a person, I'll make sure to ask them for their rationale, and, most likely, tell them that they're an idiot. Every single person I know who've moved to the Bay Area from another state or a part of the state, has kept their old phone number. Anyone who has moved within the Bay Area did so, too. 408/650/415/510 are all interchanged. I'm 100% certain that most calls anyone gets these days are not local calls within their ratecenter from their mother; it's probably mostly new friends, plus a couple of old ones, but mostly new. Again, for us, the cloud computing generation, the ratecenters are completely meaningless; a nearby NPA with a great mnemonic number is good enough. My Bay Area number is 7-letter–digit mnemonic. :-) No common provider other than Google offers this publicly and at nominal cost (being — mnemonics really do cost the same as regular numbers).
Stewart
join:2005-07-13

Stewart

Member

said by ConstantineM:

Do you actually know if there is a difference between SNJS NORTH and SNJS SOUTH, or is it just hot air? ... even Embarq offered relatively affordable long distance plans on their landline back in the day when I was forced to have one; I'm sure AT&T does, too.

OK, I was slightly wrong; bay area local calling areas have actually shrunk since I lived there!

Looking at AT&T.com, if you live e.g. in Los Altos, the lowest cost flat-rate non-lifeline residential landline is $21/mo. (+ fees and taxes), while the lowest cost package with unlimited nationwide calling is $42. Now, if you go to »localcalling.sbc.com/ and enter 650-559, you will see that 408-232 (SNJS North) is in the local calling are, while 408-224 (SNJS South) is not.

You can also try entering the latter two exchange codes and see that Sunol is a local call from San Jose, but only if you live in the southern part.
PX Eliezer704
Premium Member
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River

1 edit

PX Eliezer704 to Stewart

Premium Member

to Stewart
People who grew up after the mid-1980's or who came to the US after that period, are probably not so familiar with the history and the rationale for the LATA's.

LATA's were a necessary tool for allowing CLEC's to come into the marketplace without total chaos.

California (both Verizon areas and AT&T/SBC areas) also has the concept of Zone Unit Management (ZUM).

In most states we have:

Local calling
Local/Regional toll (Intra-LATA)
Long distance (Inter-LATA)

Whereas in most California areas it is akin to:

Local calling
ZUM-3 (typically 13-16 miles in metro areas)
Local/Regional toll (Intra-LATA)
Long distance (Inter-LATA)

I would agree that THAT goes beyond what is needed for carrier competition. At this point there probably should be no service distinctions other than Intra-LATA and Inter-LATA.

ymhee_bcex
Premium Member
join:2006-04-21
Tarzana, CA
·AT&T Wireless Br..

ymhee_bcex

Premium Member

said by PX Eliezer704:

Whereas in most California areas it is akin to:

Local calling
ZUM-3 (typically 13-16 miles in metro areas)
Local/Regional toll (Intra-LATA)
Long distance (Inter-LATA)

I would agree that THAT goes beyond what is needed for carrier competition. At this point there probably should be no service distinctions other than Intra-LATA and Inter-LATA.

As a person who came to the US in 1990, I was amused that to call from Encino to Irvine (about 50 miles distance) was 10 times more expensive than to call New York...