dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
708
share rss forum feed


tommyanon

@comcast.net

whats google real plan for next year

this quote:

'Google employee Nikhyl Singhal explains that there are third party applications on Android that make illegal use of Google Voice services, violating the Terms of Use. These apps actually present a threat to your security, so integrating Google Voice into Hangouts would be unsafe'

got me thinking. why wait until after XMPP support ends to enable GV in hangouts?

maybe google has something big planned for GV in hangouts? maybe free international calls?

what gets me speculating? well if google were to provide free international calls while XMPP is enabled all sort of gray market termination operators would likely latch on and resell the free calls. by switching off XMPP before launch that risk is minimized.

of course this is all just speculation. but why else would it matter which happens first: XMPP shut off or hangouts GV launch on android. bringing GV global is one of the most requested features.


pinky321

join:2002-06-05

Providing a link to the source of information is always greatly appreciated.

»plus.google.com/1066362803511749···ncJEbzxK



tommyanon

@comcast.net

i have noticed my posts get delayed several hours to up to days when they contain links


pinky321

join:2002-06-05

OIC, I bet that is a measure to prevent non registered users from spamming URL.


Network Guy
Premium
join:2000-08-25
New York
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Future Nine Corp..
·T-Mobile US
·Optimum Online
reply to tommyanon

I would think Google can't go global without some kind of physical presence where it intends to be. And interconnecting with incumbent carriers abroad would probably put them in the same position as others; paying their exorbitant toll to play there.

I'm waiting.... not as anxiously as maybe others.... to see what will happen when May 2014 gets here.

Based on that blog post, Google Voice will remain and so will your number registered with them. I suppose people will decide what to do when more details emerge. But for the time being, it sounds like your DID shouldn't get lost in cyber space. And accordingly, I don't plan to scramble to port elsewhere.

Of course, if your number means that much to you or it's mission-critical, common sense would have dictated to NOT park your number with Google in the first place.


hszeto

join:2002-06-05

I believe most efficient way to communicate without geographic concern is utilize iNum. All VSPs enthusiastically embrace iNum can simply issue iNum to every user automatically for free and offer free calling for both inbound and outbound. As more and more people utilize VoIP, not just fixed line but mobile as well, more and more people will have iNum and ability to call iNum for free.

Unfortunately, as VSPs' revenue mainly come from connecting with PSTN, few are truly embracing iNum enthusiastically. Let alone all ILECs and CLECs are milking PSTN as long as possible by simply refuse to let their customer connects to iNum. Even Google would charge high rate for connecting to iNum as if everyone starts using iNum, Google Voice free outgoing call to PSTN in Canada and United States will be much less attractive. With fewer people using Google Voice, Google data mining effort will be less successful as a result.



tommyanon

@comcast.net

i would like to see something similar to iNUM but that actually coincides with PSTN numbering. here is an example of what i would like to see:

PSTN #:

12121234567 NYC, USA number

+88xxx12121234567 international number that mirrors the local US number and can be routed 100% IP for free

provider that support this 'xNUM' would automatically setup an 'xNUM' for every geographic DID



Trev
IP Telephony Addict
Premium
join:2009-06-29
Victoria, BC
kudos:5

said by tommyanon :

i would like to see something similar to iNUM but that actually coincides with PSTN numbering. here is an example of what i would like to see:

The PSTN already does that. It's a global number scheme where a number can be reached from anywhere.

What you refer to, however, is a way to designate that you want to route the call via SIP directly to the endpoint while bypassing their phone company. This is what ENUM can help with.

There is a project e164.org which attempted to do something like this, but it seems to have ceased development and never really caught on.
--
I represent AcroVoice, a full service Canadian VoIP Provider.
Buy your Obihai ATA shipped from within Canada.

hszeto

join:2002-06-05

2 edits
reply to tommyanon

As Trev See Profile has mentioned, e164.org already does what you suggested so I would hope e164.org continues its development. As an alternative, I would suggest you contact iNum via »www.inum.net/?page_id=150 to offer the suggestion but I think you realize they must change the way they assign iNum, and they must also have to get providers offer iNum to do DID verification before assigning specific iNum which add another obsticle. Yet, as more and more people getting iNum, call can first try to connect via iNum by just adding iNum prefix if it fails to connect then route call via PSTN to save toll. If you are thinking to have some one else other than Voxbone to do it, then you are talking starting from ground zero I would opposite the idea as we already have too many options that makes compatibility with each other next to impossible.



tommyanon

@comcast.net

the thing about eNUM is that can be used internally 'hidden from view' by carriers who than do not have any incentive to pass the savings on to customers. the xNUM i propose would be a distinct way to call that hopefully would be adopted by both IP phone providers and possible cellular, calling card and landline companies. just as some customers seek out SIP providers that offer iNUM, with a distinct dialing scheme that bypass traditional switches customers of VOIP providers could put pressure on to offer xNUM.

with eNUM as it stands there is simple no incentive for carriers to come up front about how the calls get routed. a distinct number range is different.


drivel

join:2013-07-12
Santa Clara, CA

2 edits
reply to tommyanon

IMHO, Google's plan is to eliminate GV and instead through hangouts provide a videoconferencing system which is itself incorporated into gmail. Google will drop PSTN support completely.

The current problem with videoconferencing is lack of a global directory and incapable systems. Simply clicking on someone's email address to start a videoconferencing session would be very attractive. If everyone who had a gmail address could be called using a SIP call, it would quickly kill off the PSTN. i.e. gmail would be a replacement for enum.


propcgamer

join:2001-10-10
011010101
reply to tommyanon

Who knows what they have in store, sometimes it seems like they don't know themselves.

My problem with iNum, while its a neat idea, theres no iNum portability!


hszeto

join:2002-06-05
reply to drivel

said by drivel:

If everyone who had a gmail address could be called using a SIP call, it would quickly kill off the PSTN. i.e. gmail would be a replacement for enum.

While I believe eNum may be have less DIDs then Gmail addresses, DIDs for sure are a lot more than Gmail accounts. Let alone Google decided not to allow SIP connect long time ago. Now, Google does not even want third party to utilize their Google Voice. Users must use Google interface to communicate, a lot of people simply will not go for this.

drivel

join:2013-07-12
Santa Clara, CA
reply to tommyanon

Everyone who has an Android phone has a gmail address, and Android has a 80% market share. 75% of the world population has a mobile phone. The world is moving away from the old PSTN system.

Google wants a closed system and has a sufficiently large market share that they should be able to make it work.


PX Eliezer
Premium
join:2013-03-10
Outland
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Callcentric
·callwithus

1 recommendation

said by drivel:

Everyone who has an Android phone has a gmail address....

Good point, but it's not quite everyone.

My wife and I both have Android phones, but we have never activated gmail accounts for them.

Google is like kudzu, seriously invasive.

I need to use various Google services, but try to minimize them, and to seek alternatives where possible. I'm not yet ready to hand over my entire life to them, any more than I would want that of the NSA.

hszeto

join:2002-06-05
reply to drivel

First, Mobile phone still are using old PSTN system.

Second, there are still about 35% mobile phone users use dumb phone, but it is continuing to decrease.

Third, an android phone does not have to have an activated gmail address to operate. Gmail is popular in United States but not else where.

Fourth, there are hundred closed system communication app for Android. Without free calling to PSTN it is hard to make Google stands out, let alone concern over Google data mining practice.