
IMessage, Skype, Google Voice, and the death of the phone number - thisisblurry
http://thisismynext.com/2011/06/09/google-voice-skype-imessage-and-the-death-of-the-phone-number/
======
corin_
Terrible article, really awful. It simply isn't factual.

You can't compare a mobile number to email, they aren't even the same type of
thing.

My mobile number, I can port it between different service providers, and use
it on any device I want. My gmail/hotmail/yahoo account, I can never move away
from the company that gave it to me.

    
    
      carrier lock-in - your phone number is a set of handcuffs that prevents you from easily jumping ship, and they know it
    

Not at all. Carriers would make more money if they let me spend money with
them on more than one device at once (e.g. through a desktop app), the reason
they don't do it is because the amount it would cost to set that up is not (in
their opinion) worth the returns it will bring.

And it isn't even a carrier lock-in, I can port my number to another carrier
any time I wish. Sure, if I have a contract then I may have to pay to cancel
it, but then if I have a contract to pay for an email service for a year then
the same applies there - and it's perfectly possible to have a phone number
without a contract.

~~~
cheez
Your email problem is easily solved. Get your own domain. I did this the first
time I had a problem with my email provider and I've never looked back through
multiple acquisitions and subsequent degradation in quality. In fact, I just
changed to fastmail last month and it was painless.

~~~
corin_
Yeah, and I have my own domain(s), but for the majority of people, they're not
tech people, they just want a simple account to use. And even with a free
domain, it's still not more flexible than phone numbers, it's as flexible.

------
wccrawford
Actually, the article touches on the truth a bit: Phone numbers in general
aren't tied to a device and carrier. Only certain ones are.

I have a Skype number that I can log into from almost every computer-ish
device I own. I could get a SIP number also. I have a Google Voice number that
rings all my other numbers.

The only number tied to a device is my cellphone number.

As for being tied to a carrier, it's not. And certainly not more than an email
address is. I can switch my phone number to another provider just as easily as
moving my email server to a new host. Unless, of course, I use GMail or some
third-party email... And then I'm even more locked in than phone numbers are.
(Not that I'm complaining, actually... I like having Google handle it all for
me.)

~~~
commandar
>(Not that I'm complaining, actually... I like having Google handle it all for
me.)

This is a lot of what makes Google Apps so great to me. I still get a
me@mydomain.com email address that's portable _if I need it to be_ , but I let
Google deal with the overhead of actually managing it since I have better
things to do than administer an e-mail server.

------
wibblenut
This is why I believe the .tel TLD is so important - DNS for people, no more
carrier or service provider lock-in, stupid fast, and resilient.

I have about a dozen services defined under my name, some of which are
private, which I can prioritise, or even change to a different profile
depending on time/location.

Mobile operators are starting to adopt it, despite the fact it undermines
their phone number lock-in, because it makes it much easier for them to roll
out new data-driven services, e.g. China Mobile (600m subscribers) will use it
for mobile payments.

It could be even more interesting if device manufacturers ever manage to
persuade mobile operators to use virtual SIMs - imagine being able to
subscribe to new networks on-the-fly!

~~~
orofino
While this is somewhat interesting, it seems like this would be difficult for
'normal' people. For nerds it seems like they would want more control than
this appears to offer on the surface. Honestly, I didn't even know .tel
existed until I read your comment, so obviously this is based on a somewhat
superficial first impression.

It really seems like a page that is a canonical reference for each person is a
good idea, I just think this misses the point for most of the population.
Solutions like facebook or even about.me are easier for a large number of
people to utilize. Obviously there are problems with portability and privacy
when relying on a closed 3rd party, but this more open solution is too
convoluted for those that aren't technically inclined.

~~~
wibblenut
It doesn't surprise me that this is the first occasion you've heard about it
:)

But all of the complexity is hidden. The API is standardised, so management
apps and other services will always work, irrespective of who your domain
registrar/TelHosting provider is.

I'm sure the majority of registrants have no idea they're publishing DNS
records, or even what DNS is - and they don't need to know. The best
technologies are the ones you don't necessarily see.

Non-technical people see a very simple and cost-effective way of establishing
a simple online presence. For $10-$20 it's all-in - there's no web hosting or
any technical expertise required. Small businesses love this. As such GoDaddy
doesn't carry .tel, because it can't up-sell any of its other big-margin crap.
But lots of YP publishers around the world are becoming .tel resellers :-)

I see it as a hugely disruptive technology with a good chance of success, but
it seems more appealing to non-geeks than it does geeks at the moment. Once it
gains popularity then geeks will start to catch on and realise all the cool
stuff that's suddenly possible.

------
damonpace
Although, I don't agree with everything I find some truth in the article. The
only time I need a phone number is the first time I enter someone in my phone.
Otherwise, it's just a username after that point. Skype recognized this and I
see no reason we can't get rid of phone numbers all together in the next 10
years. My only fear is that the legacy systems of the past will carry on
because of the "sacred cow"...sort of like how racism keeps hanging on with
older generations while the new generation moves on silently thinking how
crazy the older generation is.

------
dagw
_Yet the phone number remains stubbornly fixed with a single carrier and
single device,_

Call carrier A tell them you want to switch to them and bring your number from
carrier B with you, and they sort it out and send you a new SIM. Pop your SIM
card out of device A, pop it into device B, and your number has been magically
transfered. I've done both several times and it's never been a problem.

If your particular carrier won't let you do either then that is an artificial
problem created by your particular carrier, not with the underlying concept.

~~~
Flenser
I think the point the article was trying (unsuccessfully) to make, was that a
phone number is "fixed with a single carrier and single device" _at any one
time_. You can switch carriers or devices, but you can only use one at a time.

------
technomancy
> But all of these advances are still intimately tied to the phone system and
> phone numbers — and while Google’s managed to abstract the phone number away
> from the device by building on top of the existing system, none of its
> services are completely functional unless you’re paying a carrier for a
> voice plan.

I feel like a broken record repeating this every time VoIP comes up, but this
just isn't true; I've had a Nexus One with no voice plan since it came out,
and it works really well over SIP.

