

Why AT&T Killed Google Voice - mjfern
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204683204574358552882901262.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

======
andreyf
Well written opinion, but misleading title - I was expecting WSJ to have found
out that it _was_ AT&T who killed Google Voice, although we don't seem to know
that yet. One can hope that this is high-profile enough reporting to let out
some info about what happened, exactly.

Also, some of the advice is questionable:

 _Transition away from "owning" airwaves. As we've seen with license-free
bandwidth via Wi-Fi networking, we can share the airwaves without interfering
with each other. Let new carriers emerge based on quality of service rather
than spectrum owned. Cellphone coverage from huge cell towers will naturally
migrate seamlessly into offices and even homes via Wi-Fi networking. No more
dropped calls in the bathroom._

But cell phone coverage reaches a lot farther than wifi. I'm not a radio
physicist, but I think 802.11 allows communication over 14 channels, each of
which can be crowded, and some of which can cause interference for others. It
was designed with overlapping WAP and a (relatively) small number of people
connecting to each. Now, I'm rather clueless about the implementations of cell
phone protocols, but I know enough to think twice before saying "open her yup,
baby! no dropped calls in the bathroom!" - it doesn't sound as if the author
does. Can we keep GSM/GPRS/EDGE if we allow many overlapping connections? If
not, are backwards compatible replacements feasible, or will we need to
replace every cell phone in the country?

 _Encourage faster and faster data connections to our homes and phones. It
should more than double every two years. To homes, five megabits today should
be 10 megabits in 2011, 25 megabits in 2013 and 100 megabits in 2017._

Also, virgins should rain from the sky. The number should double every year.
Five virgins today should be 10 virgins in 2011, etc.

 _These data-connection speeds are technically doable today, with obsolete
voice and video policy holding it back._

What policy is he talking about? Is there a reason for this policy aside from
holding back data speeds and virgins?

~~~
kallistec
I liked the article, but agree that the suggestion that Cell networks can be
run like Wi-Fi isn't feasible. The amount of signal loss through a barrier
increases with frequency, so 2.4GHz signals die out more quickly than, say
700MHz. To be a bit anthropomorphic, radio waves don't see the thickness of an
obstacle in terms of inches or meters, they see them in terms of wavelengths,
which are inversely proportional to frequency. So opening up high power,
low(er) frequency wireless equipment to everyone would most likely be a
disaster.

On the other hand, the current practice of just handing over chunks of scarce
resources to anti-competitive firms _is_ broken, so the author is correct that
change would be beneficial.

------
ghshephard
It's an opinion piece that covers no ground we haven't already read a hundred
times over - I didn't see any reporting in the article. Sad - in order to
compete with the Tech Crunches of the world, even the WSJ is throwing out
flashy LinkBait with little substance.

~~~
aditya
yes, but coming from the WSJ which is a lot more widely read by policymakers
than, say, TechCrunch this gives the issue a lot more coverage which is
probably the right way to think about how it can be addressed by those with
the power to address it.

~~~
calcnerd256
Exactly. It's fluff to us, but it's news to policymakers. It reminds me of a
comment someone made about an article that claimed that nobody will read your
thesis: something about an informal section to go with the formal parts. Well,
more-mainstream journalists reporting on something we already know up in our
ivory towers is a way to get the message out there.

------
grinich
_Text messages are 20 cents each, or $5,000 per megabyte._

Wow.

~~~
aditya
It is quite a coup, especially because text messages are essentially free to
the carrier:

 _Looking for a data pipeline that would fit these micro messages, Hillebrand
came up with the idea to harness a secondary radio channel that already
existed on mobile networks.

This smaller data lane had been used only to alert a cellphone about reception
strength and to supply it with bits of information regarding incoming calls.
Voice communication itself had taken place via a separate signal.

"We were looking to a cheap implementation," Hillebrand said on the phone from
Bonn. "Most of the time, nothing happens on this control link. So, it was free
capacity on the system."_

via:
[http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2009/05/invented-...](http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2009/05/invented-
text-messaging.html)

~~~
dkersten
Maybe for the radio part of it, but between cell tower and service center (and
vice versa), SMS goes over the signaling links - which are also used for call
setup, notifications, WAP push, and routing queries.

Theres nothing free about them, theres no such a thing as free in the telco
world - everything costs _someone_ something, though I agree, SMS is extremely
cheap for the carrier - definitely NOT worth paying 20 cent for. Carriers love
SMS for that exact reason.

Having said that, SMS can also cause the carrier a world of pain... I
obviously can't provide any details, but one specific network had a problem
where two thirds of all signaling traffic was caused by some virus which a
large percentage of their customers' phones were infected with. This was
costing them many thousands a day! Thankfully, we were able to block these
messages at an early stage in the transaction and reduce network traffic by a
substantial amount and over the air traffic by about half.

~~~
a-priori
They are _essentially_ free, because the carriers provide no delivery
guarantees for SMS messages. That is, if the channel is busy with other
signalling traffic, then SMS messages will be silently dropped.

~~~
dkersten
The TCAP transaction would be retried approx. ten minutes later, up to three
times (on the networks I've seen, anyway).

------
spazmaster
I found the last part amusing. Andy's idea for fast data connections is that
their speed should double every year. That brings him to a 100Mb in 2017.

Here in Europe ADSL is already 20 Mb for most connections and cable is
offering up to 120 MB now. This is now, in 2009. I expect 100 Mbit connections
to be the norm in 3 years here in western Europe.

Is the difference in network speed between the eurozone and the States that
big? Hearing Andy it seems so, and that difference is to stay.

~~~
spydez
Yes, the difference is that big. Average cable offering is 7 Mbit today where
I live. You can upgrade to a whole 15 for an arm and a leg.

A few lucky big cities have Verizon FiOS (fiber to the home), which can go up
to 50 Mbit.

US broadband speed is seriously behind Europe and Japan.

------
swombat
Worth pointing out that this problem is also present in Europe. We don't pay
for incoming SMS's (thank god for that), but the telcos have an effective
monopoly which they use and abuse to make sure no one can come up with any
effective and profitable phone-based service (beyond those spam sites selling
ring tones).

For example, they offer a way to charge customers via "Premium SMS", but the
margins that they take on those are insanely high. See
<http://www.txtlocal.co.uk/prices/> for example... If you want to charge your
customer 25p, you will only get about 7p of that. Makes Apple's 30% cut look
almost free.

Telcos are, worldwide, abusive monopolies. Given that communications are so
important to our society, I can't wait to see the back of them, and the
beginning of a new era in communication innovation.

------
jrockway
I hate having to mention this every time Google Voice comes up, but if you are
using Google Voice from your AT&T phone, it uses your AT&T minutes. Just like
any other call. (It is not VoIP until your voice gets to Google's servers.
Then it travels over IP, until it is converted to POTS at the other end.)

The only loss for AT&T is that SMS messages use your data plan, and that you
can call people (and receive calls from them) from a phone other than your
cell phone.

Personally, I think killing this off was really stupid. It caused them lots of
regulatory scrutiny for something that only a few users use. (GV is still
invite-only, after all.)

~~~
jpeterson
I believe it switches over to VOIP if there's an available wifi connection.

~~~
jrockway
Nope. Try removing your SIM card and making a call.

------
christefano
The last time I checked, the Palm Pre is available on Sprint's network, not on
Verizon's. I expect more from the Wall Street Journal.

~~~
jpcx01
It's just an op-ed piece from a less than tech savy business observer. He
misses many of the details, but his overall political points are right on in
my opinion.

------
brk
Sounds like the author has little understanding of the technologies at play.
Some of his suggestions at the end:

 _• End phone exclusivity. Any device should work on any network. Data flows
freely._

Sure, great idea. Except that we already have competing standards (CDMA, GSM,
etc.) Should every handset maker have to incur the cost of
building/testing/certifying multiple hardware iterations? An iPhone can't just
magically work on a Verizon network in its current incarnation. Someone has to
fund the effort to make the radio compatible with Verizons network.

 _• Transition away from "owning" airwaves. As we've seen with license-free
bandwidth via Wi-Fi networking, we can share the airwaves without interfering
with each other._

So all of these large competitive companies will play nicely in a shared, non-
owned space? As we've also seen with Wifi any number of other common devices
can effectively dampen or block the signal entirely. Not exactly what I want
for my cellphone service.

 _• End municipal exclusivity deals for cable companies._

Almost every municipality already manages their contracts with cable companies
in a non-exclusive fashion. Except that when you do all the math, the cost of
building a cable plant actually takes a very long time to recover. There is
little incentive for secondary and tertiary carriers to come into almost any
market because there just isn't enough subscriber base for the them all to
divide and still make a profit on that area. I've been on telecommunications
boards and negotiated/discussed this very topic and concept with multiple
MSO's.

------
maukdaddy
"Transition away from "owning" airwaves. As we've seen with license-free
bandwidth via Wi-Fi networking, we can share the airwaves without interfering
with each other."

There's no way that will work. Wi-Fi is actually a good example of what
happens when airwaves aren't regulated (owned). Especially looking at the 2.4
and 5 GHz debacles.

I'm a fairly free-market person, but sometimes a certain amount of ownership
is required. I have no problem with AT&T, Verizon, et. al. owning their slice
of the spectrum, but that ownership should come with some caveats ending phone
exclusivity, etc.

------
jfno67
"No more dropped calls in the bathroom." Is that really why we need less
owning of the airwaves? I get the point, but I think there must be more
compelling argument.

------
ryanwaggoner
_It wouldn't be so bad if we were just overpaying for our mobile plans.
Americans are used to that—see mail, milk and medicine._

I get the mail and medicine thing, but are we all overpaying for milk too?

~~~
gcheong
I believe its through subsidies paid to milk farmers.

------
GrandMasterBirt
Google voice does polling every quite a few minutes so text msgs are sloooow.

Google voice dials diff phone numbers so I donrt get to make google voice my
free to call phone number

Google voice works on other ATT phones like BlackBerry

I don't get the benefits of free m2m I get when calling my wife so I wind up
having to use two phone numbers.

The only thing it gives is at work BBs have text msgs disabled so they use
gvoice for that.

There is NO revolution. Till google nakes it work better.

O and calling requires an internet connection using the BB app. Which means
where I can call on phone (say subway overground) I can't call gvoice due to
no service. But I get crystal clear calling using voice plan. Its bs.

~~~
GrandMasterBirt
My point with this is that there is no revolution... yet. It has a loooong way
to go. And since BB on ATT has google voice its not ATT who is blocking or
more drastic measures will be taken. In fact if anything google voice serves
the BB customers much more than the iPhone ones. The BB customers are the ones
who pay for massive minutes for business conversations and need this systems
more. Having unlimited talk plans like t-mobile's fave-five calling one google
voice number is what is really going to hurt telephone companies.

~~~
robotron
Everyone seems to ignore the fact that BBs on ATT can use the Google Voice
app. I also used Google Voice sans app on my previous phone on ATT with no
hassle.

------
crsmith
RIP AT&T

(too bad that was also said a generation ago)

