lcompton wrote:Good afternoon, VaHam.
VaHam wrote:I suspect Google will start to charge for their service after 2012 no matter how it is used.
What gave it away? The message on the Google Voice page indicating "Enjoy free calls through 2011"?
Sorry, I just couldn't resist!

Good Morning, lcompton.

Actually I said "after 2012" meaning I think they will wait until after 2012 when they have increased their market dominance before springing direct charges; if ever.
It would be hard to build a case that GV is a phone company (an hence fall under those regulations) as long as they don't charge for their service
There may be some other means of deriving income before that ala (voice adds) like whistlephone or targeted advertising based on usage.
Many folks like myself enjoy the excellent answering machine functions of GV and this is a great opportunity for Google to make income by delivering targeted ads along with voicemail messages delivered either by voice or email. Given Google's fixation (
update also: GV/Sprint) on getting your cell number (currently you can port your cell number but not your land line to GV etc.) and the fact that you have established a business relationship with them (and hence the do not call list does not apply) then voice or SMS ads could also be in the future.
The targeted part may well be why GV exists, since Google can data mine both incoming and now outgoing calls, they can easily target consumers. Outgoing calls provide a better source for data mining since incoming calls are someone else's choice but outgoing calls are your own choice and thus provide better patterns regarding your interests. So there are many ways for GV to derive income other than by conventional usage charges. The OBi expands the number of folks who will make use of GV and thus only assists Google in building it's user base so I would think they would embrace it (or more likely bid to purchase it); unless their interest is really only in cellphone traffic.
Also remember that companies collect termination fees when they deliver the final leg of a call; and they also have to pay when another company terminates a call from one of their users. That is how companies like IPKALL derive profit. Since they only accept incoming calls, they pay no fees for outgoing termination but receive termination fees from other companies for each call they deliver.
Of coarse calls to and from their own users neither encounter no fees; which is why you see thing like calls between OBi's OBi number network (and many other similar services) being free.
In fact as long as a user receives more calling minutes than they place, then a company still makes a small profit from them. Perhaps we will see in the future a new pricing model where you only pay when your outgoing minutes exceeds your incoming minutes by some amount offset derived by the data mining value.
It is this aspect of income which has puzzled me regarding Google's actions. In the beginning Google allowed forwarding to a sip address but later stopped that feature. I could never understand why they stopped allowing the sip destinations; since it would add income unless they thought that folks could start sending them bills for termination fees since in reality your ATA is terminating the call. Perhaps they were worried that some company would start grabbing blocks of their DID's forwarding them to their PBX's and sell service and charge them for termination fees, hard to say.
Then they acquired GIZMO which essentially gave them the same feature via GIZMO. They of coarse also got GIZMO's block of DID's in the process as well. Now they have announced the end of GIZMO; perhaps so that they can make use of the DID's for GV. It appears they have been testing sip access again lately so maybe they will open sip back up after they kill GIZMO.