Google responds to FCC, Skype rejection claims

[AppleInsider]

Google on Friday, like Apple and AT&T, responded to a Federal Communications Commission inquiry, and also disputed a report that alleged the application Skype had been blocked from use on Android.

The document Google provided to the FCC, as it looks into Apple's non-acceptance of the Google Voice application on the iPhone platform, was heavily redacted, essentially removing all details of communication between Google and Apple as the search engine company attempted to have its telephony service software approved for release on the App Store. But it did offer some insight into what the Google Voice application offered, and how the Android Marketplace works.

Even though Google plans to offer its voice application as a Web app, the search company claims that software that would run through the iPhone's Safari browser would not be as full-featured.

"The Google Voice features accessible by the mobile website are more limited than those features found in the App Store version of Google Voice," Google's letter to the FCC reads. "For instance, only the App Store version of Google Voice can directly access the iPhone address book and dial directly from the application, thus providing a more seamless experience for the iPhone user."

It was that "seamless experience" that apparently caused problems for Apple. Last Friday, the iPhone maker, in its own letter to the FCC, said the fact that Google Voice mimicks the features of its own native software caused the Cupertino, Calif., company to not accept the software into the App Store yet.

Google also outlined the differences between its Android Marketplace and Apple's App Store. The letter noted that unlike with Apple, there is no pre-approval process for those who wish to make applications available. The approval process includes an automated system that tests for technical issues.

"This automated process does not screen or reject applications on the basis of functionality," the letter states. "In addition, it is important to note that Android Market is not the exclusive method of distribution for Android applications. Developers are free to make their applications available through alternative channels instead of, or in addition to, the android Market, and users are free to install Android applications from any source they choose."

This Thursday, the FCC will look into the wireless industry with its letters from Apple, AT&T and Google in hand. USA Today reports that the meeting will have three parts: Examining wireless competition, looking at barriers to entry and investment, and scrutinizing consumer billing, including contracts.

Andy Rubin, Google's vice president of Mobile Platforms, also took issue with a USA Today report printed Friday that alleged the company had been blocking the voice over IP service Skype from releasing an application on its mobile phone platform, Android. In a post on Google's Public Policy Blog, Rubin called the claim, which suggested Google could be under pressure from the FCC for its alleged actions, "inaccurate."

"At this point no software developer -- including Skype -- has implemented a complete VoIP application for Android," Rubin said. "But we're excited to see -- and use -- these applications when they're submitted, because they often provide more choice and options for users. We also look forward to the day when consumers can access any application, including VoIP apps, from any device, on any network."

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[ivan.rnn01]

Smart guys. They may indeed use custom proprietary protocol between their iPhone client and their server. They may thus be able to beat possible allegations, that they implement VOIP over AT&T's 3G.

[MacTripper]

I don't like the idea of software taking my contacts, my personal information, and distributing it all over the internet like Google's Voice does.

Apple was right to address the privacy concerns of their software.

Google has become the snoops, marketing and behaviorists dream tool.

Google has become a agent for EVIL, at least for Big Brother and anyone else minded.

I block all their tracking garbage on my computer too.


No profile behavior building going on in my life, no way.



*loosens tin foil hat*

[vinea]

Originally Posted by MacTripper

I don't like the idea of software taking my contacts, my personal information, and distributing it all over the internet like Google's Voice does.

The solution is pretty simple: don't sign up for GV...

[Timon]

Originally Posted by MacTripper

I don't like the idea of software taking my contacts, my personal information, and distributing it all over the internet like Google's Voice does.

And how is Google any different than Yahoo and Mobile me when it comes to syncing you address book? Their not, all three can already sync you address book to the cloud and none of them, including the "evel" Google will release your contacts to anyone else without your permission.

[johnmcboston]

So is this the beginning of the end? Why do we even make phone calls over a cell network? When 4G comes out make it data only and do all phone calls via VOIP...

[m2002brian]

Amen to that. No matter if it's "voice" or an "app" it's all data. There is no point in having more than one network......Unless you like to spend more money than you have too.

[genovelle]

Originally Posted by Timon

And how is Google any different than Yahoo and Mobile me when it comes to syncing you address book? Their not, all three can already sync you address book to the cloud and none of them, including the "evel" Google will release your contacts to anyone else without your permission.

The difference is when I sign up for mobile me or even yahoo. I decide if I want to transfer my information. By the way, I would never give my information to Yahoo either. I have a Yahoo Account but because they like Google make their money by selling information to marketing companies, I don't trust them. When Ads stop coming in and there is a new chief, all bets are off. They also refuse to say what they will do with gathered info.

GV transfers this data on installation it is not an option. Apple would be liable since the app would be on their store and they released an app that allowed this to happen. I would be pissed.
If Google used the Iphone conventions and figured away to not bypass core features like visual voicemail the app would most likely be approve quickly.

I love they way Google makes it sound like they only wanted to access the contacts for dialing, when in fact all they want is the contact info on their servers. Think about it. You have one of the richest technology companies, they don't sell anything but personal info for advertising, they offer everything for free, why would they want access to the contacts on the iPhone?

[Tulkas]

Originally Posted by genovelle

The difference is when I sign up for mobile me or even yahoo. I decide if I want to transfer my information. By the way, I would never give my information to Yahoo either. I have a Yahoo Account but because they like Google make their money by selling information to marketing companies, I don't trust them. When Ads stop coming in and there is a new chief, all bets are off. They also refuse to say what they will do with gathered info.

GV transfers this data on installation it is not an option. Apple would be liable since the app would be on their store and they released an app that allowed this to happen. I would be pissed.
If Google used the Iphone conventions and figured away to not bypass core features like visual voicemail the app would most likely be approve quickly.

I love they way Google makes it sound like they only wanted to access the contacts for dialing, when in fact all they want is the contact info on their servers. Think about it. You have one of the richest technology companies, they don't sell anything but personal info for advertising, they offer everything for free, why would they want access to the contacts on the iPhone?

Where did you read that the contacts information being sent is not an option? If this is true, it is a dick move on Google's part. I have not seen that in any of the information I have read.

[Tulkas]

Originally Posted by genovelle

If Google used the Iphone conventions and figured away to not bypass core features like visual voicemail the app would most likely be approve quickly.

There already is a mechanism to avoid using the Google Voice voice mail system and use the built in iPhone VVM system. Give out your iPhone phone number instead of your GV phone number. The GV voice mail system only works for calls made to your Google Voice phone number. Calls to your iPhone number will go to your iPhone VVM. Alternatively, you can change your GV acct settings not to include your iPhone as one of the phones to ring when someone calls your GV phone number.

It is only bypassed or replaced if your calls use your GV phone number. You can install the GV app or GV mobile or the other third party GV apps and still use your iphone VVM.

[Tulkas]

Originally Posted by vinea

The solution is pretty simple: don't sign up for GV...

And that would work. Another option is for Apple to wait until they have assurance from google that the information will not be used inappropriately...as they have done. Apple is right to be concerned about this, but how they could enforce it is questionable.

You are correct though. The only way to be sure is to not use it.

[monstrosity]

Google really have overstepped the mark on this IMO, that 'special' relationship is looking dodgy. Time for Apple to rev up it's online strategy and see how google like it. Lets hope that server farm apple has recently invested in is used wisely. Apple can no longer afford sit back and pretend the internet does not exist.

[GQB]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

The letter noted that unlike with Apple, there is no pre-approval process for those who wish to make applications available. The approval process includes an automated system that tests for technical issues.

"This automated process does not screen or reject applications on the basis of functionality," the letter states. "In addition, it is important to note that Android Market is not the exclusive method of distribution for Android applications. Developers are free to make their applications available through alternative channels instead of, or in addition to, the android Market, and users are free to install Android applications from any source they choose."

Cool... If I'm a malware author, I now know which environment gives me a big green light, and where to spend my energy.

[anantksundaram]

Originally Posted by genovelle

The difference is when I sign up for mobile me or even yahoo. I decide if I want to transfer my information. By the way, I would never give my information to Yahoo either. I have a Yahoo Account but because they like Google make their money by selling information to marketing companies, I don't trust them. When Ads stop coming in and there is a new chief, all bets are off. They also refuse to say what they will do with gathered info.

GV transfers this data on installation it is not an option. Apple would be liable since the app would be on their store and they released an app that allowed this to happen. I would be pissed.
If Google used the Iphone conventions and figured away to not bypass core features like visual voicemail the app would most likely be approve quickly.

I love they way Google makes it sound like they only wanted to access the contacts for dialing, when in fact all they want is the contact info on their servers. Think about it. You have one of the richest technology companies, they don't sell anything but personal info for advertising, they offer everything for free, why would they want access to the contacts on the iPhone?

If what you're saying about data installation not being an option is true, then these are excellent observations, and makes me rethink GV.

[anantksundaram]

Originally Posted by monstrosity

Time for Apple to rev up it's online strategy and see how google like it.....

With the current MobileMe geniuses they have?

Good luck......

[monstrosity]

Originally Posted by anantksundaram

With the current MobileMe geniuses they have?

Good luck......

Well exactly, their online strategy is crap. The whole thing needs a good rethink.

[anantksundaram]

Originally Posted by monstrosity

Well exactly, their online strategy is crap. The whole thing needs a good rethink.

Especially when they charge you $100, on top of which there is a ridiculous additional charge for every new email address for a family member....

[monstrosity]

Originally Posted by anantksundaram

Especially when they charge you $100, on top of which there is a ridiculous additional charge for every new email address for a family member....

Reminds me of AOL back in the day, and we all know what a stroke of vision that was.

[Timon]

Originally Posted by Tulkas

There already is a mechanism to avoid using the Google Voice voice mail system and use the built in iPhone VVM system. Give out your iPhone phone number instead of your GV phone number. The GV voice mail system only works for calls made to your Google Voice phone number. Calls to your iPhone number will go to your iPhone VVM. Alternatively, you can change your GV acct settings not to include your iPhone as one of the phones to ring when someone calls your GV phone number.

It is only bypassed or replaced if your calls use your GV phone number. You can install the GV app or GV mobile or the other third party GV apps and still use your iphone VVM.

Thank god someone else understands what GV is and is not.

What GV is not:

It does not touch or bypass the iPhone VVM in any way shape or form.

It does not touch or change the iPhone dialer in any way shape or form.

It does not change the iPhone SMS app in any way shape or form.

It does not do anything with your Address book that's not already allowed and that includes coping your contacts to your online GV account. Heck, your allowed to do this now with Yahoo so why not GV? Oh wait, you can since the GV address book is the same as your gmail address book. For those that don't like that then don't use GV or any other cloud application.

What GV is:

It gives you direct control of your GV phone number.

It lets you access Voice Mail messages from your GV number. You still have to use VVM to get messages from your iPhone number.

It allows you to send SMS messages to and from your GV phone number.

It lets GV place calls for you by calling your phone when your making a call through GV. Since you still get charged minutes for the inbound call, at lease currently, your still being charged minutes.
Personally I think it's a bad way implement the feature. I suggest that Google change the feature so the Call button only calls your GV number then send the real number you want to call to GV using touch-tones. If GV did it this way I think Apple would be in really hot water with the FCC because using third party carriers for LD is totally legal and protected. Doing the call back does however give Apple the out to say that your getting calls for free but only if the carrier gives free incoming calls which they currently don't.

[DaveGee]

Originally Posted by johnmcboston

So is this the beginning of the end? Why do we even make phone calls over a cell network? When 4G comes out make it data only and do all phone calls via VOIP...

^^^^

THIS!

And just like the POTS providers have all but dried up and blown away in the wind so too will the day when Cell phone networks as we know them now. A nickel for every IM I get all because I don't wanna spend $30 per month translation $360.00 per year so I can IM 'gonna be late for dinner' every once in a blue moon... Then when I don't pay their IM extortion money I'm forced to pay for however many SPAM IMs I get in a month x2 phones, its actually not bad now but I'm sure it'll get worse. Strange how it's actually in the wireless carriers best interest in the to promote SPAM IMs to its subscriber base.

Yea I'm just waiting on the day when the wireless carriers get theirs.

Dave

[DaveGee]

Originally Posted by Timon

It lets GV place calls for you by calling your phone when your making a call through GV. Since you still get charged minutes for the inbound call, at lease currently, your still being charged minutes.

To be honest (and I'm a huge fan of GV) here is (what I think) is the major sticking point with GV and why AT&T is scared to death of it.

- I have a family plan with 3 numbers 2 iPhones and one for my father in-law.

- I also have a home VOIP line with vonage...

I've used the VOIP line as my home number since the 1st year Vonage was available. I even transfered my Bell Atlantic (Ma Bell) number to Vonage so my relatives family and friends etc didn't need to update their address books.

So when I got my wireless plan I get free in network calling as well as free calls to my HOME phone number (I believe this is still accurate I haven't checked my bills in a long time).

Now enter Grand Central... I got that back before Google purchased it and renamed it GV.

I have a NC number attached to that (for the moment) simply because I've got some family in that state and figured it would be nice if they had in in state number for them to call me.

So as thing stand today the wireless companies shouldn't have any problems with GV.

1 - Cell-to-Cell in network - FREE
2 - Cell-to-Home - FREE
3 - Home-to-Cell - FREE
3 - Cell-to-NonATTWS-Number minutes start getting charged/deducted.
4 - Land-to-Cell (other than my home #) minutes start getting charged/deducted.

The day GV allows me to xfer my home number away from Vonage to them here's what could happen.

1 - Cell-to-Cell in network - FREE
2 - Cell-to-Home - FREE
3 - Home-to-Cell - FREE
4 - Cell-to-NonATTWS-Number FREE*
5 - Land-to-Cell (other than my home #) partially/possibly FREE**

* Here's where the problem can crop up. Using a native iPhone GV-App instead of Apples address-book I can get around using ANY minutes ON ALL OUTBOUND cell calls.

How?

Well the GV app (it looks just like an address book) calls my GV # (which ATTWS recognizes as my home number) and then dials my requested number from there. As far as AT&T is concerned I'm calling my home and no minutes are being used. For me, I can call home and then re-call-out to anywhere in the US once I make the initial connection with my home number. The GV iPhone App is what makes is seamless and painless for the user... They just pick Aunt Sally like they always would and GV would do the rest behind the scenes and with only minimal added wait time.

What does the person who I'm calling sees? My HOME NUMBER (since it was ported to GV) so as far as they know I'm just calling them from home and they wouldn't be confused by seeing a strange new number.

** To further reduce you're minutes used simply tell the people who call YOU the most (on your cell) to PLEASE ALWAYS CALL MY HOME NUMBER (now attached to GV) and it will automatically ring my cell phone numbers. So no matter where I happen to be, when someone calls my home number I'll get the call and that call (since its coming from my home number) isn't costing me any minutes.

Now none of this can actually happen because GV doesn't (yet) allow number porting but once they do this will be a huge blow to their universe.

The wireless industry would only have one way to retaliate and that would be to start charing minutes to calls made to the customers home phone and I'm not sure how well that would go over.

Now all of this might seem complex, but it really isn't since the magic is in the GV iPhone App (and the ability to dial out from your GV number). Using it looks just like any other address book but the only difference is this:

Instead of directly dialing the persons # you selected it does this:

Dials your GV phone # --> presses a code telling the GV network you want to make an outbound call --> dials the number you chose from the address-book --> the call connects

You click on Aunt Sally and the app does the rest.

This isn't anything that only GOOGLE could pull off either... Vonage, MagicJack or any other VOIP provider could provide this very same service if they had the vision, desire and/or testicular fortitude (balls) to do so. Look... its really simple... this type of functionality isn't simply going to go back in the bottle... It will happen and somebody is going to implement it in such a way where Apple would have much less of an objection to reject it.

Finally, I could bruteforce a solution that doesn't need any new software... I could simply change the phone numbers to do it manually unless Apple has limits on number length and/or non-numeric characters.

For examle:

Old: J.Doe # 801-555-1212
New: J.Doe# my-home-number,code-activating-dial-out,,801-555-1212 (the commas are normally considered 'pauses')

OR if Apple simply had a 'dialing prefix' in their settings you could put the: my-home-number,code,, right in there and then you wouldn't have to change your address book at all BUT I wouldn't hold my breath for that setting to appear. lol

Now with that simple change all those minute gobbling calls I make to J.Doe every day are now using ZERO minutes.

Simple? Elegant?? Easy for the average user??? No, but for those tech savvy ppl it'll save em a bundle.

Dave

[Tulkas]

Originally Posted by DaveGee

To be honest (and I'm a huge fan of GV) here is (what I think) is the major sticking point with GV and why AT&T is scared to death of it.

- I have a family plan with 3 numbers 2 iPhones and one for my father in-law.

- I also have a home VOIP line with vonage...

I've used the VOIP line as my home number since the 1st year Vonage was available. I even transfered my Bell Atlantic (Ma Bell) number to Vonage so my relatives family and friends etc didn't need to update their address books.

So when I got my wireless plan I get free in network calling as well as free calls to my HOME phone number (I believe this is still accurate I haven't checked my bills in a long time).

Now enter Grand Central... I got that back before Google purchased it and renamed it GV.

I have a NC number attached to that (for the moment) simply because I've got some family in that state and figured it would be nice if they had in in state number for them to call me.

So as thing stand today the wireless companies shouldn't have any problems with GV.

1 - Cell-to-Cell in network - FREE
2 - Cell-to-Home - FREE
3 - Home-to-Cell - FREE
3 - Cell-to-NonATTWS-Number minutes start getting charged/deducted.
4 - Land-to-Cell (other than my home #) minutes start getting charged/deducted.

The day GV allows me to xfer my home number away from Vonage to them here's what could happen.

1 - Cell-to-Cell in network - FREE
2 - Cell-to-Home - FREE
3 - Home-to-Cell - FREE
4 - Cell-to-NonATTWS-Number FREE*
5 - Land-to-Cell (other than my home #) partially/possibly FREE**

* Here's where the problem can crop up. Using a native iPhone GV-App instead of Apples address-book I can get around using ANY minutes ON ALL OUTBOUND cell calls.

How?

Well the GV app (it looks just like an address book) calls my GV # (which ATTWS recognizes as my home number) and then dials my requested number from there. As far as AT&T is concerned I'm calling my home and no minutes are being used. For me, I can call home and then re-call-out to anywhere in the US once I make the initial connection with my home number.

What does the person who I'm calling sees? My HOME NUMBER (since it was ported to GV) so as far as they know I'm just calling them from home and they wouldn't be confused by seeing a strange new number.

** To further reduce you're minutes used simply tell the people who call YOU the most (on your cell) to PLEASE ALWAYS CALL MY HOME NUMBER (now attached to GV) and it will automatically ring my cell phone numbers. So no matter where I happen to be, when someone calls my home number I'll get the call and that call (since its coming from my home number) isn't costing me any minutes.

Now none of this can actually happen because GV doesn't (yet) allow number porting but once they do this will be a huge blow to their universe.

The wireless industry would only have one way to retaliate and that would be to start charing minutes to calls made to the customers home phone and I'm not sure how well that would go over.

Dave

I would agree that if AT&T has a problem with GV, it is because of scenarios like this. But, it is only possible because your plan allows free calls from your home. Mine would be similar because it allows free incoming calls. But, this scenario is already possible using any number of outbound call forwarding services.

I think the reasons are different.

[Gustav]

Originally Posted by ivan.rnn01

Smart guys. They may indeed use custom proprietary protocol between their iPhone client and their server. They may thus be able to beat possible allegations, that they implement VOIP over AT&T's 3G.

VOIP with a custom proprietary protocol is still VOIP. In fact, there is no standard VOIP protocol that anyone uses now. There are plenty out there and they're all VOIP.

[ivan.rnn01]

Originally Posted by Gustav

VOIP with a custom proprietary protocol is still VOIP. In fact, there is no standard VOIP protocol that anyone uses now. There are plenty out there and they're all VOIP.

Care to read the article before writing banalities. Widget of GV webapp sends request to Google's server, as any other webpage in the world used to do.

Now go in court and try to sue Google.

[DaveGee]

Originally Posted by Tulkas

I would agree that if AT&T has a problem with GV, it is because of scenarios like this. But, it is only possible because your plan allows free calls from your home. Mine would be similar because it allows free incoming calls. But, this scenario is already possible using any number of outbound call forwarding services.

I think the reasons are different.

Perhaps.... but the idea that AT&T and/or Apple are pulling the plug on Google simply because they don't want to see any more Google technologies succeed seems so childish. Not that I'd be all that surprised if that indeed where the reason.

If it's not simply because GV might allow people to 'work the system' to use less cellular minutes and it's not simply because they don't want to see Google succeed as a general point of order then we're left to wonder what exactly has them so spooked specifically about GV.

I for one would be really interested in knowing the real reason, and no I don't believe it's because GV in some way lessens the iPhone experience... If that were the case then iFart or Pull My Finger or whatever its called would not exist today.

And the whole privacy concerns is BS too... I mean come on Apple, you're very own iTunes/Address Book/iSync software lets users sync their contacts with .me, Google, Yahoo as well as Exchange and yet its not okay if someone else implements this same functionality?

Dave

[ecking]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

"This automated process does not screen or reject applications on the basis of functionality," the letter states. "In addition, it is important to note that Android Market is not the exclusive method of distribution for Android applications. Developers are free to make their applications available through alternative channels instead of, or in addition to, the android Market, and users are free to install Android applications from any source they choose."

I think that's awesome, I wish the app store ran like that. Then there would be no reason to jailbreak. So what if it can certain applications downloaded from the net could cause problems with your phone? It's your fault, and they didn't come from the app store anyways so it's out of apple's hands. But the small minority that would download from the net or whatever wouldn't have to look like criminals in order to do so.

[ecking]

Originally Posted by DaveGee

To be honest (and I'm a huge fan of GV) here is (what I think) is the major sticking point with GV and why AT&T is scared to death of it...SHORTNED

Man if that was all possible and seamless that'd be so great. Almost makes me wish I were an American, if the something that were to happen Canadian telecom companies would just find another way to get my balls in a vice...

[vinea]

Originally Posted by Tulkas

There already is a mechanism to avoid using the Google Voice voice mail system and use the built in iPhone VVM system. Give out your iPhone phone number instead of your GV phone number. The GV voice mail system only works for calls made to your Google Voice phone number. Calls to your iPhone number will go to your iPhone VVM. Alternatively, you can change your GV acct settings not to include your iPhone as one of the phones to ring when someone calls your GV phone number.

It is only bypassed or replaced if your calls use your GV phone number. You can install the GV app or GV mobile or the other third party GV apps and still use your iphone VVM.

So basically, to avoid having GV replace iPhone functionality (and therefore get approved for the app store), your suggestion is to...not use GV for your most important phone device (your cell phone)...

That's brilliant. /sarcasm

[vinea]

Originally Posted by Timon

Thank god someone else understands what GV is and is not.

What GV is not:

It does not touch or bypass the iPhone VVM in any way shape or form.

Yes, it does. Calls made to GV ends up on the GV voice mail list and not on the iPhone. Since all calls go to your GV number no messages ever appear again on your iPhone VVM.

It does not touch or change the iPhone dialer in any way shape or form.

Yes it does because you wouldn't be using the iPhone dialer anymore. You have to use the GV app to make outgoing calls that show on CallerID as your GV number.

It does not change the iPhone SMS app in any way shape or form.

Yes it does because, once again, it replaces the iPhone SMS functionality with the GV SMS functionality.

It does not do anything with your Address book that's not already allowed and that includes coping your contacts to your online GV account. Heck, your allowed to do this now with Yahoo so why not GV? Oh wait, you can since the GV address book is the same as your gmail address book. For those that don't like that then don't use GV or any other cloud application.

This is the first true line.

What GV is:

It gives you direct control of your GV phone number.

Which replaces your iPhone cell number.

It lets you access Voice Mail messages from your GV number. You still have to use VVM to get messages from your iPhone number.

Which is no longer used...or you might as well not bother with GV if your primary mobile number is not managed by GV.

It allows you to send SMS messages to and from your GV phone number.

Which makes ATT sad.

It lets GV place calls for you by calling your phone when your making a call through GV. Since you still get charged minutes for the inbound call, at lease currently, your still being charged minutes.

Which makes AT&T happy.

Personally I think it's a bad way implement the feature. I suggest that Google change the feature so the Call button only calls your GV number then send the real number you want to call to GV using touch-tones. If GV did it this way I think Apple would be in really hot water with the FCC because using third party carriers for LD is totally legal and protected. Doing the call back does however give Apple the out to say that your getting calls for free but only if the carrier gives free incoming calls which they currently don't.

It likely works this way because the pc client it isn't a phone. If it doesn't ring your phones, there's nothing to talk on since it isn't a VOIP client program.

[vinea]

Originally Posted by DaveGee

To be honest (and I'm a huge fan of GV) here is (what I think) is the major sticking point with GV and why AT&T is scared to death of it.

- I have a family plan with 3 numbers 2 iPhones and one for my father in-law.

- I also have a home VOIP line with vonage...

I've used the VOIP line as my home number since the 1st year Vonage was available. I even transfered my Bell Atlantic (Ma Bell) number to Vonage so my relatives family and friends etc didn't need to update their address books.

So when I got my wireless plan I get free in network calling as well as free calls to my HOME phone number (I believe this is still accurate I haven't checked my bills in a long time).

I'm fairly sure I get charged for calling my home. I had one of the original ATT accounts that got moved to cingular.

There's no reason for ATT to be scared of your scenario when they can simply charge for calls to your home.

You do know that you can multi-forward via Vonage too right?

* Here's where the problem can crop up. Using a native iPhone GV-App instead of Apples address-book I can get around using ANY minutes ON ALL OUTBOUND cell calls.

How?

Well the GV app (it looks just like an address book) calls my GV # (which ATTWS recognizes as my home number) and then dials my requested number from there. As far as AT&T is concerned I'm calling my home and no minutes are being used. For me, I can call home and then re-call-out to anywhere in the US once I make the initial connection with my home number. The GV iPhone App is what makes is seamless and painless for the user... They just pick Aunt Sally like they always would and GV would do the rest behind the scenes and with only minimal added wait time.

If you got calls to home for free you can use any VOIP package that allows for call forwarding to forward your call to your desired destination.

For Vonage you call your home phone, dial *72<number you want to call>#

Then call yourself again.

Of course, the problem here is very few, if anyone, gets calls home for free.

[vinea]

Originally Posted by DaveGee

^^^^

THIS!

And just like the POTS providers have all but dried up and blown away in the wind so too will the day when Cell phone networks as we know them now. A nickel for every IM I get all because I don't wanna spend $30 per month translation $360.00 per year so I can IM 'gonna be late for dinner' every once in a blue moon... Then when I don't pay their IM extortion money I'm forced to pay for however many SPAM IMs I get in a month x2 phones, its actually not bad now but I'm sure it'll get worse. Strange how it's actually in the wireless carriers best interest in the to promote SPAM IMs to its subscriber base.

Yea I'm just waiting on the day when the wireless carriers get theirs.

Dave

You mean the POTS providers that are...wireless carriers?

You mean the wireless carriers that are...network carriers (fiber and wireless)?

Yah...the landscape has really changed, no more AT&T and RBOCs and...uh...wait...

[icebike]

Originally Posted by ivan.rnn01

Smart guys. They may indeed use custom proprietary protocol between their iPhone client and their server. They may thus be able to beat possible allegations, that they implement VOIP over AT&T's 3G.

Perhaps CV did avoid the nebulous definition of VOIP. (Contrary to popular belief there is not universally accepted VOIP definition. Some insist Skype is VOIP, some insist that any packetized voice is VOIP, others maintain only those protocols that conform to SIP are VOIP.


BE that as it may, it matters not a bit.

Apple's agreement with ATT does not require Apple to block VOIP provided by third party APPS. It is only APPLE that can't add VOIP support.

Re-Read the documents if you doubt this.

No, this one resides squarely on Apple's shoulders.

[icebike]

Vinea your detailed post is just SO WRONG in every way there is scarcely any way to respond.

GV is ANOTHER number, not a replacement number.

Just like you home phone (which is another number) you can choose where your voice messages to. In your own equipment at home, in your Telco voice mail, or forwarded to your Cell for Visual Voicemail.

You still dial you iphone exactly as you always have. You have the option of using GV, Not the requirement.

You still can send SMS directly from your phone. You can optionally send then thru your GV. (You can do this today thru Safari). It does not replace your Sms.

The GV Cell number does not replace your cell number.

In short almost everything you posted was a lie, and I think you know it was.

[Tulkas]

Originally Posted by vinea

So basically, to avoid having GV replace iPhone functionality (and therefore get approved for the app store), your suggestion is to...not use GV for your most important phone device (your cell phone)...

That's brilliant. /sarcasm

Perhaps not up to the intellectual standards we have come to expect from you (one liners vacant of any value) but not brilliant. Simple actually, so I would have thought you cuold have appreciated it.

Anyway, the point was raised that if GV could avoid bypassing core iPhone functions like VVM that it would be approved. (you know, on your most important phone device-your cell phone...as you put it). Since the VVM system is left intact, 'bypassing' on your iPhone it is a simple matter of not using it on your iPhone. I know that might be a difficult concept for some.

I suppose I could have gone your your intellectual level and said "The solution is pretty simple: don't sign up for GV...". But sometimes, the thoughtful, yet simple answer is better.

[Tulkas]

Originally Posted by vinea

Yes, it does. Calls made to GV ends up on the GV voice mail list and not on the iPhone. Since all calls go to your GV number no messages ever appear again on your iPhone VVM.

Except those that made by calling you iPhone phone number. I know, again, a difficult concept for some, but calls into your GV number go to your GV voice mail, calls to your iPhone phone number go to your iPhone VVM. Gosh, even call to your work phone number go to your work voice mail. Calls to your home phone number go to you home voice mail. Calls to you mom's phone number go to you mom's voice mail. .......

The quote you were replying to said "It does not touch or bypass the iPhone VVM in any way shape or form" was completely true.

Originally Posted by vinea

Yes it does because you wouldn't be using the iPhone dialer anymore. You have to use the GV app to make outgoing calls that show on CallerID as your GV number.

But, you don't have to use the GV at all. You can use it as much or as little as you choose if you want people to see and return calls to your GV number and leave messages on your GV VVM, then use the GV dialer. If you don't, then use your iPhone dialer.

Hey another simple solution that escaped you.

Again, the comment you were replying to "It does not touch or change the iPhone dialer in any way shape or form." was 100% true. So, understandably, the best you could do was to claim that the option of using the GV someone results in the iPhone dialer being changed. The iPhone dialer is still there. Installing GV Mobile or the GV App would not change it. Yet, somehow, you say yes, it is changed, because the user could opt not to use it. Perhaps a review of a dictionary would show that unchanged does not mean changed.

Originally Posted by vinea

Yes it does because, once again, it replaces the iPhone SMS functionality with the GV SMS functionality.

Again, you are wrong. The iPhone SMS app is still there. Use it if you wish. Again an alternative that does not alter the original does not equate to altering the original.

These really are simple concepts....

Originally Posted by vinea

This is the first true line.

And yet the rest of us have to sit and wait...

Originally Posted by vinea

Which replaces your iPhone cell number.

BS again. You still have your cell number. Give it to those your choose. Give you GV number to those you choose. Give your work number to those your choose. You get the picture..maybe.

Now with all those choices you could choose to give out your GV number exclusively. But there is nothing, other than convenience, compelling you to do so.

Originally Posted by vinea

Which is no longer used...or you might as well not bother with GV if your primary mobile number is not managed by GV.

..ior used in the manner of you choosing. I guess that is the same as no longer used. No, wait, it isn't.

Originally Posted by vinea

Which makes ATT sad.

yet not so sad that other apps are allowed do free SMS too.

So many simple options. yet, as options, they seem to have escaped you. I hope this helped you.

[vinea]

Originally Posted by icebike

Vinea your detailed post is just SO WRONG in every way there is scarcely any way to respond.

GV is ANOTHER number, not a replacement number.

Just like you home phone (which is another number) you can choose where your voice messages to. In your own equipment at home, in your Telco voice mail, or forwarded to your Cell for Visual Voicemail.

It's a replacement number for ALL your numbers. That's the whole point of the service.

If you're adding the GV as yet another number to home, work, cell, etc you've completely missed the point of GV and why the service is compelling in the first place.

[vinea]

Originally Posted by Tulkas

Perhaps not up to the intellectual standards we have come to expect from you (one liners vacant of any value) but not brilliant. Simple actually, so I would have thought you cuold have appreciated it.

Anyway, the point was raised that if GV could avoid bypassing core iPhone functions like VVM that it would be approved. (you know, on your most important phone device-your cell phone...as you put it). Since the VVM system is left intact, 'bypassing' on your iPhone it is a simple matter of not using it on your iPhone. I know that might be a difficult concept for some.

I suppose I could have gone your your intellectual level and said "The solution is pretty simple: don't sign up for GV...". But sometimes, the thoughtful, yet simple answer is better.

So, again, what you're saying is that the best way to use GV is to NOT use it for your mobile phone. That's not a thoughtful, simple answer. You're throwing away the advantage of using GV is you have to manage 2 or more numbers...which obviously GV users will not choose to do.

[Tulkas]

Originally Posted by vinea

So, again, what you're saying is that the best way to use GV is to NOT use it for your mobile phone. That's not a thoughtful, simple answer. You're throwing away the advantage of using GV is you have to manage 2 or more numbers...which obviously GV users will not choose to do.

No, I am not saying that at all, please read it again. But if you don't want to use GV on your phone, then the best solution is not to use it. If want to use it, but choose not to have inbound calls to your iPhone go to GV VVM, then disable the phone number.

Is that the best way to use GV? No, the best way would be to use it. But 1) it is your choice and 2) the answer was given to explain how to avoid using GV VM on your iPhone, so you know, I explained how to avoid using GV VM on your iPhone. I wouldn't suggest it at all, regardless your misunderstanding of my comment. I also don't suggest it as the best way to use GV, again regardless of your misunderstanding.

I would agree with your statement that you would be throwing away an advantage of GV..even the main advantage for some (free LD, VVM and SMS would be the main advantages for me, not consolidation of numbers...most people I know are capable of recording multiple phone numbers).. But since the choices are available in how you use it, the choice is up to the user.

With or without the GV App installed, you have the exact same choices, just a difference in delivery.

[ivan.rnn01]

OK, icebike, let's look in details, if you want it so bad.
Firstly, my post didn't discuss VOIP protocol (we all know, there is plenty of them). I wrote, Google might have used a protocol, which doesn't qualify as VOIP one.

Originally Posted by icebike

Perhaps CV did avoid the nebulous definition of VOIP. (Contrary to popular belief there is not universally accepted VOIP definition. Some insist Skype is VOIP, some insist that any packetized voice is VOIP, others maintain only those protocols that conform to SIP are VOIP.

FCC definition will play.

Interconnected VoIP service. An interconnected Voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) service is a service that:
(1) Enables real-time, two-way voice communications;
(2) Requires a broadband connection from the user's location;
(3) Requires Internet protocol-compatible customer premises equipment (CPE); and
(4) Permits users generally to receive calls that originate on the public switched telephone network and to terminate calls to the public switched telephone network.

Google has a lot of options here, starting from pure voice call from iPhone to the nearest Google server, where VOIP codec resides (remember, it's nation-wide only service) to inserting acceptable delays and making the communication not-realtime (read this, AT&T have no objections).

Originally Posted by icebike

Apple's agreement with ATT does not require Apple to block VOIP provided by third party APPS. It is only APPLE that can't add VOIP support. Re-Read the documents if you doubt this. No, this one resides squarely on Apple's shoulders.

Terrific bullshit. You seem to have no idea at all what all that is about, dude.

1. Re-read terms of your cellular contract, including data plan (do you really have one?). It's written in black and white there: "except VOIP services". It was always written since years before Apple has created iPhone. Carriers - and only carriers - care about VOIP on their cellular wireless network. Only on 3G!
2. There are loads of VOIP applications for iPhone (iCall, fring, Truphone, SipPhone, Siphone, ... ). Very remarkable feature - they all work over WiFi. And nobody cares, all that shit is already in AppStore with all their codecs and whatever "support" they need!

That Ogre Battle is around using VOIP over 3G. And the owner of 3G network is carrier. Even if they wash their hands in front of FCC.

P.S. AT&T sees better what happens:

AT&T
and Apple agreed that Apple would not take affirmative steps to enable an iPhone to use
AT&T’s wireless service (including 2G, 3G and Wi-Fi) to make VoIP calls without first
obtaining AT&T’s consent. AT&T and Apple also agreed, however, that if a third party
enables an iPhone to make VoIP calls using AT&T’s wireless service, Apple would have
no obligation to take action against that third party.

[djsherly]

Originally Posted by Tulkas

No, I am not saying that at all, please read it again. But if you don't want to use GV on your phone, then the best solution is not to use it. If want to use it, but choose not to have inbound calls to your iPhone go to GV VVM, then disable the phone number.

Is that the best way to use GV? No, the best way would be to use it. But 1) it is your choice and 2) the answer was given to explain how to avoid using GV VM on your iPhone, so you know, I explained how to avoid using GV VM on your iPhone. I wouldn't suggest it at all, regardless your misunderstanding of my comment. I also don't suggest it as the best way to use GV, again regardless of your misunderstanding.

I would agree with your statement that you would be throwing away an advantage of GV..even the main advantage for some (free LD, VVM and SMS would be the main advantages for me, not consolidation of numbers...most people I know are capable of recording multiple phone numbers).. But since the choices are available in how you use it, the choice is up to the user.

With or without the GV App installed, you have the exact same choices, just a difference in delivery.

You must have wasted 2,000 words on vinea. He will never get it. He won't understand that the iPhone dialler/sms/vm does not suddenly disappear because the GV dialler is installed. He's pissed off that with GV you can choose not to expose the iPhone's ordained phone number, because that's the only number that can use the built in telephony features. That has consequences - such as not using VVM - but at any rate the GV user would know that and would have been choosing GV in preference to what has been offered on the 'host' device. It is not a replacement, it is an alternative - as in the all the original capability is still there and can still be used notwithstanding they probably would not be by a GV user, but again it should be stressed that would be a choice - or at least it might have been had apple decided to approve the app.

It's a shame something like this does not exist from where I hail. I would happily give up VVM to be able to block my mum from calling.

I've got apple equipment up the wazoo including an iphone so I do like their stuff and their polish but that does not put them beyond reproach.