Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 19th Sep 2009 22:27 UTC, submitted by haus
Legal The whole saga around the rejection of the official Google Voice client for the iPhone continues to play a prominent role on many websites. We all remember that the FCC had asked the three companies involved, AT&T, Google, and Apple, to answer a number of questions, but Google had censored a part of its letter. The censored section has now been published by Google.
Thread beginning with comment 385078
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: No contradiction
by krtekz on Sun 20th Sep 2009 00:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: No contradiction"
krtekz
Member since:
2007-05-31

Receiving phone calls from Google Voice number still need the real cell phone number and voice network instead of data, no?

Edited 2009-09-20 00:53 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: No contradiction
by Eugenia on Sun 20th Sep 2009 01:42 in reply to "RE[3]: No contradiction"
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

Yes, it does. It doesn't kill the current lines, but it essentially makes the telecom companies bit carriers rather than "brands" with "products". And bit carriers is what they should be IMO.

Edited 2009-09-20 01:42 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[5]: No contradiction
by kragil on Sun 20th Sep 2009 01:51 in reply to "RE[4]: No contradiction"
kragil Member since:
2006-01-04

I like "dumb pipes" better.

I like my formats open, my pipes dumb and my bits controled by me please.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[5]: No contradiction
by dindin on Mon 21st Sep 2009 15:17 in reply to "RE[4]: No contradiction"
dindin Member since:
2006-03-29

Yes, it does. It doesn't kill the current lines, but it essentially makes the telecom companies bit carriers rather than "brands" with "products". And bit carriers is what they should be IMO.



you should be careful what you wish for.

the reason why Home broadband is relatively cheap is because companies make money by selling their voice or video service.

The reason why Wireless broadband is expensive here in the States is they were "leased" for a huge cost from the goverment.

If the companies are reduced to dumb pipes, then you will get a dumb pipe. You may also get bit based billing. And also be stuck with outdated technologies because companies would see no benefit to spending all the meney for network upgarding when they have not made their initial investment cost.

We all want cheap access, but someone will pay. Maybe everyone will become an IP service provider ona goverment run Wireless Network.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: No contradiction
by segedunum on Mon 21st Sep 2009 12:08 in reply to "RE[3]: No contradiction"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Yes, but the point is that the number becomes irrelevant because you don't use it. The network operator becomes little more than a data carrier, and you can change operators merely based on the price of data carrying and change devices as new methods of data carrying become available - i.e. better WiFi coverage.

It's dangerous to the mobile operators and dangerous to Apple's lock-in.

Reply Parent Score: 2