Google Voice Grabs 1 Million Phone Numbers 198
alphadogg writes "Google has reserved 1 million phone numbers with Level 3, signaling that it may finally be ready to roll out its long-anticipated Google Voice service. The free service, announced in March, lets users unify their phone numbers, allowing them to have a single number through Google Voice that rings a call through to all their phones. Sources could not say when the 1 million numbers may be assigned. Level 3 has been supplying Google with phone numbers since the introduction of Google Voice, so the 1 million numbers are an indication Google is close to adding a significant number of users. A public launch has been anticipated since Google said in March the service would be 'open to new users soon.' One early user said: 'I've only been using Google Voice for a few months, but it's completely changed the way I use voicemail and communicate... When it goes public, I think the rush to grab Google Voice numbers is going to be stunning. I know some of my friends check the Google Voice page almost every day to see when they can grab a number and get started using it.'"
I wonder.... (Score:4, Insightful)
... how long it will be before we see a civil or criminal suit arising from a competitor, user or law-enforcement looking for a user.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
We all wonder when posters will quit using the subject line for beginning a sentence. Aargh!
Does... (Score:5, Funny)
...it bother you when people do that?
Yes ... (Score:2)
I think this joke might be just about played ou... (Score:5, Funny)
...t.
I, for one, think we can do a lot better at this. (Score:2)
TSIA. HAND!
There you go (Score:5, Funny)
.
Prepare for more.. (Score:2)
...subject comment trolls then if it bothers you. Your bother is troll food.
Re:I wonder.... (Score:5, Funny)
I'm waiting.... (Score:3, Interesting)
for this for my G1. I'm surprised this wasn't included, even though it's in closed beta. PF Voicemail Fusion works ok, but youmail is horrible for the G1. Google Voice already has an android app, so I can't wait!
Re:I'm waiting.... (Score:4, Interesting)
I ended up giving my real number to anyone that mattered. I still use my Google Voice number for anything online or calls/text messages that I potentially want to screen. It's a great service but it didn't work for me as an every day number.
Re:I'm waiting.... (Score:5, Informative)
I didn't find the GV android app to be all that usable. The extra overhead ended up making me miss a lot of calls that I wouldn't otherwise have. Another problem was that dialing out either involved using the GV application which dials your Google Voice number and places the call via their system or making calls from your real number. The former put a 10 - 15 second overhead on making a call and the latter tends to confuse people because they are receiving a call from a different number than the one they (were told to) call.
If you haven't tried the latest version, I recommend you do so; it makes the dialing process much more seamless. If you still have problems with, don't hesitate to shoot me an email: gv {at} evancharlton {dot} com (that goes for anyone else that has questions or suggestions).
Re: (Score:2)
Evan - My first impression was the same as Antirush, and suddenly the GV app has been fantastic for the last four or five updates. Great work.
On the confusion - it would be nice to be able to set GV to set rules like use carrier for domestic calls and GV for overseas as GV voice rates are expensive for domestic calls if you have long distance included on your cell plan.
GV is great and T-Mobile doesn't have 3G where I live. Thanks for filling in the gap on the G-1. Your app is going to be huge as the new p
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I'm waiting.... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's fantastic. I now have instant junk call filtering - I just send to voice on my cellphone and the caller get the disconnect signal after a ring or two.
My friends all get custom greetings before leaving voice mail, and I receive an email as soon as they do. Also, I can play back my messages in the order I want without using a
How big is the market? (Score:2)
It seems to me that the same people that would be all for a techy solution like this are the very same people who are unlikely to even own a landline. Nearly universally, everyone who I know in their mid 20s - early 30s don't have a landline and have only one number - their cellphone.
I can see a market for this for intense businessmen who might have 2 lines at home, a private line at work, and another line at their second home. But is there a demand from the tech savy young google user?
Re:How big is the market? (Score:5, Interesting)
Nearly universally, everyone who I know in their mid 20s - early 30s don't have a landline
The same used be be true for me, but now my parents, aunts and uncles, former teachers, etc. have all switched. I would say that nearly every person I know 15-62 have switched solely to cell phones in place of home phones. The two people I know with a home phone, my grandfather (85) and grandmother (82) switched to Vonage over two years ago to the complete surprise of the entire family. Reason they gave "It's a fixed monthly cost that works for what they need."
I really think the traditional home phone line could be dead in a decade or so.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if you only have one line, you might like to use this. If a business asks for your phone number, you could give them the Google Talk number. Then, if they abuse it, you simply tell Google Talk to either always push them to voice mail or (better yet) to play the "this line is disconnected" message.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, NPR had a piece yesterday about how the number of people with only cell phones (no landlines) just surpassed the number with landlines in the US. However, "Jason Levine" is right that even people with only one phone might find this useful. Personally, since moving to Chicago from upstate NY I haven't changed my area code (I save a lot of money by staying on my parents "Friends and Family plan" and would want to give up my phone number even if I could). However, if I decide I want to submit res
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can see a market for this for intense businessmen who might have 2 lines at home, a private line at work, and another line at their second home. But is there a demand from the tech savy young google user?
Absolutely.
I have one phone, and it's my cell phone. I don't have an unlimited calling/ unlimited text messaging service for my phone, and I cannot justify paying for it right now. In the last month, however, I've had a spike in my call volume--instead of using less than 300 minutes, I'm moving upward to 500 or so, and they're from many different numbers.
With Google Voice, I can give out one number and have it ring to my cell phone, and a cheap temporary service on my computer, such as Skype. If I am a
Re: (Score:2)
If only.
Where I live (UK) a working phone line is the prerequisite for a broadband package, whether it be over BT's ADSL network or Virgin's fibre-optic cable network. I get a working phone line and phone number whether I want it or not, as long as I want internet access.
Of course I could choose to not plug a handset into it and never give out the number, but I still do own a landline. As local call rates tend to be cheaper over landline than mobile, plugging a cheap handset in seems like a sensible idea fo
Oh, that's just great... (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder if we'll be able to register that line on the DNC list.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I imagine you could, but political campaigns and charities can ignore the DNC list anyway. More importantly, Google Voice gives you a lot more control over screening your calls before you answer them.
Re:Oh, that's just great... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I've already registered mine on the DNC list
Yeah, so have I, both of them. Got three different calls telling me I needed to go vote for Barack Obama in November. The third one I slipped through my asterisk-fu.
"We hope you'll go out and vote today!"
"I already did this morning. For Senator McCain."
"Oh." (long pause) "Have a nice day, then, I guess."
There's only so much you can do, and reporting the non-profits and/or pols doesn't do much good.
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite. Let's not blame Obama here, it had nothing to do with him, specifically.
When crafting DNC legislation, political parties and PACs got a nice little exemption, gotta make sure they can still do what they want.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Naw. We're all geeks here (right?) - setting up the software is the fun part. We do this shit because it's interesting to us -- and that's also the reason that we're so pale.
The real difficulty in operating one's own personal PBX is maintaining the sodden thing and the hardware that runs it, and then trying to justify paying for it.
In this context, Google Voice works just fine for a single independent user, has zero maintenance, and is free. I don't even need an Internet connection for to work -- the who
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Oh, that's just great... (Score:5, Interesting)
Now telemarketers, religious freaks, and campaign-donation guys will be able to find me no matter where I am.
I am a Google voice user.
Zero automated telemarketing calls get through to me. The system defaults to requiring callers with previously unseen caller-id's to state their name before it will even ring my real phone(s). No automated system knows how to do that so far.
Even if a real person calls and does get past the name prompt, I can "answer" the phone by sending the call to voice-mail and listening in, the way you can with a real physical answering machine.
I am also able to blacklist specific caller-id numbers to either go directly to voice-mail or to play the "this number has been disconnected" recording and tone pattern.
Worst case, I can also configure all unknown caller-id numbers to go directly to voice-mail too.
Since signing up with GrandCentral a year or two ago (the predecessor company that google purchased) my annoying call rate has gone to zero.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean... Google is...alive?!?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But how will you ever find out that your car warranty is about to expire?!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Worst case, I can also configure all unknown caller-id numbers to go directly to voice-mail too.
This was incredibly handy recently when I was moving and made the mistake of using one of those services which automatically requests quotes from several different moving companies at once. Several of these companies were calling me daily to try to get me to use their service. Fortunately, I had just given my Google Voice number instead of my cell (I don't have a landline), so all the calls from unknown callers went straight to voicemail. On top of that, Google Voice automatically transcribed all the voice
Re:Oh, that's just great... (Score:5, Informative)
Not exactly innovative. Verizon gave me that at my apartment in 2002.
What exactly is your point? The service as a whole is very useful, and somewhat innovative. There are precedents for many--if not all--of the features, but many of them would have required a staffed calling center not that long ago.
So here's an example of what I like. I can always route my parents to my home number, and my friends to my office during the day, my cell phone at night. I can route colleagues to my office by day, direct to voice mail at night. If I'm going on vacation and staying at a cabin where cell signal is bad, and I want to be reached by one particular friend, I can route their calls to the cabin's land-line before I leave.
And then beyond all that, when people leave a voice mail, GVoice automatically transcribes it. It's not perfect, but it's often faster to get the idea of what they called about without having to listen to a long, rambling VM.
Re: (Score:2)
CLICK- NO CARRIER
Bingo! Annoying customer asshole complaints gone!
Re: (Score:2)
Right. Because everyone's been doing selective and deterministic call forwarding with free telephony services since 5ESS [wikipedia.org] hit the scene in '82. Old news. Blah blah blah.
[/sarcasm]
Re: (Score:2)
I guess my first question to you remains: what's your point? Nobody said they invented everything they do here, but putting it all together and making it available for free in a convenient, easy-to-use interface has made a difference, in some cases a significant diffe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, the whole point is that you get to decide which of your contacts can reach you at which phone. You can make it so that if they're not in your contact list, they get voice mail only.
You can also screen callers (they state their name to a recording) based on whether they are in your contact list or whether they are blocking caller ID.
Re:Oh, that's just great... (Score:5, Funny)
Now telemarketers, religious freaks, and campaign-donation guys will be able to find me no matter where I am.
Hey!
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Haha why the hell is this "interesting"??
Re:Oh, that's just great... (Score:4, Funny)
Where are the Telco's Lawyers (Score:3, Interesting)
Queue Dr. Evil '1 million phone numbers... MMUUUAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH!'
It certainly sounds like a big number, but it isn't. What I am wondering is what the Telco execs are doing about it.
A little history for ./ The telco's stuck it to Vonage two different ways.
1. whisper campaign in the equity markets claiming Vonage didn't own the value-drivers in their business. 100% bunk. Amazon doesn't own the 'tubes' that connect to their service, has fantastical valuations. With Vonage, it *is* a very big problem??? But equity manager ran with it and hammered Vonage.
2. Patent litigation. Especially bad and ridiculously obvious patents were used to extract the Telco's vig. (hint, look up the word vigorish)
Google's much more well-capitalized and swimming in the deep end of Telco waters if they attempt to unify POTS/wireless with VOIP. When will Telco exec's send the legal dogs after Google?
Re:Where are the Telco's Lawyers (Score:4, Informative)
Whisper campaign? Well, let's see. If the end-game for Vonage is to replace the existing hardwired telephone service there is one little problem - they need the wires to be maintained for their customer's DSL links. Nobody really believes that the wireline maintenance is going to be covered by the revenue generated by selling naked DSL service.
The end result of this is Vonage can be a bit player off to the side but should they "succeed" they really fail. Not a good overall strategy. Yes, I guess you could say they don't own the value-drivers. More importantly, they desperately need their competition in order to survive. And their competition has to be both doing well enough to support their business and make it possible for them to compete.
Worse yet for Vonage and their ilk is that the government has mandated the wireline telephone companies have to provide for data services and bulk-purchased voice services to be priced below real costs. As long as these services are provided to a few players and the main part of the telco revenue is still providing telephone service everything will be fine. But, again, should Vonage or any of their sort really "succeed", they fail.
Would the right answer be to forcibly separate the wireline facilities from the telco voice providers? Sure, except under current rules no wireline facility could operate because the services that are sold today to outside companies are done so at a loss. There are a lot of wires out there and the maintenance of this is quite costly. Today that bill is paid for by voice services, mostly for business customers that have entirely different billing arrangements than residential customers do.
So pulling the facilities management away from the telcos would simply require the data and bulk services to be sold at real prices. So the $14.99 DSL service would be more like $99. At today's pricing it makes sense for an individual to drop their $25 telephone and $15 DSL to something like $15 DSL and Magic Jack at $20 a year. If the DSL service was priced including wireline maintenance costs, it wouildn't be practical at all. The real problem there would be lost of people can't afford $1200 a year for Internet and would drop it. Loss of market share like this would cripple plenty of things and would change the landscape of Internet service providers in the US.
What is the real answer? I suspect it is to abandon wireline maintenance completely and replace it with new fiber optic links from a completely new company. In about 50 years. In the meantime, we will have the existing wires in the ground and on the poles until they need repair. And with nobody repairing it, people will just do without wired connections.
FUD FUD FUD, and no substance. (Score:2)
Vonage is selling a service that requires another service sold by someone else to work, you're right on that. I counter that there is no business problem with that: I can name you two businesses that work splendidly th
Mod Parent Up. (Score:2)
This is a good reply to a poorly reasoned response.
Re: (Score:2)
Lame anecdotal evidence (Score:2, Interesting)
"I know some of my friends check the Google Voice page almost every day to see when they can grab a number and get started using it."
And I have friends who have never heard of Google Voice and completely lack the technical understanding to want to use it. I hate it when people use anecdotal evidence to suggest how great or grand something is going to be.
Most of my friends actually have just one phone (their cell) to their name anyway. While I see some of the features being semi-useful for a single-phone use
Re: (Score:2)
There are a lot of reasons why one might want to take calls directly on a different line than their cell phone.
Re: (Score:2)
I have sometimes thought that such a service would be handy (and, in fact, I know someone who uses one) but he has to manually tell the service where he is all the time. Granted, it's a quick process, but it's one more thing to think about. Sometimes h
Re: (Score:2)
But I don't want you to call my mobile! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Actually, you can flag numbers to direct straight to voice mail. Which then gets transcibed into and email. The service gives you some pretty good controls over handling calls and routing, based on factors like time, caller and your availability.
In your case, you can give out the number freely and only forward people in your "Friends" group to you cell phone.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Abuse (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine it involves some process where you have to 'enroll' each physical number in to the service by dialing in from that location. If you can't get to Palin's line, for example, you can't mess with it. Existing call forwarding schemes use some version of this.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure they have a verification step just like many other services. Just a guess, but they probably place a call to the number you want to register and you have to key in a code that they have given to you to prove that you are in control of the phone number in question.
Re: (Score:2)
If I recall correctly from when I signed up to GrandCentral (Google Voice's predecessor), signing up a number meant that Google would call that number. You would then need to approve the addition by typing in a code.
In fact, I just stopped by Google Voice's help pages and that's exactly what they do:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
OP is talking about signing up and directing your Google Voice number to someone else's number that you don't own. I.E. the local Pizza Delivery.
I would imagine the same thing that prevents it today, people get pissed because they are getting 'prank' calls, complain, and someone brings down the hammer.
Re: (Score:2)
I would imagine it's like any other opt-in membership. You provide an email address, they send an email, you reply. Except you give the number to google, they give you a pin, then you make a call from that number to the Google line punch in the PIN. ???
I want Jenny's number... (Score:5, Funny)
inbound number transfer (Score:2)
If Google has a number shortage, it's kind of odd that they don't let people transfer their existing numbers to Google Voice. That would probably free up a lot of the numbers they already have.
I have a Google Voice number, and if I could transfer my existing number into it, I would do so.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of people know your current number but you want to switch to using google voice.
It would be simpler in terms of not having to get everyone to use a new number to get a new number for your actual phone (cell, land line, VoIP, whatever - the one everyone has) and give the number everyone has to google to use as the google voice entry point.
Re: (Score:2)
From TFA:
Re: (Score:2)
GrandCentral and Google have been saying that for years.
I'll believe it when I see it.
(I've been waiting for porting since I got my Grand Central account)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but... they have been saying that for a while, so I wouldn't hold my breath.
The question is: why is it taking them so long? That seems like a pretty straightforward feature, in particular since they already handle outbound number transfers.
Re: (Score:2)
Outbound is easier, given what Google Voice does. For an outbound transfer, they just have to give someone else control of the number. For an inbound transfer to work, they still need a way to get to the phone that was previously covered by that number when actually using the number links back to Google Voice. To do that, it would seem that eithe
potentially troubling feature (Score:2)
In a lot of places, both parties must be notified if the call is being recorded. I wonder what controls they put in place for this.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
When someone calls and they record the phone call Google Voice will automatically say the phone call is being recorded, see the faq: http://www.google.com/support/voice/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=115037 [google.com]
Given this extends beyond the internet (Score:2)
What happens when Google Voice is down? Privacy? (Score:3, Insightful)
Just curious, if you are using a Google Voice number as your "one number to rule them all", and the service is down, what happens? Even if it goes down temporarily (as Gmail does constantly, ahem) does that mean incoming calls cant get to you?
Also, since Google is obviously able to hijack the voice audio, what's to say they aren't listening to / recording calls? I realize they "aren't evil" but, still.
I like the concept of this service, but don't want to have my incoming calls relying on Google's service to make it through.
Re: (Score:2)
Just curious, if you are using a Google Voice number as your "one number to rule them all", and the service is down, what happens? Even if it goes down temporarily (as Gmail does constantly, ahem) does that mean incoming calls cant get to you?
It's likely that the same thing happens as when a regular phone service goes down. The caller hears a tone telling them the call couldn't be routed and they can decide if they want to call you later.
Currently, you have no evidence to say Google will be any better or worse than a regular phone carrier on the PSTN, most of whom regularly manage 99.999% uptime (due to large capital expenditure on redundant hardware - something that Google can definitely afford).
Also, since Google is obviously able to hijack the voice audio, what's to say they aren't listening to / recording calls? I realize they "aren't evil" but, still.
I like the concept of this service, but don't want to have my incoming calls relying on Google's service to make it through.
All existing phone companies can have downtime an
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not sure where the bad attitude is coming from, I never suggested that these things *do* happen, just asking about the potential for them to happen. And my first question was just that, a question, if it absolutely relies on google's service to route your call through.
Additionally, it introduces ANOTHER variable of service into the mix. Now I rely on my telco to work, with this, I rely on my telco AND Google to work.
And Google's track record with gmail being up and down in my own personal experience is no
Does EVERYONE here blindly trust google?! (Score:3, Interesting)
They own your primary e-mail address, route your telephone conversations, facilitate your mailing list, keep track of your calendar, engineer your cell phone platform, access maps for you, host your videos, and answer any question you could have about anything through their search engine.
First question: Do you really think they are funded by ad revenue? How many ads have you clicked on since you started surfing the web?
Second question: What is more profitable, providing free web services, or selling personal data they have been harvesting for years, many times tied to an IP, MAC, Username, and the identity created by the consistencies of your browsing habits?
WOO (Score:2)
http://blogoscoped.com/archive/2007-09-17-n72.html [blogoscoped.com]
Why is it that so many people cheer the arrival of the next Google service and then in the same breath mutter about privacy and invasive government. So what happens when the federal government owns 60% of Google? I mean...the l
Re: (Score:2)
One reason I never liked other net phone services is that you can't dial 911 and when my computer reboots, or decides to explode, my phone dies;
Vonage (VoIP) understands 911 just fine, though yes, no computer, no phone. But there are many people who have no land line at all, instead using only cell...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I know the reason many folks keep a standard POTS line in the house is that even during a power outage, an analog POTS phone will still work. Cellular will also work, until your battery dies (unless you have a generator or alternate source of power).
Re:Will it work when my nets die? Or with 911? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A VOIP app to bypass the phone number altogether... that would change the world.
But the question remains: where's the revenue?
Re:Will it work when my nets die? Or with 911? (Score:4, Informative)
I'm sure any calls between Google VOIP customers will be VOIP on the backend. I'm sure they'll integrate it into Google Talk as well, and then your end could be totally VOIP, and if the other party uses Google Talk it would be VOIP end-to-end. Further, if they're smart, they'll let you use your SIP-based "hard" phones with the service as well.
Second, ENUM is already standard that allows you to use DNS to direct your calls wherever you want (voice or fax - see fax could just go direct from mail server to mail server over SMTP, and if not available use the traditional number). However, guess who has to implement ENUM? The local telco providers who have been assigned numbers have to implement it - and guess what, none of the traditional Bell companies have done that or will do that anytime soon because it allows you to bypass their services and control how your number is called. I could see Google changing all this (at least between VOIP-enabled providers). TPC [tpc.int] has tried to make this happen, but really it needs to be done at your service-provider level so you don't have to manage DNS: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac123/ac147/archived_issues/ipj_5-2/enum.html [cisco.com].
Regarding revenue, I'm sure it'll be the same as Google Apps. Free for certain features, pay for other. Perhaps Google will make it free for all at first, get folks hooked, and then pay.
Competing in the corporate world will be hard, however. All of these features I've heard of, you can do with a Cisco CallManager/Unity platform. One-reach number forwarding, listening to calls as the caller leaves the message (plus telling the system to take the call, which prompts the person calling with, "Your party can take your call now, please stand by," and then two-way voice goes through), per-number-filtering (profiles, etc.), initiating calls from your cell's smart-app (this is really SIP, and what occurs is Google would place a call out to your cell and the party you wish to call at the same time, presenting you with the caller's number on your callerid, and presenting them with your Google number on their callerid, thus "masking" the phone you calling from), text to speed (read your email to you), speech to text (convert speech to text), fax to email, email to fax, SIP VOIP to your telco so no need for a PRI or analog trunks. All that, and you don't have to worry about Google turning "evil."
However, I, as a small business owner, I cannot afford the hardware and licensing to do this. I'd love to pay Google for such a feature without a huge capital investment. I'm sure others would too.
Further, if Google's smart-app running on the phones do this right, you'll be able to seamlessly transfer a call that you answered on you cell on your desk (plus all the other features). In the Cisco world, you just hang up the cell call and it's still there for 2 seconds and you can pick it up on your desk. Or, if you were on your desk and needed to step away, you just press "Mobile" and the system dials your cell (but the desk call isn't affected at all) and as soon as you hang up your desk phone the two-way audio cuts through on your cell. While on a traditional phone system you could just transfer your call to your cell, the advantage is you can drop back to your desk phone (or any other office phone that you log into) without having to transfer it from your cell (thus tying up two voice paths and running up your cell minutes).
Anyway, it is cool tech, and I'm glad to see Google bringing it to the masses.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Further, if Google's smart-app running on the phones do this right, you'll be able to seamlessly transfer a call that you answered on you cell on your desk (plus all the other features).
You can actually do this. Say you have your cell, home and office phones listed in your account. If you're on a GVoice call on your cell, when you get to one of the other phones, you can hit * (I think) and it causes the other phones to ring. Pick it up and you can hang up the cell phone and keep going where you left off.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There may be other things they are doing, like s
You CAN intiate a call from your phone directly (Score:5, Informative)
my_google_number p 2 p destiantion_number #
note that "p" inserts a ~2 second pause on most dialers.
To get this working seamlessly you need to go to your account settings and disable PIN entry for mail box and use caller ID instead to identify your cell phone as authorized to go straight in. If you don't want to do that you need to include the right pauses and pin dialing codes in that example above.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Just as long as Verizon, Skype, and AT&T take for whatever purpose they want. The same laws apply to everyone.
Its not the conversation content you'll have to worry about (that's protected from interception by all but the NSA). Its whom you call, or calls you. That data has been for sale for a decade or so.
Re: (Score:2)
Guess what.
If you pick up a phone, you have no privacy. Your telco monitors your activity. The telco of the receiving end of the call monitors the activity. The NSA monitors it. Hell, the NSA may be recording it. Networks the call traverse record bits of information about it. Any one of them can figure out the location, and the laws (when followed) are the laws of both ends of the call and every country the call transits.
If you want to know how it works, you can try googling about it. However, your inane pr
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, he may have no choice. If someone else signs up for it, and then calls him...they have forced the use of GV on him.
This same concern came up during the rollout of gmail.
Re: (Score:2)
I concluded then that the reason for the failure of the company I worked for was that we were competing with cell phones. Find me Follow me, One Number, etc, however you market the service ultimately you are adding a layer of complexity and hassle when 90% of the phone calls will be coming to your cellphone anyways.
There's nothing here that hasn't been done by unified communications software an
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That'd be much more amusing and transparent that 4664 (agga?)