Comments on: Google Voice Missed Robbery Attempt

By: Florian Seroussi

Florian Seroussi — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 21:14:08 +0000

I agree about freeing subscribers. I don’t agree on the method. You cannot stand in the middle of a BestBuy with a huge neon sign saying “Walmart is cheaper”.

By: John

John — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 21:09:05 +0000

What kind of subscribers is Google stealing ? By offering a non-overbearing business model , Google is stealing subscribers ? I think it’s more like freeing subscribers

By: Business Landline System – Affordable solution for a business | Intro to Phone Calls

Wed, 30 Sep 2009 13:51:13 +0000

[...] Google Voice Missed Robbery Attempt [...]

By: | Telephones

| Telephones — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 00:59:24 +0000

[...] Google Voice Missed Robbery Attempt [...]

By: Florian Seroussi

Florian Seroussi — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 12:53:27 +0000

Andy Abramson posted a reply on his blog. http://andyabramson.blogs.com/voipwatch/2009/09/mask-and-gun-or-just-very-smart.html

My comment to Andy:

I’m not against Google. I simply disapprove poor business practice to grab [steal] subscribers. Andy – you know better than anyone that the game is around 3 numbers: 1. churn; 2. ARPU; 3. subscriber acquisition costs.

Recession and recent losses has implications for the following factors on all carriers:
1. Higher churn;
2. Lower ARPU;
3. Increasing subscriber acquisition costs.

Google has low Churn, 0 ARPU, 0 acquisition cost and operates on carriers background.
It’s unfair competition by all means.
Now saying that AT&T is not a team player- well we all know that. But it doesn’t justify Google’s attitude.

Google is not the enemy. They have a good opportunity to change the Telecom. Let’s not ruin it.

By: Gavin

Gavin — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 04:34:33 +0000

“You shouldn’t be able to use carriers pipes to steal their traffic, take away their subscribers and build a business just because you can afford to dump prices.”

This statement has nothing to do with the rest of the article. It’s a concept that may or may not be true, but it implies that Google is taking away subscribers somehow.

While google voice will erode some business like SMS, they are not phone carriers unless you count it’s skype-like application. But then you are using computers, not telephones. So you still need Verizon, ATT, T-Mobile, home phone lines, etc., to use Google Voice like most people are going to use google voice.

And I laugh at the money loss that poor carriers will have to endure on SMS busines loss. Its widely known that SMS service comes at essentially no extra cost to wireless carriers. Wireless carriers have SMS capacity built in already to towers, switches, etc.. But they certainly pass SMS “costs” to customers. So I have zero problem with Google making this finally unlimited and free.

By: Eddy Berg

Eddy Berg — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 19:51:31 +0000

We hate AT&T so much we tend to be on Google’s side. But it’s obvious Google is not doing the right thing. Carriers are spending billions on infrastructure and more billions on customer base acquisition. This cannot exploit by anyone not ever Google.
Great thinking outside the box Florian.
note: one last thing – post title is a bit too much.

By: ibibo Sawaal

ibibo Sawaal — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 17:41:48 +0000

To jdbenichou according to you Google is entitled to bypass carrier’s ToS because AT&T has no valid proposition for GV? Usage of network is bonded by carriers rules.
In no way should another service provider operates on a network without accepting ToS of host carrier. Gvoice brings no value to AT&T and offers nothing more to end users of what operator currently offers. The only difference at this stage is the revenue model. Free against Expensive.
You cannot defend Google’s position on the ground that AT&T business model is wrong.

By: Jdbenichou

Jdbenichou — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:47:31 +0000

#ibibo It’s not a decision. It is an opinion. Gvoice is probably not buying anything from ATT MOSTLY because ATT has no valid business proposition for Gvoice, like MVNO or big discount on large buy. ATT has built its network by investing into limited public ressources like radio frequencies and top spots for BTS. In return it has a monopoly over its subscribers base. And it can impose to Apple not to allow Gvoice on their subscriber’s Iphone. If network access was splitted between packet transportation and end user voice services, Gvoice could buy a reseller access plan from ATT and set up a VOIP package for consumers just like they buy termination cost from Clec or ITSP. It would mean a different business model for Google, as it would cost them more, but their curent BM could eventually allow them to still provide this service at a nominal cost, with ATT making money out of it.
@Florian Piracy is entering without permission and stealing. It is a subscriber right to download Gvoice if he wants it on his iphone. Many apps are using ATT data network to upload/download datas. Most of them does require ATT prior approval. It is a customer right and a carrier duty. I don’t see any piracy in Gvoice case.

By: Hermann

Hermann — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:24:36 +0000

You have a valid point. Looking at it your way makes sense.
How can I get a Google Voice invite?