noirExtreme

Source: news.com

The FCC on Thursday gave Net phone carriers a late September deadline to provide the same kind of 911 service available to people who call for help from landline or cell phones.

The article from news.com is comprehensive and highlights the risks associated to an improper emergency number implementation. The timing of this decision is pretty bad as it will seriously slow down the pace of innovation that had finally increased to a refreshing level in an industry that had been dominated by status quo for decades. Many providers will have to simply close down or scale back their operations due to their unability to comply. The situation also feels unfair if you compare it to the absence of decision of the FCC on the same issue for mobile phone operators.

It couldn't be immediately determined if VoIP operators such as Skype, which don't market themselves as a replacement service because the calls are predominantly between computers, are excluded from the rules. The FCC decided that any operator that connects to the traditional phone network would fall under the rule--that is, essentially the entire VoIP industry. In a statement, Skype said it is "working with the FCC to develop appropriate emergency response solutions for IP-based communications services."

Let's hope Europe doesn't follow the same unfortunate path.

As I pointed out in an earlier post (Paradigms for voice), instant messaging providers will soon throw all their weight into the VoIP battle.

This week Yahoo! is cranking up the volume. Comments are all over the web therefore I won't dwell on the news:

With Microsoft recently adding voice over IP capabilities to MSN Messenger and AOL readying a new AIM client with similar functionality, voice has become the new buzzword of IM. Yahoo has now joined the mix, launching a beta version of Yahoo Messenger 7, which hopes to capture some of the success enjoyed by Skype.

Source: BetaNews

I just want to point out that I believe Om Malik is wrong in underestimating the value of a big network:

In my world where Vonage and Skype represent voice-over-the-internet, it doesn’t even count. They are late - AOL and MSN have better and more relevant products. I wrote about this almost a year ago. They should have done something about a year ago, when Skype was a toddler. The peer-to-peer effect of Skype makes anyone else a bit of a non starter in pc2pc calls.

I am pretty sure Yahoo! Messenger's network is significantly bigger than Skype's and its conversion to voice will happen as easily as a software upgrade.
Also, end-users don't care whether skype is peer-to-peer and Yahoo! Messenger not, They just care about the benefits. If they cared about technology they would not have adopted proprietary Skype in the first place.

Marketing geniuses from all sides seem to come to agree on one thing these days: VoIP is sexy. So if you want your product to inherit that sex appeal, link it to VoIP. Somehow. It doesn't matter how. People will forget immediately anyway but will keep the fuzzy feeling that your stuff is cool. I promise you it works all the same whether you are a small open source company

Linux developer Xandros said on Wednesday that it is shipping a version of its distribution optimized for VoIP.
The Xandros Surfside Linux distro includes a Plantronics USB headset, a version of the Skype VOIP software, as well as a voucher for 120 minutes of free SkypeOut calling to telephone numbers around the world. It will be priced at $99.95.

or chipzilla.

Intel plans to differentiate its business platforms by integrating the ability to make cell-phone calls within the next two years, and is researching VOIP hardware integration, executives said.

I think I should become a consultant.

Recently there was an interesting blog conversation (if such a thing is possible) between Richard Stasny, Martin Geddes and Aswath Rao on the current failure of open voice networks (SIP+ENUM) vs. closed ones (Skype). This post from Richard collects most of the links on the topic.

Interestingly, at the same time Tom Evslin was running a series of posts on his blog covering the same question in more simple terms.

Here's my take: if we disregard POTSoIP (=telco VoIP + Vonage and the likes), the current paradigm for voice solution providers is that of an instant messaging network (large closed community). As the value of a network grows with the number of its users, only a few of these networks will coexist on the market. Skype used their first mover advantage perfectly to build a large network that now reached critical mass and it looks like they are here to stay. But no matter how cool their features are the Ineen's and other Damaka's will struggle to achieve the same result from scratch. As a user, if you are to join a closed network, you're going to be looking for the largest one.

So who else's got game then? Well, IM networks of course! James Enck wrote last week:

A [...] reader tells me that his data shows an average of 70m concurrent MSN Messenger users online through a 24-hour cycle, vs. 2 - 2.5m for Skype.

That's a lot of value according to Metcalfe's law...

Even though they were/are slow to realise the potential and put a plan together, all big networks are waking up:

• AIM Triton Beta —Skype killer?
• Microsoft, can you hear me now?
• Yahoo & BT Join Forces: VoIP and IM

A lot of people including myself would prefer to see the paradigm of email applied to voice applications instead of that of instant messaging. An completely open model would offer opportunities to a lot more players to participate in the game and through competition would generate a lot more innovation for the customers to enjoy at the lowest possible cost.

So why isn't open model successful? Because nobody is trying to build a network around a compelling solution based on open standards. To compete the best strategy for players on the small end of the pareto curve is to team up around a common service definition, whatever it is and promote it. Maybe all it takes is a strong commercial ENUM service to federate them.

Cell-phone/landline integration continued to have the highest positive response, with 62% of respondents indicating an interest in purchasing this service.

Source: InStat via IT Facts

Isn't VoIP the perfect technology for mobile operators to extend their networks and offer such integration relatively easily?

Here's my 5 minutes attempt at a feature list:

• Single phone number for fixed, mobile and PC-based telephony;
• Free Softphone for PC with Outlook integration (click-to-dial);
• ATA for home. Can be configured to register several accounts simultaneously so that mom, dad and kids can all get their calls on that phone when they are home if they want to;
• Advanced call routing options through web interface;
• Cheap calls to PSTN from VoIP endpoint;
• Cheap calls to own wireless network from VoIP endpoint;
• Free calls between VoIP endpoints;
• Naked DSL. Required to be able to free up customers from dependance on incumbent and significantly undercut current fixed telephony bill. To do so mobile operators could simply become BVNO (Broadband Virtual Network Operators) by partnering with ISPs!

What strikes me as I am thinking through this is that there is no major technological hurdle to put this in place and the investment required is moderate in comparison with financial power of mobile operators.

International Data Corporation (IDC) sees [US] residential VoIP subscriptions increasing from 3 million in 2005 to 27 million by 2009.

Source: eMarketer

"VoIP must prove that it is more than just a cheap replacement for [plain old telephone] service," said William Stofega, senior analyst for IDC's VoIP services research program, in a statement. "To do this, carriers will need to offer services that are compelling and affordable. "The winners will use the flexibility of IP to design services that differentiate themselves from their competitors," he continued.

Indeed: in just 18 months Skype grew from 0 to 35 million active users worldwide. How many users will Skype have in 2009? And what will be the VoIP ARPU by then do you think?