4 ms·

IMessage, Skype, Google Voice, and the death of the phone number

27 points by thisisblurry 15y ago

wibblenut 15y ago
This is why I believe the .tel TLD is so important - DNS for people, no more carrier or service provider lock-in, stupid fast, and resilient. I have about a dozen services defined under my name, some of which are private, which I can prioritise, or even change to a different profile depending on time/location. Mobile operators are starting to adopt it, despite the fact it undermines their phone number lock-in, because it makes it much easier for them to roll out new data-driven services, e.g. China Mobile (600m subscribers) will use it for mobile payments. It could be even more interesting if device manufacturers ever manage to persuade mobile operators to use virtual SIMs - imagine being able to subscribe to new networks on-the-fly!
- orofino 15y ago
  While this is somewhat interesting, it seems like this would be difficult for 'normal' people. For nerds it seems like they would want more control than this appears to offer on the surface. Honestly, I didn't even know .tel existed until I read your comment, so obviously this is based on a somewhat superficial first impression. It really seems like a page that is a canonical reference for each person is a good idea, I just think this misses the point for most of the population. Solutions like facebook or even about.me are easier for a large number of people to utilize. Obviously there are problems with portability and privacy when relying on a closed 3rd party, but this more open solution is too convoluted for those that aren't technically inclined.
  - wibblenut 15y ago
    It doesn't surprise me that this is the first occasion you've heard about it :) But all of the complexity is hidden. The API is standardised, so management apps and other services will always work, irrespective of who your domain registrar/TelHosting provider is. I'm sure the majority of registrants have no idea they're publishing DNS records, or even what DNS is - and they don't need to know. The best technologies are the ones you don't necessarily see. Non-technical people see a very simple and cost-effective way of establishing a simple online presence. For $10-$20 it's all-in - there's no web hosting or any technical expertise required. Small businesses love this. As such GoDaddy doesn't carry .tel, because it can't up-sell any of its other big-margin crap. But lots of YP publishers around the world are becoming .tel resellers :-) I see it as a hugely disruptive technology with a good chance of success, but it seems more appealing to non-geeks than it does geeks at the moment. Once it gains popularity then geeks will start to catch on and realise all the cool stuff that's suddenly possible.
wccrawford 15y ago
Actually, the article touches on the truth a bit: Phone numbers in general aren't tied to a device and carrier. Only certain ones are. I have a Skype number that I can log into from almost every computer-ish device I own. I could get a SIP number also. I have a Google Voice number that rings all my other numbers. The only number tied to a device is my cellphone number. As for being tied to a carrier, it's not. And certainly not more than an email address is. I can switch my phone number to another provider just as easily as moving my email server to a new host. Unless, of course, I use GMail or some third-party email... And then I'm even more locked in than phone numbers are. (Not that I'm complaining, actually... I like having Google handle it all for me.)
- commandar 15y ago
  >(Not that I'm complaining, actually... I like having Google handle it all for me.) This is a lot of what makes Google Apps so great to me. I still get a me@mydomain.com email address that's portable if I need it to be, but I let Google deal with the overhead of actually managing it since I have better things to do than administer an e-mail server.
corin_ 15y ago
Terrible article, really awful. It simply isn't factual. You can't compare a mobile number to email, they aren't even the same type of thing. My mobile number, I can port it between different service providers, and use it on any device I want. My gmail/hotmail/yahoo account, I can never move away from the company that gave it to me. carrier lock-in - your phone number is a set of handcuffs that prevents you from easily jumping ship, and they know it Not at all. Carriers would make more money if they let me spend money with them on more than one device at once (e.g. through a desktop app), the reason they don't do it is because the amount it would cost to set that up is not (in their opinion) worth the returns it will bring. And it isn't even a carrier lock-in, I can port my number to another carrier any time I wish. Sure, if I have a contract then I may have to pay to cancel it, but then if I have a contract to pay for an email service for a year then the same applies there - and it's perfectly possible to have a phone number without a contract.
- cheez 15y ago
  Your email problem is easily solved. Get your own domain. I did this the first time I had a problem with my email provider and I've never looked back through multiple acquisitions and subsequent degradation in quality. In fact, I just changed to fastmail last month and it was painless.
  - corin_ 15y ago
    Yeah, and I have my own domain(s), but for the majority of people, they're not tech people, they just want a simple account to use. And even with a free domain, it's still not more flexible than phone numbers, it's as flexible.
dagw 15y ago
Yet the phone number remains stubbornly fixed with a single carrier and single device, Call carrier A tell them you want to switch to them and bring your number from carrier B with you, and they sort it out and send you a new SIM. Pop your SIM card out of device A, pop it into device B, and your number has been magically transfered. I've done both several times and it's never been a problem. If your particular carrier won't let you do either then that is an artificial problem created by your particular carrier, not with the underlying concept.
- Flenser 15y ago
  I think the point the article was trying (unsuccessfully) to make, was that a phone number is "fixed with a single carrier and single device" at any one time. You can switch carriers or devices, but you can only use one at a time.
damonpace 15y ago
Although, I don't agree with everything I find some truth in the article. The only time I need a phone number is the first time I enter someone in my phone. Otherwise, it's just a username after that point. Skype recognized this and I see no reason we can't get rid of phone numbers all together in the next 10 years. My only fear is that the legacy systems of the past will carry on because of the "sacred cow"...sort of like how racism keeps hanging on with older generations while the new generation moves on silently thinking how crazy the older generation is.
technomancy 15y ago
> But all of these advances are still intimately tied to the phone system and phone numbers — and while Google’s managed to abstract the phone number away from the device by building on top of the existing system, none of its services are completely functional unless you’re paying a carrier for a voice plan. I feel like a broken record repeating this every time VoIP comes up, but this just isn't true; I've had a Nexus One with no voice plan since it came out, and it works really well over SIP.

27 points by thisisblurry 15y ago

This is why I believe the .tel TLD is so important - DNS for people, no more carrier or service provider lock-in, stupid fast, and resilient. I have about a dozen services defined under my name, some of which are private, which I can prioritise, or even change to a different profile depending on time/location. Mobile operators are starting to adopt it, despite the fact it undermines their phone number lock-in, because it makes it much easier for them to roll out new data-driven services, e.g. China Mobile (600m subscribers) will use it for mobile payments. It could be even more interesting if device manufacturers ever manage to persuade mobile operators to use virtual SIMs - imagine being able to subscribe to new networks on-the-fly!

orofino 15y ago
While this is somewhat interesting, it seems like this would be difficult for 'normal' people. For nerds it seems like they would want more control than this appears to offer on the surface. Honestly, I didn't even know .tel existed until I read your comment, so obviously this is based on a somewhat superficial first impression. It really seems like a page that is a canonical reference for each person is a good idea, I just think this misses the point for most of the population. Solutions like facebook or even about.me are easier for a large number of people to utilize. Obviously there are problems with portability and privacy when relying on a closed 3rd party, but this more open solution is too convoluted for those that aren't technically inclined.
- wibblenut 15y ago
  It doesn't surprise me that this is the first occasion you've heard about it :) But all of the complexity is hidden. The API is standardised, so management apps and other services will always work, irrespective of who your domain registrar/TelHosting provider is. I'm sure the majority of registrants have no idea they're publishing DNS records, or even what DNS is - and they don't need to know. The best technologies are the ones you don't necessarily see. Non-technical people see a very simple and cost-effective way of establishing a simple online presence. For $10-$20 it's all-in - there's no web hosting or any technical expertise required. Small businesses love this. As such GoDaddy doesn't carry .tel, because it can't up-sell any of its other big-margin crap. But lots of YP publishers around the world are becoming .tel resellers :-) I see it as a hugely disruptive technology with a good chance of success, but it seems more appealing to non-geeks than it does geeks at the moment. Once it gains popularity then geeks will start to catch on and realise all the cool stuff that's suddenly possible.

wccrawford 15y ago

Actually, the article touches on the truth a bit: Phone numbers in general aren't tied to a device and carrier. Only certain ones are. I have a Skype number that I can log into from almost every computer-ish device I own. I could get a SIP number also. I have a Google Voice number that rings all my other numbers. The only number tied to a device is my cellphone number. As for being tied to a carrier, it's not. And certainly not more than an email address is. I can switch my phone number to another provider just as easily as moving my email server to a new host. Unless, of course, I use GMail or some third-party email... And then I'm even more locked in than phone numbers are. (Not that I'm complaining, actually... I like having Google handle it all for me.)

commandar 15y ago
>(Not that I'm complaining, actually... I like having Google handle it all for me.) This is a lot of what makes Google Apps so great to me. I still get a me@mydomain.com email address that's portable if I need it to be, but I let Google deal with the overhead of actually managing it since I have better things to do than administer an e-mail server.

corin_ 15y ago

Terrible article, really awful. It simply isn't factual. You can't compare a mobile number to email, they aren't even the same type of thing. My mobile number, I can port it between different service providers, and use it on any device I want. My gmail/hotmail/yahoo account, I can never move away from the company that gave it to me. carrier lock-in - your phone number is a set of handcuffs that prevents you from easily jumping ship, and they know it Not at all. Carriers would make more money if they let me spend money with them on more than one device at once (e.g. through a desktop app), the reason they don't do it is because the amount it would cost to set that up is not (in their opinion) worth the returns it will bring. And it isn't even a carrier lock-in, I can port my number to another carrier any time I wish. Sure, if I have a contract then I may have to pay to cancel it, but then if I have a contract to pay for an email service for a year then the same applies there - and it's perfectly possible to have a phone number without a contract.

cheez 15y ago
Your email problem is easily solved. Get your own domain. I did this the first time I had a problem with my email provider and I've never looked back through multiple acquisitions and subsequent degradation in quality. In fact, I just changed to fastmail last month and it was painless.
- corin_ 15y ago
  Yeah, and I have my own domain(s), but for the majority of people, they're not tech people, they just want a simple account to use. And even with a free domain, it's still not more flexible than phone numbers, it's as flexible.

dagw 15y ago

Yet the phone number remains stubbornly fixed with a single carrier and single device, Call carrier A tell them you want to switch to them and bring your number from carrier B with you, and they sort it out and send you a new SIM. Pop your SIM card out of device A, pop it into device B, and your number has been magically transfered. I've done both several times and it's never been a problem. If your particular carrier won't let you do either then that is an artificial problem created by your particular carrier, not with the underlying concept.

Flenser 15y ago
I think the point the article was trying (unsuccessfully) to make, was that a phone number is "fixed with a single carrier and single device" at any one time. You can switch carriers or devices, but you can only use one at a time.

damonpace 15y ago

Although, I don't agree with everything I find some truth in the article. The only time I need a phone number is the first time I enter someone in my phone. Otherwise, it's just a username after that point. Skype recognized this and I see no reason we can't get rid of phone numbers all together in the next 10 years. My only fear is that the legacy systems of the past will carry on because of the "sacred cow"...sort of like how racism keeps hanging on with older generations while the new generation moves on silently thinking how crazy the older generation is.

technomancy 15y ago

> But all of these advances are still intimately tied to the phone system and phone numbers — and while Google’s managed to abstract the phone number away from the device by building on top of the existing system, none of its services are completely functional unless you’re paying a carrier for a voice plan. I feel like a broken record repeating this every time VoIP comes up, but this just isn't true; I've had a Nexus One with no voice plan since it came out, and it works really well over SIP.