IBM, Microsoft, Google, Verizon

Six Things Google’s Free Phone Service Can’t Do (and One It Does Very Well)

August 27, 2010

New York Times - Google began rolling out a new feature on Wednesday to users of its browser-based Gmail service that lets them make phone calls over the Internet directly from their computer. If they already use Gmail, an enticing Call Phones button will appear onscreen when they check their inboxes. All they need to do is click the button.

Readers did have a lot of questions about it, particularly those who have never used Skype, the best known phone-over-the-Internet service.

1. Google’s phone service does not yet work from mobile phones, unlike Skype. You can call someone else’s cellphone, but you need to make the Google call from a desktop or laptop computer. That’s too bad, because many iPhone owners using Skype say that Skype on Wi-Fi network sounds better than the iPhone’s own voice call service.

2. For now, only Americans can place calls, although they can call most of the world — free within the United States and Canada. It costs generally 2 cents per minute to call other countries.

3. You can’t dial 911 from Gmail.

4. Nor can you dial 611 for customer service.

5. Unless you sign up for Google’s free Google Voice service, you can’t specify your caller ID number. And if you don’t have a Google Voice number, you can’t take incoming calls to your computer.

6. You can’t use Voice Calls for Gmail unless you install a special browser add-on. Some workplace IT departments ban the installation of software they haven’t officially approved. In fact, even if you’re using Google’s Chrome browser, it will warn you that the add-on may contain a virus or other malware, because it does that for all downloads.

Despite those limitations, there’s one feature worth talking up. If you make a call from Gmail, you can transfer the call to another phone without disconnecting the other party. All you need do is click the * button on Gmail’s telephone keypad, which floats atop your browser window whenever you’re on the phone. That means you can start a call at your computer, then continue it on your cellphone if you need to hit the road. You could transfer a business call to the nearest conference room for an on-the-spot speakerphone meeting with co-workers. Small businesses could skip the expense of an in-house phone system, because Google handles the most important feature in a sales office for free: You can transfer a disgruntled customer directly to the cellphone of the tech support guy. I’m sure he’ll love that.

The Google Deal Machine

August 30, 2010

New York Times - Last September, Eric Schmidt, the chief executive of Google, said he expected that the search giant would be making roughly an acquisition a month. So what does Google’s deal scorecard look like?

With this weekend’s acquisition of Angstro, a 2008 start-up company that skims and sorts news and information across social networks, Google has announced 26 deals in the last 12 months.

Mr. Schmidt told Reuters Television in September 2009 that Google was in acquisition mode after making its first purchase of a public company — $106.5 million for On2 Technologies — just a few weeks earlier.

“Acquisitions are turned on again at Google and we are doing our normal maneuvers, which is small companies, Mr. Schmidt told Reuters Television, before delivering a speech on green technology on the fringes of the G-20 summit in Pittsburgh.

“My estimate would be one-a-month acquisitions and these are largely in lieu of hiring,” he said. “There may be larger acquisitions, but they really are unpredictable.”

Joseph Tartakoff of PaidContent has a nice summary of Google’s buying spree, noting that:

Its purchases have been concentrated on two categories — search and social — where the company feels threatened by Microsoft’s Bing search engine and Facebook. In a report this week, Caris & Co.‘s Sandeep Aggarwal called attention to the trend, saying that Google’s purchases were becoming “more defensive,” citing its Like.com purchase, its buy of social search engine Aardvark, travel search technology provider ITA Software and social game company Slide.

Later on Monday, SocialDeck announced that it had been acquired by Google. According to The Canadian Press wire service:

SocialDeck, founded in 2008, creates games that allow for simultaneous, viral multiplayer games across a variety of mobile devices and social networks. It had more than one million mobile downloads last year.

The company’s games include Shake and Spell and Pet Hero.

So that makes 26 acquisitions in the last 12 months, and 27 deals, if one counts Google’s sale of its share in Comsenz of Beijing to the Chinese Internet company Tencent Holdings last week.

Mr. Tartakoff also points to a very cool graphic that tracks every Google acquisition since 2001. Check it out here.

Updated: Google has made another acquisition today, buying SocialDeck of Canada for an undisclosed price.

Google and Verizon Near Deal That Could Lead to Higher Internet Fees and the End of Net Neutrality

Julius Genachowski leads the Federal Communications Commission, which wants to regulate broadband Internet service.

August 4, 2010

New York Times — Google and Verizon, two leading players in Internet service and content, are nearing an agreement that could allow Verizon to speed some online content to Internet users more quickly if the content’s creators are willing to pay

The charges could be paid by companies, like YouTube, owned by Google, for example, to Verizon, one of the nation’s leading Internet service providers, to ensure that its content received priority as it made its way to consumers. The agreement could eventually lead to higher charges for Internet users.

Such an agreement could overthrow a once-sacred tenet of Internet policy known as net neutrality, in which no form of content is favored over another. In its place, consumers could soon see a new, tiered system, which, like cable television, imposes higher costs for premium levels of service.

Any agreement between Verizon and Google could also upend the efforts of the Federal Communications Commission to assert its authority over broadband service, which was severely restricted by a federal appeals court decision in April.

People close to the negotiations who were not authorized to speak publicly about them said an agreement could be reached as soon as next week. If completed, Google, whose Android operating system powers many Verizon wireless phones, would agree not to challenge Verizon’s ability to manage its broadband Internet network as it pleased.

Since the court decision, involving Comcast, in April, the F.C.C. has been trying to find a way to regulate broadband delivery, and that effort has been the subject of a series of private meetings at the agency’s headquarters in recent weeks. At the meetings, officials from the nation’s biggest Internet service and content providers, including Google and Verizon, have tried to reach a consensus on how broadband Internet service should be regulated in light of the decision. Those meetings continued this week, apart from the talks between Google and Verizon.

The court decision said the F.C.C. lacked the authority to require that an Internet service provider refrain from blocking or slowing down some content or applications, or giving favor to others. The F.C.C. has since sought another way in which to enforce the concept of net neutrality. But its proposals have been greeted with much objection in Congress and among Internet service providers, cable companies and some Internet content producers.

A spokesman for Verizon said that the company was still engaged in the larger talks to reach a consensus at the F.C.C. and declined to comment on other negotiations. A spokeswoman for Google also declined to comment. While a deal between Google and Verizon would affect only those two companies, it could sway the opinions of lawmakers, many of whom have questioned the wisdom of the F.C.C.’s plans to oversee broadband service.

At issue for consumers is how the companies that provide the pipeline to the Internet will ultimately direct traffic on their system, and how quickly consumers are able to gain access to certain Web content. Consumers could also see continually rising bills for Internet service, much as they have for cable television.

The prospect of a Google-Verizon agreement infuriates many consumer advocates, who feel that it would concentrate in a few corporations control of what to date has been a free and open Internet system in which consumers decide which companies are successful.

“The point of a network neutrality rule is to prevent big companies from dividing the Internet between them,” said Gigi B. Sohn, president and a founder of Public Knowledge, a consumer advocacy group. “The fate of the Internet is too large a matter to be decided by negotiations involving two companies, even companies as big as Verizon and Google.”

It is not clear that the Google-Verizon talks will result in a deal, or that any agreement would extend beyond those companies. David M. Fish, a spokesman for Verizon, acknowledged the talks, saying,

“We’ve been working with Google for 10 months to reach an agreement on broadband policy.”

But, Mr. Fish added,“We are currently engaged in and committed to the negotiation process led by the F.C.C. We are optimistic this process will reach a consensus that can maintain an open Internet, and the investment and innovation required to sustain it.”

The F.C.C. process he referred to is what is jokingly called at the agency headquarters “the secret meeting.” At least nine times in the last seven weeks — including Wednesday, with another meeting scheduled for Thursday — a group that includes Google, Verizon, AT&T, Skype, cable system operators and a group called the Open Internet Coalition has met with top F.C.C. officials to discuss net neutrality and the agency’s legal basis for regulating Internet service.

Cable and telephone companies want free rein to sell specialized services like “paid prioritization,” which would speed some content to users more quickly for a fee. Wireless companies, meanwhile, want no restrictions on wireless broadband, which they see as a different technology than Internet service over wires.

Many content providers — like Amazon, eBay and Skype — prefer no favoritism on the Internet or they want to be sure that if a pay system exists, all content providers have the opportunity to pay for faster service.

The F.C.C., meanwhile, favors a level playing field, but it cannot impose one as long as its authority over broadband is in legal doubt. It has proposed a solution that would reclassify broadband Internet service under the Communications Act from its current designation as an “information service,” a lightly regulated designation, to a “telecommunications service,” a category that, like telephone service, is subject to stricter regulation.

The F.C.C. has said that it does not want to impose strict regulation on Internet service and rates, but seeks only the authority to enforce broadband privacy and guarantee equal access. It also wants to use federal money to subsidize broadband service for rural areas.

While the F.C.C. is gathering public comment on its reclassification proposal, it has convened the private talks, which are overseen by Edward Lazarus, the chief of staff to Julius Genachowski, the F.C.C.’s chairman.

The talks have produced some common ground among the participants on smaller matters. But one participant, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the group members agreed not to discuss their deliberations publicly, said there had been little movement “on the few big issues that are the most important.”

Frustrated with that lack of progress in the last two months, direct talks between Google and Verizon have accelerated, according to people close to the discussions who were not authorized to comment publicly.

Google and Verizon have their own interests at stake in negotiating separately. The Android operating system from Google is used on many Verizon phones, including the Droid, a competitor to the iPhone from Apple.

Consumer groups have objected to the private meetings, saying that too many stakeholders are being left out of discussions over the future of the Internet.

Mr. Lazarus said the meetings “are part of our efforts to identify the best way forward in the wake of the Comcast case to preserve the openness and vibrancy of the Internet.”