I received some feedback when I floated my previous post on Katrina earlier today. So being naive I sent the following response which outlines what appears possible to me.

Thank you for the FCC perspective. However if I understand correctly you can’t transfer it to a VoIP provider like Vonage or Skype. Thus the regulations aren't going to help much at all. This group is still tied into the tyranny of the fixed line. People need their numbers where access may be difficult and messages can be left.

I was approaching it from the following point of view…

• Minimal infrastructure. Minimal set up and training.
• Implementation in hours rather than days or months
• Put in the Astrodome an Internet café along with headsets.
• Provide broadband and WiFi
• Enable Skype on those PC’s / phone handsets. Word would spread rapidly.
• Enable account holders to open a Skype account and assign their home number to it (SkypeIn)
• They would be enabled with free voice mail at the same time.
• Using the latest version they could call forward if required to a mobile number (cost two cents per minute) or to another Skype account – buddy for free, thus establishing a more online point of contact.
• It costs nothing to open accounts.
• Presence would enable them to create support groups and networks quickly amongst neighbors.
• Bell South could probably arrange to keep ownership of the numbers if they wish, e.g. loan them to a service.
• There is no need for a switchboard; it does require some bandwidth….

Rather than ponder the outcome, it should be done for humanitarian reasons. The old system doesn't have an emergency response that is acceptable any more.

Feedback I received on my previous post:

1) Let displaced account holders log in and claim their accounts (phone numbers) via the Internet. What's happening at the Astrodome?

I don't know of that happening. However, the FCC did actually, amazingly, do something right this time. They issued an emergency waiver of the number portability regulations. It is now allowable to port a number to a different geographic rate center. Under the actual rules, you can port your number to a different carrier, but its rate center assignment is fixed (modulo FX lines, which are controversial). Under the waiver, NO and other impact-area numbers can ring elsewhere. This will mostly be used by businesses, I suspect, but perhaps some people can get this too, once they settle into new digs.

It is somewhat harder, but not impossible, to point multiple phone numbers at a single phone. This would require, I think, two steps, one to port the number to an operative switch, and a second to Remote Call Forward it to a target number. A given phone can't, alas, have very many numbers on it (a few, actually), and in a place like the Astrodome, it might make sense to have a sort of switchboard set up to answer messages for lots of ported numbers.

Or will they:
1) just keep the bills running
2) not use their imaginations.

I don't know if BellSouth will do so, but the FCC's authorization of porting means that, at least in theory, other carriers can step into the breach.

What a week for Skype. Microsoft buys Teleo to increase its presence in VoIP/VON space. This follows last week's intro of Google Talk, and the surprise release of MSN's release of 7.5.

VOIP can't get hotter? Watch out for Yahoo who are on stage for an announcement at VON Boston in mid September.

This acquisition gives MSN PSTN connectivity. This may cut into Skype's SkypeOut revenue streams.

Skype created this space. Dominates this space. Can they keep this space? Can they turn the vapourware "initiatives" of SkypeNet and SkypeWeb into products fast enough?

Exciting times for Skype's 2nd birthday. Lot's of presents. (grin)

Thanks to my Skype Journal man in the UK Martin Schoenenberger for the heads up on this news.

Is it all over for Skype? As Google Talk launched tonight with an Orkuttian viral shove provided by Gmail. At first glance it could be Skype's worst nightmare or the kick start necessary to refocus Skype. If you missed the buzz, Google Talk is the long awaited and predicted IM / Voice client. It won't be over for a while and the battle will take to the trenches with Yahoo, MSN and AOL battling to the end. This is a first salvo. Don't expect Google's feature set additions to follow Skype's path immediately to Telecom as Google has other opportunities sitting there within its empire. These are my first impressions.

• Extreme Simplicity. If you have a Gmail account you can just log in. The client is very simple.
  
• Find buddies quickly. If they are in Gmail then you can make hundreds of invites very quickly. Authorization is simple.
  
• Presence. Simplified and more intelligent than ever with customized field options that add new fun to presence. It's about time!
  
• Chat. Very basic, no emoticons etc. Still it's clean and archived and I bet searchable (if not now soon) by google desktop. Chat uses XMPP and thus iChat and Jabber clients can connect directly to Google Talk. You can also add it immediately to Trillian. (Trillian could be quite a winner). Guess that will put Google Talk presence on mobiles too!
  
• Talk. Talk is chat centric. Ie click to chat rather than Skype's click to call. Clicking opens a chat dialogue box. You then initiate a call from the chat window. Talk quality matches Skype and is better than Yahoo.
  
• Chat Window Organization. Windows self organize in an interesting fashion until closed.
  
• No profiles and no friendly pictures at this time.

How it really worked.

I had 8 conversations all around the world. Some of the voice connections didn't connect immediately and felt like they failed. There was just no sound. Sometimes the sound started after the call was connected for 30 seconds or more. This is likely just a short term bug. I enjoyed the inbound ring tone. Distinctively different from Skype. The invite process was very simple, building my list very elegant.

What's Missing?

From a Skype user's point of view: Almost everything. There are no profiles, no photos / pictures, no voice mail, no multi-conference or multi-chat. Plus there is no SkypeIn or SkypeOut capabilities. This is not a phone replacement. The multi-chat and conference calling should be easy to duplicate. The telephone system more difficut. However, each name is a SIP name and that is designed to connect with Vling and Gizmo project in a very short time. Plus with rumors around Google raising money, a TMobile USA purchase can't be that far away. That would provide a user base, the WiFi hotspots and most importantly the chance to integrate mobile numbers with VoIP.

Where's the Strength?

Talk is already integrated with Gmail and thus links nicely with IG, Google's personal content portal. So when will GoogleTalk have access to Orkut (profiles / social networking - pictures and profiles) Blogger (another place to share presence), Desktop (archive searching), Maps (location information) and instantly the whole Jabber/XMPP community. How quickly can Google bring these all together. Then they already have a photosharing program etc. Google has all the elements to bulk up to a Yahoo like client very quickly. Add in Ad Sense etc. Very neat models are likely to emerge. I heard from one punter tonight they had told their mother to buy more Google shares.

Developer Talk

Google has a great page outlining their preliminary plans and open strategy for the future of "talk."

Google's mission is to make the world's information universally accessible and useful. Google Talk, which enables users to instantly communicate with friends, family, and colleagues via voice calls and instant messaging, reflects our belief that communications should be accessible and useful as well. We're committed to open communications standards, and want to offer Google Talk users and users of other service providers alike the flexibility to choose which clients, service providers, and platforms they use for their communication needs.
Google

How does Skype stack up? Yahoo?

• Google may win on philosopjy alone (see above mission) or the resources in dolars and manpower. However today, while Google may get it's Orkuttian swell of new users isn't actually an acceptable replacement client for either Skype or Yahoo. Both do more better for their current audiences.
• On features, Skype is still ahead and if they would speed up their development and releases of call forwarding, VM improvements, Video, and their Presence Server they still have a chance althougth the market has shifted dramatically. Yahoo is bulking up however still does nothing really well. That may change.

Where should Skype's strategy start?

Open Up! By contrast with Google, Skype is on a philosophical back foot, well balanced. Being closed is no longer an asset, so Skype can compete only on its design, features and capabilities. To open up, the Skype chat client must adopt the Jabber/XMPP protocol, accelerating its interconnect and encouraging developers to "stick" / "start" developing products around the API. So far Google hasn't announced an API (count the hours). They will need one even if just for hardware. Skype will be forced to open up many aspects of its interface now.

"When will Skype open access to their codecs?" Doc Searls asked me at the Always On picnic. It's not clear they will. If they do, the Jerk-O-Meter is an example of the kind of application you could build. A project of the MIT Media Lab, it analyzes voices during the call, telling users how much they are paying attention. Per their project page, "The current version of the application runs in Linux on the Zaurus VOIP phone. It uses Ron Caneel's code to extract the activity and stress levels in real-time."

The Skype API doesn't expose the audio stream; you must work through the operating system to get at it. The same is true of the upcoming Skype Video.

There's money in analyzing and transforming media streams, whether for call centers (like the Jerk-O-Meter), annotation services, call/video quality boosters, semantic content detectors, translators, relay services, or simple stress/lie detectors. The Skype API should safely expose the media streams, and provide mechanisms for user authorized manipulation and substitution of that media by a friendly application.

It won't be easy, but the market value is huge.

Here's the scenario. Lady calls bank. Bank routes call to India. Nice chap in Indian call centre talks to lady. Lady can't understand half of what he says because call quality is a bit duff. (The IVR system sounded great, so it's not at her end.)

Here's the business opportunity. You're a VoIP "virtual network" operator. Deliver high quality encrypted speech over the Internet to Indian call centres. Indeed, when I use a service like SkypeOut and enter my bank's number, you just look up first if you have a non-PSTN route to them. (Be it ENUM or proprietary technology, I don't care.) Doesn't need anything new in the customer's eyes.

Customer satisfaction goes up. You take a tiny slice of revenue from your bank partner for delivering a wideband audio experience to a large public user base, many of whom are the bank's customers. Let's call them "origination fees" to make the analysts happy. Everyone walks away contented.

(And if you're an old-fashioned 1st-gen VoIP operator who just cloned vanilla PSTN service, you're out of luck. Again. The point of IP is new features and functionality, not arbitrage.)

No doubt some of the SIP-heads out there are wondering why anybody would pay someone like Skype to deliver customers when it can be done for free. Just remember, bottled water is big business, even though tap water is free. Same reason.

Now can you see why Skype might start to have a significant market value? And that some of the partners might be folks like Avaya, who stand to gain a ton of dosh upgrading call centres to new techology? How long until you can IM with the call centre agent you're talking to, and they can just cut'n'paste stuff into their forms? Just lift stuff straight from your Skype profile? Would you use Skype or the PSTN if the former relieved you of ever waiting in a queue, and simply IM'd you back when your turn was up?

The business model is out there. You just have to look.

Skype $3 billion dollar sellout? Is there a real story here? Robert X. Cringely adds to the rumor mill by reporting that Skype was almost sold last week for $3 billion to Rupert Murdoch who just bought MySpace for an extraordinary sum. Was that the reason for Tim's exuberant chatter at AlwaysOn?

Some facts and figures in this piece are clearly wrong to Skype watchers. Some numbers, e.g. the value of the "customers," suggest a possible valuation method. I do agree with part of his conclusion that Skype should partner with an independent mobile carrier. (T-Mobile? in the US) Still his assumption: no IPO in Skype's future; with a buyout nearly certain. The creative speculation appears shrewd and informed. So the questions?

• Is Skype worth $3 billion? 30 billion?
• Does Skype's M&A rumors affect partner plans and willingness to commit?
• Which buyers are more acceptable to Skypers? To Skype's business ecosystem?
• The money from an acquisition goes to the current owners (founders, some employees, investors). If you buy Skype for billions, how much more money would you want to invest and where would you put your money? If you and raised billions where would you spend the cash you raised?

What do you think? Can you substantiate? Read his blog Skyped.

Google is a perfect example of this latter effect, entering the market years after Alta Vista and Excite. And the Google of VoIP looks like it might be Skype, which was almost sold last week to Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. for $3 billion. PBS | I, Cringely . July 28, 2005 - Skyped

Others that are talking Skype sell stories...
Om Malik
Newswireless
Mark Evans
Loic on Murdoch
Andrew Hansen
Jim Courtney: A Skype Investment Primer
Robert Scoble
Carlos N Velez: "Let's start a new rumor... Google is in serious merger discussions with Skype. The new company, to be called GooSky...."
Carlo at TechDirt
Jeremy Wagstaff: "I suppose we should steel ourselves for the possibility that it doesn't last, at least in its present format."
Michael Parekh: It's all Rope-a-dope
OnoTech: "Wrong, wrong, wrong"

From China Tech News:

China's Ministry of Information Industry (MII) reiterated that it still has not formulated guidelines concerning VoIP businesses and that many current VoIP businesses could potentially be illegal.

Companies like Netease (NTES), Tom Online (TOMO), Skype, and Tencent have all started VoIP services in China. And the 263 Group and HL95 have also recently entered the sector.

The VoIP sector offers great financial rewards for companies because voice communications on the network can be as much as ten times cheaper than traditional fixed-line phones.

MII says that it is still testing VoIP and forbids illegal "phone cafes" from opening in China. It also offered no clear date on when it will issue guidelines for businesses to operate legally.

Firecrackers echoed down the street, through my window this evening. An early welcome to America's Independence Day weekend. The sounds of war used to celebrate, and to remember.

We weren't the first, nor the last, to fight a war for national independence. We fought to rule ourselves, a freedom from monarchy. We get to vote, organize, and lobby - to have our voices heard, to hold those we elect responsible, to cast a strong light on their work and the personnel who operate our governments. It's an imperfect arrangement, but democracy is all the rage.

When telephone networks were first rolled out, they were private affairs run by companies.

We've added government to the equation since then. To assure universal access. To compel emergency services. To break up monopolies, increase competition, keep prices affordable for the many. To protect caller privacy, fend off telemarketers, and access for the deaf.

There are many governments with a say. Cities. Counties. States. Nations. International lands. Tribal lands. Each representing the interests of their constituencies.

These often conflict with the interests of a profit-minded company.

Like Skype.

A company with users on seven continents. Beholden only to the commercial interests of its investors and executives.

Leaving government out of it for the moment, how can Skype users assert their interests?

• How might we organize?
• Do we need our own virtual town hall?
• Do we even need representative democracy or can direct democracy work?
• Do corporations have a voice, or just people who may work for/with corporations?
• How about electing directors to Skype's board after they go public?
• Need we group our voices by geography? Language? Operating system? Dominant communication mode (text, voice, video, etc.)?
• What recurring issues warrant standing bodies?
  • Security? Privacy? System health?
  • Foreign relations? With other networks? With governments?
  • Taxation and funding?
  • Development direction?
  • Certification and testing of Skype-compatible systems?
  • Accessibility?
  • Universal Access?
  • Names and Identity disputes?
  • What else?

Your Skype Citizen Assignment for this week:

Chat with a friend. Talking points:

1. Will Skype become as important to you as your other phones?
2. What would you miss if Skype Technologies was taken over by bad people?
3. Who can you call if you want Skype to do something?

If you record your text or audio conversations, please let us know.
Suggestions for Skype Citizen Assignments are welcome; please leave your comments.

Is it time for a new "always on" study? Andy Abramson picks up on the BBC link below on VoIP and how new programs like Skype are changing the meaning of dialing or making a call. Still the premises behind the article stay remain very much within the boundaries of thinking about phones as phones. I believe that more fundamental shifts in behavior are afoot.

The contrarian would consider whether "always on" changse access in ways that infact make getting to a person more difficult rather than easier.

Imagine a world in which you are in a series of online conference calls. Some are almost permanently on. You can no longer dial me... the question is whether you can get access to one of my conferences. You might just need a little social networking product to help you find someone out over the network. May have to holler, just like trying to locate someone on a playground.

The BBC Magazine has an interesting discussion story about VoIP and how it is changing communications.

By recognizing that the paradigm has changed from dial, talk, hang up, it is showing that how voice communciation is changing.

Free services like Skype, SipPhone, Firefly all now mean that instead of typing and chatting via an IM client, you can now "talk" to the other party in real time. For those who are "always on" the phone becomes less and less of the primary means of communication with tools like email and IM at their disposal. Now with high enough voice quality being available for free think of these new VoIP services as the intercom for the distance workers.

[Andy Abramsom]