"When I wrote a story about various VoIP initiatives a decade ago, nearly every expert I spoke to spouted the same prediction: within 10 years, all phone calls will be free," says John Dvorak, PC magazine columnist. "The rationale behind the pronouncement was that the wires and systems used for phone calls will eventually be used to transfer data, just like everything else."
"You don't get charged for visiting a Web page, so why get charged for making a phone call, if both are essentially data?" he muses.
It's an old argument, but is akin to asking why a diamond, made of carbon, is worth more than a thimble's worth of oil, also made of carbon, or a tiny cube of apple.
The answer to the question of different incremental pricing or costs to use network features has little to do with the representation of symbols and everything to do with larger permissible business models mandated by government entities.
In a legal and regulatory sense, bits are never "just bits." Cable TV bits are regulated differently from voice bits that touch the "public phone network," while Internet bits are regulated differently from each of those other types of bits and from private network data.
Still, it is one thing to argue that use of communications or other bits may not impose an incremental cost to a user. That is not to say there are not specific costs associated with use of the bits. Google Voice might not charge an end user for completing a specific call. But there are actual costs, imposed by the regulatory regime. Google pays them, not the end user.
But that does not mean the call has no cost, only that the cost is indirectly paid.
As for why others, besides Skype, other instantt messaging-based call providers, have not moved more aggressively to offer various forms of "no incremental cost to offer" calling, financial interests are involved as they always are.
One might as well ask why no-incremental cost education, music, video, books or plane tickets are not available.
In 1977, for example, long distance calling represented about half of all U.S. telephone company revenue. By 2007, that was no longer true. Instead, wireless services had taken the place long distance once played in underpinning the whole business. That isn't to say long distance has dropped to insignificance. It remains important. It is to say that there must be some revenue model underpinning the business, and if it is not long distance or voice, it will be something else.
No, there is no mystery about why VoIP has not lead, over the last 10 years, to "universally-free" (no incremental cost to end user) voice calls. Voice, though declining, remains a key underpinning of the carrier business model. Nor do government regulators permit "free to end user" calling between networks.
Google Voice might not charge a U.S. user for a U.S.-terminated call. But Google Voice is compensating the terminating networks for use of their networks. Google Voice envisions a different business model for domestic calling than "per minute" use of the network. Lack of end user charges does not mean "terminating minutes" do not carry costs.
That, in fact, is behind Google Voice's blocking of some numbers, in some high-cost exchanges. And those charges are radically higher. Some firms report that the high-cost termination charges are as much as 25 times higher than typical.