Talk:Google Voice

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Restrictions[edit]

Does GrandCentral only operate in the U.S.? On its homepage, only U.S. location are available on the Reserve Now page. --ReCover 20:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are an American company and are pretty new, so I wouldn't imagine they've had time to expand internationally. But now that they've been acquired by Google that might happen soon. -- BlastOButter42 See Hear Speak 01:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More Info[edit]

I am looking for more information about how GS reserves the phone numbers on their end. Do they actually pay the local phone company for each number? I am basically wanting more information about the logistics of the company 71.219.240.136 04:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)matt[reply]

Thank you for your inquiry, but we wikipedia goblins are currently busy helping other customers. Please try again at a later date. Skiendog (talk) 07:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering for a long time about how Google Voice accesses infrastructure like PSTN and provides its services for free, and have come upon some information about Google Voice partnering with Level3 and Bandwidth.com for call-termination and phone number access. I have posted a couple of External Links to articles that this led me to which describe more. I agree with User:Skiendog, this article should definitely have more information about the system's infrastructure, contract partners, and call-routing and call-termination. --Wykypydya (talk) 22:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I incorporated some of this information into the article. I think the section should be expanded upon. --Wykypydya (talk) 22:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rates[edit]

Is GrandCentral a free service? Do they charge? There is no information on whether this is a free or paid service, and would be very helpful. Anyone know? -Mike Payne (T • C) 04:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, they're in Beta and one can only join on invite, like Gmail started out. It is assumed that they'll charge for service or something. 128.252.119.214 19:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think most of the information on this entry is outdated or wrong. A lot of the information came from an early 2006 article. GC has since been purchased by Google, and I believe they've changed pricing plans (if there will be pricing at all, since Google might have something up their sleeve like tying this into Gmail or their Android mobile platform adventures. 68.4.239.235 (talk) 06:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

here is an invite[edit]

[deleted]

click the link. one time use so delete it after youve created an accountb —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.33.97 (talk) 18:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I used that invite, so here's a new one: [deleted]
(Where would be a more appropriate place to do this?) Jobarts-Talk 18:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Updates removed - used. 83.251.29.124 (talk) 17:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One way to get invites is to use http://www.grandcentralinvite.com/, I used it and got an invite Justin 07:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I was wondering is there any people that would want to send anymore invites? we could really use them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.251.61.216 (talk) 20:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interruptions[edit]

Some user by the name of Dreadstar is trying to hide reports of a massive service interruption that occurred on April 13th, 2008. It certainly seems relevant to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.54.92.122 (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one's trying to hide it. If you can find a good source to back it up, then you're welcome to put it in. But, since you haven't, it's unverified information, which is why it has been removed. Everything needs to be backed up with a source. -- BlastOButter42 See Hear Speak 03:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The interruption is even mentioned on the GrandCentral blog itself, so I don't know how you could consider it unverified information. In any case I have found several website reports on the outage.
GrandCentral Recovers After Weekend Outage - http://www.informationweek.com/news/services/voice/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=207200471
General Outage Hits GrandCentral - http://consumerist.com/379184/general-outage-hits-grandcentral
GrandCentral Goes Dead - http://www.boygeniusreport.com/2008/04/13/grandcentral-goes-dead/
GrandCentral Offline: If You Wanna Be A Phone Company, You Can’t Go Dead -http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/04/13/if-you-wanna-be-a-phone-company-you-cant-go-dead/
I could go on and on but you get the idea. If this is acceptable, I am going to reinsert the text into the article with the citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.117.187 (talk) 17:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Early invite status and recent upgrade requirements[edit]

A couple of things are slightly misleading in this article:

1) Early in GrandCentral's life, it was open to the public. No invites were required at that time. This is how I've signed up my number.

2) There is recent consensus that you must upgrade your GrandCentral account, there was even an email sent out recently. The real purpose of the email was to encourage people to upgrade. As far as I know GrandCentral is not set to go away just yet. You can disregard the email and continue to hang on to GrandCentral if you wish.

66.114.93.6 (talk) 04:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an update, Google sent out another email dated August 11 setting a shutdown date of Septemper 15. It looks like Grandcentral shut down past Septemper 15 as I see some people complaining their account doesn't work anymore who obviously didn't receive the email. 66.114.93.6 (talk) 00:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But, what is it?[edit]

The article gives good details about what Google Voice does, but doesnt really state what it is, other than a "free internet service." Even then, that's a poor sentence: is it a free ISP? A free proprietary service based within the internet? A free telephone service operating through the internet? (such as Skype and the like). Basically the introduction is rather poor, and speaks on the assumption that the reader already knows what the service is (which defeats the entire purpose of an introduction). If someone could redo the intro, that'd be great. —ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (ᚷᛖᛋᛈᚱᛖᚳ) 03:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The third paragraph pretty much describes Google Voice. It should be moved to the top and rewritten to get right to the point. Melizg (talk) 21:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree. There are plenty of words, but no indication of the purpose. There are statements like: users require a US telephone number. But the article does not explain what the user does with it. Neither is it explained why someone, particularly outside the US would use it. I think one or more diagrams would help. FreeFlow99 (talk) 19:23, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Privacy issues[edit]

Someone should open up the privacy can of worms, such as the various concerns over how Google handles call log history, recorded and transcribed voice messages, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.186.42.162 (talk) 21:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google being one of the biggest data miners, just the thought of having to switch over to the new Google Voice scared the hell out of me... 66.114.93.6 (talk) 00:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose, but you also have to ask about all other telephone service providers. Gah4 (talk) 16:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

VoIP statements[edit]

The article originally correctly was tagged with VoIP categories. To be clear, it's not the call forwarding service in general that is clearly VoIP, although it may be and most likely has a VoIP component. A novice user has removed the statements with the claim that it's not VoIP. The correct statement is that the smart phone applications indeed are VoIP applications, they do not use the phone carrier's wireless voice service, but the units' data service. This is the whole argument of AT&T and Apple against allowing Google's App on the Apple Store, and the references bear that out. The statement of VoIP is similarly obvious to the statement that it's a telecommunication service, indeed an obvious statement, but for the general public it may not be. If the deleting editor doesn't like it, how does it propose that the calls from these apps are transmitted? Is there another ether we don't know about? That indeed would need a citation. Kbrose (talk) 22:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to Google's official statement to the FCC, the Google Voice application uses the carrier's voice network to place phone calls. Please see page two of the statement. This means that it is not a VoIP application. Apple's argument against allowing the Google Voice app on the iPhone is that they do not like that it replaces the iPhone user interface with its own (source, see page three). AT&T stated that they had no role in approval or rejection of the Google Voice application (source, see page four). I will again remove the references to VoIP from the article. Please do not add them back again unless you can find a verifiable source to back your claims and counter Google's official statement. --Two Bananas (talk) 23:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was known that the original Grandcentral system was based on VoIP. At least the new Google Voice system sounds just like the old system and I'm sure it's just an upgrade over the old system, probably still VoIP based. As in VoIP I don't necessarily mean over the internet type of VoIP as so many people are familiar with. It just isn't traditional T-carrier as alot of new systems do. For sure it definitely isn't over the internet. 66.114.93.6 (talk) 00:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FCC Probe[edit]

Here is one link, but its reported on some other news sites as well. http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/10/fcc-google-voice/ Either way of the findings, it should probably be documented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.65.63 (talk) 14:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ring Delays[edit]

A user is deleting my paragraph:

"Many users have complained about ring delays when Google Voice is used in conjunction with an Android-powered mobile phone. Some users have complained that it takes up to 57 seconds for their Android device to ring, making it difficult or impossible to accept the call before the call is forwarded to voicemail."

I even cited the paragraph correctly with this URL:

http://androinica.com/2009/12/01/google-voice-to-android-ring-delays/

I am not sure why this issue is being hidden and would appreciate a response from the deleter. Thank you.

Onevim (talk) 01:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International Text Blocked[edit]

Google Employee says International Texts Blocked

International texts are now blocked. I've updated the article, and think that the countries table can now be discarded.

Krolaw (talk) 08:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Version History[edit]

A Version History or Change Log doesn't appear to be available. Like many apps, Google Voice is evolving. Understanding the changes from version to version would allow users to make better decisions about whether to upgrade or not. Newer isn't always better. This wiki page would be an appropriate place to record those changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.210.187.82 (talk) 19:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Advertisment language[edit]

Features say "international calls for as low as 0.02 Cents" thats advertisment language! It should be more objective, like e.g. cost per minute range from 0.02 Cent .... Please consider this article partial as ad. 85.176.17.154 (talk) 11:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

telecommunications service vs phone service[edit]

Google is clearly saying this isn't a phone service. Yet it's in Wikipedia as a telecommunications service. Shouldn't we remove that definition?

Really? Pretty obvious that GV is a Telecommunications service under any definition of that term -- facilitates voice and text calls and does so in concert with both land-line and mobile phone services. I don't know where Google states that GV isn't a phone service, but suspect they want to be clear that they don't fall under the same regulatory and tax regime as traditional telephone services. --Sjsilverman (talk) 02:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Well it's just a thought Google's not being very clear mainly because of how bad the laws are in this area. I bet you are right that Google states this isn't a phone service only for the purpose of standing apart from those regulatory and tax regimes.


The Google Voice About page states plainly that it isn't a phone service. "Google Voice isn't a phone service, but it lets you manage all of your phones." "Google Voice About". Retrieved 4 March 2012.

Again this is just a discussion on the difference between telecommunications service vs phone service.

"Problems" Section[edit]

I've deleted most of this section because it was blatantly POV and based on original research at that. (Author doesn't feel that GV provides adequate support.) What's left (an issue involving number of rings and interaction with voice mail that, as I understand it, has been pretty well explained by Google) needs verifiable citations. If no one can come up with them, these should be deleted as well IMO.--Sjsilverman (talk) 02:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notwithstanding my concerns about the remaining items discussed in the "problems" section being unverified, I've moved them to "Limitations" (some in new subsections). If someone doesn't supply a reliable source and/or flesh these out, they remain, in my opinion, good candidates to be deleted. --Sjsilverman (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My POV was backed up by quotes from Google itself on how it describes the service and the options you have for support. I provided direct links to their support site and quotes indicating that they don't provide any active support. Please explain again why that is wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nipslan (talk • contribs) 04:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For example The link https://support.google.com/voice/bin/answer.py?hl=en&topic=1707989&answer=115061&rd=2# is Google's About page. How is that an unreliable source for information on Google Voice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nipslan (talk • contribs) 04:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that official google help pages are reliable sources for statements made there. More specifically, the citation you reference would be a good source for a statement that google states that google voice is not a phone service. (Whatever that means -- this issue is discussed elsewhere on this page.) However, you made this point in the middle of a paragraph about shortcomings in support. Here are some of the things I was referring to:
  1. Unreliable source/original reearch: "As a result, many users have been unable to obtain local numbers in conjunction with the service and some area codes are no longer available." Cited source is not "official google support" or a third party, but rather a post in user forums with users looking for numbers. (Source: https://groups.google.com/a/googleproductforums.com/forum/#!category-topic/voice/account-credit-security-and-privacy/t8Rnc8z4iXY)
  2. POV and OR: Extended discussion of support policies as being a “Problem.” Sources cited don’t describe this as a problem, it’s your point of view. Many of the specific statements in the deleted paragraphs seem to be true, but putting them all together to make your point about google support is original research.
  3. No source: ”Support for Google-Voice is best effort.” (Note that I didn’t delete this from article, just moved it and tagged with citation needed.)
  4. Unreliable source/Original Research: “The help articles are not clear on what Google is working on or what the known issues are.” Citation is just to page on “Google Voice Known issues“ (http://support.google.com/voice/bin/static.py?hl=en&page=known_issues.cs). Conclusion about this is your own.
  5. Unreliable Source/OR: ”The Google-Voice site itself explains that they may not contact you and they may never fix your issue. ‘This form is only used to track new issues and, while we do read each email, you'll only hear from us (generally within a few days) if we need more information from you.’” The first sentence suggests a general policy, but the second sentence, which contains quotation (and citation for that quotation), is only about a specific form for reporting issues with SMS. Nothing on the page suggests that google “may never fix the issue.” Rather, it says Google will only respond if it needs additional information. (Citation: https://support.google.com/voice/bin/request.py?hl=en&contact_type=receiving_text_problem) --Sjsilverman (talk) 20:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ObitTalk and Google[edit]

I'm not the best at editing this article, but Obihai sells two devices now that connect a plain telephone to Google Voice. The two models are the Obi100 and the Obi110. Once you have Google Voice tied to the device you no longer need another landline or even a cell phone for it. To date Obihai is the only company selling this device. If somebody wants to edit the article you can see information at http://www.obihai.com and http://www.obitalk.com. Each device gives you two channels that can be used for SIP services or Google Voice. I don't know the agreement with Google, but something must exist. Mark @ DailyNetworks talk 21:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elimination of overview section[edit]

Wikipedia articles (including this one) generally have overview in lead. Having an "overview section is therefore redundant. Barring strong opposition, I intend to delete the Overview section, incorporating material elsewhere as necessary. --Sjsilverman (talk) 20:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It could surely be merged with the information in the head, and the result edited down in size. LittleBen (talk) 09:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WTF is google voice, why would anyone use it, and why do the phone carriers put up with it?[edit]

I read the entire article and it's all I know about Google Voice (i.e., I haven't gone to Google's site yet), so I'm the person the article should be written for. Apparently this is free telephone service, except you have to already have telephone service to use it.

The carrier (e.g., sprint) will charge you for using their system, whether it's voice calls or IP data. So why not dump the middleman (google voice) and just make phone calls on your telephone? Is it just a matter of "infinite minutes," and you can buy the cheapest plan from sprint yet get unlimited minutes? Is that all this big kludge does?

If so, you still need to buy data service if you don't have it, so you might as well buy ordinary minutes instead. Is delayed ring, round-trip latency, and the hassle of a new phone number really worth the slight reduction in your phone bill?

This thing sounds similar to climbing a utility pole and tapping into the power grid, except it's legal. And why on earth would sprint or Verizon go along with it? Because if they ARE going along with it, then they ARE making money from it. And that money comes from you. I guess there must be some super feature that I don't know about.

These questions need to be answered in the article, preferably (in summary) in the lede.

PS:

I just went to the Google voice site.

a) there IS no other, super feature that I didn't know about

b) apparently, you can't get incoming calls

I repeat my original question: WTF??

67.162.165.126 (talk) 04:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the Features section? The very first two features listed are of use to me. Doniago (talk) 05:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Validation for banks, credit cards, Facebook, and PayPal not supported by Google Voice.[edit]

Under the Limitations section, two more things to add: No short-code SMS; No SMS via Email.

Validation (for banks, credit cards, Facebook, and PayPal) which may use SMS short codes, or SMS via email, currently fails on Google Voice.

If you try to validate a Google Voice number for your account with PayPal, Facebook, Skype, banks, or credit cards, the validation process may fail.

Those institutions will send an authorization code via text message. Google voice won't work with short codes or SMS via email. If the institution uses those methods, Google voice never delivers the text message with your validation code, and that will prevent connecting those kinds of accounts with your Google Voice number. Thus, notifications from these systems will not be sent to a Google Voice number. A real cell phone number is required.


Put another way:

Google Voice currently supports neither SMS via email nor short-codes (those five or six digit numbers) which some companies or institutions use to send and receive text messages.

SMS (sent via email or via short-codes) may be used by PayPal, banks, credit cards, Facebook, Skype, and others. When you enter your Google Voice number in order to validate with those services, they try to send your validation code via SMS. Google Voice currently will not deliver that validation code, so you would have to use another means to validate; yet Google Voice claims "one number for life."

When a site asks what carrier you have, they want to send a SMS through email. e.g., To send a SMS from email to Verizon, you would use: CellPho...@vtext.com

I can find many forum discussions on this, which may not be considered valid references by Wikipedia standards. How can this be added to the article? Some valid reference source would be needed. This limitation has been reported by a large number of users in many places, and can be verified by anyone who tries to validate.

Ref: http://productforums.google.com/forum/#!msg/voice/aky5fRfpW7s/4tYpxIwUJJAJ

See also:

https://support.google.com/voice/known-issues/16871

Known Issues .. Voicemail and SMS .. SMS from application providers (e.g. Skype, Bank of America, etc.) are not working. This problem is caused by an issue with SMS interoperability, not Google Voice specifically. However, we're looking into it and appreciate your patience.

--GeoFan49 (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC) GeoFan49 (talk) 17:14, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Needs updates[edit]

We work hard to bring Google applications to a number of mobile platforms, including the iPhone. Apple Inc. did not approve the Google Voice application we submitted six weeks ago to the Apple App Store. We will continue to work to bring our services to iPhone users – for example, by taking advantage of advances in mobile browsers.
Indented line

This is very old, and has been superseded, there is now an app in the app store, it's been there for quite a while. GeoFan49 (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article reflects availability on ios. Not sure what you think needs to be changed.--Federalist51 (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the note referred to here, a note on the google play store app "Talkatone", which says:

SPECIAL NOTE TO EXISTING TALKATONE FOR GOOGLE VOICE USERS: Talkatone will continue to support Google Voice users until May 15, 2014. After May 15, 2014 Talkatone users will no longer be able to access Google Voice through Talkatone because Google is discontinuing third party access to Google Voice on that date. We encourage all existing Talkatone for Google Voice users to consider switching to the new Talkatone service, the features of which are described above, prior to May 15, 2014 to ensure a seamless and uninterrupted transition. Happy Talking!

More RS here. I think the Google Voice app is not long for this world (allowing only their own app would make them quite the antitrust target) and so is Google Voice, per se. The (revised) title of the Phandroid article is "Google Voice finally shutting its doors, will soon become one with Hangouts

"...--{{U|Elvey}} (t • e • c) 21:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OBSOLETE UNLESS YOU WERE GRANDFATHERED[edit]

Hi, Wasn't this app obsoleted earlier in 2014? (Today is Sep 30, 2014) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.42.227 (talk) 03:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Malicious Link Removal[edit]

--Gary Dee 10:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Google Talk Mention[edit]

"Additionally, text messages can be sent and received via the familiar email or IM interface by reading and writing text messages in Gmail or by adding contact's phone numbers in Google Talk respectively (PC-to-Phone texting)"

From my understanding Google Talk is dead. No idea if it should be removed from the article or renamed if something replaced it. Thanks!--CoolCanuck eh? 18:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Former Google Voice and current Project Fi user here. I am not sure if Google Talk still works for that purpose, but officially Google Hangouts now has the same functionality of PC-to-Phone texting. https://support.google.com/voice/answer/6023920 I think we should replace Google Talk with Google Hangouts. Tony Tan · talk 03:19, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is rather difficult to ascertain with reliability what is working and not, unless one has the service and is using it. Much of the references are unreliable and are mostly blogs and such. However, it does appear to this editor that not much has change w/r/t Google Talk, the XMPP service still works, reports buddy status, transmits messages, and switches Google Voice RTP, just as it always did, as is documented by the many Asterisk, Freeswitch, and OBI users. Kbrose (talk) 13:32, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kbrose: I just realized that I still have Google Voice on my other Google account. I will do some experimenting to find out whether Google Talk still works. (Like you said, it probably does.) However, we may not be able to cite evidence for this claim. On the other hand, the official Google Voice Help page that I linked to above does state that "you can send and get your Google Voice text messages and voicemails in Hangouts." I also know that this is true. Should we mention Google Hangouts as well as Google Talk, or should we replace Google Talk completely, since Talk is a discontinued product that is replaced by Hangouts? https://support.google.com/talk/ Tony Tan · talk 02:40, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me this commentary, about a year old, https://xmpp.org/2015/03/no-its-not-the-end-of-xmpp-for-google-talk/, still describes the state of Google Talk correctly, but like many of the other sources even in the article, it is another blog. I am not sure anything much needs to be remove that at least at some time was factual and supported. A WP article is not a current status report and should reflect history as well. If that history hasn't changed, I see no reason to remove it. Of course, dubious material should be cleaned up. The transition to Hangouts is already mentioned, albeit not much in the article is developed coherently. Kbrose (talk) 20:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Google_Voice&oldid=1219842990"