In Europe, They Like Their VoIP

16 thoughts on “In Europe, They Like Their VoIP”

  1. In Europe we also like your headlines. 🙂

    It was already time to show what’s going on in European VoIP. The market seems much more competitive and interesting to me. Yet the devices for fixed line replacement come unlocked and can hold more than 1 or 2 providers, like it is normally in the US.

    It’s a standard to use up to 10 VoIP providers at the same time, making use of the cheapest routes that your device chooses automatically accordant to a dial plan.

    I already heard of a mobile VoIP startup that left the US and concentrates entirely on Europe because “the market is more advanced and the handsets are unlocked”.

  2. VoIP rules. I’m not surprised that it’s not taking off as quickly in America as it is in Europe. It’s similar to Internet proliferation. In the ’90s, several European countries had way higher percentages of Internet penetration than the US–even crap ones like Estonia and Finland (just kidding, I love both those countries). A lot of telecomm technology is held up in the US because of sluggish regulation and large/powerful companies that try to inhibit the growth of new tech that hurts their old businesses.

  3. Om,
    It really matter how you define VoIP. If VoIP is just using a different type of pipe to give the same service, then there are millions of voip users. If VoIP is calls sent by carriers over dedicated IP pipes then there are tens or hundreds of millions that use VoIP. But, if you define VoIP as applications enable by IP, applications or functions that you could not do on the traditional PSTN, there are not too many. There are only a few companies such as Fring and Truphone who are starting to explore that path. Skype is also doing that to a certain extent, but their proprietary platform goes against my belief, that merging voice and IP will bring us to a new level of collaboration and productivity. Only open standards can do that.
    At the Flat Planet Phone Company we believe that the possibilities today are tremendous, once we realize that with the internet your communication network is unlimited, no matter where you are or what you do
    Voice mashups such as those being done by Thomas Howe are a glimpse of the future, not flat rate calls by some big telco.

  4. Om, voice tariffs (wireline and mobile) and roaming charges are a lot higher in Europe, so there is more motivation to go with VoIP. Free local calling in the US also has a big affect on VoIP consumer service uptake.

  5. I think the claim is a bit premature. After all the 40% and 20% are predicted numbers and it is not clear how dependable they are. Q1’07 numbers seem to be more like 15% and 10%.

    Secondly, it is not clear what is meant by VoIP. You include Jajah as a VoIP provider, but as I understand it, PSTN users can be their customers as well.

    Thirdly, Moshe asks us to focus on unique capabilities like mashup. Of course the ultimate mashup is to combine PSTN for carrying voice and use IP connectivity for control signaling. So if mashups are going to inherit the world, then nobody will care about PSTN and VoIP dichotomy.

  6. Do new houses in the US still get traditonal phone lines built in or do they get fiber (with voip)?

    In Sweden the old monopoly company Telia stopped offering traditional phone lines a few years back. Now they only offer fiber (with voip), or wireless if you live deep down in the woods.

  7. Pingback: Pete's View
  8. I’m not surprised that it’s not taking off as quickly in America as it is in Europe. It’s similar to Internet proliferation. In the ’90s, several European countries had way higher percentages of Internet penetration than the US–even crap ones like Estonia and Finland (just kidding, I love both those countries).

    This is incorrect. Internet penetration was much higher in the US than in Europe in the age of the modem, due to unmetered local calling. For the same reason, there was faster uptake of DSL in Europe, due to understandable customer wishes to avoid metered local calls. (BT did not have local flat rate calling until 2000 in the UK, for instance, and only on certain plans and I believe currently limited to calls for up to an hour). Throughout the ’90s, the majority of people worldwide who accessed the Internet did so through the PSTN and modems, and unmetered calling gave the US (and other countries like Canada) an advantage in Internet adoption.

    It’s no wonder than Skype and other VoIP services are more popular in countries that still have metered local calls. Also, most European countries have “incoming calls free” on cellular phones, which means that calling from a fixed line to a cell phone is more expensive than calling a landline, since the originator pays the extra costs of the network, unless you use various workarounds like VoIP. In addition, there are the various issues of international calls to consider; many people I know who use Skype use it for their international calls, and it’s easier to make more international calls when you’re a smaller countries. Calling France from the UK is expensive off standard BT PSTN service. That’s one reason why people use Skype or other services.

  9. Good observation, John. Metered local and LD calling is a key reason for the advance of VoIP services. Many European VoIP service providers are now offering unmetered domestic calls and calls to neighboring countries (fixed lines, only). While per minute calling rates on traditional switched lines are not particularly high (often about a penny or two a minute), it’s an important psychological distinction, and has clearly struck a nerve.

    I was recently reading Handelsblatt, Germany’s main business newspaper, and noticed that “Flat rate” was one of the five most common search terms on their website that day.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.