And by "Google Phone" we don't simply mean another Android handset. We're talking about Google-branded hardware running a version of Android we haven't yet seen.

Over the next few weeks, Google Phones (most probably in early, prototype form) will flood the Mountain View campus. They'll don large LCDs while running a new version of Android—either Flan or the version of Android beyond it—which our source spotted running on Google's handset as well as a laptop. (Whatever the software was, it most certainly wasn't Chrome OS, we were assured.)

But maybe the most intriguing bit is what someone said to our source offhandedly, that the current Android, the we all know and love, is not the "real" Android. So what makes for a "real" version of Android?

Our best guess is an Android OS with Google Voice at its heart.

The scoop by TechCrunch suggests Gizmo5 and Google Voice could join forces to create a skype like service. (Although many readers have noted that Gizmo5 and Google Voice already work together well enough as separate services.) We look forward to better integration. [Techcrunch via lifehacker]

Maybe the more interesting, number though, is how many companies it takes to make Google Voice happen:

In its correspondence with the FCC, Google also reveals several companies that help it provide Google Voice. The list includes fiber-optic network operators Level 3 Communications (LVLT) and Global Crossing (GLBC). It also mentions Broadvox Communications, Bandwidth.com, and Pac-West Telecomm. IBasis (IBAS) is responsible for connecting outbound international calls on Google Voice and Neustar (NSR) provides "porting and carrier lookup services," Google says in the letter. Syniverse Technologies (SVR) provides the free text-messaging service.

That's eight, not counting Google itself. [BusinessWeek]

The FCC, being all about neutrality nowadays, is probably still going to flick Google in the balls over it, though Google says they "have good reason to believe [those numbers] are engaged in…schemes" that jack up carrier costs.

Given that Google's clearly happy to give something away for free that costs a lot of money to make happen, would they really even consider charging Google Voice like they vaguely threatened? Nahhh. [Washington Post, WSJ]

You just have to scrounge up an invitation for Google Voice and then you can have your current phone number's voicemails routed through Google's servers and enjoy the voicemail transcribing, archiving, and straight-to-SMS (or email) forwarding features.

The promo video points out the significance of this service, which is that your voicemails, which belong to you after all, can be kept through carriers switches. Somehow I get the feeling that some cellphone providers might be a tad ticked off at Google for removing a major hassle of switching elsewhere, but all the better for the users. [Google Voice Blog via Lifehacker]

In the letter, AT&T outlines a lot of their specific problems not just with Google Voice but with what they see as lack of regulation of Google as a whole. Their first main point is that Google Voice isn't merely software (which wouldn't be regulated by the FCC), but seeing as how it connects calls between users, it should be seen (and regulated) in the same way as typical wireless carriers. They've asked for an FCC investigation of GV before, but now we're getting some more in-depth reasoning and, even better, some smack talk. The salient paragraph:

But Google Voice is far more than just a software application. Rather, Google Voice uses telecommunications (supplied by its wholesale partner Bandwidth.com) to transmit voice calls between end users and it thus unquestionably constitutes "interstate and foreign communications by wire or radio" under the Communications Act, placing it squarely within the Commission's jurisdiction. Indeed, Google Voice appears to be a telecommunications service insofar as it transmits ordinary telephone calls between customers using the public switched telephone network.

AT&T further contends that if Google is not regulated, they could easily use their position as de facto "gatekeeper" of the internet to block access or visibility to cloud software or sites which they see as competition to their own services:

Indeed, if the Commission cannot stop Google from blocking disfavored telephone calls as Google contends, then how could the Commission ever stop Google from also blocking disfavored websites from appearing in the results of its search engine; or prohibit Google from blocking access to applications that compete with its own email, text messaging, cloud computing and other services; or otherwise prevent Google from abusing the gatekeeper control it wields over the Internet?

In terms of call blocking, Google does admit to blocking certain numbers, which they claim as sex lines (which have a high cost to connect). But AT&T found that they block more than just sex lines, which if true would make Google's position as a proponent of net neutrality less tenable:

In fact, Google is blocking calls to, among others, an ambulance service, church, bank, law firm, automobile dealer, day spa, orchard, health clinic, tax preparation service, community center, eye doctor, tribal community college, school, residential consumers, a convent of Benedictine nuns, and the campaign office of a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives.

AT&T has some smack-down words reserved for the FCC, too. In AT&T's view, it is the Commission's duty to hold Google to the same standard to which they believe everyone else has to conform.

And as an agency committed to "preserving a free and open Internet," the Commission should show no hesitation in ensuring its Internet principles are applied evenhandedly to the "network providers, application and service providers, and content providers—including Google—who are expressly subject to them today.

That's kind of formal language, but the message is clear: Oh, snap! FCC and Google, you done got served: How dare you show such favoritism! On the other hand, as TechCrunch points out, AT&T ends the letter by saying they don't agree that the FCC should expand its position on net neutrality:

AT&T once again emphasizes that the principles in the existing Internet Policy Statement are serving customers well in their current form and there is no sound reason to radically expand and codify those principles.

Basically, AT&T is saying that they don't want the FCC to pursue changes in policy, but if they must, Google better be regulated as much as anyone else.

The whole letter reads like whoever wrote it is modulated but really angry about how everyone's on Google's side. It doesn't look like AT&T is about to give in and support Google Voice anytime soon, that's for sure. [TechCrunch]

A brief recap: Google Voice doesn't allow calls to some rural numbers, sexy talk lines or conference call services because the access and termination fees to them are pricey. AT&T has oh-so-kindly asked the FCC to investigate them for not following net neutrality rules (hilarious, since AT&T is quite pissy about the FCC's serious desire to apply them to mobile broadband networks), largely because AT&T got smacked for doing the same thing back in 2007. The FCC these days, headed by Mr. Neutrality Julian Genaschowski, is all about investigating stuff, so they're dutifully asking Google WTF is up with that.

Google says they're not providing a phone service like AT&T, but a free software/web service that's a supplement to your phone, emphasis on the free part:

Google Voice is a free application and we want to keep it that way for all our users — which we could not afford to do if we paid these ludicrously high charges.

Given that Google Voice isn't even a VoIP service and runs on top of your actual phone service—not to mention, is invite-only—they sorta have a point. Plus, um, free is good. [Google Policy Blog via Ars]

The FCC's interested in part because some lawmakers jumped on its ass, but also because it's very interested in making some new rules for telecoms. Currently, Google Voice blocks calls to some rural carriers, conference call services and naughty talk lines because they have pricey access fees.

You can read the full letter here (PeeDeeEff), but basically the FCC asks Google to describe how calls are routed with Google Voice, how it decides what numbers to block, what exactly Google means by saying the service is "invitation-only," whether or not it plans to charge money for GV (!), and some other stuff.

Google insists Google Voice is software, not subject to common carrier laws. We'll see, the new FCC is mighty feisty. [FCC (PDF via Bits]

On the iPhone, Vonage calls can be made by dialing in the app, or from your imported address book—but you need to have the app open. The BlackBerry version only works over the voice network, and the iPod touch version is obviously limited to Wi-Fi.

Available now, the app is only pay-as-you-go for the moment. Support for Vonage World subscribers is expected by the end of the year. The limitations suck, but it's better than the outright rejection that Google Voice received. [Vonage via New York Times]

AT&T claims that FCC regulations enforce net neutrality on all phone carriers, forcing all calls to be connected no matter where the destination is. Google Voice apparently blocks calls to "adult-chat lines and conference call services, which charge expensive access fees."

The fact that the FCC smacked down the company back in 2007, when AT&T's actions of not connecting numbers to rural phone companies who were overcharging, probably has something to do with AT&T wanting everyone to be on the same level. That and Google's recent complaints about Apple and AT&T and its Google Voice app for the iPhone. Of course Google's defense is that they're not actually a phone provider since people need an actual phone service to be able to use GV. [WSJ]

An Apple rep gave Silicon Valley Insider a familiar line:

We do not agree with all of the statements made by Google in their FCC letter. Apple has not rejected the Google Voice application and we continue to discuss it with Google.

There's not much there except a vague denial and a repetition of their previous position that they hadn't rejected the app, but just, well, not approved it.

But the theory that Google, Apple and AT&T had worked this all out behind the scenes before talking to the FCC? Not holding up too well right now. [Silicon Valley Insider]

If you remember Apple gave the FCC this gem of a response: "Contrary to published reports, Apple has not rejected the Google Voice application, and continues to study it. The application has not been approved..." They didn't reject it, they simply hadn't approved it. Right.

Google's pulled the confidentiality request off its response to the FCC's inquiry, and they say it was rejected. There are some other noteworthy morsels in the full doc (PDF), like that Phil Schiller himself broke the news on July 7 they were rejecting GV to Google's VP of Engineering and Research Alan Eustace, and that part of the reason Apple rejected Google Latitude is that they were actually afraid it might replace the core Maps application, since it offered new features Maps didn't have.

It's absolutley amazing to see this kind of fear on Apple's part, given the position they're in with the iPhone. Because that's what these two rejections boil down to: fear. Still, things could get way more interesting, so stay tuned. [Google, WSJ via Loop Insight]

Toktumi works similarly to Google Voice, letting you use one virtual number to forward to your real numbers. It doesn't support SMS, and it costs $15, but it supports business features like phone trees and other filtering options. The Line2 app is by Sean Kovacs, the guy who made "GV Mobile", the Google Voice app we still use on our iPhones now.

It's strange that there's a double standard for these apps in the app store when they're so similar, but it could be the missing SMS functionality that makes Toktumi more appetizing for Apple/AT&T when compared to Google Voice. [Tech Crunch]

The downside is that you're trusting your Google Voice and Twitter logins to third-party services, but if you wanna get push notifications about @mentions or DMs from Twitter or SMS messages from Google Voice without keeping a computer running at home with Growl whenever you're out, they're the way to go.

Any other services that use Prowl this way? [GVMax, Prey Fetcher, Thanks Zachary!]

Just in case you weren't affected, or don't have Google Voice, or maybe you're just reading this because you have nothing better to do, the problem was pretty much just as described above: Users were complaining that any call they made that passed the magic 15 or so minute threshold was mysterious cut off without explanation. Some users were being cut off a half dozen times or more. Others gave up and used their —*gasp*—regular phone service!

Said one user in the Google support forum, "Imagine my horror as I'm interviewing for a tech sales job and had 3 calls drop at 15 minutes each? Placed calls: 8/28/09 3:20 PM 15 minutes long 8/28/09 3:54 PM 15 minutes long Received calls: 8/28/09 3:37 PM 16 minutes long I hope someone at Google is listening."

They were, and as of 12:34 a.m. this morning, they promised the issue was kaput. Was anyone in the Gizmodo commenter ranks negatively affected by this issue? Is it really fixed? [Google via TechCrunch]

It's one of the weirder stories I've read this week, but also one of the more interesting ones. From Techcrunch:

We've heard from a source close to Palm that the company plans to roll out deep integration with Google Voice on the Pre phones for users who want it
...
But our understanding from other sources is that Google only intends to roll out a browser based version of the service for Pre, which lacks the deep integration with native apps like the dialer and contacts. The user experience isn't nearly as good.

This is woven into a longer discussion about how Google Voice apps need to be deeply integrated into the user's OS to work properly, and how they need to build Google Voice apps, since there's no official SDK. It's all interesting to think about, but I feel like there's an obvious, missed conclusion here: Isn't development for the Pre pretty restricted? I mean, given that WebOS apps are essentially super-beefed-up web apps, a Mojo SDK app would more or less be a web app—not the kind of core-functionality-replacing experience that you can get on Android.

The only way around this is to appeal directly to Palm for access to the Pre's core Linux APIs, like Telenav did for their Sprint-branded nav app, or for Palm to make the app, and appeal to Google for special dev tools, but that level of cooperation doesn't really sound like what's going on here, assuming Techcrunch's sources aren't just making shit up. (This happens!) So anyway, next month: Sprint, Palm and Google answer the FCC's questions about why their Google Voice web app MURDERS PEOPLE, for no reason. Fun will be had by all. [Techcrunch]

They do admit though, that a native Google Voice app is better than the web interface—suck it, web apps. [TechCrunch]