Always-on voice

One critical driver of instant messaging usage is that IM is always on.  Many IM clients also now support voice (VoIP).  But we still don't have always-on voice (click and instantly start talking).

It might sound weird - that there would be a big difference between dialing digits and waiting a few rings, as opposed to an always connected voice channel.  But simplicity, speed and predictability can't be underrated.  If pervasive IP connections had come before POTS, would we even have the ring-based system at all?  At most, you'd set your status/presence.  Some people wouldn't even do that - they'd always be in always on voice mode.

How much usage would there be for PC-based (including mobile PCs), always on voice? Well we already know Nextel carved out quite a niche with the mobile equivalent - their always on, push to talk service.  There are similar push to talk applications on the web too, but generally isolated ones that are hosted by a company like an airline that you may speak to a few times per year.  If each of your IM contacts showed a quiet type status or presence (IM only), or a ready to talk type status (causing the always on voice channel to setup), how often would you go voice instead of IM? 

Of course, the always-on voice application would be integrated with other applications.  What if Facebook or LinkedIn had always-on voice?  What if the Powerpoint presentation that you are reviewing had always-on voice, using the same data channel used for the always-on voice, to send the slide you have a question on over to your colleague?  What if GULP and other communications-technology based franchises had always on voice? Would you order more pizza by calling Pizza Hut, or from your always on GULP contact from your IM window?  Etc.

As broadband connections continue to become pervasive (and mobile), we'll start to see always-on voice.