Re: IPhone-Free Cellphone News

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: dewayne () warpspeed com (Dewayne Hendricks)
Date: July 8, 2007 4:47:32 PM EDT
To: Dewayne-Net Technology List <xyzzy () warpspeed com>
Subject: [Dewayne-Net] re: IPhone-Free Cellphone News

[Note:  This comment comes from friend Charles Brown.  DLH]

From: Charles Brown <cbrown () flyingcircuit com>
Date: July 8, 2007 9:01:50 AM PDT
To: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne () warpspeed com>
Cc: Charles Brown <cbrown () flyingcircuit com>
Subject: Re: [Dewayne-Net] re: IPhone-Free Cellphone News


> On Jul 7, 2007, at 2:24 PM, Dewayne Hendricks wrote:
>
> [Note:  This comment comes from friend Robert Buaas.  DLH]
>
> From: "Robert A. Buaas" <buaas () wireless net>
> Date: July 6, 2007 11:26:05 AM PDT
> To: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne () warpspeed com>
> Subject: Re: [Dewayne-Net] IPhone-Free Cellphone News
>
> Hi Dewayne--
>
> I read this announcement elsewhere (in print) and was unimpressed...
>
> There’s one big limitation to all this freeness: these phones can’t
> get onto any hot spot that require you to log in on a Web page (to
> enter a credit card number, for example). Unfortunately, this
> restriction rules out most airports and many hotel rooms.
>
> And on rereading this, it occurred to me that, what if while away from
> "friendly" infrastructure, one had an application on ones laptop that
> functionally gatewayed (and protocol translated, where required)  
> the phone's
> requirements (and lack of capabilities) onto the WiFi's (like  
> handling the
> login requirements often that show up at hotels wanting a signoff  
> of the
> hotel's Fair Use Policy)?
>
> T-Mobile is offering either a Nokia 6086 or Samsung t409 handset. The
> datasheets describe UMA-over-WiFi functionality, which "tunnels"  
> the GSM (or
> CDMA) connection through the WiFi hotspot to T-mobile. Just what we  
> need...
>
> Anyone for developing a full carrier-spoofing GSM-to-SIP gateway  
> (including a
> GSM-to-G.729a codec)? I didn't think so.


Yes, I take your point.  A healthy dose of skepticism is always  
required for any cellco/telco announcement adopting an "open access"  
technology.  They aren't spending heavily on network-centric  
technology like IMS to create choices for consumers at the network  
edge.  However, I offer the following additional thoughts:


1)  The key point is this:  the cellcos are now drivers of the WiFi  
voice market where before, they were obstacles.  If, and some might  
say it's just a question of when, the telcos link their WiFi networks  
under a telco-type billing settlement agreement and consolidate their  
piece of the WiFi access market, then perhaps we will see new  
opportunities for entrepreneurs in this space for, dare I say, CLEC  
ver.3 (better name is order).  CLEC ver.2 raised $1 trillion + in  
equity and debt, and there's plenty of leftover backbone media from  
the last boom.  CLEC ver.1 took place in the early 90's and late  
80's, and prior to the Telecom Act of 96.  Displacing the telcos from  
the access market has been the Holy Grail of the CLEC ver.x process  
since divestiture.  And people have short memories.  Is it time for  
another run at it?  Is the technology there to do it?  And so on.

2)  Today, everyone who uses a VPN is tunneling.  I think gateways  
and such are anachronisms of the telco and proprietary technology  
business models, and of course, IEEE committees.  E.g., getting my  
wireless devices/networks to interface with my open source Asterisk  
box is a science project. The delay/gateways/other issues in VoIP  
providers networks are suspect, maybe Comcast Workplace service is  
filtering my packets, who knows. In my experience, the VoIP providers  
offer a lousy service.  Yet, they are still able to attract capital.

I guess I see the core problem differently:  one of bandwidth at the  
network edge (access) and the backbone (peering, filtering and  
delay), and the middle mile (access +1) getting to the backbone.   
Yes, just a small problem for us here in the US.  If we don't figure  
it out though, then we should be prepared to buy the promise of  
wireless "open access" from the duopoly in some form.  It's just a  
matter of time before they figure out how to monetize it.

3)  The phones will morph to the market, despite the current  
distribution model which is cellco-controlled. The Nokia N800 is the  
future prototype, and an open iPhone, which is already underway.  Pop  
the sim card out of the iPhone and you can have a WiFi phone.  Great,  
but I don't want yet another account and signup with Boingo, or  
Doingo or Kongo, to use it.

4)  IMHO, the "open access model" is not Fon, it's more like  
Whisher.  I also don't want another proprietary device like ATTs'  
free wireless router.  I want to buy my wireless access hardware at  
Best Buy.

5)  The implications for WiMax can't be positive.

6)  802.11x is not going to scale to requirements.

7)  Spoofing the networks is not the way to do.  What about Skype you  
say?  Well, it's proprietary and no one knows how the encryption  
works.  Will we see packets from apps like Skype filtered in the future?

As the song could have said:  "We don't need no gateways."

Charlie




-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com