Filed in archive
General
by Dameon Welch-Abemathy on November 9, 2007
It's cool technology, but is it necessary? Can a regular WiFi-enabled mobile handset get much of the same functionality? The answer after the break.
Short answer: Yes, assuming automatic failover is not a requirement.
Truphone and Gizmo Project both offer WiFi calling on WiFi-enabled Nokia handsets. Truphone has really set up a nice system for managing access to WiFi access points and whatnot, whereas Gizmo's setup is not quite so automatic. Certainly with some time and effort, a mobile carrier could develop a Truphone-like system for handling this.
An SMS app could be written that listens for SMS over an IP network and routes it into the phone just like it came from the mobile phone network. You could also send SMSes over the IP network as well, if there was no GSM signal.
The phone could, theoretically, auto-detect which network it's on-similar to how the iPhone does it-and use the appropriate network for data service. Use WiFi if available, otherwise switch to the mobile phone network.
How about handing off a call between WiFi and the mobile phone network? Use a method similar to how GrandCentral does it. Push the star key during a call, and the method you're not connected with rings. You answer, hang up the old call, and you've switched. It's not transparent, but at least you can switch back and forth.
From an end user standpoint, the UMA solution sounds a lot easier. However, a mobile operator could use the above recipe to do a "proof of concept" without too much effort. Who knows, it might be deployable that way.
What do you think about this idea? Too impractical? Do you have a way to do this without UMA? Let me know in the comments.
Hat tip to Andy Abramson for planting this idea in my mind.
Permalink: Do Carriers Need UMA?
Trackback: http://publish.creative-weblogging.com/publish/mt-tb.pl/101173
Addthis
Ask
Blinklist
del.icio.us
Digg
Fark
Facebook
Google
Lycos
Ma.gnolia
Mr Wong
Netscape
Netvousz
Newsvine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Slashdot
Tailrank
Technorati
Wink
Yahoo
Vote for Do Carriers Need UMA?:
|
Rating: 6.00 out of 2 vote(s) cast.
|
Response from:
Steve Shaw
(11/09/07 4:06pm)
Response from:
Dameon Welch-Abernathy
(11/11/07 1:36am)
Your employer has a bit to do with UMA also, which probably doesn't help your bias situation either ;)
You're probably right from a usability side, UMA does make it a bit easier. There's a lot of black magic happening behind the scenes to make it work, of course. I'm wondering, though, if you can get either close to or the same functionality a different way. I bet with a little more work on both ends, you could.
You're probably right from a usability side, UMA does make it a bit easier. There's a lot of black magic happening behind the scenes to make it work, of course. I'm wondering, though, if you can get either close to or the same functionality a different way. I bet with a little more work on both ends, you could.
Subscribe
Use the search to look for other interesting posts
| RSS |  See all blog subscribe options |
 What is RSS? | |
| Yahoo! |
|
| Addthis |
|
| Bloglines |
|
| Newsletter | |
| Follow us on Twitter! |
There is no way a major GSM provider could launch a service that did not have full service continuity between networks. This is what UMA provides, seamless mobility between WiFi and GSM.
Using WiFi without handover for voice calls is like a glorified cordless phone. If you have a call going in Wi-Fi, you can't leave your house, just like with a cordless phone.
Or you can 'push a button' when coverage starts to drop... trying explaining that in marketing collateral.
Admittedly, I'm biased as I write the UMAToday.blogspot.com blog from UMAToday.com, but the value of the mobile network is that it is supposed to work everywhere, for any service.
Telling a customer 'well, this only works when you're in Wi-Fi, otherwise the call will drop' is a PR disaster.
steve