3 ms·

more like market capture, or attempts at it. sims are a great technology. attempting to make them embedded is a way to take away choice from consumers so you ca

by x5n1 11y ago

more like market capture, or attempts at it. sims are a great technology. attempting to make them embedded is a way to take away choice from consumers so you can offer locked in solutions with less competition. the fcc should do something about this.

woah 11y ago
It sounds like the plan here is to let people download sims instead of having to physically pop a chip into the device. How is this anticompetitive?
- fulafel 11y ago
  The basis of SIM security is traditionally that nobody can read out its secret keys, you can only ask the SIM to sign something with its secret keys and tell you the result. So sounds like this might be not about "writable" e-SIM tech, but convincing operators to give up the previously closely-guarded keys or support some new kind of keying system?
- x5n1 11y ago
  It may not be to begin with to get market adoption, once they have it, they can limit or tax any network to be able to operate on their device, so the FCC needs to step in and make sure that never happens.
- lucaspiller 11y ago
  I don't think it will make things any worse (it's not really in the interest of hardware manufacturers to lock devices down), but I assume when you can buy a phone from AT&T with one of these it'll still be locked to "AT&T and roaming partners" by default. There's also the question of what happens when the device breaks, currently you can just take out the SIM and put it in a new device. With this I imagine you'll have to pay the carrier a "transfer fee".
yaantc 11y ago
Disclaimer: I work in telecommunications, but not at an operator. The operators have resisted this actually, as they fear it will bring more competition for them by making switching operators easier. To lock the device, they don't need this standard: they could solder a SIM chip today, no need for any new standard. The eUICC (embedded UICC) standard is required when you want both a soldered SIM AND the ability to switch operators during the life of the device. There you need a standard scheme and added complexity to enable this, and this is what's discussed here. The operators have (and are still) resisting this for smartphones / high value devices. The reason eUICC is getting traction is the IoT. For low cost devices a removable SIM is just not manageable: - too expensive - too fragile (think vibrations, harsh environment) - too large for wearables So they accepted eUICC to be more competitive for IoT, and try to manage the risk it's used for big devices to increase competition (think Apple SIM, but soldered). Look in the article section "Stakeholder advantages in an e-SIM environment", they capture very well who gains what with eUICC.

by x5n1 11y ago

woah 11y ago

It sounds like the plan here is to let people download sims instead of having to physically pop a chip into the device. How is this anticompetitive?

fulafel 11y ago
The basis of SIM security is traditionally that nobody can read out its secret keys, you can only ask the SIM to sign something with its secret keys and tell you the result. So sounds like this might be not about "writable" e-SIM tech, but convincing operators to give up the previously closely-guarded keys or support some new kind of keying system?
x5n1 11y ago
It may not be to begin with to get market adoption, once they have it, they can limit or tax any network to be able to operate on their device, so the FCC needs to step in and make sure that never happens.
lucaspiller 11y ago
I don't think it will make things any worse (it's not really in the interest of hardware manufacturers to lock devices down), but I assume when you can buy a phone from AT&T with one of these it'll still be locked to "AT&T and roaming partners" by default. There's also the question of what happens when the device breaks, currently you can just take out the SIM and put it in a new device. With this I imagine you'll have to pay the carrier a "transfer fee".

yaantc 11y ago

Disclaimer: I work in telecommunications, but not at an operator. The operators have resisted this actually, as they fear it will bring more competition for them by making switching operators easier. To lock the device, they don't need this standard: they could solder a SIM chip today, no need for any new standard. The eUICC (embedded UICC) standard is required when you want both a soldered SIM AND the ability to switch operators during the life of the device. There you need a standard scheme and added complexity to enable this, and this is what's discussed here. The operators have (and are still) resisting this for smartphones / high value devices. The reason eUICC is getting traction is the IoT. For low cost devices a removable SIM is just not manageable: - too expensive - too fragile (think vibrations, harsh environment) - too large for wearables So they accepted eUICC to be more competitive for IoT, and try to manage the risk it's used for big devices to increase competition (think Apple SIM, but soldered). Look in the article section "Stakeholder advantages in an e-SIM environment", they capture very well who gains what with eUICC.