7 ms·
Is Microsoft trying to end the reign of mobile carriers?
- geuis 15y agoI believe that Apple has already at least partly done that with the coming of the iPhone in 2007. I would not call it a 100% victory, but compared to how much control the mobile carriers had before then, its a huge change.
- rospaya 15y agoUS carriers were and still are screwing Americans over. European carriers were much open and until I read about the US mobile industry, I had no idea that a carrier can block you to do anything you want with your phone.
- technomancy 15y ago> I had no idea that a carrier can block you to do anything you want with your phone. Depends on the carrier. T-Mobile (aka Deutsch Telcom, quite European) lets you do anything you like; unfortunately it's looking like they won't exist in the US a year from now.
- mmcconnell1618 15y agoSomeone needs to break the carrier pricing model of charging multiple times for the same bits. I'm not sure replacing ATT or Verizon with Microsoft would be a good idea but if they are the change agent I applaud the move.
- citizenkeys 15y agoYes. This article is correct. The days of cellular "voice + data" plans are on their way out. Eventually, everything will be entirely about data. For voice, you'll call i.p. addresses instead of phone numbers. And by being strictly data, users will have the added benefit of being able to do videoconferencing, swap files, and share screens.
- technomancy 15y agoIt's already not very difficult to use a data-only connection for your main phone. I've been on a no-minutes data-only 3G plan for a year and a half with my Nexus One using Google Voice and bouncing between SipDroid, Skype, and the new built-in SIP client in Android 2.3. It's just a matter of time before either 0) the majority of calls end up being VoIP or 1) carriers start explicitly banning VoIP in their ToS. Right now it takes a little extra doing to set up a SIP account, but that won't last.
- mikelward 15y agoWhich carriers offer this?
- pointillistic 15y agoYes, I would like to know as well. Who offers data service only? Or you just hoping from Wifi to Wifi?
- mikelward 15y agoFrom what I can find so far, the best option is T-Mobile. Get a T-Mobile SIM Card[1], then select a Mobile Broadband data plan[2], e.g. 2 GB for $40/mo. [1]: <http://www.t-mobile.com/shop/phones/cell-phone-detail.aspx?cell-phone=T-Mobile-SIM-Card> http://www.t-mobile.com/shop/phones/cell-phone-detail.aspx?c...; [2]: <http://www.t-mobile.com/shop/plans/cell-phone-plans.aspx?catgroup=mobilebroadband> http://www.t-mobile.com/shop/plans/cell-phone-plans.aspx?cat...; T-Mobile can be used with data-only products such as Galaxy Tab, so this method should be allowed by T-Mobile. There seem to be a few ways using AT&T, e.g. an iPad SIM, or a GoPhone SIM, or signing up for Laptop Connect, and using that SIM, but none seem to be officially supported. I'm guessing there's no way to do this with a CDMA carrier. Are there other GSM resellers/virtual networks?
- technomancy 15y agoYes, I am doing this on T-Mobile as well. I was grandfathered into a plan for "unlimited" bandwidth for USD40/mo. I don't know what the practical limitations on the plan are; I've never gone over 5GB. With the AT&T acquisition I'm thinking of jumping ship to Sprint, but I don't know if they have a comparable plan. Anyone looked into it?
- haridsv 15y agoIf any caller can find out if I am on a call or not (among other details), it could be a big privacy or even a security issue.
- Ruudjah 15y agoLikewise, only trusted callers can. Think your mother ;).
- mrj 15y agoGod, I hope so. If there is any industry more deserving of a disruption, it's the fumbling, backwards telcoms. Sadly, it requires so much money to fight them that whatever replaces the telcoms might only be slightly better. I will take that, anyhow.
- zmmmmm 15y agoOr they could really go for it and buy a carrier. Perhaps Sprint might start looking tasty? What I would really love is if they innovated in the Wifi / unlicensed spectrum space and made a p2p type mesh system. Then even if you don't have Wifi you can piggyback on nearby handsets to "hop" to a Wifi point. This would require deep integration into the handset and opt in to make it totally transparent to users. Skype seems to be about half of this equation and maybe deep collaboration with Nokia could be the other half. Having said that, people are so used to Wifi working well that they don't realize what the limitations are once you try and scale it into different situations. Start moving more than 5mph and you'll suddenly see what all that technology in "real" cell networks is there for.
- ohyes 15y agoUsing the wifi/unlicensed spectrum is also a lot more efficient use of the spectrum. You can broadcast shorter distances and therefore squeeze more users onto the spectrum. It would be logical to see major cell companies doing something similar (more towers with shorter ranges) in urban areas. It would give them much greater available bandwidth as they try to scale to a situation where more people have data plans. (I don't think that they will, because the telecoms can simply charge more for less using weasel words in contracts, most people won't know any better).
- rbranson 15y agoIt's already hard enough to run a reliable mobile data network built with industrial-grade systems on exclusive spectrum. Unfortunately, moving to a network like you describe, built on commodity gear doesn't translate to quality, redundancy, and scalability like it does with distributed systems. Major cell companies are already doing what you describe. Example: both Verizon and AT&T have a fleet of mobile cell towers mounted on the back of trucks they park at large events if they think capacity is going to be an issue. If you look around at building tops in cities, you'll see arrays of panel antennas on many of them. These are for cell networks. Every site is intentionally designed and every single antenna is specifically angled and tuned, and their network engineers collect quality statistics from every call at every site, which are fed into massive data warehouses for quality analysis. They literally have fleets of people like "the Verizon guy" continuously drive testing their networks. If anyone knows how to run mobile data networks, it's them. Seriously, network engineers at companies like Verizon are treated like software engineers at Google and Facebook. They keep the core business running and they are the rockstars. Everyone else, including the jerk in customer service, is basically a nobody. From what I can tell, there is a sort of strange, pervasive myth on the Internet that the large cellcos have their heads up their asses and that somewhere, somehow, there is a kind of wild band of rebels with hacked 2.4GHz/5GHz mesh network gear and cantennas doing it for dirt cheap. Please show me even the smallest evidence that anyone, anywhere is running a true mobile data network using a mesh network on commodity gear. This means continuous coverage for a metro area with low power, cheap, antenna-integrated MOBILE consumer gear, seamless site-to-site and channel-to-channel handoff from users moving at 80mph, high quality indoor coverage in large buildings that is basically taken for granted, ramp-ups/downs of 10k+ customers within hours (sports events, etc)... and on and on. You'll find a few WISPs doing fixed site-to-site links and (poorly) blanketing areas with WiFi coverage, but nothing on the order of what cellcos do. The fact that one can hold a uninterrupted voice conversation using a $5 phone with no visible antenna while driving down the interstate at 75mph for hundreds of miles is a pretty awesome modern marvel.
- nextparadigms 15y agoWe all want that day to arrive faster, but Nokia means nothing in USA, and sure they are still quite powerful in the rest of the world, but I think carriers have enough strong options right now to not care about whatever "threats" Microsoft or Nokia would throw at them. WP7 is virtually nowhere, and Nokia is declining fast (lost 15% market share since 12 months ago! - 26% left).
- kfury 15y agoIf Nokia is the primary hardware manufacturer of Microsoft's solution then it won't matter. Three years ago HTC had no real brand in the USA but that doesn't stop them from selling a ton of Android phones. Meanwhile Motorola is widely recognized but sales are abysmal.
- simplezeal 15y agoIMO that's the beauty of this arrangement. Nokia has minimal presence in US so there is no question of pissing off the carriers. This kind of arrangement is not possible with Samsung/HTC/Motorola etc.
- pedalpete 15y agoI think the article is referring to Nokia outside of their handset business. My understanding is that Nokia, Ericsson and Cisco are the big players in the infrastructure supplied to the carriers, not just the handsets. It could be in this space that Microsoft may benefit from deeper partership with Nokia. The handsets will be nice, but not a game changer for the industry.
- fleitz 15y agoEmbrace. Extend. Extinguish. I'm loving the new (old) Microsoft. Can't wait for the articles about how MS is integrating Skype into Exchange & WP7, and providing enterprises with subsidized Nokia kit.
- dstein 15y agoAt least this time around they're trying to extinguish companies that aren't innovating and actually standing in the way of further progress.
- robert_nsu 15y agoI'm a little lost on your comment. If Microsoft is embracing and extending mobile phone technology (and the carriers that provide them), how would they ever go about extinguishing something as entrenched as this?
- Geee 15y agoI think LightSquared could be a big part of the move, being built by Nokia too. Tying it with Nokia Windows phones would play current carriers out of the game.
- rodh257 15y agoI'm glad that someone has finally wrote this article. This is what I first thought when MS bought Skype - they are buying into the future of telephony. It's silly to think we'd still be using voice networks and SMS in 5-10 years time when VOIP and similar services are as widespread as they are. It's a clever move if they execute correctly.
- rodh257 15y agoI'd imagine that if it was Apple, Google or even Facebook buying Skype this sort of article would have been all over the tech press from day one, but because it was Microsoft it was labelled a stupid deal, Ballmer obviously wanted to waste some money, or Microsoft just wants a Facetime competitor (as if they need to buy Skype for something as simple as that). Perhaps that's due to their own track record but it would be good to see more thought put into articles like this one has as opposed to just writing it off or not thinking very deeply about it.
- surfingdino 15y agoSo far Microsoft has been making a lot of noises about mobile, but that alone won't change things. Their accomplishments in that area are lackluster and I don't expect them to be able to change the status quo. If they cannot force the carriers and handset makers to implement a reliable mechanism for phone software update distribution, how are they going to accomplish bigger things?
- yalogin 15y agoWhy do they have to end the reign of the mobile carriers? If they made the carriers turn into pure byte peddlers its a win. The problem in the mobile space is the carriers want to insert themselves into the application space and end up becoming annoying.
- chrislomax 15y agoInterestingly, I started writing an application for Windows Mobile 6.5 a few years ago that used IM methods of texting people. At that time SMS messages were expensive (10p a message) and I wanted to avoid these costs. It wouldn't have adopted very well though as at the time no other smart phones existed (on a large scale). I thought then that the celluar networks were antiquated and would become redundant. In saying that though I still could not find the link between Microsoft and their intentions with Skype, it's kind of obvious and equally exciting when you read this article. I really hope it does pan out as the writer suggests, the only people this hurts are the carriers really and they have stung the customer for long enough. I remember when mobiles first started, costs of making a call were 60p a minute, there were reports that the costs were so over inflated that the carrier was making around 50p a minute profit. I have no moral stance in seeing them get hurt in all of this.
- Cyndre 15y agoYou guys are thinking small. If I was microsoft this would be my plan. I would integrate it into the 360, windows 7, windows mobile, and windows tablets. Work with steam to add functionality to let you answer your phone on your comp whiel playing call of duty. Answer your home phone while playing forza 4 on your 360. All 4 devices would be able to accept calls, transfer calls inbetween themselves and all using the same phone number at the same time. Currently we take our im, facebook, email and sms everywhere we go but when it comes to phone numbers we all have 2 or 3 (cell, home, office, fax to list a few). All calls are now data, no need for a seperate fax line - your voip box checks a bit, oh its a fax, and sends it to the fax machine, or allows you to view it on your comp, phone, tablet or tv. This is just the start and don't want to write a blog, just my opinion. Looking forward to comments.