Slashdot Mirror
Merging WiFi VoIP Into Cellular Service
Anonymous Coward writes "The New York Times (registration required) reports that
Motorola, Proxim and Avaya are expected to announce today that they will jointly develop technology to allow wireless communications to jump between networks without interruption.
This appears to involve making use of WiFi for phone service where it's available, thus converting WiFi hotspots into congestion relief for overloaded cellular networks, and, of course, making cell phones into WiFi terminals."
Werd to the mothafuckn grasshoppers!! w00t0t0t00tt0t00t0t0t0t
let the phonIE payper priNTing begin.
look for va.msn.?net?, ticker: (VAST)?
There's a good article over at Pajonet.com about the fun things that the folks IP Relay will say when asked. Sure it's cheap, but somewhat amusing.
Doo Doo Doo.
Dee Dee Dee.
Doo Dee Doo Dee Doooooo.
Dee Dee Dee.
Doooooooooo.
Congressman Chris Shays calls the military's anthrax vaccination program "a well-intentioned but overwrought response to the threat of anthrax." Many soldiers agree. They are more frightened of the mandatory regimen making them sick than they are of possible court martial.
Is the military's anthrax vaccination program really something to fear? Headlines like "The Pentagon's Toxic Secret" (Vanity Fair) and "Shot to Hell" (Phoenix New Times) indicate many in the media think so.
But is this just another Gulf War "toxic scare"?
Many news reports have accused the Pentagon of experimentally inserting the substance squalene in place of the usual alum in the anthrax vaccine. They claim this could explain why some Gulf War veterans suffer a range of debilitating symptoms collectively known as "Gulf War Syndrome."
A few researchers claim to be able to detect antibodies to squalene in veterans, but Pentagon officials assert that testing is pointless because squalene was never used in Gulf War vaccines. They also deny that such testing could differentiate between antibodies to naturally occurring squalene in the body and those of synthetic squalene from a vaccination. Even if squalene antibodies are found in veterans, they argue, this does not prove that squalene is responsible for Gulf War illnesses.
Some journalists have been less gullible. Newsday's award-winning science reporter, Laurie Garrett, also questioned the squalene hypotheses. She pointed out that if the researchers had "succeeded in measuring such antibodies, this would constitute the first time in the history of immunology that anti-fat antibodies have been found. Most antibodies are directed against proteins."
The Pentagon and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID) have conducted 1,749 human tests of vaccines containing squalene. According to the Government Accounting Office (GAO), no participants in any of the Pentagon or NIAID trials developed autoimmune diseases from the use of squalene. As Newsday's Garrett reports, "there's no evidence of side effects in the experimental vaccines that the military acknowledges use squalene."
The case that squalene causes "Gulf War Syndrome" is in need of hard evidence. The symptoms run the gamut of a medical dictionary, and most Gulf War veterans suffer no more than the rest of the population when it comes to specific diseases. Many U.S. veterans who complain of illness were never vaccinated or are not suffering from autoimmune diseases. Some veterans from other countries involved in the war against Iraq complain of autoimmune disease symptoms, yet they were never vaccinated against anthrax.
So many possible causes have been proffered -- exposure to chemical weapons, depleted uranium weapons, oil fires, sand mites, insecticides and stress -- for the syndrome's vast range of symptoms that finding an underlying condition or a simple explanation has proven elusive.
No reasonable scientific evidence exists to show long-term harm from the vaccine. Individual soldiers, usually not trained medical personnel, are prone to the post-hoc fallacy: "I got ill some time after I got my shots, therefore the shots must have caused my illness." Capt. Michelle Peel told 60 Minutes that "It's not a matter of what I think. My body told me that the shot was not good for me." Intuition may be a powerful motivator, but not a substitute for science.
News stories about frightened soldiers and sick veterans, like that 60 Minutes episode, evince much emotion, but obscure real scientific evidence. The force of the narrative leads readers to an unsubstantiated and sensational conclusion: the Pentagon recklessly poisoned its own soldiers.
The only tenable approach to the vaccination problem includes scientific inquiry and an intelligent risk assessment. Though even the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention admit that no vaccine is 100 percent safe, it seems an anthrax attack against our soldiers is more likely than long-term ill effects of the anthrax vaccine.
And while illnesses tied to the anthrax vaccine in the long term hover near the realm of science fiction, the detrimental effects of anthrax are grounded in science fact.
Conspiracy theories, Internet innuendo and dubious scientific research -- each by itself is easily dismissed. Unfortunately, rumors like these get passed around so much that people accept them as truth. News media have often aired such rumors untempered by skepticism. The result is a media-created echo-chamber: the belief that, although there is no evidence, the rumors must be true because the media have reported them so often.
Ignoring scientific evidence will not help any soldiers -- it will only scare them sick.
Howard Fienberg is research analyst with the Statistical Assessment Service (www.stats.org), a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to improving public understanding of scientific and social research. He has extensively researched Gulf War illnesses.
...but "wifi" is a STUPID acronym.
The proper name is 802.11b. "Wifi" is meaningless marketroid-speak. (Or in this case, slash-speak since the slashdot editors insist on spouting "wifi" at every given chance).
Better hope that they don't invent "wifi anime"...
Doesn't this mean that cellphone congestion will now lead to degraded wifi performance?
"Einstein argued that [...] God is not capricious or arbitrary. No such faith comforts the software engineer." ~ Brooks
If your business is SO important that you have to be available every fucking minute of the day, then stay at your office for chrissake and use a landline (that way you don't have to shout, you know)!
PLEASE post an interesting story, FOR FUCK'S SAKE!
I'm sure this is what telcos have seen coming and have been scared shitless of. This will prevent them from ever making UMTS into a commercial success, especially taking into account they payed far to much for licensing the (yet-to-be-used) UMTS frequencies.
I guess VoIP over WLAN won't do much to their current markets, since high bandwidth isn't an issue for voice. But it seems they've lost the battle for data even before it's started...
Or can commercial UMTS and open WLAN coexist?
With NY Times you can by pass the registration. If you would post the whole news article name in the link alls one need do is copy and paste it over into the Google news search engine and click on the link they provide. That should bring the article up without need for registering.
here
Submitters, please use news.googled links instead.
Google has more information about it.
Don't know if we already have this or not, but don't we first need a common voice protocol that is agreed upon and used by all? Kind of like something as ubiqious as TCP?
The last time I checked most of today's phones aren't even hardware compatible with most other carrier networks, and phone manufactures have resorted to having to put 3 different protocols in one phone (tri-mode, etc.). Talk about inefficient.
Wouldn't it be easier if all wireless communication just ran on one set protocol that worked over multiple frequencies? Nevermind the differences in modulation at 900 MHz, 2.4 and 5 GHz, I'm talking about a true high-level/low-level protocol here.
There is no way you're going to be able to stuff an 802.11b/a transceiver into an already high priced, low battery life phone.
If we had a set protocol for doing all things wireless, then it wouldn't be a matter of what physical network you're on, even what type of network you're using or who owns it.
That seems like what they are trying to do, but this seems a little late in the game. People just didn't realize all the wireless capacity we have right now just floating around -- the only problem is you need x device that supports x protocols and sometimes you need to purchase directly from the wireless carrier. I guess until now, when we have dozens of different standards and NOW we want to connect them all together.
The sad thing about it is if such a device were to be created that could mitigate across all these different protocols and networks, it's going to be one huge complex mess and is going to cost a fortune, when it didn't have to be. Maybe government regulation and forced standards are sometimes a GOOD thing.
"I'll just chip in a bit for RedHat: I actually have that installed on my university machine." - Linus, '95
WLAN open YOU and UMTS coexist
I'm "sick & tired" :) of registering everywhere.
Requiring registration makes a service NOT FREE . It costs you part of your information and FREEDOM
Somebody explain the guys at NYT that a registration can't be free . Of course, I'm talking free as in "free speech", "land of the free" (if that means something) and not "free beer" (not that I don't like free beer).
For the interested: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
I think we will find that WIFi is too much of a power drain in its current guise but techonologies like Bluetooth which have been designed with VOIP in mind to a certain extent should work better and allow you to make calls which last longer than 10 mins.
Cellular operators perceive WiFi as a threat, because there has been long feared that cheap, community operated wireless networks ("guerilla networks" in corporate speak) would wipe out operators own WiFi offerings. What seems to anger operators most is that the whole concept of local wireless networks is not in line with the operators' idea of monetizing every single byte transmitted over the air. Also operators feared that someone would come up with an VoIP-WLAN phone that would offer very cheap voice calls in the WLAN range. WLAN networks.
Now the impact of this new device (and system) that this partnership is going to produce depends on whether it would be oriented towards operators (and would thus require deep integration with GSM operator's infrastructure) or rather corporate customers (and would therefore be more like an software over-the-Internet VPN solution but also for voice communication). I think the first option is more likely and then the operators would be in position to control to some extent the WiFi market with local WLAN operators reduced to being just local bandwidth providers. The most important part of making this work would be the SIM card (or its equivalent) identifying the user and interfaces connecting a registry of users to authentication mechanisms of various visited networks. Most of that is what GSM operators already have.
I was wondering when that will happen. Especially with all the delays in getting 3G up and running and with the high costs of getting normal mobile telephony switches to do higher bandwidth through all kinds of tweaks and compression, it just makes sense to use a tried and tested technology. They could mountstrong wifi antennas on each current basestation and use that for multimedia phones. That will also solve the problem of a manager sending a 101x80 res video clip of his new porsche to his mother and thereby congesting all voice traffic on that cell.
I think this should be researched further and implemented.
"I used to have that really cool,funny sig
Cellphones are already cheap enough, and may get even more cheap if this 802.11 thing works.
My 15 years old cousin uses it mainly to date chicks. His phone costed him about $100 and he spends around $20 a month in calls. For the same price, you can get him anytime, and he can call, for example, if he had problems with his bike.
Get real.
"Computer users... those arrogant yuppies. If they have so much office work to do, why don't they hire a secretary?"
of sum wannabe billyunheir boyz, who sighned on the dotdead LIEn, without reading between the LIEns.
'merging' other folks efforts, into billyuns in phonIE payper, for 'investors'? what an inveNTion.
va.msn.?net? don't even bother. we think they were duped. whois going to WINd up with the saykrud kode of the forgerIE? stay tuned...., as the corepirate dinosaur "bull" rages through the hobbyist's camp (destroying it), on its way to the tarpits
You mean, like GSM and UMTS ? Nah, sure it is open, free, secure, proven, whatever, but it is NIH.
Like tinyurl, but one letter less! http://qurl.co.uk/
Seamless handoff between 802.11 and CDMA was demonstrated at the recently concluded CDMA Americas congress.
Motorola is in trouble because they are missing the 3G-boat in a big way. Their infrastructure implementations of both 1xRTT and WCDMA suck, and they are getting no orders. They have chosen not to implement 1xEV-DO. So right now, they have no data solution to offer their customers. They are coasting based on their handset sales, and their proprietary lock on Nextel. This announcement is just another tactic to muddy the waters and to buy them time from relentless competition from Nortel, Lucent and Samsung.
Magnus.What about those of us who don't have landlines period? I only have cellphone service. What about being in contact with your wife or children in public places? Not every call "in a movie theater" is bad - it's those that forget to turn off the ringer. But, if I'da had vibrate on during a movie like "Basic Instinct" - I might not have known I'd gotten any calls ;)
And why do you need profanity to make a point?
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
You might be right about WiFi, but Bluetooth? Um, Bluetooth is for _extremely_ short range inter-device communication - like, on the 10-20 foot range at the outside. I really can't see how it would be very useful as an alternative to the cellular network.
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
I was asking our phone system vendor about the availability of 900/2400Mhz DSS phones for our Meridian switch. They said they had a 900Mhz analog version for a while but that it got killed off. They said the next thing was likely to be VoIP over WiFi.
Isn't this really ineffecient and overly complicated? I can see where maybe it might be desirable in a home setting or other uncongested environment, but it strikes me as kind of inefficient both from a power consumption and component basis as well as a bandwidth basis to encode voice to data and then encode data as IP for transmission when it would be cheaper and more efficient to directly transmit the encoded voice the way your run of the mill digital phones now do.
I also wonder what it would do in any situation where a PC may suddenly decide to move 100M over the same Wifi base; is there enough congestion control and prioritization on Wifi to keep calls from dropping out or otherwise sounding like a bad cell call? Or is that merely the standard we're expected to accept?
I help out with a mom-and-pop BBS that provides dial-up access.
We're still getting new customers, and we'd like to expand into wireless. (Anyone have references on raising antennas by balloon?)
I keep seeing advances in telecom equipment, but we generally can't take part in it because it requires high-cost rented space (for DSL) or owning the landlines (cablemodem). You generally have to be a large company in order to get these things, and the largest companies are getting more and more of the market share.
For an analogy, consider what would happen if one company owned all of the cable providers in the US. Kinda like Microsoft...
Of course, the FTC isn't going to allow many of the mergers this would require, but that doesn't mean the companies aren't still absorbing small businesses and providers.
What's this Submit thingy do?
the new question:
can you ping me now?!
or add them to the list:
VoWiFi or Vo802.11 VoBluetooth
- -
VoIP
Voice over Internet Protocol
VoATM
Voice over ATM
VoFR
Voice over Frame Relay
VoDSL
Voice over DSL
VoCable
Voice over Cable
VoDAS
Voice over Data Access Station
VoD
Voice on Demand
Cell phone companies trying to screw over customers, freenets. News at 11.
They want to use 802.11 networks to "relieve congestion on cell-phone towers." In other words, "we don't like building new towers. I know, let's use the WiFi network that our customers are paying for to cheap out!" This will, of course, dramatically increase the load on the the WiFi networks, increasing the cost of commercial ones and making FreeNets more expensive to run. Your cell-phone service stays at the same price, though. This is remarkably dishonest.
Hopefully it'll backfire and people will just start using dedicated VoIP services once they realize that they're paying for the network anyway. It'll still hurt FreeNets, but at least it'll smack down the telco monopolies.
Bluetooth is no substitite for a cellular network but as for the range try 100m range i.e. 300ft as a maximum with 10m 30ft as the lower bound.
It all depends on the class of the device.
See Blue tooth specs.
or
article discussing bluetooth range.
Its pretty handy when you want to ditch cables for laptop / pda to phone connections and for in car use with a BT car kit ot head set - you can upgrade you phone without dumping the car kit for a start! Can be a pain in the ass to set up with some devices though.
"The basic idea is to converge all those different networks so that telcos that act also as ISPs don't need duplicate systems for user accounts and stuff."
The telcos don't really want your business all that bad. If they did, they would have technology that would allow xDSL to work outside a densely populated metropolitan area.
I live in one of the most populous areas of the country, in a relatively wealthy county, and since I live 5 miles from the central office, I can't get high speed internet from the phone company.
Not because it really isn't possible, but because they're so witless and slow-moving that they think its too much trouble.
Meanwhile, the *cable* company figurd it out.
What does it tell you when the cable company has better and smarter technology that you?
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
I think it's clear that someday phones will someday just be networked devices, and that the "cell phones" will be just be wireless devices that do VoIP (and probably data), and my laptop will be a wireless device that does data (and maybe VoIP too). I just feel like the abundance of standards is gonna make it happen later rather than sooner. Although even if the standards made it happen tomorrow, it will take some time for the convergence folks to bring the phones and PDAs together.
"Where quality is like a dead stinking rat - you just can't miss it."
I'm ok with my voice being xmitted over the carrier's network but this is a little disconcerting. What degree of privacy is afforded by a random public access point operated by some random individual? Isn't WiFi really a shared medium? think:WarEavesdropping. I sincerely hope this concern is being addressed.
-Jeff
Never ascribe to malice what can be adequately attributed to ignorance. -Napoleon
Nortel Networks already announced this type of program back in December 2002:
w sr eleases/2002d/12_03_02_wireless_lan.html
http://www.nortelnetworks.com/corporate/news/ne
(Safe Harbor: I work for Nortel; this is a public news release at the corporate web site).
-- Straights are for fast cars, corners are for fast drivers.
...but does that mean that the phone companies are going to use /our/ wifi points when they get congested?
I mean, in a couple of years it's concievable that we use palmpilots or ppc's with VoIP in combination with wifi to get in touch with each other (in the same kind of way that ICQ has worked....when enough people use it, it crosses a critical threshhold and becomes useable for the masses), using, I dunno: URL's or something as phonenumbers.
All it takes is one in five geeks in a city to buy a good wifi point and someone to write good switching software, and you have a free urban VoIP telephone service. Then maybe use some good geek's T1 line to connect the wifi network in that city to the internet, and you can patch multiple wifi networks together, creating a secondary, free, VoIP telephone network.
It just seems to me we need more wifi points, more PDA's and a switching protocol to get free telephony to other geeks like us....or am I making a huge mistake in my thinking?
-- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
The real utility, in regards to voice, of a scheme for handing off cell calls from a traditional cell network to a WLAN is that it will ameliorate the problem of signal loss and diminish the of multipath diveristy. With a couple of 802.11b nodes in place at the office, university, mall, grocery store, library, convention center, etc. calls won't drop anymore when walking into one of those places. In addition, since WLAN doesn't interfere with sensitive medical equipment, cell phone usage will be allowed in previously restricted areas such as hospitals.
Also, I have to agree with the previous poster who brought up the issue of power consumption by cell phones. 802.11b is no Bluetooth when it comes to power control and being lightweight. I would be really interested in seeing how they are able to get low power devices to form ad hoc (perhaps even mesh/scatter) networks.... I'm willing to bet that by the time this consortium is ready to deploy we'll be seeing some sort of next generation Bluetooth technology being used as transport instead of 802.11 seeing as how Bluetooth is now pretty much dead.
That was me earlier. by the by. What i understood the post to be about was an attempt to create mobile phones/ devices / whatever that would use the cheapest possible means at all times. Therefore when a bluetooth network is available then the phone would route the call through that and when an 802.11 connection is available it would use that. At all times the cheapest/lowest energy consumption / criteria_of_choice means of communication will be used. Obviously it ain't simple enough yet. And handovers are a huge issue. But.....
Visit IrishWan to make the world a better place.
This isn't about getting high-speed data on to your cell phone, it's about using your cell phone with your office telephony servers.
Imagine being on a conference call at your office. You tap a button on your fancy Avaya 4620 IP hard phone, and your cell phone rings. you pick up and it's your conference call, coming through IP over the 802.11 network. You continue to listen on your cell using NO 'plan' minutes at all since this is your campany's private network, until you decide to go to Taco Bell. When you drop out of range of your office WLAN, voila - automatic handoff to the cell network. You return and you're back on the 802.11 network.
The point folks, is that if we do this right, you won't even _need_ a desk phone... Unless you want one.
Think outside the... Hey, where'd the friggin' box go?
http://www.80211-planet.com/news/article.php/15694 51
Press conference was Tuesday morning
How much will they charge you for using the wireless router and broadband service you already paid for?
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
Siemens has also announced a similar idea here, and here.
I have a vested interest - I work for Siemens
Try to find the real tense of the report you are reading: Was it done, is
it being done, or is something to be done? Reports are now written in four
tenses: past tense, present tense, future tense, and pretense. Watch for
novel uses of CONGRAM (CONtractor GRAMmar), defined by the imperfect past,
the insufficient present, and the absolutely perfect future.
-- Amrom Katz
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...