Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

GSM Standard for WiFi and Bluetooth Compatibility

Posted by michael on from the roam-wasn't-built-in-a-day dept.

sjbe writes "Fourteen of the major wireless service providers have released a set of Unlicensed Mobile Access (UMA) specifications permitting operation with licenced GSM and unlicensed (WiFi/Bluetooth) spectrum. So if we're lucky we might soon be able to use a GSM cell phone through a wireless base station and experience a seemless handoff to a cellular network once out of range."

60 comments

  1. Return of the ISPs? by davejenkins · · Score: 5, Insightful

    1. Would this mean that ISPs who blanket metro areas could theoretically steal all the voice traffic currently going over cell networks?
    2. Would the ISPs have the bandwidth to carry all that?
    3. Would they want it?

    The reason I am thinking is that ATT/TimeWarner/Comcast/AOL would really like some vengeance against the cell providers, no?

    --

    davejenkins.com |

    1. Re:Return of the ISPs? by wfberg · · Score: 4, Interesting

      1. Would this mean that ISPs who blanket metro areas could theoretically steal all the voice traffic currently going over cell networks?

      If the handsets support a setting where they connect to any anonymous network automatically, then perhaps. Don't think they will though.
      Also, I don't expect there will be any provisions in the telco's standard to reimburse whoever runs the WiFi network; the most you can expect is some discount on your per minute charges, and better indoor coverage.

      2. Would the ISPs have the bandwidth to carry all that?

      A GSM voice channel runs at 9600 bps, so a one megabit SDSL connection at 1:1 (no) overbooking can carry about 100 of those. The ISPs run that sort of capacity to your home and most of your neighbors, so, no problems if they had to run a line to a basestation every 1 or 2 miles. In fact, that's what the cell networks do (though they use T1 lines rather than SDSL).

      3. Would they want it?
      No. Blanketing a metro area with WiFi is hard. Preferably, you'd want to have your own licensed spectrum so people's home (or competitors') WiFi connections don't interfere with your network.

      Also, only 3 802.11b/g channels don't overlap - you'd prefer having at least 6 non-overlapping channels to make hexagonshaped cells.

      If you go with big cells, you piss off a lot of people by causeing interference on their WiFi and your capacity is limited, if you go with small cells you have better capacity, but people with higher strength signals can drown you out, and you need a lot of base stations.

      Licensed/managed spectrum is the way to go to cover a metro area. That's not to say "companies know best" - if they licensed a hunk of spectrum to some HAMs to come up with a metro area WiFi network they'd do just as well.

      --
      SCO employee? Check out the bounty
    2. Re:Return of the ISPs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. No. In UMA all GSM related protocols are tunneled to the user's GSM operator using broadband internet connection. End point (UMA network controller UNC) is always inside operator's core GPRS network.

      This is why GSM operators like UMA. They can keep charging from services normally.

    3. Re:Return of the ISPs? by tonywong · · Score: 1

      ...you'd prefer having at least 6 non-overlapping channels to make hexagonshaped cells.

      Don't you mean 7 non-overlapping when you count the cell that the 6 cells surround?

    4. Re:Return of the ISPs? by aminorex · · Score: 1

      I think he meant 3. It only takes 3 colors to fill
      a map of hexagonal cells.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    5. Re:Return of the ISPs? by wfberg · · Score: 1

      No, actually, four should do the trick, (as in the four color theorem, my bad.
      (It's always a Good Idea to have more channels though, because you will want to split up cells in subcells that might overlap, and cells won't be perfectly hexagonal..)

      --
      SCO employee? Check out the bounty
  2. Fantastic by Icarus1919 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It used to be the internet was reliant upon the telephone systems across the US, but now it seems more and more than cell phones and telephones have come to rely on the internet to bolster their short-comings. Does anyone know, however, if we would be double charged by both the cell phone company and the wireless internet company we were using to connect to the cell company by using this service? I'd hate to see the minutes being charged both ways by the two services.

    1. Re:Fantastic by Talez · · Score: 1

      VOIPOCSD*? That would be one hell of an acronym!

      * Voice Over IP Over Circuit Switched Data

    2. Re:Fantastic by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      Huh? I'd call it a melding. Doesn't the phone network sell their back bone services to ISPs, and Internet backbone services sell some of their network services to the phone companies?

      It isn't apparent for analog lines because it is transparently converted to digital at many COs and transmitted.

  3. Damn Editors by Talez · · Score: 1

    Shouldn't that read "seamless handoff to the free network once the cell phone company goes out of range"?

    1. Re:Damn Editors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it should read "seamless...". You'd think people would check their spelling before posting to a site visited by millions of people per day.

    2. Re:Damn Editors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You live in United States or in Kongo?

      I mean, I havent heard anyone else complain about cell coverage phone coverage or asking friends which phones have good reception.

    3. Re:Damn Editors by Milhouse_ph · · Score: 1

      So if we're lucky we might soon be able to use a GSM cell phone through a wireless base station and experience a seemless handoff to a cellular network once out of range."

      I think that actually reads correctly. It means that you would be sitting at home under your WIFI cloud and if you venture to far outside your cloud, the cell phone companies network picks up your call and allows it to continue.

  4. something fishy by Doh! · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Hmmm... There's something strange about seeing "unlicensed" and "access" used in the same phrase without the word "illegal" somewhere nearby...

    1. Re:something fishy by sploo22 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Unlicensed just means that you don't need a license to operate equipment on those frequencies. It applies to WiFi, Bluetooth, and cordless phone frequencies, for example, as opposed to FM and television broadcasting.

      --
      Karma: Segmentation fault (tried to dereference a null post)
  5. Not in the manufacturers interest by CdBee · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Recently there was a kerfuffle about a cellphone which was Bluetooth compliant but which could not be used to transfer images off and on the phone, as the cellphone service provider had the ability removed.

    The reason? Allowing direct file access cannibalises the market for emailing/SMSing them to people from the phone.
    Now you expect us to believe that mobile telephone providers will make phones that can connect to peoples wifi hotspots to save the caller money?. Somehow I doubt it.

    --
    I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
    1. Re:Not in the manufacturers interest by danila · · Score: 1

      In most of the world people buy cellphones for themselves, they don't get them with the contract (in many places it's actually the other way round with the cellular contract with any major operator being thrown in for free with every new phone purchase).

      So people can choose the phone based on the features and phone manufacturers make phones to appeal to the end-users. American users just need to rebel against limitations imposed on them by telcos.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    2. Re:Not in the manufacturers interest by CdBee · · Score: 1

      Actually I'm British, I just chose to use the American terminology (cellphone for mobile') for convenience and consistency with the subject: - here, predictably, providers have chosen to follow the American model of the service provider issuing the subscriber with a handset that's locked to their own network.

      I suspect most Brits look to European phone systems with a degree of envy.

      --
      I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
    3. Re:Not in the manufacturers interest by tylenol · · Score: 1

      actually alot of phones are bluetooth friendly in that manner. my t616 does it happily infact. i also use my own mailserver to bypass charges that would be incurred with the att service. it's pleasantly robust in this manner.

    4. Re:Not in the manufacturers interest by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

      Normally no but the chinese will do it and we will buy from Ebay simple.

      There is no government agency in charge of maintaining non-compliance or backwards features.

    5. Re:Not in the manufacturers interest by mellonhead · · Score: 1


      The Motorola v710: Verizon's New Crippled Phone
      http://www.nuclearelephant.com/papers/v710.html

    6. Re:Not in the manufacturers interest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Recently there was a kerfuffle about a cellphone which was Bluetooth compliant but which could not be used to transfer images off and on the phone, as the cellphone service provider had the ability removed.

      You don't have to buy a phone off your cell provider.

    7. Re:Not in the manufacturers interest by johnmc · · Score: 1

      That provider was Verizon Wireless - they don't do GSM anyway.

      --
      -- johnmc.
    8. Re:Not in the manufacturers interest by CdBee · · Score: 1

      How sucky is that - a few hours after you posted this link here, some other /.'er got it on the mainpage as a new story. Well I appreciated it anyway....

      --
      I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
  6. Uhm... by Freston+Youseff · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... a seemless handoff to a cellular network once out of range."

    Ain't that just a tad bit of baseless wild speculation?

    --

    1. Re:Uhm... by preposterity · · Score: 1

      yes, especially if there is no base station in the place where you're heading

  7. I don't completely understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
    So if we're lucky we might soon be able to use a GSM cell phone through a wireless base station and experience a seemless handoff to a cellular network once out of range
    You mean, like using my phone at home and not having to pay for made+received calls over IP? Or is this something else?
    1. Re:I don't completely understand by tarunthegreat2 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Basically, what they're trying to say is that 2 very popular forms of wireless transmission can now work together instead of compete. Wi-Fi is big in America, where mobile phone use via GSM is lousy (compared to Europe, Asia). GSM is teh Rox for most of Asia barring South Korea/Japan and basically the de facto European standard. People love GSM because it's digital, reliable, and OPEN. People love Wi-Fi for the very same reasons. The fact these 2 techs are attempting to be bridged means there will less compatibility issues in the future...ummm..er.. at least as far as my imagination goes...

      --
      My Favourite Meme
  8. Greed with prevent this. by MROD · · Score: 4, Informative

    I can only see the merging of WiFi and GSM if hell freezes over or when the telcos can charge for both the use of the GSM part of the connection and the WiFi.

    With further thought, it will probably happen, but only for "public" access points being run by the telcos themselves allowing their slaves^H^H^H^H^H^Hcustomers to access higher speed data and possibly VoIP services when in range of their own hotspots.

    The problems of hand-over of an IP connection to a cellular network are non-trivial as well, which would make it far more likely that it will only be teleco owned and run hotspots which will be able to do this.. at a large per megabyte cost, no doubt. (Probably the same as they charge for GSM data transfer. In the UK that's about £3 a megabyte!)

    --

    Agrajag: "Oh no, not again!"
    1. Re:Greed with prevent this. by bfree · · Score: 1

      Of course if only there was a single company willing to manufacturer phones for the customers and not the networks then things could be very different (the phones would be expensive with no subsidies, but how much could you save on call charges)! Until then I expect nothing but iritation!

      --

      Never underestimate the dark side of the Source

    2. Re:Greed with prevent this. by soyuz_2 · · Score: 0

      If the wifi hardware is there, in the cellphone, and it's use is restricted enough, and expensive enough, (I hope) some embedded software developer will make the linux of the cellphone firmware world. It would have to be oss for me to trust it enough to install/burn onto a device wich I get charged for using though. It would probably be illegal too, I think your fcc and a lot of other regulating bodies would object to people being able to put whatever they want on their cellphones (think disrupting service if the software is bad enough, or listening in on other peoples conversations... whatever)

    3. Re:Greed with prevent this. by flibberdi · · Score: 1

      You are right!

      They must be really carefull not to loose any highly-billed traffic. Thats why you cant put any java app on a three (3?) phone (nec?), at least thats what I read somewhere. You could write an java app that had an conn to a server, which in turn could send you data (when any of your friends decided to send you stuff) and you would be notified. Come to think about it, there already exists irc and IM software for java mobiles. No need for expensive SMS. Apart from the battery dying after a couple of hours, it works well.

    4. Re:Greed with prevent this. by wfberg · · Score: 1

      I can only see the merging of WiFi and GSM if hell freezes over or when the telcos can charge for both the use of the GSM part of the connection and the WiFi.

      How about they charge you the same whether your calls originate from WiFi or from GSM, or perhaps a smallish discount (a few cents per minute)?

      People will still want to use the service, because they can now expand their coverage themselves, especially indoors.

      That would be very interesting for corporations that have cellphone contracts for their employees, cellphone VPNs etc. Especially if they get to handle the on-VPN traffic internally if both are on WiFi (leaving the cell operator to handle out-of-company calls).

      That would make cell companies competitors for cordless phone/PBX/VOIP products.

      --
      SCO employee? Check out the bounty
    5. Re:Greed with prevent this. by sigmoid_balance · · Score: 1

      A simple example of this working might be: when you arive in an area with WiFi, a VoIP call thru the telco server is initiated, which of course can be charged, and the voice stream is directed to the VoIP connection. The costs charged by the telco will probably be a little lower since you don't generate traffic on their cellular network, instead using only the internet for traffic. Also I don't think they need to own the hotspots you use.

  9. In the manufacturers interest by Yokaze · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It is not only in the manufacturers interest, but also in the telco's interest as the list of "14 leading wireless service providers" (Which includes mobile telco (e.g. T-Mobile US)).

    The reason: The seamless handover doesn't mean that they can't earn money for it.
    Instead of using their base-stations you will use a Bluetooth/801.11 base-station, but the traffic still has to go to their network as they route the traffic. Then they can make you a "special offer" for that service.

    --
    "Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
    1. Re:In the manufacturers interest by aminorex · · Score: 1

      Ah, this explains the why the seamless handoff issue
      is hyped far beyond its vanishingly small practical
      importance.

      What I really want is a cell that operates as a VOIP portable in WiFi areas, and as a cell elsewhere, no handoffs.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
  10. Low power phones? by pradeepsekar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It would be nice to have phones using low power when a WiFi (or equiv) signal is available indoors, and switch to high power signal to the tower, thus extending battery life even further. It would also be interesting to see if this can make a difference to the long term effect of all the high power electromagnetic radiation that we are covering ourselves with!

    1. Re:Low power phones? by the+pickle · · Score: 1

      It would also be interesting to see if this can make a difference to the long term effect of all the high power electromagnetic radiation that we are covering ourselves with! (emphasis added -ed)

      I think you meant high-frequency. The set of definitions of "high-power" wouldn't appear to include cell fone transmitters.

      But until there's some hard scientific evidence for negative medical effects of long-term exposure to RF, I'm remaining on the "RF isn't going to hurt you" side of the fence.

      p

      --
      In Korea, long hair is for old people!
  11. Cisco is nearly ready to deploy this technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Cisco's upcoming VoIP product line includes dual chip'd CSM/VoIP/WiFi phones.

    We can expect them within the year.

    1. Re:Cisco is nearly ready to deploy this technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, GSM, not CSM.

  12. One rainy day by rikkus-x · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If I could be bothered, I'd dig out the modem I have lying around somewhere and hook it up to to my computer and phone line again.

    I'd then write some software which used the bluetooth APIs to accept messages requesting that the computer makes a phone call.

    When the computer made that call, it would then use the mobile phone as the bluetooth headset for that call, routing the audio to/from the fixed phone line via the modem.

    I'd also write a Java app for my mobile phone which asks for a phone number (or lets you look one up in your phone book) - just like the phone does normally - and then sends off that bluetooth message to the computer.

    Now I'd be able to make phone calls via my fixed line while in the house, without to be bothered to reach over and pick up the fixed line handset.

    Energy saved: 12 joules /year.
    Money saved: EUR -10 /year.

    Why negative money saved? I always get charged when I used my fixed line, but I get a number of inclusive minutes on my mobile.

    Oh, I forgot, I can't access bluetooth from Java on my mobile. Sony Ericsson thought it was best, for some reason. I'm not sure if I can even access the phone book, come to think of it.

    Never mind.

    Rik

  13. WiFi carried by GSM? Uh-oh! by Barryke · · Score: 1
    "So if we're lucky we might soon be able to use a GSM cell phone through a wireless base station and experience a seemless handoff to a cellular network once out of range."
    Lets hope this isn't going to work vice versa:
    ... Use a laptop through a cellular network and experience a seemless handoff to an other WiFi network once out of range... yuk! security? ...
    Through, i can imagine advantages logging in at my home network while in the train.. :)
    --
    Hivemind harvest in progress..
  14. Good thing for E.T. by tobozo · · Score: 1

    now he's got more ways and means to phone home ...

  15. Gmail invites! by Gentlewhisper · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Added another 4.. look at my sig for details.

    Ok, what I'd really like to see is...... a VoIP phone that works with wifi! That would be the future as wireless network coverage gets better and better!

    But it is probably unlikely to happen, with the current stranglehold on the mobile industry, they will do everything they can to protect their cash cow.

    --
    Online backup with Mozy, sounds like Ozzie, but more!
  16. Not much to this.. except better coverage by nicoau · · Score: 0

    From what I can see this is just an alternative access technology (method). It will allow organizations other than telcos to provide their own access infastructure to improve mobile access where they want it. You still need to have an account with a Telco and imagine some gateway agreement to allow the UMA network controller access to the said telcos network.

    One would hope the carriers would develop some standard agreements as well. This coupled with finacial incentives and VPN could encourage companies to move away from fixed phones and start to rely completely on mobiles. VPN (Telecoms VPN but same idea as datacoms) technology allows telcos to offer full PABX style functions over mobile networks with ease. So I can see this being good for the carriers and companies who can afford to implement it.

    But not really that big a deal to the rest of us at least.

  17. Re:Greed will prevent this. by naily · · Score: 1
    Telcos have been talking about 'convergence' for years (one network for data/voice, effectively). Of course it won't be free - same way water and electricity aren't free. But hopefully it will mean that the cellular providers can reduce the data strain on their networks (piggybacking onto internet) and eventually pass the cost saving off onto the consumer.

    Let's face it folks, nothing in technology is free. But such innovations in a competitive environment will benefit us all eventually.

    --
    We all live in a state of ambitious poverty. -- Decimus Junius Juvenalis
  18. Think of it as a feature set by chia_monkey · · Score: 1

    Greed won't necessarily kill this. Think of it as an added feature set to a phone. Some people want their phones with cameras, others to be bi or tri-band phones, etc. The cell companies are realizing they could possibly lose out to Internet-based solutions. While still a bit rough around the edges, you can take your PocketPC and use it as a phone at some WiFi hotspots. As these PocketPC solutions get better, it may not be just the geeks and early adopters using hotspots to make calls on PocketPCs. So...they can add this "feature set" to the phones and charge up the wazoo to use it. If they do decide to be greedy, I'm sure there'll be some way for them to monitor when it uses a hotspot much similar to when you use your phone's web browser.

    It's similar to the argument people are having about WiFi becoming a commodity and why would companies want to set up hotspots...some organizations offer free WiFi while others charge. Some see it as a revenue-growing model while others offer it as a service to their customers (ie, hotels, cofeeshops, etc). Perhaps this will be a service also.

    --

    "He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
    1. Re:Think of it as a feature set by jodonoghue · · Score: 1

      Mod chia_monkey up, he's right.

      The whole introduction of UMA into the GSM specs was a masterful piece of politics, masterminded by.... the cellular operators.

      UMA allows cellular networks to offer new, enhanced network features to subscribers very quickly and easily, and still bill them via their cellphone accounts.

      Most newer mobile phones are entirely able to operate as modems, and WiFi (or anything else: ultra-wideband, even a good old 100Base-T Ethernet connection) *could* be built into a phone.

      If you start to think about a phone as offering a universal modem capability in the future, you're getting close. Expect to see the first combined 3G + WiFi PCMCIA cards pretty soon. The UMA box is just what you need to take advantage of such a product.

  19. Re: cell coverage phone coverage, asking friends by nusratt · · Score: 1

    "I havent heard anyone else complain about cell coverage phone coverage or asking friends"

    Then you're either not listening, or living in a very insular world.
    My spouse and I live in Fairfield County (i.e. southern-most CT) --
    just 10 miles from the I-95 corridor --
    and work in Westchester County, NY (40 minutes from NYC), just 10 minutes from I-684.
    We, and MANY people we know, get NO coverage at home or on our commute-route.
    The carrier DOES make a difference, and people with Verizon seem to do best in our area.
    ATT (our current carrier) is worst.

  20. It's about billing, people by jodonoghue · · Score: 3, Informative

    It seems like no-one has really gotten the point, so I'll try to explain.

    What's really going on here is GSM has one thing to offer to wireless technologies which many of them need: a reliable, proven billing system, supporting roaming between networks, which gives the ability to access millions of paying subscribers (who already have cellphones).

    There has been a realisation that there are somethimes reasons why it may be better to use a short-distance, but high speed technology in preference to a cellular (even 3G) based service.

    Things it probably isn't about:

    • Handover between WiFi networks (you need lots of other protocol support)
    • Handover between different cellular technology (e.g. 1x and GSM) - we already know how to do that, in theory, just no need for now (phones with 1x and GSM support are just around the corner, and work very well).

    What is it?

    What we are talking about is basically a gateway box which allows some other technology to talk to the GSM A/Gb interface, which is what connects the Base Station System (BSS) to the Mobile Switching Centre (MSC) (for voice calls) and the GPRS packet network.

    This enables a network which can speak IP to interface with a network which speaks GSM/GPRS. The data traffic goes through the GPRS core network (SGSN to GGSN to Internet), and voice traffic (e.g. VoIP) could be routed straight to the MSC, and hence to the PSTN (or Plain Old Telephone System).

    Everything which passes through a GSM/GPRS core network is subject to authentication and billing, so all of a sudden, you can have more interesting payment plans than are typical for WiFi networks - pay as you go, pay per MB, unlimited packages etc... (look at all the cellular plans out there).

    The probability is that you'll also need to start seeing SIM cards in laptops - GSM security is pretty much premised on using a SIM card (although you could get out of using one if really required.

  21. Re: cell coverage phone coverage, asking friends by TheScottishGuy · · Score: 1

    parents point was that the US si one of the few "developed" countries that doesn't have solid coverage, the Uk has pretty good coverage pretty much accross the board, obviously some of the more remote regions are at a loss, but generally the only time my reception fails is when i'm inside a building (and oftentimes not even than)

  22. Utterly inconsequential by aminorex · · Score: 1

    Who really cares about this feature?

    Either I'm at home, or in an airport or a starbucks, or Philadelphia, and I can make free VOIP calls or else I'm on the road, out of range,
    and I can't. If I'm riding downtown, I don't
    want my call to be handed off 20 times in order to save 5 minutes on a cell plan, I just want it to work. I just don't care if a call in the theatre lobby or the museum parking lot is VOIP or GSM.

    --
    -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
  23. Not for voice guys - data only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you read the spec a little deeper it seems this is only for data stream handoffs, not voice.

    The operator will also have control of where the handoff from GSM to Wifi occurs, which one assumes will be their own Wifi network. Folks will probably be able to tweak/hack this but the intent is that the telco controls the whole process.

  24. Re: cell coverage phone coverage, asking friends by Igmuth · · Score: 1

    I do have to say its a tad unfair to compare the coverage bettween UK and US. UK is a relatively small, flat island. The (overall) population density is 7-8 times that of the US.

  25. I can't see! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://shit.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/09/04/2 151245&threshold=-1&tid=193&tid=215&ti d=1

    There. That helps.

  26. British Telecom using this soon for live service by M100 · · Score: 1

    British Telecom are launching a service based on this early next year. Users will have a handset that uses both GSM and Bluetooth. Bluetooth is used when the user is at home, with the handset making VoIP calls.