GSM Standard for WiFi and Bluetooth Compatibility

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."

Comments

Return of the ISPs?

[davejenkins]

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?

Re:Return of the ISPs?

[wfberg]

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.

Fantastic

[Icarus1919]

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.

something fishy

[Doh!]

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

Re:something fishy

[sploo22]

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.

Not in the manufacturers interest

[CdBee]

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.

Uhm...

[Freston Youseff]

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

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

Greed with prevent this.

[MROD]

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!)

In the manufacturers interest

[Yokaze]

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.

Re:I don't completely understand

[tarunthegreat2]

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...

Low power phones?

[pradeepsekar]

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!

Cisco is nearly ready to deploy this technology

[Anonymous Coward]

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

We can expect them within the year.

One rainy day

[rikkus-x]

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

It's about billing, people

[jodonoghue]

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.