Hybrid Fixed and Mobile Telephony

Iorek writes "Both Ericsson and BT have launched telephony products that erode the barriers between mobile phones and landlines. Ericsson's One Phone is a PBX system that can treat any mobile phone as an extension of the corporate phone network, while the BT Fusion handset behaves like a conventional fixed line cordless phone when it's near its base station (Bluetooth connection), and connects to the Vodafone network once it's out of range."

Comments

This is new?

[ivan256]

the BT Fusion handset behaves like a conventional fixed line cordless phone when it's near its base station [...], and connects to the [cellular] network once it's out of range

So? Panasonic made phones like that as early as 1998.

Re:This is new?

[Ethelred Unraed]

Ya. There's a hybrid product called Genion that's been available for years in Germany, since the late 90s.

Cheers,

Ethelred

Re:This is new?

[timthorn]

BT sold a DECT/GSM combo phone from Ericsson a while ago that automatically diverted calls between the numbers. This is novel in that the speech path will dynamically reroute from cellular network to landline as the phone moves in and out of coverage of the home base station. That is an impressive bit of engineering.

interesting

[rwven]

I like the idea but it would been better to use 802.11 instead of bluetooth for a little more range around the house....

Re:interesting

[dj_paulgibbs]

It does, it comes with a wireless router/modem - http://www.btfusion.bt.com/

This is just the opposite of what you want

[Anonymous Coward]

What we really need is a mobile phone that acts like a corded phone whenever it is out of range of a cell.

Re:interesting

[ImaLamer]

Hey, why not WiMax and put "cellular" companies out of business all together?

Relatively Old News

[aardwolf64]

When I had my second job at OfficeMax in 1995, we sold a 900Mhz wireless phone that turned into a cell phone once you got a certain distance away. I think it cost around $400. The only thing different between this and the "new" one is the bluetooth...

Re:Relatively Old News

[hattig]

Were they accessible on the same telephone number and could you hold a conversation with seamless switch from the home connection to the mobile connection?

Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.

It's been 4 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment

Re:Relatively Old News

[aardwolf64]

Well... no. :P

Baah!

[GillBates0]

You young 'uns and your fancy schmancy "Hybrid Telephony". Back in my day, we didn't need these teensie Mobile Telephones" with their fancy "Bluetooth connections" to talk. All we had was our strong manly voices and a favorable wind ter carry it across.

I remember the day when my old Missus had 'er first baby. I didn't go around dialling fancy numbers in any fancy telephone. Just walked up the hill, hollered for the midwife and walked back up home. No sirre, no fancy "Hybrid Telephony" for us back then, and we loved it.

Re:Baah!

[sconeu]

You had mitosis? We had to wait for something to fall into the slop and cut us in half!

Re:interesting

[Richthofen80]

Well, I think the reason is because Cellular is a technology, not a brand name, and a lot of people don't understand that. The biggest advantage Cellular technology has is the ability to seamlessly route traffic between towers, so that if someone moves from Cell A to Cell B, that the users never notice.

WiMax and other technologies don't dynamically route. So if you're downloading or calling someone, and you move out of WiMax area A, to WiMax area B, how do you disclose your new IP address to the caller? How do you tell someone left the range of WiMax A? IP technology assumes a fixed IP address; VoIP rely on that fixed IP address to route the phonecalls to your Vonage or other phone.

Cellphones quickly route and identify themselves to the network so that essentially the cellphone companies know where to send and receive calls to. To my current knowledge, no such system exists for Internet Protocol based devices like VoIP.

Will the cell network have preference?

[chargen]

Already, when I store a phone number for a different area code, I do not store it with the '1' in front so as not to make a long distance call. Conveniently when I select that number from my address book and dial it the phone company inserts a '1' in front of the number and dials it long distance as I'm out of my dialing area. This is exactly the kind of slimeball tactic phone companies are famous for.

I wonder if the phones will have a preference to revert to (assuredly more expensive) cell network if the base station signal drops below a set tolerance. I wonder if the phone companies will want suggest that that tolerance factoer will be...?

I need to get my tin foil hat resized...

-chargen

Re:Will the cell network have preference?

[Detritus]

The digit '1' is not a toll indicator in the North American Numbering Plan. Its misinterpretation as a toll indicator is a historical artifact of the way that many telephone switching systems were setup in the relay era. When you dialed '1', your local step-by-step central office handed off the call to a toll switch, which could route and connect long distance calls. In the modern world, it tells the switch to expect another 10 digits. It does not indicate a toll call. A 11-digit number can be a local call and a 7-digit or 10-digit number can be a toll call. Programming all 11 digits into a dialer ensures that the call will be completed, whether it's local or long distance.

Re:Will the cell network have preference?

[entrigant]

Perhaps not in the North America Numbering Plan, but it still is with many providers. With a land line from Bellsouth in my home town if I dial 1 + area code before I dial a local number I will be charged for a long distance call even if I am only calling next door. In fact this was the entire point of the parent post. Dialing a 1 might not mean long distance in the standard, but that isn't stopping providers from handling it in that way.

Re:interesting

[Goth Biker Babe]

What do you consider little range? My phone and my Mac stay connected throughout the house and the phone's not particularly a long range device (I use my phone to control iTunes which is played via Airtunes and an Airport express).

I bluetooth is good enough for headsets its good enough for phones, it uses less power than Wifi and so the battery will last longer, and its simpler to implement. I'm surprised that so many people from stateside don't get bluetooth.

Finally this is BT we're talking about. Their business is telecommunications. They don't want to develop something that actually competes with their service so VOIP it wont be.

It's all soooo 2003...

[Dynamoo]

BT has sunk millions of pounds into coming up with a solution which might have been really cool two years ago, but now looks dated.

Quite apart from the Motorola V560 which is beginning to look like a bit of a relic, the system itself has lots of rough edges, is extremely restrictive and looks like a product in search of a market, not the other way around.

Here's a different take on the BT Fusion / Motorola V560 / Bluephone thing. Not pretty.

Re:interesting

[jacksonj04]

VoIP it is. The service needs a BT Broadband line, and the 'hub' routes calls over VoIP.