Slashdot Mirror


Cell Phone Industry's Six Biggest Failed Schemes

adeelarshad82 writes "The tech world is for dreamers, schemers, and sometimes, scammers. Which is why it's no surprise that the cell phone industry isn't any different. In wake of the recent news about the Israeli mobile-phone firm Modu shutting its doors, mobile analyst Sascha Segan revisits six major failures in the cell phone industry, from using phones to create a peer-to-peer that would eliminate the need for wireless carriers to a company with a $225,000 phone."

163 comments

  1. Is it really too much to ask by choongiri · · Score: 5, Informative

    Is it really too much to ask the /. editors to quickly look around the page for the crud-free one-page "print" version link and post that for us all instead...

    http://www.pcmag.com/print_article2/0,1217,a=259387,00.asp?hidPrint=true

    1. Re:Is it really too much to ask by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's "social media" advertising for PCPro. Same thing goes for infoweek and other sites like those.

    2. Re:Is it really too much to ask by icebraining · · Score: 2

      Meh, in this kind of article the images are nice to have.

    3. Re:Is it really too much to ask by interkin3tic · · Score: 0

      What's the point of breaking articles up on multiple pages anyway? Simply more ads? Slightly less bandwidth for people who only read the first part? To accomodate some browser that for some reason doesn't have scroll buttons? Pagan ritual of some type?

    4. Re:Is it really too much to ask by choongiri · · Score: 5, Informative

      The *only* reason is to increase page views, and thus ad impressions.

    5. Re:Is it really too much to ask by c · · Score: 1

      I'd ask the slashdot editors to screen TFA content, too. If those are the industries "Biggest Failed Schemes", I'd say they're doing pretty well. Nothing like an "Enron" in that bunch...

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    6. Re:Is it really too much to ask by Pinckney · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd really rather if they not do that. If it becomes standard to link to the print version of articles, sites will just remove the print option entirely. As it is, we, who care, get to enjoy these articles in a relatively clean form for minimal work, and the people who don't care effectively subsidise us (thanks!) with their ad impressions.

    7. Re:Is it really too much to ask by noidentity · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Yes.

      But imagine if everyone gave links to the print version; they'd eliminate it since it allows the reader to actually read the article, rather than wade through crap. Better if it's kept as a "secret" and only used by a few people.

    8. Re:Is it really too much to ask by _KiTA_ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Is it really too much to ask the /. editors to quickly look around the page for the crud-free one-page "print" version link and post that for us all instead...

      http://www.pcmag.com/print_article2/0,1217,a=259387,00.asp?hidPrint=true

      So you'd like Slashdot to intentionally screw PCMag out of ad revenue for the (not insignificant) amount of traffic /. brings to their website, making it likely that PCMag's web gurus will block such outside linking to the print version, disable the print version outright, put themselves behind a pay filter, or go out of business (something that plug-ins like AdBlock are already working on doing)?

      Yes, no one likes ads. But to quote the snob -- "websites is expensive".

    9. Re:Is it really too much to ask by cgenman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Then have three times the ads on one page. Breaking across three pages is as much of a pain to read as those old credit-card sized pocket books were in the 90's.

    10. Re:Is it really too much to ask by aurispector · · Score: 1

      Nah, just a bunch of scammers trying to bilk their investors. Heck, the fact that some of them were issued patents means nothing seeing as how they issue patents for just about anything these days. Nothing to see here.

      --
      I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
    11. Re:Is it really too much to ask by Culture20 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What's the point of breaking articles up on multiple pages anyway? Simply more ads? Slightly less bandwidth for people who only read the first part? To accomodate some browser that for some reason doesn't have scroll buttons? Pagan ritual of some type?

      To figure out what percentage of people are interested in more than the title and summary paragraph.

    12. Re:Is it really too much to ask by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      That would be a fantastic way to have web sites eliminate the "print" version altogether.

    13. Re:Is it really too much to ask by Nikker · · Score: 0

      Phew, I won't tell anyone if you don't.

      --
      A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
    14. Re:Is it really too much to ask by arivanov · · Score: 1

      Yeah, right... An article about failed "get rich quick" schemes in the cell phone industry that fails to mention:

      1. WAP/WML and the players around it some of which had valuations exceeding the valuations of major carriers at some point.
      2. iMode outside its native Japan
      3. And the fairest of them all - IMS/PCRF/EPC and the 3G/LTE VAS model which was supposed to pay back for all those license investments. 60Bn in Germany alone with 0 payback from what was supposed to be the primary revenue generator and all revenue coming from low margin voice and cheap-as-chips data.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    15. Re:Is it really too much to ask by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 0

      Damn, got stuck in your signature for an hour there. Damn you!

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    16. Re:Is it really too much to ask by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If PCMag didn't want for people to use the ad-free print version of the page, maybe they shouldn't offer one.

      It's not as if there's no way to put media-specific rules in stylesheets, after all; you can make the same page look good in both print AND on the screen using CSS. In fact, being able to do things like that is why CSS was introduced in the first place. And if PCMag doesn't want to do that, they could still offer a print view of the page that can only be gotten by a POST request. Click the "Print This Page" button to print this page. Voila.

    17. Re:Is it really too much to ask by c · · Score: 1

      Ah, thank you. I thought it was a pretty weak list of some dipshits and their non-existing devices and/or business plans.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    18. Re:Is it really too much to ask by Compaqt · · Score: 1

      Just a note for anyone else who's tempted: Don't talk about Usenet or Fight Club either.

      --
      I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    19. Re:Is it really too much to ask by tjhart85 · · Score: 1

      Is it really too much to ask the /. editors to quickly look around the page for the crud-free one-page "print" version link and post that for us all instead...

      http://www.pcmag.com/print_article2/0,1217,a=259387,00.asp?hidPrint=true

      So you'd like Slashdot to intentionally screw PCMag out of ad revenue for the (not insignificant) amount of traffic /. brings to their website, making it likely that PCMag's web gurus will block such outside linking to the print version, disable the print version outright, put themselves behind a pay filter, or go out of business (something that plug-ins like AdBlock are already working on doing)?

      Yes, no one likes ads. But to quote the snob -- "websites is expensive".

      Then the ads shouldn't be so obtrusive. If I can't hover my mouse on the screen without an ad popping up, then it's obtrusive. If I have to scroll through half a page of ads to read the rest of the article, it's a problem.

      I have my AdBlock set to allow the google text ads. They don't get in the way & are sometimes useful.

      I do agree though, that searching for an adfree version of the page to link to will only result in the site removing that feature completely. Not a good thing for any of us. If you don't want to see the ads, either adblock or find the printable version yourself.

    20. Re:Is it really too much to ask by hcdejong · · Score: 1

      If that were the case, it would be sufficient to break the article into two pages. >2 serves no purpose other than ad revenue.

  2. 6 failed...but so many tricks that work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For one thing, the outrageous charges for text messages. Or making sure that every aspect of you using your phone gets the last little second out of you so that it takes away from your total minutes. Or not having phones that function as answering machines simultaneously as voice mail....the list goes on. They are really taking consumers for a ride.

    1. Re:6 failed...but so many tricks that work by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      And paying for text messages - I thought that stopped ca 10 years ago!

      Which only goes to show how out of touch you are, and how your attempts to be clever only reveal you as arrogant. You don't pay for text, so nobody does?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:6 failed...but so many tricks that work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Phone companies in the US are absurd. When I went there (from March to September/2006), after finally being able to get a prepaid Cingular SIM card (was forced to get a cheap S30 phone for some 30 dollars to get the SIM), I discovered I was charged to receive calls and SMSs, even when they are unwanted! I also discovered that they charged me even if the other party didn't answer the call! This is absolutely ridiculous!! Also, they charge by fixed 30s (or 60s?) periods that start in the second the phone starts ringing, so a quick "where are you-I'll call you later" call could cost you the full minute! I'd rather believe this was just a sick joke, but unfortunately it's not, and American consumers have been accepting this kind of rape for ages. Thankfully, my "third world" country doesn't allow companies to rape consumers in this way (we get way too expensive phones instead).

    3. Re:6 failed...but so many tricks that work by Jawnn · · Score: 0

      Bzzztt! Everybody pays for text messages. Maybe it's a part of your "unlimited" plan. Maybe you buy a "bucket" of messages, or maybe you just pay by the message (an thus get raped the hardest). You're still paying for something, the delivery of which costs the phone companies an infinitesimal fraction what you are paying for it. Just because you are sleeping through a violent buggering doesn't mean you are not still a fool for taking it.

    4. Re:6 failed...but so many tricks that work by GNious · · Score: 1

      I like that I'm out of touch - EVERY add on the telly, in magazines and posters say that text messages are either free, or you get 10000 (yes, ten thousand) per month .. so, in Capitalistic Europe it appears to be "free" (part of the monthly charge), but no idea how things are in Soviet-whereeveryouare.

      Now, I'll gladly concede that it is likely still costly to send text-messages in various developing countries, but last I visited one (that would be sub-sarahan, 2 years ago), everything else was pretty expensive, so people didn't specifically whine about price of text-messages.

    5. Re:6 failed...but so many tricks that work by tophermeyer · · Score: 1

      To be fair, the carrier still pays for the infrastructure to connect the call/sms to your phone whether you answer it or not. If you want to be able to receive calls you need to pay to be able to receive calls. The alternative would be to allow carriers to screen out 'unwanted' calls, but that seems like the first step down a very slippery slope.

    6. Re:6 failed...but so many tricks that work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The alternative is to have a system where only the caller pays. The callee would need to know whether a given number is mobile (and therefore more expensive to call from landlines or from a different carrier), and know that it is more expensive to call mobiles.

      Phone companies are pretty big. They surely know the fraction of the calls that usually don't get answered, so they can not charge you when you don't want their service while keeping the red out of their balances. Seriously, why can pro-consumer ideas like these work in Latin America but not in the #1 consumer society of the planet?

  3. failed schemas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    darn, i though i was about to read about failed schemas. lololol that's so not normalized

  4. Whizbang cell phone market is saturated by Dachannien · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What it really comes down to is that most of the good ideas in cell phones (a) have been done already or (b) are waiting for technologies in other areas to advance first. All those other not-so-good ideas have extremely limited appeal to the masses. Yet people and smaller companies continue their attempts to "innovate" in this marketplace, primarily because there appears at first glance to be such a huge amount of cash sloshing around in the cell phone arena. As it turns out, though, that money is pretty much locked up by the major players, so your Popeil-esque Great Idea But On A Cell Phone This Time is going nowhere.

    1. Re:Whizbang cell phone market is saturated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good ideas have either been invented already or haven't been invented yet. Wow... really insightful.

    2. Re:Whizbang cell phone market is saturated by Dachannien · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Reading comprehension FTW. I said that the good ideas were either already done or were waiting on technology in other areas to be developed first, which means you can't invent them yet. Someone will invent them eventually, but it won't be you.

    3. Re:Whizbang cell phone market is saturated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For a free market to operate at its most effective. There should be companies entering and exiting that market. It means the most efficient ones survive and the least efficient die off. It means some people will lose money in the end, but that just means that someone else just made money selling you start up supplies that you can work for now. And that is how the system works until people get the notion that companies are too big to fail.

    4. Re:Whizbang cell phone market is saturated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this comment gave me a headache.

    5. Re:Whizbang cell phone market is saturated by Ihmhi · · Score: 2

      I've always said to my friends that cell phones as a business and technology aren't really worth being used seriously until you can get worldwide unlimited everything (sans data) for $50/month. It's ridiculous that you have to pay $0.10 a minute or something to telephone granny in Scotland. We should be way past this point now, but greed and little reason for expansion has greatly slowed this down.

      Maybe one day satphones will be cheap enough (service wise) that they're a viable option. It'd be awesome to see the cell companies get hit from behind like that.

    6. Re:Whizbang cell phone market is saturated by cgenman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Cell companies are probably going to get hit by data-anywhere aggregators + VOIP plans. I loved how you could drag a Vontage phone to any country in the world, and make VOIP calls as if you were local to your city, Oklahoma.

      They'll get hit, but from in front. Just like landline phone companies have been marginalized by cellphone companies, cell companies are about to marginalized by wireless data companies.

    7. Re:Whizbang cell phone market is saturated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LMAO I modded you up mostly because of your arcane reference to "Popeil-esque Great Idea But On A Cell Phone This Time". LMAO so true though. You need big big money and a lot of clout to sell anything in the cell phone market. Shoehornjob

    8. Re:Whizbang cell phone market is saturated by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "It's ridiculous that you have to pay $0.10 a minute or something to telephone granny in Scotland."

      I recall paying $2.00/min to call the UK from Australia, that was in 1976 dollars, ie: almost one weeks wages per hour.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    9. Re:Whizbang cell phone market is saturated by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I've always said to my friends that cell phones as a business and technology aren't really worth being used seriously until you can get worldwide unlimited everything (sans data) for $50/month.

      You're approaching it the wrong way - get an unlimited data plan and put Skype on your phone, and you can talk to your granny all you want - today.

    10. Re:Whizbang cell phone market is saturated by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Cellular and Wireless are the same basic tech. Cells are Regulated Frequencies and Wireless is not. Cellular has larger range between "cells" while wireless is limited range between AP. Wireless is usually not managed well, while Cellular is (more or less).

      Other than that ... you may be right.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    11. Re:Whizbang cell phone market is saturated by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 2

      I keep wondering why someone with, for example, Vodafone UK has to pay roaming charges when calling on the Vodafone NL network. They're the same fucking company! The call itself is routed through voip for cost reasons anyway, so the cost difference can be minimised.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    12. Re:Whizbang cell phone market is saturated by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      I would, but it's cheaper for me to get 800 anytime minutes, unlimited evenings/weekends (6pm-7am), and unlimited north-american long distance (from anywhere in Canada to anywhere in Canada, the US, and Mexico).

    13. Re:Whizbang cell phone market is saturated by mcrbids · · Score: 1

      Vodaphone UK is NOT the same company as Vodaphone NL. Though it's still pretty lame that they haven't set up peering...

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    14. Re:Whizbang cell phone market is saturated by Enigma23 · · Score: 1

      I keep wondering why someone with, for example, Vodafone UK has to pay roaming charges when calling on the Vodafone NL network. They're the same fucking company! The call itself is routed through voip for cost reasons anyway, so the cost difference can be minimised.

      They're different localised parts of the same company, with each operating as a nationally bound operation in terms of funding, profit & loss and legal strictures. Yes, they are part of the same multinational group, but VF UK and VF NL are not the same company. Call to the UK when you've got a VFUK SIM roaming in the Netherlands and you will get cheaper roaming costs than on any other network in NL, however...

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une .sig
    15. Re:Whizbang cell phone market is saturated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry, once their profits aren't greater than 20% better than their last quarter, I'm sure the government will bail them out of that slump.

  5. P2P phone not a bad idea by ickleberry · · Score: 1

    If it was based on open standards and software rather than some guy's proprietary system looking for venture capitalists.

    I cant wait to see the day that scumbags like Vodafone and AT&T&T are no longer necessary

    1. Re:P2P phone not a bad idea by commlinx · · Score: 2

      Main problem I'd see with this from a practical point of view is reduced battery life. If your phone was spending a good deal of time acting as a repeater the standby time would be similar to current talk times.

    2. Re:P2P phone not a bad idea by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Interesting

      P2P would(barring some very clever design or a focus more or less exclusively on walkie-talkie use cases) likely be a poor candidate for cell phone use(lousy latency, uncertain availability, battery life of nodes...) P2P works pretty well for cheap transfers of big files; but somewhat less well for low-bandwidth, but latency sensitive, stuff.

      The system that I would like to see would be a radically free market(and thus, likely never to be seen in the cellular arena) system of phones that electronically bid for resources in real time, from carriers within range who dynamically compete for customers in real time.

      Consider a basic example: I have a cellphone with a GSM module that can see two or three carriers' towers, and a wifi module that can detect a number of access points. I open my address book, or start typing in a number. Detecting that I am going to be making a call, my phone checks the rate information being broadcast from the wireless links visible to it: it then silently routes the call out through whichever offers the lowest rate. In order to prevent surprises, the user could, of course, set "absolute ceiling", "manual verify", and "warn but continue" price thresholds within their phone's bidding engine. Towers, for their part, could dynamically adjust prices, down to the operator's set floor, in order to keep themselves busy but not over-saturated.

      Data would be handled in a similar manner: cell towers and wifi access points could broadcast their willingness to provide, and rate(at home, of course, your router would treat you as a special case of free access, to ensure that you always used the bandwidth you had already paid for, and applications requiring data could choose based on price.

      Since most people would not want to trouble themselves with the details, phones would, ideally, ship with some sensible defaults and a few heuristic rules(ie. if I almost always make long calls to contact X, and very short ones to contact Y, select a carrier for contact X based on lowest expected price for a long call, and select a carrier for contact Y based on lowest expected price for a short call). For those who did wish to dig deep and twiddle all the knobs, the tools for expressing and solving optimization problems in multiple constraints to computer systems are not exactly terra incognita. The real propellerheads could have their handsets algorithmically trading off between lower and higher power-requirement connections based on batterly life and location/time based estimates of next charge, and whatever other variables they felt like including...

    3. Re:P2P phone not a bad idea by DCFusor · · Score: 1
      Amazingly good idea, easily feasible, but that assumes free markets instead of "the best law money can buy", eh?

      Of course you've only handled the originating side of the call here - both sides need handled.

      This tech solution would develop quite rapidly if we solved the social problem, first.

      --
      Why guess when you can know? Measure!
    4. Re:P2P phone not a bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ---this is really quite good, well thought out.

        The cellphone companies would hate it, they prefer the cartel model. Ever notice how close they are in prices? I guess that applies to most modern business, they only half compete with each other.

    5. Re:P2P phone not a bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I forgot to mention; but it bears mentioning: there is an implicit tradeoff here between security/reliability and cost: If my phone only considers offers from major telcos, I'm unlikely to get the best prices; but I can be fairly confident that only the feds are listening in. If my phone accepts bids from an SSID of "joe's WAP 'n SIP", I am likely to enjoy excellent rates; but the odds of being MiTMed by some malicious prankster go up.

      The solution(assuming that there isn't some super clever one that my limited crypto-fu isn't making apparent to me) presumably would be to treat the "sensible defaults" roughly the way we treat trusted certificate authorities: People whose eyes would glaze over if they heard those terms get a more-or-less-safe-but-not-too-limiting set, enthusiasts can do whatever they want, and corporate gear gets set to trust the intranet's cert.

      For the propellerhead set, the idea of arranging for an encrypted tunnel to their preferred proxy host/SIP provider will be no big deal, so they can deal with the untrusted channel. For those less enthusiastic, the defaults will either have to include only reasonably trustworthy channels or automated secure tunneling.

      The most interesting possibility, now that so many phones speak wi-fi, is that of a Fonera-esque scenario where individual broadband subscribers could(altruistically or to make a few bucks on bandwidth they aren't using at the moment) have their router automatically offering data access to passing cellphones at the most-profitable rate within a user-set range.

    6. Re:P2P phone not a bad idea by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm guessing that it would go over about as well as poor old "cablecard", which was largely murdered in the cradle despite being far less radical.(Or, for that matter, if SIM unlocking is too scary for them, this idea would have them shitting bricks, since it amounts to phones that automatically swap SIMs every second or so, depending on price...)

      In theory, though, there would be nothing preventing "traditional" style cellphone contracts(other than cheaper competition potentially making them foolish).

      I deliberately modeled the notion on that of electronic market trading, in which context a traditional cell contract would be, in essence, a "minutes/SMS/data option contract". Instead of buying my minutes at the market price where and when I need them, I purchase an "option" on X minutes, Y SMSes and Z megabytes to be delivered in the following month, at a set rate(presumably for a discount over the expected spot prices).

      Again, having to have a finance degree just to make a phone call won't really appeal to most people, so I would invoke the "sane defaults" notion and hope for the best; but the explicit parallels to common financial instruments, along with automated transaction engines, open up some fascinating possibilities for enthusiasts(as well as, in theory, helping networks cope with congestion: heavily congested regions would be more expensive for spot-price users, encouraging them to moderate usage; but they would also be most profitable for local wifi operators, temporary telco cell trucks, etc. to set up shop...)

    7. Re:P2P phone not a bad idea by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      It seems like a huge number of potentially interesting technical solutions have a messy social problem sitting in their way.

      In wonder if that is the real reason why engineers are statistically more likely to be driven to extremism? All those elegant systems, and models, and protocols, being sacrificed on the altar of shareholder value by besuited simians...

    8. Re:P2P phone not a bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would you ever want to make an unencrypted phone call? If you are going to handle the tech to get the payment right, include some sane security. Of course, techniques for hiding _who_ you are talking to tend to have unacceptable latency for a voice call, so if you want to hide that from random people your methods may still make sense.

    9. Re:P2P phone not a bad idea by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 1

      Unless you've got some magical routing protocol up your sleeve, yes it is a bad idea.

      --
      Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
    10. Re:P2P phone not a bad idea by complete+loony · · Score: 1

      While Peep Wireless seems to be a scam, Serval's Batphone shows some promise. Their working prototype was a port/hack of asterisk, batmand, sipdroid and their own Distributed Numbering Architecture software all running on an Android phone. Also all their source code has been released under the GPL.

      --
      09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
    11. Re:P2P phone not a bad idea by ami.one · · Score: 2

      Maybe, the chinese phones with 3 SIM slots can be used to do such a thing without requiring the networks to decide. These phones have 2/3 radios & sim slots - they all work simultaneously - you can receive any call from all 2/3 nos and set a preference or select one while dialing out. People have 2 or 3 sim card phones and select which no to use to dial out depending on tariff etc. Quite common in India/China/etc Though i personally never liked having 2/3 nos or worrying so much about call charges, but yes, i would be interested in using data in such a way.

    12. Re:P2P phone not a bad idea by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

      That is a really, really, REALLY bad idea for anyplace where the population densities are not very large. Areas where there are not a lot of people aren't going to be very lucrative for cell phone companies. So what you will end up having is deals where company A pays companies B and C what they would expect to earn for area X and now the people in area X can ONLY use company A and this gives company A huge leverage when it comes to fees. So what you will end up doing is saving money for people that live in huge cities(where it may not be very popular since you give up predictability) at the expense of everyone else. The cell phone companies that you decry would actually probably end up making out like bandits. So yeah, thats just a really bad idea.

    13. Re:P2P phone not a bad idea by mlts · · Score: 2

      I'd love to see that technology become common in the US for a completely different reason, and that is to separate work data and home data. Combine this with virtualization, and this would be great for people who use their devices for work and home stuff. Leave a job and the IT staff sends a self-destruct signal? It only gets rid of the work based VM.

      Done right, it can be made decently secure as well.

      Of course, having the ability to switch SIMs for one machine is cool too, not just for cheap call rates. Say provider "A" is 4G but has a pathetic limit, provider "B" has 4G, but charges fees after a gig or two, and provider "C" is 3G, but is unlimited. The phone can use provider "A" until the bandwidth is exhausted, switch to provider "B", then to "C", until the month resets and "A" is useful again. Add QoS so important traffic (E-mail) goes over one link and other stuff goes over another, and this would be a very good thing (tm) to have.

      Even more ironic -- the providers in Asia use R/UIM cards, which are functionally identical in size and shape to SIM cards, but are for CDMA networks. Combine this with a radio that handles CDMA and GSM, and even the US's big divide between providers can be bridged to allow one device to work anywhere. Hopefully everyone adapting LTE will make the need for SIM versus R/UIM cards not needed, but who knows. I'm afraid the CDMA providers won't use SIM technology when LTE comes online, so even if a device is LTE based, a provider can just say no when a customer calls and begs for it to be activated.

    14. Re:P2P phone not a bad idea by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      The problem with your idea is that the data is actually very cheap. If you just want data transfer, you can get it for almost nothing - especially over the WiFi. When you make a mobile phone call, you pay for two things. One is a set of jitter and latency guarantees, the other is the call termination. It costs me about the same amount to call a mobile phone from my mobile as it does via WiFi/SIP on my phone, because the data cost is almost nothing, the termination (routing to POTS) cost is all of it.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    15. Re:P2P phone not a bad idea by jambox · · Score: 1

      >> P2P would(barring some very clever design or a focus more or less exclusively on walkie-talkie use cases) likely be a poor candidate for cell phone use)

      Well I'm no expert but there are live video streaming protocols using P2P such as SOPcast; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P2PTV. Works well; the more people watching, the better the stream :).

      Wouldn't that sort of thing work for mobile phones?

      --
      You thought you could break the laws of physics without paying the PRICE?
    16. Re:P2P phone not a bad idea by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      Can hope that LTE gets delayed enough, then... in Canada, the two big CDMA networks have begun implementing an HSDPA+ network, and are selling phones that support CDMA *and* HSDPA+. I bought my current phone outright from Telus (CDMA/HSDPA), unlocked it, and put my Rogers SIM card in it (they're GSM/HSDPA only... it's a better phone than anything they had). When/if I switch to Telus or to Bell, I can simply put one of their SIM cards in the phone.

      It doesn't do anything to address the crappy plans that're available, but at least it does help with network portability. :)

    17. Re:P2P phone not a bad idea by ePhil_One · · Score: 1

      Unless you've got some magical routing protocol up your sleeve, yes it is a bad idea.

      The way I understood it, you basically piggbacked on top of the existing infrastructure. So I set a base station up in my house connected to the internet, and so did you. When I was at home, my phone used my station direct to any endpoint I wanted, when I was near your house, it used your station direct to any endpoint. If I wasn't near any, it didn't work. Works in theory if you get enough users, but who covers highways, restaurants, and office buildings? Dropping cell rates have really undercut the market for this, spotty service makes sense when you are unlimited for $20/month vs 400 minutes for $80, why put up with the spotty unreliable nature to save $20/month over today's "good enough" plans? Trying to bounce calls handset to handset would be a mess, but the overlay model is simple and effective in most situations.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisted little posts, all alike.
    18. Re:P2P phone not a bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very cool idea. However, the scarce resource in this scenario is the wireless spectrum, not the downlink from the towers / routers. Wires have much higher bandwidth in general. So the access points (i'm including cell towers in the set of AP's) wouldn't ever become "saturated". Or if they did, it would be the wireless spectrum that was saturated, meaning they all become saturated simultaneously.

      Your economic argument (free market) is based on the wrong value of Supply.

    19. Re:P2P phone not a bad idea by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      My thinking was that, in any given area, there are going to be multiple players on multiple distinct bands of spectrum. The overall supply of usable RF is, indeed, pretty much a hard cap; but there are different players with different slices(and different bands propagate differently, in addition to any clever directional antenna widgetry...)

      Overall specrum is, indeed, a lousy Supply variable; but with devices that have support for multiple bands(which seems to be the trend) moving between usable bands based on "supply" at each band seems plausible enough.

    20. Re:P2P phone not a bad idea by DCFusor · · Score: 1

      Amen. I helped develop the first VOIP applications and hardware, and for internal use (say inside a large corp building) we did it essentially P2P, in the sense that the "phone directory" was built up without a central server, dynamically. It was pretty cool, but the CEO we developed this for put the snuff on the idea for larger area use -- no way to get in the middle and rape people for the directory service.

      --
      Why guess when you can know? Measure!
  6. 10c text messages by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You'd think when they charge you 10c per text message, that'd be something people reject. Especially when any random stranger can send you spam which you have to pay for.

    1. Re:10c text messages by timeOday · · Score: 1
      I'm truly surprised nobody has launched an ad-supported (they would call it "free") texting-only service. Probably the most expensive-per-byte plan out there is AT&T's $15/mo plan which has only 200 MB/mo. But assuming a text averages 200 bytes, that would be 1,000,000 texts. So if an ad-supported user sent 1000 texts per month, you'd only have to collect 1.5 cents from advertisers to recoup bandwidth at the same price per byte. Somewhat more if you wanted to subsidize the cost of the phone. But you would also make money by charging by the minute for voice calls.

      I realize all the excitement right now is around high-end phones that do everything, but I'm going to have 4 teenagers over the next 10 years and would like a barebones way to let them all have a phone (or at least texting) without paying monthly fees. For that matter I would toss my tracfone for that because I only average a couple calls and a handful of texts per month.

    2. Re:10c text messages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm always amazed to hear you have to pay to receive messages in some parts of the world (America?)

    3. Re:10c text messages by boreddotter · · Score: 1

      You have to pay for stuff you receive?!

    4. Re:10c text messages by Peeteriz · · Score: 1

      Find a way to get to some actual free market competition somehow. Here in Europe there are offers for unlimited plans at 15-20 US dollars/month, but I don't talk that much, and easily get average bills of something like 8 USD/month.

      There is no reason to charge 10c for a text message - I just saw here an ad targeted at teens on cheap/limited mobile plans, offering to subscribe to unlimited free SMS at something like 2 USD/month, and teens being teens, they'll probably send a thousand SMS for that.

    5. Re:10c text messages by Cwix · · Score: 1

      Yep, calls and txts. (Unless otherwise stated in the plan, usually it costs extra to have free incoming)

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    6. Re:10c text messages by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Yet another reason to hate Australia's Testra. They sent out a lot of spam SMS's about Telstra services to Telstra customers and the customers had to pay a few cents to Telstra for every one of those spam they received. The government stepped in and forced a refund after this had gone on for a while which upset Sol Trujillo (the bandit running Testra). Watch out Americans, Sol Trujillo is back in the USA and will be pulling scams like that on you if he can.
      There has also been a bit of multimedia message spam which people have to pay even more for. I have that type of message blocked entirely for that reason so only get plain text.

    7. Re:10c text messages by tkprit · · Score: 1

      between now and then a lot will change, but NOW... if your kid(s) have an ipod touch (not phone just touch)

      (and believe me w/ iPhone coming out on other carriers, my kids are looking to pawn off their Touches for like a buck!)

      iPod Touches can already sms text like that with free applets (text free, textnow, etc), all they need is wifi and the Touch. (And again, I strongly believe that as kids dump their iPod Touches PLUS cell phone for just an iPhone, the iPod Touches will decrease in value rapidly. jmho.)

    8. Re:10c text messages by flatt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You'd think when they charge you 10c per text message, that'd be something people reject. Especially when any random stranger can send you spam which you have to pay for.

      I believe the ridiculous rates for texting are proof that there is collusion in this market. Something with such little overhead (essentially none) should not be able to sustain such a high cost if there is adequate competition. I think people would reject it, if they had a choice.

    9. Re:10c text messages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know iPod touch/iPhone can also use Google Voice to do SMS. This works to/from US numbers from anywhere in the world. I use it to keep in touch with my friends in the US for free, even though I am in Japan. God only knows what it would cost me if I actually paid SoftBank and did it via "real" carrier SMS.

    10. Re:10c text messages by Frankie70 · · Score: 1

      This seems to be a US-Specific thing. I don't think one has to pay for incoming text messages in most other countries.

    11. Re:10c text messages by dafing · · Score: 2

      You're quite right, surely the US has the worst communications tech in the developed world?

      I bought my first, Original iPhone (not sold in New Zealand) Jailbroken, for about 600 USD in full. I ran it on prepay, since I rarely use my phones for calls and txt messages, it would cost me....5-15 dollars a month New Zealand, lets say 10 US a month.

      My iPhone 4, bought here was just under 1000 USD, it is mine, I own it. Like basically all iPhones around the world, as in outside the USA, it runs on any GSM network, "unlocked", it tethers, any bloody thing I want, and again, still costs me about 10 US a month in charges, mostly 3G data now, which I buy in 50MB segments, about 4 USD for 50MB. Damn expensive compared to home internet, but I want to help our third, new small Carrier out, against the Telecom NZ/Vodafone NZ duopoly.

      Voda are the "official launch carrier" in NZ, I bought my iPhone 4 from Apple, it took FOUR WEEKS to get here on launch shipping, now they are overnight delivery I believe. Vodafone wanted me to buy one on a two year contract, FRIG THAT! I waited, and picked up a 2 Degrees Micro Sim from a neighbourhood electronics chain.... only the iPad and iPhone 4 used it, NEITHER were out in NZ at the time (!), but they were EARLY for demand. Imagine that, an upstart company that really bends over backwards to help get new customers!

      If I didnt want to help out 2 Degrees, I can flick the SIM out, throw it in the trash, and throw in a new one. BOOM.

      This is how shit is MEANT to work, its Twenty Ten forgodsake!

      The more I hear about the US situation, the more pity I have for my US friends.

      --
      --- ...or a new slashdot signature. Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
    12. Re:10c text messages by jeff4747 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Text messages aren't sent over the data channel.

      Oversimplified version: Text messages are embedded in normal GSM packets. Most of these packets are essentially "are you there" messages and are sent frequently between the device and the tower. "Are you there" doesn't fill an entire packet. So cell phone companies came up with SMS to fill the rest of the packet. SMS is essentially free for the cellular providers to handle because it's using part of the timeslice that would otherwise go to waste.

      So you won't need to worry about wireless bandwidth costs. If the device can attach to a cell tower, it's got all the bandwidth it needs for SMS.

    13. Re:10c text messages by bennomatic · · Score: 1

      This is one reason I use Google Voice on my iPhone. When people text me, I get a notification via the GVoice app, and the text never comes to my phone's SMS setup. Google voice isn't the only such option, but it's the only one I know of which provides me with a phone number people can call as well and reach me on my mobile or land line.

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
    14. Re:10c text messages by sjwt · · Score: 1

      The problem was not spam SMS's, they cost the receiver nothing, it was spam voice mail messages. You pay to access your voice mail, and receive SMSs for free.

      --
      You have 5 Moderator Points!
      Which Helpless Linux zealot/MS basher do you want to mod down today?
    15. Re:10c text messages by dbIII · · Score: 1

      At one point Telstra was charging the recipient of SMS. During that time they sent advertising messages to all of their mobile customers and all of them were charged. Since then the charging policy has changed, most likely because they eventually ended up with some competition in the mobile market.
      That's how evil a monopoly like Telstra was - they charged twice for every SMS.

    16. Re:10c text messages by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      I'm truly surprised nobody has launched an ad-supported (they would call it "free") texting-only service.

      To be followed by SMS based broadband data where advertisements are filtered as noise at layer 1.

    17. Re:10c text messages by he-sk · · Score: 1

      Especially when any random stranger can send you spam which you have to pay for.

      Only in the US.

      When SMS came out they were free for the sender and the receiver. The CCC basically ran a data-push service in Berlin on top of it which was so popular it sometimes crashed the carrier networks.

      Only after the carriers realized the true potential of the technology did they start charging the senders. How American consumers put up with being charged at the receiving end is a complete mystery to me.

      --
      Free Manning, jail Obama.
    18. Re:10c text messages by kyz · · Score: 2

      Sorry, the oversimplified version is confusing and misleading.

      Text messages aren't sent as an extension to messages that would've been sent anyway. They're sent in contention with very important messages like "you have someone calling you", and if not carefully managed can overwhelm the capacity of the cell tower.

      A cell tower's connection to the hard-wired telephone network has one "control channel" and multiple data/voice channels.

      SMSes go on this control channel.

      This one control channel is shared by everybody in the same cell as you. It carries important messages like "there's a phone call from +1234567890 incoming" or "user +1111111111 wants to call +1234567890".

      The control channel has 64kbit/s of bandwidth available and has promises to deliver messages without delay and in order. It's an expensive way to send data compared to internet data routers (which don't promise to deliver anything or in any order).

      So sure, back when signalling channels were mostly empty, people thought "why not put text messages on them". They now rue their decision and text messages' massive popularity overwhelms a signalling channel not really designed for them.

      --
      Does my bum look big in this?
    19. Re:10c text messages by realityimpaired · · Score: 2

      They do it in Canada, too. $0.15 per incoming text, with most carriers. You pay extra to add text packages.

      It's not *quite* as bad as that, though... most voicemail/call display packages include a small number of text messages. 100/month is more than enough texts to cover accidental texts, and messages from people who don't realize you pay for texts. Upgrading from the entry-level plan to the next step up gets you 1000 texts/month, which is more than enough for most users. Additionally, most non-entry level plans will get you included texts as well.

      With some carriers, about $50-$75/mo will get you unlimited north american long distance with unlimited data. With the big providers, that'll cost you about $125/mo at a minimum (unless you threaten to cancel... Rogers lowered my bill to $75/mo when I threatened to go to Wind... :P that gets me 400 anytime minutes, unlimited evenings/weekends from 6pm-7am, 500mb data, unlimited north american LD, texting, call display, call waiting, voicemail, etc., and better coverage than I'd get with the smaller players... important, because I live in the sticks.)

      Mobile service is still disgustingly overpriced in NA when you compare it to what's available in Europe and Asia, but from what I understand, it's much worse in the USA. :(

    20. Re:10c text messages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      True and not true. Yes, this is how GSM SMS works. Then the carriers noted they made tens of millions in revenue on SMS, which obviously lead to concerns on the sustained growth of this business. So, by the time GPRS was designed, SMS no longer was an afterthought but a prime source of revenue. And starting from the GRPS standards, SMS can be sent via the data channel too. And there it does compete with other packet-based services such as IP. That's not free, obviously, but the SMS prices could be in line with the IP prices and still remain profitable.

    21. Re:10c text messages by timeOday · · Score: 1

      So sure, back when signalling channels were mostly empty, people thought "why not put text messages on them". They now rue their decision and text messages' massive popularity overwhelms a signalling channel not really designed for them.

      There's no reason the messages in my hypothetical service would have to be true SMS messages. I think making SMS separate from email (in the manner you described) is just a holdover from the early days when cell networks were designed mainly to carry voice. It seems the obvious solution is to start using the data channel now and give people real email, with a suitably streamlined UI to make it similar to SMS.

    22. Re:10c text messages by wwphx · · Score: 1

      ...any random stranger can send you spam which you have to pay for.

      Which is why all text messages, incoming and outgoing, are explicitly blocked on my phone. I got a new phone, new provider, new number in November and immediately started receiving text messages from people whom I did not know and did not want to know. I finally had the carrier totally block them, it rather annoyed me that I had to call them when I thought I was sufficiently clear when we signed up that I did not want any text messages.

      --
      When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.
    23. Re:10c text messages by Enigma23 · · Score: 1

      I'm always amazed to hear you have to pay to receive messages in some parts of the world (America?)

      Realistically, you pay for receiving texts in every country, but you just pay for them in indirect ways, wrapped up in the cost of your line rental or how much it costs you to send and SMS instead...

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une .sig
    24. Re:10c text messages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They do have a choice. Most people pay the extra 5 dollars a month for unlimited texting. That's why most normal people don't care about 10c per text message.

    25. Re:10c text messages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its Twenty Eleven

    26. Re:10c text messages by macsforme · · Score: 1

      The iPhone has a free ad-supported texting app... http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/textfree-unlimited-send-text/id305925151?mt=8

    27. Re:10c text messages by meloneg · · Score: 1

      teens being teens, they'll probably send a thousand SMS for that.

      Don't have much experience with teens, do you? My 15-year-old is considered a moderate texter in her circle. 4K+ every month. My nephew (now a young 20-something) hovers closer to 14k.

  7. Iridium by Z8 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They missed one of the biggest failures of all, Motorola's attempt to build a global satellite-based network. It cost the company over $5 billion USD. Some more details here.

    1. Re:Iridium by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Iridium was a total clusterfuck for Motorola, who basically ended up paying many of the capital costs and then having to write off the whole thing.

      On the other hand, the (definitely in no way whatsoever US clandestine services connected, just like everybody else in McLean, Virginia...) group of private investors who snapped up a fully functional constellation for $25 million have been doing just fine with it.

      The moral of the story seems to be that there is absolutely no way that satellite phones can(in the face of cheap terrestrial calls) justify their startup costs; but if some sucker eats those for you in bankruptcy, it is a perfectly viable business....

    2. Re:Iridium by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      ...snapped up a fully functional constellation for $25 million have been doing just fine with it.

      It's a trap?

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    3. Re:Iridium by UnknowingFool · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Iridium was one of those projects that was a good idea in the beginning; however, by the time it came to launching it, nobody at the top had noticed that circumstances had changed. The idea was begun way back in the 1970s when a vacationing Motorola engineer wanted to make a call from the beach in the Caribbean. The thought occurred to him that he could use satellites to do it. The technology wasn't really ready but over the next few decades, Motorola worked on it in tandem with other technologies.

      By the time, the technology was ready, Motorola had worked hard on getting the necessary logistics of launching a satellite network. However, since the original idea, cellular phones were beginning to partially fulfill the need for communications. Now a cell phone can't go everywhere like the sat phone was intended, but it can be used in places most people will be, like in cities. In its estimation, Motorola (whose products helped launched the cell phone industry) badly miscalculated the numbers of customers that would have need for a sat phone compared to a cell phone. I think one place that they expected higher demand was Africa. However, in Africa, cell phones actually outnumber landlines because they are in fact cheaper than landlines to operate and build. The local populations buy mostly prepaid phones but only in the remotest parts would they need a sat phone. However, few can afford the nearly $1000 USD just for the phone itself.

      The problem wasn't that someone at the top should have recognized the situation had changed and that spending a few billion dollars or so when there were going to be few customers was foolhardy. I think part of it was that Motorola didn't know when to cut losses but went ahead anyway.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    4. Re:Iridium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I was a Motorola engineer for 10 years (and a consultant for things related to them and Freescale ever since) and got to enjoy some involvement in Iridium. Hopefully I am remembering this ancient history correctly.

      It did not cost Motorola $5B USD. One of the things the Wikipedia article leaves out was all the foreign investment involved (Saudi Arabia had almost as much money invested into Iridium, IIR the Powerpoint presentation correctly) leaving Motorola's contribution/investment at about $400K USD with a total exposure of probably $1B, but they got most (if not all) of that back by paying themselves the other investors money for the design work. No-lose contracts are a nice way to do business if you can get someone to sign from the other side. The .pdf you linked to has some good historical information, but also some glaring errors which I am not in the mood to fisk.

      That said, Iridium SSC was a SNAFU from the start, as anyone looking at the map of world wide cellular coverage in 1997/98 should have been able to see. Since there are no records of the skepticism I put forth much earlier than that, I won't bring it up further. Of course, Motorola in 1994 still thought that analog cellular was the only way forward and was in the process of completely mismanaging the conversion to digital, so it isn't that surprising that the higher up execs missed it. The phoenix that arose from the ashes to enable the South Pole to get 28.8 kbaud and US DOD operators to be able to phone home without having to lug around 3-4 kg of satellite equipment is something I applaud the US bankruptcy laws for. Stupid money and big dreams can have good endings for someone. I will forever wonder how the US automotive industry would have fared if those same laws had not been interfered with.

      I was invited to sit in on one of the early presentations right when they made the decision to reduce from 77 satellites to 66. The presenter's manager didn't much care for my smart ass suggestion they rename the project Dysprosium (I doubt he ever had the geek cred to read /., but if he is reading this- HI!). I was also the guy who previously explained to them why the PowerPC 603 was a horrible CPU to use for a satellite and the guy who helped them redesign around the PPC604 after the managers woke up to just how important it is to have at least SOME level of cache checksums in hardware (a pretty reasonable requirement for anything floating around the earth, and which was why my coworkers and I were invited to the presentation). But it was a great joy to spend time at their design facilities right next to a dairy farm south of Phoenix. Fragrant.

    5. Re:Iridium by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      However, in Africa, cell phones actually outnumber landlines because they are in fact cheaper than landlines to operate and build.

      Translation: if you lay copper, thieves will steal it within a month.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    6. Re:Iridium by dafing · · Score: 1

      Funny you mention the nearly 1K USD price, ha, my iPhone 4 cost me that here in New Zealand, I own it outright, which would any SANE person rather have, some bulky hunk of crap Sat phone, that talks back to Satellites, or, the iPhone 4, which can LISTEN to Satellites via GPS, oh, as well as having that marvellous build quality, thin, touch screen with INSANELY GREAT resolution, dual cameras, App Store...

      Nice one Motorola!

      --
      --- ...or a new slashdot signature. Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
    7. Re:Iridium by nohear_t · · Score: 2

      Iridium hardware was big and bulky to say the least.  However, looking past it's failure Motorola did one thing that many people over look.  They managed to stick to a schedule and launch satellites into orbit across multiple launch sites in different countries using three companies.  They launched 66 satellites (plus 6 spares) in over 12 months which is VERY impressive with a 15/15 launch success rate.  Motorola proved it was possible to launch that many satellites and hit their targets at less than $5 million per unit built every 5 days. Motorola had it down to an art.  The fees to use it were outrageous and the primary clients at the time seemed to be military and the few who had really deep pockets.  The way the satellites communicated to each other was a ingenious design too, using special arrays to maintain links with its closest neighbors.  The network as a whole was impressive.  It's demise was the price.

    8. Re:Iridium by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      Didn't the government foot the bill for that fiasco? If I'm thinking of the same failed satellite network, they sent a bill to the US government stating they didn't have to resources to pay for the satellites and would abandon them unless the government bought them. And, I'm pretty sure we did at a reduced rate.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    9. Re:Iridium by socsoc · · Score: 1

      Why would a story about cell phone failures have any mention of sat phones? That's being saved for the sat phone story.

    10. Re:Iridium by SpazmodeusG · · Score: 1

      Check out GlobalStar. A much greater fuck-up than Iridium. Their low orbit satellites started failing in 2007 which was after they were already bankrupt and sold off. They sell their phones with pamphlets stating "times you can use you phone in your area".

    11. Re:Iridium by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      How do you think the cellphone towers are interconnected?

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    12. Re:Iridium by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Satellite links.

    13. Re:Iridium by he-sk · · Score: 1

      Hi-bandwidth directional wireless links? Like everywhere else?

      --
      Free Manning, jail Obama.
    14. Re:Iridium by bruce_the_loon · · Score: 1

      Fiber and multi-gigabit microwave point-to-point links

      --
      Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
    15. Re:Iridium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Motorola also expected high usage by travelers in Europe because each country had it's own cell standard. GSM pretty much killed that market for them.

    16. Re:Iridium by fmoliveira · · Score: 1

      Where I live there is a serious problem with copper thieves, but the phone lines were never touched, I'm not sure why. Cell phones are seem as cheaper only because they can be pre-paid, so you can simply stop paying if you're short on money. But a land-line to land-line call is 1/20 the price of a cell call.

    17. Re:Iridium by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      True but the upfront costs of installation of a land-line are much prohibitive for most of the populations in Africa. That combined with regular monthly costs means that prepaid just makes much more sense in most cases.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    18. Re:Iridium by BetterSense · · Score: 2

      This sounds similar to Kodak's failure to understand how quickly and universally digital imaging would catch on. In the late 20th century they were consolidating their production lines and coming up with ever-smaller film formats because they imagined that the market for film would explode in the developing world countries. They couldn't imagine that digital cameras would become cheap (or free, with cellphone) and that everyone would have a PC to take advantage of digital images. Thus Kodak completely missed the boat on digital cameras, being swamped by Asian invasion, and their film manufacturing business, instead of becoming more scalable and more flexible, became the opposite--geared toward massive production for demand that is no longer there.

    19. Re:Iridium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We paid $25 million for a satellite constellation that cost Motorola $5 billion to launch.

      That's like your neighbor buying a new Ferrari, going bankrupt, and selling it to you for $1000. It was a fiasco, sure, but not for the government.

    20. Re:Iridium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is failure? It is demise? Why is it so hard to use the apostrophe?

    21. Re:Iridium by ePhil_One · · Score: 1

      The problem wasn't that someone at the top should have recognized the situation had changed and that spending a few billion dollars or so when there were going to be few customers was foolhardy. I think part of it was that Motorola didn't know when to cut losses but went ahead anyway.

      When launched, 1997, the situation was quite different from today. You are arguing that they should have forseen the rapid pace of the cell phone industry. There was a market then, there still is a market today, and understand the decision they faced in 1997 wasn't "spend billions developing and building a global satellite phone network", it was lanch the satellites for the gobal satellite network we already designed and built for a hundred million or so or walk away from the project.Seeing as the network is still in place and they are planning to launch more satellites, sounds like it was the right decision. Problem was Motorola chose to recoup its costs at the expense of its partners by charging high service fees to maintain the network, possibly intentionally bankrupting the original Iridium organization to lose the debt from the balance sheet.

      There are still lots of times/places the Iridium phones make sense, New Orleans post Katrina, for example. Rescue craft for ships/oil rigs. While cell service exists in 90% of the world, sometimes people need to visit the other 10%

      --
      You are in a maze of twisted little posts, all alike.
    22. Re:Iridium by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      When launched, 1997, the situation was quite different from today. You are arguing that they should have forseen the rapid pace of the cell phone industry. There was a market then, there still is a market today, and understand the decision they faced in 1997 wasn't "spend billions developing and building a global satellite phone network", it was lanch the satellites for the gobal satellite network we already designed and built for a hundred million or so or walk away from the project.Seeing as the network is still in place and they are planning to launch more satellites, sounds like it was the right decision. Problem was Motorola chose to recoup its costs at the expense of its partners by charging high service fees to maintain the network, possibly intentionally bankrupting the original Iridium organization to lose the debt from the balance sheet.

      I don't argue that Motorola should have had a crystal ball for everything, but Motorola wasn't paying attention to an industry where they were making a huge portion of their profits. So let's look back to 1997. Cellular wasn't ubiquitous as it is today but a few things to note: Europe had already standardized on GSM. Motorola itself was hugely successful with it's own line including the StarTac. According to wikipedia, in the developed countries, the adoption rate was already 18 per 100 inhabitants (Almost 1 in 5). The gamble Motorola was taking that it was launching its own network and infrastructure in addition to equipment unlike the existing situation where Motorola was making the equipment and the wireless companies were doing infrastructure.

      According to Forbes, it cost Motorola $5 billion for Iridium. I'm not sure where you get the "hundreds of millions" figure but the math doesn't add up. The launch costs alone exceed that amount. The launch cost of a Delta II rocket is $36.7 million in todays dollar. Let's say for the sake of inflation it was $30 million back in 1997. Launching 72 satellites in 15 separate launches, the cost of launch would have been $450 million if they had used all Delta II rockets. They used a combination of Delta II, Proton K, and Long March IIC rockets and probably saved some money. But that launching costs does not include manufacturing costs of the satellite and operational costs. And that is just satellite costs. That doesn't include the entire infrastructure costs of the network on the ground, R&D, manufacturing, startup, etc. $5 billion is probably a good estimate.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    23. Re:Iridium by Stihdjia · · Score: 1

      You're a damned fool. Stop trying to convince yourself you didn't waste a thousand dollars. I'll admit the original iPhone was moderately innovative, but how can you possibly justify spending that much when all the major networks are offering more powerful smartphones for less than $100?

      --
      I see the fnords!
    24. Re:Iridium by Z8 · · Score: 1

      Good point, TFA was on cell phones, but no one reads TFA. The Slashdot story was titled "Cell Phone Industry's" failures, and Motorola was definitely in that industry.

    25. Re:Iridium by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Funny you mention the nearly 1K USD price, ha, my iPhone 4 cost me that here in New Zealand, Apple own it outright

      There, Fixed that for you.

      You forgot who really controls your phone. I paid A$600 for my Milestone incl delivery and I own that outright. Buying an Iphone is like buying a car that someone else has the keys for.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    26. Re:Iridium by dafing · · Score: 1

      "Buying an [i]Phone"

      There, fixed that for you! :-)

      Its silly to fight over who has the better phone, when its obvious, *I* do! JK

      What do you mean about "Apple" owning my phone? If you're meaning in regards to some kind of App killswitch...thats also in Android you know...

      http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/06/google-flips-remote-kill-switch-on-android-apps/

      If you really want to be a nut job about Open Source, Nokia seem to be the only ("mainstream") way to go.

      I dont think you can compare an original Droid to an iPhone 4. Droid X to iPhone 4 would be somewhat more realistic.

      --
      --- ...or a new slashdot signature. Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
    27. Re:Iridium by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Buying an Iphone

      Fixed that for you, Again.

      Proper nouns always begin with a capital, my grammar isn't perfect but I know that.

      What do you mean about "Apple" owning my phone?

      How Lord Steve can pretty much say what you can and can't run on there. I'll send you a PPT on the subject, just turn on your bluetooth and I'll FTP it right over. BZZZT, I forgot, Steve said you cant do that. Let's try over WiFi, to make it interesting I've hidden the network so get out your sniffing tools and BZZZZT, Steve took those away from you. Don't despair however, here's an APK for WiFi Finder on this web site, oh darn. Steve said no again.

      Do you see where I'm going. You put up with someone saying what you can and can't do, that effectively makes the phone theirs and you their what?

      I dont think you can compare an original Droid to an iPhone 4.

      Quite true, my Milestone runs rings around an Iphone4.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    28. Re:Iridium by dafing · · Score: 1

      It really is rather silly to be arguing about our phones like this you know!

      Times change, "iPhone" is correct, "Iphone" is not, you'd know that if you had a modern smartphone, with an up-to-date autocorrect function (ie iOS) :-) JK

      Why would I want a Powerpoint slideshow sent to me about "what you can and cant run on there"? Why not a simple website? A video? A podcast?

      For what its worth, not only can iOS easily run Powerpoint slideshows, you can also do it over Bluetooth...if you so wanted to. There are many Bluetooth Apps for external connections, P2P etc...I've tried one or two before, never used them. I could if I wanted to.

      Hidden the network? You can specify an SSID for "hidden" networks by default, you knew that right? Likewise, there are "sniffing tools", I havnt used them, but they are there. This is without Jailbreaking too, if we include that, then there is nothing you cant do on a JB iOS device compared to a "flashed", JB Android device.

      If this means so much to you, I wish you could be right here, to try out my iPhone compared to your Droid.

      Ultimately, I do not personally want to use Android, I like iOS. If you'd like to use Android, thats cool, its not like you've chosen to use bloody Windows Phone 7 or something...why would anyone else care?

      There are strengths and weaknesses to both, iOS is INFINITELY nicer looking, be honest, while Android often has "more functions". I havnt yet found one that I'd yearn for, perhaps creating a "personal hotspot" to share a 3G connection ('spose you have me there, "HA! Some Android handsets have 4G!" :-) ), thats apparently coming in the next update.

      Enjoy your Droid, I'll enjoy my iPhone.

      --
      --- ...or a new slashdot signature. Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
  8. GTFO! by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1

    FTFA: ...full of shady characters with inconsistent documentation.

    In the mobile phone industry? Didn't see that coming.

  9. What about... by scumfuker · · Score: 2

    Microsoft's Kin?

    1. Re:What about... by BatGnat · · Score: 2

      Or Windows Phone 7 ....?

    2. Re:What about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or iPhones and Androids! look, after the first everyone is a (sore) looser.

      That a bunch of fanboys mindlessly buy whatever crap the put a logo (an apple or an android) on, does not make a phone successful.

      -====== Every Smartphone SUCKS ======-

      it's the FAD of the first mid of the 2010's. Get over it!

    3. Re:What about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or Windows Phone 7 ....?

      Technically, that hasn't finished failing yet.

  10. So why isn't Kin part of the list? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Reportedly MS has spent about a billion dollars on the Kin only to kill it after very poor sales. Part of the costs was the Danger acquisition (reportedly about $500 million), the engineering and R&D for 2 years. Then the marketing and launch costs. Numbers vary on actual sales but the highest estimate was about 10,000 units sold. In my book, that spells FAIL.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    1. Re:So why isn't Kin part of the list? by sakdoctor · · Score: 1

      Seriously. I've never heard of Microsoft Kin.

    2. Re:So why isn't Kin part of the list? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not that Wikipedia is a citable source, but according to that and the Microsoft press releases that they note, the KIN was a prototype for the Windows Phone 7 interface, and the team working on KIN is now part of Windows Phone 7. This would imply that the KIN was not "killed," but merely "repurposed."

      We wouldn't say that Debian was "killed" by the release of Ubuntu either. It was "repurposed," into a general operating system for non-expert users. But the original remains. And they're still both based on free software philosophies, although perhaps slightly different.

    3. Re:So why isn't Kin part of the list? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 3, Insightful
      From mini-microsoft, one of the reasons that the Kin failed was politicol.

      Now there is spin that Andy killed kin to put all the wood behind Windows Phone 7. Er, the guy was in charge for two years of Kin development. He could have made this decision far earlier.

      Similarly Windows Phone 7 has two years of development under his watch. Based on his past performance, 99% chance this is also going to be a total catastrophe. It further doesn't help that much of the Windows Phone 7 leadership team was kicked out of Windows when they screwed up Vista.

      It sounds to me that Kin and Windows Phone 7 were completely separate products from different groups.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    4. Re:So why isn't Kin part of the list? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We wouldn't say that Debian was "killed" by the release of Ubuntu either. It was "repurposed," into a general operating system for non-expert users.

      When exactly was Debian discontinued? I'm pretty sure it is still in active development. That is a horrible analogy.

    5. Re:So why isn't Kin part of the list? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? Welcome to the Internet.

    6. Re:So why isn't Kin part of the list? by antifoidulus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And yet Microsoft investors STILL haven't revolted and threw Balmer out. I just don't get it. The man has shown he lacks both technical vision AND managerial skill. From everything I have seen and from what ex Redmonders have said, Microsoft still seems to think it's the 1990s, ie the managers think that the only competition they face comes from within Microsoft. Thus they constantly bicker among themselves and Microsoft ends up with an inconsistent, often incoherent line of products.

      The phones are obviously the biggest example, at one point Microsoft was developing 3...THREE...different competing and incompatible phone operating systems. You saw it a couple of years back with the music DRM fiasco, Microsoft managed to develop and release 2 different DRM formats that weren't compatible with each other. You can even see the political infighting within single products. The windows UI is an incoherent mess. Every single interface seems like it was designed by a different person and instead of someone actually taking charge and making decisions they just threw everything together and called it an interface. You can even see this with Windows phone 7, it's obvious that different groups had different ideas on how the phone should be programmed and how what capabilities/interfaces should be exposed. And since none of the managers wanted to "submit' to any other manager, you end up with an incoherent mess. The whole reason we ostensibly pay CEOs ridiculous amounts of cash is that they are ostensibly supposed to be the one who steps up in these situations and forces everyone to play nice. It seems that Ballmer is either unable or unwilling to do this and Microsoft just keeps on going down the shitter. In the current recovery Microsoft seems to be one of the very few large US tech firms that has actually lost market cap, a lot of it. Ballmer is a talentless hack whose only "ability" was that he happened to land in the right place at the right time. Again, why share holders aren't calling for the man's head is beyond me. His only "talent" seems to be a penchant for stupid pranks, but guess what I can go down to any frat house in the country and find someone that is better than Ballmer at stupid pranks and pay them 1% of Ballmer's salary and they would be damn happy to get it.

    7. Re:So why isn't Kin part of the list? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My understanding is that the KIN and Windows Phone 7 teams were largely independent, and to a degree, competing with each other. KIN was developed by the Danger team after it was acquired by Microsoft; Windows Phone 7 by the Windows Mobile team.

      Given that Windows Phone 7 was released less than a year after the KIN, and given Microsoft's typical (very long) development cycles, it seems unlikely that the KIN significantly influenced Windows Phone 7's development.

    8. Re:So why isn't Kin part of the list? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1.

      Also:
      WinMo in toto.
      N-Gage (side talkin' !)
      Vertu.
      Palm (every phone they ever produced).
      Iridium.

    9. Re:So why isn't Kin part of the list? by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      I think you are right on many things, but about UI: Mac OS X has also recently changed their UI to be an incoherent mess, maybe Microsoft was just ahead of the times :P

    10. Re:So why isn't Kin part of the list? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      True, OS X has gotten a bit messier lately but it wasn't the wreck that Vista was. In the end, Vista wasn't a bad OS; the problem was it was a bad OS in the beginning. After a few Service Packs and patches, it was usable. But many consumers were already turned off by that point. In retrospect, MS didn't do much different for Vista than their other versions of Windows. The problem for MS is that they got away with alot in previous versions and by the time of Vista, it all caught to them. Every new release of Windows has its issues. That's why most IT departments wait till SP1 before deploying. By the time of Vista, MS took it for granted that customers would just accept initial kinks. MS didn't count on the other problems of Vista to compound things.

      One major problem was Vista was late. MS had pushed back the release so many times that when MS finally announced the release date, few software/hardware vendors believed MS. Many of these vendors, however, are responsible for the majority of drivers and Vista would deploy a new driver model that was completely incompatible with the XP model. In times past, there were some modifications to be made to update drivers. Vista require extensive modifications. Also there was some confusion about the level of changes required. I heard both that extensive and minimal changes were required. There was some talk about XP mode or something that got dropped. By the time of launch, few drivers were ready and consumers suffered.

      The other thing was the moving target Vista presented and the inability of MS to be decisive. This was especially true with Aero and graphics cards. Initially, Vista was not going to be compatible with the built-in Intel graphics chipset that many of the budget PCs had. This was conveyed to the OEMs. Then MS flopped and said that the lowest version would be compatible but it wouldn't use Aero. MS did this to help out Intel who would not be able to sell millions of products. This distinction in versions wasn't clearly conveyed to consumers who bought machines they thought were "Vista compatible***". ***Only with the Vista Home Basic. This infuriated OEMs who had to change deployment plans of their own products because MS could not decide on a singular course of action and infuriated consumers (including a MS VP) who bought computers they couldn't upgrade.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    11. Re:So why isn't Kin part of the list? by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      Dude.. You are preaching to the choir :)

    12. Re:So why isn't Kin part of the list? by martyros · · Score: 1

      Microsoft still seems to think it's the 1990s, ie the managers think that the only competition they face comes from within Microsoft.

      I'm not connected to Microsoft in any way, but from what I've heard, they set it up this way on purpose.

      See, I read this book called Guns, Germs, and Steel, a really awesome book by Jared Diamond. It digs into history, geography, biology, anthropology and more, all to find the deepest, most fundamental answer a simple question: Why it is that Europe invaded the Americas, rather than the Americas invading Europe?

      Near the end of the book, he talks about how China was at some point more technologically advanced than Europe, and actually began exploring the globe; but stopped before getting into colonialism or sailing across the Pacific. Diamond hypothesized that part of the reason was a monoculture -- at some point one of the emperors of China forbade exploration because he was afraid of competition from the explorers (or something like that), and after that no one happened to take it up again. Whereas, in Europe, everyone was in competition with each other; once the technology and economy was there for colonialism, one of the countries was bound to try it, and then all the other countries would be forced to follow suit or be left in the dust. He supported this thesis by the fact that Christopher Columbus proposed the trip to two other countries and was turned down, before Spain took up his offer. If Columbus had been in China, he would have been turned down, and that would have been the end.

      So (apparently -- all this is from memory reading the book), Bill Gates and some other Silicon Valley people heard some of his talks or read early versions of his book, and came to him to ask advice about how to set up a company structure such that the company was more like Europe (forced by internal competition to innovate) than like China (one bad decision leads to no innovation).

      I read the book some time ago, and I thought that the idea of setting up internal competition sounded interesting at the time. But every time I hear horror stories of vicious internal competition at Microsoft, I think about Diamond's China / Europe analogy; and how differently things work out based on the context in which they're applied.

      Anyway, awesome book, incredibly in-depth but also very readable. Definitely recommended.

      --

      TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.

    13. Re:So why isn't Kin part of the list? by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

      I've read similar hypothesis, the one I read went something along the lines of the fact that in China the emperor was also the head of the church, however in Europe the church and the state often went head to head and constantly competed with eachother. Of course England who did a large amount of the exploring also had a king who was the head of the church....but anyway.

      While internal competition can be a good idea, ultimately you have to have a strong autocrat who can pick losers and winners. Microsoft doesn't pick losers and winners, Ballmer seems either unable or uninterested in being able to judge the merits of various technologies so what you wind up with is a company constantly re-inventing the wheel and spamming the market with products that essentially do the same thing but do it in ways that are incompatible with each other, ie a huge mess. Before Jobs came back Apple was in pretty much the same situation, they had ineffectual leadership who were constantly developing and releasing products in the same market that lacked any sort of direction and it almost killed them. Microsoft is going down the exact same road unless they find someone who is bold and preferably comes from outside Microsoft. Microsoft shot up so fast that a lot of the guys who got in on the ground floor still seem to think that they can do no wrong, they really need to be disabused of that notion.

      Bad analogy time: imagine that you have two kids and they are trying to decide what to have for dinner, one wants pizza the other Chinese food. Now there are a lot of really good Chinese-style pizzas that combine the two styles very nicely and you end up with something that nicely combines the "features" of the two types of food. However Microsoft management doesn't work like that, what they would wind up doing is ordering delivery for both and just taking the Chinese food and dumping it on top of the pizza. It contains the "features" of both, but the end result would be such a mismash of flavors that it would wind up pleasing nobody.

    14. Re:So why isn't Kin part of the list? by mjwx · · Score: 1

      And yet Microsoft investors STILL haven't revolted and threw Balmer out. I just don't get it.

      Much like the dividends from Microsoft stock, you just don't get.

      In case you missed the subtle point I was making, Balmer is still delivering value (meaning money) to stockholders, this means happy stockholders.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    15. Re:So why isn't Kin part of the list? by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

      Um how exactly is he delivering value to the shareholders. Maybe you own a different MSFT from everyone else, but in the past 3 years MSFT has lagged behind pretty much EVERYONE else in the tech sector, fuck they barely edge out Novell, Novell for fucks sake. Balmer's ineptitude is flushing Microsoft down the shitter, if you want to join the ride thats your problem, but if I were an MSFT shareholder I would be royally pissed.

    16. Re:So why isn't Kin part of the list? by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Um how exactly is he delivering value to the shareholders

      Ironically enough, this I've already told you.

      Much like the dividends from Microsoft stock,

      Give ye olde Wikipedia article on the subject of dividends a read.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    17. Re:So why isn't Kin part of the list? by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

      Wow, the dividend doesn't even come close to making up for the fall in share price, again you would have been better off with almost ANY other tech stock. Lets not even get into the fact that Windows is slowly wasting away, Office is going the way of the dodo and almost EVERY other venture they have gone into has pretty much failed.... But if you want to keep pissing your money away on a dying company with a moron at the helm, I obviously cannot stop you.

  11. It's still going so has not failed by dbIII · · Score: 1

    It's not a failure if it's still running. Financial failure perhaps but physically it's not broken. You can still buy and use the handsets today.

  12. zzzPhone sidestory: wooden mobile phone by kanto · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The Outcome: zzzPhone took some orders and shipped a small number of very low-quality phones. I heard crazier and crazier stories about Horowitz, all second-hand. For instance, he apparently hired a carver to make him a cell phone out of wood that he tried to insert working phone components into.

    I found that a bit funny because making one is a course at a Finnish university. More pictures here, but with finnish text only.

    I originally read about this in a magazine; apparently they solder the sim-card connecting leads so swapping operators requires some work.

  13. Oh I am sorry by Osgeld · · Score: 1

    all this time I thought celphones were a part of the tech industry, how silly of me to think technology could be anything other than PC's

  14. Modu wasn't bad by !eopard · · Score: 1

    I thought the Modu concept was pretty good. A basic phone that could plug into whatver expansion device (portable or not) you wanted to provide additional functionality . From the expansions on offer it looked like a goer. Wonder what killed it?

    --
    Boolean logic: True, False, and File not found.
  15. FTFY by smi.james.th · · Score: 1

    This is how shit is MEANT to work, its Twenty Eleven forgodsake!

    FWIW, here in South Africa we've got a similar situation, you can use any phone on any network, just swap out the SIM card. Receiving calls and texts also costs nothing. MAKING calls and SENDING texts on the other hand... is quite expensive. That's another issue though.

    --
    One thing I know, and that is that I am ignorant...
    1. Re:FTFY by dafing · · Score: 1

      hi smi.james.th, I think its almost universal that things work this way, its just in America, and perhaps less developed nations that its different.

      I mean, I have three carriers available, and they all have NATIONAL coverage, no matter where you are. But, in the USA, with my iPhone "I'd be stuck on AT&T", which is apparently the worlds worst network! I wouldnt even be able to make a single call, and yet get charged a hundred bucks a month, instead of my current, roughly 10 USD, based on my use!

      Text messages are "cheap", my whole country uses them, all ages txt into polls etc. About 10 NZD (say 6 USD) for 500+, perhaps as many as 2000 for that price, depending on carrier. On my prepaid plan, they are 20 cents each, about 10 US cents say, of course we only pay to SEND a txt...

      Txts are never "cheap", but really, 6 dollars a month for effectively unlimited txts isnt "horrible", even if the actual data used should cost 5 cents, ha!

      --
      --- ...or a new slashdot signature. Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
    2. Re:FTFY by smi.james.th · · Score: 1

      Ja, similar sort of thing here.

      I'm on a prepaid plan, texts cost me 50c (which is around 7 USc, not sure about Kiwi money), I don't know of any plans which give you many / unlimited texts, but then I haven't really looked. It's expensive, the costs mount up if you need to send a lot, which fortunately I don't really do, most of my communication is via the internet. Still, as was pointed out elsewhere, the fact that the carriers can charge anything for a text which essentially costs them nothing is quite ridiculous.

      I haven't any experience with AT&T, so I wouldn't be able to say, suffice it to say that I've had some gripes with the local service providers though. I've used both major ones, there are a couple of smaller ones as well that I've been too lazy to try out.

      --
      One thing I know, and that is that I am ignorant...
    3. Re:FTFY by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Somebody can correct me if I am wrong but I get the impression that mobile phones started out in the US as special services attached to local phone numbers. It was as if they took a line from a local exchange and patched it into a radio device so that the mobile behaved as a normal phone in that exchange area.

      In .au mobiles have their own national prefix. They don't tell you where the phone is based. Thats bad for the caller because some mobile calls could cost them more money without them knowing about it in advance.

      In the US the caller pays for the call to a local number (including long distance charges if appropriate) and the receiver of the call pays for the mobile leg from the exchange to their handset.

    4. Re:FTFY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here in South Africa, all the mobile operators have their own codes, like location codes for cities, so Johannesburg land-lines begin with 011, Pretoria with 012, etc, while cell-phones begin with 082- 083- 072- etc.

      As far as cost goes, calling a mobile anywhere in the country is all the same, and calling a landline from a mobile is all the same as well.

    5. Re:FTFY by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Here it used to be that Vodafone numbers started with 0414, Optus were 0411 and Telstra had 0419. The rest of the number is six digits after the prefix. Now we have number portability I am using a Vodafone number on Optus.

  16. What about WAP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Surely WAP must have been the Windows Vista of the cellphone world?

  17. Emblaze / Else had potential by Toy+G · · Score: 1

    The emphasis on one-hand use looks spot-on. I'd be curious to see a similar concept working up on some hacker-friendly smartphone (Maemo/Meego or Android).

    --
    -- Let's go Viridian.
  18. I'm not even getting that from the article by Moraelin · · Score: 1

    I'm not getting even that from the article. I was hoping I'd go there and see some serious (if possibly misguided) attempts at innovation, but it turns out that at least half of them were never meant to be more than a scam in the first place.

    The Peep guy for example seems to be a character who made a surrealistic string of companies punting surrealistic and often blatantly impossible products, especially where there were grant money to be won, but never actually had more of a product than some faked videos and sleight of hand tricks like peeling the logo off a fob and showing it as their super range-boosting gizmo for phones. He's gone through everything including impossible flying cars before. No, seriously. And actually seems to have gotten a huge grant for that too.

    After following the link to more info about him (yeah, I know, I'll hand in my nerd card now for reading even more than TFA;) I just ended up having more respect for the dot-con bubble guys, or the likes of those behind the Phantom console, or that guy faking being almost there with a flying car for the last couple of decades. At least those stuck with a scam longer, which, if nothing else, takes chutzpah. This guy seems to average more than one scam company a year, and actually goes for several per such scam idea looking for funding.

    In all fairness, I'm happier to know that money is locked up by the major players, than given to such scammers.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
  19. Not likely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is just one of the many reasons why cell phone companies limit the amount of data you can transfer every month with your cell phone. If it proves necessary, they will also use QoS methods to prevent smooth VOIP calls from being made over the data channels.