Is Microsoft trying to end the reign of mobile carriers? | Hacker News Reader

Is Microsoft trying to end the reign of mobile carriers?

fury.com

91 pointsatularora46 comments

Or they could really go for it and buy a carrier. Perhaps Sprint might start looking tasty?

What I would really love is if they innovated in the Wifi / unlicensed spectrum space and made a p2p type mesh system. Then even if you don't have Wifi you can piggyback on nearby handsets to "hop" to a Wifi point. This would require deep integration into the handset and opt in to make it totally transparent to users. Skype seems to be about half of this equation and maybe deep collaboration with Nokia could be the other half.

Having said that, people are so used to Wifi working well that they don't realize what the limitations are once you try and scale it into different situations. Start moving more than 5mph and you'll suddenly see what all that technology in "real" cell networks is there for.

Using the wifi/unlicensed spectrum is also a lot more efficient use of the spectrum. You can broadcast shorter distances and therefore squeeze more users onto the spectrum.

It would be logical to see major cell companies doing something similar (more towers with shorter ranges) in urban areas. It would give them much greater available bandwidth as they try to scale to a situation where more people have data plans.

(I don't think that they will, because the telecoms can simply charge more for less using weasel words in contracts, most people won't know any better).

It's already hard enough to run a reliable mobile data network built with industrial-grade systems on exclusive spectrum. Unfortunately, moving to a network like you describe, built on commodity gear doesn't translate to quality, redundancy, and scalability like it does with distributed systems.

Major cell companies are already doing what you describe. Example: both Verizon and AT&T have a fleet of mobile cell towers mounted on the back of trucks they park at large events if they think capacity is going to be an issue. If you look around at building tops in cities, you'll see arrays of panel antennas on many of them. These are for cell networks. Every site is intentionally designed and every single antenna is specifically angled and tuned, and their network engineers collect quality statistics from every call at every site, which are fed into massive data warehouses for quality analysis. They literally have fleets of people like "the Verizon guy" continuously drive testing their networks.

If anyone knows how to run mobile data networks, it's them. Seriously, network engineers at companies like Verizon are treated like software engineers at Google and Facebook. They keep the core business running and they are the rockstars. Everyone else, including the jerk in customer service, is basically a nobody.

From what I can tell, there is a sort of strange, pervasive myth on the Internet that the large cellcos have their heads up their asses and that somewhere, somehow, there is a kind of wild band of rebels with hacked 2.4GHz/5GHz mesh network gear and cantennas doing it for dirt cheap.

Please show me even the smallest evidence that anyone, anywhere is running a true mobile data network using a mesh network on commodity gear. This means continuous coverage for a metro area with low power, cheap, antenna-integrated MOBILE consumer gear, seamless site-to-site and channel-to-channel handoff from users moving at 80mph, high quality indoor coverage in large buildings that is basically taken for granted, ramp-ups/downs of 10k+ customers within hours (sports events, etc)... and on and on.

You'll find a few WISPs doing fixed site-to-site links and (poorly) blanketing areas with WiFi coverage, but nothing on the order of what cellcos do. The fact that one can hold a uninterrupted voice conversation using a $5 phone with no visible antenna while driving down the interstate at 75mph for hundreds of miles is a pretty awesome modern marvel.

Yep, I think that the prospect of trying to achieve real cell phone like qualities out of mesh networks is a no hoper. The real question however is what the end consumer will accept. Often times products are over-engineered / overpriced (whether deliberately or accidentally) beyond what consumers really demand and it's not until a low quality competitor shows up that everyone realizes it. Think how the vast majority of consumers turned out to be happy with low bit rate mp3s after recording studios spent years pushing CDs, and how very few people really care about HD vs SD very much (at least, not on smaller screens). So perhaps there's room for a network that just doesn't work while travelling at 75mph (or even 30mph). So what? Maybe consumers just don't care that much if they are getting it for free.

The 75mph isn't really the hardest part of that. Really, it's indoor coverage with dirt cheap consumer gear that's hard, followed closely by call and data connection handoff. Even if it's free, there's a minimum amount of service quality to even be considered useful, and I think handoff and indoor coverage are both essential for mobile wireless to work. In modern networks, handoff is also deeply tied to availability in high density areas.

I know for a fact that several european carriers have started to implement this. However, the technology to do it isn't mature.

Hell, we won't be able to deliver this exact thing to a certain carrier I won't mention until late autumn if everything goes well.

Edit: Oh, and by the way, the term for it if you want to google is 'Mobile Offloading'.

UMA has been live for several years and is already quite widely deployed in the UK, allowing transparent offloading of voice to WiFi.

>"Or they could really go for it and buy a carrier. Perhaps Sprint might start looking tasty?"

Purchasing a carrier doesn't scale. It doesn't scale to Europe. It doesn't scale to Asia. It doesn't even scale to Canada or Latin America for crying out loud.

And scale is why the Skype purchase makes sense to me - it scales into all those markets (and more) in a way that Google Voice does not appear to be headed.

Imagine for a second that Google did buy Sprint and then brought it up to speed as far as wireless coverage that matches ATT/VZ while offering the best in class service for the price. Masses move over to Sprint in a few years. Sprint becomes bigger than ATT & VZ combined and now others around the world have a model they can follow.

Too far fetched? Maybe. Costly? That too. I guess I'm just a dreamer.

Nobody wants to give away their handset's limited battery life. Imagine when you have one handset within range of the AP, and a number of handsets trying to connect through it. It's bandwidth and battery will be zapped up.

God, I hope so. If there is any industry more deserving of a disruption, it's the fumbling, backwards telcoms.

Sadly, it requires so much money to fight them that whatever replaces the telcoms might only be slightly better. I will take that, anyhow.

I'd imagine that if it was Apple, Google or even Facebook buying Skype this sort of article would have been all over the tech press from day one, but because it was Microsoft it was labelled a stupid deal, Ballmer obviously wanted to waste some money, or Microsoft just wants a Facetime competitor (as if they need to buy Skype for something as simple as that). Perhaps that's due to their own track record but it would be good to see more thought put into articles like this one has as opposed to just writing it off or not thinking very deeply about it.

Yes. This article is correct. The days of cellular "voice + data" plans are on their way out. Eventually, everything will be entirely about data. For voice, you'll call i.p. addresses instead of phone numbers. And by being strictly data, users will have the added benefit of being able to do videoconferencing, swap files, and share screens.

It's already not very difficult to use a data-only connection for your main phone. I've been on a no-minutes data-only 3G plan for a year and a half with my Nexus One using Google Voice and bouncing between SipDroid, Skype, and the new built-in SIP client in Android 2.3.

It's just a matter of time before either 0) the majority of calls end up being VoIP or 1) carriers start explicitly banning VoIP in their ToS. Right now it takes a little extra doing to set up a SIP account, but that won't last.

Which carriers offer this?

Yes, I would like to know as well. Who offers data service only? Or you just hoping from Wifi to Wifi?

From what I can find so far, the best option is T-Mobile.

Get a T-Mobile SIM Card[1], then select a Mobile Broadband data plan[2], e.g. 2 GB for $40/mo.

[1]: <http://www.t-mobile.com/shop/phones/cell-phone-detail.aspx?c...; [2]: <http://www.t-mobile.com/shop/plans/cell-phone-plans.aspx?cat...;

T-Mobile can be used with data-only products such as Galaxy Tab, so this method should be allowed by T-Mobile.

There seem to be a few ways using AT&T, e.g. an iPad SIM, or a GoPhone SIM, or signing up for Laptop Connect, and using that SIM, but none seem to be officially supported.

I'm guessing there's no way to do this with a CDMA carrier.

Are there other GSM resellers/virtual networks?

Yes, I am doing this on T-Mobile as well. I was grandfathered into a plan for "unlimited" bandwidth for USD40/mo. I don't know what the practical limitations on the plan are; I've never gone over 5GB.

With the AT&T acquisition I'm thinking of jumping ship to Sprint, but I don't know if they have a comparable plan. Anyone looked into it?

Logically, I think on Sprint and Verizon you'd want a WiFi-enabled phone and a MiFi or other wireless portable hotspot.

Verizon is $50/mo for 5 GB on a 2-year contract on the 4G data plan.

Sprint is $45/mo for 3 GB, also on a 2-year plan.

I tried to do this with my Mifi-only plan (grandfatherd 3G unlimited for $60) with VZW and an external battery (1800mAh w/ correct adapter), and it worked well on occasion, But, for the 80% of the time the ping-times (~150ms) made it untenable, esp. while moving in a car (often ~230ms). When I had <50ms it was fine. This was using Gizmo5/Gvoice/Sip client, in the Denver metro area, and spring/ summer '09, so perhaps this has changed.

I'm curious how this works on CDMA networks. With GSM, you just take your SIM from the store and pop it in your phone. With CDMA I assume you need them to transfer the plan to the phone at the store? They don't balk at all at setting up a phone with a data-only plan?

For the record I had trouble with Gizmo + SipDroid too; once I switched to sipgate.com I got much clearer calls. Apparently Gizmo prefered a proprietary codec that was only implemented in the Gizmo client and needed to fall back to a lower-quality codec with other clients. Sipgate on the other hand works great, though the integration with Google Voice isn't as tight.

A Mifi is a mobile router (EV-DO>>> wifi), I simply sold my usb modem, and then bought a brand new Mifi for full price.

I never gave Gizmo5 a dime, but it was the same performance with my Flowroute[1] setup, and even my own Milkfish[2] setup. This gets a bit complicated (why nobody else bothers) rather quickly, but I'd be happy to share more info if you have interest.

[1]http://flowroute.com/ [2]http://www2.milkfish.org.sipwerk.com/

Perhaps we'll have a system akin to DNS that resolves phone numbers to IPs. Dynamic DNS functionality could be built-in or layered on top by a provider like Google Voice, so that you don't give up one-number-that-follows-you.

Whichever device you happen to be using notifies you of the call.

Really though, the whole notion of calling someone and demanding their immediate attention is often rude in these modern days of async communication. I wouldn't be sad if we just used phones less, since we already have chat, im, and email that already just arrive to the device we're using (or all of them). And SMS on phones.

This sounds exactly like Facetime. They resolve your call by phone number or email. I hope they release it to IETF (like Steve said they would do) or a competent competitor comes along that can do the same. I've been trying to like SIP but the headache you go through to place a true SIP call is incredible.

* Your +SIPnumber@SIPdomain.com * Your +SIPhandle@SIPdomain.com

Placing a SIP call isn't a problem. But all the cockups are in the receiving or finding people to call.

Huh; I've been using SIP exclusively for phone calls since Android 2.3 came out and it has worked great for me.

I'm glad that someone has finally wrote this article. This is what I first thought when MS bought Skype - they are buying into the future of telephony. It's silly to think we'd still be using voice networks and SMS in 5-10 years time when VOIP and similar services are as widespread as they are. It's a clever move if they execute correctly.

So far Microsoft has been making a lot of noises about mobile, but that alone won't change things. Their accomplishments in that area are lackluster and I don't expect them to be able to change the status quo. If they cannot force the carriers and handset makers to implement a reliable mechanism for phone software update distribution, how are they going to accomplish bigger things?

Why do they have to end the reign of the mobile carriers? If they made the carriers turn into pure byte peddlers its a win. The problem in the mobile space is the carriers want to insert themselves into the application space and end up becoming annoying.

Someone needs to break the carrier pricing model of charging multiple times for the same bits. I'm not sure replacing ATT or Verizon with Microsoft would be a good idea but if they are the change agent I applaud the move.

Interestingly, I started writing an application for Windows Mobile 6.5 a few years ago that used IM methods of texting people. At that time SMS messages were expensive (10p a message) and I wanted to avoid these costs. It wouldn't have adopted very well though as at the time no other smart phones existed (on a large scale). I thought then that the celluar networks were antiquated and would become redundant.

In saying that though I still could not find the link between Microsoft and their intentions with Skype, it's kind of obvious and equally exciting when you read this article.

I really hope it does pan out as the writer suggests, the only people this hurts are the carriers really and they have stung the customer for long enough.

I remember when mobiles first started, costs of making a call were 60p a minute, there were reports that the costs were so over inflated that the carrier was making around 50p a minute profit. I have no moral stance in seeing them get hurt in all of this.

You guys are thinking small. If I was microsoft this would be my plan.

I would integrate it into the 360, windows 7, windows mobile, and windows tablets.

Work with steam to add functionality to let you answer your phone on your comp whiel playing call of duty. Answer your home phone while playing forza 4 on your 360. All 4 devices would be able to accept calls, transfer calls inbetween themselves and all using the same phone number at the same time.

Currently we take our im, facebook, email and sms everywhere we go but when it comes to phone numbers we all have 2 or 3 (cell, home, office, fax to list a few).

All calls are now data, no need for a seperate fax line - your voip box checks a bit, oh its a fax, and sends it to the fax machine, or allows you to view it on your comp, phone, tablet or tv.

This is just the start and don't want to write a blog, just my opinion. Looking forward to comments.

I believe that Apple has already at least partly done that with the coming of the iPhone in 2007. I would not call it a 100% victory, but compared to how much control the mobile carriers had before then, its a huge change.

US carriers were and still are screwing Americans over. European carriers were much open and until I read about the US mobile industry, I had no idea that a carrier can block you to do anything you want with your phone.

> I had no idea that a carrier can block you to do anything you want with your phone.

Depends on the carrier. T-Mobile (aka Deutsch Telcom, quite European) lets you do anything you like; unfortunately it's looking like they won't exist in the US a year from now.

Embrace. Extend. Extinguish. I'm loving the new (old) Microsoft.

Can't wait for the articles about how MS is integrating Skype into Exchange & WP7, and providing enterprises with subsidized Nokia kit.

At least this time around they're trying to extinguish companies that aren't innovating and actually standing in the way of further progress.

I'm a little lost on your comment. If Microsoft is embracing and extending mobile phone technology (and the carriers that provide them), how would they ever go about extinguishing something as entrenched as this?

We all want that day to arrive faster, but Nokia means nothing in USA, and sure they are still quite powerful in the rest of the world, but I think carriers have enough strong options right now to not care about whatever "threats" Microsoft or Nokia would throw at them. WP7 is virtually nowhere, and Nokia is declining fast (lost 15% market share since 12 months ago! - 26% left).

If Nokia is the primary hardware manufacturer of Microsoft's solution then it won't matter. Three years ago HTC had no real brand in the USA but that doesn't stop them from selling a ton of Android phones. Meanwhile Motorola is widely recognized but sales are abysmal.

IMO that's the beauty of this arrangement. Nokia has minimal presence in US so there is no question of pissing off the carriers. This kind of arrangement is not possible with Samsung/HTC/Motorola etc.

I think the article is referring to Nokia outside of their handset business. My understanding is that Nokia, Ericsson and Cisco are the big players in the infrastructure supplied to the carriers, not just the handsets.

It could be in this space that Microsoft may benefit from deeper partership with Nokia.

The handsets will be nice, but not a game changer for the industry.

If any caller can find out if I am on a call or not (among other details), it could be a big privacy or even a security issue.

Likewise, only trusted callers can. Think your mother ;).

I think LightSquared could be a big part of the move, being built by Nokia too. Tying it with Nokia Windows phones would play current carriers out of the game.

wrong Nokia division and company dude..that Nokia is a separate company not tied into handset Nokia

NSN is Nokia's subsidiary by almost 50% ownership. It doesn't really matter who builds the network though; the same idea applies.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com