
Is Microsoft trying to end the reign of mobile carriers? - atularora
http://fury.com/2011/05/is-microsoft-trying-to-end-the-reign-of-mobile-carriers-msftskypenokia/
======
zmmmmm
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.

~~~
ohyes
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).

~~~
rbranson
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.

~~~
zmmmmm
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.

~~~
rbranson
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.

------
mrj
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.

------
rodh257
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.

------
citizenkeys
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.

~~~
technomancy
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.

~~~
mikelward
Which carriers offer this?

~~~
mikelward
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...](http://www.t-mobile.com/shop/phones/cell-phone-
detail.aspx?cell-phone=T-Mobile-SIM-Card>); [2]:
<[http://www.t-mobile.com/shop/plans/cell-phone-
plans.aspx?cat...](http://www.t-mobile.com/shop/plans/cell-phone-
plans.aspx?catgroup=mobilebroadband>);

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?

~~~
technomancy
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?

------
rodh257
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.

------
surfingdino
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?

------
yalogin
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.

------
mmcconnell1618
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.

------
chrislomax
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.

------
Cyndre
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.

------
geuis
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.

~~~
rospaya
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.

~~~
technomancy
> 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.

------
fleitz
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.

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

------
nextparadigms
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).

~~~
kfury
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.

------
haridsv
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.

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

------
Geee
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.

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

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

