Okay, clearly I've not been obvious enough with the frigtards on this 'forum'... so here's the scoop for all you whinging idiots that don't seem to be able to understand the concept of Pie In The Sky -
You're not going to get a 'Triple band mobile phone with VoIP...' for all of the reasons I've outlined above... if you can't be bothered reading the posts then I'll repeat them here:
Not anywhere near enough hotspots geographically and not enough diversity of location.
Poor or non-existent interoperability between wi-fi vendor hardware/firmware. Yes, they're all in the 802.1x IEEE standards (or, at least, they should be), but they all add little things like '802.11+' as seen with Netgear products etc. So, the net effect is: not enough interoperability between hotspots.
No QoS implementation. None. And, after all, it's just a data hotspot so why would the owner implement QoS? They don't. They won't. There's no commercial reason for them to do so.
No way to bill for the service - if you're roaming onto various hotspots around your town or city how are the owners of those hotspots - remember them? They're the ones that are paying the data usage charges/connectivity charges - how are they going to bill you for using their service? On that note - how are you going to be authenticated? Are you just going to stop talking, hang up and re-authenticate every time you move to a new hotspot?
And probably the biggest one of all: Where is the profit in this for business? Telco's hate VoIP because it eats away at their traditional revenue base. A VoIP/GSM hybrid network would be VERY costly to implement (given the radio footprint of Wi-Fi hotspots, the limited access to other wireless data technologies like EV-DO or WiMax), almost impossible to bill - actually, it would be impossible to bill unless the entire network was operated by a single entity - and not generate anywhere near enough revenue to warrant construction in the first place.
So, you have a solution that:
Has no existing integrated infrastructure support.
Very low interoperability for voice hand-over between disparate vendor hardware.
Zero QoS.
No way to bill.
And it's not very profitable.
Yeah, that's a technological solution that should fly.
For the love of God, GROW UP PEOPLE. It's not going to happen just because you want it to happen. Christ, I want a rocket ship and free flights to the moon. When I was a kid I through that humans would be living on the moon by now. Guess what - we're not, and me wishing for it didn't make it happen. Something just aren't going to happen no matter how much you want them to.
OK so this phone thing, difficult yes but impossible no. Already the Koreans have done it just ahead of time. To my knowledge no one has ever lived on the moon, visited yes but lived no. Les's take aback, I would like to see a phone that I can switch between WiFi and cell. Why? So when I go to Starbucks or to Paneras or to the local bookstore, anywhere that there is WiFi I can call to South America using the internet, and a service such as Skype, only Apple could do this or piggy back with a partner. As far as I can tell free internet is free, and they don't care about charges, becasue it is free. If I call a landline then there are fees on the other end but that could be handled through my Internet phone service provider. This is an extension of .Mac and GSM is everywhere, there are lots of free hotspots, OK so you can't roam when you are using a hotspot but at least I didn't have to lug a notebook only to use as a cell phone. I'm sure that already people are sisgning up for Skype and using the free internet services of restraunts, bookstores, and other places to "call" out to their friends and family. So we can't roam at first, later maybe but that is later. In the mean time Apple is selling the only phone with their service that can allow the user to call international for pennies, not quarters.
You're not going to get a 'Triple band mobile phone with VoIP...' for all of the reasons I've outlined above... if you can't be bothered reading the posts then I'll repeat them here:
Not anywhere near enough hotspots geographically and not enough diversity of location.
Depends on the region. Certainly not true in my house or business. This is where I happen to spend a lot of time.
Quote:
Poor or non-existent interoperability between wi-fi vendor hardware/firmware. Yes, they're all in the 802.1x IEEE standards (or, at least, they should be), but they all add little things like '802.11+' as seen with Netgear products etc. So, the net effect is: not enough interoperability between hotspots.
No QoS implementation. None. And, after all, it's just a data hotspot so why would the owner implement QoS? They don't. They won't. There's no commercial reason for them to do so.
802.11n should implement all of the QOS in 801.11e. As far as vendor extension, yes, you do not get the extensions if your gear is from another vendor but the base level capability is available. For 802.11n this should be sufficient.
Quote:
No way to bill for the service - if you're roaming onto various hotspots around your town or city how are the owners of those hotspots - remember them? They're the ones that are paying the data usage charges/connectivity charges - how are they going to bill you for using their service? On that note - how are you going to be authenticated? Are you just going to stop talking, hang up and re-authenticate every time you move to a new hotspot?
City of Denver has their central block wifi'd. Not every hotspot provider views it as a potential revenue stream. In any case, the most useful aspect for a combination VOIP phone is that you can use it around your office and home and carry the same device you use on the road. Typically, I carry my cell phone everywhere but I get poor service in my basement but I DO have decent 802.11g coverage there.
My laptop remembers how to authenticate with the hotspots I frequent. Should I move out of range I would hope the phone can do the same thing as I move out of range of any particular cell tower: look for another source to connect to. If there isn't one...well, its a cell phone. You get dropped from time to time. Five 9's connectivity is not a requirement or expectation.
Quote:
And probably the biggest one of all: Where is the profit in this for business? Telco's hate VoIP because it eats away at their traditional revenue base.
How bloody odd that I can get VOIP service from both my telco, cable company and third party providers like Vonage. Why, none of these companies make any profit from their VOIP offerings. Neither does Cisco that sold the VOIP phone that sits on my desk.
VOIP is the future and telcos can make decent money on it and most have or will have offerings in the near future. FTTH is becoming reality even in the states.
Quote:
A VoIP/GSM hybrid network would be VERY costly to implement (given the radio footprint of Wi-Fi hotspots, the limited access to other wireless data technologies like EV-DO or WiMax), almost impossible to bill - actually, it would be impossible to bill unless the entire network was operated by a single entity - and not generate anywhere near enough revenue to warrant construction in the first place.
Costly how? A VoIP carrier would charge a monthly fee for VOIP service just as Vonage does. The GSM provider provides GSM dial tone and charges as they do today to use their infrastructure. Hotspot usage is billed by the hotspot provider or is self provided.
You don't BUILD the Wi-Fi network you leverage existing ones. In any case the cost for deployment of a Wi-Fi infrastructure is decreasing.
Quote:
So, you have a solution that:
Has no existing integrated infrastructure support.
Very low interoperability for voice hand-over between disparate vendor hardware.
Zero QoS.
No way to bill.
And it's not very profitable.
Yeah, that's a technological solution that should fly.
All of which are incorrect or unneeded.
Quote:
For the love of God, GROW UP PEOPLE. It's not going to happen just because you want it to happen. Christ, I want a rocket ship and free flights to the moon. When I was a kid I through that humans would be living on the moon by now. Guess what - we're not, and me wishing for it didn't make it happen. Something just aren't going to happen no matter how much you want them to.
Given that its already been done (dual mode cellular/VoIP phone prototypes have been seen at CES) I don't see the huge technical challenge should Apple decide this is what they want to do. Whether they choose to do so is a different question.
"Taiwanese ODM Winston NeWeb Corp. (WNC) is reportedly demonstrating a dual-mode cellular/VoIP phone that appears to be based on Linux and a branded version of Trolltech's Qtopia Phone Edition (QPE), at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas this week
...
CES attendees report that the GW1 supports seamless roaming between cellular and 802.11b VoWiFi (VoIP-over-WiFi) networks. WNC lists supported VoIP protocols that include SIP, SDP, RTP, RTCP, WEP 64, and 128 bit WPA2, and supported voice codecs as G711/G723.1/G726/G729A/B.
Other advanced features reportedly include POP3 email, Web browsing, MP3 playback, up to 40 downloadable polyphonic ringtones, and even some IPTV capabilities. The phone also includes Zi Corp's predictive text entry software, according to WNC.
The GW1 has a 220 x 176 pixel TFT display supporting 262K colors. It measures 4.2 x 1.7 x 0.75 inches (106 x 44 x 19mm), and weighs 3.4 ounces (95 grams), including the battery. Claimed battery life under GSM is 5 hours of talk time and 200 hours of standby time. Claimed battery life under WiFi is 7 hours of talk time, and 50 hours of standby time. "
Thanks for your concern about the size & shape of my 'stones', but it's unfounded.
Yes, I am a 'big boy' and also have a sense of irony and sarcasm. Something you're clearly lacking - sadly.
Mmm...yes, it was "irony and sarcasm" when you said you wouldn't come back.
Quote:
As for my credentials, it's a simple thing to check. If you're so very concerned with MY credentials, I suggest you do just that - I'm more than happy to provide you with all the details needed to do so.
First, I couldn't care less what your credentials are. On the internet they are meaningless. Second, a PhD in Telecommunications, even should you have one, is merely an academic title that is suitable mostly for teaching telecommunications. This is not a field which a PhD is required to be an expert in unlike say physics or chemistry.
I know quite a few telecom experts both with and without PhDs.
Quote:
And finally, if you'd like to ask me something even remotely challenging in my area of expertise (which is communications and positioning via non-terrestrial based systems) I'll be only too happy to enlighten you. In as simple a way as possible of course.
Mmmmm...I'm impressed. Not. As evidenced in the answers above you don't appear to know your "area of expertise" all that well at least not where it is applied in the real world. If I had "challenging" questions on GPS or satcom I have my own in house experts to ask. This is the real world, not school...the real "test" is in coming up with solutions that work.
Comments
Okay, clearly I've not been obvious enough with the frigtards on this 'forum'... so here's the scoop for all you whinging idiots that don't seem to be able to understand the concept of Pie In The Sky -
You're not going to get a 'Triple band mobile phone with VoIP...' for all of the reasons I've outlined above... if you can't be bothered reading the posts then I'll repeat them here:
Not anywhere near enough hotspots geographically and not enough diversity of location.
Poor or non-existent interoperability between wi-fi vendor hardware/firmware. Yes, they're all in the 802.1x IEEE standards (or, at least, they should be), but they all add little things like '802.11+' as seen with Netgear products etc. So, the net effect is: not enough interoperability between hotspots.
No QoS implementation. None. And, after all, it's just a data hotspot so why would the owner implement QoS? They don't. They won't. There's no commercial reason for them to do so.
No way to bill for the service - if you're roaming onto various hotspots around your town or city how are the owners of those hotspots - remember them? They're the ones that are paying the data usage charges/connectivity charges - how are they going to bill you for using their service? On that note - how are you going to be authenticated? Are you just going to stop talking, hang up and re-authenticate every time you move to a new hotspot?
And probably the biggest one of all: Where is the profit in this for business? Telco's hate VoIP because it eats away at their traditional revenue base. A VoIP/GSM hybrid network would be VERY costly to implement (given the radio footprint of Wi-Fi hotspots, the limited access to other wireless data technologies like EV-DO or WiMax), almost impossible to bill - actually, it would be impossible to bill unless the entire network was operated by a single entity - and not generate anywhere near enough revenue to warrant construction in the first place.
So, you have a solution that:
- Has no existing integrated infrastructure support.
- Very low interoperability for voice hand-over between disparate vendor hardware.
- Zero QoS.
- No way to bill.
- And it's not very profitable.
Yeah, that's a technological solution that should fly.For the love of God, GROW UP PEOPLE. It's not going to happen just because you want it to happen. Christ, I want a rocket ship and free flights to the moon. When I was a kid I through that humans would be living on the moon by now. Guess what - we're not, and me wishing for it didn't make it happen. Something just aren't going to happen no matter how much you want them to.
OK so this phone thing, difficult yes but impossible no. Already the Koreans have done it just ahead of time. To my knowledge no one has ever lived on the moon, visited yes but lived no. Les's take aback, I would like to see a phone that I can switch between WiFi and cell. Why? So when I go to Starbucks or to Paneras or to the local bookstore, anywhere that there is WiFi I can call to South America using the internet, and a service such as Skype, only Apple could do this or piggy back with a partner. As far as I can tell free internet is free, and they don't care about charges, becasue it is free. If I call a landline then there are fees on the other end but that could be handled through my Internet phone service provider. This is an extension of .Mac and GSM is everywhere, there are lots of free hotspots, OK so you can't roam when you are using a hotspot but at least I didn't have to lug a notebook only to use as a cell phone. I'm sure that already people are sisgning up for Skype and using the free internet services of restraunts, bookstores, and other places to "call" out to their friends and family. So we can't roam at first, later maybe but that is later. In the mean time Apple is selling the only phone with their service that can allow the user to call international for pennies, not quarters.
You're not going to get a 'Triple band mobile phone with VoIP...' for all of the reasons I've outlined above... if you can't be bothered reading the posts then I'll repeat them here:
Not anywhere near enough hotspots geographically and not enough diversity of location.
Depends on the region. Certainly not true in my house or business. This is where I happen to spend a lot of time.
Poor or non-existent interoperability between wi-fi vendor hardware/firmware. Yes, they're all in the 802.1x IEEE standards (or, at least, they should be), but they all add little things like '802.11+' as seen with Netgear products etc. So, the net effect is: not enough interoperability between hotspots.
No QoS implementation. None. And, after all, it's just a data hotspot so why would the owner implement QoS? They don't. They won't. There's no commercial reason for them to do so.
802.11n should implement all of the QOS in 801.11e. As far as vendor extension, yes, you do not get the extensions if your gear is from another vendor but the base level capability is available. For 802.11n this should be sufficient.
No way to bill for the service - if you're roaming onto various hotspots around your town or city how are the owners of those hotspots - remember them? They're the ones that are paying the data usage charges/connectivity charges - how are they going to bill you for using their service? On that note - how are you going to be authenticated? Are you just going to stop talking, hang up and re-authenticate every time you move to a new hotspot?
City of Denver has their central block wifi'd. Not every hotspot provider views it as a potential revenue stream. In any case, the most useful aspect for a combination VOIP phone is that you can use it around your office and home and carry the same device you use on the road. Typically, I carry my cell phone everywhere but I get poor service in my basement but I DO have decent 802.11g coverage there.
My laptop remembers how to authenticate with the hotspots I frequent. Should I move out of range I would hope the phone can do the same thing as I move out of range of any particular cell tower: look for another source to connect to. If there isn't one...well, its a cell phone. You get dropped from time to time. Five 9's connectivity is not a requirement or expectation.
And probably the biggest one of all: Where is the profit in this for business? Telco's hate VoIP because it eats away at their traditional revenue base.
How bloody odd that I can get VOIP service from both my telco, cable company and third party providers like Vonage. Why, none of these companies make any profit from their VOIP offerings. Neither does Cisco that sold the VOIP phone that sits on my desk.
VOIP is the future and telcos can make decent money on it and most have or will have offerings in the near future. FTTH is becoming reality even in the states.
A VoIP/GSM hybrid network would be VERY costly to implement (given the radio footprint of Wi-Fi hotspots, the limited access to other wireless data technologies like EV-DO or WiMax), almost impossible to bill - actually, it would be impossible to bill unless the entire network was operated by a single entity - and not generate anywhere near enough revenue to warrant construction in the first place.
Costly how? A VoIP carrier would charge a monthly fee for VOIP service just as Vonage does. The GSM provider provides GSM dial tone and charges as they do today to use their infrastructure. Hotspot usage is billed by the hotspot provider or is self provided.
You don't BUILD the Wi-Fi network you leverage existing ones. In any case the cost for deployment of a Wi-Fi infrastructure is decreasing.
So, you have a solution that:
- Has no existing integrated infrastructure support.
- Very low interoperability for voice hand-over between disparate vendor hardware.
- Zero QoS.
- No way to bill.
- And it's not very profitable.
Yeah, that's a technological solution that should fly.All of which are incorrect or unneeded.
For the love of God, GROW UP PEOPLE. It's not going to happen just because you want it to happen. Christ, I want a rocket ship and free flights to the moon. When I was a kid I through that humans would be living on the moon by now. Guess what - we're not, and me wishing for it didn't make it happen. Something just aren't going to happen no matter how much you want them to.
Given that its already been done (dual mode cellular/VoIP phone prototypes have been seen at CES) I don't see the huge technical challenge should Apple decide this is what they want to do. Whether they choose to do so is a different question.
"Taiwanese ODM Winston NeWeb Corp. (WNC) is reportedly demonstrating a dual-mode cellular/VoIP phone that appears to be based on Linux and a branded version of Trolltech's Qtopia Phone Edition (QPE), at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas this week
...
CES attendees report that the GW1 supports seamless roaming between cellular and 802.11b VoWiFi (VoIP-over-WiFi) networks. WNC lists supported VoIP protocols that include SIP, SDP, RTP, RTCP, WEP 64, and 128 bit WPA2, and supported voice codecs as G711/G723.1/G726/G729A/B.
Other advanced features reportedly include POP3 email, Web browsing, MP3 playback, up to 40 downloadable polyphonic ringtones, and even some IPTV capabilities. The phone also includes Zi Corp's predictive text entry software, according to WNC.
The GW1 has a 220 x 176 pixel TFT display supporting 262K colors. It measures 4.2 x 1.7 x 0.75 inches (106 x 44 x 19mm), and weighs 3.4 ounces (95 grams), including the battery. Claimed battery life under GSM is 5 hours of talk time and 200 hours of standby time. Claimed battery life under WiFi is 7 hours of talk time, and 50 hours of standby time. "
http://linuxdevices.com/news/NS7480209721.html
Thanks for your concern about the size & shape of my 'stones', but it's unfounded.
Yes, I am a 'big boy' and also have a sense of irony and sarcasm. Something you're clearly lacking - sadly.
Mmm...yes, it was "irony and sarcasm" when you said you wouldn't come back.
As for my credentials, it's a simple thing to check. If you're so very concerned with MY credentials, I suggest you do just that - I'm more than happy to provide you with all the details needed to do so.
First, I couldn't care less what your credentials are. On the internet they are meaningless. Second, a PhD in Telecommunications, even should you have one, is merely an academic title that is suitable mostly for teaching telecommunications. This is not a field which a PhD is required to be an expert in unlike say physics or chemistry.
I know quite a few telecom experts both with and without PhDs.
And finally, if you'd like to ask me something even remotely challenging in my area of expertise (which is communications and positioning via non-terrestrial based systems) I'll be only too happy to enlighten you. In as simple a way as possible of course.
Mmmmm...I'm impressed. Not. As evidenced in the answers above you don't appear to know your "area of expertise" all that well at least not where it is applied in the real world. If I had "challenging" questions on GPS or satcom I have my own in house experts to ask. This is the real world, not school...the real "test" is in coming up with solutions that work.
Vinea
While I regard both you and SpamSandwich as petty disputants...
Thank you.