Re:Google and Apple Would Make Cell Service Better By Bidding
by stanleydrew on Thursday October 08, 2015 @09:43PM
(#10357633)
There are a lot of incorrect assumptions and general misunderstandings in this article about how mobile networks operate generally, and about how Project Fi and the Apple SIM work specifically.
Would it be great if we could choose a wireless network to join the same way we choose a WiFi network to join? Absolutely.
But that's not going to happen without the consent of carriers. It's not a technology problem that can be solved by an outside entity.
- The ability to roam onto a different network? Yes, T-mobile doesn't cover everywhere, but has roaming agreements to fill the gaps in coverage.
- Porting numbers between operators? Yes.
The issues aren't technical in nature. The issue is also not that the wholesale market is dysfunctional or nonexistent.
The issue is that an individual wants predictability in billing for usage, without negotiating prices each day. This objective is most easily achieved through serially monogamous relationships with operators or MVNOs.
Re:Google and Apple Would Make Cell Service Better By Bidding
by dubya on Friday October 09, 2015 @12:53PM
(#10361463)
The ability to roam onto a different network? Yes, T-mobile doesn't cover everywhere, but has roaming agreements to fill the gaps in coverage.
There's a caveat that data roaming is pretty restricted. My wife visited Bozeman, MT, and was limited to, I think, 10 megs of data, which went very quickly. On the other hand, in the UK T-mobile had unlimited but somewhat slow data at no extra cost.
Re:Google and Apple Would Make Cell Service Better By Bidding
by rahimnathwani on Friday October 09, 2015 @03:30PM
(#10362722)
Yes. But a more competitive wholesale market (which is what the article is suggesting) wouldn't necessarily fix that limitation (on your wife's retail contract).
Re:Google and Apple Would Make Cell Service Better By Bidding
by jakeva on Thursday October 08, 2015 @10:20PM
(#10357760)
I just read the article you linked… in what way were they recommending using truecrypt? Pretty straightforward article as far as I could tell, I don't even recall a positive recommendation of anything other than bitlocker and time machine.
Re:Google and Apple Would Make Cell Service Better By Bidding
by tzs on Friday October 09, 2015 @02:22AM
(#10358462)
> Well, there goes net neutrality
I think you've mixed up Google and Apple the wireless device makers with Google and Apple the providers of web-based services. The article it talking about the former, not the later.
Re:Google and Apple Would Make Cell Service Better By Bidding
by YokoZar on Thursday October 08, 2015 @10:53PM
(#10357884)
I always did think it a bit odd that I can't just create an "Open Cell Tower" the way I might make an open wifi access point. This is true even if I have the resources and property rights to build such a thing - say, to make sure cell service works for everyone on my private island venue. Instead I have to contract with each cell service provider visitors might use.
That seems wrong. Independent organizations should be able to contribute the the cell infrastructure, be they companies that need service or local governments just wanting to make cell phones work without giving a handout to one particular carrier.
Re:Google and Apple Would Make Cell Service Better By Bidding
by jauer on Friday October 09, 2015 @02:58AM
(#10358551)
Radio spectrum is "owned" by the federal government and leased or sold to private entities at auction. While you can use ISM/UNII bands ("free"/open) spectrum (and there are GSM base stations that run in 900Mhz), you have to deal with interference from every other device in the band. Cell systems are designed to generally not interfere with each other through RF planning and synchronization of TX/RX timeslots. They don't work well in the face of outside noise.
Now, in areas where cell providers don't see ROI on a physical build they will sublease spectrum to a local operator in exchange for roaming rights (sometimes transparently--you might not see "roaming" on your phone). Verizon and AT&T do this in chunks of the midwest.
Would it be great if we could choose a wireless network to join the same way we choose a WiFi network to join? Absolutely.
But that's not going to happen without the consent of carriers. It's not a technology problem that can be solved by an outside entity.
- Companies that offer wireless service, even though they own no physical infrastructure? Yes, the US has >60 MVNOs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_mobile_v...
- The ability to roam onto a different network? Yes, T-mobile doesn't cover everywhere, but has roaming agreements to fill the gaps in coverage.
- Porting numbers between operators? Yes.
The issues aren't technical in nature. The issue is also not that the wholesale market is dysfunctional or nonexistent.
The issue is that an individual wants predictability in billing for usage, without negotiating prices each day. This objective is most easily achieved through serially monogamous relationships with operators or MVNOs.
There's a caveat that data roaming is pretty restricted. My wife visited Bozeman, MT, and was limited to, I think, 10 megs of data, which went very quickly. On the other hand, in the UK T-mobile had unlimited but somewhat slow data at no extra cost.
Recently, they also recommended using a product that is no longer being maintained because security by obscurity: http://www.wired.com/2014/05/truecrypt/
They don't seem to get it anymore.
I think you've mixed up Google and Apple the wireless device makers with Google and Apple the providers of web-based services. The article it talking about the former, not the later.
That seems wrong. Independent organizations should be able to contribute the the cell infrastructure, be they companies that need service or local governments just wanting to make cell phones work without giving a handout to one particular carrier.
(Genuine question)
Now, in areas where cell providers don't see ROI on a physical build they will sublease spectrum to a local operator in exchange for roaming rights (sometimes transparently--you might not see "roaming" on your phone). Verizon and AT&T do this in chunks of the midwest.
So it forced you to use both its service and phones. Or go without.