"... Next, a senior excutive from ONE Austria, speaking at a wVoIP conference in March 2007 said, regarding VoIP that “you’re very welcome” to use it on his company’s HSDPA service. He also took thge view that hardly anyone would be bothered, so he didn't care, especially as this would probably help with fixed-mobile substitution even more. I can't find the detailed T's and C's on its website, but if any German speakers want to help out I'd be interested in seeing the legalese.
Now, T-Mobile UK’s Web’n’Walk Fair Use terms vary according to the tiers of service chosen. So, some of the more basic packages stipulate “We do not permit use of this service to provide modem access for a computer or for peer to peer file sharing, internet phone calls or instant messaging”. However, others just say “We do not permit use of this service for internet phone calls.”, and the highest tiers have no apparent usage restrictions at all beyond bandwidth caps. This looks like a pretty sensible compromise to me, although it is for use only on monthly contract rather than daily / prepay. And at the same conference as above, a T-Mobile Czech Republic representative was also talking about permitting the use of VoIP via PCs on 3G to help compete vs. DSL... "
disruptivewireless.blogspot.com
Here, in the ongoing dialogue on the encroachment of IP into mobile turf, the realities are being dismissed for the possibilities.
Elmat is right.
"Somehow the concept of the Public Utility has to be changed, at least the telecom provider as a public utility.
But remember since 1984 when Ma Bell was broken down go 23 years. And the 100 year old concept is still much alive.
Deutsche Telekom is illustrative of the case of a concept dying out.
But it went on steps: separating the Post form telecoms, remove some regulations, removing the concept of the national champion vendor...
It will take another 10 years more."
Message 23537372
"Also, Frank's view on the ultimate triumph of all-IP will be correct in the long run, but there are too many stakeholders who would be disadvantaged (not to mention the previously-discussed financial consequences for carriers/operators) if sudden, disruptive change were permitted.
Near-term, wireless players will battle at spectrum allocation, I think. I'm not sure how big a niche they can carve, but frankly, I just don't see operators/carriers/and their WiMax coalition being knocked out of the game. Not yet, and probably not for another decade or more."
Message 23516222
Parasitic loss of revenue-generating voice calls will continue. The parallel (and discounted) voice market will keep growing.
Existing players (mobile and incumbent) are similar to unions in how they react to change: they resist it. Instead of adapting, they oppose: even to the point of seeing a business shut down.
That's a generalization, to which there are always exceptions. Perhaps Sprint's approach will be more adaptive.
It doesn't matter that many mobile/incumbent operators are part of a bloated, inefficient model. They have the high ground, and Friends in High Places. Their paper is a financial Staple Food. They're not really anticipating change with concepts such as IMS, but they THINK they are.
If they're not correctly anticipating change, then how will change come to them? Catastrophically? No. Everyone loses in that scenario: at least, temporarily.
It must be gradual.
The discussions here recognize the trends, but there seems to be a big divergence on how quickly they'll become the new realities.
Jim |
