Vonage Holdings Corp., an upstart company known for pushing the boundaries of IP-based communications, announced today at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas that it has partnered with UTStarcom Inc. (Nasdaq: UTSI) to produce a portable WiFi handset that allows users to access Vonage’s VOIP network from multiple locations. Known as the F-1000, the unit will allow users to “roam from home” and access their Vonage service through 802.11b hotspots (see Vonage Unveils New VOIP Tech).
Michael Tribolet, executive VP of operations at Vonage, says that the new handset, set for release later this year, will give Vonage users the freedom to access their service while on the go. “This is a great application for travelers, especially international travelers where there tend to be more WiFi hot spots, because it will allow them to stay in contact with communications the way they expect them to be,” Tribolet says.
Tribolet says that there were some technical hurdles that had to be overcome before the company could introduce a WiFi option to its subscribers. “The predominant issue has to do with battery life,” he says. “It’s different than a traditional cell phone which can go into sleep mode. A WiFi handset must always stay awake and be able to search for hotspots. The F-1000 has a battery life of about 100 hours, similar to a standard cordless phone.”
Another issue had to do with reliability and quality. “We’ve wanted to introduce a WiFi product for some time, but the products that were out there didn’t have good enough quality for the consumer market,” Tribolet says. “We finally found a product that gives us the quality and reliability that consumers expect.”
The wireless handset will connect to an existing wireless network out of the box and allow users to begin making calls over their broadband Internet connection right away, using their existing Vonage account. As a user travels to another location (like a Starbucks or their office), the handset will automatically scan for available authorized WiFi networks and connect to them, allowing users to make calls.
Pricing for the F-1000 hasn’t been determined, but Vonage spokesman Jamie Serino says that one of the models currently being explored is offering the handset as a free option to customers when they sign up for service. Currently, Vonage customers must use an adapter to connect a phone to their IP network, but Serino says that letting customers choose between the wired or wireless option is something the company is looking at. “If you wanted both the wired and wireless option, then it would cost money,” he says.
Tribolet says that Vonage is exploring a multiple vendor strategy for offering additional wireless handsets, but is working exclusively with UTStarcom to bring the product to market. He noted Vonage’s existing relationship with UTStarcom as its voicemail provider. “We already have a great relationship with them and will continue to advance the partnership and add new features and improvements to the product.”
Other Vonage CES announcements:
Vonage also announced today that it would extend its relationship with Texas Instruments Inc. (NYSE: TXN) to include TI VOIP software and semiconductors in new Vonage-compatible communications products available from its partners, Viseon and VTech Communications. The two new devices, an IP videophone from Viseon and a cordless broadband telephone system from VTech, are compatible with Vonage's service and are expected to be available later this year.
>>>rwelbourn>>> I have yet to see a compelling business case for dual mode Cellular/WiFi phones. Why would the cellular providers want to give up revenue by allowing traffic to be diverted away from their networks? <<<
Cellular network capacity is one good reason. There's only so many calls that will fit in the 10MHz (or 20MHz) of spectrum a carrier owns in a market. And now the carriers are starting to roll out 3G cellular data, with the promised 300-500kb/s avearge (CDMA's 1xEV-DO) or just under 400kb/s (GSM's WCDMA) vs say 10kb/s a voice call. For one EV-DO channel, a 1.25MHz slice of spectrum is taken off voice duty and dedicated strictly to data (DO is Data-Optimized, Data-Only really). For a short timeframe, the entire 1.25MHz slice from a cell sector is dedicated to a single user! (that's when one can get the peak data rate of 2.4Mb/s, assuming winds blow the right way).
Interestingly though, the dual mode access (unlicensed + licensed) is an initiative of the GSM camp, see http://www.umatechnology.org for the gory details. What appears to be a novelty for a technical standard is the Stage 1 document, which describes in detail several useage scenarios, both from an end user standpoint and from an operator's, thus answering some questions asked in this thread.
It would be interesting to know what is the view from the CDMA camp (Qualcomm) on the UMA concept...
why would a mobile carrier invest into a cellular/wifi offering which will divert it's cellular revenues ?
some elements :
-if it's not doing so it's gonna loose subscribers anyway, because someone else will do it (telecom is open market now...), so almost no choice
-there will be billing tricks to minimize revenues loss (bundling : you'll still pay your cellular subscribtion and prepaid 2hours per month even if you use less, stuff with idd calls, or some other tricky things, or launch new services on cellular only...)
-user behavior, if the WiFi calls are flat free or very cheap, people will start to call more, spend more time calling, etc... and keep this habit, even when they'll be in a cellular zone without WiFi, so actually the cellular traffic may even increase
the same thing is happening in fixed voice market, many incumbents operators in europe or asia are offering on top of the fixed line cheap VoIP second lines with flat rate, driven by cable & CLECs competition. by doing so they can avoid loosing too many subscribers to which they can try to sell other services. it's sometimes better to loose on one hand on the traditional service usage to keep a subscriber (the value of a subscriber is not only the current bill, but what he gonna spend in the future)
R J McMahon wrote:If the networks consolidate then revenue wouldn't necessarily be diverted. The assumption of future consolidation begs the question of who becomes the gatekeeper and hence has the upperhand in defining revenue share
Well, the synopsis of Heavy Reading report on wireless/wireline consolidation (sorry guys, don't have a spare $3000 out of the markeing budget to buy the whole thing) is saying that the core infrastructure is consolidating anyway -- at least on technology, if not ownership.
However, service providers subsidize the terminals (whether it's a cellphone or cable modem or a VoIP terminal adapter); and in the cellular business they are increasingly dictating the design and feature sets to the terminal manufacturers, as a way of differentiating their services and locking in their customers.
This seems to suggest that the cellular providers may be the gatekeepers, as they effectively own the terminals.
I could imagine a cellular service provider -- particularly those going after business customers -- promoting their dual-mode handsets to corporate telecom managers, saying "You can register this phone with your corporate IP PBX with SIP over WiFi/Bluetooth/whatever, and you can do neat things like hooking it into your IM/Presence and email systems." The business gets to dial the cellphone as if it is an extension off the PBX, and the service provider can offload traffic from the cellular network and divert it over an IP pipe to the business premises.
This presumes that standards have advanced sufficiently that PBXs can communicate securely with the cellular infrastructure using mechanisms laid down by the 3GPP or whoever. Or heck, maybe the cellular companies simply offer IP Centrex service provided via some strategically arranged WiFi access points.
It also presumes that employees will want to be contactable wherever they are; so much for sneaking off to the golf course on Friday afternoon!
Alchemy, Vonage and most VoIP providers provide features of call forwarding or some variants of it. I can have the phone ring at the forwarded number simultaneously (or after a known delay). When the forwarded number is your cell phone number, all incoming calls to the VoIP number will ring at both and the cell phone acts as an extension. Picking up either will do. In essence you just need to give one office number, the VoIP number and if you are at office pick the regular VoIP handset and if you are away use the cell phone.
The issue is that of making the outgoing calls. It is then that you would like to have your cell phone capable of accessing your VoIP service via the WiFi connectivity.
I agree with you on more integrated solutions. I currently have a cable modem, a VoIP adaptor and a WiFi router ... all from different vendors. I have my own UPS for power outages. Linksys or Netgear should really think about it. Laypersons like all-in-one or multifunction devices as they are easy to setup ... atleast the well designed ones.
In my opinion, the way seamless mobility needs to work in a quadruple play offering is:
You buy branded quad play service from your MSO. They give you a cell phone that has bluetooth or WiFi.
They give you an integrated home router/cable modem/VoIP MTA. This box has WiFi and/or bluetooth. At least the cable modem and MTA parts of the box are battery backed to provide primary line service.
When you're home, you typically place your cell phone in a charging dock. It synchs with the cable network over WiFi or Bluetooth.
When an incoming call comes in for the cell phone, both the cell phone and the wireline service off the MTA ring. The MTA rings with a distinctive ringing cadence. Whatever device picks up the call wins.
Cellular providers always have network capacity issues. This capability will offload a significant amount of traffic off the scarse radio network. Many homes also have poor cellular coverage and this feature dramatically improves the quality of the service. As MSOs move more into providing business datacomm and voice services, an office building variant of this feature is an obvious follow-on.
Personally, I think the MSOs will get together in a consortium to provide a nationwide 3G wireless network using WiMAX technology. They can leverage their existing HFC plant to create a mesh network of strand-mounted micro base stations. There's already power up there to drive amplifiers. There are already fairly large DOCSIS pipes available. The only missing ingredient is licenses for the RF frequencies and a relatively small amount of cash to deploy the micro base stations.
The case for dual-mode phones sort of makes sense in business. In that application an employee can be reached via one number no matter where they are. Some human efficiencies result. Enough to be compelling? Unclear.
In residential use this is a non-starter. The gain is not worth the pain of a power-sucking phone and the need for a wireless network in your house. 911 service is also dependent on AC line power, unless you buy a UPS. Yech.
I have yet to see a compelling business case for dual mode Cellular/WiFi phones. Why would the cellular providers want to give up revenue by allowing traffic to be diverted away from their networks?
If the networks consolidate then revenue wouldn't necessarily be diverted. The assumption of future consolidation begs the question of who becomes the gatekeeper and hence has the upperhand in defining revenue share? My answer to that is those that control access.
Time Warner working with Sprint seems interesting to me. What are your thoughts on that? Do you see a reason for dual mode WiFi/Cellular phones in such a combination?
Looks like Alchemy was rather prescient, what with Time Warner Cable in talks with Sprint to provide cellular service. With TW providing residential VoIP service and reselling Sprint's cellular service, they would be in an ideal position to offer dual mode cellular/WiFi service.
Maybe I should starting eating own my words about the business case, eh?
I have yet to see a compelling business case for dual mode Cellular/WiFi phones. Why would the cellular providers want to give up revenue by allowing traffic to be diverted away from their networks?
I will try to answer my own question, but I'm afraid I don't find the answers very convincing:
1. To extend service to an area not covered by the cellular network. Perhaps a cellular subscriber has a home that is in a cellular blind spot, or is traveling abroad. In the latter case the dual mode phone could perhaps be used with one of those mini-hotspot wireless routers that people sometimes use in hotel rooms in conjunction with the hotel's broadband service. But then imagine what the voice quality would be like with all the guests trying to use that piddling little T1 or E1 pipe!
2. In a corporate deal where a company agrees to provide its staff with dual-mode cellphones, wherein the phones also register with the corporate IP PBX and proxy to the service provider's network (using SIP, presumably). The service provider then gets the mobile revenue, perhaps in return for subsidizing the handset. However, with most people now having their own cellphones, not provided by their employers, how likely is this?
----------------------- Alchemy wrote:
What the world wants is seamless mobility where a user can roam between home, office, and cellular environments. Vonage doesn't do that for the user. It's only when you put WiFi in the cell phone and have end-to-end QoS that you have a truly useful service. All the cellphone companies have GSM/WiFi or GSM/Bluetooth today so it's only going to be a couple of years before the business arragements get worked out between the cellular providers and the MSOs & DSL ISPs.
The blogs and comments are the opinions only of the writers and do not reflect the views of Light Reading. They are no substitute for your own research and should not be relied upon for trading or any other purpose.
To save this item to your list of favorite Light Reading content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
