re: UMA Services Near RealityI cannot wait to see what the first IMS app is that Cingular plans to deploy this year. They should get a year-end award if it really rolls into production by then.
re: UMA Services Near RealityI don't get it. UMA tunnels 2G cellular signaling protocols and voice over IP to a box that pretends it's a base station to the Mobile Switching Center. UMA ain't IMS. It's a VoIP gateway to a 2G network.
I also question the whole concept of using WiFi interfaces on cellular telephones. WiFi isn't QoS-enabled and some snot nosed kid at Starbucks is going to download a bootleg MP3 and kill my phone call. That's useless to me. The battery life when you enable a WiFi interface is terrible since the device has to transmit constantly to keep a NAT pinhole open in the home/hotspot WiFi router. I like to think that I'm a typical consumer who would go postal if somebody handed me a "new and improved" RAZR and told me that it wouldn't give me more than 8 to 10 hours of standby time. I have no interest in making my cell phone bigger and heavier to carry a battery sufficient to keep a WiFi link up for 48 hours. We'd all be carrying huge retro-90's "Saved by the Bell" Zach phones. I find it difficult to believe that there's enough market for this "feature" to justify the CAPEX and operating costs of deploying all the equipment.
I know fair amount of people that their cellphone does not work at home due to weak signal. But, they have broadband internet access and WiFi router at home. So, UMA is useful for those people to use their cellphone at home. You may not face this problem at your area.
re: UMA Services Near Reality>>I'm a typical consumer who would go postal if >>somebody handed me a "new and improved" RAZR and >>told me that it wouldn't give me more than 8 to >>10 hours of standby time
It looks like the Nokia 6136 UMA phone has 82 hours standby time in WLAN mode from the specification page here.
It also implies that improved talk times up to 5.5 hours are available with 802.11 power management at the wireless router.
>>I also question the whole concept of using WiFi >>interfaces on cellular telephones. WiFi isn't >>QoS-enabled and some snot nosed kid at Starbucks >> is going to download a bootleg MP3 and kill my >>phone call.
I think the key point about UMA is its usefulness for mobile operators looking to grab those lucrative fixed line minutes (and therefore revenue) from the user at home, which is a much more friendly QoS environment (or at least should be!) than a hotspot. Otherwise all arguments for VoIP services would have the same QoS downsides ... whether it's a Skype or a SIP-based IMS voice service. There's nothing special about UMA in this respect.
re: UMA Services Near RealityDoes anyone know of the players underlying UMA and Voice Enabled IMS beyond Kineto for UMA and Bridgeport and PCTEL for IMS?
I also question the whole concept of using WiFi interfaces on cellular telephones. WiFi isn't QoS-enabled and some snot nosed kid at Starbucks is going to download a bootleg MP3 and kill my phone call. That's useless to me. The battery life when you enable a WiFi interface is terrible since the device has to transmit constantly to keep a NAT pinhole open in the home/hotspot WiFi router. I like to think that I'm a typical consumer who would go postal if somebody handed me a "new and improved" RAZR and told me that it wouldn't give me more than 8 to 10 hours of standby time. I have no interest in making my cell phone bigger and heavier to carry a battery sufficient to keep a WiFi link up for 48 hours. We'd all be carrying huge retro-90's "Saved by the Bell" Zach phones. I find it difficult to believe that there's enough market for this "feature" to justify the CAPEX and operating costs of deploying all the equipment.
I know fair amount of people that their cellphone does not work at home due to weak signal. But, they have broadband internet access and WiFi router at home. So, UMA is useful for those people to use their cellphone at home. You may not face this problem at your area.
Dreamer
>>somebody handed me a "new and improved" RAZR and
>>told me that it wouldn't give me more than 8 to >>10 hours of standby time
It looks like the Nokia 6136 UMA phone has 82 hours standby time in WLAN mode from the specification page here.
http://europe.nokia.com/nokia/...
It also implies that improved talk times up to 5.5 hours are available with 802.11 power management at the wireless router.
>>I also question the whole concept of using WiFi
>>interfaces on cellular telephones. WiFi isn't
>>QoS-enabled and some snot nosed kid at Starbucks
>> is going to download a bootleg MP3 and kill my
>>phone call.
I think the key point about UMA is its usefulness for mobile operators looking to grab those lucrative fixed line minutes (and therefore revenue) from the user at home, which is a much more friendly QoS environment (or at least should be!) than a hotspot. Otherwise all arguments for VoIP services would have the same QoS downsides ... whether it's a Skype or a SIP-based IMS voice service. There's nothing special about UMA in this respect.