x
mhhf1ve 4/14/2015 | 4:40:22 PM
Re: This is an app for me... "This service blurring the line between WiFi and cell networks ..."

This. I think it's a bit of a mistake to confuse customers with cell and WiFi calling because then any call quality issues on the Wifi networks (which has nothing to do with the cell network provider) can be blamed on the cell provider. I suppose if the Wifi network is actually MORE reliable and higher quality than the cell provider's network, it could actually benefit the cell provider, but.... 

And then, as you point out, there are other unintended consequences with roaming charges, etc.. as users are sorta tricked into thinking their coverage extends beyond where it actually goes.

I also think other carriers that don't necessarily need to employ VoWiFi features might use this in attack ads someday. I could see an AT&T ad mocking how T-mo users have to fiddle with WiFi handoffs and dropped calls when going indoors. I think for a while there AT&T had ads that highlighted that people could "surf AND talk" at the same time, so.. any minor advantage is fair game for attack ads. And of course, the "can you hear me now?" guy could always appear again in ads telling people how indoor coverage without using WiFi is just soooo much better.
mhhf1ve 4/14/2015 | 4:30:05 PM
Re: WiFi vs. small cells sowen557,

Exactly right. That's why this is a stopgap measure. For little investment, a carrier can try to offer a slightly better experience by piggybacking on someone else's Wifi+wireline network.

It would be nice to see more carriers gain better spectrum for indoor coverage and truly be able to compete in the mobile space... but for now... this is what we've got.

 
Mitch Wagner 4/14/2015 | 2:46:56 PM
Re: This is an app for me... mhhf1ve - You raise a good point. When I was in Europe last year I took comfort putting my phone in airplane mode with WiFi switched on, knowing I definitely was not getting dinged for huge roaming charges during that time. This service blurring the line between WiFi and cell networks could result in unanticipated charges, alienating customers. 
Mitch Wagner 4/14/2015 | 2:40:08 PM
Re: WiFi vs. small cells sowen557 - "Isnt this a cheaper option than Small Cell in low ARPU markets?"

Good point, particularly considering the WiFi AP is likely to be BYO equipment for the consumer. Carrier doesn't have to pay to provide it -- consumer picks up the tab. Or somebody else if the consumer is out roaming, using WiFi at a retail establishment or whatever. 
brooks7 4/14/2015 | 9:04:33 AM
Re: This is an app for me... Back when T-Mobile was running real UMA I could do handoffs without drops. With wifi calling today I choose cell preferred unless I am outside the U.S. Thus my phone does not switch. Seven
sowen557 4/14/2015 | 7:09:48 AM
Re: WiFi vs. small cells Isnt this a cheaper option than Small Cell in low ARPU markets?
mhhf1ve 4/13/2015 | 7:44:06 PM
This is an app for me... I'm not sure I really want my cell and WiFi calling capabilities combined on my smartphone. I have an app that can do Wifi calls, and I kinda like how it's separate from my regular cell calling user interface, so that I know it'll fail when I leave the Wifi network. When it's all combined -- it seems like service providers run the risk of users confusing dropped calls from a Wifi-cell handoff that doesn't work to their cell provider.

I think these stopgap measures should be replaced with more effective spectrum auctions that allow for more competitive wireless carriers in the US..... :P
milan03 4/13/2015 | 2:08:49 PM
Re: WiFi vs. small cells In the U.S. T-Mobile fully supports VoWiFi <-> VoLTE handoffs, both leveraging HD Voice at 23.85kbps.

In order for this to happen, a wireless operator needs to make an investment into ePDG on the network side, in order to provide this seamless end user experience.
Mitch Wagner 4/13/2015 | 11:47:23 AM
WiFi vs. small cells Sounds like WiFi calling is a stopgap measure, and small cells are the wave of the future for plugging coverage gaps. 
HOME
Sign In
SEARCH
CLOSE
MORE
CLOSE