|
Home > Archive > Voice Over IP in UK > February 2006 > UMA [was: Re: Vonage or competitor]
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
UMA [was: Re: Vonage or competitor]
|
|
|
| Thomas Kenyon wrote:
> On a different note, has anyone read how the VoIP service works on the
> nokia 6131 and 6136? It's a lot more like BT Fusion than standard VoIP.
Here's a few links:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/0...ia_voip_future/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlicensed_Mobile_Access
http://www.umatechnology.org/overview/
From casting a quick glance over it, UMA seems to be about seamless handover
from a GSM/3G cell, to a Wifi or bluetooth internet connection.
From the Reg article: "[Nokia's VP Kai] Oistamo said the benefits of UMA
were having one device and one phone number - as well as the oft-touted
cost savings."
To me it doesn't really add up - it doesn't cost anything to receive mobile
calls [in the UK anyway] over the mobile network on my mobile phone whilst
sitting at my desk, whether in range of an unmetered internet connection or
not. So UMA isn't going to make any difference whatsoever on this one.
As for the other cost saving, outgoing calls: the reason VoIP is such a big
'thing', is that there are so many VoIP call providers and they're all so
cheap. Therefore, if I'm in range of an unmetered internet connection, why
on earth would I want to go through my mobile telco's "UMA Network
Controller" and "Core Mobile Network"[1][2]? They'll only charge me for the
priveledge, et voila, the whole point of using VoIP disappears!
Conversely, if my mobile telco *didn't* charge me for using their "UMANC"
and "CMN" via VoIP, then they'll have a hard time justifying charging me to
use it from the private cell side, thereby hollowing out their business
model at a stroke. Not a likely scenario, especially when you consider [if
the rumours are to be believed] that 80% of Vodafone's revenues come from
voice.
And finally, any decent phone system can route calls from a persons desk
phone to their mobile if they don't pick up or whatever.
Perhaps I'm just completely missing the point, I'd love someone to prove me
wrong.
--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (gebssnfxl@ubgznvy.pbz)
21:58:47 up 20 days, 2:16, 2 users, load average: 0.68, 0.31, 0.17
This is my BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMSTICK
[1] Look at the diagram in the umatechnology.org link
[2] Notice I'm using these two phrases like they actually mean something ;-)
| |
| Paul Cummins 2006-02-14, 5:45 pm |
| In article <1451275.2voRGWb3ea@ale.cx>, look@my.sig (alexd) wrote:
> Perhaps I'm just completely missing the point, I'd love someone to
> prove me
> wrong.
Which is cheaper for the network... to carry your call from their cell
to their network core, or to carry your call from their Internet gateway
to their network core? Yes, I know in marginal terms it's fractions of a
penny, but fractions of a penny across 1-2 million calls an Hour is lots
of fractions.
You pay the network for providing you the coverage where it isn't
available elsewhere, and don't pay for the bit where you're the cell...
Seems quite fair...
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
| |
|
| Paul Cummins wrote:
> In article <1451275.2voRGWb3ea@ale.cx>, look@my.sig (alexd) wrote:
>
>
> Which is cheaper for the network... to carry your call from their cell
> to their network core, or to carry your call from their Internet gateway
> to their network core? Yes, I know in marginal terms it's fractions of a
> penny, but fractions of a penny across 1-2 million calls an Hour is lots
> of fractions.
So how much of this fraction of a penny is going to be passed on to the end
user? That's what I'm questioning - it's got to be cheaper for me to use my
UMA phone, than it is for me to use any other telco [be it BT through PRI
or Sipgate over SIP], otherwise there's no compelling reason for me to
bother!
I suppose I could be wrong on this one. Not making any money hasn't been a
barrier to other hype-driven technology bubbles in the past.
> You pay the network for providing you the coverage where it isn't
> available elsewhere, and don't pay for the bit where you're the cell...
>
> Seems quite fair...
Yes it does, and I hadn't really thought of it in those terms. I'd like to
be able to take that analogy a bit further - the network pays me a cut for
carrying it's customers calls over my wireless access point, for example.
--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (gebssnfxl@ubgznvy.pbz)
21:59:54 up 21 days, 2:18, 3 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.02
This is my BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMSTICK
| |
|
| On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 22:22:32 GMT, alexd <look@my.sig> wrote:
>Thomas Kenyon wrote:
>
>
>Here's a few links:
>
>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/0...ia_voip_future/
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlicensed_Mobile_Access
>
>http://www.umatechnology.org/overview/
>
>From casting a quick glance over it, UMA seems to be about seamless handover
>from a GSM/3G cell, to a Wifi or bluetooth internet connection.
>
>From the Reg article: "[Nokia's VP Kai] Oistamo said the benefits of UMA
>were having one device and one phone number - as well as the oft-touted
>cost savings."
>
>To me it doesn't really add up - it doesn't cost anything to receive mobile
>calls [in the UK anyway] over the mobile network on my mobile phone whilst
>sitting at my desk, whether in range of an unmetered internet connection or
>not. So UMA isn't going to make any difference whatsoever on this one.
>
>As for the other cost saving, outgoing calls: the reason VoIP is such a big
>'thing', is that there are so many VoIP call providers and they're all so
>cheap. Therefore, if I'm in range of an unmetered internet connection, why
>on earth would I want to go through my mobile telco's "UMA Network
>Controller" and "Core Mobile Network"[1][2]? They'll only charge me for the
>priveledge, et voila, the whole point of using VoIP disappears!
>Conversely, if my mobile telco *didn't* charge me for using their "UMANC"
>and "CMN" via VoIP, then they'll have a hard time justifying charging me to
>use it from the private cell side, thereby hollowing out their business
>model at a stroke. Not a likely scenario, especially when you consider [if
>the rumours are to be believed] that 80% of Vodafone's revenues come from
>voice.
>
>And finally, any decent phone system can route calls from a persons desk
>phone to their mobile if they don't pick up or whatever.
>
>
>Perhaps I'm just completely missing the point, I'd love someone to prove me
>wrong.
The point about FMC (fixed mobile convergence) is that it's supposed
to channel your (largely voice) comms usage onto one bill and one
service provider - all that single number jazz.
In future of course, they also want your 3G and data/broadband
custom. By using UMA to take voice traffic off the mobile network (be
it 2G or 3G) when you are at home, the mobile operators are preserving
available channel capacity for the truly mobile users.
In future, when mobile voice moves to VoIP using IMS-based solutions,
the integration with the fixed world will be even more seamless.
The financial benefits are largely with the mobile operators and
service providers. It's up to you to decide if the value-proposition
to *you* - which is largely about new services rather than cheaper
comms - fits your needs and wants.
|
|
|
|
|