Wireless networks need to network…
We have a full page of news garnered from the Wireless Event, held in London in May. And during that event one thing that became clear was the need for interoperability across public wireless hotspots. Without it, the hotspot providers and operators know that useability issues will be, for many, too much of a hassle, especially when it comes to voice services. They point to when GSM networks were interconnected in only a limited way, or not at all, and see themselves in that position. If we could put in place interoperability and roaming agreements, they say, we could provide that old “seamless” user experience to the user. With more and more hotspots going down, and with municipal wireless LAN becoming a reality, “ubiquitous” wireless LAN coverage becomes more of possibility.
And that impression of ubiquity is important because it is VoIP that is really getting the providers excited. VoIP over Wireless LAN finally gives them a tool to “own” a customer, rather than provide one element of an overall experience. Many presentations at the W-LAN show started with the news that there are now an increasing number of dual mode phones on the market which, the speakers surmised, can only be good news for the wireless hotspot operators. But on question which was not asked was, “Where has the motivation come from for the handset manufacturers to develop dual mode phones?” Would they really risk the ire of their mobile operator customers in pursuit of courting as yet only emergent FMC providers?
It seems more likely that the mobile operators themselves have figured out that IP services provide them with opportunities and, more importantly have figured out in some cases what those opportunities are. VoIP is just one aspect for a mobile operator, but an important one, of delivering a package of blended services to segmented user bases.
How will a voice call be authenticated and billed for in a wireless hotspot. Will a user have to buy ticket for access if he wants to make a call? What if he is roaming and wants to have his phone on standby in case he receives a call (rather than pay for the inbound roaming call?) Is he expected to pay in the per-hour/ per day voucher model just to have his phone on standby? It seems unlikely. And then when the call is made from a phone, what authenticates him against the network? Wouldn’t it be convenient if there was some way of authenticating and billing a mobile phone user for setting up a call over a wireless network? If only someone could think of one.
IPR issues need to be sorted out
The news from Nokia that it has agreed to pay Interdigital what an arbiter had declared due, drawing a line under 2G licences, was great news for Interdigital, whose investors were keenly awaiting the outcome of this case. But the bad news for the wider market, is that the agreement was interpreted by some analysts responding to the news as merely clearing the decks for a further go at Nokia’s 3G IPRs. Elsewhere, Qualcomm has said it may not renew Nokia’s licences as of April next year. It seems that Nokia may benefit from a clearing out of its IPR policies, and to be fair to the Finnish company, one or two recent statements have implied they intend to do so. The licencers claim that their technology is simply being ripped off, and included in products with no regard for what is due to them. The licencees argue that the terms of the licensing companies are uncompetitive and unrealistic. Yet it can have real impact on the industry. A company like Interdigital could be pushing the industry onwards; instead its policy, as it sees it, now has to be making sure it gets paid. From the licencees point of view, they too are being held back by facing “unjust” costs for technology. So IP disputes may appear dry and legalistic to some, but they affect the development of the industry.