Earlier this week, the CTO of WiMax vendor Airspan, Paul Senior, told telcoms.com that the WiMax Forum would have an FDD profile for Mobile WiMax within the next six months. The Forum was quick to back off, a spokesman saying later that while it has been discussed, no timeline has been set.

Mobile WiMax, as of now, uses Time Division Duplex (TDD) in which uplinks and downlinks are given time slots on a single channel. The Telcos and standards committees have gone with Frequency Division Duplex (FDD), where uplinks and downlinks are paired on two different channels, for its 3G and 4G networks. Most of the spectrum available is configured for FDD, as is the 700MHz band being auctioned by the FCC.

Apparently, the difference in the two technologies makes TDD more “data-centric”, whereas FDD is better oriented towards voice, today’s networks being considered more “voice-centric”. ThirdPipe.com believes that “a new variation in the Mobile Wimax spec…will likely be ready for prime time before 4G gets off the ground”.

Senior says they have been working on the profile for the past twelve months, but have kept it under the table for fear of upsetting their chances of getting the IMT-2000 approval for Mobile WiMax. The ITU endorsed WiMax in May of last year for the 2.6GHz swath of spectrum, thinking that TDD WiMax would sit in 50MHz between two 70MHz bands configured for FDD. With an FDD profile in place, Mobile WiMax could score a coup for the whole swath.

The next generation of WiMax, called WiMax2 or WiMagic (802.16m), has already been accepted by the European Commission for research, and is expected to stand up well to the 3GPP’s 4G Long Term Evolution standard, with speeds up to 100Mbps mobile and 1Gbps fixed. LTE has been said recently to be on track for deployment in 2010, whereas Mobile WiMax is expected to be ready for widespread deployment in 2009, just about the time that television leaves the airwaves.

Proponents of WiMax suggest that with an FDD profile being ready by 2009, the technology would be well positioned for use in the 700 band of spectrum being auctioned off now by the FCC. Of the two major WiMax players in the U.S., Clearwire is not bidding, and Sprint Nextel, having all the WiMax spectrum it can handle, is also not in the game. Nevertheless, the winning bidders can use whatever technology they choose, as long as it conforms to the FCC’s rules and regulations.

We already know that the two major Celcos participating in the auction, AT&T and Verizon, will be using LTE for their 4G networks. Maybe we’ll see some of the winners of block B, broken into 734 local regions, opt for Mobile WiMax technology. A new generation of WISPs entering the wireless marketplace could be just what we need to bolster development and competition, something badly needed in U.S. wireless industry.

 

With the transition from circuit switched technology to packet based VoIP well under way, the focus on telecommunications in 2008 turns to the wireless industry, as broader, faster pipes enable wireless broadband networks to deliver voice, multimedia, and data applications to a wider range of businesses and consumers.

First out of the gate in 2008, and a good indication of the shape of things to come, is the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas going on this week. With Verizons announcement last year embracing the open source community, the CES is already teaming with new mobile devices and applications developed to run on unlocked phones over a variety of wireless technologies. Sony introduces its PlayStation Portable with a firmware upgrade allowing gamers to talk to each other over Skype, and Motorola, among others, takes the iPhone head on with its ROKR E8 touchscreen mobile device. Samsung is also demonstrating its Mobile WiMax technology using its SPH-P900 mobile phone/wireless broadband device, and the M8100, a WiMax enabled PDA.

Continue reading »

 

Verizon’s move to open up its network to any device or application indicates a major shift from the walled garden approach in the U.S. cellular industry, and opens up a real possibility of attaining the much sought after concept of Fixed Mobile Convergence. As the number two carrier behind AT&T, Verizon is well positioned to gain market share and spur some badly needed innovation of device and application development in the cellular markets.

In early 2008, Verizon will lay out its minimum specifications to device manufacturers and application developers, with widespread implementation expected to begin at the end of the year.

CDMA enabled handsets from any device manufacturer will be able to access the Verizon network. In the U.S., this means that Sprint Nextel will take the biggest hit, as consumers will be able to switch to Verizon without having to buy a new handset. Sprint has been losing market share recently and has seemingly put on hold its WiMax initiative for its 3G network build out. Subscribers of AT&T and T-Mobile will not be able to switch because they are on GSM networks, but one can only think that with the increased pressure, their walled gardens will eventually come crumbling down too.

Continue reading »

 

On March 1, 2007, the FCC ruled in favor of a petition brought by Time Warner Communications, stating that local exchanges cannot deny access to wholesale telecommunication carriers (TWC) to provide services and exchange traffic, including voice over Internet protocol (VoIP).

The decision overturned rulings in South Carolina and Nebraska that allowed local rural exchanges to deny access to wholesale carriers, arguing that the wholesale providers were not true telecommunications providers, as they do not offer services directly to the public.

The FCC disagreed stating: “denying wholesale telecommunications service providers the right to interconnect with incumbent LECs… are inconsistent with the Act and Commission precedent and would frustrate the development of competition and broadband deployment.”

In another somewhat related petition, VoIP provider Skype has asked the FCC to apply the Carterphone decision of 1968 to the cellular phone industry, effectively forcing the cellcos to allow outside devices and applications to connect to their network.

The Carterphone ruling determined at the time that AT&T’s telephone network stopped at the phone jack, ending a monopoly on user hardware, and spurring a massive influx of new devices and technological innovations in the market.

The Skype petition opens up a whole new can of worms for the US cell phone industry, bringing them to the forefront of the grass roots Net Neutrality debate. In his paper Wireless Net Neutrality, Dr. Tim Wu details the techniques used by the cellcos Verizon, Sprint, AT&T, and T-Mobile, to limit consumer access to devices and applications such as WiFi, VoIP, Internet browsing and more.

Cell phone companies in the US not only control the public airwaves they have been entrusted with, they also sell the equipment that is used to connect to their networks, much like AT&T did before the Carterphone ruling. They control access to their networks by either disabling the SIM chip on the phones they sell, effectively locking it to the network, or by requiring cell phones be registered with the carrier network through their Electronic Serial Number (ESN).

Strict control of services allowed on the American cellular networks has stifled developers and impeded the development useful applications, severely limiting competition and consumer choice. VoIP over WiFi connections, advanced GPS features, Bluetooth wireless capabilities, and the development of advanced SMS applications are just some of the technology that has at one time or another been hindered by the US cellular industry.

By ruling in favor of Time Warner, the FCC sided with the big boys, and rightly so. Consumers should be able to choose from a wide variety of applications, including VoIP, if it is technologically feasible. For a service provider to deny them that, simply because it doesn’t benefit the carrier, is not only non competitive, but somehow, just un-American.

Skype has also asked the FCC in its petition to consider a method to create transparent and neutral standards in the cellular industry, perhaps something like the IEEE standards committee that has worked so well for wireless networking. Sounds great! Ddevelopers and device manufacturers could work together to foster competition and technological innovation, ultimately with enormous benefit to the consumer.

Obviously, this is not something that the US cellular industry would want, and would undoubtedly marshal all of their considerable resources in opposition. A project of this magnitude would be an enormous undertaking for the FCC, and could lead to yet another level of bureaucracy.

If it is truly the mission of the FCC to foster competition, new technology, and to protect consumer rights as the TWC decision implies, then there is a golden opportunity for them to do just that in the petition from the little guy, Skype. As guardian of the people’s communication systems and the public airwaves, to apply the Carterphone principals equally to all the players in the Telecommunications Industry would seem, to me at least, to be a no brainer.

For more information read the article Net Neutrality and the Cellular Networks at VoIP-Facts.net.

, , , ,

Incoming search terms:

  • skype industry statistics

 

A lot has been said lately of the security, or lack thereof, of a voice over IP network. Just recently CompTIA put out a report claiming that only 50% of SMBs have any faith in the security measures taken in VoIP. Since most businesses consider telecommunications their lifeline to the outside world, its no wonder the business community looks to converging their networks with a wary eye.

So I decided to delve into the subject to try and find out just what it is everybodys so scared about. As most companies require a 99.999% uptime and availability of their voice networks, their concerns about VoIP security are not just paranoia, but based on real threats that are real technological possibilities.

So too are these threats nothing new to network and security professionals, who have been locking down IP networks from hackers, spoofers, and viruses since the advent of the technology.

From what I’ve been able to find out, most of these threats to the voice network are variations on a theme, disrupting communications in different ways using the same old methods. Of course, a Denial of Service attack can bring a voice network to its knees, rendering communication to an advanced form of gibberish, something most businesses will not tolerate.

Spoofing, man in the middle attacks, and eavesdropping are all threats in a data network that take on new possibilities in VoIP. Intercepting identities and data, converting calls to voice files, all bring up thoughts of corporate espionage, company chaos, stolen identities and unauthorized bank transfers.

It is my conclusion that although the aforementioned attacks are not wide spread at this time, companies and security professionals must prepare for an onslaught as VoIP becomes more widely adopted. Just as securing a data network is top priority in todays world, up to date security precautions are of utmost importance when converging your data and voice networks. It falls to the professionals responsible for the installation, be they in house or contracted out, to put security at the forefront of any migration.

For more information on the security threats facing voice over the Internet, read my full article, VoIP Security Threats Explained.

, , , , ,

 

 

On January 9th, Republican Senator Olympia Snowe and Democrat Byron Dorgan reintroduced the Internet Freedom Preservation Act to the Senate. Better known as the Net Neutrality Act, the bill was killed by the Senate last year in a vote split down party lines (Democrats yea, Republicans nay), with the exception of Senator Snowe. With the Democrats having a slight majority in the Senate, the bill certainly has a better chance this time around, but it still needs 60 votes to prevent a Republican filibuster.
 
The impetus for the bill started back in 2005, when broadband network executives began discussing the possibility of charging companies that use a high percentage of bandwidth. Most notably, in an interview with a Business Week, SBC chairman Ed Whitacre Jr (now AT&T CEO) stated: “How do you think they’re going to get to customers? Through a broadband pipe. Cable companies have them. We have them. Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain’t going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it. So there’s going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they’re using. Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?” Continue reading »

 

The recent announcement by AT&T of the acquisition of Bell South has caused quite a stir in the region, conjuring up memories of a huge, unresponsive entity controlling every facet of our communication capabilities, and making us pay dearly for it. Along with the Bell South acquisition comes the swallowing of the Cingular cellular network, with over 58 million subscribers, into a vast monolithic conglomerate reminiscent of most of the last century.

But what do we really have to fear? Today’s AT&T is merely a shadow of it’s former self, and in fact is only a brand, with little in common with the AT&T of old. Why they would want to instill fear in the hearts of so many Americans is beyond me, but the plan is to phase out the Bell South and Cingular brands, rename everything to AT&T, and launch a fleet of vans with the dreaded AT&T globe logo to terrorize our local neighborhoods

The AT&T monopoly that we remember so well was forced by the Justice Department back in 1984 to split up into several smaller companies, resulting in the birth of the seven regional Baby Bells, and leaving AT&T itself as a mere long distance phone company.

What followed in the late 1990’s was a consolidation of the industry if you will, with one of the players being the local baby bell Southwestern Bell Corp, based in Texas. As this regional bell began buying out its competition, local phone companies the likes of PacBell and Ameritech succumbed to the pressure. This melding in the industry resulted in the birth of the company known as SBC.

In 2000, SBC and the regional phone company Bell South enter into a joint venture to combine their cellular networks, calling the new company Cingular Wireless. The next year, a bloated AT&T decides to trim down by spinning off its wireless division, which becomes AT&T Wireless. In 2004, Cingular (jointly owned by SBC and Bell South) acquires AT&T Wireless for $41 billion, while its former parent, AT&T, retains the right to the AT&T Wireless brand name.

Fast forward to 2005, SBC buys out AT&T for a mere $16 billion, and thus the rights to the AT&T Wireless name. After some careful consideration, (yea, right) SBC changes its name to AT&T.

Which brings us full circle. The new AT&T (SBC) buys Bell South (and thus the remaining interest in Cingular) and is now planning to launch a marketing campaign to erase the Bell South and Cingular names, and replace them with the well known brand AT&T.

So what just happened here? To recap, Moms’ kids are kicked out into the real world. One of the siblings eats its neighbors and its other siblings, and then gobbles up the aging and decrepit mom. The sibling, now middle aged, changes its name to its mothers in an attempt to cover up the loss of the mother, and to use Ma’s name to lure in more food.

Will it work? Maybe. After all, you are what you eat!

 

Incoming search terms:

  • Southwestern Bell gobbles up Baby Bells

© 2011 VoIP-Facts.net: The Blog Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha