Motorola Plans Wi-Fi Cell Phones 195
Otto writes "This AP article over at CNN talks about Motorola's plans to create a cell phone that can seemlessly switch calls between cell networks and VoIP over WiFi, when it sees WiFi available to it. Thus reducing on call costs. Personally, I think it'd be cool just to have a cell phone that could use my own WiFi at home and be cellular when I'm out in the rest of the world."
Security? (Score:5, Interesting)
A path to rural cell coverage? (Score:5, Interesting)
This could become a low-cost way of extending a cell network into rural areas where it's hard to put up a traditional cell tower due to zoning hassles, but virtually anybody could mount a WiFi antenna on their roof next to their TV antenna.
Who has an IDT Cell Phone? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd have more confidence in this going to market if one of the big cellular players like Verizon, SBC/Cingular, or T-Mobile was the one doing this test.
War Phoning? (Score:5, Interesting)
Finally! A way to escape the at-home dead zone! (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes!
Hopefully this would finally be a way to escape the "at-home dead zone" when I try and use my mobile down in the basement and I can get rid of that silly land-line once and for all!
-AP
Re:Security? (Score:3, Interesting)
In order for such a seamless-changeover call to be even possible, it'd have to from the start be passing through the cell provider on the way to the VoIP last mile while it's being used...
woohoo (Score:5, Interesting)
Suddenly the concept of wardriving has become a lot more interesting. "VoIP wireless hotspot" suddenly becomes synonymous with "Blackmail hole".
Re:woohoo (Score:2, Interesting)
What costs? (Score:2, Interesting)
Am I the only person who's not counting minutes or worried about mobile phone costs?
Whatever this `plan' may cost, I'm sure there are comprable conventional mobile phone plans that are nearly as limitless as wi-fi.
It would be cool to have a phone that can talk to my computers via wi-fi, but arguing that it would somehow lower costs... that's a bit too much.
Re:Where are they? (Score:1, Interesting)
I remember a similar thing... (Score:3, Interesting)
I think; I may have just been smoking some mighty fine crack and made the whole thing up...
Anyone else in Oz remember this??
err!
jak.
Handover? (Score:3, Interesting)
So what happens if you move outside the WiFi coverage during a call? Handover between 3G networks and GSM should be possible, but is it possible to switch from WiFi to normal GSM without disconnecting the call? I believe this requires support from the network as well, meaning that the operators will have their say, too. Correct me if I'm wrong here.
Continuing the VoIP traffic over GPRS data could be possible without new features to the network or disconnecting, but that does not sound very tempting, since the rates for standard GPRS are counted in Euros/MB where I live...
Re:Toy (Score:3, Interesting)
Boo Hoo (Score:2, Interesting)
802.11x is probably the only useful innovation left in cell phones, and the major providers are busy either ignoring it or trying to find a way to hijack the wi-fi hotspots that exist already to incorporate them into their networks and charge us for what *should* be free.
Everybody sees what a *great* job of "innovating" the baby bells have done with their massive, nearly guaranteed profits over the past twenty years. These are the same people who couldn't even turn a profit with Bell Labs.
We'd all be better off if they had a little real competition, if even from users themselves.
This concept might actually work (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, I think this concept has more potential use and adoption than using public hotspots. This would definitely give people who don't want to pay for an expensive POTS (and have cable internet or be lucky enough to have a local telco that doesn't require a POTS line with DSL service). I know alot of people who only have a cellular phone and complain about not being able to have good reception in all areas of their residence. Motorola's implementation doesn't make much sense, IMO.
Re:I remember a similar thing... (Score:4, Interesting)
As I recall there was a bit of a tussle over the tracability (or lack thereof) of the phones, but since you'd be able to nail them down to an access point I'd think a 100-200m is better positioning than GSM generally allows.
Re:But can we use it? (Score:2, Interesting)
They would stand to *save* money by having you use your own connection at home.
Overkill But... (Score:3, Interesting)
Just think of the geeky possibilities.
And images all the babes you could impress!
processing (Score:5, Interesting)
Encrypting a stream text or voice doesn't much matter it's about data rate not content, when you get a lag in an SSL terminal in virtually every case it's not the cryptography that's causing the delay. Modern public/privet key cryptography scales pretty well for various data rates. The rate of your digital voice conversation on your cell phone is pretty low (which is why it sounds like crystal clear 8 bit crap).
Not to mention that you'd only need to start a new encrypted once and a while (to your provider not the WiFi Network) and NOT every time you make a call. Who cares if someone listens in on your traffic on the WiFi if it's just gibberish going to the Cell company any ways? Or did you think by any means your cell company would let you move to VoIP and connect to anyone OTHER than them?
Puleeze these people practically invented sinister strangle hold service.
Re:But can we use it? (Score:2, Interesting)
I am interested to see how this plays out, as I have typically awful GSM coverage at home, but excellent WiFi coverage. This would be all I need to give SBC the boot it has long deserved.
Pointless Idea! (Score:3, Interesting)
Save on antennae (Score:3, Interesting)
As predicted (or suggested) a year ago? (Score:3, Interesting)
Thanks for listening Motorola!
This phone got it seriously backwards (Score:3, Interesting)
No, I want a cell phone that can seemlessly switch my iBook's internet access between WiFi and cell networks when it sees that WiFi is not available. Just consider which situation is more common and design products accordingly.
TapRoot Systems (Score:4, Interesting)
TapRoot Systems [taprootsystems.com] has been working on 802.11b capable phones for some time now.
I live in a rural university town which happens to have a large number of open hotspots in cafes, restaurants, and offices. It also happens to have terrible cell coverage. I'll be first in line for a WiFi capable phone.
It's being done (Score:2, Interesting)
Personally, I think it'd be cool just to have a cell phone that could use my own WiFi at home and be cellular when I'm out in the rest of the world.
That's exactly what Kineto's technology is designed to do. Or, for business accounts, it would use your business' WiFi when workers are in the office.
Hopefully this would finally be a way to escape the "at-home dead zone" when I try and use my mobile down in the basement and I can get rid of that silly land-line once and for all!
That's exactly the point of Kineto's technology.
This could seriously hurt cell phone service providers.
Hardly. In fact, some of them are preparing to offer this service themselves!
The "at-home dead zone" is a top complaint among cellular customers. Until now, the solution has been building new towers near people's homes, which, as you get more rural, is increasingly expensive, since they know they are building towers that will always be underutilzied. It's basically a last-mile problem.
For people who can already get broadband at home, this is an elegant and cost-effective soltuon. Carriers love it, because it means less complaints about coverage at home, fewer towers they have to build in rural areas, and, in more urban areas, less congestion on their crowded networks.
This is already in real-world trials - it works. You should see carriers launching this commercially next year with bundled hardware - either Wi-Fi or long-range Bluetooth - and service plans that offer unlimited at-home minutes for very little money.