I was reading the article below (it's interesting but long so I won't post the whole thing)
Is Microsoft trying to end the reign of mobile carriers? (MSFT+Skype+Nokia) ? fox @ fury
Basically the article challenges the notion that wireless carriers (sprint, att, verizon, etc) will remain at the top of the communications hierarchy. The author claims that carriers might one day be replaced by what he calls "soft carriers." Or in other words, carriers who deliver your phone service via wifi instead of going through a cell tower.
At first I was a bit skeptical. My immediate thought was that I needed to be connected all the time. Then I realized it wouldn't be that bad because I have so many wifi spots around me. Furthermore, it would be great if it could drive down phone costs and monthly bills. However that raises another concern, what happens when your home network goes down? So does your phone. That would make more people reliant on their land lines, which I'm quite sure would make ATT happy.
I'm not sure how much OS mingling needs to be done to make it all work, but if the price was right and the phone was good I could do a wifi only phone.
Is Microsoft trying to end the reign of mobile carriers? (MSFT+Skype+Nokia) ? fox @ fury
Going back to the three ingredients: Microsoft has a good mobile OS, they just bought a soft carrier in Skype, and whether the rumors of a potential acquisition of Nokia pan out or not, Microsoft?s recent deal with Nokia seems to go beyond a simple OS licensing agreement. If Microsoft is trying to turn the cellular industry on end, it?ll start out with Nokia hardware built to Microsoft specifications. No other hardware manufacturer would likely risk pissing off their major customers (AT&T, Verizon, etc.) with a move that so directly challenges the entire mobile industry.
And of course Microsoft isn?t alone in this ambition. Apple and Google each appear to have been moving to the same destination by different paths. Apple?s integration of FaceTime, first into the iPhone, then the iPod Touch, iPad 2, and Mac OS, is a clear move toward carrier independence. In a limited sense, the iPod Touch is already a wi-fi phone. It would take very little for Apple to build its own Facetime-to-POTS gateway and roll out a voice-only version to create an experience almost identical to a cellular carrier but living entirely in the data stack, using Wi-Fi when available.
Basically the article challenges the notion that wireless carriers (sprint, att, verizon, etc) will remain at the top of the communications hierarchy. The author claims that carriers might one day be replaced by what he calls "soft carriers." Or in other words, carriers who deliver your phone service via wifi instead of going through a cell tower.
At first I was a bit skeptical. My immediate thought was that I needed to be connected all the time. Then I realized it wouldn't be that bad because I have so many wifi spots around me. Furthermore, it would be great if it could drive down phone costs and monthly bills. However that raises another concern, what happens when your home network goes down? So does your phone. That would make more people reliant on their land lines, which I'm quite sure would make ATT happy.
I'm not sure how much OS mingling needs to be done to make it all work, but if the price was right and the phone was good I could do a wifi only phone.