UMA? WiFi Calling?

Wondering if anyone has any guesses as to the future of UMA/WiFi
Calling after(if) the AT&T buyout is complete?

I'm almost sure that both will remain for awhile but I suspect AT&T's
long range plan is to drop 'em.

Unfortunately, there's no carrier that gives me a signal in every place
I need to use my phone which is why I have T-Mobile. <sigh>


--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project:
http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/

In <Xns9EEC87FBB2E0Fxs11eyahoocom@127.0.0.1> XS11E <xs11eNO@SPAMyahoo.com> writes:

>Wondering if anyone has any guesses as to the future of UMA/WiFi
>Calling after(if) the AT&T buyout is complete?

>I'm almost sure that both will remain for awhile but I suspect AT&T's
>long range plan is to drop 'em.

>Unfortunately, there's no carrier that gives me a signal in every place
>I need to use my phone which is why I have T-Mobile. <sigh>

On a related question.... a couple of years ago I asked
here if anyone knew of any other telcos that offered
the UMA option.

Some folk were kind enough to reply (I remember that "Rogers"
in Canada was one provider) and also pointed to a URL which
kept up a list. And which I've long since forgotten

I've tried finding that earlier thread but... the less I say
about Mr. Google Groups the better.

Anyone remember that pointer?

Thanks


--
__________________________________________________ ___
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:

> On a related question.... a couple of years ago I asked
> here if anyone knew of any other telcos that offered
> the UMA option.
>
> Some folk were kind enough to reply (I remember that "Rogers"
> in Canada was one provider) and also pointed to a URL which
> kept up a list. And which I've long since forgotten
>
> I've tried finding that earlier thread but... the less I say
> about Mr. Google Groups the better.
>
> Anyone remember that pointer?
>
> Thanks

Try this:


http://www.umatechnology.org/participants/index.htm

It lists not only carriers but also handset manufacturers.

T-Mobile is the only US carrier AFAIK.

--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project:
http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/

In article <Xns9EEC87FBB2E0Fxs11eyahoocom@127.0.0.1>, XS11E says...
>
> Wondering if anyone has any guesses as to the future of UMA/WiFi
> Calling after(if) the AT&T buyout is complete?

It would make sense for them to hold onto the feature and maybe even
expand it to current ATT customers, because it takes traffic off of the
mobile network.

However, I know better than to expect ATT to do anything that makes
sense.


--
Steve Sobol - Programming/WebDev/IT Support
sjsobol@JustThe.net

In <Xns9EECA1988722Exs11eyahoocom@127.0.0.1> XS11E <xs11eNO@SPAMyahoo.com> writes:

>Try this:


>http://www.umatechnology.org/participants/index.htm

>It lists not only carriers but also handset manufacturers.

>T-Mobile is the only US carrier AFAIK.

Thanks. It looks like that specific site may be running
on autopilot these days, with dead links, etc. But it
was a good start.

AND.... It linked to some stories that T-Mobile has
just re-offerred the "free", as in no "minute usage clock",
on calls made through the UMA/WiFi option.

- when T-Mobile first came out with UMA, these calls
were free. After a few months they changed the rules
so that you'd either use up minutes, or.... you could
pay an extra $10/month for "free" UMA/WiFi calling.

nks again.


--
__________________________________________________ ___
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

At 21 May 2011 20:29:25 +0000 danny burstein wrote:
> In <Xns9EEC87FBB2E0Fxs11eyahoocom@127.0.0.1> XS11E
<xs11eNO@SPAMyahoo.com> writes:
>
> >Wondering if anyone has any guesses as to the future of UMA/WiFi
> >Calling after(if) the AT&T buyout is complete?

You're not the only one wondering...

<http://blogs.forbes.com/elizabethwoy...e-attt-mobile-
merger-could-mean-for-wi-fi-calling/>


> >I'm almost sure that both will remain for awhile but I suspect AT&T's
> >long range plan is to drop 'em.
>
> >Unfortunately, there's no carrier that gives me a signal in every
place
> >I need to use my phone which is why I have T-Mobile. <sigh>
>
> On a related question.... a couple of years ago I asked
> here if anyone knew of any other telcos that offered
> the UMA option.
>
> Some folk were kind enough to reply (I remember that "Rogers"
> in Canada was one provider) and also pointed to a URL which
> kept up a list. And which I've long since forgotten
>
> I've tried finding that earlier thread but... the less I say
> about Mr. Google Groups the better.
>
> Anyone remember that pointer?
>

I think you mean the old "UMA Today" site which its now called
http://www.smart-wi-fi.com.

Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:

> In article <Xns9EEC87FBB2E0Fxs11eyahoocom@127.0.0.1>, XS11E
> says...
>>
>> Wondering if anyone has any guesses as to the future of UMA/WiFi
>> Calling after(if) the AT&T buyout is complete?
>
> It would make sense for them to hold onto the feature and maybe
> even expand it to current ATT customers, because it takes traffic
> off of the mobile network.

One concern I have is that I think a third party, Kineto, owns the
patents, etc. and T-Mo might be paying a license fee? I don't know
that, it's only a guess. So would AT&T want to pay the fee?

BTW, I don't think WiFi calling reduces network traffic much, it comes
into play ONLY for voice calls while email, webbrowsing etc. all work
over WiFi w/o UMA or WiFi Calling so just how much traffic is voice by
comparison?


--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project:
http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/

In message <Xns9EECCDA0D776Exs11eyahoocom@127.0.0.1> someone claiming to
be XS11E <xs11eNO@SPAMyahoo.com> typed:

>BTW, I don't think WiFi calling reduces network traffic much, it comes
>into play ONLY for voice calls while email, webbrowsing etc. all work
>over WiFi w/o UMA or WiFi Calling so just how much traffic is voice by
>comparison?

Very little. However, it does completely negate the need to deal with
3G microcells.

Whether that's ultimately worth more or less is debatable though since
so few phones are UMA capable.

DevilsPGD <Still-Just-A-Rat-In-A-Cage@crazyhat.net> wrote:

> In message <Xns9EECCDA0D776Exs11eyahoocom@127.0.0.1> someone
> claiming to be XS11E <xs11eNO@SPAMyahoo.com> typed:
>
>>BTW, I don't think WiFi calling reduces network traffic much, it
>>comes into play ONLY for voice calls while email, webbrowsing etc.
>>all work over WiFi w/o UMA or WiFi Calling so just how much
>>traffic is voice by comparison?
>
> Very little. However, it does completely negate the need to deal
> with 3G microcells.
>
> Whether that's ultimately worth more or less is debatable though
> since so few phones are UMA capable.

Most current smart phones are UMA capable.




--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project:
http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/

At 22 May 2011 11:22:31 -0700 DevilsPGD wrote:
> In message <Xns9EECCDA0D776Exs11eyahoocom@127.0.0.1> someone claiming to
> be XS11E <xs11eNO@SPAMyahoo.com> typed:
>
> >BTW, I don't think WiFi calling reduces network traffic much, it comes
> >into play ONLY for voice calls while email, webbrowsing etc. all work
> >over WiFi w/o UMA or WiFi Calling so just how much traffic is voice by
> >comparison?
>
> Very little. However, it does completely negate the need to deal with
> 3G microcells.
>
> Whether that's ultimately worth more or less is debatable though since
> so few phones are UMA capable.


Which I really don't understand anyway, since AFAIK, UMA is a software-
based feature. Why doesn't T-Mo throw it on every smartphone they sell?

Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:

> Why doesn't T-Mo throw it on every smartphone they sell?

AFAIK they do.

--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project:
http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/

At 23 May 2011 10:53:00 -0700 XS11E wrote:
> Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>
> > Why doesn't T-Mo throw it on every smartphone they sell?
>
> AFAIK they do.

Most, (but not all) of the Androids do, but it's still hit or miss on the
Blackberries.

Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:

> At 23 May 2011 10:53:00 -0700 XS11E wrote:
>> Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Why doesn't T-Mo throw it on every smartphone they sell?
>>
>> AFAIK they do.
>
> Most, (but not all) of the Androids do, but it's still hit or miss
> on the Blackberries.

They only list 3, I see the 9780 shows it doesn't have UMA but it does,
wonder why they don't show that it does?


--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project:
http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/