UPNetwork  

Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > The Misc

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-18-2016, 12:39 PM   #1
Doppleganger
我が名は勇者王!
 
Doppleganger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Emina Isle
Posts: 14,198
Send a message via AIM to Doppleganger
Will true telecom die?

Morg and I discuss investments and he's perplexed by my obsession with telecom. I don't blame him. If you're into privacy, the best privacy is to keep your IP and telephone activities separate, so whoever is interested in your data can't get a clear picture of who you are...or even that your telephone and IP are linked. But for some crazy reason, I refuse to give up the ability to place calls and use the internet on the same device. It's convenient, is why.

There's a pretty big privacy problem with having your telephone provider also your ISP. ISPs might know a computer accessed certain websites, but there's no real guarantee of who accessed the computer. I, might be the billing address but other people might be using the specific computer, and the billing address might be in a different state or country. With the phone number tied to it, there's a profile built of a person, both of his/her phone habits and access history. It's far stronger fingerprint than just IP, telephone independently.

Why I bring this up is LTE. The famous 4G technology is exclusively IP-based, and I read an article that AT&T is now starting to cannibalize its old 2G technology (which flip phones run on) for LTE spectrum. Meaning, your AT&T flip phone isn't going to work after 2016. After this year, you will need an IP address to place voice calls with AT&T.

But if AT&T has forsaken all traditional communication support - they stopped supporting the telegraph in 1991, payphones in 2008, and now GSM in 2016 - they're nothing more than an ordinary ISP now, no different from CenturyLink or ComCast.

So why bother with a phone through them?

You could still use AT&T as your mobile data/internet provider, but there's no reason to bother with a telephone when you can communicate over IP with any number of methods, the most notable of which is Skype.

Perhaps you'd be surprised to know that AT&T, which was built on the landline phone, would much rather have everyone use VoLTE. This is like Walt Disney Studios abandoning the traditionally hand-animated cartoon...oh wait.

So I wonder if 3G technology (HSPA and HSPA+), the oldest tech which doesn't require IP, will ever truly go away. We know 2G is because it's happening right now. But without something like 3G, a company like AT&T completely exposes itself to competition from other ISPs, including the local variety who also provide landline phone support. Is it the fate of these national telecom companies to merely become national ISPs?
__________________
あなたの勇気が切り開く未来
ふたりの想いが見つけだす希望
今 信じあえる
あきらめない 心かさね
永遠を抱きしめて
Doppleganger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2016, 01:08 PM   #2
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
Well we already do have telecom companies becoming ISPs (and cable television providers, too!). For example, AT&T has U-verse while Comcast has Xfinity. Both provide cable television, cable Internet, and telephone services. They're the exact same package-of-three offers, but one is offered by what has traditionally been seen as "a telephone company" while the other is offered by what has traditionally been seen as "a cable TV company". Neither were originally ISPs -- not back in the early 1990s, before America OnLine was even a thing -- yet both have become 3-in-1 package providers for television, Internet, and telephone service.

Given this, we can address some of your other questions and concerns ...

Will you be able to keep your telephone and Internet accounts separate in the future?
I don't see why not. Today, I have an AT&T account for my cell phone, a Comcast account for my cable Internet, and I don't even have cable television. Despite the recent prevalence of these 3-in-1 packages, no one's forcing you to sign up for all three. In the current landscape, at least, if you only want one of the three services per provider then you only have to pay for the one. In your case, then, if you don't want your Internet usage habits to be linked to your cell phone, you could opt to have your ISP and your cell phone provider be two different companies.

Is it the fate of big telecom companies to become ISPs?
Absolutely. We already see it happening. (See U-verse example above.) Sprint, AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile ... they're all going to have to offer Internet services or else lose to the competition. And by sheer virtue of providing Internet service, congratulations: you're an ISP.

Will ISPs be treated as public utility companies?
I think the writing is on the wall. Comcast has been fighting the FCC on this tooth and nail but they lose their leverage when boisterous telecom companies like AT&T want to join the ISP fray. There's no way you can pull the wool over the public's eyes, trying to argue that AT&T doesn't offer a public utility when it clearly does and has done for decades, and with the line ever blurring between telephony and the Internet, I'd say ISPs' days are numbered for how long they're going to get away without being classified as public utility companies.

Does 3G have to stay, for people like me who refuse to use their Internet as their cell phone?
I don't think you have much leverage in this matter. I don't think 3G has to stay. What the companies will end up doing is, they will make all telephone calls VoIP (if they haven't already done so anyway) and will just front end you that you're "using a telphone ;D" when really your phone is nothing more than an overglorified Skype mic.

Think about television, with the switch from analog to digital. The government didn't say, "Well shoot, we can't axe analog because all these people want to still use it." The government said, "Fuck these people. D: They're holding us back. ... Alright, let's mail them set-top boxes that will convert our new digital broadcasts to a signal interpretable by their old analog TVs." There is no more analog TV broadcasted on public airwaves anymore, even if you want there to be. It's all gone digital. Once those set-top boxes break, I imagine people will be told "Tough " and told to go buy a new, digital-compatible television.

You're being offered a service. You have the right to refuse service, but you don't enjoy any sort of special right to mandate that the government do things your special way. Imagine if someone said, "I want to use a cell phone but I insist that all of the information going to and from my phone be encrypted in {very specific encryption protocol} and that it only be transmitted over {very specific frequencies}." The government would tell that person, "Uhhhhhhhhhhhhh ... no? " and say they can either use the phone service provided as is or they can opt not to and not have any phone. That's what you're dealing with here.
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2016, 02:09 PM   #3
Doppleganger
我が名は勇者王!
 
Doppleganger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Emina Isle
Posts: 14,198
Send a message via AIM to Doppleganger
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon87 View Post
Well we already do have telecom companies becoming ISPs (and cable television providers, too!). For example, AT&T has U-verse while Comcast has Xfinity. Both provide cable television, cable Internet, and telephone services. They're the exact same package-of-three offers, but one is offered by what has traditionally been seen as "a telephone company" while the other is offered by what has traditionally been seen as "a cable TV company". Neither were originally ISPs -- not back in the early 1990s, before America OnLine was even a thing -- yet both have become 3-in-1 package providers for television, Internet, and telephone service.
There's a subtle difference with what I'm arguing. I'm saying that telecom only becomes an ISP. Right now, they are a diverse bundle of different communication approaches, but it's pretty clear to anyone paying attention that the internet obsoletes what telecom currently offers.

-Netflix, BAM Tech, are superior to cable for both end users and advertisers
-Skype is superior to regular telephone, offering video, voice and text

Consoles are technically obsoleted by PCs, but for reasons I don't fully understand as a non-gamer they haven't been completely wiped out, although hand-helds are much more popular abroad than consoles. And, mobile gaming is tearing hand-helds a new arsehole.

Why I say telecom dies is because telephone service is designated as a utility, so it MUST be offered to anyone who wants it, and is subject to regulation and unions. ISPs don't have to deal with this, and would aim to provide similar services without the high maintenance, infrastructure costs associated with being a utility company. AT&T saying it wants to get out of landline isn't any different from divesting themselves from the utilities business completely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon87 View Post
Will you be able to keep your telephone and Internet accounts separate in the future?
I don't see why not. Today, I have an AT&T account for my cell phone, a Comcast account for my cable Internet, and I don't even have cable television. Despite the recent prevalence of these 3-in-1 packages, no one's forcing you to sign up for all three. In the current landscape, at least, if you only want one of the three services per provider then you only have to pay for the one. In your case, then, if you don't want your Internet usage habits to be linked to your cell phone, you could opt to have your ISP and your cell phone provider be two different companies.
I was under the impression you had an iPhone, with mobile data (since you do browse UPN). If this is the case, you have two ISPs: AT&T and Comcast.

I have an Android phone, but I'm ditching it for a T-Mobile phone that is Wifi only. Because I want the flexibility to use internet away from home for private browsing, and keep my vocal calls separate from that. I don't want my identity, location, or interests leaked to third parties who could sell it or put me in danger.

Why I was concerned is that if 2G is being cannibalized for LTE, eventually your phone will lose the ability to make calls. The future, it seems, is you will be forced to pay for a mobile data package even if all you want is voice. Voice-only plans on a flip phone are $12 per month for single-line use, the most expensive variety possible. Prepaid smartphone plans start at $45.

It's like the difference between using the Post Office, or Federal Express.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon87 View Post
Is it the fate of big telecom companies to become ISPs?
Absolutely. We already see it happening. (See U-verse example above.) Sprint, AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile ... they're all going to have to offer Internet services or else lose to the competition. And by sheer virtue of providing Internet service, congratulations: you're an ISP.
This is why I forsee death. The ISP market is already crowded with other national carriers, as well as smaller local operations. The ONLY advantage AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint will have is they're in the smartphone business, but to counteract that you could simply have local companies opt to expand Wifi further, making VoIP a la Republic Wireless to become an extremely cheap alternative.

The end result is, smartphones does not look like a promising market in the future. That horse might be ready to go to the glue factory.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon87 View Post
Will ISPs be treated as public utility companies?
I think the writing is on the wall. Comcast has been fighting the FCC on this tooth and nail but they lose their leverage when boisterous telecom companies like AT&T want to join the ISP fray. There's no way you can pull the wool over the public's eyes, trying to argue that AT&T doesn't offer a public utility when it clearly does and has done for decades, and with the line ever blurring between telephony and the Internet, I'd say ISPs' days are numbered for how long they're going to get away without being classified as public utility companies.
This is what bugs me about AT&T declaring it wants to ditch landlines. The problem arises with a flight from the market: Verizon and AT&T are still the market leaders even if their telephone business is regulated, they're using proceeds from the smartphone market to pay the costs associated with maintaining copper wire, fiber to rural areas who make one call per day, and are still beating T-Mobile and Sprint. AT&T is in a hurry to leave because the last person holding a baton (probably Verizon) would then be stuck having to support telephones, as by law telephones should be available to anyone who wants one.

But it loses all identity except as a brand name if it goes full ISP. I see zero reason to subscribe to the expensive, NSA compliant AT&T when I have a cheaper alternative right here at home who doesn't care that I'm using Bittorrent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon87 View Post
Does 3G have to stay, for people like me who refuse to use their Internet as their cell phone?
I don't think you have much leverage in this matter. I don't think 3G has to stay. What the companies will end up doing is, they will make all telephone calls VoIP (if they haven't already done so anyway) and will just front end you that you're "using a telphone ;D" when really your phone is nothing more than an overglorified Skype mic.
I'm not saying it has to stay, but I think there's a breaking point where we don't firmly LTE the entire world. I don't think VoLTE or VoIP will be as omnipresent because of the utility status.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon87 View Post
Think about television, with the switch from analog to digital. The government didn't say, "Well shoot, we can't axe analog because all these people want to still use it." The government said, "Fuck these people. D: They're holding us back. ... Alright, let's mail them set-top boxes that will convert our new digital broadcasts to a signal interpretable by their old analog TVs." There is no more analog TV broadcasted on public airwaves anymore, even if you want there to be. It's all gone digital. Once those set-top boxes break, I imagine people will be told "Tough " and told to go buy a new, digital-compatible television.
Analog to digital was a much less painful conversion than copper to wireless LTE, over a much more gradual period of time. At least, there's a huge gap of infrastructure between copper and wireless LTE.

It really depends, I think, on what gets classified as a utility. "internet"? If it's internet, which can be serviced by at least dial-up, copper and fiber must be maintained. If it's "wireless internet" there needs to be significant infrastructure investment to bring wireless LTE to homes in rural Alaska. Because LTE has terrible signal in buildings, as anyone who has tried to make a call from a hospital knows, so almost every building will need some kind of signal amplifier or LTE amplifier to support un-interrupted calls. That would be insanely expensive (as they currently don't exist), and who end sup having to pay for the R&D? Telecom.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon87 View Post
You're being offered a service. You have the right to refuse service, but you don't enjoy any sort of special right to mandate that the government do things your special way. Imagine if someone said, "I want to use a cell phone but I insist that all of the information going to and from my phone be encrypted in {very specific encryption protocol} and that it only be transmitted over {very specific frequencies}." The government would tell that person, "Uhhhhhhhhhhhhh ... no? " and say they can either use the phone service provided as is or they can opt not to and not have any phone. That's what you're dealing with here.
I get that, but it isn't really the purpose of this topic. The topic was made because I think the big four who rule smartphones will disappear into anonymity if they ditch their telephone business, and might die or get merged altogether.

It's like, Burger King offers beef, chicken, and fish based food. What happens if BK decided chicken is the future (because of say some cow diseases that makes beef poisonous) and becomes a chicken-only franchise? Burger King is one of the most profitable fast foot restaurants due to its diverse portfolio of items. If it becomes a chicken chain, it competes with all the other chicken chains (lowering its profitability) and becomes nothing special. The only thing going for it is brand recognition, but people didn't go to BK for the chicken, they had loyalty to the Whopper. Versus folks having loyalty to KFC, Church's, Chik-fil-A before then.

Why I think 3G might not disappear is without it, or some kind of non-IP offering for voice calls, telecom completely exposes itself to an industry that's already very competitive with better entrenched firms like itself, and the brand might not be recognizable. If Halliburton decides to go fill KaibaCorp and announces entry into the video game industry, is the Halliburton name enough for people to buy a FPS like "Whomever May Die: Baghdad"? I'm skeptical.
__________________
あなたの勇気が切り開く未来
ふたりの想いが見つけだす希望
今 信じあえる
あきらめない 心かさね
永遠を抱きしめて
Doppleganger is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > The Misc


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:48 PM.


Design By: Miner Skinz.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.