"At some point a bit will flip and everybody will slap their foreheads in complete realization that it makes more sense to run voice on a data network than vice versa. And for that data network to be as open as possible"

The bit's already flipped, check out www.kestrelsp.com/OpenBTS/ and openbts.blogspot.com.

As a Linux and Cisco guy, this really bugs me. Cisco was subjected to the "AT&T treatment" just like Apple was when it came to the iphone. Somehow third parties are tricked into thinking AT&T's network is something special. If you want on, you need to have a special client, and play by their rules.

In my mind, if a network isn't open, it doesn't deserve the label of network. In other words, they know that access to their network is a scarcity, they made it that way, it's sort of a physical manifestation of branding. I refuse to reference any cell carriers' services as networks.

This may be what Cisco is mulling over right now. Anyone who is familiar with their products knows they always give you two ways to do things, a Cisco proprietary way and an open standards way. This product only has one option. Cisco has more common sense than that ... they may actually be weighing the pros and cons and profitability of this move.

If the only people who will want this product are geeks like us, and we demand more, just how many will AT&T (and Cisco) really sell?

-- FLR or flrichar is a superfan of Linux Journal, and goofs around in the LJ IRC Channel

If you get a UMA capable phone from T-Mobile you can use any available WI-FI for voice and data without any other additional equipment. With no additional charges from T-Mobile (You can pay $10 a month so that Wi-Fi calls don’t come out of your minuet bucket, but this is optional).

[quote]
Why, other than the obvious business, sunk costs and regulatory reasons, aren't we building something really new and creative here?
[/quote]

That about sums it up. It's the same as the carriers' (plural) unwillingness to provide basic broadband service to those of us in rural America. Too much investment for not enough return. I hate dial-up, and satellite is too expensive and unreliable. But, I stick with dial-up because it is our only link to the Internet here in the sticks.

Doing something like providing actual services for their customers is not what ISPs, telcos, cable companies and their ilk like to do. Gotta take care of those shareholders (me included through 401(k)) while satisfying the bean counters. They won't do it if it makes sense and costs a lot, but they will do it if it barely makes sense and costs very little. Who cares about the customers' needs?