Subject: Re: [MOBILE-IP] Why Mobile IP? [was: AAA functionality]

From: "Lipford, Mark" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 20:44:38 -0600

Phil,

CDMA Carriers are not deploying data for a very simple reason.  The business
case does not prove in under current technologies and with what users are
willing to pay.  As you yourself have stated, data prices should not be
billed at a premium, but instead at a discount (not your words exactly, but
something like that).  How can we charge less for a 64kbps rate that is
using 6 to 8 times the RF spectrum (during active state) then a voice call,
bill less then for a single voice call, and expect to stay in business?

The N. American carriers implemented QNC for a very simple reason.  It is a
"packet look alike" (mobile originated only), cost basically nothing extra
to implement, and is a solution that carriers believe will support most of
their customers until we can get a good packet solution out there.

Regarding our deployment of circuit based services, again, the decision was
based on a through business case decision, not just technology.

Regards

                -----Original Message-----
                From:   Phil Karn [mailto:[email-masked]]
                Sent:   Monday, January 10, 2000 2:17 PM
                To:     [email-masked]
                Subject:        Re: [MOBILE-IP] Why Mobile IP? [was: AAA
functionality]

                >However, I don't think that wireless data service
deployment is being
                >held back by the complexity of Mobile IP - in fact, Mobile
IP is an
                >extremely simple protocol (If a client can have TCP, which
it must,
                >everything else

                Nothing is ever "simple" when you involve formal telephone
standards
                bodies, such as the TIA. The MIP protocol itself may be
simple, but
                the debates over mobility in the TIA clearly delayed
deployment of a
                packet data service.

                To be fair, MIP wasn't the only culprit in the delay. Just
as
                significant (if not more so) was the carriers' insistence on
making
                asynch dialup modem emulation and fax support top priority,
and giving
                low priority to direct IP packet access. This continued even
after we
                succeeded in persuading the TIA to base the asynch data/fax
service,
                making packet data a subset of what's needed to support
async
                data/fax.

                What I've always found truly astounding is when a carrier
concedes
                that a certain feature is best done end-to-end, but that it
must still
                be a mandatory network feature regardless of cost or delay
because the
                "average user" won't want to install the necessary software
to support
                the feature on his own computer.

                When it comes to adding new features needed by their
customers, even
                Microsoft looks fast and responsive in comparison to most
telephone
                industry vendors. QNC is a good example; it's a kludge that
exists
                solely to bypass the foot dragging of certain base station
vendors in
                implementing CDMA IP packet data service, even though they
had already
                done async data & fax.

                Phil

---

From: Jeffery Brunson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 09:37:25 -0800

Just FYI.  IDO and DDI jointly launched commercial IS-95B 64k packet service Jan 7 in Japan.

Jeff Brunson
IDO