<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: T-Mobile and the circling VoIP sharks</title>
	<atom:link href="http://saunderslog.com/2007/06/18/t-mobile-and-the-circling-voip-sharks/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://saunderslog.com/2007/06/18/t-mobile-and-the-circling-voip-sharks/</link>
	<description>A daily round table on the tech industry with experts and callers from all over the globe. Join us as we pick apart the news and get to the meat of what\'s happening out there.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Mar 2010 16:12:29 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Who&#8217;s In Charge Here? Carrier Battles for Revenue Sustenance : voiceontheweb.biz</title>
		<link>http://saunderslog.com/2007/06/18/t-mobile-and-the-circling-voip-sharks/comment-page-1/#comment-1041603</link>
		<dc:creator>Who&#8217;s In Charge Here? Carrier Battles for Revenue Sustenance : voiceontheweb.biz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Oct 2008 02:46:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://saunderslog.com/2007/06/18/t-mobile-and-the-circling-voip-sharks/#comment-1041603</guid>
		<description>[...] SaundersLog: My prediction?  As painful as this is for Truphone, they will ultimately prevail.  Logically applications and pipes are separate, and open markets demand interoperability. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] SaundersLog: My prediction?  As painful as this is for Truphone, they will ultimately prevail.  Logically applications and pipes are separate, and open markets demand interoperability. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tamara</title>
		<link>http://saunderslog.com/2007/06/18/t-mobile-and-the-circling-voip-sharks/comment-page-1/#comment-332794</link>
		<dc:creator>Tamara</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Jul 2007 09:13:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://saunderslog.com/2007/06/18/t-mobile-and-the-circling-voip-sharks/#comment-332794</guid>
		<description>Mobile VoIP operator, Yeigo Communicationsâ€™ Rapelang Rabana: 

&quot;This is a VoIP milestone. The victory over T-Mobile has set a global precedent. We will now see greater belief in the innovative service provided, and an even larger influx of international clientele subscribing to VoIP technology.â€ 

â€œVoIP calls are most certainly cheaper, especially with regards to international communication. It&#039;s no wonder network providers are starting to feel somewhat threatened by the VoIP presence in the market.â€

For more information on Yeigo - visit www.yeigo.com</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mobile VoIP operator, Yeigo Communicationsâ€™ Rapelang Rabana: </p>
<p>&#8220;This is a VoIP milestone. The victory over T-Mobile has set a global precedent. We will now see greater belief in the innovative service provided, and an even larger influx of international clientele subscribing to VoIP technology.â€ </p>
<p>â€œVoIP calls are most certainly cheaper, especially with regards to international communication. It&#8217;s no wonder network providers are starting to feel somewhat threatened by the VoIP presence in the market.â€</p>
<p>For more information on Yeigo &#8211; visit <a href="http://www.yeigo.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.yeigo.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John O'Prey</title>
		<link>http://saunderslog.com/2007/06/18/t-mobile-and-the-circling-voip-sharks/comment-page-1/#comment-318703</link>
		<dc:creator>John O'Prey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Jul 2007 08:12:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://saunderslog.com/2007/06/18/t-mobile-and-the-circling-voip-sharks/#comment-318703</guid>
		<description>Markus,

As you now know well WiFiMobile is a stand alone 3rd party application that does not rely on the Nokia client.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Markus,</p>
<p>As you now know well WiFiMobile is a stand alone 3rd party application that does not rely on the Nokia client.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Markus Goebel's Tech News Comments</title>
		<link>http://saunderslog.com/2007/06/18/t-mobile-and-the-circling-voip-sharks/comment-page-1/#comment-313702</link>
		<dc:creator>Markus Goebel's Tech News Comments</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2007 13:28:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://saunderslog.com/2007/06/18/t-mobile-and-the-circling-voip-sharks/#comment-313702</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Mobile incumbents lock down alternative VoIP&lt;/strong&gt;

It&#039;s even worse now. The Open Mobile Terminal Alliance in London, a organisation of big mobile operators like Orange, Vodafone, T-Mobile and 3 has agreed to lock down Truphone and the like. No Truphone or Wifimobile in the first two years of a contra...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Mobile incumbents lock down alternative VoIP</strong></p>
<p>It&#8217;s even worse now. The Open Mobile Terminal Alliance in London, a organisation of big mobile operators like Orange, Vodafone, T-Mobile and 3 has agreed to lock down Truphone and the like. No Truphone or Wifimobile in the first two years of a contra&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dean Collins</title>
		<link>http://saunderslog.com/2007/06/18/t-mobile-and-the-circling-voip-sharks/comment-page-1/#comment-291879</link>
		<dc:creator>Dean Collins</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Jun 2007 13:37:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://saunderslog.com/2007/06/18/t-mobile-and-the-circling-voip-sharks/#comment-291879</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ve been told that Iowa involved blocking payments to arbitrage only offenders (eg terminating the call out of state after the redirection) and that voice delivered audio information services were not being blocked and were being paid.

At least this was the information provided by the entity wanting to host my clients information service - as my client is at least 6 months away from delivering a product it didn&#039;t really matter eitherway as I&#039;m sure a lot will change between now and then.

Cheers,
Dean Collins
www.Cognation.net</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve been told that Iowa involved blocking payments to arbitrage only offenders (eg terminating the call out of state after the redirection) and that voice delivered audio information services were not being blocked and were being paid.</p>
<p>At least this was the information provided by the entity wanting to host my clients information service &#8211; as my client is at least 6 months away from delivering a product it didn&#8217;t really matter eitherway as I&#8217;m sure a lot will change between now and then.</p>
<p>Cheers,<br />
Dean Collins<br />
<a href="http://www.Cognation.net" rel="nofollow">http://www.Cognation.net</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Markus Goebel's Tech News Comments</title>
		<link>http://saunderslog.com/2007/06/18/t-mobile-and-the-circling-voip-sharks/comment-page-1/#comment-291694</link>
		<dc:creator>Markus Goebel's Tech News Comments</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Jun 2007 12:06:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://saunderslog.com/2007/06/18/t-mobile-and-the-circling-voip-sharks/#comment-291694</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;T-Mobile + Truphone: Just the 1st of Hydra&#039;s heads&lt;/strong&gt;

Blocking Truphone is like trying to cut all of Hydra&#039;s heads. It&#039;s not only Truphone which is offering VoIP over 3G and over Wifi. It&#039;s also Fring, Wifimobile, Mobiboo, Yeigo, aql and thousands of other companies worldwide. In fact every SIP based V...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>T-Mobile + Truphone: Just the 1st of Hydra&#8217;s heads</strong></p>
<p>Blocking Truphone is like trying to cut all of Hydra&#8217;s heads. It&#8217;s not only Truphone which is offering VoIP over 3G and over Wifi. It&#8217;s also Fring, Wifimobile, Mobiboo, Yeigo, aql and thousands of other companies worldwide. In fact every SIP based V&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alec</title>
		<link>http://saunderslog.com/2007/06/18/t-mobile-and-the-circling-voip-sharks/comment-page-1/#comment-289821</link>
		<dc:creator>Alec</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jun 2007 21:55:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://saunderslog.com/2007/06/18/t-mobile-and-the-circling-voip-sharks/#comment-289821</guid>
		<description>Got it.  I understand your point Aswath.  

It&#039;s an interesting question of interpretation.  

In the case of the Iowa&#039;s, I&#039;ve been chatting with some folks who wonder about placing enhanced services in Iowa, and simply billing back to the carrier rather than the customer.  In my opinion, there&#039;s the nothing the FCC should do in that circumstance.  The enhanced service could just as easily be for the use of people local to the 712 area code as well as those calling in from other area codes. 

So, should Ofcom regulate this?  Don&#039;t know, and perhaps you&#039;re right that is the subject of the debate.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Got it.  I understand your point Aswath.  </p>
<p>It&#8217;s an interesting question of interpretation.  </p>
<p>In the case of the Iowa&#8217;s, I&#8217;ve been chatting with some folks who wonder about placing enhanced services in Iowa, and simply billing back to the carrier rather than the customer.  In my opinion, there&#8217;s the nothing the FCC should do in that circumstance.  The enhanced service could just as easily be for the use of people local to the 712 area code as well as those calling in from other area codes. </p>
<p>So, should Ofcom regulate this?  Don&#8217;t know, and perhaps you&#8217;re right that is the subject of the debate.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Aswath</title>
		<link>http://saunderslog.com/2007/06/18/t-mobile-and-the-circling-voip-sharks/comment-page-1/#comment-289665</link>
		<dc:creator>Aswath</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jun 2007 20:38:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://saunderslog.com/2007/06/18/t-mobile-and-the-circling-voip-sharks/#comment-289665</guid>
		<description>I am not sure whether you are missing it. It could as well be me. I am suggesting that the special termination charge is for terminating the call over the &quot;air&quot;. At least that was that society&#039;s decision. Till now it was clear what is meant by &quot;air&quot;, because the carrier and the service provider were the same. Now with the advent of wireless data service, they could be different. So who should get the preferential treatment. I am not suggesting that the answer is clear. After all the initial decision was arbitrary and so there has to be a social discussion. It is in the interest of carriers like T-Mobile to force a discussion, because naturally they will argue that the original intent was to reward the wireless carriers and not the service provider. So the onus is on Ofcom to reinterpret the rule for the changed environment, just like in the Iowa case, FCC has to clarify what some see as a clear, cynical misinterpretation of the law.

Whatever the merits of the above reasoning may be, I do not think VoIP being stampled upon in this case.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am not sure whether you are missing it. It could as well be me. I am suggesting that the special termination charge is for terminating the call over the &#8220;air&#8221;. At least that was that society&#8217;s decision. Till now it was clear what is meant by &#8220;air&#8221;, because the carrier and the service provider were the same. Now with the advent of wireless data service, they could be different. So who should get the preferential treatment. I am not suggesting that the answer is clear. After all the initial decision was arbitrary and so there has to be a social discussion. It is in the interest of carriers like T-Mobile to force a discussion, because naturally they will argue that the original intent was to reward the wireless carriers and not the service provider. So the onus is on Ofcom to reinterpret the rule for the changed environment, just like in the Iowa case, FCC has to clarify what some see as a clear, cynical misinterpretation of the law.</p>
<p>Whatever the merits of the above reasoning may be, I do not think VoIP being stampled upon in this case.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Martyn Davies</title>
		<link>http://saunderslog.com/2007/06/18/t-mobile-and-the-circling-voip-sharks/comment-page-1/#comment-289611</link>
		<dc:creator>Martyn Davies</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jun 2007 20:06:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://saunderslog.com/2007/06/18/t-mobile-and-the-circling-voip-sharks/#comment-289611</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s all about threats to the cash cow, and we&#039;ve caught T-Mobile at it before.  I put some commentary on VoIP User earlier today: http://www.voipuser.org/forum_topic_9985.html.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s all about threats to the cash cow, and we&#8217;ve caught T-Mobile at it before.  I put some commentary on VoIP User earlier today: <a href="http://www.voipuser.org/forum_topic_9985.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.voipuser.org/forum_topic_9985.html</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alec</title>
		<link>http://saunderslog.com/2007/06/18/t-mobile-and-the-circling-voip-sharks/comment-page-1/#comment-289593</link>
		<dc:creator>Alec</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jun 2007 19:56:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://saunderslog.com/2007/06/18/t-mobile-and-the-circling-voip-sharks/#comment-289593</guid>
		<description>Aswath, I think the situation is a little different here in that the AT&amp;T / Iowa story is solely about toll arbitrage between networks.  In the Truphone situation, they&#039;re legitimately terminating a call on a mobile handset.  They have switches, etc... it just happens that the technology being used to transport the last 10 meters of the call is WiFi.  Their costs are lower than T-Mobile&#039;s... because of WiFi.  

Am I missing something?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Aswath, I think the situation is a little different here in that the AT&#038;T / Iowa story is solely about toll arbitrage between networks.  In the Truphone situation, they&#8217;re legitimately terminating a call on a mobile handset.  They have switches, etc&#8230; it just happens that the technology being used to transport the last 10 meters of the call is WiFi.  Their costs are lower than T-Mobile&#8217;s&#8230; because of WiFi.  </p>
<p>Am I missing something?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
