On Thursday, October 11, 2001, at 10:57 , Lars Freitag wrote:
> <snip>
> Unfortunately, the reports don't give a whole lot more
> detail (particularly re. roaming destinations).
This is considered sensitive data by most operators.
> Anyway, this seem to indicate sufficient demand for
> voice roaming services at least on a regional level
> (esp. if prices come down).
Absolutely.
> However, looking forward to date, the issues become a
> lot more interesting and complex. First of all, data
> roaming is much more challenging and difficult to make
> work than voice roaming, of course (especially with a
> technology). In fact, most operators negotiating their
> GPRS roaming agreements now focus solely voice roaming
> (and even see that as quite a challenge).
The "home network charges" roaming model has unnecessarily
over-complicated this issue. The problems they face to get GPRS roaming
working wouldn't have to be there. Those problems are home grown. Change
the roaming model and those problems will disappear.
The "visited network charges" roaming model (i.e.ZEBRA) doesn't have any
issues with GPRS roaming at all, neither technically nor logistically.
In fact GPRS service comes as a side effect. This is because a roamer
becomes a local user of the visited network (temporarily) and therefore
gets local GPRS service there just like anybody else (provided that the
visited network has GPRS of course). The home network has nothing to do
with it. No issues with roaming whatsoever. No extra equipment required.
No adjustment to any roaming agreements necessary.
One more reason why the alternative model is a serious contender.
rgds
benjamin
[ Need archives? How to unsubscribe? http://www.appelsiini.net/keitai-l/ ]
Received on Thu Oct 11 18:20:12 2001