Re: [dispatch] SIP and GSM/UMTS with OpenBTS

["DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <[e-mail]>]

So you propose that IETF should write standards solely for an illegal activity?

One separate point I would make is that telecommunications represents a significant source of government income in 3rd world countries. Therefore any such activities would be rapidly cracked down on.

Keith

________________________________
From: Ralph A. Schmid, dk5ras [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: 13 February 2014 15:28
To: DRAGE, Keith (Keith); 'Harvind Samra'; 'Ivo Sedlacek'
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [dispatch] SIP and GSM/UMTS with OpenBTS

I see the purpose of such systems in not-so-developed countries, and especially in very remote areas of those.

Usually the commercial providers have no interest in covering those, as there is no revenue from doing so, and
especially in such countries often the government is not willing to force operators to cover an area, and/or they
are not willing/able to enforce such a rule.

So imagine a village, a few hundred people living there, most of them owning mobile phones for communication
when they travel to the town for work or for trading goods - but at home those phones are useless.

Now there are two possibilities - the government does not care about licenses, or they give a license to operate
a local network. This is not our problem here, we are techs, no bureaucrats.

So somebody is able to spent a few thousand dollars, puts an antenna onto some tree, flips the switch, and
a few hundred phones can (and do) log on.

Very nice, people can call each other, can call the doctor when they are ill and injured, the system runs locally
just fine.

Now more and more of those low-cost networks grow up, and people want to connect them. Internet is available
in some places, cheap to buy and install WiFi-links are established, the whole thing evolves, some simple
structure grows.

This is the time were some standards are needed. Open standards, cheap standards, not a 3GPP IMS monster. We
are not talking here about a nice and clean data center with racks full of BSCs, MSCs and all that, we are talking
about simple to maintain structures. It must be some technology a normal computer guy everywhere in the world
can understand after reading some manuals. SIP family of procedures was chosen.

As far as I understand (don't blame when I'm wrong, I'm RF engineer, not a SIP guy) at the moment the possible
procedures are not standardized, some extensions or modifications need to be defined, for being able to cope
with this kind of mobility (handover etc.) and distributed network control. This is the scope of this mail thread.

Such systems like described above are not dreams, such systems do exist, they bring a large benefit to those
people, micro economics evolve, emergency communication is established, social interaction is improved.

Now imagine an earthquake or a similar catastrophe - the almost non-existent infrastructure breaks down
completely. Emergency teams show up, have no oversight what is happening. But hey, they unload some
boxes on top of a hill, fire up their BTS, link it to the headquarter, many phones log into the system, and
people can call for assistance, can tell what kind of help is needed in what place, first responder teams can
be sent to those places.


No fancy and shiny business, just live saving communication somewhere out in the mud and dirt. Normal
phone companies do not do this kind of work, but someone needs to. IETF may be a small gear that makes
this thing move a bit smoother - it is already moving, that is for sure, with or without IETF  :-)

But I may be wrong...then just hit the DEL-button.

Ralph.




From: dispatch [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 3:34 PM
To: Harvind Samra; Ivo Sedlacek
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [dispatch] SIP and GSM/UMTS with OpenBTS

Jumping in here, they are relevant in as much as there is no point in IETF working on this if there is no known market for it.

Usually those type of projects are published only on April 1st.

So all Ivo is asking is for you to justify that it is worth other people working on this as well as yourselves.

Perhaps if you identified the spectrum you believe is available for use in the the countries identified, that would be useful.

regards

Keith Drage

________________________________
From: dispatch [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Harvind Samra
Sent: 13 February 2014 12:37
To: Ivo Sedlacek
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [dispatch] SIP and GSM/UMTS with OpenBTS
Hi Ivo,

I have to ask...why are the questions regarding frequency licensing and economics relevant?  This is a discussion regrading augmenting SIP.

On Feb 13, 2014, at 2:06 AM, Ivo Sedlacek <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:


Hello Tim and all,
if I understood the proposal correctly, in comparison to 3GPP architecture you propose:
- UEs are unchanged
- BTS
                - uses regular Um reference point towards UEs
                - has a new SIP based interface replacing ABis reference point
- BSC, MSC, HSS, SM-SC, ... collapse into one functional entity "SAS/Asterisk/SMQueue". This new functional entity:
                - uses the new SIP based interface replacing ABis reference point towards BTS
                - uses another SIP based interface towards remote networks
Can you please clarify what's the intended business case where the proposed solution is supposed to be superior over the existing 3GPP solution?
E.g. can you please clarify whether you indent to specify a solution for:
a) carriers with license to use the licensed GSM bands?
b) individuals/corporates without license to use the licensed GSM bands?
c) anyone else?
The original mail suggested b) but then you referred to a) in your mail stating "But more typically carriers with spectrum licenses are looking for an economical way to get into rural areas."
If a), such solution can be deployed anywhere where there are existing GSM bands in use. However, it will likely require implementation of the full 3GPP feature set which carriers offer today, including supporting regulator's requirements, support of handovers, integration with other operator subsystems (e.g. billing, operation & maintenance subsystems, ...). Or do you believe that some existing requirements are unnecessary for deployments in carrier networks?
You seem to claim above that your proposal can be more economical than existing solution. Given that new protocol would need to be defined and functional entities newly developed and tested, I fail to see how this can be more economical than deployment of existing products which are already developed, tested, mass produced and mass deployed. Can you provide some numbers supporting your view?
https://www.usenix.org/conference/nsdi13/technical-sessions/presentation/heimurl just proposes new functionality to be added, unrelated to any potential replacement of ABis reference point with SIP based interface.
If b), then such solution can be deployed only in countries where there is no license needed. You list Sweden as one with UK and Netherlands with question marks. Also Antarctica was mentioned.
Can you please provide a reference to regulators' document enabling usage of GSM bands without license in each of those countries?
How will interferences be avoided if several individuals/corporates start using the same GSM band in the same location, particularly if each starts using power enabling "potential 20 mile radius even for a single cell"?
Furthermore, even if all of Sweden, UK, Netherlands and Antarctica enable usage of GSM bands without license, this is still quite limited market. If the solution is limited only to those countries, even if the required feature set is smaller, there is little economies of scale.
Kind regards
Ivo Sedlacek
This Communication is Confidential. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at www.ericsson.com/email_disclaimer<http://www.ericsson.com/email_disclaimer>
_______________________________________________
dispatch mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch

Harvind Samra
Founder, CTO
Range Networks
San Francisco, CA
____________________________________________

Cellular networks made simple and affordable.
http://www.rangenetworks.com<http://www.rangenetworks.com/>
____________________________________________