The Four Major Carriers Finally Agree To Replace SMS With a New RCS Standard (theverge.com) 117
All four major U.S. carriers -- AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, and Sprint -- have each issued the same press release announcing that they are forming "a joint venture" called the "Cross-Carrier Messaging Initiative" (CCMI). It is designed to ensure that they move forward together to replace SMS with a next-generation messaging standard -- including a promise to launch a new texting app for Android phones that supports it in 2020. Dieter Bohn writes via The Verge: First and foremost, CCMI intends to ship a new Android app next year that will likely be the new default messaging app for Android phones sold by those carriers. It will support all the usual RCS features like typing indicators, higher-resolution attachments, and better group chat. It should also be compatible with the global "Universal Profile" standard for RCS that has been adopted by other carriers around the world. Doug Garland, general manager for the CCMI, says that the CCMI will also work with other companies interested in RCS to make sure their clients are interoperable as well -- notably Samsung and Google. That should mean that people who prefer Android Messages will be able to use that instead, but it sounds like there may be technical details to work out to make that happen.
requirements (Score:5, Interesting)
It has to be instant, easy to use, effectively free, cross carrier and linked only to a phone number, not to any other account or organisation.
Otherwise I'll stick with SMS, which meets those needs perfectly well.
NOT linked to a phone number! (Score:5, Interesting)
That's what XMPP adresses a
(which are like e-mail-addresses) are for.
You can have a lookup service, of course. But you won't find my number in there.
Actually, phone numbers should be abolished! They are cryptic and from a time when technology was limited that way. It isn't anymore!
Re: (Score:2)
They are cryptic and from a time when technology was limited that way. It isn't anymore!
Until the POTS and fixed lines are abolished that technology you're talking about is not only still "current" but also massively in use and underpins the major business dealings of the world.
I get WhatsApp'd with my friends.
I get called on Facebook Messenger by my family.
I get telephone calls for truly important things.
I agree with you, but we're at least 20 years from this being a legitimate possibility.
Re: (Score:2)
> Actually, phone numbers should be abolished! They are cryptic and from a time when technology was limited that way. It isn't anymore!
How are phone numbers any different than IP addresses?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:requirements (Score:5, Informative)
SMS is also used widely in industry. It's not the cheapest way to send small packets of data and encoding is an issue, but it has some big advantages.
SMS is universal. Write you IoT application once and it works around the world because all networks support SMS.
SMS works where others don't. Because it's part of the low level network protocol you can get an SMS out even when your have extremely poor 2G only signal. For IoT that's huge because people install them underground, in buildings and in other places that are basically Faraday cages. Often data connections are unavailable or unstable, but SMS works fine.
Devices (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Vast numbers of devices using SMS out there. They are being slowly replaced but the 4G stuff for IoT is still years away from widespread deployment to replace it.
Re: Devices (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Throughout Africa, SMS is ubiquitous because when a phone can not complete a voice call, it will still be able to download (very slowly) an SMS.
Or one might say very quickly, since they take two small packets instead of thousands of kbits per second as for voice.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, I work in the weather industry, and there's an ongoing conflict between the XML zealots (who want to inflate weather observations to 6k IWXXM XML messages) and places like Africa who send weather observations by typing the 50-100 byte METAR directly into a SMS message.
I'm on the side that's most likely to get me the data I need.
Re: (Score:2)
> conflict between the XML zealots
Those still exist?!
Re: (Score:2)
"Yeah, I work in the weather industry, and there's an ongoing conflict between the XML zealots"
Wow, I didn't know the NWS had 21 year old 'brogrammers' working for them.
Re: (Score:2)
When Pokemon Go was all the rage, I would have incidents where it would take several minutes to download 3KB of internet data!
I know SMS uses a separate system from internet data (MMS however does use internet data IIRC ).
I hope this new standard will not require internet data to be used, because when ZookiePookie or whatever the new data-sucking fad comes around, you won't be able to rely on internet data to send and receive messages.
Re: (Score:3)
SMS is universal.
No it's not. You need a mobile phone subscription to get it. This artificial requirement disqualifies SMS as a useful protocol.
I have an Internet connected PC, why would I need a second subscription to send/receive SMS?
Re: (Score:2)
There are various websites that let you send and receive SMS messages online, for free.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, but most suck and I can't host my own. The only good implementation of it is Google Voice. And you can only get a USA number.
SMS is owned by the mobile phone operators, like it or not. It should be scrapped. The ability for them to charge us per message is just wrong to begin with.
Re: (Score:2)
I can send an SMS to my land line, it gets converted to speech. There's also an email interface. now typically disabled due to spam but can be enabled, send a message to number@carrier.net.
Re: (Score:2)
yeah, so I need to know your carrier to be able to send you an SMS. How convenient.
Also, it's your mobile operator which is converting the SMS to your landline. It's not part of the standard. And text to speech suck anyways.
Re: (Score:2)
True, which is why I spend a couple of dollars a month for an IP based phone number which includes SMS. I don't have cell coverage at home.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
SMS isn't reachable on any telephone network. It only works on mobile telephone networks.
Re: (Score:2)
SMS to landline is a thing, just not a very widely implemented thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes it will just fails silently. Sometimes you get an error message. Sometimes you get a text to speech, with no warranty on the quality or the fact that a human actually heard it.
And also, how do you send a SMS from a landline phone?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe there will be backwards compatibility, but particularly in the US there is a desire to get rid of 2G networks and even 3G networks. For a few years now AT&T have not been certifying any new devices that are 2G, and I seem to recall that 3G has an end date in sight now.
In Europe it's more likely to be 3G that goes away first, leaving 2G and 4G.
Re: (Score:3)
When I was in the business we already couldn't get new 3G equipment that was to replace what we had in the field. The price for the refurbished 3g parts was already starting to go through the roof. An this was 5 years ago. I can't imagine the state it is in now.
I can understand the need to retire 2g and 3g systems. The need for them clearly outstripped the capacity of the network. But I will be happy when they get a network that will be around for a longer period of time. Lots more devices are s
Re:requirements (Score:4)
SMS is also used widely in industry. It's not the cheapest way to send small packets of data and encoding is an issue, but it has some big advantages.
SMS is universal. Write you IoT application once and it works around the world because all networks support SMS.
SMS works where others don't. Because it's part of the low level network protocol you can get an SMS out even when your have extremely poor 2G only signal. For IoT that's huge because people install them underground, in buildings and in other places that are basically Faraday cages. Often data connections are unavailable or unstable, but SMS works fine.
This.
Carriers in Europe and Asia are not considering SMS replacements because it doesn't need it... And compared to Asian or European carriers, American carriers are positively in the dark ages, especially on cross compatibility.
I send an SMS from a phone in the UK, its can be picked up and processed by a carrier anywhere in the world... From anywhere in the world. I have a 3 UK SIM that I use for travelling as I get free data roaming in 72 countries (you see what I mean when I say US carriers are backwards), £10 for 1 GB, I can send an SMS, roaming in Colombia and have it recieved by a phone in Australia via a UK carrier. Sure, it'll probably cost £1 but that's relatively cheap if I need to send an instant message with almost guaranteed delivery halfway across the planet regardless of the phone or application they're using. If the US adopts a different standard, I guarantee no other country will because it will just make their system incompatible with anyone elses.
The problem US carriers have is that the gold mine that was overcharging for SMS's is over, so they need to replace it. Other countries have just accepted that SMS costs so little that they may as well offer it for practically nothing. My Plusnet rolling monthly plan costs £6.60 and I get unlimited calls and unlimited texts. The only thing metered is the 1.5 GB of data. US carriers have been gouging US customers, the US being the only country that charges the recipient to recive the message, that gravy trail is stopping and they cant accept that.
Re: (Score:2)
except for the hard-core bare bones plans for a few bucks a month total, I think it's been several years since I've seen a US plan without unlimited messages . . .
Re: (Score:3)
Specialized apps don't work unless the receiver also uses the same app you use. Makes sense is there is only one app and everyone uses it and everyone has access to a device powerful enough to run the app, but none of that is true. That's why phones still exist because the closest thing to a universal communication method is the phone call.
Re: (Score:3)
I spend a lot of time in the outdoors, in an area where mountain search-and-rescue is a major activity (wilderness + clueless tourists = SAR). One day I tested the efficacy of communications under marginal conditions, and was impressed by being able to sustain SMS in a narrow canyon up to several miles in. Voice cellular stopped near the mouth of the canyon.
Re: (Score:2)
SMS is not a reliable protocol, unlike, say email and XMPP.
If your phone is off or out of signal when I send you an SMS, there is no warranty you'll ever receive it. Most likely your provider will try sending it to you a few times over a couple of days. But you can receive it late or not at all.
Re: (Score:3)
> SMS is not a reliable protocol
Depends on your definition of reliable.
If "reliable" means network-level guaranteed message delivery, sure, SMS is around 98%.
If "reliable" means it actually works "in a narrow canyon up to several miles in" when you have no voice or data signal, then it's completely unreliable.
Which would you rather have when you break your leg, a working system that might drop your message 2% of the time, or a system that guarantees no loss on the network but has a 100% failure rate conn
Re: (Score:2)
SMS is not a reliable protocol, unlike, say email and XMPP.
I define "reliable" as a protocol that about a year later in the same canyon, I was able to notify emergency services that a woman in my party had suffered a dislocated shoulder. I would not have gotten an email out in that same spot.
Re: (Score:2)
... It's not the cheapest way to send small packets of data and encoding is an issue....
From Wikipedia.
The key idea for SMS was to use this telephone-optimized system, and to transport messages on the signalling paths needed to control the telephone traffic during periods when no signalling traffic existed.
You might be paying a ton, but the Telcos were using the unused portions of signaling paths to make all the initial SMS traffic and still mostly do. They initially offered it for free, then started charging for it, but it's become "unlimited" again if you pay a fixed monthly fee. They're making a lot of extra money from something that cost them almost nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
It has to be instant, easy to use, effectively free, cross carrier and linked only to a phone number, not to any other account or organisation.
... and it has to work on feature phones (yes, some people still have those). So the statement that "CCMI intends to ship a new Android app next year" is puzzling indeed...
Re: (Score:2)
>"CCMI intends to ship a new Android app next year" is puzzling indeed...
And even more puzzling given that iPhones are 40% of the US market, and this is a US group.
Re: (Score:3)
It would be nice if it offered end to end encryption, or at minimum, signing, to guard against spoofing.
Re: (Score:2)
It would, yes. I'll settle for the basics though, as I can adopt more secure options when it matters.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be nice if it offered end to end encryption, or at minimum, signing, to guard against spoofing.
Spoofing prevention/protection or absolute traceability, by which I mean, allow me or the carrier to trace the spam/message back to a soft target, aka person.
And while we're at it, why not replace SS7 [wikipedia.org] with something more in line with modern security and privacy practices?
Too little, much too late. Use XMPP (Score:4, Insightful)
Time for a standard for SMS replacement is too late already.
https://xkcd.com/927/ [xkcd.com]
Use XMPP instead of reinventing a new useless and non interoperable "standard".
Re: (Score:3)
It's a great comic that's making a good point, but I kind of hate when people bring this one up because they take it to mean, "There's no point in creating standards."
HTML is a great standard. No, it's not perfect, but the internet works far better than it would if each browser and every site where just making up their own standards. SMTP is a pretty crappy standard all things considering, but still, it keeps email flowing between providers. The development of the USB connector made computer peripherals
Re: (Score:2)
"effectively free,"
WTF is that? As in free beer? Or free if you pay 50$ a month?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why have it linked to a phone number?
I feel like one of the big weaknesses of SMS is how tightly it's bound to my phone. My phone isn't capable of having multiple SMS accounts, and I can't receive SMS messages on my other devices.
Yeah, there are work-arounds. I can get another messaging app that's not SMS, and some devices have methods of relaying SMS to and from other devices, but why not use a system where that's totally unnecessary? Messaging should really work more like email, where it's not bound
The point being ...? (Score:4, Insightful)
I thought everything from 4G and upward always was packet-switched Internet anyway. So if anything would be a common standard for instant messages, it would be excactly what was created for that exact point: XMPP (or SIP) in its most modern form.
All the IMs already use it anyway. And it was designed for federation, just like e-mail.
Just that a bunch of thugs decided they wanted to steal money from people with it, which required anticooperative exclusivity to lock victims in, and the livestock was stupid enough to fall for it because we bred it stupid because we always favor and support the dumbest and laziest over everyone else.
If I was some country's leader, I would make it the law, that all instant messengers and the like must use that one standardized protocol. Oh, and linking it to any other contact data, like a phone number, would be illegal too. MY definition of all of those words. Or prison for the entire company. Bosses shareholders, employees, everyone.
Re: (Score:3)
Total agreement. Unfortunately it looks like that ship has sailed. Even Slack dropped XMPP support.
They still use it internally. (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, the ship has not sailed at all. They still all use it internally, and there are many free XMPP clients. Signal actually allows federation, if you ask them and don't cause any work for them.
XMPP has gotten OMEMO, which solved the key selling point mobile IM clients had over plain old XMPP.
In fact, I got my own ejabberd running, and we use KDE's built-in client, among others.
So if you want, you can still go all XMPP. All it takes is to get a sizable user base. The same way WhatsApp did.
Declaring it as the new SMS standard would definitely do that.
(Note that I personally don't even like XMPP. Way too overengineered. Takes forever to learn and implement. Ugly enterprisey XML. And so large, nobody can keep an overview. ... But I'd still take that over any walled garden any day.)
Re: (Score:2)
XMPP is the worst possible choice - especially to keep alive during emergencies / heavy network load. Have you ever seen how verbose it is? You want something that uses as few data packets as possible.
Re: (Score:2)
If you have an iPhone: Obligatory XKCD (Score:4, Interesting)
Here. [xkcd.com]
How much you want to bet Apple does not support this natively because it competes with their iMessages? So yep, it will likely be yet another 3rd party messaging app to add to your "Messaging Apps" folder.
Yeah, Apple is a minority player. (Score:3)
I guess then nobody will communicate with Apple usees anymore. Oh noes! /s
Re: (Score:3)
I clicked and was slightly surprised. I thought the most obligatory one was https://xkcd.com/1810/ [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:3)
I don't see any reason to think that Apple wouldn't support it if it's adopted as a standard. Maybe you're one of those people who get mad at all of those "proprietary" Apple technologies like AAC (created by MPEG) or Thunderbolt (made by Intel) or Mini DisplayPort (created by Apple but released without patent licensing fees). Or their super-proprietary Safari browser (based off KHTML which also became the basis of Chrome).
The reality is that Apple has been a big driver in pushing standards forward. The
Re: (Score:2)
I guess I got modded flamebait because of the "courage" bit.
Guess what, moderator? Even if I'm an Apple user, it doesn't mean I can't be critical of Apple for the stupid things they say and do.
Verizon pulling support (Score:5, Interesting)
Since RCS is using the phone’s regular data modem to send/receive messages... I have a hard time with RCS since the carriers are only there to implement spying for the local government.
Re: Verizon pulling support (Score:2)
This. SMS used spare capacity in the (iirc) control protocol. If the carriers are going to move to the data stream, then they shouldn't bother. There are already a zillion apps for that.
Most important requirement (Score:5, Informative)
It has to be usable on computers as well. Mobile-only messaging platforms stink.
Why? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Because things like iMessage are far superior. iMessage works over wifi unlike SMS which wasn't even meant for transferring data.
Re: (Score:2)
RCS has every potential to be superior to iMessage. All the necessary protocols are already created.
I don't believe for a second the companies will actually follow through with this announcement.
iMessage? Of all trainwrecks?? (Score:2)
The IM equivalent of being a cage gimp for Tim "Bubba" Cook. ;)
Had you said Signal with federated XMPP+OMEMO, I would have been with you.
Re: (Score:2)
I want more compatibility with iMessage. Or interoperability. Just make it work.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed.
Re: (Score:2)
Increased vendor lock in.
User tracking and cookies
Something additional to charge you for
Let "friendly" politicians fiddle into your rights.
Stop you messaging people they don't want you to
Alternatively, stick to the corporate and political drone proof SMS standard, save money and be able to text people with $5 "dumbphones", super #Shiny iPhones and market leading Androids plus anything in between anywhere on the planet.
Re: (Score:3)
It is broken - very much so. SMS adoption is falling like a stone because most people use Whatsapp or whatever to message their friends rather than SMS. "The kids" just don't use their "unlimited texts" allowance at all - they're all about the data so they can use Whatsapp/Insta etc. SMS is also very plain and so falls short of the sort of styling or "text + image" style that we get just about everywhere else.
The telcos need to do *something*, but RCS is about 10 years too late. They'll probably plough on w
Re: (Score:2)
Contrast to any messaging app - all of them require you "connect" first.
Same for SMS. You need to subscribe with a mobile phone operator, and have your phone on, with signal.
Having an Internet-connected PC is not enough.
Any messaging protocol based on phone number as an ID sucks, period.
Re:Why? Because it's outdated (Score:2)
If it's not broken, why are we fixing it?
It's not broken, per se, it's just outdated.
I started using WhatsApp ~5 years ago, some friends I have in various parts of the country started using it for a group chat. That chat group is still going today. WA is so much better than SMS. We stay in touch with pics/videso/sound recordings. I once sent a guy a 30MB pdf via WA. I was really sad when FB bought it, because I avoided FB like the plague. But WA is great.
I hate using SMS... it's just limited, and hasn't kept up with useful features. I suppo
Re: Why? Because it's outdated (Score:2)
Well not really. Have you seen how much WA down-rezzes and over recompresses things? Itâ(TM)s great for sharing disposable content for consumption on a small phone screen, but thatâ(TM)s it.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the carriers are losing a source of revenue to other vastly superior offerings.
That is a legal problem. (Score:2)
1. Have a IANA for phone numbers. Assigning a provdier for each block.
2. Only allow providers to federate in the phone network, that register there and have have a suable contact (e.g. with a plan) cmfor each phone number.
3. Make it illegal for a non-private entity (like a business or political organization) to call somebody, unless it has a contract with him.
4. Let everyone complain at a federal website, and put the burden of proof of having a contract on that entity.
This is basically what we have here in
Re: (Score:2)
But SPAM is not being addressed in the fix.
Features... (Score:4, Interesting)
features like typing indicators
That isn't a feature. There are times when don't want the other party know when I read messages or how long I am thinking about / drafting my reply. Most times I don't care, the times I specifically do want them to know; are astonishingly small.
Yes sometimes if you are composing a long response its nice if the other party knows to wait. However you can achieve the same thing with a simple message like "sec" sent first while you compose the long one..
Re: (Score:2)
That would be controlled by your phone, and you turn that setting off if you don't want to use it. Just like you can in iMessage and any other similar messaging service.
And why isn't it a "feature" just because you personally don't want it? Of course it's a feature. It's extremely useful to me when I message one of my kids and see they start replying back, so I will wait for their response. It's a fantastic feature actually.
Re: (Score:2)
You must be new to the internet.
You see, on the internet, if something happens (anything really) that you don't personally find useful or you don't personally like for whatever reason, then that thing is EVIL!
Re: (Score:2)
For being on a technology site, I'm surprised someone would think that things you can control with settings are not features, just because you don't find value in them. Just about every software I use, I'm probably not touching 90%+ of the settings. But I'm glad they exist, for others to use.
In Signal you can switch it on/off. (Score:2)
First on a global level, and then on a per-contact one too.
So it's the best of both worlds. In your case, you could just completely disable it.
Due to that being complicated while staying secure and anonymous, it took a while for it to get implemented. Before that, Signal had no typing indicator functionality at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreements mean nothing (Score:2)
Major companies agree on public statements all of the time. Agreement is non-binding and provide free positive press. There won't be a universal RCS Android app shipped next year.
Believe it when I see it (Score:2)
How many times in the past has "interoperability" been promised in messaging. Heck, I'm "I remember when AOL was forced by the Justice Department to develop an interoperable messaging protocol that all messaging companies could use as a requirement for their Time Warner merger" years old. (Spoiler alert, they didn't do that.)
We'll see (Score:3)
End to end encryption? (Score:4, Insightful)
If not then don't bother.
Re: (Score:2)
If not then don't bother.
How would key exchange work? You'd either need users to exchange and verify keys (or at least key fingerprints), which isn't going to happen, or else you'd need some sort of trusted introducer. In the Silent Circle system, for example, Silent Circle is that introducer. The problem with having a trusted introducer is that you really, really need to trust them, because they have the power to provide additional public encryption keys, and therefore to give others the power to read your allegedly-secret mess
Re: (Score:2)
Look into Signal. That's how it works best from what I've been able to determine. It has key exchange (and verification if you want).
15 years late... (Score:3)
They're only 15 years late on this update. I guess they felt MMS would be more widely embraced and replace SMS even for short simple messages.
There is a huge advantage to SMS, which is that it is very low-level in the communication stack, like voice is, instead of resting on top of the IP type data layer (which MMS does). I live in a rural area, and there are times I'm up in the mountains and my phone can only manage a non-data connection, which limits me to phone calls and simple SMS. SMS literally only requires a single transmission packet to make it through (which is a primary reason the texts have to be so short).
In fact, the family of the late James Kim owe their lives to the fact that SMS is transported at a very low level, requiring just a packet or two of data to be able to make it through.
However, since they have waited so long to update SMS, the cellular network has built up much more, and there are many messaging competitors that use data to provide more advanced messaging features. What the new RCS type standard needs to actually be useful is gateway type capability to allow messaging platforms to use RCS as the transport layer with interoperability (at the lowest level) between platforms and the native texting capability of the phone.
So if I'm on a phone, and I snap someone else on a phone, Snapchat can use RCS to transmit that data between our phones. Same with Instagram direct messaging, etc. However I'm sure RCS will be nothing like that.
Re: (Score:2)
So if I'm on a phone, and I snap someone else on a phone, Snapchat can use RCS to transmit that data between our phones. Same with Instagram direct messaging, etc. However I'm sure RCS will be nothing like that.
So you have two phones in relative proximity and you want to send that file a couple miles away instead of using something local. What we need is something interoperable across vendors that's similar to Airdrop and Android Beam. All we need is Bluetooth and WiFi Direct for that that, with a Bluetooth profile on top.
Global Roaming (Score:2)
If you travel internationally and have not purchased a local SIM then data costs about $1000/Gig. Useless. But SMSs "only" cost 50c on my vendor. So for occasional communication SMS is great.
Emergency Use? (Score:2)
I've told family, friends, co-workers, and anyone else that the subject has come up with for years and years that in the event of a area-affecting emergency such as a hurricane, terrorist attack, etc, to use SMS text messaging to communicate with because it is extremely low bandwidth and is much more likely to get through even if everyone is overloading the phone system with calls. How does RCS stand up to that, because if it doesn't meet the most pressing need that SMS fills - the one that may SAVE LIVES -
The way things are going now- (Score:2)
If all four of them are in agreement without arm-twisting or carrot-sticks, it's pretty much guaranteed to be expensive, invasive, fragile, and bad for you.
This is big news for Twitter (Score:2)
Once they no longer have any reason to restrict comments to 140 characters, Twitter could become a forum suitable for the serious discussion of the issues of the day. This could change our entire political landscape.
Re: (Score:2)
Once they no longer have any reason to restrict comments to 140 characters, Twitter could become a forum suitable for the serious discussion of the issues of the day. This could change our entire political landscape.
Poe's Law strikes again.
Will this new standard be considered a data? (Score:2)
Currently I can have an unlimited texting plan but if I don't have a data plan as well I am unable to send MMS. I'm fine with that. Will this new standard be along the lines of SMS (i.e. not part of a data plan) or will it be along the lines of MMS (needing a data plan to work)? I would hope if it is supposed to replace SMS it would not need a data plan but from the description in the summary I have a feeling it will need a data plan to work. It sounds to me like this is just a means for the cell companies
Will data need to be turned on? (Score:2)
I receive text messages on my phone even when cellular data is turned off, which is the vast majority of the time. I only turn data on when for texting in order to send or receive a photo via MMS. If the proposed SMS replacement requires cellular data for straight-up text, then I simply won't use it.
Normally I'd be tempted to add "get off my lawn", but this time it's "stay there while I go get my shotgun".
Typing indicator? (Score:2)
I wonder if typing indicator would be something you can disable. At no point do I wish to either send or receive typing indicators. It's one of the great things about SMS and SMTP.
Backward compatible? (Score:2)
It better be since not everyone will be able to use the new format right away.
The problem is, that SMS's basis will be gone. (Score:3)
SMS uses the control channels of old line-switched networks.
But frankly, we all want packed-switching nowadays, because it is so much more elegant, easier and comfortable, and phone calls stop cutting your mobile Internet connection.
Obviously, you could use E-Mail, IRC, XMPP or SIP, etc, to chat over the Internet. Or even use UUCP or plain TCP or UDP sockets. ;)
(I always wondered, why people didn't just adapt e-mail for it. It's extremely simple, easily wrapped in TLS, offers push messages, federation, usag
Re: (Score:2)
I always wondered, why people didn't just adapt e-mail for it
Look at the byte count of the headers involved for a modern plain-text email. You will beg for something like RCS - especially if it has to work when towers are overloaded during an emergency like SMS.
That's easily solved. (Score:2)
First, many headers are there for a reason. You will need them in any case, or are doomed to repeat the same mistakes.
E.g. the mail's trace through the servers, albeit big, is essential for a federated network.
Second, you would only need to introduce more sensible defaults, including some presets, and you could reduce your header to next to nothing.
E.g. apart from the basic ones, just sent the headers "
Preset: IM, 2.1
User-prefs: mail.$server.$tld/~$name/prefs
" and off you go. User-prefs could even default t
Re: (Score:2)
First, many headers are there for a reason. You will need them in any case, or are doomed to repeat the same mistakes.
E.g. the mail's trace through the servers, albeit big, is essential for a federated network.
Email is not federated, it's more or less totally open. It's not quite the same even if it looks similar. An open port on a server that delivers any messages received is not a federated relationship (even if it rejects or spam filters some of those). And in this case, federation will require trust relationships to be set up in advance to validate which carrier is allowed to send messages on behalf of which phone numbers. You don't need to trace mail through servers. The carriers only talk to other carr
Re: (Score:2)
I saw a post earlier on this thread, slashdot.org [slashdot.org].
There is also this microsoft.com [microsoft.com]