Re: Fwd: updated framework

Hi Renjish,
Thanks for your mail. I believe you identified lots of very interesting 
points which are very helpful to define the boundaries of MW4D work.
Ken and I are working on a small diagram to be submitted soon to the 
group which try to summarize the different pillars and founding 
principles of the group.
Here are my view on your different points:

- point 1: i agree. Potential of non-gsm unlicensed connectivity is
potentially great, particularly for local apps. But when talking about
delivering web content, you need a way to be connected to the internet,
and only licensed option are available today, before perhaps options
like mesh comes into the picture.
Anyway, while looking at what kind of applications new way of connecting
people may enable, or the impact such tehcnologies could have is
potentially interesting, it is not in the scope of this group.
for now, the GSM technology is the alone one available for most of the
targeted population and it is essential imho to rely on this fact, and
have technological solutions that would work on such network layer.
Moreover, i believe it is essential to untie the usual links people are 
creating between the network layer (mostly the bandwidth available), the 
type of handset (low-end basic phones vs high end smartphones) and the 
technology for deploying applications. Before we will see high-end 
phones and high-bandwidth available at the targeted end-user level, it 
would take ages. However, it might require far less time to see at less 
some browsing capabilities on handset, and voice and sms are already 
there. So in order to have an impact on short term, it is critical to 
start from what's possible today.

- point 2: i believe that this might be part of the vision document, but
this is again imho not reasonable to think that this is achievable in
the one year option. The idea with the one year timeframe is to look at
what is possible today, and identified what would be possible in a short
timeframe. Typically what is not deployed yet but could be done at a
local level easily, without requiring country or continent or world wide
program.e.g. it is possible to imagine that an ngo would provide a 
web-enable phone to a community. It is not imho possible to imagine that 
an ng would provide a high-bandwidth access to a community. it is not 
the same level of magnitude, investments, ...

- point 3: i respectfully disagree here. accessing the web using a
browser is just one way. Voice would always have a place in the picture,
mostly because its accessibility aspects. So it is important to include
it in the picture. For SMS, if we want to cope with the mass, that's the
only technology available on all phones today. So it would be a mistake
not to investigate the strenght weakness and requirement of sms apps.
Everybody is mentionning SMS these days, and not including it in the
study would be a clear issue on my side.
Then considering Java and widgets as a second level would be another
mistake. lots of low/middle class phones haven't a browser, but have 
java (more rarely widgets).
I'm also in favor of adding widgets in the picture as it might be a way
to lower the entry barrier for people without previous web experience.

- point 4: there are dozens of example of sms services particularly in
agriculture (example is tradenet), in government, in heatlh (voxiva)...
which are running and providing services which are improving people
life. most of them have a web access and an sms one, some have a voice ones.
Examples above are not coming from ngo side, and i'm sure Ken might have
examples of use of frontline sms

- Point 5: this is the major point i've, and the reason behind the
launch of this group. For now, there is no emh (which is 5 years old)
related follow-up including a browser or similar technologies for
low-cost mass market products.
If it is most probably obvious to people in MW4D, there are tons of
people who are not really believing in mobile browsing for the mass
market in developing countries, and for this reasons the need for a
browser on low-cost handset is still questionnable for lots of people,
and particular GSMA folks. They believe that mobile browsing would
require high end phones, and big bandwidth. I don't suscribe to this
view (already explained in the white paper i wrtoe in january
http://www.w3.org/2006/12/digital_divide/ajc )
So it is essential to explore the different ways existing today to
deliver content on mobile phones, in order to underline the needs and
the potential for a browser on all phones.
All the question is to know if there is anything we could do to speed
the adoption and deployment of ULCH with browsing capabilities ?
I believe that underlining waht's possible with sms and voice today, and
what would be possible with mobile browsing in the future is the right
way to push in this direction.

Cheers
Stephane

Renjish Kumar a écrit :
> Stephane,
>      Will give my thoughts on this later this week. But to address your 
> first question, by "Assumptions" section, I meant a section where "what 
> we mean by certain terms" can be explained briefly. The objective will 
> be to give a consistent and a common understanding of these terms for 
> our work. Often, it happens that many terms can be interpreted 
> differently by different poeple or fora primarily because there is no 
> standard definition available. So, this section will be a little more 
> than a glossary.
>  
> A similar approach has been taken by the Mobile Web Initiative guys: 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/mobile-bp-scope/  
>  
> Some terms that we definitely need to describe are: Mobile devices 
> and mobile web
>  
> Would like to get few clarifications on your response to my comments.
>  
> 1. By GSM did you mean only GSM or any such mobile wide area 
> technologies such as CDMA? Because if you meant only GSM, then we are 
> here making a big assumption that the next 3 billion phones are going to 
> be GSM-based. Not sure if this is going to be the case. Secondly, if we 
> consider any such mobile technologies, we are talking about licensed 
> spectrum. Usage of licensed spectrum comes at a price. That is the 
> reason, perhaps, alternative community/rural initiatives have used/are 
> looking at unlicensed networks such as Wifi and some spectrum bands of 
> WiMAX as a solution. Ken, can you pls. shed some light on what are the 
> trends by NGOs in this space?  
>  
> 2. As part of our solutions, are we ruling out proposing alternative 
> suitable mobile devices or platforms which are in existence, 
> and commerically viable for web, though not having mass penetration yet? 
> Shouldn't that be part of our objectives?
>  
> 3. By "supporting web functionalities" I meant at least having the very 
> basic requirement for accessing web content, which is a browser (need 
> not be an advanced version). Jave/widgets can be the next level.
>  
> 4.I didn't consider voice and sms based web access because I am unsure 
> of the economic and technological viability of voice and SMS based web 
> access. Pls. correct me if I am wrong here. I am interested in knowing 
> any sustainable case study available on this from our members. This can 
> also be a discussion point for the future. But my point here is that 
> this should be one of the cases we consider and not the only case. We 
> should be open to considering an alternative case which can substitute 
> this device at a lower cost and easy-to-use functions.
>  
> 5. GSMA has in the past run the emerging handset initiative involving 
> the ultra low cost handsets (ULCH).
>     http://www.gsmworld.com/emh/
>  
> A sample case of such a handset is Motorola's C113. 
> http://www.motorola.com/motoinfo/product/details.jsp?globalObjectId=123
>  
> This was a voice/SMS only phone because the objective was first to 
> increase the penetration of handsets. I will check if they have any 
> similar initiative for mobile web now.
>  
> Lauri, is .mobi involved in any such initiative?
>  
> Here is some analyst forecast in 2007, on the ULCH penetration in 
> emerging markets.  
>  
> http://www.eetindia.co.in/ART_8800476872_1800007_NT_dcf3934c.HTM
>  
> The features of a ULCH, in my opinion, will change in the next 5 years 
> as it gets affordable and enjoys economies of scale.
>  
>  
> Regards
> Renjish
>  
>   
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> On 8/5/08, *Stephane Boyera* <boyera@w3.org <mailto:boyera@w3.org>> wrote:
> 
>     Hi Renjish
> 
>         A suggestion. Shall we include an additional section for
>         "assumptions" as done by some of the other groups? Here, we can
>         have explanations on what we mean by some of the terms such as
>         mobile devices. By doing this, we can keep the vision statement
>         short and sweet and only have a mention of these terms and not
>         its explanation.
> 
> 
>     Is your "assumption" == a glossary or something else ?
>     i see the need for a glossary section sure, but for assumptions, i
>     would liek to understand that concept ?
> 
>         With regards to the definition of mobile devices:
>          1. it is true that traditionally "mobile" was defined by "wide
>         area" access networks such as gsm/cdma-family of technologies.
>         However, with new  kinds of access technologies emerging, I am
>         not sure if we can restrict it to only gsm/cdma capability. The
>         fundamental parameter here is the "coverage area". This should
>         define what we mean by mobile. So, shall we define a coverage
>         area limit instead of naming any particular technology. We
>         should keep it technology neutral.
> 
> 
>     well, not limited to but at least integrating GSM is a must imho.
>     You have a different view. Let's hear what other think. For me, the
>     point is to take advantage of 3+ billions of people having access to
>     a phone, and  that means for the targeted end-user GSM network only.
>     It will take times for them to get a higher level of network available.
>     So we should not limit to GSM, but consider it as part of the common
>     denominator.
>     LEt's see what other think.
> 
> 
>         2. it is obvious that the minimum capability for any device to
>         be considered for our work is that it should support web
>         functionalities.
> 
> 
>     Well i might agree or disagree with you depending on what you mean
>     by "support web functionalities".
>     For me, there are two different things:
>     - where the content is stored: on the web
>     - and from where the user is accessing the content: the mobile device
>     So that's our context.
>     For me, mobile browsing (using a browser on a mobile phone) is just
>     one way of accessing web content.
>     Voice is another way to access web content on mobile phones
>     Widgets might be a third option
>     SMS might also be another channel of delivering web content
>     Java/native applications yet another option.
> 
>     So in my view, we have ot explore all these options, the
>     requirements on the devices, the strenghts and weaknesses,...
> 
>         3. cost is an essential factor. Shall we define an upper bound
>         for the cost of the device? sub-$100 or sub-$40?
> 
> 
>     it does not make sense to me, as what is today sub-100$ would be
>     sub-40$ in one year. Even worse, what is 100+$ in some countries is
>     sub 40 on the black market in some other.
>     So i would just consider the technologies available on the device
>     (mobile browser, java, sms,...)
> 
>         4. Form factor is another key factor. Even experienced end-users
>         find it difficult to browse web on mobile primarily due to the
>         screen size and other usability limitations. We need to have
>         some upper bounds for this as well. Definitely not the laptop
>         sizes. But I believe that devices such as the ultra mobile PCs
>         can be considered.
> 
> 
>     here again, i tend to have a different opinion. before UMPC will be
>     on the field, it will take incrcedible time. So for now, the upper
>     bound is more smartphone.
>     i don't subscribe to "find it difficult to browse web on mobile
>     primarily due to the screen size"
>     this is the wrong point of view. It is hard to browse web content
>     from mobile phones. But at the opposite you can make very easy to
>     use web content or applications on mobile phones if you take into
>     account that you are developing for this platform.
>     This is imho the visin to take.
> 
>         5. Last but not the least, availability of devices in the market
>         is another factor. Here, we could consider the availability as
>         available in majority, available in minority, most likely etc.
>         Note that today's minority may or may not be tomorrow's majority
>         depending on its commerical viability.
> 
> 
>     agreed here. So for me there are already a bunch of tehcnologies
>     available on high-end smartphone and that will surely come in the
>     future on low-end phones.
> 
> 
>         Regarding the support for voice and sms, a purely internet
>         enabled device should be capable of providing the same service
>         via IP. So, I do not see it as a minimum requirement.
> 
> 
>     i've a slightly different approach:
>     My approach: There are phones already in the market, how can we
>     exploit them to deliver services.
>     Of course, if there were ip-based UMPC, all services that are
>     available on low-end phones will be available, or could be
>     available. but how focusing on UMPC and full ip connectivity could
>     have an impact in the next 2-5 years in the field ?
>     I believe this is not the same level of challenges identifications.
> 
>     Best
> 
>     Stephane
> 
>     -- 
>     Stephane Boyera         stephane@w3.org <mailto:stephane@w3.org>
>     W3C                             +33 (0) 4 92 38 78 34
>     BP 93                           fax: +33 (0) 4 92 38 78 22
>     F-06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex,        
>     France
> 
> 

-- 
Stephane Boyera		stephane@w3.org
W3C				+33 (0) 4 92 38 78 34
BP 93				fax: +33 (0) 4 92 38 78 22
F-06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex,		
France

Received on Monday, 11 August 2008 14:01:09 UTC