W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-mw4d@w3.org > October 2009

Re: On the roadmap v2

From: Stephane Boyera <boyera@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2009 15:34:04 +0200
Message-ID: <4AC6014C.4000402@w3.org>
To: Katrin Verclas <katrin@mobileactive.org>
CC: MW4D Group <public-mw4d@w3.org>, Prabhas Pokharel <prabhas@mobileactive.org>
Hi,

> v2. I did not see the most recent version comprehensively online - if it 
> is somewhere other than in documents on the list, please refer us to it. 
This is a wiki, which means that it is evolving quite a lot quite often. 
Each time a new release is made, the date mentionned at the top of the 
document change. The current latest draft is september 25.

> Yes, I agree. Which is why we are running Mobile Tech 4 Social Change 
> camps in now more than ten cities around the world, the model of which 
> has been taken up by others who are organizing communities of practice; 
> have various social media campaigns, and publish papers on a regular 
> basis on the topic.  That is also why the Open Mobile Consortium exists, 
> and the new m-Health Alliance that has come out of the Vodafone/UNF 
> partnership that also has published overview materials on the state of 
> the field, if you will.  
> 
> In other words -- not mentioning the umbrella organizations that are 
> already in existence and giving them their due place in the roadmap 
> would be a mistake. 

i can surely mention these initiatives.
In practice, for now, the challenge is still largely existing

>>
>>> "Recommendations"
>>> 4.1"Share, cooperate, collaborate...."  that is what MobileActive's 
>>> about.
>>
>> at least you have identified the same issue.
> 
> Yes, since 2005, in fact.
> 
> I am not sure why you are saying that quite so dismissively?

:) what can i say ? i'm trying hard to be open to all comments since the 
beginning of the group. so i don't know why i would say things 
dismissively. So i just don't want to enter to such discussions, and 
don't want to reproduce in this forum any kind of flame or war between 
members, as it happens at some other places.
The process at W3C is an open one where everybody is able to voice 
concerns or comments. We are working based on consensus, and on a 
vendor-neutral basis. The group of people who have been involved in the 
development of this document since the beginning are all working on 
tools/product/solutions related to this roadmap, and nobody, and this is 
a rule of W3C, is trying to push its own solution/product/... but work 
towards making a fair assessment of the current situation.
So now, a more detailed answer as the original was misunderstood.
You came to the same conclusions around the need of collaboration as 
some people in this group, and some participants of the workshops we 
organized. I just said that this is great, and that enforce this 
conclusion. I understand that you are working towards resolving this 
challenge with mobileactive.org, and this is great too. There are plenty 
of other fora existing, including MW4D, which are pursuing the same 
goal. Honestly, as of today, none of these fora are really successfull 
in enabling potential users of mobile technologies to 
collaborate/cooperate/share experience, and we still see everyday new 
stories starting from scratch new projects on e.g. market prices. So 
this is still a problem, and that's why we are mentionning it.

> USSD costs the user in South Africa on MTN and Vodacom which are the two 
> operators I am familiar with. Do not now about Celpay.  Operators have 
> figured out in sub-Saharan Africa that USSD can be billed for.
> 
> Sessions are limited to 2 minutes -- which means you can make it through 
> about nine screens of content.
> 
> At 150 characters per screen, this makes for a total of  about 1,350 
> characters (equivalent to 8 SMSs). 
> 
> USSD costs the user about R4 in South Africa. 
that's interesting info. so let me summarize: operators are charging the 
use of the USSD channel, independently of the service provider ? on the 
eact same basis as sms: as soon as you open an ussd session, you are 
charged R4 ?
if this is the case, then i should surely add that in the document.

>> well teh evaluation of costs is based on the current tariff structure 
>> existing in most country. I doubt that in a phone call of 10s you can 
>> transfer as much info as in an sms (due to among other things the 
>> problem of lasting-information).
>> That said, you are completely right on the fact that there are now 
>> places where the voice call are far cheaper, and this is mentionned in 
>> the latest draft of teh roadmap (like india as you said)
> 
> Where is that located? 

ssection 6.1.5 costs for the end-user
"NB: It is important to note that the references used to evaluate the 
costs of voice applications are based on the pricing scheme currently 
offered by operators, at the time of writing of this document. However, 
this pricing scheme might be largely influenced by the regulatory 
authorities, which might decide to promote voice applications by 
enforcing low-cost, or flat-rate costs for accessing such applications. 
It is also important to note that flat-rate plans for voice calls (e.g. 
within the operator network, or during off-peak hours) are starting to 
appear in different regions of the World. See announcement of such plans 
in India: free unlimited calls within the operator,and a pay-per-call 
model where people pay for a call, independently of its length. "

>>
>> we mentionned the fact that using SMS as a transport protocol is 
>> extremely expensive for data delivery. We just separated the 
>> difficulty to manage multi-cycle interactions as a separate issue.
> 
> Where is that located?
section 7.2.2 costs and weaknesses of SMS

best
Stephane
-- 
Stephane Boyera		stephane@w3.org
W3C				+33 (0) 5 61 86 13 08
BP 93				fax: +33 (0) 4 92 38 78 22
F-06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex,		
France
Received on Friday, 2 October 2009 13:33:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 2 October 2009 13:33:57 GMT