Re: http://www.w3.org/2008/02/MS4D_WS/papers/unicef-w3c-presentation.html

+1

from talking to Uganadan business men who have attempted to implement
monetized SMS based services, it quickly became clear that the unreliability
of the request/response channels of SMS make such models un-implementable.
And those models are much simpler than trying to use SMS instead of HTTP.

On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 9:24 PM, Arun Kumar <kkarun@in.ibm.com> wrote:

>
> Apologies for a delayed reply.
>
> > .....like to
> > > clarify that it is the latter reason rather than technical
> > feasibility
> > > being an issue here.
>
> >>one can usefully think of SMS as
> >>just one of the possible request/response channels
> >>for services sitting on the Web
> >>remember that the Web is based on request/response cycles
> >>and SMS is just one way to initiate a request (or point to a request-
> >>store)
> >>and/or to receive a response (or pointer to a final response-point)
>
> <AK> Very true. Completely agree here that SMS can be thought of as just
> one of the possible request/response channels for services on the Web. It
> is because of exactly the same reason that I mentioned it as a technically
> feasible mechanism for browsing the web. However, the difference crops up
> when we compare its capability to the request-response cycles in the web
> using HTTP. HTTP works over a connection oriented protocol such as TCP
> which can provide some guarantees/status about the 'end-to-end' connection
> between client and server. Because of this it becomes possible to offer a
> seamless browsing experience since TCP keeps track of and recovers from
> minor errors among various hops in the connection path. Whereas, if we were
> to use SMS, we get a store-and-forward transport mechanism which is
> connection-less. We would be able to ensure some guarantee / provide status
> among two points of a hop but not end-to-end path. This makes browsing
> difficult since the underlying channel becomes unreliable and not capable
> of recovering from faults such as packet losses. It is because of that
> reason, I feel SMS is not a forwarding looking technology for web
> browsing/web access, though it has its own benefits that are important for
> developing countries.</AK>
>
> Hope this explains my view better.
>
> thanks and regards
> Arun Kumar
>
> http://www.research.ibm.com/people/a/arun
> World Wide Telecom Web (aka Spoken Web):
>
> http://domino.research.ibm.com/comm/research_people.nsf/pages/arun_kumar.WWTW.html
>
>
>
>
>              Jeff Sonstein
>             <jeffs@it.rit.edu
>             >                                                          To
>                                       public-mw4d@w3.org
>             11/06/2008 07:57                                           cc
>             PM                        Arun Kumar/India/IBM@IBMIN, Kai
>                                       Hendry <hendry@iki.fi>
>                                                                   Subject
>                                        Re:
>                                       http://www.w3.org/2008/02/MS4D_WS/p
>                                       apers/unicef-w3c-presentation.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Nov 6, 2008, at 9:15 AM, public-mw4d@w3.org wrote:
>
> > > There are essentially two aspects that are getting mixed up here.
> > One is
> > > the technical feasibility of using SMS, voice etc., while the
> > other is
> > > usabiity and practicality of the solution. So, I agree with
> > Stephane that
> > > SMS for browsing the web is probably not the way forward but would
> > like to
> > > clarify that it is the latter reason rather than technical
> > feasibility
> > > being an issue here.
>
> one can usefully think of SMS as
> just one of the possible request/response channels
> for services sitting on the Web
>
> remember that the Web is based on request/response cycles
> and SMS is just one way to initiate a request (or point to a request-
> store)
> and/or to receive a response (or pointer to a final response-point)
>
> > > Completely agree here though if the 'transient phase' is more than
> > few
> > > years then it might still be worthwhile to invest if the returns
> > can be
> > > justified.
> > agreed. but i believe this is not the case for SMS.
>
> can you say why you hold this belief?
> perhaps I am missing something here
> but I'd say the emergence of SMS-only plans
> in places like the PRC
> are indicators of SMS's longer-term utility
> for "average people" in the developing world
>
> jeffs
>
> --
> The people who tap into
> the rhythm of how this
> audience uses media,
> those are the ones who
> are going to win. Our
> audience is full of multitaskers.
> They're IM-ing and talking on
> the phone and doing their
> homework and watching TV
> all at the same time.
> - Van Toffler, MTV Pres. -
> ============
>
> Prof. Jeff Sonstein
>
> http://www.it.rit.edu/~jxs/ <http://www.it.rit.edu/%7Ejxs/>
> http://chw.rit.edu/blog/
> http://www.it.rit.edu/~jxs/emailDisclaimer.html<http://www.it.rit.edu/%7Ejxs/emailDisclaimer.html>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Merrick Schaefer
Technical Project Coordinator
UNICEF
Youth Section, Division of Communication
3 UN Plaza, New York, NY 10017
Tel: 212-326-7461
Fax: 212-326-7768
Mobile: 206-484-9177
mschaefer@unicef.org

unite for children