Crashing A Nokia Phone Via SMS 197
Atryn writes "An article at the Register reports that a recent Black Hat conference presenter demonstrated how to crash Nokia cell phones using malformed headers in SMS messaging protocols. Though the SIM card can be recovered by moving to a new phone, this is perhaps an interesting preview of security issues as data goes wireless." Of course, when you live in the US, where your wireless services are about eight years behind the curve, this is less of an issue. *grin*
Nostalgia (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Nostalgia (Score:4, Funny)
Nostalgia was better when I was young too, I might add.
Old news? (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:Old news? (Score:2, Interesting)
Plus, I think the Reg's angle was that there's now a Script Kiddie tool to do the job.
Re:Old news? (Score:3, Informative)
swell (Score:1, Redundant)
Now the *truly* malicious can set out to infect 911 with a virus that attacks the phone of callers . . .
hawk, who now sees that touch-tone was a slippery slope and should have been stopped
firewalls for phones (Score:3, Funny)
Re:firewalls for phones (Score:1)
Only eight years? (Score:5, Insightful)
This talks about crashing a phone via SMS, but what about devices on CDPD or GPRS like those road signs or weather telemetry, or even electric meters in some locales. That's not only on the wireless network but on the IP network. Has anyone tried to muck with those devices yet? On most CDPD and GPRS plans the customer pays for each byte transmitted, what if someone just streams data towards a customer to run up their bill?
Re:Only eight years? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Only eight years? (Score:1)
Re:Only eight years? (Score:2)
Re:Only eight years? (Score:2)
Re:Only eight years? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Only eight years? (Score:2)
CDPD (Score:3, Insightful)
It is fairly widely available in urban areas.
Interface-wise most CDPD adapters seem to act as network cards; IBM at least also made a CDPD modem that actually had a modem interface, but it was fairly large.
CDCP in vancouver (Score:1)
Re:Only eight years? (Score:3, Informative)
This is going to become an interesting issue as GPRS networks connect to the Internet (many are WAP only on a private IP network) - perhaps the only mitigating factor is that GPRS connections to the Internet will probably go via a NAT, making it harder for unsolicited packets to get in (they'd have to spoof an active server and guess the port number on the NAT device, as well as hoping that a UDP session was in use since spoofing TCP sequence numbers is pretty hard).
SMS proxy? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:SMS proxy? (Score:2)
Re:SMS proxy? (Score:3, Insightful)
All it needs is a program that does contious HTTP POSTS to that form and you have a DoS to one or more phones.
If you are on a phone contract where you pay for incomming SMS this could really hurt financially. As an ex-pat Brit I still find it hard to come to terms with paying for incoming calls to a mobile phone in the US.
Re:SMS proxy? (Score:1)
Well, we don't have these in Europe. You can only send like 3 SMS a day, and extra SMS cost around 0.1 USD.
Are you really sure it is really unlimited?
It would only take a few lines codes to make a program that would send like 10 SMS a sec on random numbers.
Spammers might like this stuff.
-J
Expensive (Score:1)
Re:SMS proxy? (Score:1)
Re:SMS proxy? (Score:5, Funny)
It's time to code firewalls
Wireless devices had had this stuff for years, except they're called "concretewalls".
8 years behind??? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:8 years behind??? (Score:1)
Yes, it does exist today, but how long have GSM networks been in the US? Maybe a few years at best. How about widespread deployment? Yah, in my small town (100,000 people) we just got our first GSM carrier this year, and they are some little podunk operation that won't do roaming. I can't wait until the AT&T conversion.
Re:8 years behind??? (Score:4, Interesting)
Seriously. I have Voicestream GSM service & a tri-band phone, and have mediocre coverage in Washington, D.C., but last week had awesome coverage throughout Scotland and northern England (I'm talking small towns, not just cities like Edinburgh, etc.). Even got encrypted transmission service in Iceland. But in the U.S.? Nuthin' but crap.
Maybe cell phones are more like fashion than technology: we American's like it 2 years after it's popular in London.
Re:8 years behind??? (Score:2, Interesting)
Interestingly, I was just in Iceland last week, and my GSM phone had 1) the best reception I'd had anywhere (I'm from the States), 2) faster signal location than anywhere else (here in D.C. it takes a minute or so to find the nearest Voicestream tower), and 3) encrypted transmission between my phone and the tower (which I've never seen work anywhere else I've been).
Re:8 years behind??? (Score:1)
Actually, a while I belive. Wasn't Sprint Spectrum (claimed to be the first digital cell service in the states) GSM? I think they sold all of their GSM network to VoiceStream when it looked as if GSM was a dead duck in the states.
AFAIK that's how VoiceStream became as large as they did. They bought up Sprint Spectrum and a whole bunch of smaller, regional GSM networks in the states (for fairly cheap) when the conventional wisdom was GSM was dead (here in the US of A).
Re:8 years behind??? (Score:1)
Worms (Score:5, Funny)
And for the first time... (Score:3, Interesting)
The good news is that if terrorists intend to use such "crash" attempts to crash cars or other vehicles, we at least have new legislation to stop them [ins.gov].
Re:And for the first time... (Score:1)
I thought it was a truck driver. So if I use SMS I can call myself a hacker? Kewl!
Yep, not being first can have it's advantages (Score:2)
Those who implement later can implement newer standards w/out obsoleting(and thus pissing off) all the existing users of the cellphone network.
Why go through all that...... (Score:2)
We may be years behind (Score:1)
Anyone remember reading about the test of this little "technology" in Boulder CO (of all places)? The advertiser was "very pleased" with the number of people who READ the ad.
Great, so they can trace who read the &^$%*& things as well. I think my Sprint phone gets 100 free text messages before I have to start _paying_. Which is great - the recipient gets to pay to be spammed...
Re:We may be years behind (Score:1)
I don't know how many times I would get a 911 page at 2am to find out some other poor guy had been the victim of cell-phone shotgun spamming.
It's gotten much better in about the last year, but don't rule out being spammed by our current system.
Re:We may be years behind (Score:3, Informative)
And don't say it's to get lower calling rates, because most cellular rates here in Australia at least would make your jaw drop with their (low) cost.
Security through... (Score:4, Interesting)
Security through Inertia. Hmm...
Re:Security through... (Score:1)
Re:Security through... (Score:1)
Wait, what was that? I missed half of your post because my 3rd-party IP stack crashed :)
Bound to happen... (Score:3, Funny)
Btw, if you actually want this logo, go here [windowsxp.nu].
Who cares? (Score:1)
If I could get one of those big old 80s-early 90s cell phones (like the one that kid had in saved by the bell), I would use it. I don't need no stinkin' text-messaging WAP shit on my phone.
Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I find SMS messages extremely convenient in very much the same way as email is convenient. It's a lot less intrusive than a phone call since it doesn't demand the receivers attention RIGHT NOW. It's quiet and more private, you can write and read SMS's anywhere without disturbing other people or other people disturbing you. You can use it for services. Send "FIND Joe Sixpack" to number 400 and you get the address and phone number of Joe Sixpack in return. Send "WEATHER Helsinki" and you get the latest weather forecast for the Helsinki area.
I worked in Singapore for six weeks last summer and it was extremely convenient to just bring my normal cell phone with me from Finland and everything working without any reconfiguration. Phone book entries, caller id, text messages, data. I used the phone to check my email with my Palm Pilot, Finnish news, Forumla 1 results riding home from work in a cab in the night etc.
I'm not saying that everything should be crammed into a cellular phone. Some things work better in a laptop or a PDA if you want it mobile. The point is that things like SMS and WAP, which are totally basic features of GSM phones, are quite useful and have their own place. Instead of silly "I don't need no stinkin' text messaging WAP shit on my phone" outbursts, you might want to try it out. You just might discover how nice it is and how well it works!
Re:Who cares? (Score:2)
I ride the subway to and from work every day. SMS is usually two quiet short beeps whereas a phonecall is a 60 second ring while the person looks for the damn phone. Sure, some have more annoying SMS beeps and sure, some even have button beeps on but in 95% of the cases, they don't.
As a whole, I'd definitely say SMS is less intrusive!
New Slashdot reporting template (Score:5, Funny)
We here at Slashdot would like to advise you to use the following format when submitting bug-related stories.
"Crashing a [product] with [method used to crash it]"
"An article at [source] reports that [security expert] demonstrated how to crash [product] using [Pick one: buffer overflow; malformed headers; Javascript]." [insert wizened statement about how this will affect future direction of products in this category] [attach silly remarks by Slashdot writer like "Well, that's why I use [competing product]!"]
Also, please use the following template when replying:
"Those @(#&@! bastards! Who do they think they are, making [product] so buggy! Why do they have to include [useless feature that no one wants/uses anyway]?? I'll never use a [company] [product] again! Please, fellow Slashdotters, I urge you to boycott [company]!"
This will save us a lot of time and moderation points.
Thank you,
The Slashdot Team
Re:New Slashdot reporting template (Score:1)
"Everybody switch to the open-source [product]. It's better because it's free and there are no security problems with it!"
Thank god MS didn't write the messaging software (Score:3, Funny)
Though my grandma might like to receive 'How are you sexy legs?', I'm not sure my boss would be quite as accepting.. (and if he is, I should quit)
anyone know where... (Score:1)
Re:anyone know where... (Score:1)
Web on Cell (Score:1)
Yes, I'll be one of the first to admit that cell phones are wonderfull. But I use mine as a phone. Not a game consol, not as a web browser, or day planner... And yes, I think PDA's are good for a day planner, and even limited web browsing and gaming. But really, do we need to be playing Doom, or the latest, greatest, Quake game on our cell phones? Do you really need to use Yahoo! after getting talking with your mother from the bus?
For me, there is such a thing as too many features. Web browsers on cell phones is one such case.
Re:Web on Cell (Score:2)
Technology inside keeps decreasing, and there isn't much point in leaving empty space. Batteries are heavy, so you really don't want to add much more volume to it. Whats that leave? More and faster chips with neat new features that may or may not be useless.
I'm not a cellphone owner, nor do I intend to become one... atleast until my landline becomes more expensive and cellphones.
I can see it now... (Score:5, Funny)
Hahahahahaha...{sniff}....hehehe.
What is with the Grey screen of death comment being modded as overrated?
Geez, you'd think you would have to be rated first.
Maybe that should be submitted as a bug?
You can't fix the moderators who do that kind of stuff (maybe spayed or neutered) but can you fix the system?
Oh, well, don't worry, be happy..la la laaa
Yes, bugs, virus, scams and spam going into mobile (Score:1)
I think some bugs are inevitable but I hope the developers will pay more attention to the the sofware they design than Bill Gates did in the early PC years - and even in the not early years ! And those new combined phone/pockeptPC will be fun to hack I bet.
But I don't think the users are ready to accept too many bugs in a mobile phone/pda like they did with the windows OS.
Responsability is not only on the shoulders of developers. A friend of mine crashed his visor and lost all the data he had difficultly typed in. He had no backup ! So there will be a lot of work to make the users more aware of security concerns about the digital tools.
I hope the laws will also be appropriate to this new digital era. No way am I gonna tolerate sms spam !
The nokia 3210 bug :
When you type a message, then want to send it but go back to the typing screen before entering the phone number of the recipient, the T9 completion system is messed up : if you want to change a word, it doesn't use the one you have selected.
how lame (Score:1)
Once the message is received it is impossible to turn on an infected phone again.
what kind of design went into this product? is there no way to force a hard-reboot of the phone or something similar, to reset it? what about detaching the battery briefly, etc??
it would really suck to have this happen while on a business trip or something and have to run by the nearest Nokia store to exchange your phone for another, or have it unfrozen or whatnot. and i'm sure Nokia would just exchange/fix the phone for free (not)... they'd probably require that you mail it in to them and wait 4-6 weeks to get it back, finally fixed.
--w
Re:how lame (Score:1)
In GSM phones SMS are stored on the SIM-card. Remove the card and your phone works again. Use another phone to delete the message from the card.
Inconvenient, but not impossible.
It's times like this ... (Score:1)
BOYCOTT NOKIA (Score:1, Funny)
There are lots of DoS attacks against phones (Score:1)
Interestingly enough I have found the Microsoft browser to be less prone to crash than all the others I've tried. (But no, I still don't know why anyone would want a web browser on a (2G) cellphone.)
Ha, make fun of my free w/plan phone now... (Score:1)
Tut tut... (Score:2, Funny)
I once crashed my friend's Alcatel One Touch Easy by flooding his phone from mtnsms.com...
Canada and SMS (Score:1)
I pay 15 dollars per month for web access, but it is UNLIMITED usage and I can use AIM for chatting to all my friends that I con into installing AIM so I am not so bored on the transit ride home. It's great. I just wish Nokia had a plug in keyboard for my 6185.
Bell Canada, Telus, and Rogers-AT&T have actually recently made an agreement to allow full two way text messaging across their networks. So..Canada at least isnt 8 years behind.
Re:Canada and SMS (Score:1, Funny)
This is new? (Score:2, Interesting)
Crashing my 7110 (Score:1)
1) Connecting to any wap service.
Same bug always, requires removal of the battery. After that it works fine. It always happens the first time I try to connect it when I haven't used it in a while(only uses it to show to people why it suck)
2) Using the IR connector, requires reboot to make it work again.
Using the phone to dial up to the company ppp pool. It drops the connection after 5 minutes. Yes, I know it is slow but when staying in a boring hotel room in a boring city, slashdot at 9600 baud(i'd say it performs like 2300) ain't that bad.
Also trying to sync my palm using the IR requires a reboot the next time I want to use it.
3) Impossible to talk for a long time while driving, even using the handsfree kit with external antenna. When it have to switch bands while talking, always drops the connection. But I guess that is the phonecompany's fault.
normally I don't react like this... (Score:1, Offtopic)
sorry, I know that someone is going to mod me down for this... BUT THAT IS NOT FAIR!!!
If someone with the same expierence reads this please reply or tell me about your unfair rejection by email me(at)sluggie.org.
Thanks!
sluggie out.
So now we can use the DMCA! (Score:1, Funny)
Maybe he will face up to 25 years!
But, hey! wait...
Soon all the devices will have the enforced SSSCA so no need for that. The big companies will control every single piece of hardware and using the DMCA it will be ilegal to try to hack it... so
Start praying.
NokiaMan
Not just SMS, but regular Nokias, too.... (Score:3, Interesting)
In my case, all I had to do was to send an email to mytelephonenumber@mobile.att.net, and it would be processed by the phone. (Great way to act as a pager, too.)
In my experiment with music ring tones, I found that it was quite easy to accidently craft a message (in my case, a new ring tone) that is malformed. And it actually hung my cell phone up.
I probably should have published this as a cool DOS attack, but then again, I really didn't know WHERE to public cell phone DOS attacks, much less what could be done to counter it, so I kept it to myself.
Play around enough, though, and you'll find your own special email you can send to a cell phone that'll lock it tight.
Re:Not just SMS, but regular Nokias, too.... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Black hats (Score:1)
Re:Black hats (Score:5, Interesting)
Is it at all possible to have any sort of message board without people coming along and using the word asshole?
Any other way, and you wouldn't be on planet earth, bub. Stop whining about it, and start questionting which you value more: crashable cell phones, or no cell phones?
Society must accept the inevitability of technology as an unbiased tool. Technology CANNOT be created for good. Like it or not, as a society, we must accept that when we adopted cell phones, we accepted the possibility that they may not always work, in the same way that as a society we value the use of cars more so than the lives of the thousands upon thousands of people who die as a result of them every year.
Anyone who thinks technology puts powers only in the hands of the righteous (whatever the hell that is) is a fool. In the case of Black Hats, I'd rather the concaine junkies in my neighbourhood congregate and do their thing in the middle of daylight in the park rather than at night, in allys, if you catch my drift. The fact that this was demonstrated at a conference is a good thing
Re:Black hats (Score:1)
Re:Black hats (Score:3, Insightful)
One could say that the "black hats" are really "white hats" in demonstrating flaws so that they do get fixed (in reality there are shades of gray in between, depending on what the discoverer does with that information).
Of course, if Microsoft had their way, we wouldn't even know about flaws such as this and have to put our faith in the vendors fixing these "secret" flaws (read: Ralph Nadar's Unsafe at any Speed). Of course, where's the motivation to fix flaws that the public doesn't know about?
Re:Black hats (Score:2)
If you read the article, you would have known that Nokea has been aware of this problem for a while and aparently has done nothing to correct it. And this is not a matter of a bug that causes the phone to drop a connection; the phone becomes permantly useless.
Besides, an explot like this is something that should have been looked for. Why? There are several examples of "malformed data" causing problems with software (most notably web browsers).
Re:Black hats (Score:2)
You didn't really say much at all, just that you wondered why "assholes" must ruin new technology. You did not differentiate between those that find flaws or the ones that explot flaws for badness.
How this ever became a Microsoft bashing thread is beyond me. Will it gain you karma?
I mentioned Microsoft as an example. Microsoft wants security flaws kept under cover (see this story [slashdot.org]), presumably to prevent a bad light from being put on their products, especially with the "just trust us" idea of their
Re:Behind WHICH curve? (Score:4, Insightful)
You obviously haven't tried using the same phone in both the U.S. and Europe. Get a tri-band GSM phone, take it to any large city in Europe, and you'll see you get much better coverage than in NYC/someother U.S. city.
Re:Behind WHICH curve? (Score:2)
Hmm, my current cell phone is in fact GSM, and every US city I've been to has had good coverage. Oh I agree that GSM doen'st have the best coverage, but it is there. GSM is not very common in the US, and there is still a lot of coverage.
And remember to differenciate between coverage in sparesly populated areas with densely populated areas. (NYC I know is dense, but I wouldn't want to visit there so you point is lost to me...)
Re:Behind WHICH curve? (Score:2)
The only place I have noticed my lack of signal, in the last 4 years, was in a gully with walls arround me, a near steep ice slope above & below me, and behind me about 500m to another hill.
When I got to the top I had a signal perfectly again.
Re:Behind WHICH curve? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Behind WHICH curve? (Score:3, Insightful)
I live in Minnesota, about 3.5 million people, and about twice as much land as Norway. And MN is fairly heavily populated compared to many nearby states. (which also happen to be larger) covering a valley isn't that difficult from an engeering standpoint, just put a tower there. Covering a flat field of 100 miles profitably is extreamly diffiult if the entire population of the field is less then 75. I happen to know someone who lives in that exact situation.
Re:Behind WHICH curve? (Score:2)
An American friend one pointed out to me that the USA has the benefit of inventing many new technologies, and being the first to implement a massive number of them...
...This of course means that the USA tends to implement version 1.0 all across the country, and when you've covered an area that big with version 1.0, version 2.0 is gonna be a long time coming
Steve
Re:Behind WHICH curve? (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually, it seems that the situation is reversed in this case. GSM uses a less-advanced technology (TDMA) than many US networks (CDMA). Europe/Asia/Africa have opted to standardize this older system, while some US carriers have gone ahead and adopted more advanced but incompatible systems. As we've got no expectations of compatibility (even when switching from one company to another), it's easier to skip to newer tech.
I don't entirely agree with the US companies' decision here, but I do think it may have some unexpected benefits. For one, we may be able to move in with a much more advanced 3G without being tied down by a whole lot of backwards-compatibility concerns. For another, it may turn out that the focus on standardized networks becomes less and less important as technology becomes more adaptable. The price and flexibility of wireless tech have been plunging and exploding, respectively. It may turn out that compatibility is more effectively acheived by cheap Taiwanese chipsets than by standardized networks.
Personally, having caught a glimpse of the projected cost of 3G (for not-terribly impressive data rates, and only in the cities), I'm skeptical of the whole project. I think the next generation of data/phone tech will take its cues from 802.11 tech, and GSM will become a relic. This is obviously a few years off, though. In the mean time, we Americans just have to rent phones when we get off the plane (not a terrible deal when you consider international roaming charges, I'm told.)
As to "America gets stuck on 1.0", there's plenty of precedent for the opposite; the Minitel in France (outmoded by the web) and analog HDTV in Japan. Sometimes our stubborness is actually an asset.
Re:Behind WHICH curve? (Score:4, Insightful)
The fashion made the economics look better, and that in turn drove more manufacturers to enter the market and compete, driving the price down further.
The other feature that killed off the other mostly non-digital systems was security. After the 'squidgy' tape loads of people would only get digital, particularly Prince Charles- and the GSM phones were a convenient digital standard to go for at that time.
Britain is an ideal place for cell phones- the population density is pretty high, so less cells are required; most people I know have a cell phone in britain. Many of them don't have a fixed line at all anymore.
Incidentally, there IS a satellite phone system- Iridium, last time I checked it was very expensive, didn't work indoors or in cities, had low quality; and the handsets are really heavy.
The military loves them.
Re:Behind WHICH curve? (Score:2, Informative)
Having a standardised system across the patchwork of countries which Europe is is also beneficial. Roaming works across the continent worked out of the box. If every country had gone for their own system, that wouldn't have happened.
Europe chose to select the mobile standard proposal out of technical merit, rather than political or national reasons. Which is a triumph for techies over politicians, I guess.
In the Nordic countries, stock broker fashions had very little to do with the very high mobile penetration we have here. Rather, ordinary people saw that the stuff worked, that coverage was good, it was easy to use, not that expensive, and it was easy to figure out what your calls would cost. You can get nearly 100% of the population to want a mobile phone if you only sell it as a yuppie (or drug dealer) toy.
Re:Behind WHICH curve? (Score:2, Informative)
A far more important catalyst (Score:3, Insightful)
We use "callING party pays", and the US uses "callED party pays".
So we don't ever pay for incoming calls (unless we go to another country) because the person calling you takes the cost hit (we have different number ranges to distinguish landlines from mobiles from porn from freephone, etc).
This encourages uptake because for the user, the initial cost to run is very little - that's the incentive to buy.
Once you have the phone, mind you, they run rings around you with all sorts of odd pricing - I, for example, can call the USA and Australia for the same price as a UK landline. In the evening, this costs me 3 cents, in the daytime, 50. Madness
Re:Behind WHICH curve? (Score:3, Interesting)
Just give me a Nokia 7650 and I'll be happy.
Re:Behind WHICH curve? (Score:1, Informative)
This is good for Europe...
Remember standardise early, but not too early
CDMA is not 3G anyway. We all has to upgrade.
but in real life most of the US has just as good of coverage as Europe.
GSM works on the top of Kilimanjaro.
Sure there is only one provider, but who cares if the phone works?
I would care about paying even more than here in Europe.
Get out from the major cities and there is no service, but a single GSM standard would't help much. Population densities are very low in the US, to there day there are many miles where there is no coverage on any system. (Unless there is a satalite system now)
In Europe the operators have to provide near complete coverage, but this only makes any kind of economic sense if the market is not fragmented between different standards. Population density is very low in northern Sweden, but look at this map of Telia's coverage:
http://www.gsmworld.com/gsminfo/cov_sete.htm
Re:Behind WHICH curve? (Score:5, Interesting)
What I find funny about this statement is that these two are not necessarily comparable. CDMA is a radio protocol, used by both Sprint PCS and Verizon here in the USA. GSM, on the other hand, fully describes a wireless network, from the radio protocol (TDMA), to the included services (voice, 9600bps data, SMS), all the way to the SIM chip.
While CDMA may be a better radio protocol than TDMA, it is definitely not a wireless network. You can't use a Sprint phone on the Verizon network can you? As far as I know, these are separate networks with their own definitions. They just happen to share a common radio protocol.
So when someone brings up the ancient war: CDMA vs TDMA vs GSM, be sure to reorganize this into: Sprint vs Verizon vs AT&T vs GSM. This is a much more sensible comparison. Anyhow, perhaps in the future GSM's radio protocol can be replaced with a CDMA incarnation.
Yes, I can (Score:1)
Yes, if I'm willing to pay the ridiculous roaming fees. And don't even get me started on the "additional minutes" fees.
My Sprint plan costs $40 for the first 2500 minutes, and $1000 for the next 2500. No, that third 0 is not a typo.
Oh, and did I mention that when you check how many minutes you've used, everything except your final bill is just an "estimate", and probably an underestimate designed to lure you into a $6, 15 minute phone call when you don't realize you've gone over? Bastards.
Okay, I'm done ranting now.
Not True (was Re:Behind WHICH curve?) (Score:2)
CDMA (as Bell Atlantic Mobile implemented it) runs on 800mhz.
PCS (As Sprint & other parts of the now-VZW implemented it) runs on 1900mhz.
The new VZW phones that are "Tri-Mode" run on Analog, CDMA/800 and CDMA/1900. It's the same stuff, just a different frequency.
So yes, they're interoperable (sort of!) If there's no PCS service in your area, you're screwed trying to use a Sprint phone in a VZW area. A VZW area in a non-PCS area, however, tries CDMA/800. If that doesn't work, then it drops down to analog. There's almost _always_ analog service (in fact, I've never been completely without service anywhere in the US!)
--NBVB
Re:Behind WHICH curve? (Score:3, Informative)
Australia uses multiple systems, but now supports mainly CDMA and GSM. Which is more popular? CDMA is better for covering distance - and please (unless you are posting from antartica) don't underestimate the issues faced in Australia. We have a land mass 2/3 the size of the US, but with a population of 18 million.
GSM is locked in by design to a 35 Km radius around the base station. Not an issue in say, NY, London or Europe for that matter. A big issue in Oz where your neighbour might be further away than that. Telstra (the major teleco in Australia) have modified GSM transmitters to provide a second 35-70 Km ring of coveravge from a base station. In outback Australia, you can easily get 70 km line of sight to a tower.
Despite all these limitations, GSM still wins hands down. The biggest reason? Competition I think. Being able to change service provider with a change of SIM card, rather than handset.
Plus the provision of enough features above and beyond phone - SMS messaging. Although primitive, it was flexible enough to make your phone a pager and message service in one.
In hindsight, the bandwidth limitations (9600 baud) and absence of packet radio (always on rather than dial in) features weren't enough of a liability to hold back its initial rollout.
You might call it the microsoft or VHS solution - near enough, good enough without actually being the best.
MIchael
Re:Behind WHICH curve? (Score:2)
I'd probably argue a lot of Gen 3 stuff is heavily influenced by the Asian markets, a lot more on the uptake than the American cellular market, and where they already have cellulars with data capacity of 2mbps.
SMS is NOT useless (Score:3, Interesting)
- If you cannot talk or do not want to talk, in a lecture for example, you can still type.
- If you want to send a phone number or a complex address, it is easier for the receiver to read it than to have to write it when you talk.
- You can reuse the same message as many times as you want.
- You can type a message and send it later.
- If the network is poor and audio not working, sms still works. (I only use sms with why brother, the antenna of his phone is broken). It even saved a man's life in England.
- With sms, you can see the number of the sender and ignore it.
- you can receive personal news and services that way.
- you can have your email forwarded etc.
- etc.
Finally if you find a place where 802.11b works everywhere with phones as cheap as current ones, I will go live there !
bad moderating (Score:2)
Re:SMS is useless (Score:2, Informative)
Last time I checked the UK is in Europe, and I know of no network in the UK where you pay per call, when roaming in France, Spain, Portugal and Greece I have also always payed per minute. Where did this idea we pay per call come from?
Re:SMS is useless (Score:1)
Re:SMS is useless (Score:1)
Everything is COTS if you have enough money, just under 10thousand still is quite a bit of money to spend on a single scanning device (for an individual that is). And then you have to crack the message itself which requires you to pick up a distinct call.
Billing per-minute still sucks, but sucks much less than per CALL
Paying per call is a term I'm not familiar with, we mostly pay per minute here in Europe (per second in my country actually, after the first 10 seconds).
Coverage is good.
My coverage is excellent here too. If there is a paved road in my country, I can use my GSM there, and some gravel roads as well. Did I mention I can take a trip around my country and still have coverage? No, I don't live in Holland or Denmark, I live in Iceland which is not quite known for its population density. And in case you're even dreaming about coming up with the argument "you're so few, you don't need to cover as many people as we do" I surely needn't remind you that transmitters and relays for GSM may be cheap but not THAT cheap (there are only 280 thousand of us you know). Plus I can take my phone to almost every country in the world (the US not included) and make calls and receive them just as I do back home. Plus I usually get to choose between different providers.
KISS. Keep It Simple, Stupid. I don't want SMS on my phone
SMS is Simple Stupid! And if you don't want sms on your phone don't open them! Don't want to send an SMS, don't send it then! Feel bothered by the phone ringing (which I hear you pay for, that's stupid, paying for incoming calls that is), don't answer it, or better yet, turn the bell off, or turn the phone off! Nobody's forcing you to use the phone. As for building 802.11b everywhere, that's
a) a whole lot more expensive
b) even more pointless, I don't feel like lugging my ThinkPad all over the place.
c) Prone to hacking too you know!!! (thus nulling your argument that GSM is fundamentally broken).
As for SMS, it really is a nice communications medium if you just want to send a quick message without going through the usual formalities. Instead of
"Hi, how are you doing, fine me too, listen I'm going to be a bit late for that meeting so blablabla"
You can send a quick SMS with the message
"Hi, sorry, I'm going to be a bit late for the meeting".
Now, with GSM I also get the following benefits: a) A choice between many providers b) A choice between a wide range of phones, the ones that
Now, your point FOR CDMA was again?
Re:SMS is useless (Score:1)
That's why you don't use email, and just call people, right? And all these instant messaging (ICQ, AIM, etc.)... Who needs that, if you can just call all the people? Man, why didn't you tell us before? We would have never used this stupid SMS-stuff, if we just had known...
Oh wait, the reason European users won't do that is because they pay PER CALL.
??? Ever been to europe? Every provider I know of, charges per minute. Actually it's often cheaper to speak for 1-2 minutes than to send an SMS (which is somehow ridiculous...).
SMS is surely not the most efficient form of communication, but often it's really convenient. It's pretty much as useful as all the instant-messaging services which are so popular right now, only that you can use it whereever you are...
1) CDMA works. TDMA and GSM are fundamentally broken. GSM's encryption is crackable real-time using COTS hardware. CDMA's isn't (yet).
That's why AT&T and co. would never switch to GSM, right? CDMA may be the more sophisticated technology but GSM just works. Everywhere...
2) Billing per-minute still sucks, but sucks much less than per CALL. Most calls are less than 2 minutes, so you don't get raided too bad in the US. And besides, roaming charges are quickly becoming a thing of the past, and now most providers are including bucketfuls of minutes, even in their cheap plans...
See above. What about paying for incoming calls/messages? Another thing often forgotten in price-comparisions US-Europe, is the base fee, charged every month. It's usually much higher in the US.
3) Coverage is good. I have no problem making a call no matter where I go (my provider is VZW).
I had a very different experience in the US. And judging from the other comments I'm not the only one...
4) KISS. Keep It Simple, Stupid. I don't want SMS on my phone. Don't want spinning 3-d wingdings. Don't want to read my email from the phone.
So, what? I want all that stuff. I use SMS, I get my email to the phone and I actually use WAP (over GPRS). And most of the people I know do so, too. And now?
If I want to read my email wirelessly, then build me an 802.11b network everywhere. Don't make me do it from a phone!!
Yes, I'm dreaming of stuffing my laptop in my pockets, too... Show me the technology, that puts 802.11b-receivers in cell phones without running out of battery too fast. Then show me how to deploy it for nationwide coverage. And finally show me how to make it scale to the user numbers of cell-phone systems.
Summary: Just because you think phone-messaging is stupid doesn't mean, everybody feels that way. And judging from the user numbers in europe and especially asia, a lot of people do seem to like SMS...