Mobile Messaging: Must Move Traffic off SMS
Mobile Network Operators in the Philippines are faced with a unique problem. Given the SMS-loving nature of Filipinos because of its low cost and our high literacy rate, it is pretty clear that bulk of the networking infrastructure in MNOs today is used for managing SMS. However, network equipment manufacturers do not necessarily make hardware with this in mind. Therefore, this is definitely a Filipino problem.
Possible solutions? I just read an article in TechCrunch UK about a startup called HotTXT. This is not the first time HotTXT was mentioned. However, this particular article reminded me about this company and the problem mentioned above.
Hotxt, a low cost unlimited message text service which uses a client application on the handset to message other Hotxt users via the Internet, has added new social networking features aimed at the 12.59 million mobile subscribers under 24 years of age who text more than talk.
The new Hotxt features include group messaging, an online “web email” interface with texts, a “family or friends abroad” feature and broadcast text. It offers all-you-can eat pricing for £1 ($1.79) a week, a far cheaper rate than SMS.
How does it work? Well basically, it is a client installed on the mobile phone that basically serves as a messenger service. Instead of sending messages as SMS, the application installed on the phone uses packet data (GRPS/EDGE/3G) to send data to and from the mobile. HotTXT was created to reduce costs because most countries have flat data rates. However, if the local MNOs implemented something like this it can possible be a way to say on signaling infrastructure and push traffic to the packet data circuits.
But wait! It should not be difficult to implement something like this. Create a small J2ME and/or Symbian messaging client. Heck, even make it P2P to eliminate server storage (SMS is store-and-forward). Lots of tools like WV, JXTA or XMPP can be used to obtain these ends. Then carriers can implement these systems on their networks and adjust the packet data charging for this service into buffet pricing to make it more attractive to customers.
The main drawback of this proposal is that it assumes that handsets of majority of the users are capable of running this application. Another potential problem is that this application needs to be installed and configured properly to work (making it a configuration management issue). However, I personally feel that over time more handsets will become smarter and smarter. Also core network resources will become costlier and costlier. I believe we should graduate from SMS and more into the next stage of Mobile Messaging by using packet data.
November 6th, 2006 at 2:38 am
Hi Hip,
It’s not difficult to implement this, basically we already did (SMS*).
November 6th, 2006 at 2:59 am
Yup obvious solution would be to use XMPP on both ends. The issue here is that people just don’t like installing an additional client on their phones. Besides, most people are not capable of this.
Did you use SMS? Doesn’t that defeat the purpose of an SMS-bypass
November 6th, 2006 at 5:38 am
You are right, technically this isn’t too difficult. However, commercially, you will encounter problems considering the local CTU (Call and Text Unlimited) offered by telcos that offers the same service at a fixed price as well. As you mentioned, there is also the issue of usability, with CTU there is little to no change when it comes to UI. However, I do acknowledge that CTU only works if sender and receiver are on the same network and to me this is the only weakness that these applications can exploit locally.
November 6th, 2006 at 9:23 am
well, what we found out that if the subscribers wanted to use an application, they will look/search and download it into their mobile phone. The same findings by mobile operators in other regions.
SMS* didn’t use SMS, but uses the native Inbox of the SMS. You can send default SMS if the recipient doesn’t have SMS* installed.
November 6th, 2006 at 9:34 am
Saichi, True CTU handsets are typically low end. It would be hard to put applications on those handsets. Hehe.
Roger, i thought SMS* was the same as SMS. ops! Hehehe. But, in anycase, an application still has to be installed. That is still a barrier to entry since most of the population are not capable of installing software.
November 6th, 2006 at 11:25 pm
And yes another thought would be that CTU offers still expect telcos to invest in their current costly core GSM equipment. So even if they offer both bundled data messaging service and CTU messaging at the same price, they stand to make more money with bundled data messaging because of the lower cost of infrastructure.