Subject: Re: cell phone audio email

From: "James P. Salsman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:02:23 -0700 (PDT)

In the U.S., the revenues of the telephone industries are about 25 
times the size of those of the television and movie industries combined. 

In addition, when people are asked to rank the importance of their 
internet applications, e-mail almost always tops all the others, 
and syncronous "chat" rarely places above third.

Two facts are clear:  one-to-one communications are vastly more 
lucrative than one-to-many applications with their "content", and 
the true value of internet messaging rests in the fact that you do 
not have to interrupt whatever you are doing to receive a message.

Why do the business leaders of the major internet and cellphone 
companies seem to not understand these facts?

People need to point these facts out firmly and repeatedly.  I, for 
one, feel like I should advocate this position until the marketplace 
responds with the solutions that my employer and I need:  a 
cellphone that can send and receive MIME email audio attachments.

> So get a PBX that does VPIM, and dial into it.  

Our current solution is very similar to this, and has multiple 
problems, the most important being that it is much more complicated 
for the end-user than it needs to be. 

> You think MIME audio attachments work over iMODE but not over WAP.

I don't know what the new Docomo products do; that's why I'm asking.

This problem is not specific to VPIM, or email; the mobile aspects 
(e.g., the lack of mobile carriers providing end-to-end Internet) 
form a problem bigger than the IETF.  If someone would point me to 
a cellphone industry public forum I would gladly take my advocacy there.

Cheers,
James

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 06:50:34 +0859 ()

James;

> for the end-user than it needs to be. 

It needs to be complicated.

The simple and straight forward way to transmit audio over phone network
is to use voice channel.

But, it has nothing to do with IETF nor the Internet.

> form a problem bigger than the IETF.

Your problem may be 25 times bigger than IETF.

But, it is your probelm and has nothing to do with IETF.

							Masataka Ohta