Live data from Hacker News

SIM Cards Must Die

ilyabirman.net

51–60 of 141 posts

Re: SIM Cards Must Die

#51
I think the author is conflating SIM cards with vendor lock-in. Phones locked to SIM cards from a particular carrier are not good. If you want them to die, then fine - but that's got nothing to do with SIM cards.

SIM cards as authentication tokens work just fine. My phone takes SIM cards from any carrier. If I want to switch carriers, the new carrier just sends me a new SIM card.

Get rid of SIM cards, and you're going to end up with a security problem with keys being copied/cloned from phones. You're going to find that you need some kind of authentication based on a hardware crypto token, and will end up inventing...the SIM card.

Re: SIM Cards Must Die

#52
As an engineer working in the SIM card industry, as long as they add some other form of secure element for placing highly sensitive data like bank/id applets it would still be reasonable.

As others have commented though, I'm afraid that they would use it to lock the consumer to phone specific plans.

I like a lot the ability to take my SIM card to other phones, as it allows to carry some kind of ID with me, there are better and seamless ways of doing that that I can't wait to be implemented and deployed (a user and password to put when booting the phone is not a solution).

Re: SIM Cards Must Die

#53
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> From a UX perspective the simcard is a pretty weak solution. Actually from a UX perspective sim cards are a pretty strong solution because there is a clear and simple 1:1 mapping between a physical object and a carrier. That's as simple an UX as can be: if I want to use carrier A I use SIM A, if I want to use carrier B I use SIM B. > For a starter, why do I have to reboot my phone to switch carriers? I don't know,…

> Actually from a UX perspective sim cards are a pretty strong solution because there is a clear and simple 1:1 mapping between a physical object and a carrier. That's as simple an UX as can be: if I want to use carrier A I use SIM A, if I want to use carrier B I use SIM B. That must be why it's so common and popular to use physical tokens for the address list too. I really live to sift through the little plastic car…

Your nonalogy makes no sense whatsoever:

* Addresses don't significantly impact the phone's behavior (and its costs), current ISP does

* As I noted, you might want to get out more, phones don't need to reboot when changing SIM

* Considering the number of people who criticize iPhones for not having a µSD slot, physical tokens do indeed seem trendy in crowds which need them

Re: SIM Cards Must Die

#54
post #48

The industry has been working on software SIMs for some time. I had a telco talking to me about the initiative years ago. The problem is that the soft SIM provisioning process will become like DRM for phones. The users desires and the service providers desires are fundamentally misaligned here. Users want to be able to choose freely from the best tariffs available to them in a given location. Service providers want t…

But surely this until the first carrier breaks the deadlock and then decides to offer soft SIMS to tourists ? Then the rest of then will be forced to follow on or else be squeezed out of the market. In fact, if you were a small-ish based carrier, then you could benefit from first-to-market as well as not being eaten by your customers going abroad (as you were first!).

Re: SIM Cards Must Die

#56
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A username and password is secure enough for things more important than this.

Hum ... like what ? It is quite critical, someone with your username/passwd would be able to call for several hours without you knowing it.

A lot of banks don't support two-form authentication. A lot of online merchants keep credit card information on file and allow for quick check-outs.

Re: SIM Cards Must Die

#57
post #38
post #4

I'm afraid if we kill SIM cards, the opposite will happen: your phone will be locked to one network, and switching networks means switching hardware (beyond just the sim). I really like that while traveling I can just buy a local sim, put it in my own phone, and use it. That would only work in these wireframes if all operators would agree to support this. Which I think they won't.

Yep, a SIM card gives freedom from networks and the ability to change numbers easily and use pay as you go services when travelling. There's no way killing SIM cards would be a good thing.

This and Panmans comments were my first thought when I read that piece. I like the SIM card. When I went backpacking round the world I was able to pick up a pay as you go SIM card from a local store in any country, load it with credit and pop it in my phone and I'm all good to go. None of this sharing information from my phone business. You don't need to know my identity or payment information. I don't want the hassle of calling customer services in a country where they speak very little english because all of a sudden I have had £50 taken from my account due to some set up issue or whatever.

Anyway, as panman says, i think it will cause the opposite effect. Didn't the original GSM phones work in a similar way, with no SIM and some sort of mapping to a phone number at the carrier end? What is the likelihood that the carriers would remove the ability to change carriers, pretty high i'd say.

Re: SIM Cards Must Die

#58
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's been the case for ages because Verizon is a CDMA network, not GSM -- GSM takes SIM cards, while CDMA does not. Different tech. This is likely to shift as V rolls out LTE, which DOES take SIM cards. So we're actually likely to see more intercompatibility as things progress. Except, of course, that everything's still likely to be carrier-locked.

Is there actually any benefit to CDMA?

Depending on how you look at it, there can be many benefits, but as with most technologies, they're contextual.

CDMA uses 1.25MHz channels. That can be limiting in some ways, but advantageous in others. When deploying UMTS channels, AT&T or T-Mobile would need to clear out 10MHz of spectrum. Back when 3G wireless was first getting off the ground, it was decently common for a carrier to have below 30MHz in a market. To give two examples, Sprint and T-Mobile both had an average spectrum depth of around 25MHz. Sprint was able to get out of the gate fast on 3G requiring only 2.5MHz (around 10% of their spectrum) to deploy. T-Mobile had to wait until it purchased new AWS spectrum years later. The UMTS channels would have taken up 40% of their spectrum. So, it was difficult to clear out enough space to deploy UMTS. You were basically taking a third to half of your spectrum and making it unavailable for current customers. Then, as you launched the network and started selling 3G devices, customers would start moving their usage to the new technology. EV-DO (the CDMA data standard), on the other hand, only required a carrier to free up 2.5MHz of spectrum to deploy 3G. Even today, it can be an issue. As the number of GSM customers dwindle, AT&T and T-Mobile want to allocate more spectrum to UMTS. However, they can only do that in 10MHz chunks. They don't get to say, "ah, there's 3MHz that we should move to UMTS".

Likewise, because UMTS does voice and data, it meant that carriers had to install SS7 and mobile switching gear to handle the voice. EV-DO was an all-IP network that wasn't going to handle voice. While that could be a disadvantage in some ways, it provided the benefit of being easier to deploy in terms of equipment.

Taking that a step further, the lack of a voice requirement for EV-DO meant that they could launch a network in a much more piecemeal fashion. If one launched a UMTS network with lots of holes, call quality would be poor. Sure, calls could hand-off to GSM, but they might have a "1-bar" UMTS signal with crummy call quality while GSM users got excellent quality. Back then, if data didn't work or was delayed a bit, it didn't matter that much. People used data infrequently compared to calling and call reliability is what people paid for.

It should also be noted that when EV-DO was first deployed, it was faster than UMTS. UMTS R99 had a peak data rate of 384kbps, well below the 2.4Mbps of EV-DO Rel 0. Now, the wider band of UMTS made it more future-proof, but initially EV-DO looked very good.

To be fair to UMTS, I could talk about problems with CDMA as well. CDMA offered a bit more of a practical, easier transition to 3G for carriers. It's narrower channels made it easy to carve out spectrum, the fact that there wasn't a voice component meant that less equipment was needed and it didn't require the same initial reliability, etc.

Re: SIM Cards Must Die

#60
post #38
post #4

I'm afraid if we kill SIM cards, the opposite will happen: your phone will be locked to one network, and switching networks means switching hardware (beyond just the sim). I really like that while traveling I can just buy a local sim, put it in my own phone, and use it. That would only work in these wireframes if all operators would agree to support this. Which I think they won't.

Yep, a SIM card gives freedom from networks and the ability to change numbers easily and use pay as you go services when travelling. There's no way killing SIM cards would be a good thing.

Americans don't know that because their phone companies forbid that practice. AT&T doesn't even bother to move your SIM card from your old iPhone to your new iPhone when you upgrade, they just give you a new card.
Post reply on HN