|
|
I asked for it. I believe Otmar asked for it, also. I don't think I can
get my company to support this architecture if hiding location from
endpoints isn't an option.
Barbara
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Newton [mailto:andy@xxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 12:46 PM
To: GEOPRIV WG
Cc: ECRIT
Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Re: [Ecrit] Not-so-grand compromise on how to
doendpointcentric LCP without giving away the store
Using Martin's nice email to perhaps bring this thread back around to
GEOPRIV and to quit dancing around the issue, has anyone actually
asked us as part of requirements to hide location from the target?
If so, who? If not, why are we considering it?
-andy
On Apr 16, 2007, at 12:09 PM, Dawson, Martin wrote:
> All very true I think. Providing location, in my view, is likely to go
> through the usual stages:
>
> * Pay to play
> * Free as a competitive differentiator
> * Lowest common denominator and assumed as part of the access
>
> I think the first phase is likely to prove quite short, to non-
> existent, because of the cost of putting the billing overlay in.
>
> Telephone companies didn't go into business to provide connectivity to
> emergency services but, eventually, they did it because it's a social
> service and society enforced the obligation - emergency calling,
> including location, became an assumed part of the bundle.
>
> Similarly, the physics of the situation dictates it's the providers of
> broadband Internet access who can work out location (it's not like
> it's a business conspiracy) and, eventually, this will become an
> assumed part of the access bundle.
>
> In cellular networks, the location request associated with initiating
> an emergency call is called a "network initiated" request because the
> mobile switching center makes the request to the location server.
> However, most networks also support a form of request called
> "mobile-originated". It's quite likely that any suitably capable
> handset can request location, unhindered, from those mobile networks.
> That's control plane - but SUPL permits SET-initated requests as well.
>
> Providing location in cellular networks is probably the most network
> resource intensive form of this service. The precedent is in, really,
> that users will be able to get their location for free.
>
> The business strategists that you refer to still need to go through
> their own processes and come to their own conclusions but I don't
> think you'll be suffering stock option envy on this count Henning.
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henning Schulzrinne [mailto:hgs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Sunday, 15 April 2007 12:52 AM
> To: Rosen, Brian
> Cc: geopriv@xxxxxxxx; ecrit@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: [Geopriv] Re: [Ecrit] Not-so-grand compromise on how to do
> endpointcentric LCP without giving away the store
>
> [This is partially an editorial, but I'll get to solutions in the next
> message...]
>
> My prediction is that the dream of untold riches to be mined from
> location information is largely just that.
>
> In particular, I believe that the value of non-emergency location
> information for stationary devices in a residential setting is pretty
> close to zero. After all, users already know their home address and
> for pizza delivery and similar tasks, it doesn't much matter whether
> the address validates. Users will fix their address after the first
> cold pizza arrives.
>
> As a practical matter, monetizing this information is going to be very
> difficult, particularly in European Union countries with strong
> privacy laws. A VSP is very unlikely to pay for location information,
> as it has no direct need for it. The local pizza parlor might find the
> information to be of interest, but the logistics are pretty daunting.
> Since you can't easily do per-use approval, as you can do with end
> system location, the pizza parlor would have to contact the various
> access providers and negotiate an arrangement. In addition, and most
> onerously, the pizza parlor would probably need to get individual
> approval from each potential customer to release this information to
> them. As a customer, why would I agree to release location information
> to every business, known and unknown, for purposes unknown? This can
> be fixed by uploading GEOPRIV policy to the access provider, but this
> requires heavy-duty machinery, as customers have to figure out which
> domains to include in that list.
> The likelihood that users will remember to add the pizza parlor's
> domain name to that list before calling for delivery is pretty slim.
> For a second delivery, the restaurant already has the correct and
> verified address, so it has limited additional value.
>
> Let's assume for a moment that stationary-device location is indeed
> tremendously valuable. If so, we'll very quickly get a budding
> entrepreneur that will get the location from the access provider and
> then sell it, once, to the customer, for free use henceforth until the
> customer changes ISPs. Heck, depending on pricing, the customer might
> do it himself. I'd look forward to the having the access provider sue
> this enterprise for handing a customer their own street address.
> ("Yes, your honor, we don't allow this company to tell our customer
> where they live.")
>
> Maybe Domino's will advertise "Get your free serving of location with
> our extra large pepperoni pizza!".
>
> Thus, this whole hide-location-from-customer thing has the distinct
> feeling of cutting off your nose to spite your face or, more to the
> topic, of "I can't make VoIP pay for me, so I'm going to make it
> difficult for everybody else to offer services, too".
>
> Location information is obviously valuable for mobile users, but I
> suspect that the consequence of making it difficult to get will simply
> increase the use of (unassisted) GPS and SkyHook, or BlueTooth on
> in-car navigation devices. (As navigation functionality gets
> integrated into mobile phones, this has to work even when there is no
> cell coverage.)
>
> While I doubt that this argument will suddenly convince the brilliant
> strategists in telecom companies, at least I'll have a convenient
> place to point to for an "I told you so" five years from now, or maybe
> a good place to be proven wrong while others cash in their stock
> options.
>
> Henning
>
> _______________________________________________
> Geopriv mailing list
> Geopriv@xxxxxxxx
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------
> This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain
> privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.
> If you have received it in error, please notify the sender immediately
> and delete the original. Any unauthorized use of this email is
> prohibited.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------
> [mf2]
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Geopriv mailing list
> Geopriv@xxxxxxxx
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
*****
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which
it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged
material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking
of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other
than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error,
please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. GA625
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
|
|