1

I'm trying to offer services over the MobiTex network (also see wiki) and want to reduce double-work. I'm trying to understand if it is a good idea to WAP enable my website.

Given that WAP usage is increasing (since MMS is a hybrid of SMS + WAP), and the FCC has required every operator in the 700Mhz range to implement it I'd like to fully understand if there are benefits to the technology for certain critical applications.

For example, if GPRS allows SMS traffic, voice, and Data, presumably they are handled by different Gateways. If there is another gateway for WAP traffic I would think that it would act as a backup if the data gateway was overloaded.

Are there resiliency benefits to using WAP on a critical website? i.e. Content delivery (push or pull)

HopelessN00b
  • 53,385
  • 32
  • 133
  • 208
makerofthings7
  • 8,821
  • 28
  • 115
  • 196
  • 1
    Is this even still in use anywhere? – Michael Hampton Oct 23 '12 at 20:53
  • @MichaelHampton [The FCC requires WAP support in all devices in the 700 Mhz C block](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_Application_Protocol) so if it's not in use, it's available. I think understanding this could create a benefit for emergency responders and critical system alerts. – makerofthings7 Oct 23 '12 at 20:56
  • 3
    And the FCC misses the boat again... but that's a topic for another site. – Michael Hampton Oct 23 '12 at 20:58
  • @MichaelHampton - See edit. MMS is the combination of SMS and WAP. Therefore WAP usage is increasing and is more prevalant. – makerofthings7 Oct 23 '12 at 21:00
  • Please take a moment to read the FAQ. Note specifically that we really prefer **practical, answerable questions based on actual problems that you face.** I am having real trouble coming up with the practical, answerable question here. Can you clarify what it is you're after? – Michael Hampton Oct 23 '12 at 21:06
  • @MichaelHampton Updated. – makerofthings7 Oct 23 '12 at 21:13

1 Answers1

1

Your edit notwithstanding, I would certainly consider WAP to be "legacy" in the age of smartphones and true mobile data.
The amount of additional work/infrastructure/overhead required to handle something like web pages over WAP would do nothing but introduce cost and complexity (thereby increasing the chance of a failure), so while this is technically possible I would say it's politically infeasible at best.

The IP infrastructure was designed to be resilient, as is the cellular infrastructure mobile data rides on (Lose your tower? Switch to another that's in range. Lose one upstream IP route? Switch to another path.) -- because of this resiliency (and other benefits) there are cellular towers in my area which use an IP uplink for their backhaul, so no matter the cellular-level protocol being used it's still a private IP network moving the data in the end.

Re: your question about how carriers are charging for usage, this would be carrier-specific, and way out of scope for Server Fault - our goal is not to be a repository of outdated information about pricing structures.
If you want to pursue something like this you would need to talk to each carrier whose services you want to use to determine (a) if they'd be willing to allow this particular use of WAP, and (b) how much you'd have to pay per KB..

voretaq7
  • 79,345
  • 17
  • 128
  • 213
  • Speficically I'm trying to understand if the traditional GPRS connection was overloaded at a certain point, would a WAP connection offer bandwith that wouldn't otherwise be available. If you've ever been in Times Square on New Years Eve then you probably know that voice and data was overloaded, but at the same time Blackberry worked. – makerofthings7 Oct 23 '12 at 21:15
  • @makerofthings7 Unless it's off in its own chunk of unused spectrum I doubt it would make a substantial difference -- in NY our big problems are spectrum saturation (too much noise, too much MAI, etc.), followed by uplink saturation (the tower you're on has no more backhaul bandwidth, circuit loops, etc. to handle your request). WAP versus GPRS really wouldn't help there (and if it did everyone would jump on it and bog it down anyway). -- I guess the more succinct answer is "Critical applications shouldn't use the public cell network" :-) – voretaq7 Oct 23 '12 at 21:23
  • @makerofthings7 Also note that Blackberry/BBM are "special" -- it's a store-and-forward-when-resources-permit service. Apple's iMessage is similar in this nature, and has a WAP fallback similar to what you describe -- If the data uplink is unavailable iMessage sends a "regular" text (SMS) or MMS message. In that case they're riding on existing infrastructure built into the cellular protocols (for SMS) or an already-established use of coordinated WAP messaging (for MMS) so the implementation barrier was very low. – voretaq7 Oct 23 '12 at 21:28
  • My original question (edit zero) included a reference to MobiText, and since that is a highly resilient data network I assume it would use different frequencies than cellular. Since I think MobiText devices use WAP then I have a theory that a WAP-enabled service could be of use for certain low bandwidth notifications and could be of benefit to a plethora of mobile users with a variety of wireless technologies. I'd implement once and have a wide net of devices to choose from. – makerofthings7 Oct 23 '12 at 21:33
  • If you're talking about http://www.gomobitext.com it is, as far as I can tell, just SMS. If you're talking about something else you should re-edit your question to include full and complete references. My answer remains unchanged: What you're proposing has zero practical benefit, which is why nobody is doing it. – voretaq7 Oct 23 '12 at 21:44
  • Negative. I'm talking about this technology: http://www.mobitex.com/ It is widely used by first responders and I'm trying to reduce the amount of double work I'm doing. As far as I can tell your link is very unrelated to my goal – makerofthings7 Oct 23 '12 at 22:23