The reference to 70% of people in Europe having a web enabled
phone made me laugh too... although I guess it could be true
- my last 3 mobile phones have all had WAP capability, but I
don't know of anyone that actually uses this feature.
I actually use mine. But it's behind a proxy, as I suspect nearly every
other provder's WAP gateway is.
Daryl Jurbala
So far I have yet to see a mobile network implementing IPv6, though
I haven�t looked closely to the japanese ones. Despite all the hype,
most mobile vendors don�t even have shipping wares that would
do ipv6 in the first place. The usual implementations are ipv4 with
"huge" NAT boxes, quite like many DSL and Cable networks were
(and still are) until ISP�s started to come into their senses and move
to dynamic public ip addresses.
Some ipv6 enabled GSM handsets do exist.
The mobile ip address demand is not going to be too great when
a megabyte in most countries costs $10 to $20 to move around.
Pete
Over here the monopoly Telcom charges approx $US 0.50 per Megabyte see:
http://www.telecom.co.nz/content/0,3900,202032-200509,00.html
($1NZ =~ $US 0.60)
which possibly almost makes it cheaper today to sit on ICQ than to
get/send SMS messages all day long ( do instant message protocols have
low bandwidth/compressed data options?).
I'm not sure how easy it is for a phone provider to NAT thousands/millions
of people at once onto ICQ, especially when they would prefer to charge
the same people 10 cents per SMS message.
Here it�s about $20 for 100M and then about $2/megabyte.
(I wonder who is doing their calculations which seem an order
of magnitude off when crossing the magic barrier, but we�ve
seen phone companies with strange calculators before)
However, it seems to take some time before these tariffs will
start to make sense and we stop seeing the things like video
calls being offered for one tenth the price per bit than what
data goes for, etc.
Pete