Editing P2p mobile carriers (section)

= 11. Carriers banning accounts =

The techniques described in this post represent a new way of providing mobile services. It’s possible that carriers won’t like these ideas and may attempt to ban the people who use them. My thoughts on this are: there are several good reasons why a p2p carrier is beneficial to a carrier:

First of all, the service depends on the carriers underlying infrastructure, so it can’t by definition compete with the carrier. It IS the carrier, albeit a new virtual layer built on top of it, as defined by its users.

It costs the carrier a lot of money to build infrastructure and maintain it. Sometimes this means that carriers have to prioritise the boring parts, rather than giving customers nice features. Since there is no incentive to work on them, there may be less of a reason to buy a plan.

With my approach the carriers get a powerful, new eco-system of developers building products that enhance their value offerings. Such innovations may include better software for faster on-boarding, new features for controlling access to mobile services, even whole new use-cases that have never been thought of before.

<blockquote>The carriers get this for nothing. All they have to do is leave the nerds to do their thing and everyone wins. I’d say that’s a positive outcome.
</blockquote>
Another aspect to consider is the the shear difficulty in keeping up with the latest threats in a network that grows bigger every day. There are always new flaws to be discovered, and the hackers just keep coming. How do you stay on top of that in the 21st century?

When it comes to creating an eco-system with a community-driven approach, you’re going to see people empowered to take care of that eco-system – THEIR eco-system – and defend it from threats. Suddenly the mobile system gains an army of security experts writing tools to improve it. None of this is possible without proper incentives.

<span id="advanced-gsm-secret-contracts"></span>