Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Software IT

Major Telco Providers Form Open Source Alliance 70

Posted by Hemos from the get-together-right-now dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Several major telecom companies have come together to form a new alliance. Founded January 1, 2006 by Alcatel, Ericsson, Motorola, NEC, Nokia and Siemens, "SCOPE", is helping to promote the availability of open carrier grade base platforms based on Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) hardware / software and Free Open Source Software (FOSS) building blocks, and to promote interoperability to better serve Service Providers and consumers. " It's worth noting that a number of these companies have also been OSDL members, pursuing the same agenda.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Major Telco Providers Form Open Source Alliance More

Major Telco Providers Form Open Source Alliance

Comments Filter:

  • it is about time they admitted they use OSS stuff (Score:3, Interesting)

    by linuxwebadmin ( 694411 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @09:40PM (#14545275) Homepage
    I'd be willing to bet they've been using OSS for a while now...
    • http://www.technewsworld.com/story/48358.html [technewsworld.com] Motorola is no stranger to OS Just a few days ago they bought an open source IPTV set top manufacturer. Motorola (NYSE: MOT) on Tuesday announced it has entered into an agreement to acquire a Swedish developer of Internet protocol-based digital set-top boxes. Motorola will purchase open-source technology vendor Kreatel Communications, which provides a combination of set-top boxes, software and professional services aimed at offering stable and future-proof s
    • ...to say that oss are quite often used a development platforms, but rarely in the boxes themselves. Asterisk is the first real oss alternative in commutation, as to Transmission systems, they run on rt-os'es which are NOT linux ( though i've heard of some initiatives to build boxes on rt-linux). I have seen soho access products which are basically linux-in-a-box, ditto set top boxes, but that ain't where the money is in telco's.
    • I know Nokia have - certainly some of their Series 60 / Symbian OS and the utilities it comes with are licensed under the L/GPL and other licenses

      Not actually checked the box and manual for an "offer" on paper, but it's all detailed under the "About" section of my Series 60-based handset and the "offer" is there and details where the code can be downloaded from. It even mentions that you can purchase it on CD-ROM for the cost of providing it (as specified in the GPL).

  • Missing someone? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by thePowerOfGrayskull ( 905905 ) <marc...paradise@@@gmail...com> on Monday January 23, 2006 @09:48PM (#14545318) Homepage Journal
    Consipicuously absent are any wire-based telcos; without them, there's little chance of this going anywhere.
    • I use COX. And as far as I can tell, their signal passes through a wire out of my house.
    • Consipicuously absent are any wire-based telcos; without them, there's little chance of this going anywhere.

      No kidding. I mean, just look what happened to that Skype flop.
       

    • Re:Missing someone? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 24, 2006 @01:35AM (#14546360)
      mod parent down, this is not insightful, he misses the point completely:

      this alliance of telco *providers* was formed to fight the telcos because if the telcos have things their way, the providers lose the ability to bargain with them. (it's called monopsony instead of monopoly, look it up on wikipedia)

      They may not ultimately be successful, but at least understand the point of it, the telcos are hardly going to join.

    • Telcos are manufacturers clients...they usually buy the stuff...on the other hand, equipment manufacturers have seen what happens when one company takes control of standards, protocols and core applications or systems. And Cisco missing, for a good reason... :-P

    • Re:Missing someone? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by NoMaster ( 142776 )

      Consipicuously absent are any wire-based telcos; without them, there's little chance of this going anywhere.

      Telco Providers .

      Alcatel & Ericsson are the major hardware providers outside of North America, with a complete range of wire, mobile, and wireless hardware. NEC & Siemens too, with a smaller presence. Motorola do lot of radio/wireless/mobile stuff, and Nokia do mainly mobiles.

      What's interesting is the non-appearance of North American hardware vendors, like Nortel, on the list.

    • Equipment vendors produce equipment, and then software that can be used to managed/configure it remotely.
      You can telnet to the devices in your network, but it's completely impractical for a large number of tasks. For this reason the vendors produce NMS (Network Management Systems) that provide a GUI and interfaces to control the devices en-mass.
      Now the problem with this is that it just manages some equipment from one vendor - you're pretty much locked in. You could buy another makers kit, but then you hav
  • Is this the final push for Linux in Phones (smart or not)?

  • Is this a good thing? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by qualico ( 731143 ) <<worldcouchsurfer> <at> <gmail.com>> on Monday January 23, 2006 @09:58PM (#14545378) Journal
    "SCOPE will focus on existing open specifications it believes best meets the needs of Service Providers."

    Why does that scare me?

    "SCOPE will not create specifications, but it will establish profiles"
    "What is a profile?
    A profile is a subset of the already existing specification from the standardization bodies
    like PIGMG, OSDL, SA Forum and others. This subset - or profile - reflects the technical
    requirements regarding the interfaces and building blocks to form a Carrier Grade Base
    Platform to meet the Service Providers' requirements."

    So they are going to cherry pick what they feel is the compliment of standards to clump together?

    Why does that scare me?

    "It will leverage the extensive
    mutual membership between SCOPE and other related organizations."

    Why does that ...never mind.

    "Gap analysis: If the previous requirement analysis points out missing options or features,
    they are documented and individual member companies work with specification
    organizations to address these gaps."

    ok..that sounds good.

    "If SCOPE didn't exist, what would the impact be on COTS adoption in the carrier Grade
    Platform space?
    SCOPE provides guidance to the ecosystem without which the COTS adoption of Carrier
    Grade Platform standards and specifications would be a slower process.
    SCOPE considers all relevant standards and specifications in a Carrier Grade Platform
    context and will identify any gap, promote and enable consistency across all relevant
    standards and specifications.
    Due to the richness and flexibility of existing standards and specifications, the market would
    likely be fragmented and the advantages of economies of scale would be lost."

    This should have been in the main body of the story.
    It seems more to the point.

    Hope this new collaboration is a good thing for consumers.
    Hell has a road paved with good intentions.

    • Why should that scare you? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by kale77in ( 703316 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @11:28PM (#14545783) Homepage

      > Why does that scare me?
      > Why does that scare me?

      Seriously, why should the actions of other open source users scare you? They can't take away the OSS you already use. They can't stop other projects working around them, or integrating their contributions into other tools. The OSS that benefits the rest of us will go on. Probably the resources available to a few projects will change; some might even fork -- but that's not something I'd call 'scary'.

    • Re:Is this a good thing? (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Most of those companies are withering on the vine. All but Siemens produce the old standard fiber transmission systems. OC-192 LTEs (terminals) and LREs (regenerators). The American backbone will be an IP based network with in 18 months. I am working on it right now. The backbone will be Juniper T640s riding on Siemens and Ciena Ultra Long Haul DWDM Optical Amps. Being IP no more protection ring architecture. No more 1+1 or working and protect fiber paths or equipment. The others do not make the equipment t
    • "So they are going to cherry pick what they feel is the compliment of standards to clump together?
      Why does that scare me?"

      I don't know, but it shouldn't. Why not take the best of column A and the best of Column B? Isn't this a way that a better standard can be developed for all parties?

  • Not telcos (Score:5, Informative)

    by RomulusNR ( 29439 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @10:01PM (#14545394) Homepage
    AFAIK none of these companies are telcos, but rather telecom equipment manufacturers.

    • Re:Not telcos (Score:3, Funny)

      by RingDev ( 879105 )
      Agreed, the summary headline is waaaaaaay off.

      In other news the Department of Transportation is cutting up to 30,000 jobs. Companies affected include Ford.

      -Rick

  • Ericsson Erlang Open Source (Score:5, Informative)

    by masters ( 319891 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @10:08PM (#14545425) Homepage

    Ericsson already has a history of providing open source. See Erlang [erlang.org] Does anyone know of open source solutions that the other companies provide?

  • Game theory in operation (Score:5, Interesting)

    by HangingChad ( 677530 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @10:13PM (#14545439) Homepage
    Cooperate for the benefit of all, then compete for your share. I'm not surprised the telcos are doing it, I'm surprised more companies aren't doing it.

    Let's think about it. If a couple hundred large companies put 100K (the amount they give the Chamber of Commerce for lobbying efforts) into a pot to use to make improvements to OpenOffice. That would be enough to make the changes in OpenOffice most benefical to business. The 100K the donor companies put up is chump change compared to what they spend on license fees for Office. OpenOffice is not an unknown quantity. They'd be starting with a product that's 90% ready to go.

    Certainly some companies and individuals are going to freeload and not contribute to the collective development, but it doesn't matter. Everyone, except Microsoft, wins.

    The same logic applies to the operating system. Thousands and thousands of companies all paying individually for a software product that does the same thing is economic insanity. We're not talking about cars with large overhead costs in parts, it's software that runs on the hardware everyone already has.

    • BLASPHEME COMMUNIST! Take your ration of bread and potato's and head back to the tundra!
    • If a couple hundred large companies put 100K (the amount they give the Chamber of Commerce for lobbying efforts) into a pot to use to make improvements to OpenOffice. That would be enough to make the changes in OpenOffice most beneficial to business.

      Who would the money actually go to? Another software company or development group? Why would this group be able to do any better than Microsoft, who already has the best product available, along with experienced teams who have been developing it for over 15 ye
      • The stipulation is that the money gets spent implementing the features the businesses actually want right now.
        If the businesses funding this want a better spellchecker, the programmers who work on this would do that.
        Basicly, its no different to businesses getting together and funding development of any other piece of software except that they are starting from an existing codebase and the results will be returned to that codebase.

        Basicly, the GP was saying that if businesses took some of the money they spen

    • The problem with the approach you're describing is that a company that doesn't take part ends up better off. Company A and Company B both invest 100k into OpenOffice and get out of it a useful office product. Company C, which has the same requirements as Company A, also gains a free office product without having to invest that 100k. Company C has come out on top.

      Of course, if no companies do it then no-one benefits, but which company is going to be the one that makes the sacrifice for the good of everyone

      • This post [slashdot.org] explains why things doesn't work that way, and the company investing the money does benefit the most.

        Actually, your assumption that Company C, which has the same requirements as Company A... is what breaks the logic in your argument. There are no two companies with the same needs.

        • I think if we're talking about office suites the list of needs is almost universal, at least such that most everyday needs apply to many businesses. The needs that differ between businesses are unlikely to be the kind of thing you'd want in the core codebase, so the benefit to the core code is mechanisms for extensibility, which again benefit everyone. Once the extensibility is there, the possibility arises for companies to produce closed-source add-ons which they can then sell to businesses with unusual ne


  • http://unixguru.com/ [unixguru.com]

    go ahead and check it out.

  • What a Change a Few Years Makes (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mkcmkc ( 197982 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @10:35PM (#14545541)
    About six or seven years ago I was the technical lead working on a million-dollar contract for a major telecom company. I made a point to ask each company whether they would make their source code available to us, or at least allow us to look at it--not exactly Open Source, but as much as I could do at the time. Most of the companies acted as if I'd ask them to suck a turd through a straw.

    One company did say "yes". They won the contract, probably for a lot of other reasons, as they were ahead of the curve in a lot of ways.

  • Telcom providers getting outsourced, too (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dada21 ( 163177 ) * <adam.dada@gmail.com> on Monday January 23, 2006 @11:08PM (#14545682) Homepage Journal
    This looks to be a step for the telcom providers to give themselves some direction to move into, now that their ability to extract profits from providing a dying service is coming to a close.

    I've seen so many great products that will come to the market in the next 6-18 months that can replace your cell phone (which replaced my landline). Most utilize WiFi to communicate with others inside and outside of the network. PocketSkype sorta deal.

    Will this replace anyone soon? Probably not. I do believe the fight to regulate the Internet will come directly out of two things: "lost" sales tax revenue, and lost POTS business. If the 'net can get past both of these, we'll see some amazing communications devices released, and we can only hope to see the wasted spectrum of cell phones (and TV and radio) gives up for a more unregulated WiFi-style spectrum to utilize more efficiently.

    In my "investigations" I believe T-Mobile will be the first to release a product that could be considered a knife in their own back: the multi-band GSM/WiFi cell phone that actually transitions cell calls to VoIP automatically. They've been investigating it for years and were ahead of most other providers in offering large companies with no T-Mobile signal a chance to set up an IP-based repeater.

    Open source is a must-have for the telcos. If they can feel their death is imminent (say, 10-20 years), the best thing they can do to all their 100 years of proprietary architecture is to dump it, transition to open source APIs and software, and be ahead of the pack in making the transition to communications-via-IP. This will kill off the possibility of anyone trying to resurrect the old way.

    I don't think the open source push is being performed for the user's interests, but I do think it will bring unintended consequences for the communications cartels. I can't wait to see how we're communicating in 10 years -- just 10 years ago I remember paying up to 20-40 cents a minute for an in-state (out of area) call.
    • The t-mobile GSM/WiFi dual band phone still requires a t-mobile SIM card and contract. Plus, even when you are on the WiFi side, you are still going through t-mobile (I would assume).
      It is a great way to increase coverage cheaply (anywhere you cant get permission or cant find a location to erect a GSM tower, stick a couple of WAPs around to provide WiFi instead).

  • "Major Telco" (Score:5, Funny)

    by Orrin Bloquy ( 898571 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @11:21PM (#14545744) Journal
    Isn't he Cmdr. Taco's ranking officer?
  • Lucent, the bleeding sphincter of quality. Will someone shoot Patty, and set that company right already?
  • The telecoms seem to want to evolve Linux in the direction of Solaris, which has traditionally been the platform of choice for many of these apps. Lots of it is realtime stuff - robust mutexes, priority inheritance, NPTL, reliable RT scheduling, fully preemptible kernel, etc which also benefit multimedia and games.

    Recently Linux has become a better soft RT platform than Windows and is creeping up on OSX, Irix, and Solaris.
  • I wonder how much of Evan Brown's (unixguru) brain Alcatel is bringing or helping being brought to that O/S table...

    Please, don't slash unixguru's site; instead, visit alcatel for any apologies they MAY have posted about him....

  • Did they fail to sue their way into extra profit or out of debt?
    So now they think open source will save them where the lawyers failed?

    What wonderful words
    open carrier - cant affort to do it in house - lets spread the risk.
    building blocks - hack and patch the real old stuff, sell it back as new.
    interoperability - when it falls over we can blame the others.
    consumers - they get write code, debug and pay.

    What happened to the good old days?
    Roll it out first, fast and faulty.
    Lock the others out and l

  • Is this the same Nokia that is pushing hard for software patents?

    Software patents held by Nokia [ffii.org]
    Nokia has over 70% of Finnish software patents [ffii.org]
    Nokia argues that software patents "provide incentives to undertake research and development in Europe, ..." [theregister.co.uk]

    How does Nokia reconcile open source with software patents?

  • GPL 3.0 (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Prototerm ( 762512 ) on Tuesday January 24, 2006 @09:44AM (#14547749)
    This may well be in response to GPL 3, which, among other things, is intended to tighten the rules involving the mix of GPL and proprietary software as well as forbidding DRM. With the telcos interested in selling ring tones and music downloads posessing DRM, as well as combining Linux with the other proprietary stuff that makes up a mobile phone, they may be planning to create a GPL-2 fork of Linx in an effort to continue to use it in their products.

    The creation of an open source allience would make perfect sense in that case.

  • This is just another case of corporate greed. These companies are wanting to exploit the good work of thousands of dedicated free software developers so they can sell more hardware to more customers wanting something to run all these new innovative applications on.

    Oh wait ... this is a good thing! I guess greed directed the right way can work wonders.

Slashdot Top Deals

Work without a vision is slavery, Vision without work is a pipe dream, But vision with work is the hope of the world.

Close