Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Android AT&T Google Verizon

T-Mobile, Verizon, and AT&T Have Reportedly Killed Their RCS Joint Venture (androidpolice.com) 55

Posted by BeauHD from the good-and-bad dept.
According to a new report from Light Reading, the three major U.S. carriers (four at the time) have reportedly abandoned their joint venture to launch a new Cross Carrier Messaging Initiative (CCMI), that promised interoperability for an RCS Universal Profile-based messaging standard. It was originally set to be launched in 2020. [For a detailed explanation of RCS Messaging, we recommend this article.] Android Police reports: Although the company handling the logistics behind the cross-carrier effort claims that it's still "continuing to move forward with preparations," a Verizon spokesperson told Light Reading that "the owners of the Cross Carrier Messaging Initiative decided to end the joint venture effort." [...] This may seem like bad news, but things have changed since 2019. In the time since the CCMI was announced, Google leapfrogged the carrier's selfish dithering and rolled out its own RCS messaging solution via the Messages app, all connected to its Jibe network (though it will use your carrier network if it's Universal Profile-compatible). It's a move that means customers don't have to wait on their carriers to start the work they should have done five years ago. More recently, T-Mobile has essentially handed the reins for its whole network messaging solution to Google by adopting Messages as the default SMS app for all T-Mobile phones, connecting all its customers to Google's RCS network.

Given what has and hasn't succeeded when it comes to RCS messaging, what we'd like to see is for Verizon and AT&T to follow T-Mobile, give up on their own stupid standards, and simply adopt Google's RCS Messaging -- either by connecting their chat apps to Google's Jibe network somehow or by adopting the Messages app as sanctioned solutions, as T-Mobile did. But in the meantime, there's nothing to prevent customers on either network from just installing the Messages app themselves and bypassing the carrier mess altogether -- especially since it sounds like the carriers have given up on fixing it.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

T-Mobile, Verizon, and AT&T Have Reportedly Killed Their RCS Joint Venture More

T-Mobile, Verizon, and AT&T Have Reportedly Killed Their RCS Joint Venture

Comments Filter:

  • One more reason... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Excelcia ( 906188 ) <slashdot@excelcia.ca> on Wednesday April 14, 2021 @06:16AM (#61271606) Homepage Journal

    ...T-Mobile has essentially handed the reins for its whole network messaging solution to Google...

    One more reason to turn off RCS entirely and to use good ole SMS. I'd rather use facebook messenger, and I despise facebook, than to hand Google all my chat data. The amount of personal information we are just willingly pouring through Google is astounding. Please, Google, knowing my every web site and all my browsing habits, that wasn't enough. Reading all my email wasn't enough either. Please also read all my most personal chats, everything. My whole life is yours. Don't worry, I trust every single employee who has access to it not to do anything with it for personal gain.

    Do you really think every celebrity phone hack was someone hacking their phones from the outside in? Really???

    • > than to hand Google all my chat data

      How does that work with the Axolotyl Ratchet in Messages RCS?

      Was T-Mobile on Snowden's PRISIM list? I know AT&T and Verizon were.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Excelcia ( 906188 )

        How does that work with the Axolotyl Ratchet

        It works just the way Google wants it to work, because, after all, they are the one's compiling the app. Don't worry, there's no key recovery possible anywhere in the process. Google said so. Or, actually they didn't, they didn't say anything on the subject at all, but hey, Google would never do that, right? Cuz they have absolutely nothing to gain by being able to read every message sent in the world. Really, it's ok. Trust them. Seriously, trust them.

        • You say Google could be lying and secretly exporting they key because "they are the ones compiling the app". I have bad news for you.

          Google is the one compiling the *operating system*.
          When you see your keystrokes on the screen, they show up on the screen because Google software reads the key presses and puts them on the screen. If you're using Google's operating system, you are *already* putting total trust in them. They can *already* read every key press. Anything that shows up on your screen, not only c

      • It is unencrypted at the app and I have little trust that Google would not use chat history to profile for advertising purposes. They could do the analysis on the phone or add a backend server as a chat participant. Google used to analyze Gmail content for ads but stopped in 2017 [blog.google]. Would they do it again? Who knows, but I would prefer to pass.

        Google has hopped on the E2EE bandwagon and that is positive. However, technical solutions do not limit options to the entity writing the software.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by cusco ( 717999 )

          but stopped in 2017

          That's what I thought too, but recently I started getting ads for a product that I had never searched for online or visited any vendor's web site, just mentioned in an email. Considering how inaccurate Google Adsense normally is with my (admittedly diverse) browsing history it was quite surprising.

    • ... so you are not going to "hand Google all my chat data".

      The real problem has nothing to do with privacy, it has to do with Apple not playing ball.

      As long as Apple has iMessage and controls 45%+ of the mobile market, we are never going to be able to truly move forward with decent messaging - everyone has to fall back to SMS all the time.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by cusco ( 717999 )

        I don't think that I know anyone who defaults to iMessage, ever. WhatsApp, Farcebook, SMS and Chime are pretty much all I've ever seen used in the last decade.

      • RCS is End To End encrypted - only sometimes (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Unfortunately RCS end-to-end encryption doesn't work for groups of more than two or when two users have more than a single device apiece (i.e. not like having encrypted iMessage synchronized on your phone, tablet, and computer):

        https://www.forbes.com/sites/z... [forbes.com]

        Just like Telegram, Google’s RCS end-to-end encryption only works between two individuals, no groups, and only between one device per person. This is as basic as it gets, and it doesn’t get close to the level of security offered by Apple’s iMessage or Signal or WhatsApp.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by brunes69 ( 86786 )

          This is true for now. It is going to be added soon. E2E encryption for a group chat is a lot harder to get right and roll out.

          The point is that E2E is the stated goal and the GPs idea that "all your messages belong to Google" is a false flag. iMessage being a closed proprietary system is the larger problem right now than the fact that group chats are not E2E encrypted.

      • I keep my phone bill low by paying for only a minuscule amount of mobile data. I don't want anything to replace SMS.

      • What Universe do you live in? Android (aka google) has 87% market share. Apple is like 13% or less.

        • That's global market share, since this article is only discussing RCS rollout in the US, we should be noting iOS market share in the US. According to Statista [statista.com], iOS has a 46.9% market share here as of the end of Q1 2021.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • What does RCS do that MMS/SMS doesn't already do?

        1) Work over IP. Send messages from a computer. Send messages over wifi. Also supports Voice and Video over IP
        2) Send videos > 320x240px @ 100bps
        3) Full resolution images and larger file attachments.
        4) End to End Encryption. Not sent in plain text over the air.
        5) Interactive\Rich formatting\image embeds. Instead of hyperlinks as plain text. (aka cards)
        6) Verified senders for businesses. Get a text from Google [Verified] not a random text number.
        7) Named Groups, ability to add members and for members

    • You can choose any email provider and yet you choose Gmail. And then you complain that Google has too much of your personal messaging information?

      • You can choose any email provider and yet you choose Gmail. And then you complain that Google has too much of your personal messaging information?

        I was either unclear, or formal persuasion, dialectics, rhetorical devices, and satire were missing from your education. Probably a little of column A and a little from column B.

        When I said...

        Google, knowing my every web site and all my browsing habits, that wasn't enough. Reading all my email wasn't enough either. Please also read all my most personal chats, everything. My whole life is yours. Don't worry, I trust every single employee who has access to it not to do anything with it for personal gain.

        ...it was intended to be satire. I was using myself as a stand in for the general "John Doe" member of the public who uses their services. It wasn't meant to indicate myself literally.

        I haven't personally used gmail since I put up my own virtual multi-domain email server in 2015. I also switched over to Duckduckgo

  • Given that we just had [slashdot.org] an article about why closed platforms suck, is Jibe open? Or does it chain people to Google's messaging app?

    • Jibe chains people to Google's Jibe servers, which are just RCS gateways. RCS is open, Jibe is proprietary (or at least their page says zero about being open) and will probably be cancelled within a couple of years :p

      • That's what I thought, but couldn't confirm from a glance at search results.

        So basically it's Google Talk, er Google Chat, no wait Google Hangouts, no wait, Google Hangouts Again, er we mean,

  • While US cell carriers are filthy lazy incompetent scum, I have serious concerns about Google moving into the telecommunications space. Their de facto monopolies on search, ads, and web browsers are bad enough, and I really don't believe that allowing them to obtain another monopoly, especially on something as fundamental and crucial as text messaging, is in anyone's best interests.

    But then, the US's capitalism fetish has allowed vast portions of its economy that should have remained public (e.g. healthcare

    • Re:Another monopoly play by Google (Score:5, Insightful)

      by sabbede ( 2678435 ) on Wednesday April 14, 2021 @07:24AM (#61271702)
      We were on the same page until you started blaming a straw-man version of Capitalism for things you clearly don't understand in ways that don't make sense. You don't even have the order right, pointing to things that were always private-sector services and claiming they were "outsourced". For example, every "pillar" of telecommunications has always been in private hands from the invention of the telegraph and radio through to cell towers and communications satellites. At no point in US history has the Federal government had the authority to provide healthcare to anyone but the military.

      And would you even want the Federal government telling cell companies what messaging system to use? Is there any reason to think that would turn out better than the industry working it out for themselves, especially considering that they know what they're doing far better than some bureaucrat or member of congress? Do you think they'd enforce a solution that didn't include letting them read your texts at will?

      • Healthcare used to be required to be nonprofit, then they repealed that law in the 1970s and everything went fully for-profit, and many people argue that the quality to cost ratio decreased. (this is a hard thing to really quantify since technology is advancing so fast at the same time) Anyway, maybe thats what OP was thinking of.

        • In MN hospitals are still required to be non-profit. Other jurisdictions I'm sure still have that on the books.

          The real problem with the cost originated with medicare and the feds. They wouldn't pay health care providers the full rate they were charging. If a health care provider provides a service that costs $1000 for materials, salaries, taxes, etc...

          But, medicare came along and said $1000 is too much. We're only going to pay $700. And, even worse in rural settings they would only pay $500. So

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by cusco ( 717999 )

            Seriously? You think Medicare caused the price gouging in the medical industry? Good grief.

            • Not the concept of medicare. The implementation of it though precipitated many of the problems. My parents worked at a rural hospital and my mom was a member of the bargaining team for the nurses. The lawyers from the union are the ones who informed her about the medicare pricing issues as it was material to their negotiations. Basically the hospital 30 miles away (while still being rural) was considered part of the metro area and thus was compensated at a higher rate for medicare than their hospital.

              • Re: (Score:3)

                by cusco ( 717999 )

                insurance forced a discount of greater than 80%.

                This is because of the insurance cartels insist on getting huge discounts in order to service those facilities. If the clinic knows that they're going to have to give a 75% discount then they're going to quadruple their prices just to break even.

              • Re: (Score:1)

                by bardrt ( 1831426 )

                My church has taken part in a program that is buying medical dept and wiping it out. They are frequently buying medical dept for pennies on the dollar. It's the same process that debt collectors use to buy debt. But, instead of tracking down people to charge them this program tracks them down to let them know their debt has been cancelled.

                I would love to know how they're going about locating an individual's debt and purchasing it. I'm in touch with a few groups/ministries that would be very interested in

                • The organization they work with is: https://ripmedicaldebt.org/ [ripmedicaldebt.org]

                  Since personal information is protected by HIPPA they cannot find one persons debt to erase. But, they can sift the data for certain patterns and select a large chunk of people to buy up the debt for and then erase it.

        • Healthcare used to be required to be nonprofit, then they repealed that law in the 1970s and everything went fully for-profit

          Fascinating. What country do you live in?

          In the US, about 1 in 5 hospitals are for-profit, [aha.org] and for-profit hospitals existed for decades prior to the 1970s. [politifact.com]

          Oh wait... maybe you're just trolling?

          • Hm, thanks for the fact-check. I think snopes gives a better explanation though

            The only sliver of truth here is the fact that the increase in popularity of HMOs that occurred after passage of the act (and its amendments) greatly expanded for-profit health care in America.

            So the cause/effect seemed obvious to a lot of people, though the specifics are being described very incorrectly.

    • But then, the US's capitalism fetish has allowed vast portions of its economy that should have remained public (e.g. healthcare)

      2017-2021 gave me some second thoughts when it comes to giving the federal government a more direct role in healthcare.

      I'm all for federal government's role as a healthcare market overseer and regulator, because the worst that can happen when a reality TV crazybrain gets elected to leadership is having that oversight and those regulations disappearing - which, I want to reiterate, is still bad. But if the federal government becomes the only health insurance provider, I'd be really, really worried about Craz

  • All your base are belong to us (Score:5, Insightful)

    by markdavis ( 642305 ) on Wednesday April 14, 2021 @06:31AM (#61271626)

    >"what we'd like to see is for Verizon and AT&T to follow T-Mobile, give up on their own stupid standards, and simply adopt Google's RCS Messaging -- either by connecting their chat apps to Google's Jibe network somehow or by adopting the Messages app"

    Just like your browser (Chrom*). Just like your Email (most ISP's gave up Email service and forced customers to use Gmail). Etc. Just give up and use Google. Hmm. What could go wrong having one company with access to everything you do/go/say and with control over all the "standards"?

    • And why is the author such a devoted cheerleader? Why is he so pumped about a solution that lets Google sell ads that are sent right to your phone? I'm not into it myself, and I'll go out on a limb and say you probably aren't that enthusiastic about the idea either.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by hawk ( 1151 )

      I'm just missing why *anything* that defaults to "use google servers" isn't immediately dismissed as a Bad Idea(tm)

  • Encryption? (Score:3)

    by Frederic54 ( 3788 ) on Wednesday April 14, 2021 @06:47AM (#61271648) Journal

    I am using RCS for years in Canada, it basically uses data and you can see when messages are delivered/read, react on them, etc, a little bit like Facebook Messenger. Also it can fallback to true SMS if there is no data/wifi. It is transparent and all between all cells/carriers in my entourage.

    I think the only things missing is E2E encryption :-(

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by brunes69 ( 86786 )

      RCS does have E2E encryption. It has since 2020.

      https://www.theverge.com/2020/... [theverge.com]

    • I am using RCS for years in Canada, it basically uses data and you can see when messages are delivered/read, react on them, etc, a little bit like Facebook Messenger. Also it can fallback to true SMS if there is no data/wifi. It is transparent and all between all cells/carriers in my entourage.

      I think the only things missing is E2E encryption :-(

      RCS is doomed by design. It has way too many flaws:

      1. Requires a phone number which is owned by a carrier
      2. Doesn't work well on computers/tablet without a phone number and cellular connectivity.
      3. Carriers still have the possibility to bill per message
      4. No centralized/searchable message archive. I rather have this than E2E encryption.
      5. Does it even works well when you have multiple devices?

  • Is Mike Dano on Google's payroll? Seems he writes a lot about how great they are. And in this case his, "rah rah, Google will save RCS", has a bit of a stink to it given this bit: "Google continues to push RCS in the US and elsewhere in the hopes that it will be able to make money from business-to-person advertisements"

  • You know you're old when ... (Score:3)

    by 50000BTU_barbecue ( 588132 ) on Wednesday April 14, 2021 @07:19AM (#61271694) Journal

    RCS means "reaction control system"...

  • Interoperable standard? What? But how will we lock in customers for our exponential year over year growth? Number must go up!

    Email would not have been invented in this day and age.

    • In a way, we've sort of gone back to the early-mid 90s, where you had America Online or Compuserv or Prodigy or Genie, and if your best friend posted on the Compuserv boards you'd have no way of reading them from a Real Nerd ISP.

  • T-Mobile, Verizon, and AT&T Have Reportedly Killed Their RCS Joint Venture

    Not sad, CVS is much better.

  • No big loss for me. Since it never was a thing and I don't use the Messaging app since it sucks and there is no telling when Google will decide to abandon it for the next greatest thing.

Slashdot Top Deals

The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its credibility. And vice versa.

Close