iPhone SMS over wifi

Question

Level 1

4 points

iPhone SMS over wifi

After reading a bit it seems SMS and mms are not available via wifi! Why would they make this lame decision. My parents live out of town a few miles and I have no service in this area (voice or data) but they do have DSL & wifi working. I'm typing this right now w/o any cell service available! But after several attempts I'm unable to send any text messages. They all say 'failed' and show a red icon next to them saying the could not be sent and asking if I want to resend (ya, no mention of why or even a note saying I can't use SMS or mms via wifi) which is the least they could do. It can't be that hard to send a text over the net, com'on now really?

Now that I think of it, the phone should just use voip if your on wifi when out of a service are... Every feature on the phone should just work if I can connect to the net! Especiall when connected at faster than 3G speeds (broadband). Can't think of a technical limitation at all. Just do it Apple. You will blow all the other smart phones out of the water yet again.

iPhone 3GS, iPhone OS 3.1.2, Wifi via broadband out of service area

Posted on Dec 24, 2009 1:11 PM

Reply

Answer 1

wjosten

Level 10

95,321 points

Dec 24, 2009 1:15 PM in response to plasticman

SMS & MMS are carrier services, has nothing to do with wifi. You need a carrier connection to use those services.

Reply

Answer 2

modular747

Level 6

19,656 points

Dec 24, 2009 1:23 PM in response to plasticman

SMS and MMS are transmitted via the carriers voice network, not the data network, and can't be sent directly from the phone if you don't have service. WiFi can't be used directly - this is how the carriers work, not the phone.

However, if you can access the web via WiFi, and you know the email address access to the recipients SMS number (varies with each carrier), you can send an SMS via email from your phone.

Reply

Answer 3

plasticman Author

Level 1

4 points

Dec 24, 2009 1:25 PM in response to wjosten

Ya, that's what it sounds like from what I've been reading... just saying there is no technical limitation for AT&T or apple from adding some logic to the phone and host a transparent Internet to mobile provider gateway service completely transparent to the majority of us who want the features we pay for. How can you argue with that. I pay a premiem for my high end data plan every month and expect them to provide me with what I pay for. I don't really care what their excuse is. Texting is not working for me, there is no technical limitation, so I am paying for a service that they are not providing me. Seems very simple to me.

Reply

Answer 4

deggie

Level 10

167,177 points

Dec 24, 2009 1:27 PM in response to plasticman

Use email. Use IM.

Next you will be wanting telecopy over WiFi.

Reply

Answer 5

plasticman Author

Level 1

4 points

Dec 24, 2009 1:49 PM in response to modular747

Ya. I understand what you are saying. But it sounds like an excuse to me. If visual voicemail wasn't provided and I told them it should be included... The fact that no previous phones had it isn't an acceptable excuse IMO because there is/was no technical limitation and they did offer it and no other phone has/had it when introduced.

In my case I'm asking for a feature that is provided but does not actually work.

What if they said sure you can use the Internet over wifi no problem all you want and unlimited
for YouTUBE and the app store, but not to use the web browser - for web browser access you need to be connected via our EDGE or 3G service.

Do you get my point now? Not a technical limitation, but a decision to limit a feature I'm already paying for.

Message was edited by: plasticman

Reply

Answer 6

modular747

Level 6

19,656 points

Dec 24, 2009 1:48 PM in response to plasticman

plasticman wrote:
just saying there is no technical limitation for AT&T or apple from adding some logic to the phone and host a transparent Internet to mobile provider gateway service completely transparent to the majority of us who want the features we pay for. How can you argue with that. I pay a premiem for my high end data plan every month and expect them to provide me with what I pay for.

Apparently, you feel entitled to AT&T and Apple meeting your uniformed expectations. There is no phone or cell network that has "mobile provider gateway service completely transparently". NONE. You can get vop service via Skype with WiFi on the iPhone now, but this doesn't "transparently" transmit SMS. Your claim that is isn't a "technical limitation" only reflects your ignorance of the technology.

*If you have no access to cell service, you have no access to data plan service either.* WiFi access to the net is provided for by your IPS, not AT&T.

Message was edited by: modular747

Reply

Answer 7

modular747

Level 6

19,656 points

Dec 24, 2009 1:54 PM in response to deggie

deggie wrote:
Next you will be wanting telecopy over WiFi.

Why not? There's no technical limitation to it, as well as teleportation and telekinesis, and we're paying for it!! Right?

Reply

Answer 8

plasticman Author

Level 1

4 points

Dec 24, 2009 2:18 PM in response to modular747

Not trying to be rude, or hypercritical.

I do feel entitled to expect Apple's products to live up to the expectation they pride themselves in offering. Most of their products do, including the iPhone. Visual voice mail is an example. They offered something they decided was required to make the device the device they wanted it to be. I'm not asking for a transporter with my little request here. I'm a software developer and do know what I am talking about. Most mobile providers even offer a web page where you can send text's to phones for free. So, they obviously already have an Internet to SMS/MMS gateway. Not transparent, but it's there. Just because no other provider offers what I'm askig for is again just another excuse. My point is, it is reasonable to assume network features on the phone work when connected to the internet. Even if the 'normal' implementation of SMS uses the voice network and not the data network... Would it be logical to offer google access but not YouTube access because one cell provider decided YouTube access should use the voice network instead of data or wifi? It's arbitrary IMO and just wrong. Think I'm a fool if you want, but I'm sure this will be fixed at some point and you'll understand why I was offended.

Reply

Answer 9

plasticman Author

Level 1

4 points

Dec 24, 2009 2:34 PM in response to modular747

Ya, ya, wiseguy. No limitation for an alien race that must exist. Right?

I'm talking sending data to AT&T via tcpip and have them send it on to it's destination via whatever method the want to on their network (most likely via the Internet) to a cell tower or data center near the recipient's phone and then converting it back and sending it via a voice service connection to the intended phone.

Reply

Answer 10

modular747

Level 6

19,656 points

Dec 24, 2009 3:41 PM in response to plasticman

Most mobile providers even offer a web page where you can send text's to phones for free. So, they obviously already have an Internet to SMS/MMS gateway.

As does AT&T. Log into your AT&T account and enter:
https://www.wireless.att.com/olam/gotoPhone.olamexecute?event=goToSMS

Would it be logical to offer google access but not YouTube access because one cell provider decided YouTube access should use the voice network instead of data or wifi? It's arbitrary IMO and just wrong.

Huh? YouTube is on the internet. SMS is not carried vIa interent unless you access a web page or send via email. This isn't "arbitrary", it's how the technology works for *EVERY CARRIER AND PHONE.*

Think I'm a fool if you want, but I'm sure this will be fixed at some point and you'll understand why I was offended.

If you were offended, it's because of your nature. I would't hold your breath for this "fix."

I'm talking sending data to AT&T via tcpip and have them send it on to it's destination via whatever method the want to on their network (most likely via the Internet) to a cell tower or data center near the recipient's phone and then converting it back and sending it via a voice service connection to the intended phone.

Since you must posses the engineering skills to design this, send the specs to AT&T along with your legal plaint as to why they are obligated to provide this for you.

Reply

Answer 11

plasticman Author

Level 1

4 points

Dec 25, 2009 12:03 AM in response to modular747

So, I read some more about this... and now I understand. It has nothing to do with technology or Apple.

Wireless providers charge $1,300 + per MB for text messages and they do this specifically so they can exclude text data from the unlimited data plan we iPhone users subscribe too. Hope the FCC jumps on them for this and all othe providers who like screw over their customers.

http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/07/01/atts-text-messages-cost-1310-per-megabyte/

I did find a work around. I fired up AIM on my iPhone and addressed a message to my friend using the AIM name of +12065551212 (fake example) and he got it in his SMS client on his mobile phone. I think he pays for an unlimited plan so no worries. He just replies and it comes back to my phone via AIM.

Apple should press the issue and/remove the SMS/MMS app from the iPhone all together and just provide an iPhone version of iChat instead.

Reply

Answer 12

plasticman Author

Level 1

4 points

Dec 25, 2009 12:08 AM in response to plasticman

Done.

Reply