[outages] News item: Blackberry services down worldwide

Carlos Alcantar carlos at race.com
Fri Oct 14 19:04:44 UTC 2011

What I'm not digging about the entire iMessage I turned off my iMessage
option and someone else here in the office was trying to send me a txt.
>From the looks of it the iPhone does not let you pick between wanting to
send an iMessage or txt I could be wrong, but his phone was forcing
iMessage and of course I was not getting the messages.  Little bit of an
issue not getting those messages.

Carlos Alcantar
Race Communications / Race Team Member
101 Haskins Way, So. San Francisco, CA. 94080
Phone: +1 415 376 3314  Fax:  +1 650 246 8901 / carlos *at* race.com /

On 10/14/11 11:48 AM, "Martin Millnert" <millnert at gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Jared Mauch <jared at puck.nether.net>
>> Rebuilding this trust can take some time.  I do expect that with the
>>iMessage stuff that was released yesterday (SMS/MMSoIP to email/phone#)
>>many more companies will shift to using that instead as the value of BBM
>>is decreased.
>With iMessage, Apple is following the lead of multi-platform apps such
>as Viber (integrated voice over ip) and whatsapp (integrated "rich"
>texting over ip). Integrated meaning the unique name/key registered in
>the system's name lookup service is your phone number, so you
>automagically discover who of all your address book entries have the
>application.  Turning on whatsapp on my 360 contact address book
>yielded me 10% of my contact list *online* using it. :)
>Not being multi-vendor/platform, I wonder if iMessage on iPhone is
>going to reach similar uptake.  Being installed from start certainly
>helps though, but not piggy backing on the phone numbers is a clear
>strategic error in my opinion (apple IDs are obviously a long long way
>from being as universal as phone numbers).
>I tried out whatsapp yesterday on an old Symbian S60 Nokia (N97) and
>it works great.  Only thing I regret is not trying it out sooner.
>Now, if mobile devices only had ... globally unique and *reachable* IP
>addresses, you could even envision sending messages/pictures/video
>directly from your own device to a peer, with no need for bouncing
>through overloaded centralized bottlenecks, such as is the case with
>whatsapp (and certainly iMessage as well).
>There's certainly a business case in there for a legacy-free,
>bandwidth-optimized, IP only, LTE-network... (read: no [stupid]
>> I also wonder what the impact of iMessage and others will be on places
>>like hotel networks as the devices camp out longer/more often on the
>>wifi, etc.  We observed the impact to a hotel of the NANOG crowd this
>>week (i wonder if there will be lessons learned on the part of lodgenet,
>> I know personally I've observed the attwifi ssid expanding to more
>>places (including hilton branded properties) in the past 6 months to
>>offload cellular data.
>Offloading is wise, indeed.

More information about the NANOG mailing list