HN Explorer

Ask HN: Why isn't WiFi calling totally free?

3 points by buro9 ↗ HN
After the recent Android security issue with Exynos chipsets and WiFi calling ( https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/03/critical-vulnerabilities-allow-some-android-phones-to-be-hacked/ ) I took a look at how my mobile provider does WiFi calling.

Vodafone (and many other providers) proudly declare something to the effect of, "There is no extra charge for WiFi calling, the minutes will still count towards your allowance and there won't be a charge for the data against your allowance.".

But if we're not using the cell towers and most of their network (except last mile), and we're providing our own already paid-for data connection... why would WiFi calling count towards _any_ allowance since it incentivises behaviour that reduces costs for telcos?

Is this purely a "They found a way to reduce their costs and still charge us?" or is there more to it?

8 comments

[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 30.8 ms ] thread
jqpabc123
Wifi calling can be totally free if you simply bypass the wireless carriers.

I make free video calls all the time. The gotcha here is that the person on the other end has to run the same software as you. Part of what you pay the wireless carriers for is the universal compatability.

Personally, I like this: https://twin.me/en/

Thorentis
Because you are still using a mobile/cell number to receive the call. WiFi exclusive calling is already free - it's called Zoom, or Skype, or Teams, or Discord, or...
LinuxBender
Adding to this a more private and self hosted option, there is uMurmur [1] which is light-weight enough to run on a Linux home router. One of the mobile apps that works with it is Mumla. The downside of uMurmur is that the channel configuration is static. Upside is it takes a few minutes to get running and most of that is getting a LetsEncrypt cert. The voice quality is incredible.

There is of course the full blown Murmur [2] install that works a little more like Discord in that people can create channels and there is a permission system.

[1] - https://github.com/umurmur/umurmur/wiki/Configuration

[2] - https://wiki.mumble.info/wiki/Main_Page

PaulHoule
The carrier pays for the phone number at the very least.
Nextgrid
> "They found a way to reduce their costs and still charge us?"

Not only that, but keep in mind that Wi-Fi Calling (and VoLTE) relies on SIP, so your phone has a full-blown SIP client fully integrated into the system, and the only reason you aren't given access to its settings is to lock you into your carrier, otherwise people will switch to third-party VoIP overnight and carrier monopoly will become a thing of the past.

krapp
Insert Spongebob "CAPITALISM" rainbow meme here.
nikau
The same reason compact discs cost way more than cassette tapes when they came out even though they were cheaper to manufacture - people will pay for perceived value not the actual cost.

Its very convenient to use vowifi vs getting a local sim and not receiving calls or SMS on your home number.

Telcos can offer it as they already need the infrastructure to do voice & messages over 4g anyway.