Talk:Wi-Fi calling

message: So basically GAN is a scam by carriers to keep their stranglehold on the voice business.  Can't let those overinflated prices fall!  How about some open source products that might evolve into alternatives?!
http://www.a-la-mobile.com/company/vision.html
http://www.trolltech.com/products/qtopia/greenphone
http://wiki.openmoko.org/wiki/Main_Page —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.222.217.206 (talk) 15:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oy, carrier scam 

message: In the introduction on GAN, 3rd paragraph, it says
"The wide network is alternatively GSM/GPRS or UMTS mobile services."
Shouldn't it better read
"The wide area network is alternatively GSM/GPRS or UMTS mobile services."
Matthi2 08:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question to introductory paragraphs of Generic Access Network 

message: I doubt it was Cincinnatti Bell. T-Mobile's hotspot@home was deployed well before CinBell even announced their service in June 2007.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.9.243.111 (talk) 12:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The first UMA deployment in the United States..." 

message: I'd like to split or sub-divide the "Devices" section to "Devices, Pre-3G" and "Devices, 3G".  Does anyone have and objection to this?
LP-mn (talk) 02:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split or Sub-divide the "Devices" section 

message: The pictures of a phone showing various indicators couldn't possibly use a worse background image. It's almost impossible to make out the indicators being noted in the caption. 72.48.98.26 (talk) 20:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better pictures please 

message: It is 404ing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.156.153.219 (talk) 04:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  re: Ref 12 

message: Hi all. Can I assume the information in this article is 100% perfect because I see the last update was back June 2011, almost 2 years ago. It's now March 2013. Is it even relevant to the telecom realities of 2013?? If not, please someone update. Thank you so much.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.65.153 (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perfect page? 

message: UMA/GAN never really took off. It was used by a few major carriers, but never really promoted. I'm not sure why, but I offer some theories. Its last best hope was to be used as a solution for voice over LTE (known as "VoLGa") but a few manufacturers on the 3GPP standards committee wanted to kill VoLGa in favour of another solution. VolGa would not have been the most spectrum efficient. UMA required some 2G core network infrastructure that no longer existed in the LTE or UMTS solution. Future revisions of the standard specified UMA using UMTS-style messaging, so the 2G infrastructure was no longer required. But since so few carriers were using it, it didn't make sense to make the investment to update the existing implementations. Another thing that could have contributed to UMA's demise is that calls frequently dropped on handover from WIFI to cellular. Dropped calls could have been prevented by enabling the "call-reestablishment' bit in the network's configuration, but carriers were resistent to doing this because it would cause extra spurious traffic on normal cellular-to-cellular dropped calls and would have been too risky.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smhanov (talk • contribs) 01:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Epilogue 

message: The article title VoWiFi currently redirects to Mobile VoIP, a long, rambling article about the general concept and history of mobility in VoIP protocols. It seems to me that VoWiFi, in common usage, always refers to the specific case of GAN/UMA rather than to the generic concept of using WiFi and VoIP in combination. (Contrary to the Epilogue section of this talk page, I believe GAN did eventually take off in the latter part of the 2010s, on 4G smartphones, although perhaps we are talking about slightly different technologies here.)
I think there should be some disambiguation for the VoWiFi redirect, with either Mobile VoIP or Generic Access Network as the primary topic and the other as a disambiguation item, with the disambiguation linked at the top of the primary topic article. Another relevant article for the disambiguation is Voice over WLAN. The current arrangement does not adequately reflect the fact that, at least some of the time (if not most of the time), the term VoWiFi is used to refer to a specific kind of VoIP (GAN) and not to VoIP in general. Someone searching for VoWiFi will not easily find Generic Access Network, although it is linked to in the Technologies section of the Mobile VoIP article.
I thought about making this change myself, but after reading Wikipedia:Disambiguation I feel I don't know enough about how to determine the primary topic and making sure there is a consensus, and I haven't really got time to figure it out, so I am just going to leave it here in the hope that someone else agrees with me and does know how to do those things.
2.27.153.90 (talk) 11:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  VoWiFi redirect 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved to Wi-Fi calling. (closed by non-admin page mover) — MaterialWorks 19:44, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Generic Access Network →  – WP:COMMONNAME? It is a quite well known term nowadays but it's unclear with the current page title. I think the technical parts (the protocol and how it works) at the top should just have its own section in this article. The title would be much better off and recognised as the common name. Chifonr (talk) 18:37, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 21 October 2023