03-26-2009 10:24 AM - edited 03-26-2009 10:25 AM
WAP2 is not 100% pervasive at this point. Some carriers still only support WAP1.1
I agree it is crazy - but I think this is more a carrier-influenced issue. It is in RIM's best interests to make this easy. It is in the carrier's best interest to make it obscure so they can meter (and monetize) it.
If you are a commercial developer, I suggest that you look into the alliance partnership. There are other considerations, beside BIS-B, like access to pre-release OS versions for testing, access to pre-relase hardware for testing, etc.
If you are not in the alliance program, then your customers are likely to have the new stuff before you ever see it, which is always a headache.
Regarding the cost, there is a fee, but it is less than I pay for a single Microsoft MSDN subscription (and we have several). From my perspective, the RIM deal is a bargain.
03-26-2009 12:00 PM
Is there a way to get individual applications accepted for BIS-B? I already submitted the form for the aliance request but I doubt I can afford it know. My usual estimate is that anything that doesn't have a published price is at least $3000. I'm a commercial developer but I only saw an increase in blackberry orders recently. Also the current project should be delivered ASAP and a per-application subscription sounds like something that can be completed sooner (also the client would accept it easier if we told them that the app has to be verified by RIM than if we started to talk how we have to become a development partner).
WAP2 is not 100% pervasive at this point. Some carriers still only support WAP1.1
I agree it is crazy - but I think this is more a carrier-influenced issue. It is in RIM's best interests to make this easy. It is in the carrier's best interest to make it
No, I'm pretty sure it's RIM. Carriers provide the 'normal' wap/tcp service to everyone using any capable phone. Also as you said they charge for the traffic, so normally it should be their interest to have it working on all devices. Unless of course they can charge more for 'blackberry traffic'. And they do. At least my carrier tries to charge $8.9 for something that they call 'Blackberry internet solution'. With this package they carge $0.0215/10kB for traffic or I can buy an additional mobile internet package for better tariffs.
Now for the same price ($8.9) I have a small package with 100MB included (for occasional browsing an e-mailng from my PDA). Additional traffic costs $0.13/MB (i.e. $0.0013/10kB). And as I see know, new subscribers will get 1GB for the same price with 1/5th tariff for additional traffic... I don't even understand what the BB package contains? Maybe the e-mail traffic? Or are they paying just for the 'service' to be able to use the built-in applications (browser, e-mail, messaging)?
Anyway, I'm sure RIM makes good money on this because they either get a percentage from the carrier or they sell (and also maybe operate) some infrastructure to them. (You can also buy BES service from my provider for tripple the price.) Now as the carrier can makegood money without blackberries (mine only started their service a few month ago), it's clear that despite what seems to be logical, it's RIM's best interest to have the situation as it is know. Another argument: if they wanted to solve the issue thay could. The phone could easilly request configuration settings (wap1.1, wap2 and TCP AP) from a central RIM server either using the BIS-B or even SMS (!!!). Also from mobile software pont of view it could be easier than this: having a separate setting for TCP, having a service book entry for WAP2 and having nothing for wap 1.1. Other phone manufacturers just stuff these into connectivity settings, they call these access points and they are done. I don't think RIM engineers are inferior but then it's RIM's interest .
I'm quite disapointed, because apart from this and a few problems with the development tools that should be easy to fix, I find the BB to be quite a good platform. It's a good compromise between ease of development (i.e. java) and the number of available features compared e.g. to the powerfull but really hard Symbian and their crippled C++ or MIDP with the crippled feature set.
03-26-2009 12:07 PM
Well, I found another document explaining BIS & BES and it seems to be in line with my original understanding. It states that operators do run BIS services:
Not all wireless carriers offer the same level of BIS service. Some of you are unlucky enough to be stuck with one that restricts third-party applications from accessing the Internet. This means that a lot of excellent third-party applications for the BlackBerry are simply unavailable."
So is it so like BIS is a type of sevice and BIS-B is BIS service instance run by RIM and thus singing up with BIS-B is eventually for avoiding carrier BIS restrictions? (OTOH carriers normally are happy to provide wap and tcp services to any subscriber, so the whole thing is rather fishy.) No wonder the hypephone takes over the BB, even though that's a rather hard to develop for and dumb device.
04-01-2009 12:28 PM - edited 04-01-2009 12:32 PM
The BlackBerry Internet Service (BIS) infrastructure is owned and run by RIM. BIS-Browsing (BIS-B) is a component of BIS. It provides browsing service (the Internet Browser) and provides a connection route for approved third party applications. BIS-Email is the email component of this service. It allows a user to configure up to 10 email accounts on their BlackBerry handheld.
Carriers can choose to support BIS, BES or both. Typically they support both.
04-01-2009 12:36 PM
Thanks Mark. Is there a more detailed overview document that tells what services exactly BIS provides for applications running on the device? Or any idea how it's possible that the browser (I mean the web one, using the 3G connectivity and not USB/WiFi/BT) is able to connect to a web site and the application downloaded by it is not? It's on the Rogers network (Canada). I'm not using any BB specific connection parameters (like deviceside) in that case. Just the plain URL. Works in the emulator, works on my device that has TCP AP set up (bot no servicebook entries) and fails on all of the devices operated by my customer on the Rogers network.
Is it possible that the carrier blocks these applications? If so why is that?
04-15-2009 01:43 PM
You can read about the BlackBerry Internet Service here: http://na.blackberry.com/eng/services/internet/
Also, review the following quote from here: http://www.blackberry.com/knowledgecenterpublic/li
Applications are also able to make connections through the BlackBerry Internet Service. This connection route is available to third-party developers and is subject to an application approval process. Data flowing over this connection is not encrypted. Hypertext Transfer Protocol over Secure Sockets Layer (HTTPS) or Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) can be used to secure a connection. A BlackBerry Internet Service connection provides seamless roaming across wireless service providers that support BlackBerry smartphone service. Information about the BlackBerry Alliance Program can be found at the following web site: http://na.blackberry.com/eng/developers/programs
I also recommend reviewing this post: http://supportforums.blackberry.com/rim/board/mess
06-25-2009 09:19 PM
"Currently, we have connection huersitics that uses CoverageInfo to determine what the user has, the tries each connection type in turn, starting with BES, then BIS-B, then WAP2, etc. Although still not 100% foolproof, our incidence of "failed to connect" is probably 2%, rather than 20% (like it used to be)."
Does this mean you did not have any split pipe issues?
09-23-2009 03:17 PM
I am a developer for a third party app and we seem to be having a similar problem. We fail to get an internet connection on some carriers, specifically the Roger's network. Basically, we use the following methods to connect:
All 4 methods fail. My ideas at this point:
Not sure how to test this since I am not on the Roger's network. Can someone that beat this already let me know if I am on the right track? I write software for a small third party app and I'm not sure if I would prefer not to pay to be an approved application (already had to pay to sign my application). Hopefully these APN settings work, but this could get ugly if I have to do this for some networks.