[IMS Group] How the introduction LTE will help IMS Acceptance in Teleco Domain

[Inam]

Another separate thread of discussion,

How the introduction LTE  will help IMS Acceptance in Teleco Domain ?
Share your thoughts. As LTE Stanadard is coming in next month or so.

Inam

[Ibrahim Dawood]

Hi Inam,

In my own thoughts, and with my little information about LTE, I don't think that LTE will represent that big push for IMS ... It's merely another access technology that may enable the introduction of new bandwidth consuming applications, but there are other technologies that are providing that currently ... yet I'm still questioning LTE's QoS and coverage capabilities and what makes it any different than WiMAX for example other than high throughput?

Thanks,
Ibrahim

--- On Mon, 2/2/09, Inam <inam...@gmail.com> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> IMSgroup mailing list
> IMSg...@imsforum.org
> http://lists.imsforum.org/mailman/listinfo/imsgroup
_______________________________________________
IMSgroup mailing list
IMSg...@imsforum.org
http://lists.imsforum.org/mailman/listinfo/imsgroup

[Inam]

Well Ibrahim :

I my opinion the WiMAX is typically used as Broadband Wireless Technology (Broadband Internet) which is more genric and can be anyways accmodated with any network but the integration and Mobility are still the significant challengs when considered for the mobile users or mobile networks. The LTE has been designed by keeping mobile nature of the network and its users, and all those issues has been discussed, agreed and tested in UMTS/EG network perspective. Therefore provides more bandwidth for the mobile users and accomdating more user in the same bandwidth/ spectrum (more techiie word) i.e. make efficient use of the radio spectrum resources. So more bandwidth means more room for the multimedia services and multimedia service are provided by IMS Core in 3G networks so theoritcally more demand for IMS what i understand. Any other views from the professionals on the forum, my view might be too narrow?

Regards
Inam

[Rolando]

Hi Inam,

 

following your email I try to propose some issues for the introduction of the IMS:

 

• LTE as well as WiMAX have also many common points (e.g. the radio and both are full-IP access);
• being full-IP access technologies, there is no reason why they shouldn't use IMS (in the case of WiMAX SS Class 4 and 5 are already used);
• nevertheless I do not think that the access is the blocking point for introducing the IMS. The IMS can be used already today but:
  • ther is not a standard for the Supplementary Service under IMS and their migration from the current Circuit Switched environment;
  • the majority of the Mobile Operators are using business critical services (e.g. prepaid, VPN, etc.) on the IN and also for the IN services there is not a standard under IMS;
  • if we take into account the still relative low penetration of Mobile Terminals that are not IMS ready (e.g. SIP enabled teminals), we can conclude from the points above that once again is the business case that is missing.
• in a few words the costs of the transition to IMS have no real justification for the Operators:
• we have also to take into account that the deployment of the LTE will not be a big bang, the GSM/UMTS/HSPA networks will work for a long time.

Having said that, both LTE and WiMAX are ideal for an IMS deployment and the key factor to introduce the IMS could be the penetration of the LTE/WiMAX users against the "circuit switched" users.

 

An technology that could accelerate the grow of the penetration of the LTE is the Femtocell, which si becoming an hot topic in the mobile operators arena.

 

Looking forward to hear your opinion,

best regards,

Rolando

[Jean Cleber Silva]

Hi, Rolando and member of IMS Forum.

I agree with Inam. LTE focus more on the enhancement of access part of current 3G UMTS networks. An operator can implement LTE without IMS, or it can implement LTE with pre-IMS solutions.

In my opinion only new converged services can use all the power provided by IMS architecture, it means, only these new services will push a largest adoption of this architecture around the world, and then justify the highest CAPEX required by a full IMS network. It will pass through a massive development of Webservices available for telco environment, it means, the current services available for IMS solutions don't justify so huge investment to be done by operators around the world, mainly now if we consider a scenario of a global economic crisis.

Another aspect that can push IMS is interoperability. Some big carriers in the world, such as Telefonica, France Telecom and BT are pushing strongly to have interoperability among several telco equipments from different suppliers. Chinese suppliers are pushing this very hard also, but some european and north-american suppliers are still resisting to this wave, even implementing "almost proprietary" IMS solutions in telco environment.

 

Well, this is my humble opinion.

 

Thanks!

Regards,

Jean.

2009/2/2 Rolando <rolando...@hotmail.com>

[Inam]

Hi Rolando  Thanks for your openions

• LTE as well as WiMAX have also many common points (e.g. the radio and both are full-IP access);

Surely they have many common points as you mentioned but still the basic question is the mobility. I am using Wateen's WiMAX  Broadband Connection here in my Country -Pakistan. Which is perhaps the biggest country wide WiMAX network so far. (please correct me i am not updated with the general knowlege) the solution is provided by Motrola which is one of pioneers in WiMAX Offerings. But still they are having so much problems in launching perfect IEEE 802.16e ( mobility standard) though the fixed wimax connections have come to some stability - So big missing leg as for as Mobility of Subscribers is concerned.

 

• being full-IP access technologies, there is no reason why they shouldn't use IMS (in the case of WiMAX SS Class 4 and 5 are already used);

Well i doubt there is a reason as the IMS is New Core defined as a Part of bigger UMTS/3G Network so it can easily be integrated without much headache with LTE than WiMAX. Please someone correct me if i am wrong.

 

• nevertheless I do not think that the access is the blocking point for introducing the IMS. The IMS can be used already today but:

Well so far the access network has been the major road blocker for the multimedia services . It was not possible for the YouTube to get so much favourite as it now in the days we had dialup connections.

• ther is not a standard for the Supplementary Service under IMS and their migration from the current Circuit Switched environment;

As per my earlier reply on SDP on the same forum . You can use IM-SSF to re-use the existing suplimentary services or you can look on the service standarizations aspects of SIP based supplimentary service. The world has gone much ahead so far.

• the majority of the Mobile Operators are using business critical services (e.g. prepaid, VPN, etc.) on the IN and also for the IN services there is not a standard under IMS;

Because IMS is new just couple of years old . We will be seeing the Complete IMS Solutions in market in 2010 i guess, then we can say something about its acceptance.Currently there are partial implementations

• if we take into account the still relative low penetration of Mobile Terminals that are not IMS ready (e.g. SIP enabled teminals), we can conclude from the points above that once again is the business case that is missing.

Yes True, That is the big question mark so far.

 

Regards

Inam

[Peter Davies]

Hi All,
 
>From my view point, are we not talking at crossed purpose, IMS is above core, and sits on top of an access delivery method, be that 3G, Wimax or fixed broadband.
 
With Wateen, the core was a fixed delivery solution, now aas you migrate you want mobility which is a new direction, IMS does not react to any of this as the session is below application. The exception here would be the HSS and data sorted there in for service delivery
 
I think a key area which has not provided a business case is what and how will IMS be used, we have WAS and now we are with IMS looking at the future of service delivery, how are you going to achieve this and what are you going to deliver.
 
Just a few thoughts, happy to get into discussion on what are the applications of IMS and underlying services, but as you have pointed out, without the end devices, fixed or mobile and the service control points do we as an industry not have a deeper challenge ahead?
 
Regard
 
Peter

---

Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 11:28:05 +0500

Subject: Re: [IMS Group] How the introduction LTE will help IMS Acceptance in Teleco Domain

From: inam...@gmail.com
To: rolando...@hotmail.com
CC: imsg...@imsforum.org

---

Share your photos with Windows Live Photos – Free Find out more!

[colin...@kpn.com]

All,

 

Dail-up internet is long behind us. At this moment access networks are not a blocking issue for multimedia services. And, indeed it would be possible to connect IMS to the different access network types (DSL, Fiber, Cable, wireless, mobile,..).

And IMS is not normative for UMTS/3G, as can be seen from the widespread UMTS network roll-outs offering commercial services and the very limited number of them have a core that even remotely resembles a IMS.

 

One should be very carefull to recreate the old supplementary services with IMS for several reaons. The more important ones include SIP behaviour is completely different from SS7 signalling, customer expectations have shifted, devices are not dumb anymore. In fact this applies also to VAS (VPN) and pre-pay. The suggestion to use the IM-SSF does not make much sense unless it is to protect past investments. One can easily make a pre-pay solution in iMS without an classical IN approach, in case flat fee will not dominate. VPN solutions can be done differently and more enhanced using the capabilities of SIP and IMS without resorting to an existing IN application.

 

---

Van: imsgroup...@imsforum.org [mailto:imsgroup...@imsforum.org] Namens Inam
Verzonden: dinsdag 3 februari 2009 7:28
Aan: Rolando
CC: imsg...@imsforum.org
Onderwerp: Re: [IMS Group] How the introduction LTE will help IMS Acceptance in Teleco Domain

[Shlomo Nizri]

Hi Inam & Ibrahim,
Please allow me to contradict Ibrahims skepticism about LTE/SAE.
SAE - the System Architecture Evolution - which is the network behind LTE
Radio Access is the relevant part for that discussion.
SAE is the first cellular core network which is per definition
IMS-compliant. The PDN-Gateway implements all IMS connectivity interfarces
including Gx towards the PCRF and the Ro/Rf charging interfaces.
Accordingly, the commercial introduction of LTE/SAE (which some operators
claim already in 2010) will be the first mass deployment of "real IMS"
commercial access network.

We have to be careful with drawing final conclusions:
- LTE/SAE is an IMS-compliant access network, It will promote IMS in the
sense that all networks/applications interworking directly with LTE/SAE will
have to be IMS-compliant.
- LTE/SAE offer more efficient bearer-continuity convergence variants (in
contrast to IMS service-continuity approach - in VCC), which may saw off one
important branch of IMS.

Ibrahim, not many are left who question the future of LTE.
There are more than 100 3GPP and Non-3GPP operators committed to deploy LTE
(compared to 0.5 operator committed to Mobile-WiMAX).
You are right there is only a slight difference between the two
technologies:
25 Years of Cellular Experience..

To summarize that contribution, keep an eye on LTE/SAE, it is a very
relevant technology for the future of IMS.
best regards,
Shlomo Nizri

[Inam]

Well i think the WiMAX will continue to act as the Last Mile Wireless Internet Connectivity Technology while the LTE will beat it in Mobile Users Community. Both will have their different uses in the coming days, i.e. WiMAX for the Broadband Internet ( residential network, Backhaul purposes) while the LTE will be premier access tech used over mobile networks repalcing GPRS/EDGE/HSPA. That is how i think.

 

Inam

On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Anuradha Udunuwara <udun...@gmail.com> wrote:

What's the future of WiMAX (IEEE 802.11d and e)? Do you think WiMAX play/will play a big role? Check this out

 http://www.telecomasia.net/article.php?id_article=11807

I too believe that WiMAX took a lot of time to mature/stabilize in the market both technically and commercially. LTE looks more practical than WiMAX to me.

[alan lloyd]

Hi Peter,  the last line “deeper challenge ahead”   - agree  totally  and I think credibility may come into that one too.

 

Business managers are aware of SOAs, “architectures” , “frameworks”, and the $$$ risks of IT.  Business managers have lost their jobs over IT decisions. Directors may lose their personal assets for similar reasons.   So IT in the large scale sector engineering space now has a very cautious customer base.

 

A test – walk into a board room and show a SOA diagram or an IMS architecture and ask for $50m of shareholder or customer $s to make it work and earn revenue. 

 

A thought – what do we need to do to prove IT systems in the self care, managed, converged services world deliver value?

Best wishes alan

 

---

[Shlomo Nizri]

Hi Inam & co,
We should better talk about LTE/SAE.
SAE - System Architecture Evolution - the network behind LTE Radio Access, is the relevant part for that discussion.

SAE is the first cellular core network which is per definition IMS-compliant.

The PDN-Gateway implements all IMS connectivity interfarces including Gx towards the PCRF and the Ro/Rf charging interfaces.
Accordingly, the commercial introduction of LTE/SAE (which some operators claim already in 2010) will be the first mass deployment of "real IMS" commercial access network.

We have to be careful with drawing final conclusions:
- LTE/SAE is an IMS-compliant access network, It will promote IMS in the sense that all networks/applications interworking directly with LTE/SAE will have to be IMS-compliant.

- LTE/SAE offer more efficient bearer-continuity convergence  variants (in contrast to IMS service-continuity approach - VCC), which may saw off one important branch of IMS.

How WiMAX may help IMS acceptance?

Many similarities between WiMAX and LTE, yet two important advantages for LTE:

    - 2G and 3G interoperability

    - 25 Years of Cellular Experience

There are more than 100 3GPP and Non-3GPP operators committed to deploy LTE
(compared to 0.5 operator committed to Mobile-WiMAX).

Accordingly, the WiMAX community will be forced to promote IMS compliant Architecture - it will be difficult to get legitimation and co-existence without the SAE connectivity. 

To summarize that contribution, keep an eye on LTE/SAE, it is a very relevant technology for the  future of IMS.
best regards,
Shlomo Nizri

----- Original Message -----

From: colin...@kpn.com

To: inam...@gmail.com ; rolando...@hotmail.com

Cc: imsg...@imsforum.org

[alan lloyd]

Hi Shlomo, 

Was the commitment to LTE/SAE – re operator roll out of LTE/IMS  made pre or post  financial crisis time..  My understanding is there are a number of operators now running on OPEX only and have suspended major projects.  Staff are being laid off and as IMS will require cross environment skills to deploy,  less people will make that task even more difficult.   Even the IMS business and revenue models still get raised – and its compatibility with existing services (both web and third party provisioned  services) still need to be worked through.

 

Vendors of IMS/LTE are also cutting back too and this will affect the operator’s perspectives about new infrastructure deployments

Technically of course I appreciate the need to move forward toward mobile, converged, self care services, but I do wonder how that is happening  in today’s financial climate.

More importantly if IMS is delayed, the smaller, funded and more agile suppliers will be putting up similar end user services on existing infrastructures, which will put yet more competitive pressures on IMS.

 

Whats your thoughts?

 

Best wishes alan

 

---

[Shlomo Nizri]

Hi Alan,

We have to distinguish between LTE/SAE and IMS.

 

About LTE:

We read that the financial crisis has resulted budget cuts, but it seems to be a selective one.

While Ericsson has done it long before the crisis, Alcatel-Lucent and Nortel discontinued their mobile WiMAX business, and Nokia stopped production of WiMAX device as a reaction to the crisis.

We can recognize a trend of concentration around the mainstream.

My personal impression is that the crisis resulted concentration has a positive impact on LTE.

In the last Months we hear about new LTE contracts (Ericsson-Huwawei-Sonera) and aggressive rescheduling of LTE rollout as early as 2009 (NTT DoCoMo, Verizon).

No indication of any suspension of LTE plans due to the financial crisis (exept LTE Airways ;).

As most operators plan LTE launch after 2010, they still have time to react if it will be necessary.

 

What is the impact on IMS?

As mentioned below we have to be careful with drawing final conclusions on the impact of LTE/SAE on IMS.

The introduction of LTE/SAE will surely promote IMS Architecture as an interconnect/OSS standard, but not necessarily any IMS based services.

Operators may choose to do things differently (especially with the recession in background), for instance:  CS-over-EPS - a telephony service that exploits IMS Architecture without being an IMS service.

CS-over-EPS gains from low-cost LTE radio while reusing the operator's (evolved) CS-Core for telephony.

best regards,

Shlomo Nizri

[Jeroen van Bemmel]

Shlomo,

You are absolutely right! The crisis forces companies to _focus_, they cannot afford anymore to do a little bit of everything.
As to the impact on IMS, no final conclusions but for certain some vendors will use their IMS portfolio as a key differentiator in the end-2-end story around LTE.
An investment in a network without applications that people are willing to pay for isn't going to happen, especially in these economic times.
There needs to be an end-2-end business case, and that will include IMS

Best regards,
Jeroen van Bemmel, Alcatel-Lucent

[colin...@kpn.com]

But the question is whether operators/NEV will develop succesfull applications or will others. If the Internet, and developments around mobile devices, are a measure of things than it is fair to say that most new, succesfull, services will be developed by external parties, if not all (perhaps we can collaborate with these others to develop new services).

 

Hence, the business case of network built-out will, and should be, decoupled from any application! Applications will 'create' bandwidth consumption,i.e. traffic,  (with various profiles) and this consumption should be charged in some way (either as tiered flat fee, a premium eat-everything-you-can, upstream revenues, or most likely any combination thereof). The end-2-end part may be relevant for specific traffic profiles, and if the network needs to do something extra or different to support these profiles than there is an opportunity to charge someone who is willing to pay for the enhanced experience. And these enhancements will need to have seperate business cases, to achieve an economically vialable business case.

 

 

---

Van: Jeroen van Bemmel [mailto:jbe...@zonnet.nl]
Verzonden: zondag 8 februari 2009 10:28
Aan: Shlomo Nizri
CC: alan....@wwite.com; Pons, C.A. (Colin) (W&O STO Technology & Innovation); inam...@gmail.com; rolando...@hotmail.com; imsg...@imsforum.org
Onderwerp: Re: [IMS Group] How the introduction LTE/SAE will help IMS AcceptanceinTelecoDomain

[Norp, A.H.J. (Toon)]

Hi,

 

From a practical side:

 - current mobile radio access networks (e.g. UMTS) do not efficiently provide VoIP. This is why mobile operators are looking at standards concepts like Centralised Services, where services are provided in a IMS architecture, with still a CS based access bearer.

 - the new LTE radio access network on the other hand does not provide CS based access bearers. Therefore using LTE in conjunction with a CS core network is not at all obvious. 3GPP SA2 has recently (re)-started work on standardising CS over EPS. An earlier study phase did not result in sufficient support for the idea, but apparantly there are more supporters now.

 

From a business point of view:

 - buying new radio frequencies and rolling out a new LTE radio access network involve major investments. How relevant is it then to try to make sure that you can re-use investments in your existing core network? It sounds a bit like trying to make sure that your old car stereo fits in the new sports car that you are going to buy. Doesn't the re-use of the existing CS core result in sub-optimalisation focussing on the wrong (core instead of radio) area?

 

Best regards,

 

Toon Norp

---

From: imsgroup...@imsforum.org [mailto:imsgroup...@imsforum.org] On Behalf Of Jeroen van Bemmel
Sent: zondag 8 februari 2009 10:28
To: Shlomo Nizri

This e-mail and its contents are subject to the DISCLAIMER at http://www.tno.nl/disclaimer/email.html

[Bhattacharjee, Arindam (Arindam)]

Hi,

Let me put some of my thoughts in this already enriched discussion.

 

I would like to refer to Shlomo Nizri’s comments sometime back in this discussion:

 

1.       With LTE or LTE-adv I can see 3gpp2 & 3gpp networks has a migration path to convert to LTE. With Rel8 defining simplified architecture for IMS ( SAE). Most likely all big carriers will be moving to that path to install LTE/SAE.

2.       seamless roaming will be supported between these two types of network.

3.       Wimax with 802.16m is coming up with more enhancements & interworking support.

 

So what we see all CDMA, GSM or Wimax world can converge easily on IMS while IMS providing architecture for seamless mobility between these all types of network for data/voice/video connectivity.

 

Now with LTE/SAE other services  may be taken from normal internet or from IMS, depends on operator to choose

e.g. Sprint is using Skype for voice services

 

With LTE/SAE we shall be able get always connected service on cell phone, which is similar to our desktop always connected to an ISP thru DSL or cable network.

 

But I’m not sure with this financial climate what’s in the next. CSoEPS is on study yet, not going to show up before Rel10.

 

 

-Arindam

 

 

 

---

[Jeroen van Bemmel]

Hi Colin,

I respectfully disagree. Today's mobile handsets offer services like voice calling and SMS, which need the mobile core in order to function.  A mobile handset without the mobile core is merely an expensive gadget, it may still offer some value to the end user but it will definitely not generate any CDRs for the operator.

The IMS core is the same. Tomorrow's handsets will have pre-installed IMS clients (e.g. RCS), which need the IMS core in order to function, as well as the application servers. Without client devices, the IMS core will never generate any value. Therefore it does not make sense to consider the business case for an IMS core in isolation, the conclusion will always be that it is too expensive - because there is no link to the revenues.

Of course, if an operator doesn't plan to introduce any new multi-media (voice/video/messaging) services to generate new revenues, then indeed the IMS business case for that operator is hard to make

Regards,
Jeroen

colin...@kpn.com wrote:

The question is "a solution" to what exactly? As Alan points out the service is delivered by the device and the application server (there are various models here, I have simplified).

An the comparison between the cost of a mobile handset and IMS is faulty. Users purchase mobile handsets anyway. So investments in IMS and the operational costs should deliver value somewhere i the value/supply chain.

---

Van: Jeroen van Bemmel [mailto:jbe...@zonnet.nl]

Verzonden: dinsdag 10 februari 2009 8:47
Aan: alan....@wwite.com
CC: 'Shlomo Nizri'; Pons, C.A. (Colin) (W&O STO Technology & Innovation); inam...@gmail.com; rolando...@hotmail.com; imsg...@imsforum.org
Onderwerp: Re: [IMS Group] How the introduction LTE/SAE will help IMS AcceptanceinTelecoDomain

Hi Alan,

In my view, IMS isn't "the" solution, it is "a" solution with potential value. This does not preclude other solutions, with perhaps other (higher?) values (but also higher investments, e.g. mobile handsets are 100s euros each, and compatibility issues are very cumbersome, whereas IMS core cost is marginal - in terms of cost per sub).

Regards,
jeroen


alan lloyd wrote:

Hi Jeroen, and many thanks for sympathies..  It’s a sad situation, but it has brought us together as a nation   l and its still going on.

Google maps yes,  a great service. 

But I must say  I still don’t get “pure”  IMS though re all the “promotions”   – there seems to be so much support for it – but its just a SIP connection/session establishment  process. Its  the AS’s  that provide  the services (what ever they are? ) and it’s the underlying network which will manage the end to end QoS  and the operators complete system wide demand management ..

My next curiosity is emergency services – probably OK for 911/000  dial up emergency systems, but what about national security broadcast and web based systems.

And with web look alike services – these can be multiple “session” paths. E.g I can construct a web page with a dozen different URI domains – and that will hit DNS like crazy and create web paths for many media types – how does IMS deal with that. Inc billing

The last part of the IMS “technical” puzzle is presence and management – and its event driven issues –

So I would like to understand why IMS is seen as being the solution/potential  – when the major parts of its benefits  are clearly  other aspects of an operators system where the convergence effort is being applied (Web and mobiles).

Best wishes alan

---

From: Jeroen van Bemmel [mailto:jbe...@zonnet.nl]
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 7:08 AM
To: alan....@wwite.com
Cc: 'Shlomo Nizri'; colin...@kpn.com; inam...@gmail.com; rolando...@hotmail.com; imsg...@imsforum.org
Subject: Re: [IMS Group] How the introduction LTE/SAE will help IMS AcceptanceinTeleco Domain

Alan,

Indeed we all heard about the bush fires, and we sympathize. Very tragic indeed. Yet, I heard today a story on how Australian firemen are using Google maps to plot the location of these fires, so people can monitor the spread and estimate if their is a danger to their houses, so they can evacuate in time.

I'm not saying that Google maps equals IMS, far from it, but it does proof that new technologies such as Google maps fulfill actual needs today. I personally believe the same can be true for IMS, it is a technology that can fulfill a need today. Question remains which need exactly that is, and how it will be payed for / monetized. The potential value is - in my view - clearly there.

Regards,
Jeroen

alan lloyd wrote:

Hi  - Joroen,  and all very optimistic .  “There needs to be an end-2-end business case, and that will include IMS”

I live in Australia with contacts in the US and Asia Pac  -  so I may be a bit isolated to EU etc,  but I don’t see much about IMS  being asked for technically – let alone a “demanding” business case.  As you say there needs to be one…

I am also not sure if the effect of the financial crisis was realised when the vendor statements /contracts stated below were made. Many types of commercial contracts are being redrawn and cancelled – worldwide.

Even a few months ago some were saying it is just a “market correction”…

Also:  Not sure if all have heard but we had a really bad day with Bush fires here in Victoria/Australia this Saturday… Lives lost, houses and livestock gone, Radio and TV stations burnt out, telephone systems disrupted, mobiles failing and so on… My car roof “thermostat” measured 58 c last week..   I sort of get the feeling that with global warming and the financial issues we are all facing, a nation and their operators may change their thinking about the way they look at “infrastructure” .  I believe we don’t need a futuristic solution, we just want the working option for all “new” conditions and for it to be well managed.

How will LTE and IMS and its services be managed and scaled? 

Best regards alan

---

[jbe...@zonnet.nl]

Colin,

To start with your last statement: IMS is standards based and open by
construction. So in principle it supports / enables the paradigm shifts
as you describe below. However, it very much depends on what the
_operator_ chooses to do with IMS - it can be as open or as closed as
the operator deploys it!

Secondly, I don't see any reason why there couldn't be an open source
RCS client. However, for integration with the network / operator assets
(e.g. leveraging the SIM for authentication, retrieving presence
information, QoS) there will need to be some form of cooperation by the
operator. IMS defines (some of) the open standards and technical
interfaces and protocols to realize this, but again: the operator must
want it.

I personally believe that there is a lot of value in operators
providing open APIs, for these "over-the-top" applications to use. By
necessity, such interfaces must be based on open standards, and would
ideally be interoperable across networks to get both economy of scale
(for application developers / operators), and a consistent/compelling
user experience. Some of these APIs/functions are IMHO best provided by
IMS (e.g. session control, messaging, authentication, ...), simply
because I know of no other initiative/standard that is as mature and as
broadly supported.

Best regards,
Jeroen

Citeren colin...@kpn.com:

> Jeroen,
>
> With all due respect but i think you are mixing up a few things. We talk
> about customer services whereas the mobile networks offer essential
> basic functions.
>
> Indeed with the current circuit-swicthed core of mobile networks there
> are specific service features/functions that the core performs on which
> the devices rely. However the most important functions of the mobile
> core is authentication/authorisation, routing and mobility. These are
> the main functions of IMS too. But you do not have to have an IMS to
> perform these functions because in native (IETF) SIP the first two re
> already addressed (ofcourse specific AA methods need to be supported in
> addition). Wrt mobility there is a host of publiations describing how
> mobility can be supported in SIP environments (it is currently a topic
> of discussion within IETF P2PSIP WG as well).
>
> So what differentiated value does IMS deliver on AA, routing and
> mobility?
>
> But much of the discussion is about what type of services IMS can
> deliver for the customer. As I pointed out there is a major shift
> happening in the mobile device space. Until recently many of the
> services where client-server based, lacked good-enough user experience
> and did not address a (latent) customer need and perhaps most important
> the services where too expensive (at the least did customer have no
> feeling of being in control over the costs).
> First of all flat-fee mobile bandwidth, higher bandwidth speeds have
> created the stage for services to thrive. The move towards open source
> middleware (Android, Symbian) and the rise of AppStores (first Apple,
> now followed by Nokia, Google, Microsoft,Samsung) incites a power hift
> from network-centric services to edge-centric srvices. We have seen this
> before with the PC (Modular: Hardware, Windows, independant software
> application developers and the Internet).
> It is for this reason that I think that initiatives like RCS are no
> likely to succeed in the market, because open source, proprietary
> solutions will have occupied this space long before the first IMS RCS
> clients are commercially available on mid-tier phones. Secondly, what
> would be the incentive of Mobile Device Makers be to install IMS RCS
> clients if they are already deploying AppStore and create their own
> services (eg Nokia Ovi).
>
> In this power shift IMS has exactly no role! It just happens. So if one
> deploys an IMS architecture one has to realize that this architecture
> should support this power shift rather than trying to stand in the way.
>
> Colin

> all the "promotions" - there seems to be so much support for it - but

> its just a SIP connection/session establishment process. Its the AS's
> that provide the services (what ever they are? ) and it's the
> underlying network which will manage the end to end QoS and the
> operators complete system wide demand management ..
>

> My next curiosity is emergency services - probably OK

> for 911/000 dial up emergency systems, but what about national security
> broadcast and web based systems.
>
>
>

> And with web look alike services - these can be multiple

> "session" paths. E.g I can construct a web page with a dozen different

> URI domains - and that will hit DNS like crazy and create web paths for
> many media types - how does IMS deal with that. Inc billing

>
>
>
> The last part of the IMS "technical" puzzle is presence

> and management - and its event driven issues -

>
>
>
> So I would like to understand why IMS is seen as being

> the solution/potential - when the major parts of its benefits are

> being asked for technically - let alone a "demanding" business case. As
> you say there needs to be one...

>
> I am also not sure if the effect of the financial crisis
> was realised when the vendor statements /contracts stated below were
> made. Many types of commercial contracts are being redrawn and cancelled

> - worldwide.

>
> Even a few months ago some were saying it is just a

> "market correction"...

>
>
>
> Also: Not sure if all have heard but we had a really

> bad day with Bush fires here in Victoria/Australia this Saturday...

> Lives lost, houses and livestock gone, Radio and TV stations burnt out,

> telephone systems disrupted, mobiles failing and so on... My car roof

> From: alan lloyd <mailto:alan....@wwite.com>
>
> To: 'Shlomo Nizri'
> <mailto:ni...@InsightToCellular.com> ; colin...@kpn.com ;

> inam...@gmail.com ; rolando...@hotmail.com
>
> Cc: imsg...@imsforum.org
>
> Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 11:10 PM
>
> Subject: RE: [IMS Group] How the introduction
> LTE/SAE will help IMSAcceptanceinTeleco Domain
>
>
>
> Hi Shlomo,
>

> Was the commitment to LTE/SAE - re operator roll

> out of LTE/IMS made pre or post financial crisis time.. My
> understanding is there are a number of operators now running on OPEX
> only and have suspended major projects. Staff are being laid off and as
> IMS will require cross environment skills to deploy, less people will
> make that task even more difficult. Even the IMS business and revenue

> models still get raised - and its compatibility with existing services

> * LTE as well as WiMAX have also

> many common points (e.g. the radio and both are full-IP access);
>
> Surely they have many common points as
> you mentioned but still the basic question is the mobility. I am using
> Wateen's WiMAX Broadband Connection here in my Country -Pakistan. Which
> is perhaps the biggest country wide WiMAX network so far. (please
> correct me i am not updated with the general knowlege) the solution is
> provided by Motrola which is one of pioneers in WiMAX Offerings. But
> still they are having so much problems in launching perfect IEEE 802.16e
> ( mobility standard) though the fixed wimax connections have come to
> some stability - So big missing leg as for as Mobility of Subscribers is
> concerned.
>
>
>

> * being full-IP access

> technologies, there is no reason why they shouldn't use IMS (in the case
> of WiMAX SS Class 4 and 5 are already used);
>
> Well i doubt there is a reason as the
> IMS is New Core defined as a Part of bigger UMTS/3G Network so it can
> easily be integrated without much headache with LTE than WiMAX. Please
> someone correct me if i am wrong.
>
>
>

> * nevertheless I do not think that the

> access is the blocking point for introducing the IMS. The IMS can be
> used already today but:
>
> Well so far the access network has been
> the major road blocker for the multimedia services . It was not possible
> for the YouTube to get so much favourite as it now in the days we had
> dialup connections.
>

> * ther is not a standard for the

> Supplementary Service under IMS and their migration from the current
> Circuit Switched environment;
>
> As per my earlier reply on SDP on the
> same forum . You can use IM-SSF to re-use the existing suplimentary
> services or you can look on the service standarizations aspects of SIP
> based supplimentary service. The world has gone much ahead so far.
>

> * the majority of the Mobile

> Operators are using business critical services (e.g. prepaid, VPN, etc.)
> on the IN and also for the IN services there is not a standard under
> IMS;
>
> Because IMS is new just couple of years
> old . We will be seeing the Complete IMS Solutions in market in 2010 i
> guess, then we can say something about its acceptance.Currently there
> are partial implementations
>

> * if we take into account the

> still relative low penetration of Mobile Terminals that are not IMS
> ready (e.g. SIP enabled teminals), we can conclude from the points above
> that once again is the business case that is missing.
>
> Yes True, That is the big question mark
> so far.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Inam
>
> On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 11:09 PM, Rolando
> <rolando...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Inam,
>
>
>
> following your email I try to propose
> some issues for the introduction of the IMS:
>
>
>

> * LTE as well as WiMAX have also

> many common points (e.g. the radio and both are full-IP access);

> * being full-IP access

> technologies, there is no reason why they shouldn't use IMS (in the case
> of WiMAX SS Class 4 and 5 are already used);

> * nevertheless I do not think that

> the access is the blocking point for introducing the IMS. The IMS can be
> used already today but:
>

> * ther is not a standard for the

> Supplementary Service under IMS and their migration from the current
> Circuit Switched environment;

> * the majority of the Mobile

> Operators are using business critical services (e.g. prepaid, VPN, etc.)
> on the IN and also for the IN services there is not a standard under
> IMS;

> * if we take into account the

> still relative low penetration of Mobile Terminals that are not IMS
> ready (e.g. SIP enabled teminals), we can conclude from the points above
> that once again is the business case that is missing.
>

> * in a few words the costs of the

> transition to IMS have no real justification for the Operators:
>

> * we have also to take into account

[Jose M Recio]

It is not that you need open source RCS clients. RCS idea is good but
perhaps there is a way to implement that without relying on monolithic
clients on the handset.

By combining existing enablers in the handset you can create very powerful
use cases, even with cheap devices. In capable handsets, you can install
additional or more powerful enablers. Some enablers could rely on IMS,
others won't. How many will be IMS based? that will depend on the operator
willingness to work with independent developers, where the real innovation
is coming from.

I think we all agree that it is a good thing that we don't have to rely on
our ADSL provider to run applications in your PC. This disentanglement is
coming to the mobile space too.

-----Mensaje original-----
De: imsgroup...@imsforum.org [mailto:imsgroup...@imsforum.org] En
nombre de jbe...@zonnet.nl
Enviado el: jueves, 12 de febrero de 2009 18:33
Para: colin...@kpn.com
CC: ni...@InsightToCellular.com; imsg...@imsforum.org
Asunto: RE: [IMS Group] How the introduction LTE/SAE will help