[IMS Group] Fwd: [IMS-tech] IMS future with LTE

[thomas mathew]

IMS future with LTE 

Off late I have been thinking with LTE around the corner, well not literarly , still within a vicinity of at most 2 years what would be the future of IMS in the wireless world..

LTE shall merge the UTRAN and EVDO based network and when that happens technology would be unified and would be the single options for carriers and to the most extent vendors thus bringing down the barriers of air interfaces.

As we all know with LTE/EPC the bandwidth will no longer be a constraint. With few latency tweaking the backbone would be strong enough big chunk of pipe.SIP based IMS platform that still has a has overhead of being a heavy protocol would then be question.

Let's look at what IMS offers today
1. Presence ( icon, tag line, status ..etc
2. IM and video sharing.
3. SIP based Voip.

With a profound factor of independent of the underlying access technology which make integration quite simple. On the wireless side it becomes extremely useful especially on 2G and 3G network.

Although 3G is itself offers not so bad data throughput rates of nearly 1Mb DL and almost 300 kbps UL to keep it real and that is significant enough for quite amount of application that IMS currently offer. Keep in mind there are already HSDPA devices that can do far more speed that today's 3G network.

If one does a deeper dive on the wireless data application that is being developed for data intensive devices like T-Mobile G1 and Iphone, one would be quite amazed to see a number of these social networking application that does far more than what today's IMS offers. These are standard client -server application where the users has to be merely "log-in" to see his buddies and friends and of course see their updated tag line,icons and status. Doesn't involve any sip based register, invite or notify.Some of the application even uses network based location based APIs that lets the server know about the user location that could compliment the social networking application with many folds of added uses cases.

Note these are 3rd party application being built out of their geek's garages and does not involve any carriers based HSS database or lookup for subscriptions. They are mere application with plug-ins and integration to popular application and sites. These popular applications are built for smart data device that can support good speed and if it could be complimented by the LTE network, the IMS based "Application sub system" would be something to doubt.

Of course if you ask about policy functions , security functions, application logic, content filtering, they would still covered under the umbrella of EPC or enhanced packet core network. I don't see the need of separate Rx interface when GGSN /SAE can do the same function with PCRF on Gx. The other core elements like I-CSCF today dips into HSS for determining the S-CSCF ,again a function that can be extended on PCRF.

IMS and voice Telephony
This is where IMS has a chance to co-exist . CS-Core is not an option on LTE although there are debates on CS-fallback for 2g and 3G, but lets forget that ...off topic. LTE shall be Packet Core and IP based and due to this there are different technologies that I think will battle for survival. Conventional Voip , UMA  , IMS and properiteray players like skype and Vonage. Investing on IMS on top of LTE....hmm.....

thoughts ?

BR,

Thomas

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Kushanava Laha]

Thomas,

 

IMS, at the minimum, set out to achieve the following

 

1. Session Control framework
2. Subscription data repository
3. Subscriber addressing
4. Application framework composed of several service enablers
5. Policy/Qos/Charging/Security machinery
6. Experience continuity and consistency for multi-access convergence
7. Service mobility/roaming enabler
8. Service interconnection with other operators and compatible to other core network topologies

 

There are a couple of interesting observations that can be made on the above objectives of IMS.

 

Firstly, it is possible that many of these functions can be addressed in the transport layer itself without having to overload the control/application layer e.g. policy/Qos/Charging/Security, experience continuity across multiple access technologies, etc.  This is more evident as finally we are evolving towards an All IP Network and IP as a technology provides more than one mechanism to address these.

 

Secondly, there are functions (subscriber addressing, etc.) that overlaps between the transport and control/application layers.

 

Thirdly, as you rightly point out that the operator’s application development wing cannot simply match up with the innovativeness and time-to-market speed of the applications being rolled out of the geek’s garage.

 

My personal view of the Evolved Packet Core (EPC) is that it collates some of the (original) IMS objectives, which could be localized in the transport space, and defined a new core network subsystem that addresses the same in a focused manner. IMS was trying to address these but left behind confusions in operators’ minds as to where lay the delineation between IP transport and service/application stratum. These functions can be decoupled from application/service control layer and can be generalized for all IP-based access systems and technologies. Examples of such functions are Policy/Qos/Charging/Security functions, connectivity continuity and consistency for multi-access convergence, enablement of service mobility/roaming etc.

 

So EPC is not speaking any new language that IMS did not speak of. However, EPC had simplified the way what IMS had tried to achieve.

Having said that, EPC alone does not satisfy all the objectives, which IMS set out to achieve. There is still the missing link of the layer in between the application and the transport layers. Who coordinates between the two to ensure that transport resources are manipulated the way the application desires without disturbing the overall resource ecosystem? Who binds the end user experience that is being dealt with from the last mile right up to the application? Who ensures that the service in question is inter-connectable to all other users across all other operators across diverse core technologies?  (The last thing we want is yet another service garden)

 

IMS or no IMS, all the (erstwhile IMS) objectives need to be met. The EPC provides a partial solution that focuses only on the transport plane for the future All IP Network. I believe that IMS needs to re-adapt itself based on the fact that some objectives have been gracefully solved by the EPC. But the need for IMS will still be there – at least until all the objectives are satisfied by some other to-be-defined subsystem(s) or until we see a new-look IMS – that accommodates the geek’s garage.

 

Regards,

 

Kushanava Laha

Chief Systems Engineer,

Wireless & Convergence

 

A R I C E N T

 

Plot-17 Sector-18 Electronic City

Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 015, INDIA

 

Main     +91 124.234.6666 x3268

Fax       +91 124.409.5912

Mobile  +91 9999017070

---

---

"DISCLAIMER: This message is proprietary to Aricent and is intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. It may contain privileged or confidential information and should not be circulated or used for any purpose other than for what it is intended. If you have received this message in error,please notify the originator immediately. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that you are strictly prohibited from using, copying, altering, or disclosing the contents of this message. Aricent accepts no responsibility for loss or damage arising from the use of the information transmitted by this email including damage from virus."

[Tom Nolle Public]

I think that the evolution of “social communications” is likely the biggest factor in whether IMS/LTE or Skype/LTE (to pick an example) ends up being the answer.  Mobile communication is different from wireline, which we all know.  Because it’s available everywhere people use it as a different kind of conversational service.  Even users at home don’t call on wireline as often as they do on wireless.  The social-media craze is an indication that we’re searching for a new model for public communication in this “share-and-converse-with-everyone-all-the-time” age.  If social media sites of some sort (even Twitter) become the social focus, they become the communications focus.  That pulls voice into an adjunct status—it’s now linked to social networking.  In that form, it’s easier to fulfill voice OTT because that’s how social network access is obtained.

 

Operators have to realize that consumer behavior is being changed by the Internet, and they have to plan their services (and service architectures) to reflect that very fundamental change.

 

Tom

 

---

From: imsgroup...@imsforum.org [mailto:imsgroup...@imsforum.org] On Behalf Of thomas mathew
Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 12:31 AM
To: imsg...@imsforum.org
Subject: [IMS Group] Fwd: [IMS-tech] IMS future with LTE

 

IMS future with LTE 

[Jose M Recio]

I think most agree that LTE will be used in most cases for data-only services: data cards and dual LTE-mobile units.

 

There will be no standard support for "traditional" CS services over LTE for a couple of years more, at least. The most credible options right now (as Dan Warren enumerated) are CS-Fallback and something similar to UMA (volga forum just created to push that). Quite far and still under discussion.

 

So, let's assume LTE = IP transport on mobility. Keeping aside what we technologists would like, many users are happily using ADSL or cable Internet access, on networks that have very limited support for what it is mentioned below. I assume the same will happen for LTE, at least at the beginning, and probably also in the medium term.

 

I am not convinced that every LTE deployment will require IMS. Even some may say that fully implementing EPC funcionalities would be overkill. E.g. QoS.

 

---

De: imsgroup...@imsforum.org [mailto:imsgroup...@imsforum.org] En nombre de Kushanava Laha
Enviado el: lunes, 09 de marzo de 2009 8:26
Para: thomas mathew; imsgroup...@imsforum.org
CC: imsg...@imsforum.org
Asunto: RE: [IMS Group] Fwd: [IMS-tech] IMS future with LTE

[Jose M Recio]

Andre,

 

I fully agree with you: LTE devices will be rich, many will probably include a SIP client. And VoIP may be a big chunk of LTE usage.

 

But where we may disagree: given the current situation, I think the SIP client and the VoIP will be pretty much the same that customers are using right now on their PCs. And most importantly, the business model would probably be the same: flat rate to the carrier, OTT players get the rest.

 

That is not set in stone, it may change, but the carriers (and the major vendors) are slow and conservative organizations that think about how making any move may affect their current revenues.

 

Example: the volga forum (just publicly announced) is pushing for a voice-over-LTE solution that is basically UMA, this sentence is very revealing: "The VoLGA forum says the technology offers a low-cost, low risk approach for bringing existing revenue-generating services like voice and SMS to LTE."

 

No mention about new services: focus on how to keep the current cash cows bringing more milk under LTE. That's quite legitimate. It is quite far away from what we technologist may have in mind for a shining new LTE network, but that's the way it is.

 

---

De: Andre Torres [mailto:andre....@huawei.com]
Enviado el: lunes, 09 de marzo de 2009 20:50
Para: 'Jose M Recio'

CC: imsg...@imsforum.org
Asunto: RE: [IMS Group] Fwd: [IMS-tech] IMS future with LTE

Hi Jose,

 

I quite don’t agree. I think since the beginning LTE deployments will concern Voice services as well, of course VoIP in this case, not any CS service.

Does it mean LTE will require IMS? Not necessarily, a NGN core can do the job. (Anyway, sooner or later I think the network evolves to IMS).

 

It is something similar to the actual Wimax deployments. Most include VoIP service. Many devices integrates SIP client.

 

LTE devices will be rich feature set mobile phones, including definitely a SIP client.

 

BR

 

Andre Araujo Torres

 

Technical Sales Manager - Core Network

---

[Andre Torres]

Hi Jose,

 

I quite don’t agree. I think since the beginning LTE deployments will concern Voice services as well, of course VoIP in this case, not any CS service.

Does it mean LTE will require IMS? Not necessarily, a NGN core can do the job. (Anyway, sooner or later I think the network evolves to IMS).

 

It is something similar to the actual Wimax deployments. Most include VoIP service. Many devices integrates SIP client.

 

LTE devices will be rich feature set mobile phones, including definitely a SIP client.

 

BR

 

Andre Araujo Torres

 

Technical Sales Manager - Core Network

---

From: Jose M Recio [mailto:re...@solaiemes.com]

Sent: segunda-feira, 9 de março de 2009 08:09
To: 'Kushanava Laha'; 'thomas mathew'; imsgroup...@imsforum.org
Cc: imsg...@imsforum.org

[Peter Davies]

I agree that LTE will be released as a data centric solution, and that data across the LTE solution will not be the cs replacement.
 
I agree that LTE will not require IMS to be functional and that the solution will be more aligned to what the subscribers choose to use rather than what operators think they should provide.
 
That agrees with QoS not being important to the initial deployment of LTE, however in order to provide the data solution for an application driven solution network then QoS will be important to offer service differentiation.
 
So does this mean or may it mean that we will have different access methods for different applications?
 
just a thought
 
Peter
 

---

From: re...@solaiemes.com
To: kushana...@aricent.com; tom....@gmail.com; imsgroup...@imsforum.org
Subject: RE: [IMS Group] Fwd: [IMS-tech] IMS future with LTE
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 12:08:36 +0100
CC: imsg...@imsforum.org

---

Windows Live Messenger just got better. Find out more!

[Andre Torres]

Hi Jose,

 

You went to the point where we disagree. I think although LTE customers will also use the same solutions they use on PC (skype, msn, google talk, etc) on their LTE mobiles, this will be a second choice for cheaper calls. But the first communication option will remain the operator voice service (neither based nor dependent on Internet). And here we come back to the QoS and related themes under discussion on this forum.

 

Voice over Internet users today didn’t open hand on their traditional mobile. The most will not change that when they have LTE, they will still count on the operator services. But definitely the competition among operators and OTTs will be tighter. Good for the customer.

 

There are other issues we could bring to discussion. Operators will still control the access layer. How does it impact the competition with OTTs? How the regulations are going to be? Operators and OTTs providing public voice service will be subjected to the same rules?

 

BR,

[Jose M Recio]

I fully agree, Tom. Operators need to keep milking their current voice (and SMS) cash cow as much as possible.

And I think all the ecosystem (operators, big equipment vendors, big handset vendors...) will try hard, very hard to connect LTE to the existing CS-based voice (and SMS) systems.

 

Your ideal for CS-over-LTE is what Volga forum is pushing for: reuse current CS stacks using IP-LTE as transport (that's right: transporting the full GSM or CDMA signalling over LTE). No SIP at all. Full reuse of the existing CS infrastructure and OSS/BSS and full reuse of CS stack software in the handsets.

 

I think it is more possible that LTE will be voice driven this way (or using CS-fallback) in the medium term.

 

 

---

De: Tom Nolle Public [mailto:tno...@cimicorp.com]
Enviado el: martes, 10 de marzo de 2009 15:32
Para: 'Andre Torres'; 'Jose M Recio'

CC: imsg...@imsforum.org
Asunto: RE: [IMS Group] Fwd: [IMS-tech] IMS future with LTE

I’m also skeptical about the notion that LTE is going to be data- (or at least non-voice-) driven.  The revenue model for mobile operators today is strongly slanted to voice, and while I know that operators would like to see that change, the truth is that there’s not been much progress in making that goal into reality.  LTE deployment is certainly justified by the notion that non-voice services will eventually dominate, but in the meantime voice will have to keep the lights on.

 

The problem with CS-over-LTE may be that it’s not avoiding enough cost.  To make the process totally workable you’d have to be able to originate a CS-over-LTE “tunnel” call from the handset; otherwise your packet/circuit transition is needed anyway and you would still have to support SIP signaling for the call.  I don’t think we have a complete model for creating calls like that, or even good alternatives.  That would mean that the alternative to SIP is a P2P model like Skype, which I think might be a smart approach if the P4P infrastructure-specific P2P standard got anywhere.  But the timing is everything; early deployment favors IMS and any delays work against it.

 

Tom

 

---

[thomas mathew]

Good point there Tom , Andre

From a carriers standpoint the voice is the core business and LTE may not have the definite answers now. CS-fallback, Volga forum is something we have to still wait and may be that anxiety could push operators to get their IMS option going. We may even see operators opening up their LTE backbone for VoIP providers like Skype and Vonage and of-course not forgetting those geek's garage voice applications.

IMS may not have any good reason for replacing the application-subsystem or the data apps that being developed in many folds day-in and day-out. But operators may chose IMS to have their own "presence flavored social app" that could leverage network based APIs.

Going back to Kushanava point , LTE is not something that can be decoupled with EPC. EPC has its own network layer framework. LTE shall merge the access ,meaning connectivity continuity and consistency for multi-access convergence is already taken care of. The current 3G packet core already talks about Packet Inspection, Policy control [ including QoS ] , charging [ realtime, non-realtime] , security ,Access & Service aware based Packet routing and HSS lookup for Subscriber profile currently used by PCRF for Policy. There is good chance that EPC may even extend these functions and for those reasons ,I wouldn't say LTE is just transport layer for the application sub-system.

Thanks

Thomas

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

[Tom Nolle Public]

I’m also skeptical about the notion that LTE is going to be data- (or at least non-voice-) driven.  The revenue model for mobile operators today is strongly slanted to voice, and while I know that operators would like to see that change, the truth is that there’s not been much progress in making that goal into reality.  LTE deployment is certainly justified by the notion that non-voice services will eventually dominate, but in the meantime voice will have to keep the lights on.

 

The problem with CS-over-LTE may be that it’s not avoiding enough cost.  To make the process totally workable you’d have to be able to originate a CS-over-LTE “tunnel” call from the handset; otherwise your packet/circuit transition is needed anyway and you would still have to support SIP signaling for the call.  I don’t think we have a complete model for creating calls like that, or even good alternatives.  That would mean that the alternative to SIP is a P2P model like Skype, which I think might be a smart approach if the P4P infrastructure-specific P2P standard got anywhere.  But the timing is everything; early deployment favors IMS and any delays work against it.

 

Tom

 

---

From: imsgroup...@imsforum.org [mailto:imsgroup...@imsforum.org] On Behalf Of Andre Torres

Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 3:50 PM
To: 'Jose M Recio'

[Sergio J. Castro]

Andre wrote: >LTE customers will also use the same solutions they use on PC (skype, msn, google > talk, etc) on their LTE mobiles, this will be a second choice for cheaper calls. But the >first communication option will remain the operator voice service (neither based nor >dependent on Internet)

Exactly!!! VoIP will most likely be used (it is being used right now!) to avoid roaming chargers while traveling abroad, provided that the quality is good. otherwise it doesn't make sense Regards -- Sergio J. Castro --- On Tue, 3/10/09, Andre Torres <andre....@huawei.com> wrote:

From: Andre Torres <andre....@huawei.com> Subject: RE: [IMS Gran>oup] Fwd: [IMS-tech] IMS future with LTE To: "'Jose M Recio'" <re...@solaiemes.com> Cc: imsg...@imsforum.org Date: Tuesday, March 10, 2009, 7:18 AM

Hi Jose,   You went to the point where we disagree. I think although LTE customers will also use the same solutions they use on PC (skype, msn, google talk, etc) on their LTE mobiles, this will be a second choice for cheaper calls. But the first communication option will remain the operator voice service (neither based nor dependent on Internet). And here we come back to the QoS and related themes under discussion on this forum.   Voice over Internet users today didn’t open hand on their traditional mobile. The most will not change that when they have LTE, they will still count on the operator services. But definitely the competition among operators and OTTs will be tighter. Good for the customer.   There are other issues we could bring to discussion. Operators will still control the access layer. How does it impact the competition with OTTs? How the regulations are going to be? Operators and OTTs providing public voice service will be subjected to the same rules?   BR,

Andre Araujo Torres

Technical Sales Manager - Core Network

From: Jose M Recio [mailto:re...@solaiemes.com]

Sent: segunda-feira, 9 de março de 2009 19:05 To: 'Andre Torres'

Cc: imsg...@imsforum.org Subject: RE: [IMS Group] Fwd: [IMS-tech] IMS future with LTE

Andre,

I fully agree with you: LTE devices will be rich, many will probably include a SIP client. And VoIP may be a big chunk of LTE usage.   But where we may disagree: given the current situation, I think the SIP client and the VoIP will be pretty much the same that customers are using right now on their PCs. And most importantly, the business model would probably be the same: flat rate to the carrier, OTT players get the rest.   That is not set in stone, it may change, but the carriers (and the major vendors) are slow and conservative organizations that think about how making any move may affect their current revenues.   Example: the volga forum (just publicly announced) is pushing for a voice-over-LTE solution that is basically UMA, this sentence is very revealing: "The VoLGA forum says the technology offers a low-cost, low risk approach for bringing existing revenue-generating services like voice and SMS to LTE."   No mention about new services: focus on how to keep the current cash cows bringing more milk under LTE. That's quite legitimate. It is quite far away from what we technologist may have in mind for a shining new LTE network, but that's the way it is.

De: Andre Torres [mailto:andre....@huawei.com]

Enviado el: lunes, 09 de marzo de 2009 20:50 Para: 'Jose M Recio'

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

[Andre Torres]

Hi Tom,

 

In fact it is not necessary to have packet/circuit transition or CS-over-LTE to carry voice over LTE. LTE is packet only, as just as voice can be: packet only, VoIP.

 

The issue is to manage/grant the correct bandwidth and QoS for internet/application and for voice data, and here if you have an EPC and IMS core it makes operator’s life much simpler than a NGN core.

 

BR,

 

Andre Araujo Torres

 

Technical Sales Manager - Core Network

---

[Tom Nolle Public]

I’m aware of that, Andre; my point was that if you look at the broad question of whether CS-LTE is useful, you have to consider how much it really saves you in transition costs.  Since, as you say, LTE is packet only, you would need to either do a VoIP-to-CS gateway transition or attempt to keep the call at least in a CS tunnel to avoid IMS-like intervention.

 

The question of whether IMS or EPC “simplifies” bandwidth allocation still needs to be proven on a large scale, IMHO.

 

Tom

 

---

[Dmitry Tcheban]

Why such VoIP-to-CS gateway is needed in the LTE?

As far as I understand, in the pure LTE case we have IP all the way from handset to the IP core. The only analog device on this way is speaker and microphone on the handset (although, even Audio Devices SW API is a packet one, at least on WM and Symbian based handsets).

The only place where actual CS GW is required is a connection with legacy PSTN networks- but it is a responsibility of the core network.

 

Regards,

  Dmitry

---

[Tom Nolle Public]

Most of the big Tier One providers have a VP with a “Transformation” title, and that seems to be where they’ve placed the missions we’ve been discussing.  My own research and interviews with these people suggest that they believe their vendors are not cooperating in supporting their efforts.  In 2008, every Tier One provider we surveyed rated their network vendor as “Unsatisfactory” or “Marginally Unsatisfactory” in their support of the providers’ monetization goals.

 

Tom

 

---

From: alan lloyd [mailto:alan....@wwite.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 7:40 AM
To: 'Tom Nolle Public'; 'thomas mathew'; imsg...@imsforum.org
Subject: IMS future with LTE and services

 

Hi Tom,,  re

“ Operators have to realize that consumer behavior is being changed by the Internet, and they have to plan their services (and service architectures) to reflect that very fundamental change.”

  Agree…

And we keep trying to get this topic elevated so we can be corrected,  contribute, what ever..

You have developed java based IMS session management tools, we have developed an Identity based SDP…. And we both seem to argue the point that these functions are essential to get IMS (personalized) and converged services out there  – to the best of our belief.. 

 

We keep hearing that IMS will deliver all types of  services and its our future – So are there any discussions about identifying and progressing these managed services from an engineering perspective.

 

I assume that in a few years web/video calls for OTT services such as govt, health retail, navigation will be widespread. These apps will have their own service management systems and SDPs.  By that time fixed phones would have all but vanished and mobile consoles will be everywhere..  Perhaps some of them may have their traffic measured by a telco’s rating and billing system.

 

We raised the business case for IMS and I asked what the IMS vendor business case might be.  So any idea what telco/organisation / person/ company is taking the lead to define end user  IMS services, session control systems and SDPs and what the plan might be..

 

Best wishes alan

 

 

---

[Tom Nolle Public]

The Volga approach is exactly what I’m thinking, but even that approach has its transition costs, and I’d like to see the whole notion of CS and true VoIP reviewed in terms of their TCO.  Certainly, though, voice has to be a big part of near-term ROI, and so does SMS.

 

Tom

[Sergio J. Castro]

Hi Tom,

These VPs also have it tough from within their own companies, especially with the operations department that run the deployed network.. And vendors will not fully engage to custom needs unless there is PO potential. Let's not forget that business forecasted will drive any technology. Heads roll when tier 1 carriers don't select a vendor that has invested time, money and effort in trials, especially if the carrier decided not to deploy at all.

Regards 

___

Sergio J. Castro

sca...@rocketmail.com

+1 (619) CASTRO 1

Sent from my iPhone

El Mar 11, 2009, a las 5:00, "Tom Nolle Public" <tno...@cimicorp.com> escribió:

Most of the big Tier One providers have a VP with a “Transformation” title, and that seems to be where they’ve placed the missions we’ve been discussing.  My own research and interviews with these people suggest that they believe their vendors are not cooperating in supporting their efforts.  In 2008, every Tier One provider we surveyed rated their network vendor as “Unsatisfactory” or “Marginally Unsatisfactory” in their support of the providers’ monetization goals.

 

Tom

 

---

From: alan lloyd [mailto:alan....@wwite.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 7:40 AM
To: 'Tom Nolle Public'; 'thomas mathew'; imsg...@imsforum.org
Subject: IMS future with LTE and services

 

Hi Tom,,  re

“ Operators have to realize that consumer behavior is being changed by the Internet, and they have to plan their services (and service architectures) to reflect that very fundamental change.”

  Agree…

And we keep trying to get this topic elevated so we can be corrected,  contribute, what ever..

You have developed java based IMS session management tools, we have developed an Identity based SDP…. And we both seem to argue the point that these functions are essential to get IMS (personalized) and converged services out there  – to the best of our belief.. 

 

We keep hearing that IMS will deliver all types of  services and its our future – So are there any discussions about identifying and progressing these managed services from an engineering perspective.

 

I assume that in a few years web/video calls for OTT services such as govt, health retail, navigation will be widespread. These apps will have their own service management systems and SDPs.  By that time fixed phones would have all but vanished and mobile consoles will be everywhere..  Perhaps some of them may have their traffic measured by a telco’s rating and billing system.

 

We raised the business case for IMS and I asked what the IMS vendor business case might be.  So any idea what telco/organisation / person/ company is taking the lead to define end user  IMS services, session control systems and SDPs and what the plan might be..

 

Best wishes alan

 

 

---

From: imsgroup...@imsforum.org [mailto:imsgroup...@imsforum.org] On Behalf Of Tom Nolle Public

Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 11:12 PM

To: 'thomas mathew'; imsg...@imsforum.org
Subject: RE: [IMS Group] Fwd: [IMS-tech] IMS future with LTE

 

I think that the evolution of “social communications” is likely the biggest factor in whether IMS/LTE or Skype/LTE (to pick an example) ends up being the answer.  Mobile communication is different from wireline, which we all know.  Because it’s available everywhere people use it as a different kind of conversational service.  Even users at home don’t call on wireline as often as they do on wireless.  The social-media craze is an indication that we’re searching for a new model for public communication in this “share-and-converse-with-everyone-all-the-time” age.  If social media sites of some sort (even Twitter) become the social focus, they become the communications focus.  That pulls voice into an adjunct status—it’s now linked to social networking.  In that form, it’s easier to fulfill voice OTT because that’s how social network access is obtained.

 

Operators have to realize that consumer behavior is being changed by the Internet, and they have to plan their services (and service architectures) to reflect that very fundamental change.

 

Tom

 

---

From: imsgroup...@imsforum.org [mailto:imsgroup...@imsforum.org] On Behalf Of thomas mathew
Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 12:31 AM
To: imsg...@imsforum.org
Subject: [IMS Group] Fwd: [IMS-tech] IMS future with LTE

 

IMS future with LTE 

 

Off late I have been thinking with LTE around the corner, well not literarly , still within a vicinity of at most 2 years what would be the future of IMS in the wireless world..

LTE shall merge the UTRAN and EVDO based network and when that happens technology would be unified and would be the single options for carriers and to the most extent vendors thus bringing down the barriers of air interfaces.

As we all know with LTE/EPC the bandwidth will no longer be a constraint. With few latency tweaking the backbone would be strong enough big chunk of pipe.SIP based IMS platform that still has a has overhead of being a heavy protocol would then be question.

Let's look at what IMS offers today
1. Presence ( icon, tag line, status ..etc
2. IM and video sharing.
3. SIP based Voip.

With a profound factor of independent of the underlying access technology which make integration quite simple. On the wireless side it becomes extremely useful especially on 2G and 3G network.

Although 3G is itself offers not so bad data throughput rates of nearly 1Mb DL and almost 300 kbps UL to keep it real and that is significant enough for quite amount of application that IMS currently offer. Keep in mind there are already HSDPA devices that can do far more speed that today's 3G network.

If one does a deeper dive on the wireless data application that is being developed for data intensive devices like T-Mobile G1 and Iphone, one would be quite amazed to see a number of these social networking application that does far more than what today's IMS offers. These are standard client -server application where the users has to be merely "log-in" to see his buddies and friends and of course see their updated tag line,icons and status. Doesn't involve any sip based register, invite or notify.Some of the application even uses network based location based APIs that lets the server know about the user location that could compliment the social networking application with many folds of added uses cases.

Note these are 3rd party application being built out of their geek's garages and does not involve any carriers based HSS database or lookup for subscriptions. They are mere application with plug-ins and integration to popular application and sites. These popular applications are built for smart data device that can support good speed and if it could be complimented by the LTE network, the IMS based "Application sub system" would be something to doubt.

Of course if you ask about policy functions , security functions, application logic, content filtering, they would still covered under the umbrella of EPC or enhanced packet core network. I don't see the need of separate Rx interface when GGSN /SAE can do the same function with PCRF on Gx. The other core elements like I-CSCF today dips into HSS for determining the S-CSCF ,again a function that can be extended on PCRF.

IMS and voice Telephony
This is where IMS has a chance to co-exist . CS-Core is not an option on LTE although there are debates on CS-fallback for 2g and 3G, but lets forget that ...off topic. LTE shall be Packet Core and IP based and due to this there are different technologies that I think will battle for survival. Conventional Voip , UMA  , IMS and properiteray players like skype and Vonage. Investing on IMS on top of LTE....hmm.....

thoughts ?

 

BR,

Thomas

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

es New Roman"> 

 

 

 

 

 

tml>

[Tom Nolle Public]

The most significant thing in voice services, at least according to my own research, is the phone number.  Because people remember and save these numbers they create a link between the number, the person it represents, and the service on which the number can be used.  The question of how “non-PSTN-model” voice will fare in competition with VoIP on LTE may depend on whether these third-party services bring out (or expand) programs to allow intercalling with the PSTN and the use of PSTN numbers.

 

Regulators have pretty much decided that voice is voice, meaning that the technology of a service doesn’t absolve it from regulatory oversight.  However, if the service is not marketed as a replacement for PSTN voice (here in the US) then it is not subject to PSTN regulations like E911, CALEA, etc.

 

Tom

 

---

[alan lloyd]

Hi Tom,,  re

“ Operators have to realize that consumer behavior is being changed by the Internet, and they have to plan their services (and service architectures) to reflect that very fundamental change.”

  Agree…

And we keep trying to get this topic elevated so we can be corrected,  contribute, what ever..

You have developed java based IMS session management tools, we have developed an Identity based SDP…. And we both seem to argue the point that these functions are essential to get IMS (personalized) and converged services out there  – to the best of our belief.. 

 

We keep hearing that IMS will deliver all types of  services and its our future – So are there any discussions about identifying and progressing these managed services from an engineering perspective.

 

I assume that in a few years web/video calls for OTT services such as govt, health retail, navigation will be widespread. These apps will have their own service management systems and SDPs.  By that time fixed phones would have all but vanished and mobile consoles will be everywhere..  Perhaps some of them may have their traffic measured by a telco’s rating and billing system.

 

We raised the business case for IMS and I asked what the IMS vendor business case might be.  So any idea what telco/organisation / person/ company is taking the lead to define end user  IMS services, session control systems and SDPs and what the plan might be..

 

Best wishes alan

 

 

---

From: imsgroup...@imsforum.org [mailto:imsgroup...@imsforum.org] On Behalf Of Tom Nolle Public

Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 11:12 PM
To: 'thomas mathew'; imsg...@imsforum.org

[Duane Wright]

Hi Andre,

 

I agree that QoS will be an issue for applications.

If anyone looks at Qos in the fixed world you will see that even with tDSL CABLE there is no true end to end QoS.

There is no commercial pressure on fixed line IP providers to do any QoS only in the sense of ‘throttling’ networks at peak times.

I would like to know where the commercial financial pressure on mobile operators would come from to deploy this.

 

QoS will not truly come of age commercially until the fixed line and mobile operators realise that the cash cow of voice is dead.

Thus far I am unconvinced, that that perception in the minds has changed despite the technical capability having existed for a while now it hasn’t truly transpired.

 

I challenge anyone to show me commercially working end to end QoS services on mobile networks.

At best the most we can expect is edge to edge QoS what happens in the core IMS or NGN isn’t important in this regard.

QoS for QoS sake without the services or dare I say the killer app is not an end it’ own right.

 

 

Duane Wright

 

IP/IMS Consultant

[Tom Nolle Public]

The QoS topic is its own black hole for a bunch of reasons, not the least of which being that as Duane points out there is no broadband QoS today, or even Internet QoS.  But the reason for that, I would suggest, is more business than technical.  There’s no settlement on the Internet, so there is no incentive for transit carriers of IP traffic to support QoS when they can’t be paid for their share of it.  One of the things that could come out of an IMS/ITU-NGN model is a mechanism for interprovider settlement and thus a business framework to make the RACF stuff valuable and not just possible.  But I don’t think it will be easy to make a QoS case for voice.  Skype is getting more popular, Google has just brought out its own voice service, and best-effort voice is good enough for most.

 

The voice cash cow, IMHO, isn’t dead yet.  The great majority of mobile revenue is voice, in fact.  If we migrated mobile operators to a data-driven revenue model today, I doubt there would be a single survivor.  That’s not to say that the voice cash cow isn’t dying (it clearly is), but the problem the operators face today is that it’s far from clear what the successor cash cow will be.  We can’t expect operators to invest in the future without a credible return, both near-term and longer-term.

 

A lot of our debates on this board are really about this last point.  We need a successor revenue model to voice.  We know that the Internet is the framework for most non-voice service, and so it’s hard not to support the Internet as part of the future of mobile data service.  But the Internet has its own business issues (settlement/QoS) and the wireline Internet has disintermediated broadband operators.  Would mobile Internet do the same?  Thus, there’s a temptation to say that IMS-based applications that aren’t “the Internet” should be the way that future mobile revenues are generated.  The challenge is making those applications more useful and valuable than the Internet versions of the same applications, provided OTT on the mobile Internet services operators need to offer.  Will QoS alone do that?  Not in my view, because as Duane points out we don’t have QoS today on wireline Internet.

 

Tom

 

---

[alan lloyd]

I agree Sergio

 I am sure there are thousands of companies would not mind a few cents for every dollar they have invested in trying to get telco business.  With meetings  travel, demos, presentations, etc one must be looking at  spending $100ks  with just  a chance of getting something back  - and hopefully that has a margin in it…

 

Yet on the other side of the fence we are asked/told to comply with models, frameworks, architectures, complex protocol systems  which are always a bit onerous  re as to their implementation and integration.. The telco sector is for the brave with deep pockets.

 

What will the GFC do to this situation I wonder… will vendors simply not bother – all too risky?    This is why OTT personalized net apps is getting the traction.  That is, is it simply best to design the systems for the IT businesses  at large and hopefully telcos may use it.  

 

Best wishes alan

 

---

[Tom Nolle Public]

For many, the goal of the CS-LTE approach is to avoid requiring a full transition to VoIP by using CS paths from the handset inward, which keeps CS voice and voice signaling in place.  LTE is pure IP as you say, but in theory you could signal as always if you established a tunnel direct to a “virtual Class 5” with answer supervision.

 

---

[Tom Nolle Public]

We have QoS outside the Internet, I agree, but it’s not available on the Internet side.  My point here is that if non-QoS services for the Internet have prospered (look at Google Voice, the new OTT voice-related service) then you can’t assert that QoS differentiation is essential for next-gen services.

 

The view that the broadband operators are disintermediated is their view; I happen to agree with it but the operators almost universally report that position in surveys.  They view, again I think correctly, that usage caps and tiered pricing that charges for wireline QoS will be incredibly difficult to introduce and ultimately work to the disadvantage of the market, and thus they consider it a last resort.  They don’t see the OTT players as access competitors, they see them as service competitors, and thus as competitors who might force them to the undesirable position of caps and tiers if they can’t respond.

 

Tom

 

---

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

Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 4:54 PM
To: Tom Nolle Public

Cc: 'Duane Wright'; 'Andre Torres'; 'Jose M Recio'; imsg...@imsforum.org
Subject: Re: [IMS Group] Fwd: [IMS-tech] IMS future with LTE

 

Tom,

If you read QoS as "bandwidth management", then there definitely is QoS on wireline access networks today. Providers configure separate logical pipes for Internet access and other services ( Voip, IP-TV, ... ). There is QoS differentiation between packets on each of those logical networks, they use the same DSLAMs, aggregation network, etc. It isn't DiffServ based, but it certainly makes a difference.

On wireless access links, bandwidth is more scarce and moreover shared, so bandwidth management is even more important. Providers are in control to determine how much bandwidth they allow for Internet access, and how much for "premium services" (for any definition of premium). Just like time slots in GSM are allocated between voice (CS) and data (GPRS).

Broadband operators aren't disintermediated, their access network is still between the user and the OTT provider. The problem is that business rules (over-subscription ratios, statistical gains, average usage) applied in the past are no longer valid, so a new point of balance needs to be found. I personally believe the link between usage and cost needs to be brought back into service propositions (i.e. not completely flat-fee), as is done for mobile subscriptions today. As for the prices they can charge, that largely depends on competition between alternative means of Internet access ( e.g. telco versus cable versus wireless ) and regulatory restrictions. OTTs are not a competitor for the Internet access part of the business.

Regards,
Jeroen

Tom Nolle Public wrote:

[Tom Nolle Public]

I have to disagree that QoS is essential for a for-pay model.  Google Voice, Skype, and even some of the Netflix stuff are examples of for-pay services or services with for-pay elements that don’t include QoS.  Users want to get an experience they value.  If that requires QoS then obviously you’d need to have it.  But I submit that we have had enough experience with best-efforts today to accept many services that have best-efforts delivery.

 

IMHO falling back on the notion that operators need QoS for their business model is falling back to pre-NGN services mindset, one that isn’t going to be sustainable in the Internet world—and by that I mean the world that the Internet has created and not just the Internet itself.

 

Tom

 

---

From: Jeroen van Bemmel [mailto:jbe...@zonnet.nl]
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 6:17 PM
To: Tom Nolle Public
Cc: 'Duane Wright'; 'Andre Torres'; 'Jose M Recio'; imsg...@imsforum.org
Subject: Re: [IMS Group] Fwd: [IMS-tech] IMS future with LTE

 

Tom,

The example non-QoS services you quote use a different business model (perhaps by necessity, since those players don't control the access lines, and compete on a global scale where the subscription-based model apparently doesn't work - due too much choice perhaps?).

I would assert that QoS is essential for next-gen services that are delivered in a "traditional" business model, i.e. subscription / usage based. As we have discussed on this list before, in an ad-funded model people don't care about QoS / QoS is not a differentiator - you can't get cheaper than free. For wireline/wireless access, the subscription/usage business model works just fine - only the parameters need some adjustments.

[Jeroen van Bemmel]

Tom,

See this recent announcement by a new Internet era MVNO zer01: http://www.informationweek.com/news/telecom/voip/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=215900218&subSection=News

"Zer01 CEO Ben Piilani said the company has developed proprietary algorithms and defragmentation engines to handle latency issues and ensure that the VoIP has a high quality of service, even over an EDGE or GPRS connection."

This is one example of an operator depending on (I would say living or dying by) QoS for their for-pay service. It will be interesting to see how they do. US only unfortunately...

[Duane Wright]

Jereon,

 

You can produce all the algorithms  in the world it will not guarantee the end to end QOS onlt attempt to mitigate it.

The whole point of end to end QOS using reserved bandwidthe end to end is that it’s guaranteed.

Doesn’t matter if that’s wireless of fibre the principal is the same.

As Tom has stated the reason skype works is it relies on there being enough end to end bandwidth between the two calls some call it over provisioning.

However it’s not guaranteed.

 

Furthermore, it is within the remit of any ISP to actually switch off the UDP/TCP port for skype should they choose to.

The problem is clear as far as I can see the agendas of ISP and Mobile operators are how to charge for these services without alienating the customers.

There is a reason why some wireless  handset manufacturers do not permit Skype calls via the wi-fi indeed we have some that even (for some strange reason) put skpe on there UMTS networks, why?

So they can charge.

 

Also to take into account the fact that having worked in the USA and Europe the cost models for voice in the USA is far more aggressive and competitive that Europe.

Like it or not the European Wireless market is voice call charge dependant and effectively they’ve  stifled any real attempts at FMC.

 

ISP’s calls such as clients that use voip, are effectively free, wireless mobiles are charged.

Wireless operators in general have resisted any attempts to be ‘bandwidth providers’.

With constant attempts to control the content instead of looking at the Internet model of allowing ‘open content’ as I call it.

 

This is what is at the basis of many problems to make IMS & FMC a reality.

 

 

 

 

Duane

---

From: Tom Nolle Public [mailto:tno...@cimicorp.com]
Sent: 16 March 2009 23:16
To: 'Jeroen van Bemmel'
Cc: 'Duane Wright'; 'Andre Torres'; 'Jose M Recio'; imsg...@imsforum.org
Subject: RE: [IMS Group] Fwd: [IMS-tech] IMS future with LTE

 

Good luck to them; Skype works fine for me 99% of the time and I’ve never fallen back to PSTN even for calls half-way around the world.

[Matthew Roderick]

Thanks Jeroen, very interesting

Looking at their web site (www.zer01mobile.com) I could see this being
the beginning of the mobile IP customer land grab. If Zer01 expand
their agreements to all compatible networks (AT&T & T-mobile is a
great start) and configure a handset that works/roams seemlessly to
which ever is best for the location then it has an extremely
interesting proposition. No longer will a user have to worry about
carrier coverage, quality location and pick the best for them, they
can go with this organisation which could (will?) do it dynamically!

"Don't wait for your network to go end to end IP, they're move too
slow, come with us and we'll make sure your using the best "bit pipe"
for were you are".

I wonder if the networks understand what they signed up to !

Now for my next trick, seemless roaming between networks while in a
voice call (could/should be possible with this approach)

Matt

2009/3/16 Jeroen van Bemmel <jbe...@zonnet.nl>:

> ...
>
> [Message clipped]

[Mahesh A.]

hi Tom,

i'm compelled to ask myself the question  after reading through the mail....what is it that the LTE era will bring in that

will make operators unleash IMS (assuming here that operators are PRO IMS) FINALLY....i mean, if QoS is not

going to be THE thing then what is it that is holding operators from  deploying full fledged IMS infra and services

, and waiting for LTE instead??.....from IMS point of view, what is it that cant be done using todays's IP-CAN's and

UMTS Core  that IMS is not taken off to the extent it was projected.

 

Can somebody help me in this soul search please?

 

cheers

Mahesh

 

---

From: Tom Nolle Public <tno...@cimicorp.com>
To: Duane Wright <duane...@blueyonder.co.uk>; Andre Torres <andre....@huawei.com>; Jose M Recio <re...@solaiemes.com>
Cc: imsg...@imsforum.org
Sent: Thursday, 12 March, 2009 8:25:30 PM

---

Bollywood news, movie reviews, film trailers and more! Click here.

[Amit Agarwala]

Speaking for India, I agree totally.  CxOs of many operators have explicitly commented that they will resist all attempts to reduce them to “bit pipe providers”.

 

In fact, some are even debating separating into two businesses – one doing bit pipes with very low margins (A) & the other offering services (B).

 

Since both companies will be owned by them, it may make it easier for A to relent, upgrade networks for B.

 

---

[Jose M Recio]

Good question, Mahesh, good question.

 

In some markets LTE/WiMAX will bring more competition in the form of different business models. In those markets, some change may happen, not because of the intrinsic technical enhancements, but because of the market forces that may be unleashed.

 

In the rest of the markets (e.g. where regulators act in a certain way or licenses are owned by established market players or ...) I don't see that many changes in the medium term in terms of services offered by the operators.

There will be a change in terms of bandwith, prices/rates, and services offered by OTT. But I don't see a big change in services offered by operators themselves in the near/medium term.

 

---

De: imsgroup...@imsforum.org [mailto:imsgroup...@imsforum.org] En nombre de Mahesh A.
Enviado el: lunes, 23 de marzo de 2009 15:12
Para: imsg...@imsforum.org
Asunto: Re: [IMS Group] Fwd: [IMS-tech] IMS future with LTE

[Tom Nolle Public]

It’s probably more like searching a wallet than your soul, Mahesh!

 

I don’t think that LTE guarantees IMS, but the timing of LTE deployment relative to the shifts taking place in the mobile market are probably the determinant.  If LTE deploys very quickly, then voice services will still be the dominant revenue stream when it does, and supporting the voice services and voice transition, and providing interworking with legacy voice, will be the most important issue for sustaining revenue.  Thus, IMS.  If LTE deploys slowly, then more operators will have moved to a capped service model with one fee for unlimited everything, in which case it’s not that important to keep users from fleeing into a different voice model.  Thus, less IMS.

 

Tom

 

---

[alan lloyd]

Hi  -

 

 I think we need to consider   personalized services, parental controls and location based services and virtual private environments

 

Personalized services might request high bandwidths on demand for the movie for a few hours… PCMM in cable terms

Parental controls  which can be a revenue earning product, might place firewall restrictions or CM restrictions on sub accounts

Location based services (on geo code or IP address) may dictate what news one gets or what sports game one can see

Private environments may ask for a block of 2- 512 IP addresses and that is sold as a revenue earning product.

 

So while I can see OTT services happening regardless,  I am not sure how “operators”  will want to separate the systems in the new world, in particular policy based IP addresses will be necessary for many reasons based on the user, their location and their account status or monitoring condition – and this functionality can be a  source of revenue.. that is,  network dependant end user services.. is where they can be unique..

 

The question is: What is the customer actually logging onto and how sophisticated is that AAA system  services?  And will the existing IMS AAA evolve to deal with such services.

 

Best wishes alan

 

 

 

---

[Tariq Rasheeduddin]

Some Core's are still running over ATM/FR circuits .. which has to serve Voice/Data/Internet

TR-

2009/3/23 Mahesh A. <mash...@yahoo.com>

[Duane Wright]

Hi Amit,

 

I like the metaphor you used but if I may add to it by saying that there are soccer field (or cricket grounds) people want to play but the person who owns the fields doesn’t know how to charge for it.

Better still he has players he an audience but wants to maximise his revenue but isn’t willing to take a risk.

We’ve been discussing this for some time and the problem isn’t strictly technical capability but charging.

 

You can use a quasi IMS solution or a hybrid of the elements to achieve the same effect but again it comes back to charging be that IMS/FMC/GAN/WiMAX etc.

For example Wimax 805.16d is used for backhaul in some countries due to the cost of fibre/sdh.

Wimax802.16e ? why would Qualcomm the owners of UMTS in my view encourage Wimax which is primarily a INTEL solution?

It may looks as if I’ve jumped the shark but there is a connection no wireless operator is going to deploy unless they know they are going to get a return on there investment.

The danger as with the all standards driven solutions is that  although very compelling, is that if you look in the Internet ISP world many attempts have been made to charge for services which the consumers have been very resistant to.

For example peer to peer download, very common, could be stopped but if you try to do that it’s expensive and bound to fail in the long term as people get savvy.

 

In my view if IMS is going to be deployed as a standard globally it will not necessarily come from the mobile world.

Ironically and historically the best innovation has been ISP driven and I think there is where elements of IMS will take off.

This is of course based on the notation that wireless operators are determined to control the content as has been the case thus far.

 

 

Best regards,

 

Duane

 

IP/IMS Consultant

 

 

 

 

---

From: Amit Agarwala [mailto:am...@amdale.com]
Sent: 26 March 2009 16:01
To: 'Inam'; alan....@wwite.com
Cc: 'Duane Wright'; 'Tom Nolle Public'; 'Jeroen van Bemmel'; 'Andre Torres'; imsg...@imsforum.org
Subject: RE: [IMS Group] Fwd: [IMS-tech] IMS future with LTE

 

Hi Inam,

Is this the classical chicken-n-egg conundrum?  I’ll give you an example of a great service: the most popular site to help you browse through matrimonial in India started as a typical web business, and eventually graduated over to Mobile over GPRS.

 

Recently, they tied up India’s largest DTH provider to offer these services through the TV.  There isn't any personalization or auto link-ups between mobile phone, web-id & TV app, but the opportunity for IMS here is endless, isn't it? 

 

Assuming you agree, I don’t think there is shortage of applications – its just that nobody plays soccer because there is no playing field.

 

Warm regards,

Amit

 

---

From: Inam [mailto:inam...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 8:09 PM
To: alan....@wwite.com
Cc: am...@amdale.com; Duane Wright; Tom Nolle Public; Jeroen van Bemmel; Andre Torres; imsg...@imsforum.org
Subject: Re: [IMS Group] Fwd: [IMS-tech] IMS future with LTE

 

Alan :

Some good comments. the important thing in point of view are two comments

1- What is the Advantage of IMS
2- Why IMS is not being Roled out, Is it  Access Network Factor such LTE/HSPA etc or the Operators Strategic Mind, or Real Market Forces themselves


>From Operator Perspective Two big Adanatages of IMS are  Fine-grainded Call Control & Horizantal Service Control Model and Solution of Silly and Excellent AAA Model  to avert the problems due to Stupid Radius based AAA Solution ( has many shortcomings , can't type them here , we have been living with them from many years , thanks there are over due to Diameter now)

Market/Customer Perspective
The big reason for no real big sucess of IMS is due to unavialability of new & Killer services. People/Customers are not interseted in state of the art technology and backend solutions , they are interested in real services, the service that add value to their lives. No operator so far have been able to launch the services that should have created a  "WOW" feelings in customers , Providing Telephony services over IP, PSTN or POTS is not what user is interested in, he needs Good Telephony Service that might be on POTS by the way. So big missing leg i a think

Access Factor/LTE/HSPA etc.
We can't really say that IMS is not being succesfful due to existing Access NEtworks , Do we really have such services that consume mega bits of the Bandwidth? ( we can even tailer the Video Services to kbs formated channels)
So LTE/HSPA etc not the reason for no sucess of IMS so far

Operators strategy
The answer by Amit is relevent in some sense. The MNO operators don't want to put themselves in competition of ISP providers, Existing VoIP providers, IELC providers , Cable Providers , who can be the potential IMS providers, Also the IMS Deployment have Good CAPEX/Investment demands , in current economic slow down they don't seem to be in such a moode.



Your comments and rejections are most valued

Regards
INAMULLAH
ISlamabad , Pakistan

2009/3/25 alan lloyd <alan....@wwite.com>

...

[Message clipped]  

[Amit Agarwala]

Well, I think this is again a little on business modeling.  Looking into the future, we agree that access media (E1, IP etc) shall merge.  After all a wire is a wire, a byte is a byte.  In search for lowest energy state, applications will bypass “traditional” TELCO models if necessary.

 

Therefore, access-media agnostic, subscribers shall find their applications.  Given the diversity of IP vs mobile, what choice are the mobile operators left with?

 

 

 

---

[alan lloyd]

Hi Inam – and thanks

 

I think you are saying   the same as most are:

 

1. That Raduis/Diameter AAA systems are so rudimentary – how on earth can they deal with the online service paradigms that exist today and those of tomorrow . They may be “OK” for connections, call features and CDRs… butNGN  online services … the rest of the online world simply does NOT use that “stuff”…
2. There are no “killer” services in IMS because that was only the marketing buzz,,  and  the architecture hasn’t got there yet. – Its still working on connection, end to end  and roaming issues.

 

Re your Operator strategy point… agree – As far as I see there is no “mood” for IMS – as it’s a technology architecture that has no “end  user services” anchor..  End user services anchors have to be contemporary re personalization, presence, on demand, high capacity….easy to deploy … and integrate. IMS seems to have made web/IMS integration “difficult”…

 

Back to SDPs.. Converged web/sip SDPs… IMHO that is the only path for IMS…. Converged management, converged services, single views of services and entitlements.. IMS on its own, I just cant see that being a  justified business case

 

BTW  - don’t get me wrong … IMS has to coexist with PSTN and the internet under a common management system – so that its customers see a seamless environment …  So to me we have to focus on the operational  management of converged services  systems

 

Best wishes alan

 

 

---

From: Inam [mailto:inam...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 1:39 AM
To: alan....@wwite.com
Cc: am...@amdale.com; Duane Wright; Tom Nolle Public; Jeroen van Bemmel; Andre Torres; imsg...@imsforum.org
Subject: Re: [IMS Group] Fwd: [IMS-tech] IMS future with LTE

 

Alan :

Some good comments. the important thing in point of view are two comments

1- What is the Advantage of IMS
2- Why IMS is not being Roled out, Is it  Access Network Factor such LTE/HSPA etc or the Operators Strategic Mind, or Real Market Forces themselves


>From Operator Perspective Two big Adanatages of IMS are  Fine-grainded Call Control & Horizantal Service Control Model and Solution of Silly and Excellent AAA Model  to avert the problems due to Stupid Radius based AAA Solution ( has many shortcomings , can't type them here , we have been living with them from many years , thanks there are over due to Diameter now)

Market/Customer Perspective
The big reason for no real big sucess of IMS is due to unavialability of new & Killer services. People/Customers are not interseted in state of the art technology and backend solutions , they are interested in real services, the service that add value to their lives. No operator so far have been able to launch the services that should have created a  "WOW" feelings in customers , Providing Telephony services over IP, PSTN or POTS is not what user is interested in, he needs Good Telephony Service that might be on POTS by the way. So big missing leg i a think

Access Factor/LTE/HSPA etc.
We can't really say that IMS is not being succesfful due to existing Access NEtworks , Do we really have such services that consume mega bits of the Bandwidth? ( we can even tailer the Video Services to kbs formated channels)
So LTE/HSPA etc not the reason for no sucess of IMS so far

Operators strategy
The answer by Amit is relevent in some sense. The MNO operators don't want to put themselves in competition of ISP providers, Existing VoIP providers, IELC providers , Cable Providers , who can be the potential IMS providers, Also the IMS Deployment have Good CAPEX/Investment demands , in current economic slow down they don't seem to be in such a moode.



Your comments and rejections are most valued

Regards
INAMULLAH
ISlamabad , Pakistan

2009/3/25 alan lloyd <alan....@wwite.com>

Hi  -

...

[Message clipped]  

[Jeroen van Bemmel]

Tom,

It's too easy to say "IETF gets it right and 3GPP / IMS has it wrong". One can find plenty of IETF "standards" that have been going on for years without resulting in anything. Also in the area of SIP there are many examples, e.g. the GRUU extension (see http://tools.ietf.org/wg/sip/draft-ietf-sip-gruu/) has been in the works since 2004 (i.e. over 5 years of discussion / process).

There are many factors that influence how fast these things go. Number of parties involved, relevance to the market, scope of the discussion, ...
Most web services / interface definition initiatives have a very different scope and scale, you're talking apples and oranges here.

Regards,
Jeroen

Tom Nolle Public wrote:

I agree with your points, Alan, and I think that we have to address something about the “why” with respect to the risks facing IMS.  I was on a financial conference yesterday and one of the world’s largest mobile carriers was speaking.  He said frankly that he doubted IMS would be deployed on any large scale, and this to a large Wall Street investor crowd.  Nobody disagreed.  But IMS isn’t stupid it is only (as Alan points out) late.  That’s what we have to address.

 

The IETF has the right idea about standards.  You draft concepts, build a test implementation that can be examined by your peers, others contribute or propose alternatives, and the process gels into something useful very quickly.  We think about “Internet years” in terms of consumer fads, but the same time compression applies to Internet standards.  We should not be sitting in rooms worldwide arguing over bits and bytes in dry documents and about when to say “WILL” and “SHALL” or whatever.  We should be prototyping our approaches and quickly settling on a solution.  That’s how web services are created, and since the telco world has to compete with the OTT web world, it’s how we have to create our own.

 

We have to move beyond our totally obsolete standards processes and not just fix IMS.

 

Tom

 

---

From: alan lloyd [mailto:alan....@wwite.com]
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 6:47 AM
To: am...@amdale.com; 'Inam'
Cc: 'Duane Wright'; 'Tom Nolle Public'; 'Jeroen van Bemmel'; 'Andre Torres'; imsg...@imsforum.org
Subject: RE: [IMS Group] Fwd: [IMS-tech] IMS future with LTE

 

Hi – good comments -  IMS not being picked up? ….   I see that as the case for most  “ IT  technologies”  IMHO  is that the consumers of IT  has moved on….

 

We the IT industry have over the last 20 odd years promoted protocols, technologies, functions, architectures and frameworks  as the means to make online business revenue..

That was fine when we could invest in that promise and because people could spend  the money on the promise  – that  road and value system  became a truism..

 

Now systems have become more complex re their information engineering, that  identity management is fundamental and that traditional  IT projects have and are failing to the tune of $millions  ….  . GFC has happened and IT systems need to be personalized, have self care, event driven , reliable and be cost effective – re ROI..

 

So how does SIP,  “CSCF”, “reference point XX”  help me run a business where the shareholder expects an outcome… and where the financial rating agencies of the world can  inspect major investments as to the businesses earnings and will rate their credibility accordingly..

 

In short  IMHO  ..”tech protocols”  don’t fit the economic  climate any more..   Machines that deliver personalized services for revenue – quickly and cheaply  …  is where we are..

 

I don’t think there will be an IMS bug… only a  “stay in business bug” ….   And  “The cost and productivity of the transaction” and “ how do I know the online customer”  

 

….we have to move on.

 

Best wishes alan

 

---

From: Amit Agarwala [mailto:am...@amdale.com]
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 7:13 PM
To: 'Inam'
Cc: alan....@wwite.com; 'Duane Wright'; 'Tom Nolle Public'; 'Jeroen van Bemmel'; 'Andre Torres'; imsg...@imsforum.org
Subject: RE: [IMS Group] Fwd: [IMS-tech] IMS future with LTE

 

I think these countries have done well in hedging.  If the past is any indication, some of the most valuable entertainment VAS owes its origins to Japan & South Korea.  Not all have succeeded, but the ones that have, account for many billion $$ VAS revenue today.

 

Next would be applications – few first, as people catch the IMS-bug.  Then the there would be a flood.  Early adoption is always hardest. 

 

 

Warm regards,

Amit

 

---

From: Inam [mailto:inam...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 1:02 PM
To: am...@amdale.com
Cc: alan....@wwite.com; Duane Wright; Tom Nolle Public; Jeroen van Bemmel; Andre Torres; imsg...@imsforum.org
Subject: Re: [IMS Group] Fwd: [IMS-tech] IMS future with LTE

 

Amit:

One good example given by you, the Matrimonial Website very popular in Asia espacially India and Pakistan -:)

A Slight disagreement what about the current IMS network deployments in Japan , Korea some Part of US and IMS Core Deployment by Wateen Pakistan?. Unfortunately i have not heard any big news about the IMS Network success story from these countries.  I guess they have the Playing Field , what is preventing them not to play really? might be they are not able to convene the Spectators to Enjoy ?

(Though I am eagerly waiting for its success.I am good promoter of IMS network , but wana know real reason why its not getting picked up.)

You know All the big players whom we talked they asked very first question , "Okay IMS Is great, What are the Service Bundled with the Solution ?" , You know this question is self explanatory in some sense.

Your comments are valueable


Regards
Inam

On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 9:01 PM, Amit Agarwala <am...@amdale.com> wrote:

Hi Inam,

Is this the classical chicken-n-egg conundrum?  I’ll give you an example of a great service: the most popular site to help you browse through matrimonial in India started as a typical web business, and eventually graduated over to Mobile over GPRS.

 

Recently, they tied up India’s largest DTH provider to offer these services through the TV.  There isn't any personalization or auto link-ups between mobile phone, web-id & TV app, but the opportunity for IMS here is endless, isn't it? 

 

Assuming you agree, I don’t think there is shortage of applications – its just that nobody plays soccer because there is no playing field.

 

Warm regards,

Amit

 

---

From: Inam [mailto:inam...@gmail.com]

Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 8:09 PM
To: alan....@wwite.com

Cc: am...@amdale.com; Duane Wright; Tom Nolle Public; Jeroen van Bemmel; Andre Torres; imsg...@imsforum.org

Subject: Re: [IMS Group] Fwd: [IMS-tech] IMS future with LTE

 

Alan :

Some good comments. the important thing in point of view are two comments

1- What is the Advantage of IMS
2- Why IMS is not being Roled out, Is it  Access Network Factor such LTE/HSPA etc or the Operators Strategic Mind, or Real Market Forces themselves


>From Operator Perspective Two big Adanatages of IMS are  Fine-grainded Call Control & Horizantal Service Control Model and Solution of Silly and Excellent AAA Model  to avert the problems due to Stupid Radius based AAA Solution ( has many shortcomings , can't type them here , we have been living with them from many years , thanks there are over due to Diameter now)

Market/Customer Perspective
The big reason for no real big sucess of IMS is due to unavialability of new & Killer services. People/Customers are not interseted in state of the art technology and backend solutions , they are interested in real services, the service that add value to their lives. No operator so far have been able to launch the services that should have created a  "WOW" feelings in customers , Providing Telephony services over IP, PSTN or POTS is not what user is interested in, he needs Good Telephony Service that might be on POTS by the way. So big missing leg i a think

Access Factor/LTE/HSPA etc.
We can't really say that IMS is not being succesfful due to existing Access NEtworks , Do we really have such services that consume mega bits of the Bandwidth? ( we can even tailer the Video Services to kbs formated channels)
So LTE/HSPA etc not the reason for no sucess of IMS so far

Operators strategy
The answer by Amit is relevent in some sense. The MNO operators don't want to put themselves in competition of ISP providers, Existing VoIP providers, IELC providers , Cable Providers , who can be the potential IMS providers, Also the IMS Deployment have Good CAPEX/Investment demands , in current economic slow down they don't seem to be in such a moode.



Your comments and rejections are most valued

Regards
INAMULLAH
ISlamabad , Pakistan

2009/3/25 alan lloyd <alan....@wwite.com>

Hi  -

...

[Message clipped]  

[Mike McKinley]

Hi Tom,

I think you are correct in your analysis that there is no QoS on the Internet due (at least in part) to the fact that there is no settlement on the Internet.  The GSMA IPX initiative proposes an interconnection system that provides both QoS and Settlement (not to mention security and other benefits).  I'm not an expert on the subject, but it seems to have the same look and feel of the old SS7 interconnection settelement model.  Do you think this could be the successor revenue model for voice?

 

Mike McKinley

---

From: Tom Nolle Public <tno...@cimicorp.com>

To: Mahesh A. <mash...@yahoo.com>; imsg...@imsforum.org
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 7:20:30 AM

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

[Tom Nolle Public]

That’s a good question, Mike, but one that’s hard to answer for a couple of reasons.  

 

First is the scope of control of QoS that IPX can offer.  The IPX initiative provides for QoS Interconnect of mobile (or in theory any GSMA-compliant) operators, but the problem is that when you enter a URL from any mobile device you’re going to go off-net with your traffic if the URL is off-net to GSMA IPX.  You can guarantee QoS in a closed community, in short.  If you roam out of a GSMA/IPX provider you lose QoS completely.  I could route IMS voice (or any other voice) within IPX domains as long as the addresses stayed within those domains.  That makes the concept work for voice (most of the time at least) and other walled-garden telco services, but not for data.

 

The second reason the question is hard is that it’s not clear whether declining roaming fees (under regulatory mandate in the EU for example, or under competitive pressure) would create a situation where settlement became more expensive than the calls.  It’s also not clear how settlement would impact, or be impacted by, the shift toward fixed-price-no-usage plans.

 

I think what IPX might do is create a model for what I’ll call “telco Internet”.  The original ISPs were all overlay players; the current broadband ISPs are telcos or cable companies.  I’ve been involved in attempts by the telcos to create some logical interconnect policy for IP services, but the standards have moved slowly, and there are concerns that public policy issues will circumvent progress.

 

Tom

 

---

[alan lloyd]

Hi – good comments -  IMS not being picked up? ….   I see that as the case for most  “ IT  technologies”  IMHO  is that the consumers of IT  has moved on….

 

We the IT industry have over the last 20 odd years promoted protocols, technologies, functions, architectures and frameworks  as the means to make online business revenue..

That was fine when we could invest in that promise and because people could spend  the money on the promise  – that  road and value system  became a truism..

 

Now systems have become more complex re their information engineering, that  identity management is fundamental and that traditional  IT projects have and are failing to the tune of $millions  ….  . GFC has happened and IT systems need to be personalized, have self care, event driven , reliable and be cost effective – re ROI..

 

So how does SIP,  “CSCF”, “reference point XX”  help me run a business where the shareholder expects an outcome… and where the financial rating agencies of the world can  inspect major investments as to the businesses earnings and will rate their credibility accordingly..

 

In short  IMHO  ..”tech protocols”  don’t fit the economic  climate any more..   Machines that deliver personalized services for revenue – quickly and cheaply  …  is where we are..

 

I don’t think there will be an IMS bug… only a  “stay in business bug” ….   And  “The cost and productivity of the transaction” and “ how do I know the online customer”  

 

….we have to move on.

 

Best wishes alan

 

---

From: Amit Agarwala [mailto:am...@amdale.com]

Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 7:13 PM
To: 'Inam'

Cc: alan....@wwite.com; 'Duane Wright'; 'Tom Nolle Public'; 'Jeroen van Bemmel'; 'Andre Torres'; imsg...@imsforum.org
Subject: RE: [IMS Group] Fwd: [IMS-tech] IMS future with LTE

 

I think these countries have done well in hedging.  If the past is any indication, some of the most valuable entertainment VAS owes its origins to Japan & South Korea.  Not all have succeeded, but the ones that have, account for many billion $$ VAS revenue today.

 

Next would be applications – few first, as people catch the IMS-bug.  Then the there would be a flood.  Early adoption is always hardest. 

 

 

Warm regards,

Amit

 

---

From: Inam [mailto:inam...@gmail.com]

Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 1:02 PM
To: am...@amdale.com

Cc: alan....@wwite.com; Duane Wright; Tom Nolle Public; Jeroen van Bemmel; Andre Torres; imsg...@imsforum.org
Subject: Re: [IMS Group] Fwd: [IMS-tech] IMS future with LTE

 

Amit:

One good example given by you, the Matrimonial Website very popular in Asia espacially India and Pakistan -:)

A Slight disagreement what about the current IMS network deployments in Japan , Korea some Part of US and IMS Core Deployment by Wateen Pakistan?. Unfortunately i have not heard any big news about the IMS Network success story from these countries.  I guess they have the Playing Field , what is preventing them not to play really? might be they are not able to convene the Spectators to Enjoy ?

(Though I am eagerly waiting for its success.I am good promoter of IMS network , but wana know real reason why its not getting picked up.)

You know All the big players whom we talked they asked very first question , "Okay IMS Is great, What are the Service Bundled with the Solution ?" , You know this question is self explanatory in some sense.

Your comments are valueable


Regards
Inam

On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 9:01 PM, Amit Agarwala <am...@amdale.com> wrote:

Hi Inam,

Is this the classical chicken-n-egg conundrum?  I’ll give you an example of a great service: the most popular site to help you browse through matrimonial in India started as a typical web business, and eventually graduated over to Mobile over GPRS.

 

Recently, they tied up India’s largest DTH provider to offer these services through the TV.  There isn't any personalization or auto link-ups between mobile phone, web-id & TV app, but the opportunity for IMS here is endless, isn't it? 

 

Assuming you agree, I don’t think there is shortage of applications – its just that nobody plays soccer because there is no playing field.

 

Warm regards,

Amit

 

---

From: Inam [mailto:inam...@gmail.com]

Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 8:09 PM
To: alan....@wwite.com

Cc: am...@amdale.com; Duane Wright; Tom Nolle Public; Jeroen van Bemmel; Andre Torres; imsg...@imsforum.org

Subject: Re: [IMS Group] Fwd: [IMS-tech] IMS future with LTE

 

Alan :

Some good comments. the important thing in point of view are two comments

1- What is the Advantage of IMS
2- Why IMS is not being Roled out, Is it  Access Network Factor such LTE/HSPA etc or the Operators Strategic Mind, or Real Market Forces themselves


>From Operator Perspective Two big Adanatages of IMS are  Fine-grainded Call Control & Horizantal Service Control Model and Solution of Silly and Excellent AAA Model  to avert the problems due to Stupid Radius based AAA Solution ( has many shortcomings , can't type them here , we have been living with them from many years , thanks there are over due to Diameter now)

Market/Customer Perspective
The big reason for no real big sucess of IMS is due to unavialability of new & Killer services. People/Customers are not interseted in state of the art technology and backend solutions , they are interested in real services, the service that add value to their lives. No operator so far have been able to launch the services that should have created a  "WOW" feelings in customers , Providing Telephony services over IP, PSTN or POTS is not what user is interested in, he needs Good Telephony Service that might be on POTS by the way. So big missing leg i a think

Access Factor/LTE/HSPA etc.
We can't really say that IMS is not being succesfful due to existing Access NEtworks , Do we really have such services that consume mega bits of the Bandwidth? ( we can even tailer the Video Services to kbs formated channels)
So LTE/HSPA etc not the reason for no sucess of IMS so far

Operators strategy
The answer by Amit is relevent in some sense. The MNO operators don't want to put themselves in competition of ISP providers, Existing VoIP providers, IELC providers , Cable Providers , who can be the potential IMS providers, Also the IMS Deployment have Good CAPEX/Investment demands , in current economic slow down they don't seem to be in such a moode.



Your comments and rejections are most valued

Regards
INAMULLAH
ISlamabad , Pakistan

2009/3/25 alan lloyd <alan....@wwite.com>

Hi  -

...

[Message clipped]  

[Tom Nolle Public]

The Net Neutrality movement and related activities are also pretty active in the EU and regulators there have been more friendly than even in the US, but yes it’s that overall activity that creates the risk.

 

Tom

 

---

From: Mike McKinley [mailto:mmcki...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 2:49 AM
To: Tom Nolle Public; imsg...@imsforum.org
Subject: Re: [IMS Group] Fwd: [IMS-tech] IMS future with LTE

 

Thanks for your answer to a difficult question.  I think there is an assumption by some voice service providers that the IPX provides the "middle" leg of an end-to-end QoS.  But the access and egress QoS must be by SLA I suppose.  But I'm not clear on what you mean by "public policy issues will circumvent progress".  By this are you referring to net neutrality issues raised by the FCC with Comcast?

[Inam]

Alan :

Some good comments. the important thing in point of view are two comments

1- What is the Advantage of IMS
2- Why IMS is not being Roled out, Is it  Access Network Factor such LTE/HSPA etc or the Operators Strategic Mind, or Real Market Forces themselves


From Operator Perspective Two big Adanatages of IMS are  Fine-grainded Call Control & Horizantal Service Control Model and Solution of Silly and Excellent AAA Model  to avert the problems due to Stupid Radius based AAA Solution ( has many shortcomings , can't type them here , we have been living with them from many years , thanks there are over due to Diameter now)

Market/Customer Perspective
The big reason for no real big sucess of IMS is due to unavialability of new & Killer services. People/Customers are not interseted in state of the art technology and backend solutions , they are interested in real services, the service that add value to their lives. No operator so far have been able to launch the services that should have created a  "WOW" feelings in customers , Providing Telephony services over IP, PSTN or POTS is not what user is interested in, he needs Good Telephony Service that might be on POTS by the way. So big missing leg i a think

Access Factor/LTE/HSPA etc.
We can't really say that IMS is not being succesfful due to existing Access NEtworks , Do we really have such services that consume mega bits of the Bandwidth? ( we can even tailer the Video Services to kbs formated channels)
So LTE/HSPA etc not the reason for no sucess of IMS so far

Operators strategy
The answer by Amit is relevent in some sense. The MNO operators don't want to put themselves in competition of ISP providers, Existing VoIP providers, IELC providers , Cable Providers , who can be the potential IMS providers, Also the IMS Deployment have Good CAPEX/Investment demands , in current economic slow down they don't seem to be in such a moode.



Your comments and rejections are most valued

Regards
INAMULLAH
ISlamabad , Pakistan

2009/3/25 alan lloyd <alan....@wwite.com>

Hi  -

...

[Message clipped]  

[Tom Nolle Public]

I agree with your points, Alan, and I think that we have to address something about the “why” with respect to the risks facing IMS.  I was on a financial conference yesterday and one of the world’s largest mobile carriers was speaking.  He said frankly that he doubted IMS would be deployed on any large scale, and this to a large Wall Street investor crowd.  Nobody disagreed.  But IMS isn’t stupid it is only (as Alan points out) late.  That’s what we have to address.

 

The IETF has the right idea about standards.  You draft concepts, build a test implementation that can be examined by your peers, others contribute or propose alternatives, and the process gels into something useful very quickly.  We think about “Internet years” in terms of consumer fads, but the same time compression applies to Internet standards.  We should not be sitting in rooms worldwide arguing over bits and bytes in dry documents and about when to say “WILL” and “SHALL” or whatever.  We should be prototyping our approaches and quickly settling on a solution.  That’s how web services are created, and since the telco world has to compete with the OTT web world, it’s how we have to create our own.

 

We have to move beyond our totally obsolete standards processes and not just fix IMS.

 

Tom

 

---

From: alan lloyd [mailto:alan....@wwite.com]

Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 6:47 AM
To: am...@amdale.com; 'Inam'

[alan lloyd]

That’s right  Tom

 

Jeroen, we have contributed to ITU, ISO and IETF standards, myself, internationally for over 15 years,  and we have a reasonable understanding of the process and the success and failure rates. It’s a great process and the world needs standards – in just about every subject.  But the timing and cost to prove and deploy is critical.

 

From an OSI perspective (circa 1983)  -  Internet and IP has been placed as Internetwork layer so that distributed applications can be developed without the need to understand the mechanisms of what are below it….Thus releasing the application services world from the shifts and standards of the networking/communications world…

 

From a service developers perspective - IMS is trying to put the application layer/services back with dependencies the on network, so that places technical and financial complication back on service developers… So will they bother with IMS?  Many service developers seem to be steaming ahead without it ….

 

IMS could be used solely within the telco world… in that case its over to the telco vendors only  - however, I don’t see too many RFQ, RFTs for IMS in fact all I see their need to reduce opex, improve reliability and deal with customer self care and convergence  or giving announcements like Verizon (below).  IMS would be both a cost and complication to this agenda

 

IMS or should I say SIP,  IMHO could be slowly applied through converged services management systems as an entry path.. As that can satisfy the OTT service developers and the operator’s needs – as its their management systems which are critical to the whole picture.. 

Note connectivity architectures generally do not address management issues or end user management requirements..

 

IMS on its own  well:

When will the standards be completed including its service management systems?

How will the IMS services and the ervices management agenda affect Diameter and AAA systems – and how do we then integrate these AAA systems with the AAA systems of  OTT / 3^rd party operator provided services as these are evolving?

 

So we are not talking apples and oranges or the standards processes.. we are asking how long does anyone wait for IMS, given that it has limitations , and what would that time cost them in terms of investment and revenue,  given many in the services world don’t seem too bothered about IMS,   or a few of us that are, are wondering why.

 

My IMS grumble is that it hasn’t taken a convergence or intercept path toward the rest of the online service  world, in fact its seems its firmly placed itself in the telco world and using Internet technologies.  But at the same time expects the internet world to either wait for it or converge with it…And the only convergence point I see is “converged service management systems:”  which we are trying to develop… but IMS isn’t..

 

I note Verizon’s recent announcement about moving into smart metering   and then there is google health too …

 

Best wishes alan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From: Tom Nolle Public [mailto:tno...@cimicorp.com]
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 9:27 AM
To: 'Jeroen van Bemmel'
Cc: alan....@wwite.com; am...@amdale.com; 'Inam'; 'Duane Wright'; 'Andre Torres'; imsg...@imsforum.org
Subject: RE: [IMS Group] Fwd: [IMS-tech] IMS future with LTE

 

I agree it would be easy to say that, but I didn’t!  My comment was specific to the speed of the process relative to the speed of the market.  Expediency has its costs (you’re going to find stuff that either didn’t work or hasn’t gelled), but so does sloth.  Skype and Google are both moving quickly and in the right direction, and I’m suggesting that the telco world needs to address the speed of alternative implementations.  However many reasons we might find for traditional standards lagging the market, the result is fatal nevertheless.

[Amit Agarwala]

This is interesting question:  What made Internet-era RFCs so compelling? 

 

IMHO (MY views only):

1. It was green-field?
2. As Alan says, it made the access layers transparent - leaving applications to the developers?
3. Has Telecom bound itself with its 5 9’s service & attendant security requirement?
4. Have Telecom standards bodies’ been overtaken by industry-interests?  On this item, I can think of many many IP protocols & initiatives as well, which never took off because (beyond the founders of the technology), few agreed on the so-called “standardization”.  May be they were smaller companies by size, but they had their known.
5. All my personal interactions with the Telecom world demonstrate complete intransigence from them – its “their” way or the highway.  Does this then point to Telecom world’s innate inability to cooperate, and thus progressively losing control to OTT applications?

 

Are IP service deliverers more collaborative in their approach?  If so, why?

 

 

 

Warm regards,

Amit

 

 

---

[Tom Nolle Public]

I think you’re right, Amit.  In fact, I’d suggest that nothing that relates to moving bits around matters in the sense of differentiation and service value-add.  I think that presence, demographics, identity, location, etc. are the currencies of the service layer, and how you manage and exploit them is thus the key to service success.

 

As I said earlier, my own experience with the operators is that they are not only aware of the issues, they’re anxious for a solution.  The problem seems to be that they don’t know how to go about it.  In the last four years, the Tier One operator rating of their equipment vendors’ support for the operators’ monetization programs went from an average score of “more than satisfactory” to “unsatisfactory” in our survey.

 

I’ve come to believe that the only way to move forward with this is to focus on prototyping, meaning to create a framework on which you can build services quickly and then refine this through tests and trials.  I got more into open source as a channel for the service layer than standards as a result.  The problem with standards (other than that they take forever) is that they focus on the interfaces rather than on the functional behavior of the software system.  These days, implementing an interface is easy, so there’s too much time wasted.

 

Tom

 

---

From: Amit Agarwala [mailto:am...@amdale.com]
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 8:23 AM
To: 'Tom Nolle Public'; alan....@wwite.com; 'Jeroen van Bemmel'
Cc: 'Inam'; 'Duane Wright'; 'Andre Torres'; imsg...@imsforum.org
Subject: RE: [IMS Group] Fwd: [IMS-tech] IMS future with LTE

 

Dear Tom,

Thank you.  I agree with you – I’ve witnessed exactly this too.  One side does this to keep other vendors at bay; while the other uses this whip to negotiate price.  IMHO, having to buy phones & cable from the supplier of the enterprise PBX is really the height of insanity.

 

IMHO, I am sorely amazed at how Telecom remains (probably) among the last vestiges of the “proprietary” ICT era.  And in promoting this, the whole eco-system is in the toilet now. 

1. Are “carriers” the same as the carriers of yesterday?  No!  Progressively losing their ground to (as you said), “Internet Telcos
2. What about the traditional equipment/technology vendors?  Well, not much is left of most anyway.  I think they are drowning in the large ocean of unneeded protocols & specs.  I agree “business needs” were different, but that also was another era.  As I’ve come to believe & as Alan says, “connectivity”, “presence”, “personalization” are all that matter.  Who cares about access. 

 

On the right track of shooting ourselves/themselves in the foot, we/them all are! 

 

Warm regards,

Amit

 

---

From: Tom Nolle Public [mailto:tno...@cimicorp.com]
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 5:29 PM
To: am...@amdale.com; alan....@wwite.com; 'Jeroen van Bemmel'
Cc: 'Inam'; 'Duane Wright'; 'Andre Torres'; imsg...@imsforum.org
Subject: RE: [IMS Group] Fwd: [IMS-tech] IMS future with LTE

 

Nice summary of points, Amit!

 

My own experience with carrier standards has been that the telcos themselves were pretty flexible but the vendors were not.  I’ve surveyed 44 major worldwide providers for most of this decade, and it’s interesting to note that they have shifted their own view of how standards will serve their interests.  One US Tier One said “We use standards to pressure vendors into more favorable pricing in mature deployments but we would never rely on them to address an opportunity or counter a competitive threat”.  The problem is that while the telcos might not do that, the telco vendors normally will.  I’ve spent years hammering at standards activities to no useful end, largely because the vendors in the process wouldn’t let go of their own agendas.  That’s not the fault of the vendors in one sense; business has to look out for its own interests.  The telcos should take a stronger role in pushing their agenda.

 

Tom

[Tom Nolle Public]

I agree it would be easy to say that, but I didn’t!  My comment was specific to the speed of the process relative to the speed of the market.  Expediency has its costs (you’re going to find stuff that either didn’t work or hasn’t gelled), but so does sloth.  Skype and Google are both moving quickly and in the right direction, and I’m suggesting that the telco world needs to address the speed of alternative implementations.  However many reasons we might find for traditional standards lagging the market, the result is fatal nevertheless.

 

Tom

[Tom Nolle Public]

Nice summary of points, Amit!

 

My own experience with carrier standards has been that the telcos themselves were pretty flexible but the vendors were not.  I’ve surveyed 44 major worldwide providers for most of this decade, and it’s interesting to note that they have shifted their own view of how standards will serve their interests.  One US Tier One said “We use standards to pressure vendors into more favorable pricing in mature deployments but we would never rely on them to address an opportunity or counter a competitive threat”.  The problem is that while the telcos might not do that, the telco vendors normally will.  I’ve spent years hammering at standards activities to no useful end, largely because the vendors in the process wouldn’t let go of their own agendas.  That’s not the fault of the vendors in one sense; business has to look out for its own interests.  The telcos should take a stronger role in pushing their agenda.

 

Tom

 

---

From: Amit Agarwala [mailto:am...@amdale.com]

Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 1:01 AM

[Amit Agarwala]

Dear Tom,

Thank you.  I agree with you – I’ve witnessed exactly this too.  One side does this to keep other vendors at bay; while the other uses this whip to negotiate price.  IMHO, having to buy phones & cable from the supplier of the enterprise PBX is really the height of insanity.

 

IMHO, I am sorely amazed at how Telecom remains (probably) among the last vestiges of the “proprietary” ICT era.  And in promoting this, the whole eco-system is in the toilet now. 

1. Are “carriers” the same as the carriers of yesterday?  No!  Progressively losing their ground to (as you said), “Internet Telcos
2. What about the traditional equipment/technology vendors?  Well, not much is left of most anyway.  I think they are drowning in the large ocean of unneeded protocols & specs.  I agree “business needs” were different, but that also was another era.  As I’ve come to believe & as Alan says, “connectivity”, “presence”, “personalization” are all that matter.  Who cares about access. 

 

On the right track of shooting ourselves/themselves in the foot, we/them all are! 

 

Warm regards,

Amit

 

---

From: Tom Nolle Public [mailto:tno...@cimicorp.com]

Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 5:29 PM

[Dykes, Peter]

Purely in my role as interested observer and as someone who has been fascinated by this discussion, I was just wondering how many of us will be attending Informa’s IMS 2.0 summit in Barcelona later this month. I strikes me that anyone who is there could link up and have an informal discussion at some point. I’m sure it would be more interesting than some of the sessions that are being planned. (Please don’t tell Informa I said that!)

 

Cheers

 

Peter

From: imsgroup...@imsforum.org [mailto:imsgroup...@imsforum.org] On Behalf Of Amit Agarwala
Sent: 30 March 2009 13:23
To: 'Tom Nolle Public'; alan....@wwite.com; 'Jeroen van Bemmel'
Cc: 'Andre Torres'; imsg...@imsforum.org
Subject: RE: [IMS Group] Fwd: [IMS-tech] IMS future with LTE

 

Dear Tom,

Thank you.  I agree with you – I’ve witnessed exactly this too.  One side does this to keep other vendors at bay; while the other uses this whip to negotiate price.  IMHO, having to buy phones & cable from the supplier of the enterprise PBX is really the height of insanity.

 

IMHO, I am sorely amazed at how Telecom remains (probably) among the last vestiges of the “proprietary” ICT era.  And in promoting this, the whole eco-system is in the toilet now. 

1.     Are “carriers” the same as the carriers of yesterday?  No!  Progressively losing their ground to (as you said), “Internet Telcos

2.     What about the traditional equipment/technology vendors?  Well, not much is left of most anyway.  I think they are drowning in the large ocean of unneeded protocols & specs.  I agree “business needs” were different, but that also was another era.  As I’ve come to believe & as Alan says, “connectivity”, “presence”, “personalization” are all that matter.  Who cares about access. 

 

On the right track of shooting ourselves/themselves in the foot, we/them all are! 

 

Warm regards,

Amit

 

---

From: Tom Nolle Public [mailto:tno...@cimicorp.com]
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 5:29 PM
To: am...@amdale.com; alan....@wwite.com; 'Jeroen van Bemmel'
Cc: 'Inam'; 'Duane Wright'; 'Andre Torres'; imsg...@imsforum.org
Subject: RE: [IMS Group] Fwd: [IMS-tech] IMS future with LTE

 

Nice summary of points, Amit!

 

My own experience with carrier standards has been that the telcos themselves were pretty flexible but the vendors were not.  I’ve surveyed 44 major worldwide providers for most of this decade, and it’s interesting to note that they have shifted their own view of how standards will serve their interests.  One US Tier One said “We use standards to pressure vendors into more favorable pricing in mature deployments but we would never rely on them to address an opportunity or counter a competitive threat”.  The problem is that while the telcos might not do that, the telco vendors normally will.  I’ve spent years hammering at standards activities to no useful end, largely because the vendors in the process wouldn’t let go of their own agendas.  That’s not the fault of the vendors in one sense; business has to look out for its own interests.  The telcos should take a stronger role in pushing their agenda.

 

Tom

 

---

From: Amit Agarwala [mailto:am...@amdale.com]
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 1:01 AM
To: alan....@wwite.com; 'Tom Nolle Public'; 'Jeroen van Bemmel'
Cc: 'Inam'; 'Duane Wright'; 'Andre Torres'; imsg...@imsforum.org
Subject: RE: [IMS Group] Fwd: [IMS-tech] IMS future with LTE

 

This is interesting question:  What made Internet-era RFCs so compelling? 

 

IMHO (MY views only):

1.  It was green-field?

2.  As Alan says, it made the access layers transparent - leaving applications to the developers?

3.  Has Telecom bound itself with its 5 9’s service & attendant security requirement?

4.  Have Telecom standards bodies’ been overtaken by industry-interests?  On this item, I can think of many many IP protocols & initiatives as well, which never took off because (beyond the founders of the technology), few agreed on the so-called “standardization”.  May be they were smaller companies by size, but they had their known.

5.  All my personal interactions with the Telecom world demonstrate complete intransigence from them – its “their” way or the highway.  Does this then point to Telecom world’s innate inability to cooperate, and thus progressively losing control to OTT applications?

---

The information contained in this email message may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, interference with, disclosure or copying of this material is unauthorised and prohibited. Although this message and any attachments are believed to be free of viruses, no responsibility is accepted by Informa for any loss or damage arising in any way from receipt or use thereof. Messages to and from the company are monitored for operational reasons and in accordance with lawful business practices.
If you have received this message in error, please notify us by return and delete the message and any attachments. Further enquiries/returns can be sent to postm...@informa.com

[Amit Agarwala]

I think these countries have done well in hedging.  If the past is any indication, some of the most valuable entertainment VAS owes its origins to Japan & South Korea.  Not all have succeeded, but the ones that have, account for many billion $$ VAS revenue today.

 

Next would be applications – few first, as people catch the IMS-bug.  Then the there would be a flood.  Early adoption is always hardest. 

 

 

Warm regards,

Amit

 

---

From: Inam [mailto:inam...@gmail.com]

Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 1:02 PM
To: am...@amdale.com

Cc: alan....@wwite.com; Duane Wright; Tom Nolle Public; Jeroen van Bemmel; Andre Torres; imsg...@imsforum.org
Subject: Re: [IMS Group] Fwd: [IMS-tech] IMS future with LTE

 

Amit:

One good example given by you, the Matrimonial Website very popular in Asia espacially India and Pakistan -:)

A Slight disagreement what about the current IMS network deployments in Japan , Korea some Part of US and IMS Core Deployment by Wateen Pakistan?. Unfortunately i have not heard any big news about the IMS Network success story from these countries.  I guess they have the Playing Field , what is preventing them not to play really? might be they are not able to convene the Spectators to Enjoy ?

(Though I am eagerly waiting for its success.I am good promoter of IMS network , but wana know real reason why its not getting picked up.)

You know All the big players whom we talked they asked very first question , "Okay IMS Is great, What are the Service Bundled with the Solution ?" , You know this question is self explanatory in some sense.

Your comments are valueable


Regards
Inam

On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 9:01 PM, Amit Agarwala <am...@amdale.com> wrote:

Hi Inam,

Is this the classical chicken-n-egg conundrum?  I’ll give you an example of a great service: the most popular site to help you browse through matrimonial in India started as a typical web business, and eventually graduated over to Mobile over GPRS.

 

Recently, they tied up India’s largest DTH provider to offer these services through the TV.  There isn't any personalization or auto link-ups between mobile phone, web-id & TV app, but the opportunity for IMS here is endless, isn't it? 

 

Assuming you agree, I don’t think there is shortage of applications – its just that nobody plays soccer because there is no playing field.

 

Warm regards,

Amit

 

---

From: Inam [mailto:inam...@gmail.com]

Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 8:09 PM
To: alan....@wwite.com

[Tom Nolle Public]

I think there are two factors that have created the inertia on the telco and big-vendor side.  One is the most obvious and understandable; everyone has to protect their current revenue stream, and adopting or supporting a new paradigm is an advertisement to the world that the old one (that’s been keeping your lights on) is now obsolete.  But the other is one that I think the Internet world has to think about; it’s the best-effort-ad-sponsor versus pay-for-service model.  You can be pretty cavalier about your operations and services processes if people aren’t paying for them, but a lot less so if they are.  Ad sponsorship won’t pay for the future of networking, not even for the subset of networking we call the Internet.  We have to migrate to a pay-for-service model, and you can see that’s being attempted by Google, Skype, and others.  The REAL interesting question is how these companies will address the “traditional issues” of telcos in paid services when they come at those issues without baggage.  That’s where the risks will go very high for the incumbents, and I agree with Duane that if they can’t address these risks they are stuck—in Amit’s “bit-pipe nightmare”!

 

I don’t understand personally why telcos/vendors don’t see this and do something.  I’ve looked in my own open source activity at hybridizing open source and IMS to get the best of both worlds, and it’s not conceptually difficult.  The most surprising thing is that the IMS community tends to argue that changes to IMS aren’t needed (when things like Google Voice clearly show they are) rather than simply adopting a hybrid approach (and I’m sure there are many such approaches possible) that would not even require changes to IMS standards.

 

Should we take this thread in a direction of “How do you supplement IMS to address the future?”

 

Tom

 

---

From: Amit Agarwala [mailto:am...@amdale.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 7:03 AM
To: 'Duane Wright'; 'Tom Nolle Public'; alan....@wwite.com; 'Jeroen van Bemmel'
Cc: 'Inam'; 'Andre Torres'; imsg...@imsforum.org
Subject: RE: [IMS Group] Fwd: [IMS-tech] IMS future with LTE

 

Ditto.  “Bit-pipe” future’s got to be their worst nightmare.   Why aren’t the carriers or vendors waking up though?

 

---

From: Duane Wright [mailto:duane...@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 2:57 PM
To: 'Tom Nolle Public'; am...@amdale.com; alan....@wwite.com; 'Jeroen van Bemmel'
Cc: 'Inam'; 'Andre Torres'; imsg...@imsforum.org
Subject: RE: [IMS Group] Fwd: [IMS-tech] IMS future with LTE

 

Tom,

 

I strongly agree with your comments about Vendors and Telco’s in terms of what there agendas are.

Which is why I have long argued that despite the efforts of Telco’s and vendors agenda being different the INTERNET model of innovation is the most likely to succeed.

 

The Internet or WWW is content driven and doesn’t really pay too much attention to what one ISP does other than in terms of connectivity.

Internet WWW content is consumer driven not standards driven in that if it works it’s adopted for example Skype VOIP is non standard but is the largest VOIP client in use.

 

My views is that the traditional Telco’s had better watch there backs very carefully and that the as we move increasingly to cost reduction in these next few years that Vendors watch out as well.

There is an increasing ‘adopt what works’ ideology and a ‘worry about the standards later’ approach.

This doesn’t even include the Open Source development of clients, routers, service delivery platforms etc.

 

I am 99% certain that a hybrid IMS deployment will emerge with a strong Open source solution which works and that the Telco’s and Vendors will be left scratching there increasingly thinning hair.

The Internet/WWW works because it’s not particularly strong on standards but is content driven and broadband is seen as merely a bandwidth not content.

 

Ultimately consumers be they mobile or fixed don’t care about standards they want cheap accessible content.

If you want to see the future of standards adoption and look at the Internet/WWW and how quickly ‘things’ become standard because they work and are first.

[Duane Wright]

Tom,

 

I strongly agree with your comments about Vendors and Telco’s in terms of what there agendas are.

Which is why I have long argued that despite the efforts of Telco’s and vendors agenda being different the INTERNET model of innovation is the most likely to succeed.

 

The Internet or WWW is content driven and doesn’t really pay too much attention to what one ISP does other than in terms of connectivity.

Internet WWW content is consumer driven not standards driven in that if it works it’s adopted for example Skype VOIP is non standard but is the largest VOIP client in use.

 

My views is that the traditional Telco’s had better watch there backs very carefully and that the as we move increasingly to cost reduction in these next few years that Vendors watch out as well.

There is an increasing ‘adopt what works’ ideology and a ‘worry about the standards later’ approach.

This doesn’t even include the Open Source development of clients, routers, service delivery platforms etc.

 

I am 99% certain that a hybrid IMS deployment will emerge with a strong Open source solution which works and that the Telco’s and Vendors will be left scratching there increasingly thinning hair.

The Internet/WWW works because it’s not particularly strong on standards but is content driven and broadband is seen as merely a bandwidth not content.

 

Ultimately consumers be they mobile or fixed don’t care about standards they want cheap accessible content.

If you want to see the future of standards adoption and look at the Internet/WWW and how quickly ‘things’ become standard because they work and are first.

 

 

Duane

 

 

---

From: Tom Nolle Public [mailto:tno...@cimicorp.com]

Sent: 30 March 2009 12:59

[Banibrata Dutta]

2009/3/30 Tom Nolle Public <tno...@cimicorp.com>

I agree it would be easy to say that, but I didn’t!  My comment was specific to the speed of the process relative to the speed of the market.  Expediency has its costs (you’re going to find stuff that either didn’t work or hasn’t gelled), but so does sloth.  Skype and Google are both moving quickly and in the right direction, and I’m suggesting that the telco world needs to address the speed of alternative implementations.  However many reasons we might find for traditional standards lagging the market, the result is fatal nevertheless.

Skpye and Google don't have to sit down along the sides of a huge round-table and meet, negotiate (and sometimes fight it out) with bunch of competitors to arrive at an agreement about the interface. They just take, I am sure after due consideration, what looks sufficiently mature and workable, and go ahead and execute/implement it. In short, they don't have to worry (or atleast as much) about Skype not working with G-Talk not working with Jajah not working with IETF SIP service-providers, as Telcos have to. Also they don't have to worry about Huawei NE not working with E/// NE, not working with NSN NE etc. They either do everything pretty much inhouse or bespoke, and almost everything boils down to some kind of pure IT software.

Which explains why some of the operators wink at IMS and do fancy things with NGN. Within their own network, they can do whatever "proprietary" within their network, and if you have the financial muscles, NE vendors oblige. They know that they don't need the "perfect world" of IMS. What works for them is the assurance that the day when IMS does pick up speed (in terms of deployments, and maturity) they can get away with doing some bit-fiddling at the edges / PoIs.

my 2 cents,

Banibrata Dutta

--
regards,
Banibrata
http://www.linkedin.com/in/bdutta

[Banibrata Dutta]

On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 10:52 AM, Banibrata Dutta <banibra...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 10:20 AM, Amit Agarwala <am...@amdale.com> wrote:

Its true that GTalk, Skype have built proprietary protocols around their IM, VoIP, email, Presence etc offering.  The difference lies in the REASON – its purely business.  IMHO to some extent Internet still relies of grabbing eye-balls (leading to cross-selling & advert revenue as Google has amply demonstrated).  The day when consolidation is needed, it doesn’t take anything at all – Internet is the water bearer. 

If that consolidation is ever needed, yes, it would not be a cakewalk, but not impossible either. You can do a lot of things at the edges and PoIs. For that matter conslidation on Telco space is no cheaper, faster or better either. Inspite of standards NE vendors have put in enough proprietary "edges" in their wares, and they only agree (mostly) on the common minimal set of messages and procedures, anything fancy and the NE vendors have their own implementations.

Point is given Skype, Google and Jajah, as the main players here I don't see consolidation as an immediate problem. 

On the other hand, the Telcos have a difficult time ahead, with difficulties of interop reaching right down into Access, and right up to the services.  That I think is the trouble.

Indeed. And my belief is (as I stated earlier is) the contradiction that most Telco's depend on NE Vendors and SI's to do all the development/integ work for them, where-as, the likes of Skype, Google and Jajah have grown-up being developed in-house (or very large parts there-of). They don't have the need to use standards as a negotiation tool.

I think Telcos realize pretty well the trouble they are in, and they've been aware of it for quite a while now. IMS IMHO is NE-Vendor's soothing balm (wannabe) to allay those fears, and Telcos can see through the fact that IMS isn't going to be their Silver-bullet, unless it happens very well and now. Only thing stands between the Demise-of-Telco and the Rise-of-the-OTT-Lords, is the continued fragmentation in the access bit-pipe. The day the access bit-pipe blends globally (i.e. you can roam with ~100% assurance of your bitpipe to work) that day will be it. The other camp understands this very well, and thus all the debate about Net-Neutrality.

The NE-vendors will have the Telecom longtail to bank on for a while, and investments in transmission infrastructure would be required for the access at least, but can't continue forever. WiMAX and LTE have already seen lot of non-typical NE-vendors join the fray, leading the dilution of market-share and absolute market-size for the traditional big-5 NE-vendors.

Sorry for the far-from-optimistic view, but willing to hear arguments which can create greater optimism.

BTW, as a matter of coincidence, came accross this link which kind-of drives-home the point.

http://www.huawei.com/publications/view.do?id=5772&cid=10665&pid=10664

 

[Duane Wright]

Tom,

 

Should we take this thread in a direction of “How do you supplement IMS to address the future?”

 

Absolutely,

[Tom Nolle Public]

I offer the following model from one of my slides as a starting point for a discussion, then!  (full presentation is at http://www.cimicorp.com/ExperiaSphereAndIMS.zip).

 

 

We use the model at the left to describe the “general architecture” for NGN services (hence the name NGN Services Architecture).  My view is that the components of an IMS implementation can be mapped into a general service control architecture in the way the arrows show.  The goal would be to generalize the elements of IMS so that they could fit into not only an IMS-modeled service but also into other models.  That means that IMS applications and components could be exercised by non-IMS services (Transport Control is a good example of what you’d like to exercise) and also that non-IMS applications could be linked with IMS.  The notion of the “User” in IMS is generalized to the concept of an Entity, and incorporates presence, location, and demographics.

 

Tom

 

 

[Amit Agarwala]

Its true that GTalk, Skype have built proprietary protocols around their IM, VoIP, email, Presence etc offering.  The difference lies in the REASON – its purely business.  IMHO to some extent Internet still relies of grabbing eye-balls (leading to cross-selling & advert revenue as Google has amply demonstrated).  The day when consolidation is needed, it doesn’t take anything at all – Internet is the water bearer. 

 

On the other hand, the Telcos have a difficult time ahead, with difficulties of interop reaching right down into Access, and right up to the services.  That I think is the trouble.

 

 

 

---

[Mahesh A.]

Dear Amit, Alan, Tom
i see you guys mention many a time that IMS will result in interop difficulties even at Acces level.... i dont understand why you say this...

..I thought IMS is IP-CAN agnostic.

Kindly elaborate.

cheers

Mahesh 

---

From: Amit Agarwala <am...@amdale.com>
To: Banibrata Dutta <banibra...@gmail.com>; Tom Nolle Public <tno...@cimicorp.com>
Cc: Andre Torres <andre....@huawei.com>; imsg...@imsforum.org
Sent: Tuesday, 31 March, 2009 10:20:39 AM

Subject: RE: [IMS Group] Fwd: [IMS-tech] IMS future with LTE

Its true that GTalk, Skype have built proprietary protocols around their IM, VoIP, email, Presence etc offering.  The difference lies in the REASON – its purely business.  IMHO to some extent Internet still relies of grabbing eye-balls (leading to cross-selling & advert revenue as Google has amply demonstrated).  The day when consolidation is needed, it doesn’t take anything at all – Internet is the water bearer. 

 

On the other hand, the Telcos have a difficult time ahead, with difficulties of interop reaching right down into Access, and right up to the services.  That I think is the trouble.

 

 

 

---

From: Banibrata Dutta [mailto:banibra...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 9:09 AM
To: Tom Nolle Public
Cc: Jeroen van Bemmel; Andre Torres; imsg...@imsforum.org; am...@amdale.com
Subject: Re: [IMS Group] Fwd: [IMS-tech] IMS future with LTE

 

2009/3/30 Tom Nolle Public <tno...@cimicorp.com>

I agree it would be easy to say that, but I didn’t!  My comment was specific to the speed of the process relative to the speed of the market.  Expediency has its costs (you’re going to find stuff that either didn’t work or hasn’t gelled), but so does sloth.  Skype and Google are both moving quickly and in the right direction, and I’m suggesting that the telco world needs to address the speed of alternative implementations.  However many reasons we might find for traditional standards lagging the market, the result is fatal nevertheless.

 

Skpye and Google don't have to sit down along the sides of a huge round-table and meet, negotiate (and sometimes fight it out) with bunch of competitors to arrive at an agreement about the interface. They just take, I am sure after due consideration, what looks sufficiently mature and workable, and go ahead and execute/implement it. In short, they don't have to worry (or atleast as much) about Skype not working with G-Talk not working with Jajah not working with IETF SIP service-providers, as Telcos have to. Also they don't have to worry about Huawei NE not working with E/// NE, not working with NSN NE etc . They either do everything pretty much inhouse or bespoke, and almost everything boils down to some kind of pure IT software.

2009/3/25 alan lloyd <alan....@wwite.com>

 

Speaking for India , I agree totally.  CxOs of many operators have explicitly commented that they will resist all attempts to reduce them to “bit pipe providers”.

---

Add more friends to your messenger and enjoy! Invite them now.

[Amit Agarwala]

Ditto.  “Bit-pipe” future’s got to be their worst nightmare.   Why aren’t the carriers or vendors waking up though?

 

[alan lloyd]

Hi Banibrata – agree   and Amit  yes,    and Tom made the comment re operators and their dissatisfaction with vendors… is it the same with the  “architecture” processes too?

 

Why is Mr Telco not getting what it wants?…….

 

May I indulge again ….   Connectivity architectures (data model-less , lets connect up functions and servers)  and “the focus on the connection”  is – or was …king…

 For service based systems, such architectures don’t help.    We as engineers, now need to focus on customers, identity, time to market, rapid search, self care, service bundles,  targeted online offers and presence…

Look at all the specs and diagrams of IMS architecture… see any of the above?  See any engineering to do with service delivery platforms, scale, capacity, agility,  convergence and new customer acquisitions?

How does one describe this situation”? …Is it like trying to put propellers on a 747 once its taken off ?

 

Amit’s  comment high lights the systems engineering issue -   “On the other hand, the Telcos have a difficult time ahead, with difficulties of interop reaching right down into Access, and right up to the services.  That I think is the trouble.”

 

 YES, YES, and YES ….  and the reason is….connectivity architectures  (the traditional tools of the trade) usually do not:  define management issues,  cross layer boundaries, consider operations and product bundles…and so on …

 

From a OSI architecture, frameworks, services model, service building blocks perspective, etc …. The only function that interrelates and controls all layers and functions of the system is “management”.    So how can any system design be valid unless its management functions are shown?   SDPs  today IMHO  are governance and management engines for all layers of the reference model and for all identified resources in the system used in the delivery of services – based on identity, preferences and entitlement, service rating  and information performance…  And its not just the carriers who have this service delivery issue, its all high capacity internet enabled retail systems…

How do I seamlessly provide services which can associate with any layer -  call features, IP addresses, DNS, location, preferences and context in a complex event driven service  environment without a governance platform?

 

Question: If  we use data less, protocol connectivity methods (boxes, lines and clouds.. and drums)   as tools  to design systems . Will   the end users of such systems be staying in the market place relevant to the design tools?

 

What  I see from telcos is the desire to address the management of their converged service delivery systems and improve their business cost and revenue metrics.  All I see from IMS is a very complex SIP connection process…

 

Sometimes I wonder – who is actually driving the bus?

 

Best wishes alan

 

 

---

From: imsgroup...@imsforum.org [mailto:imsgroup...@imsforum.org] On Behalf Of Banibrata Dutta
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 5:49 PM
To: imsg...@imsforum.org
Subject: Re: [IMS Group] Fwd: [IMS-tech] IMS future with LTE

 

 

On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 10:52 AM, Banibrata Dutta <banibra...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Amit Agarwala]

Nothing wrong with “commodity” – I use soap everyday like everybody else!

 

The tectonic plate shift is in “profitability”.  Bit pipes are generic items, with generic costs & profits associated with them.  The big-bucks are in the “services” or “value-adds”.

 

I don’t think the debate is that bit-pipes are bad or needless, but that the earth mass is breaking up:

1. Telcom bit pipes COULD & are face increasing competition from IP bit-pipes.  Internet has a BIG advantage of being geographically transparent.  The playing field between Telco & IP-carrier is uneven.
2. Value-added service revenue (which in india forms a sizable portion of overall profits) are beginning to shift away from “traditional” telecom Carriers.  Google-voice, google-maps, social networking, IP-TV – many examples & instances

 

IMHO, net-neutrality, QoS-at-a-price are turning to be serious questions. 

 

I feel too that “free” or “purely-advert run” free applications on the web is not scalable in size or performance, but at the same time,

1. this is also one of the legacies of the “eye-ball” Internet age. 
2. And we can't forget that circa 2000 John Metcalfe literally “ate” his words that the Internet in the present form wouldn't survive.
3. Incredibly, we’ve come to “pay for phone calls”, but expect “free Internet”.  I wonder if LinkedIn, Facebook, gmail etc would see similar subscriber growths if they were priced.  It may only be about mindset, but that is what all of life is about. 

 

And then again, the telcos are increasingly losing their control over the fabled “HLR” as well.

 

 

Warm regards,

Amit

 

---

From: colin...@kpn.com [mailto:colin...@kpn.com]
Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 12:36 PM
To: am...@amdale.com; duane...@blueyonder.co.uk; tno...@cimicorp.com; alan....@wwite.com; jbe...@zonnet.nl
Cc: andre....@huawei.com; imsg...@imsforum.org
Subject: RE: [IMS Group] Fwd: [IMS-tech] IMS future with LTE

 

I feel urged to respond.  Bitpipes rule. No bitpipes, no internet; no internet, no internet services and content distribution! What's wrong with commodity? Bitpipes have become utility, and we all value utility (in fact all on this list can't live without it).

 

---

[colin...@kpn.com]

I feel urged to respond.  Bitpipes rule. No bitpipes, no internet; no internet, no internet services and content distribution! What's wrong with commodity? Bitpipes have become utility, and we all value utility (in fact all on this list can't live without it).

Van: imsgroup...@imsforum.org [mailto:imsgroup...@imsforum.org] Namens Amit Agarwala
Verzonden: woensdag 1 april 2009 13:03
Aan: 'Duane Wright'; 'Tom Nolle Public'; alan....@wwite.com; 'Jeroen van Bemmel'
CC: 'Andre Torres'; imsg...@imsforum.org

Onderwerp: RE: [IMS Group] Fwd: [IMS-tech] IMS future with LTE

[Tom Nolle Public]

There is one thing wrong with commodity; financials stink.  It generates poor margins and doesn’t justify much investment because it can’t generate ROI for investors.  The problem the operators have with being a bit pipe isn’t competition.  The US CLEC bust proved that access isn’t a great business to be in because of the margins.  The real issue is that we have growing traffic and not much growth in payment, which compromises the carriers’ incentive to continue to invest.

 

We have had technology advances that have wrung some additional life from the all-you-can-eat model, but the problem is that technology cost isn’t the main cost.  Service providers spend 18 cents of every revenue dollar on capex and 65 cents on Operations, Sales/marketing, Administration, etc.  If we cut a third of ops costs we could cut more cost than if the equipment was free.  The point is that if traffic goes up and more applications go on-net, it doesn’t reduce support costs it raises them.  There is no question in my mind that we’re running out of the “free-lunch” period, but that doesn’t mean telcos win.  Google and Skype can charge too.  It still comes down to keeping pace with competition and opportunity.  The HLR story you cite is key; something like Google Voice or Latitude comes along and does what telcos should have been able to do all along.  Why?

[Tom Nolle Public]

I think there are a number of reasons why the process hasn’t collapsed:

 

1.     Technology and business model changes in telco-land were inevitable because of the pricing trends on voice calls, and so most telcos have adopted the idea that a broadband-capable access infrastructure was the key to creating high ARPU (Average Revenue per User).  This justified the original build-out, in part, of telco broadband.

2.     In the US, the cable companies had a broadband-capable structure and for competitive reasons the telcos needed one too.  That was another leg of the initial justification.

3.     The VCs have funded a lot of the Internet, and they are looking simply to “flip” or sell their companies, not to build them to profit.  This removes the normal ROI requirement.  But VCs are more interested in “green-ness” or energy or health care now because they’ve over-spent in the online space and because online properties that haven’t been flipped yet are getting harder to flip.

4.     Everyone thinks that ad sponsorship will make everything free, despite the fact that the total world adspend is a sixth the total network service revenues, even if you count every ad dollar spent and not just that spent online or video/TV.

 

Once you roll out an infrastructure you have to earn something from it, and so telcos have accepted the all-you-can-eat model as the only alternative to not having anyone eating at all.  But all of this justifies initial deployment but not ongoing enrichment.  Incremental investment demands incremental revenue.  That means that one of three things (or a combination of them) has to happen:

 

1.     The telcos/access providers charge incrementally for services.  Cable companies in the US do this now; they have generally much higher prices than telcos for a given service.

2.     The telcos reduce their operations costs sharply by investing in new service management tools (which bites into that 65 cents number) and then use the money to continue to enhance service even though the service itself doesn’t meet ROI goals.

3.     The telcos figure out how to many money incrementally.

 

Because the Googles and Yahoos of the world know darn well that they can’t ride the ad sponsorship wave indefinitely, they are likely themselves to be looking for services they can charge for, and that will be the signal that the four factors above are finally running out of steam.

 

The industry situation is a little like a household that’s spending more than they make.  You can do it for a while, even a long while, as long as people continue to cover you with loans, but eventually financial reality has to take hold or investment ceases.

 

Tom

 

---

From: Amit Agarwala [mailto:am...@amdale.com]
Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 8:29 AM
To: 'Tom Nolle Public'; colin...@kpn.com; duane...@blueyonder.co.uk; alan....@wwite.com; jbe...@zonnet.nl
Cc: andre....@huawei.com; imsg...@imsforum.org
Subject: RE: [IMS Group] Fwd: [IMS-tech] IMS future with LTE

 

Hi Tom,

Thanks for the cost breakdown, and I’ve also always wondered– how does supporting Internet make financial sense to anybody. 

 

1. As a consumer, I get to surf, download anything I want, as much I want, for a small sum of money. 
2. On the other side, as an application provider, I get to provide as much as I want, to as many I want for a small sum of money as well.

 

So why doesn’t Internet follow the rules of sanity you mention below?  Somehow the freebie “end-of-life” doesn’t seem to be happening.  If anything, Yahoo offers free SMS more easily than others. 

 

---

From: Tom Nolle Public [mailto:tno...@cimicorp.com]
Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 5:08 PM
To: am...@amdale.com; colin...@kpn.com; duane...@blueyonder.co.uk; alan....@wwite.com; jbe...@zonnet.nl
Cc: andre....@huawei.com; imsg...@imsforum.org
Subject: RE: [IMS Group] Fwd: [IMS-tech] IMS future with LTE

 

There is one thing wrong with commodity; financials stink.  It generates poor margins and doesn’t justify much investment because it can’t generate ROI for investors.  The problem the operators have with being a bit pipe isn’t competition.  The US CLEC bust proved that access isn’t a great business to be in because of the margins.  The real issue is that we have growing traffic and not much growth in payment, which compromises the carriers’ incentive to continue to invest.

 

We have had technology advances that have wrung some additional life from the all-you-can-eat model, but the problem is that technology cost isn’t the main cost.  Service providers spend 18 cents of every revenue dollar on capex and 65 cents on Operations, Sales/marketing, Administration, etc.  If we cut a third of ops costs we could cut more cost than if the equipment was free.  The point is that if traffic goes up and more applications go on-net, it doesn’t reduce support costs it raises them.  There is no question in my mind that we’re running out of the “free-lunch” period, but that doesn’t mean telcos win.  Google and Skype can charge too.  It still comes down to keeping pace with competition and opportunity.  The HLR story you cite is key; something like Google Voice or Latitude comes along and does what telcos should have been able to do all along.  Why?

 

Tom

 

---

From: Amit Agarwala [mailto:am...@amdale.com]

Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 6:52 AM

[Amit Agarwala]

Hi Tom,

Thanks for the cost breakdown, and I’ve also always wondered– how does supporting Internet make financial sense to anybody. 

 

1. As a consumer, I get to surf, download anything I want, as much I want, for a small sum of money. 
2. On the other side, as an application provider, I get to provide as much as I want, to as many I want for a small sum of money as well.

 

So why doesn’t Internet follow the rules of sanity you mention below?  Somehow the freebie “end-of-life” doesn’t seem to be happening.  If anything, Yahoo offers free SMS more easily than others. 

 

---

From: Tom Nolle Public [mailto:tno...@cimicorp.com]

Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 5:08 PM

[alan lloyd]

Hi Tom, Colin – good views too  -

 

I think the operators tend to own  (or mortgage)  or lease a completely different set of assets to  that of our OTT service providers.  I am sure that Telstra here in Oz owns a serious amount of real estate, radio mast sites, exchanges, offices, shops.   I believe they are in the top 5 of energy consumers (and would have long term special deals) , has maritime/satellite facilities, provides national wired infrastructure This “stuuf” happens over  20 year timeframes..  I assume OTTs would have big pipes to operators and a truck load of servers quite a few offices..   .. >From that I would assume the capital raising issues would be quite different too..  Superannuation dollars for example would flow to long term capital investments that would include the telco real estate and infrastructure assets and leases  - I would think OTT service providers would have much shorter period capital arrangements (and may even be a higher risk rating).

 

Spectrum owners may sub lease  parts of it and again that over time ..  more $$$

 

I would also think that the machinery of a company that complies with and is accountable under national regulations is also an asset as it has been invested in.  That includes occupational health and safety (for pole and mast maintenance staff) ,  electrical and transmission standards,  site fencing and protection – so oddly enough the OTT  service providers need all this to be there so they can earn a buck….And if the telcos don’t put in the infrastructure , OTT services will not get the best coverage/$

 

In my early days of standards  (just before the Romans invaded Britain J ) – it was said that IP was fantastic as it was developed in a few years… (and the Internet is amazing)  IMHO it just needed 100 years of the telco system development before that.. :-)

 

 

So its not apples and apples in many ways

 

Best wishes alan

PS  why are we so keen to discuss how other people make money J J

 

---

From: colin...@kpn.com [mailto:colin...@kpn.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 5:13 PM
To: tno...@cimicorp.com; alan....@wwite.com; am...@amdale.com; duane...@blueyonder.co.uk; jbe...@zonnet.nl
Cc: andre....@huawei.com; imsg...@imsforum.org
Subject: RE: [IMS Group] Fwd: [IMS-tech] IMS future with LTE

 

Tom,

 

Compare it with supermarkets. They make very small margins on their products. To achieve the necessary ROI and ROA they need high turn-over (sell as quick as possible as much as possible) and economy of scale (many outlets). Access is a utility product, economy of scale (number of active access lines) and subscription fees provide the input for ROI and ROA. But unlike supermarkets Telco's need to apply long term horzions in depreciation of their networks (actually conisder it as, commercial, real estate). (btw ROI and ROA aren't the same, but measure value add in different ways).

 

Where Google has patience to wait for ROI for many of their investments, they achieve high ROA with there commotized datacenters. IBM is different, but many of their inventions (R&D work) have long ROI periods. Microsoft has one big staple product that makes the money: Office (windows is the other moneymaker strategically more important but less of a moneymaker). Telco's have to compete for capital with these and other companies for capital. But Telco's don't have any problem attracting capital. Telco's have outperformed the market over the last 18 months (only food&beverage performs better), hence a save haven for investors.

 

If Telco's have a problem with OTT using their access (bandwidth) it is because growth in traffic is outpacing cost reductions in equipment and technology and that a technology replacement is due.

 

Colin

 

---

Van: Tom Nolle Public [mailto:tno...@cimicorp.com]
Verzonden: maandag 6 april 2009 14:01
Aan: alan....@wwite.com; Pons, C.A. (Colin) (W&O STO Technology & Innovation); am...@amdale.com; duane...@blueyonder.co.uk; jbe...@zonnet.nl
CC: andre....@huawei.com; imsg...@imsforum.org
Onderwerp: RE: [IMS Group] Fwd: [IMS-tech] IMS future with LTE

It’s true that there is a “public utility model” of business and a more traditional business model, and that telcos are very successful in the former.  The problem is that they aren’t public utilities any more; they lost that status pretty much everywhere in the 1990s with the deregulation or privatization wave.  Today they have to compete for capital on the same basis as a Google or an IBM or Microsoft.  That means they have to pay more attention to their return on investment.

 

Tom

 

---

From: alan lloyd [mailto:alan....@wwite.com]
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 2:37 AM
To: colin...@kpn.com; tno...@cimicorp.com; am...@amdale.com; duane...@blueyonder.co.uk; jbe...@zonnet.nl
Cc: andre....@huawei.com; imsg...@imsforum.org
Subject: RE: [IMS Group] Fwd: [IMS-tech] IMS future with LTE

 

Hi  - I agree with Colin insofar that what is in the ground and what is  in the air within and around our national borders has a value and will be paid for.

Populations within a geophysical boundary have “comms” needs and will pay for them – and govts will manage pricing policies as to their social significance and affordability.  After all they own the ground and the spectrum.

 

So it’s a question of efficiency and market place investment  - shareholder and consumer.

VAS is the retail OTT business… a bit like shopping malls in a way – the operator is the shopping mall owner, the retailer/VAS (OTT)  is using a lease to sell their own wares

 

As per the GFC – this physical retail world has been critically shaken and its being rethought… I see the same happening with the online world too

 

However, the simple issue is back to what ss in the ground and what is in the air  and can companies manage it make a $ out of it… ?  Maybe even if its just for another 50 years..

 

Best wishes alan

 

---

From: colin...@kpn.com [mailto:colin...@kpn.com]
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 4:10 PM
To: tno...@cimicorp.com; am...@amdale.com; duane...@blueyonder.co.uk; alan....@wwite.com; jbe...@zonnet.nl
Cc: andre....@huawei.com; imsg...@imsforum.org
Subject: RE: [IMS Group] Fwd: [IMS-tech] IMS future with LTE

 

Tom, Amit

 

Commodity business is about economy of scale, financials do not stink it is just a matter of low cost operation (operational excellence) and ROA. Water utilities, power utilities are usually doing quite well financially. Also in case of competition it is a business about providing a better customer service to differentiate as a company.

 

The issue as you call it is about a misalignment of incentives. If I use more water or power I usually pay more, so there is an incentive (however small) to save. With broadband we use a utility for a fixed monthly fee (usually without any significant caps).

 

And Amit believe it or nor but the Telco revenues worldwide by far outnumber the revenues of OTT. Interestingly, roughly 70% of the average Telco's revenue comes from basic (commodity) services such as access and voice (ps SMS can't be compared with Internet services and content). Ofcourse there are exceptions but still most revenues are generated by these basic services. What you call IP-pipes are almost always provided by Telco's.

 

I do not dispute that VAS are of increasing value. But Telco's should not forget what there main source of revenue is at the moment (and for the foreseeable future).

 

Colin

 

---

Van: Tom Nolle Public [mailto:tno...@cimicorp.com]
Verzonden: vrijdag 3 april 2009 13:38
Aan: am...@amdale.com; Pons, C.A. (Colin) (W&O STO Technology & Innovation); duane...@blueyonder.co.uk; alan....@wwite.com; jbe...@zonnet.nl
CC: andre....@huawei.com; imsg...@imsforum.org
Onderwerp: RE: [IMS Group] Fwd: [IMS-tech] IMS future with LTE

There is one thing wrong with commodity; financials stink.  It generates poor margins and doesn’t justify much investment because it can’t generate ROI for investors.  The problem the operators have with being a bit pipe isn’t competition.  The US CLEC bust proved that access isn’t a great business to be in because of the margins.  The real issue is that we have growing traffic and not much growth in payment, which compromises the carriers’ incentive to continue to invest.

 

We have had technology advances that have wrung some additional life from the all-you-can-eat model, but the problem is that technology cost isn’t the main cost.  Service providers spend 18 cents of every revenue dollar on capex and 65 cents on Operations, Sales/marketing, Administration, etc.  If we cut a third of ops costs we could cut more cost than if the equipment was free.  The point is that if traffic goes up and more applications go on-net, it doesn’t reduce support costs it raises them.  There is no question in my mind that we’re running out of the “free-lunch” period, but that doesn’t mean telcos win.  Google and Skype can charge too.  It still comes down to keeping pace with competition and opportunity.  The HLR story you cite is key; something like Google Voice or Latitude comes along and does what telcos should have been able to do all along.  Why?

 

Tom

 

---

From: Amit Agarwala [mailto:am...@amdale.com]

Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 6:52 AM

[colin...@kpn.com]

Tom, Amit

 

Commodity business is about economy of scale, financials do not stink it is just a matter of low cost operation (operational excellence) and ROA. Water utilities, power utilities are usually doing quite well financially. Also in case of competition it is a business about providing a better customer service to differentiate as a company.

 

The issue as you call it is about a misalignment of incentives. If I use more water or power I usually pay more, so there is an incentive (however small) to save. With broadband we use a utility for a fixed monthly fee (usually without any significant caps).

 

And Amit believe it or nor but the Telco revenues worldwide by far outnumber the revenues of OTT. Interestingly, roughly 70% of the average Telco's revenue comes from basic (commodity) services such as access and voice (ps SMS can't be compared with Internet services and content). Ofcourse there are exceptions but still most revenues are generated by these basic services. What you call IP-pipes are almost always provided by Telco's.

 

I do not dispute that VAS are of increasing value. But Telco's should not forget what there main source of revenue is at the moment (and for the foreseeable future).

 

Colin

Van: Tom Nolle Public [mailto:tno...@cimicorp.com]
Verzonden: vrijdag 3 april 2009 13:38
Aan: am...@amdale.com; Pons, C.A. (Colin) (W&O STO Technology & Innovation); duane...@blueyonder.co.uk; alan....@wwite.com; jbe...@zonnet.nl

CC: andre....@huawei.com; imsg...@imsforum.org

[Tom Nolle Public]

A Telco deal could in fact have produced Latitude, and also Google Voice (Verizon’s iobi is something like it but not as web-centric).  Why didn’t they?  Because they were trapped in high-inertia processes when the OTTs were not.  That’s the point I think we should also “agree” on.  The question is why, and whether the issue could be resolved.  I contend that it’s a combination of reliance on traditional standards processes to move the ball on new services (they take too long), and reliance on their equipment vendors to provide game-changing facilities (they aren’t doing it).  Even for voice services, BT had to buy Ribbit to get fashionable APIs.  Fix these two issues and the telcos can compete.

 

Tom

 

---

From: Amit Agarwala [mailto:am...@amdale.com]
Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2009 12:35 AM
To: alan....@wwite.com; colin...@kpn.com; tno...@cimicorp.com; duane...@blueyonder.co.uk; jbe...@zonnet.nl
Cc: andre....@huawei.com; imsg...@imsforum.org
Subject: RE: [IMS Group] Fwd: [IMS-tech] IMS future with LTE

 

IMHO we are full-circle back to where we started:

 

The Telcos paid for the five-9s network, but are now caught in their own web. 

1. I agree that if “God had meant us to type, he/she’d have given us 30 fingers”.  So okay, voice business is core, and WILL remain core.
2. Quickly spreading regulations are forcing Telcos to share their network “equally”.  I’m not sure if the definition is well understood – allocating a 64kbps end-to-end circuit for voice is much more expensive than using a 64kbps circuit for OTT applications. 
1. Accepted that newer technologies allow voice @lower bandwidths – are the operators utilizing them?
2. Also accepted that lower-bandwidth, but higher profitability OTTs offer greater return on money.
3. Also also accepted that somebody’s gotta put in basic, core network (wire or radio or sat).
4. Also also also :-) accepted that OTTs are currently riding the wave of already-deployed telecom network fabric.  Uneven competition for Telcos?  Yes, but what are the Telcos doing to level the playing field?  10 years of developing IMS specs?
5. Finally, voice business, like all other core-businesses will ALWAYS deliver stable 3-5% profitability.

---I think we all agree to that----

 

In the light of point 2, Telcos are losing the cream on the cake to the OTTs.  Translating the cool comparison with the super-markets, they hold up their profitability by “charging” for the front series counters.  I’ve generally seen Gillette paying more to be there.  But the Telcos, under the current framework are either not allowed to do that, OR are not waking up to present competition.

 

After receiving so many gracious responses to the question of location & presence, I finally installed Google-Latitude on my phone.  It is incredibly accurate on my non-GPS phone I cannot believe that a joint Telco loose partnership could not do the same, thus reaping the revenues for themselves.

 

 

 

Warm regards,

Amit

 

---

[Amit Agarwala]

IMHO we are full-circle back to where we started:

 

The Telcos paid for the five-9s network, but are now caught in their own web. 

1. I agree that if “God had meant us to type, he/she’d have given us 30 fingers”.  So okay, voice business is core, and WILL remain core.
2. Quickly spreading regulations are forcing Telcos to share their network “equally”.  I’m not sure if the definition is well understood – allocating a 64kbps end-to-end circuit for voice is much more expensive than using a 64kbps circuit for OTT applications. 
1. Accepted that newer technologies allow voice @lower bandwidths – are the operators utilizing them?
2. Also accepted that lower-bandwidth, but higher profitability OTTs offer greater return on money.
3. Also also accepted that somebody’s gotta put in basic, core network (wire or radio or sat).
4. Also also also :-) accepted that OTTs are currently riding the wave of already-deployed telecom network fabric.  Uneven competition for Telcos?  Yes, but what are the Telcos doing to level the playing field?  10 years of developing IMS specs?
5. Finally, voice business, like all other core-businesses will ALWAYS deliver stable 3-5% profitability.

---I think we all agree to that----

 

In the light of point 2, Telcos are losing the cream on the cake to the OTTs.  Translating the cool comparison with the super-markets, they hold up their profitability by “charging” for the front series counters.  I’ve generally seen Gillette paying more to be there.  But the Telcos, under the current framework are either not allowed to do that, OR are not waking up to present competition.

 

After receiving so many gracious responses to the question of location & presence, I finally installed Google-Latitude on my phone.  It is incredibly accurate on my non-GPS phone I cannot believe that a joint Telco loose partnership could not do the same, thus reaping the revenues for themselves.

 

 

 

Warm regards,

Amit

 

---

From: imsgroup...@imsforum.org [mailto:imsgroup...@imsforum.org] On Behalf Of alan lloyd

Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 12:30 PM

[Amit Agarwala]

IMHO, denying access to OTT service providers doesn’t level the playing field.  In the current scenario it only starves the market.  

 

 

So say, the Telcos are “allowed” to deny service to OTTs:

1. Does the mean that the common humans don’t need those services?  No, of course not
2. Retrospectively, I think regulatory authorities need to ensure QoS, preferred-traffic (through some form of Net Neutrality).  But who’s asking them to?  The aggrieved parties (the Telcos aren’the)!  Which brings us back again – do the operators understand & are geared to handle this new paradigm?

 

In conclusion, while I do agree that regulations need to even out “playing fields”, but I content that operators aren’t ready to handle to modified telecom world-canvas either.

 

 

 

Warm regards,

Amit

 

---

From: Ibrahim Dawood [mailto:ida...@vupoint.ca]
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 10:17 AM
To: Tom Nolle Public; am...@amdale.com; alan....@wwite.com; colin...@kpn.com; duane...@blueyonder.co.uk; jbe...@zonnet.nl
Cc: andre....@huawei.com; imsg...@imsforum.org
Subject: Re: [IMS Group] Fwd: [IMS-tech] IMS future with LTE

 

Hello All,

 

I have a question that's may be repeated ... why don't regulators consider OTT services as illegal? I like to call them "network-less" service providers ... people like google, skype and others are utilizing the operator's own network that they payed hundreds of millions (even billions) of dollars to get it up and running, they are using it for free!!! so why don't regulators protect the operators from being "abused" if I may say so?

 

One of the Telco's in Europe threatened to block skype lately because of their new application for i-Phone ... we are talking about a massive percentage of revenue erosion here for carriers because of such services ... but still, they are way behind these guys in offering new services!!!

 

In my opinion, this is a regulatory matter, more than a technology handicap.

 

Thanks,

Ibrahim

 

---

A Slight disagreement what about the current IMS network deployments in Japan , Korea some Part of US and IMS Core Deployment by Wateen Pakistan ?. Unfortunately i have not heard any big news about the IMS Network success story from these countries.  I guess they have the Playing Field , what is preventing them not to play really? might be they are not able to convene the Spectators to Enjoy ?

2009/3/25 alan lloyd <alan....@wwite.com>

 

Speaking for India , I agree totally.  CxOs of many operators have explicitly commented that they will resist all attempts to reduce them to “bit pipe providers”.

 

 

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

[Ibrahim Dawood]

Hello All,

 

I have a question that's may be repeated ... why don't regulators consider OTT services as illegal? I like to call them "network-less" service providers ... people like google, skype and others are utilizing the operator's own network that they payed hundreds of millions (even billions) of dollars to get it up and running, they are using it for free!!! so why don't regulators protect the operators from being "abused" if I may say so?

 

One of the Telco's in Europe threatened to block skype lately because of their new application for i-Phone ... we are talking about a massive percentage of revenue erosion here for carriers because of such services ... but still, they are way behind these guys in offering new services!!!

 

In my opinion, this is a regulatory matter, more than a technology handicap.

 

Thanks,

Ibrahim

From: Tom Nolle Public <tno...@cimicorp.com>

To: am...@amdale.com; alan....@wwite.com; colin...@kpn.com; duane...@blueyonder.co.uk; jbe...@zonnet.nl
Cc: andre....@huawei.com; imsg...@imsforum.org
Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2009 3:09:35 PM

A Slight disagreement what about the current IMS network deployments in Japan , Korea some Part of US and IMS Core Deployment by Wateen Pakistan ?. Unfortunately i have not heard any big news about the IMS Network success story from these countries.  I guess they have the Playing Field , what is preventing them not to play really? might be they are not able to convene the Spectators to Enjoy ?

2009/3/25 alan lloyd <alan....@wwite.com>

 

Speaking for India , I agree totally.  CxOs of many operators have explicitly commented that they will resist all attempts to reduce them to “bit pipe providers”.

 

 

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

[alan lloyd]

Hi -  a couple of questions have popped up on the list –

One about IMS emergency services  - which concluded they are no where near completion …

and NGN standards where: “ ANSI, ETSI TISPAN and ITU-T have defined NGN architectures/frameworks and set of guideline/recommendations/standards. These, more or less address the same thing. “

As Tom and Amit says – that supports point 1

 

Vendors -  they have moved on to developing products and systems that enable  business’s  using what’s out there in the time cycles of the business world –we are now addressing “service delivery ” – we cannot be totally focused on the  reference points of a connection flow. …  e.g.  IMS promoted all sorts of services  , but seems to still dealing with a SIP connection.

 

Point 2 –   why should or in fact how can vendors provide “game changing” facilities..  when they have to base such investments and systems on Point 1 

 

I think we should not forget that Telcos like any other business can be an evolving business, they can split retail and wholesale divisions,  they can invest in new syndicated infrastructure, they can own IP and technologies and they can provide support services and use their billing applications as fulfillment services too..  They might even be troubled by point 1 as well..

 

Telco  life will carry on..    But I do think the “telco standards” process is not helping them very much at the moment and is making point 2 a reality

 

Best wishes alan

 

 

 

---

Snip..>>>>