tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17500930.post4372059331099359499..comments2024-03-20T22:57:03.923+00:00Comments on Dean Bubley's Disruptive Wireless: The beginning of the end for IMS. WebRTC is the catalystDean Bubleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05719150957239368264noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17500930.post-48125791465997915132014-01-27T06:19:31.012+00:002014-01-27T06:19:31.012+00:00Very well said.. I think nutshell is that its the ...Very well said.. I think nutshell is that its the time for de-linking technology & business in telecom.Jainindernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17500930.post-52949389732628532492014-01-16T06:22:14.973+00:002014-01-16T06:22:14.973+00:00I suspect the truth of the matter lies somewhere b...I suspect the truth of the matter lies somewhere between the Samsung marketing that Jan posted and Dean's hyperbole. There is real interest in RCS worldwide amongst operators and VoLTE is proceeding into deployment - both are happening albeit slowly. <br /><br />A few responses to each point:<br /><br />1. Agree that VoLTE is not simple, but no large scale communication system is. At least it provides the features that any large operator will demand - that's certainly no guarantee of success ultimately! Agree that QoS is only one element of QoE, but it is important.<br /><br />2. AMR-WB is a huge improvement on the usual narrowband codecs in widespread use today in VoIP and traditional networks. Are there better codecs? Probably, but I suspect that the differences between WB codecs are not huge - would be interested to hear other opinions.<br /><br />3. Operators worldwide are showing a lot of interest in the RCS feature set and yes it's not the be-all and end-all.<br /><br />4. Can't speak to the Voice spectrum savings, I suspect that given the proportion of voice vs. data that this is not a particularly interesting argument.<br /><br />5. Whether or not there are opex savings will vary hugely from operator to operator. A new entrant LTE operator for example is hardly going to want to build out CS capability to handle voice.<br /><br />6. Jan's point is overblown but hardly "total nonsense" If an operator can increase or introduce voice service with VoLTE as well as a data service then that presumably will add to the business case.<br /><br />Johnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17500930.post-19589973633278731622014-01-10T11:10:10.800+00:002014-01-10T11:10:10.800+00:00Sorry Jan, just because Samsung puts a lot of mark...Sorry Jan, just because Samsung puts a lot of marketing fluff about VoLTE in its brochures doesn't make it true!<br /><br />1) It's certainly not simple. And network QoS does not translate into either good voice experience, or overall good QoE<br /><br />2)Rubbish - AMR-WB is not as flexible or good as Opus or some other codecs. At best, it is broadly equivalent to other forms of VoIP<br /><br />3)That's a ridiculous argument - very few operators want RCS, and there's plenty of ways to implement it without doing VoLTE first. There are no worthwhile use-cases for RCS anyway, as I've written about for years.<br /><br />4) Yet to be shown how much spectrum gets freed up in real implementations. It may actually be worse because of the maths needed to deliver QoS priority for VoLTE.<br /><br />5) Nonsense, as most existing 2G/3G voice core networks are new & not fully depreciated yet. And in any case they will need to be maintained in parallel for years, if not decades.<br /><br />6) Total nonsense. If anything, the cost & complexity of VoLTE makes it harder to justify LTE deployment, not easierDean Bubleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05719150957239368264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17500930.post-62883787772858155812014-01-03T20:25:29.452+00:002014-01-03T20:25:29.452+00:00VoLTE Benefits
The reasons for using VoLTE instea...VoLTE Benefits <br />The reasons for using VoLTE instead of separated voice/data solutions are numerous: <br />1. VoLTE is simple and reliable: With its guaranteed QoS, VoLTE offers an <br />operator’s subscribers a robust alternative to OTT VoIP in an easy-to-use <br />mechanism. Users know that they can rely and enjoy carrier-grade services <br />without disruption or uncertainty. <br />2. VoLTE exceeds OTT VoIP and even 3G voice quality: Through the use of <br />Adaptive Multirate Wideband (AMR-WB) codecs (12.65kbps or 23.85kpbs) and <br />QoS Class Identifier (QCI) SIP signalling, VoLTE provides “HD Voice” for a <br />noticeably better end user experience compared to OTT VoIP and even 3G <br />3. VoLTE reduces the work to provide rich media services: As explained <br />previously, in VoLTE, operators have a foundation for using RCS to enable video <br />and file sharing, presence, instant messaging and enhanced phonebook services. <br />An operator who has already implement VoLTE is closer to implementing RCS <br />than a non-VoLTE operator. <br />4. VoLTE is spectrally efficient: Because of LTE’s all-IP architecture and new <br />features in 3GPP releases (such as MIMO antenna technology), voice requires <br />less bandwidth in LTE spectrum than it does in 2G/3G networks. Consequently <br />operators have more available data capacity in their bands for a given voice load. <br />5. VoLTE reduces operator Opex: VoLTE simplifies the network by providing data <br />and voice services on the same IP network, allowing operators to integrate <br />network resources, optimize network and service management, and simplify <br />service delivery. <br />6. VoLTE accelerates evolution to LTE: With VoLTE, an operator can offer voice <br />service in its LTE spectrum while harvesting its 2G/3G spectrum for re-deploying <br />additional LTE bandwidth. This migration process is easier for subscribers and <br />limits operator upgrade costs<br /><br />http://www.samsung.com/global/business/business-images/resource/white-paper/2013/01/SamsungCaseSmartVoLTESolution-0.pdfJan Sladkyhttp://clearnetsolutions.eunoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17500930.post-11503698901729211942013-12-28T20:53:41.960+00:002013-12-28T20:53:41.960+00:00Dean, I'm not sure if IMS is obsolete or reach...Dean, I'm not sure if IMS is obsolete or reaching its zenith. I don't know it. I believe in certain things with certain probability. And in long term, I give IMS 90% it is going to be with us for many many years. <br /><br />Why ? there is no reasonable substitution. The rest are just "toys".<br /><br />You say: "User behaviour indicating that "islands" are often seen as more valuable than interoperable standardised services".<br /><br />My answer:"islands" are fine as long as you can relay on standardized services if you can't use your "islands".<br /><br />You say:" The stupid insistence on IMS may well have killed the cellular industry as we know it."<br /><br />My answer: "Nobody insists in IMS. let's everybody to choose what what he wants. If someone wants IMS it doesn't mean he is stupid. The combination of the reduced CS core with ICS support + VoLTE IMS covered by SR-VCC is reasonable.<br /><br />Not understood "how IMS would kill cellular industry as we know it"<br /><br />Dean, we operate live networks where people do not expect any outage and expect certain quality. <br />I want to say we don't play with simple toys like Skype, Google Voice, Viber, etc.<br /><br />I work in the industry for 14 years on CS core design, PS core design, IN planning, IMS RCS VoLTE design. I like Skype, Viber, WhatsApp, I use them a lot. I.e. I'm using "islands" and I'd like them. But when thinking about future-proof platform I don't see anything better then IMS. (IMS as SaaS in 7 years from know is reasonable)<br /><br />WebRTC is cool idea and I'm very interested what it will bring to us. But we both have to admit that so far is more buzzword then something useful. It is so limited in "signalling" that you are lucky to connect A with B - when I was using that from my Chrome it was like Tin can telephone ;-) <br /><br />BTW, there is WebRTC GW for IMS already.<br />Jan Sladkyhttp://clearnetsolutions.eunoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17500930.post-60451536941851320232013-12-28T20:48:10.475+00:002013-12-28T20:48:10.475+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.IMSplanethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03839089048145409385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17500930.post-22503083572575559372013-12-22T21:47:30.052+00:002013-12-22T21:47:30.052+00:00Couple of comments:
1. I don't think that any...Couple of comments:<br /><br />1. I don't think that anyone claims that IMS is the only way to provide voice QoS in any kind of network, indeed the PCC architecture can be (and is) deployed completely independently of any IMS elements and can provide QoS for any service that can be classified. VoLTE with IMS of course has some ways to ensure that IMS services get QoS but the LTE network could just as easily provide that QoS to a completely different service.<br /><br />2. Dean has been telling us about the death of IMS for years now and yet somehow it still lingers on with more and more deployments coming every year. No it has not lived up to the hype but if I want to deploy a large scale (millions or 10s of millions of users) voice service over IP today that provides the necessary vendor support and regulatory features (lawful intercept, 911, location etc.) then it's hard to see what alternatives there really are (just CS I think). "Roll your own" does not strike me as likely choice for most operators and partnering with a OTT is pretty unpalatable. There's definitely a momentum behind IMS that I don't see slowing (perhaps you might argue that it couldn't actually get any slower ;-) <br />John.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17500930.post-49302832200291730322013-12-17T18:50:03.998+00:002013-12-17T18:50:03.998+00:00Agree that IMS is overly complex. It was supposed ...Agree that IMS is overly complex. It was supposed to be a flexible architecture to deploy cutting edge services, where none got deployed. <br /><br />Having said that, the island issue in the WebRTC world does bother me (as a consumer). For one there is lock in and no customer service, even when you pay. Witness the problems with Yahoo mail, where I have been paying them $20/year for a "premium" service. E-164 address is still a universal way to reach people across islands. <br /><br />I think operators need to adopt VoLTE from a cloud provider asap.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17500930.post-87085704770920496892013-12-17T18:03:34.062+00:002013-12-17T18:03:34.062+00:00Jari & Anonymous: Yes, VoLTE is designed to be...Jari & Anonymous: Yes, VoLTE is designed to be based on IMS. This is another one of its critical failures.<br /><br />The only answer is that only a few operators will deploy full IMS+VoLTE.<br /><br />Others will either:<br />a) Stick with CSFB<br />b) Use hosted/outsourced VoLTE in some form<br />c) Use a form of NGN VoIP which looks broadly similar in terms of "profile" with VoLTE but is not IMS-based, but interoperates in the network<br />d) Tells customers to "bring your own VoIP" as they do not wish to offer it themselves<br />e) Partners with Skype or another OTT provider to offer telephony services<br />f) Develops their own Telco-OTT telephony product & interoperates in the cloud/<br /><br />The biggest myth is that VoLTE is the only form of voice service that can have QoS. This is the big IMS lie. <br /><br />If you speak to the policy management vendors or operator teams, they claim to be able to enable QoS for ANY application - hence the whole battle around Net Neutrality. Therefore if this is true, it should be entirely possible to apply QoS to any non-IMS form of VoIP as well, although perhaps with a different mechanism to VoLTE.<br /><br />Ultimately, some form of non-IMS method for LTE telephony may probably get standardised, after it is realised that VoLTE is a failure, with IMS as expensive and obsolete. By then, it will probably be too late to save the telephony revenues from the same fate as SMS.<br /><br />The stupid insistence on IMS may well have killed the cellular industry as we know it.Dean Bubleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05719150957239368264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17500930.post-15458889547873876052013-12-17T16:21:53.120+00:002013-12-17T16:21:53.120+00:00Question: How VoLTE is going to be implemented wit...Question: How VoLTE is going to be implemented without IMS? Unfortunately, that is the standard solution. CS-Fallback has performance issues. This is the situation. What are the alternatives for voice in LTE network?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17500930.post-28645759386629372252013-12-17T09:45:34.764+00:002013-12-17T09:45:34.764+00:00I agree with Lawrence that this is matter of econo...I agree with Lawrence that this is matter of economics. GSM overtook CDMA because of relative openness and economies of scale. The developer economics speak for WebRTC being the real winner in next wave of communications innovation over IMS. There simply are more HTML developers/companies/players than there are Java/IMS developers. The CFOs of operators are facing a decline in revenues - 3% in 2013 across Europe in general. In a stagnant business focus is on costs and scale drives them down. Obviously it's cheaper to launch new services that are web based vs. something that is sitting tightly in the core network and in the modem. <br /><br />However, I am seeing VoLTE and mobile person to person voice calls happening with IMS. Carriers opening up their IMS via Web APIs or RCS with Web APIs will not do much good for them. Interesting development and an eye opener internally, but true communication innovations are done by totally new group of players. Apps/services (beyond person to person voice calls and emergency calls) as Lawrence points out are the winners.Jari Ala-Ruonahttp://www.twitter.com/jalaruonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17500930.post-7599867134814421242013-12-17T08:21:06.217+00:002013-12-17T08:21:06.217+00:00Anonymous - thanks for the input. Interestingly, I...Anonymous - thanks for the input. Interestingly, IP-PBX/UC integration is part of the pitch for future 3GPP IMS/WebRTC integration, especially where the next phase possibly separates one of the elements into an "internal" and "external" one.<br /><br />Kevin - cheers, I will check it out. I expect quite a few telcos to either opt for hosted/wholesaled VoIP, or go all the way to BYOV propositions. (Or perhaps pitch 900MHz GSM as the premium telephony experience!)<br /><br />Lawrence - many thanks for the comments. And yes, I completely agree with the external Internet development momentum, which will now be able to add communications-as-a-features with WebRTC. I realised I actually didn't expand on the WebRTC catalyts theme as much as I could have done.Dean Bubleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05719150957239368264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17500930.post-20941479923331173762013-12-16T22:02:40.938+00:002013-12-16T22:02:40.938+00:00A key area of difference (mentioned but I don'...A key area of difference (mentioned but I don't see fully expanded here) between the open Internet and IMS is the cost, likelihood and speed of entry by innovative, and often small, new fresh development teams. The complex walls and IMS-vendor-gates keeping young hackers out of the IMS apps world are immense. Meanwhile the SoCoMo hordes - now nearly 20 million web-style developers - have immense elastic cloud power and huge quantities of open source or reasonable-cost-as-you-use tools that provably scale to hundreds of millions of users (or to 1.2 billion in Facebook's case). The expertise and learning of the first wave of Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, Netflix, Amazon, Salesforce and others has already been passed forward to the second wave of Instagram, Pinterest, Tumblr, Box, Jive, Workday, Uber, Twilio and many more in many market spaces/cloud-ecosystems. In each wave the consumer expertise has bled though rapidly into disruptive enterprise cloud and mobile apps. And now the third wave, where any of these established players or new innovators can easily just "add in" global state-of-the-art real-time communications is upon us - using a combination of now established communications-PaaS, raw IaaS with open source and, of course, WebRTC! This is, and also has been, an apps war where there are no sizable walls to entry and innovation on the open Internet side.Lawrence Byrdhttp://www.linkedin.com/in/lawrencebyrdnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17500930.post-63439841078477071762013-12-16T21:19:32.295+00:002013-12-16T21:19:32.295+00:00"Webrtc interOperability tested in coNtradict..."<b>W</b>ebrtc inter<b>O</b>perability tested in co<b>N</b>tradictive <b>DE</b>ployment scena<b>R</b>ios" is certainly the most wondrous term I have heard recently! Amusing that this culture-of-complexity was an item in your positives column of Telcos moving in WebRTC directions :). Great disruptive article!Lawrence Byrdhttp://www.linkedin.com/in/lawrencebyrdnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17500930.post-70990333892614564422013-12-16T16:14:12.078+00:002013-12-16T16:14:12.078+00:00Very much agree Dean. I look at a similar issue on...Very much agree Dean. I look at a similar issue on the business case of next gen voice here in my blog post:<br /><br />http://www.alianza.com/delicate-balance-voice-without-the-investment/Kevin Mitchellhttp://www.alianza.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17500930.post-72887193067654775302013-12-16T13:58:58.260+00:002013-12-16T13:58:58.260+00:00IMS was a highly optimized architecture to re-impl...IMS was a highly optimized architecture to re-implement the year 2000's GSM/feature phone infrastructure with IP. Modify a single detail and it all falls apart. It has so many hidden assumptions rooted in the early 2000s, it's not funny. When your service needs a user-specific P-CSCF behaviour, you are screwed. It has no good story for IP PBX integration, so it is no good fit for fixed telcos. It relies on IP addresses for authentication, so it needs a separate internet to avoid spoofing. And a tight coupling between SIP and lower layers. It should have died long ago.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com