Tutorial: WebRTC
Tim Panton, Westhawk (ex-Tropo)
Dean Bubley, Disruptive Analysis
Originally Delivered at ICIN, Venice, Oc...
Agenda for today












15.30 Introduction & background for WebRTC (DB)
15:50 WebRTC Technical Aspects & Sta...
OVERVIEW OF WEBRTC:
CONCEPT & KEY BENEFITS
(& SOME PROVOCATIONS)
October 2013

Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
About Disruptive Analysis










London-based analyst house & strategic consulting firm
Cross-silo, contrarian,...
For WebRTC report & quarterly
update details email
information@disruptive-analysis.com

October 2013

Copyright Disruptive...
Remember these?

October 2013

Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
Design & software simpler via the Web

October 2013

Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
Benefits of WebRTC












Democratises voice & video in websites & apps
Add context to communications & vice...
WebRTC = disruptive service innovation

Million

Device base supporting WebRTC growing Zero4bn in 4 years

Source: Disrup...
Voice ≠ Telephony
• Now: 2G & 3G

• Future: Smartphones & LTE

Voice

Voice
Telephony

Telephony

Voicemail
Conferencing
P...
Voice/video moving from service to function
Service
e.g. SMS, Telephony

Product
e.g. Viber, Uberconference

Feature
e.g. ...
Fragmenting voice/video comms models

Standalone
Circuit calls
IP

Embedded
app/web
calls

Oct 2013

Non-call
comms

Copyr...
“Hegemony
of the
caller”
Better than
“being there”
“There”–
same place
and time

Telephony aspires to be
“like being there”
The role of video in communications



Video really needs to have a clear “purpose”
We will not default to “video everyw...
Comforting myths
QoS is critical

Interoperability is essential

Minutes / messages = value
October 2013

Copyright Disrup...
Uncomfortable reality
QoS is sometimes critical
Interoperability is essential
for lowest-common
denominator services only
...
Intent & purpose....

Why do people make
phone calls, anyway?

October 2013

Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
WEBRTC STANDARDS
AND UNDERPINNINGS
Tim Panton, Westhawk Ltd - @steely_glint
What is webRTC?






Haven’t used webRTC
Your laptop is on wifi
Have Chrome/firefox
Browse to:
http://phono.com – cl...
What did we just do?








Placed a video call with no plugins
zero config
just by browsing to a site
encrypted
fr...
WebRTC Definition








Realtime
voice / video /data
browser based
no plugins
secure
interoperable
Standards






IETF
W3C
Loosely based on pre-existing standards
$100s Millions of IPR - donated
Google, Cisco, Mozil...
Big Picture
HTTP(s) signaling via webserver
Peer to Peer media between Browsers
Protocol standards (IETF)
The IETF has responsibility for the wire
protocols in RTCWeb
Signaling Standards
None!



It is up to the javascript in the
browser to do what ever is needed.
Media Standards (RIA 2.0)
Many!











STUN
ICE
TURN
DTLS
SRTP
RTCP
OPUS
ULAW
Why so many?
The network environment of a web browser is not
the same as a desk phone.




Security – hostile lans (cof...
NAT

NAT

STUN and ICE address NAT
ICE sends multiple STUN packets down all possible interfaces to try and
find a path. Fi...
TURN
NAT

NAT

TURN is for when ICE fails to find a viable path
A TURN server in the cloud acts as a packet reflector
Many...
MS
NAT

NAT

Bridging via a media server.
If additional services are required – recording, conferences, PSTN interop
etc. ...
DTLS
DTLS is the UDP version of TLS (as used in
https etc)
It serves 2 purposes in the WebRTC




Exchange keys used by ...
Demo – sharefest.me
Data channel provides Peer 2 Peer data between
browsers.
It can be used for file transfer, game moves ...
SRTP + RTCP
Encrypted version of the classic RTP protocol,
with the RTCP reporting mechanism.
Multiple media streams may b...
Standard Codecs
Audio

OPUS
Wideband
Flexible, efficient, loss
correcting
Expensive to transcode
 ULAW
Narrowband PSTN co...
Codecs - No video standard yet.
Video




VP8
H264

Differences are largely commercial
and legal rather than technical, ...
Standard APIs (W3c)
These are the API’s offered to the javascript
programmer – aka ‘JSEP’
Javascript : getUserMedia()
navigator.webkitGetUserMedia({
'audio':true,
'video':true
},
function(stream) {
var url =webki...
Javascript : RTCPeerConnection
pc = new RTCPeerConnection(configuration,constraints);
pc.onicecandidate = function(evt) {
...
HTML : <Video> tag







Extended to accept a webRTC stream as a
source
Either a local or remote
See previous slides
...
Javascript:RTCSessionDescription
function onMessageFromAlice(message){
var sd = new RTCSessionDescription(

{'sdp':message...
Dissention with SDP as an API








SDP is emitted by pc.createOffer()
Complex SDP
May be manipulated to select
co...
Other co-operating W3C APIs


WebGL
Can be used to apply effects to video



WebAudio
Can be used to apply effects to au...
Javascript libraries






Most web coders will use a library
JS Sip
ATT.js
Phono
OpenRTC
Demo – WebGL effects
Demo of WebGL doing realtime effects on a
webRTC video stream
WEBRTC BUSINESS ISSUES &
INDUSTRY STRUCTURE
October 2013

Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
WebRTC key use cases
Browser-to-browser
(or web-app)
comms

Browser-to-Telco
VoIP / IMS

Browser-to-Telco
CS / PSTN

Brows...
App/web-embedded RTC not new concept
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Expensive
Inflexible
Poor developer support
Limited use-cases
Reliance...
WebRTC has created the buzz & excitement


Democratised the idea of realtime voice/video/data










Easy elev...
... although not quite as “easy as it looks” yet

Signalling

Oct 2013

Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
“WebRTC isn’t a standard. It’s a movement”
(Quote from Tsahi Levent-Levi @tsahil)



Irony: problems making WebRTC stron...
WebRTC made easier via 3rd-party APIs

CU-RTC-Web?

Oct 2013

Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
3-way support for WebRTC now expanding
Enterprise
Network
tools

Devices

WebRTC
Consumer
Web

Telco

TV &
gaming
Oct 2013...
WebRTC rapidly expanding past “calls”

Oct 2013

Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
View Oct’13: lead WebRTC use-cases

Live &
commercial

Pilots / precommercial

Trials &
demos
October 2013

Early enterpri...
What use-cases lead?
Existing
web
services

Adding real-time
comms capabilities
Existing
realtime
comms
services

Extendin...
Provisional WebRTC timeline (at Q1’2013)
History Prediction

IETF working
group set up

Ericsson
WebRTC
demo at MWC

Googl...
Various “flavours” of WebRTC gateway
Internet

WebRTC
Gateway

IMS

Internet

WebRTC
Gateway

PSTN

Internet

WebRTC
Gatew...
WebRTC gateways galore
WEBRTC INTEGRATION
OPTIONS
Tim Panton, Westhawk Ltd – @steely_glint
Demo – call a mobile


Demo calls my mobile from a browser
Not everyone wants to interop







Games
Dating sites
Whiteboards
OTT
Mayday

For these sites a home grown signalin...
Problem statement
WebRTC







HTTP(S) transport
RIA 2.0 media
Encrypted
Opus
VP8 ?

Carrier IMS







SIP
RTP...
Gateway needed ?
Unless and until those incompatibilities go
away.
HTTP to SIP – SIP in the Browser







Use javascript to build SIP messages and
protocol
Wrap in HTTP (or Web-sockets...
SIP in the browser

Browser
JS SIP

SIP in HTTP

WebSocket
Server

UDP
SIP

IMS
Problems








You still have a gateway – albeit a thin one.
You have javascript injecting SIP messages
into IMS
T...
SIP in the browser with SBC
DMZ

Browser
JS SIP

SIP in HTTP

WebSocket
Server

UDP
SIP

SBC

UDP
SIP

IMS
Remaining Problems




The media isn’t compatible
What is Early media in a browser ?
You have SIP credentials out on th...
SIP in the browser with SBC, Media
Gateway and Registration proxy
DMZ

Browser
JS SIP

SIP in HTTP

RIA 2.0

WebSocket
Ser...
REST in the browser






Use web ‘RESTful’ commands
Sent from the browser
To a webRTC gateway
Gateway generates the ...
REST in the browser with
Gateway
DMZ

Browser
app

REST/HTTP

WebRTC
gateway

UDP
SIP

IMS
Problems






Need to map from web Identity to SIP
Select a web identity provider
webRTC gateways don’t scale (yet)
...
XMPP in the browser with SBC
DMZ

Browser
app

XMPP/BOSH/
HTTP

WebRTC
gateway

UDP
SIP

IMS
Problems
Need to map from web Identity to SIP
 Select a web identity provider
 webRTC gateways don’t scale (yet)
 More ...
Did we forget mobile?
WebRTC isn’t mobile first yet.
WebRTC on Mobile







Browser isn’t a natural interface
WebRTC codecs are heavy on battery
No native App friendly A...
Identity.
DTLS can carry a certificate – but which
one should be used?
Multiple identities on the web
When I call from a webpage, which identity do I
want to present?
 E164 to the shop
 Faceb...
Demo
Phono using a Jira identity. (perhaps)
RECOMMENDATIONS & NEXT
STEPS FOR TELCO WEBRTC
October 2013

Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
Traditional telecom services: ugly outlook

Source: Model for STL Partners, developed
by Disruptive Analysis

Focus on bro...
For telcos, it’s all looking pretty grim anyway
Downsides
Voice & SMS saturation & cannibalisation
Regulation & competitiv...
Neuroscience explains reluctance to change


Predictable irrationality



Endowment effect
Optimism bias
Confirmation bi...
Network/service coupling: historical accident

• Service = network
• Only 1 service
• Interop essential
October 2013

Copy...
What is “OTT”?
Any capability offered “over the top” of Public Internet
Can be service, application, feature or function,
...
Carrier strategies with/against OTT
Needs developer skills
Likely conflict internally
Few telcos will succeed

Buys time i...
For telcos WebRTC is a magnifier/catalyst

Now

With WebRTC
Bigger opportunities
Worse threats
Faster speed
Oct 2013

Copy...
What % of future value comes from 3GPP?
VoLTE &
RCS

Corporate
UC

Video
conf

Network
APIs

Core ntwk
& legacy
voice

Cor...
Main WebRTC strategies for SPs?
Extend onnet services
& IMS / SS7
Strengthen
enterprise &
verticals

Enhance
developer
pla...
Conclusions







WebRTC is emerging very fast
Standards are still settling
Important to be “a part of the community...
For WebRTC report & quarterly
update details email
information@disruptive-analysis.com

October 2013

Copyright Disruptive...
www.disruptive-analysis.com
disruptivewireless.blogspot.com
@disruptivedean

www.westhawk.co.uk

information@disruptive-an...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

WebRTC Tutorial by Dean Bubley of Disruptive Analysis & Tim Panton of Westhawk Ltd

7,918

Published on

Tutorial on WebRTC technologies, standards, use-cases and business models. First given at the ICIN conference in Venice, October 2013.

By Dean Bubley, analyst at Disruptive Analysis, and Tim Panton, WebRTC developer at Westhawk Ltd

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
14 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
7,918
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
11
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
233
Comments
0
Likes
14
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

WebRTC Tutorial by Dean Bubley of Disruptive Analysis & Tim Panton of Westhawk Ltd

  1. 1. Tutorial: WebRTC Tim Panton, Westhawk (ex-Tropo) Dean Bubley, Disruptive Analysis Originally Delivered at ICIN, Venice, October 14th 2013 dean.bubley@disruptive-analysis.com thp@westhawk.co.uk @disruptivedean @steely_glint
  2. 2. Agenda for today          15.30 Introduction & background for WebRTC (DB) 15:50 WebRTC Technical Aspects & Standards (TP) 16:30 Q&A 16:45 Comfort Break 17:00 WebRTC Business issues & industry structure (DB) 17:20 WebRTC Integration for Telcos (TP) 18:00 Recommendations & action points (DB) 18:15 Q&A 18:30 Close & drinks October 2013 Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
  3. 3. OVERVIEW OF WEBRTC: CONCEPT & KEY BENEFITS (& SOME PROVOCATIONS) October 2013 Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
  4. 4. About Disruptive Analysis         London-based analyst house & strategic consulting firm Cross-silo, contrarian, visionary, independent Advisor to telcos, vendors, regulators & investors Covering VoIP since 1997 & 3G/4G mVoIP since 2007 Covering WebRTC since mid-2011 Published report on “Telco-OTT Strategies”, Feb 2012 Report & updates on WebRTC, from Feb 2013 Workshops on Future of Voice & TelcoOTT Twitter @disruptivedean Blog: disruptivewireless.blogspot.com October 2013 Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
  5. 5. For WebRTC report & quarterly update details email information@disruptive-analysis.com October 2013 Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
  6. 6. Remember these? October 2013 Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
  7. 7. Design & software simpler via the Web October 2013 Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
  8. 8. Benefits of WebRTC          Democratises voice & video in websites & apps Add context to communications & vice-versa Cheap / easy / open-source components Advocacy from Google, major vendors, telcos, IETF, W3C etc Enterprises & telcos can extend comms over the Internet Real momentum & enthusiasm No predefined signalling Growing ecosystem even pre-standardisation Realtime data even more disruptive October 2013 Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
  9. 9. WebRTC = disruptive service innovation Million Device base supporting WebRTC growing Zero4bn in 4 years Source: Disruptive Analysis WebRTC Strategy Report, Feb 2013 & Q2 Update August 2013 Definitions & methodology in report - See disruptivewireless.blogspot.com for details October 2013 Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
  10. 10. Voice ≠ Telephony • Now: 2G & 3G • Future: Smartphones & LTE Voice Voice Telephony Telephony Voicemail Conferencing PTT Video Gaming, CEBP, surveillance, social voice, TV voice etc Comms moving “in-context” October 2013 Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013 Video, context, sense
  11. 11. Voice/video moving from service to function Service e.g. SMS, Telephony Product e.g. Viber, Uberconference Feature e.g. In-game chat Function
  12. 12. Fragmenting voice/video comms models Standalone Circuit calls IP Embedded app/web calls Oct 2013 Non-call comms Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
  13. 13. “Hegemony of the caller”
  14. 14. Better than “being there” “There”– same place and time Telephony aspires to be “like being there”
  15. 15. The role of video in communications   Video really needs to have a clear “purpose” We will not default to “video everywhere”     Different issues of ergonomics, social norms, behaviour Very little desire for interruptive straight-to-video calls Numerous niches for B2B, B2C, C2C     Will be even more contextualised than voice & messaging Skype calls between distant relatives / expats / diaspora Customer service but need for extensive retraining of staff Personal consulting eg doctors, therapists, trainers, interviewers Need for interoperability unclear as often incontext/in=app October 2013 Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
  16. 16. Comforting myths QoS is critical Interoperability is essential Minutes / messages = value October 2013 Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
  17. 17. Uncomfortable reality QoS is sometimes critical Interoperability is essential for lowest-common denominator services only Intention & outcomes = value October 2013 Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
  18. 18. Intent & purpose.... Why do people make phone calls, anyway? October 2013 Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
  19. 19. WEBRTC STANDARDS AND UNDERPINNINGS Tim Panton, Westhawk Ltd - @steely_glint
  20. 20. What is webRTC?      Haven’t used webRTC Your laptop is on wifi Have Chrome/firefox Browse to: http://phono.com – click ‘call’
  21. 21. What did we just do?       Placed a video call with no plugins zero config just by browsing to a site encrypted free over local wifi
  22. 22. WebRTC Definition       Realtime voice / video /data browser based no plugins secure interoperable
  23. 23. Standards      IETF W3C Loosely based on pre-existing standards $100s Millions of IPR - donated Google, Cisco, Mozilla, Skype, Tropo, ATT, E///, Lucent etc.
  24. 24. Big Picture HTTP(s) signaling via webserver Peer to Peer media between Browsers
  25. 25. Protocol standards (IETF) The IETF has responsibility for the wire protocols in RTCWeb
  26. 26. Signaling Standards None!  It is up to the javascript in the browser to do what ever is needed.
  27. 27. Media Standards (RIA 2.0) Many!         STUN ICE TURN DTLS SRTP RTCP OPUS ULAW
  28. 28. Why so many? The network environment of a web browser is not the same as a desk phone.    Security – hostile lans (coffee shops/hotels) Variablity – home networks, wifi/3g Programability – Javascript is dynamically loadable This stack of media standards addresses the differences.
  29. 29. NAT NAT STUN and ICE address NAT ICE sends multiple STUN packets down all possible interfaces to try and find a path. First Bi-directional route found is used.
  30. 30. TURN NAT NAT TURN is for when ICE fails to find a viable path A TURN server in the cloud acts as a packet reflector Many Telco 3g networks isolate users from each other.
  31. 31. MS NAT NAT Bridging via a media server. If additional services are required – recording, conferences, PSTN interop etc. then bridging via a media server may be required.
  32. 32. DTLS DTLS is the UDP version of TLS (as used in https etc) It serves 2 purposes in the WebRTC   Exchange keys used by the SRTP media encryption Carry the data channel streams
  33. 33. Demo – sharefest.me Data channel provides Peer 2 Peer data between browsers. It can be used for file transfer, game moves etc. It may also become important in M2M or IOT as a secure NAT friendly P2P protocol. Demo show file transfer between 2 browsers by sharing a URL, but not through that server.
  34. 34. SRTP + RTCP Encrypted version of the classic RTP protocol, with the RTCP reporting mechanism. Multiple media streams may be multiplexed over the same pair of ports – still under discussion.
  35. 35. Standard Codecs Audio OPUS Wideband Flexible, efficient, loss correcting Expensive to transcode  ULAW Narrowband PSTN codec High bandwidth Poor in lossy/variable networks 
  36. 36. Codecs - No video standard yet. Video   VP8 H264 Differences are largely commercial and legal rather than technical, either is plenty good enough.
  37. 37. Standard APIs (W3c) These are the API’s offered to the javascript programmer – aka ‘JSEP’
  38. 38. Javascript : getUserMedia() navigator.webkitGetUserMedia({ 'audio':true, 'video':true }, function(stream) { var url =webkitURL.createObjectURL(stream); createPeer(stream); }, function(error) { });
  39. 39. Javascript : RTCPeerConnection pc = new RTCPeerConnection(configuration,constraints); pc.onicecandidate = function(evt) { sendCandyToAlice(evt.candidate); }; pc.onaddstream = function (event) { var remotePlay = document.getElementById(”videoTag"); remotePlay.src = webkitURL.createObjectURL(event.stream); }; pc.addStream(localStream); pc.createOffer( function(offer) { pc.setLocalDescription(offer); sendOfferToAlice(pc.localDescription.sdp); }, null, constraints);
  40. 40. HTML : <Video> tag     Extended to accept a webRTC stream as a source Either a local or remote See previous slides Additional mute etc.
  41. 41. Javascript:RTCSessionDescription function onMessageFromAlice(message){ var sd = new RTCSessionDescription( {'sdp':message,'type':"answer”} ); pc.setRemoteDescription(sd,sessionOk,sessionFail); }
  42. 42. Dissention with SDP as an API       SDP is emitted by pc.createOffer() Complex SDP May be manipulated to select codecs/candidates… Source of much complaint Currently ill defined May be replaced in 2.0 std
  43. 43. Other co-operating W3C APIs  WebGL Can be used to apply effects to video  WebAudio Can be used to apply effects to audio Both will be able to be applied to local or remote streams
  44. 44. Javascript libraries      Most web coders will use a library JS Sip ATT.js Phono OpenRTC
  45. 45. Demo – WebGL effects Demo of WebGL doing realtime effects on a webRTC video stream
  46. 46. WEBRTC BUSINESS ISSUES & INDUSTRY STRUCTURE October 2013 Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
  47. 47. WebRTC key use cases Browser-to-browser (or web-app) comms Browser-to-Telco VoIP / IMS Browser-to-Telco CS / PSTN Browser-to-UC or IP-PBX Browser/app conferencing Verticals IMS Browser-towebserver Browser-to-contact centre Web Healthcare Plus: M2M, gaming, TV-based, data-centric & various others Oct 2013 Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
  48. 48. App/web-embedded RTC not new concept • • • • • • • Expensive Inflexible Poor developer support Limited use-cases Reliance on “call” model Poor audio/video Hard to integrate = Patchy adoption & little developer enthusiasm / buzz Oct 2013 Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
  49. 49. WebRTC has created the buzz & excitement  Democratised the idea of realtime voice/video/data         Easy elevator pitch “It’s like Skype – but in the browser, with no plug-ins!” “Three simple Javascript APIs – millions can use it!” “It’s being evangelised by Google & all these other guys!” Mix of (fast) standardisation & “pragmatic proprietary” Encourages experimentation with a very low bar Usable at multiple levels of abstraction / effort / commitment Carries a sense of inevitability & scope for innovation Oct 2013 Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
  50. 50. ... although not quite as “easy as it looks” yet Signalling Oct 2013 Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
  51. 51. “WebRTC isn’t a standard. It’s a movement” (Quote from Tsahi Levent-Levi @tsahil)   Irony: problems making WebRTC stronger not weaker “Hardcore” comms developers going “down to the metal”    Longer-tail developers being addressed by API/cloud players       Building around core RTCWeb protocols & media engine Embedding WebRTC elements into desktop applications “Packaged” WebRTC capabilities like multiparty video Abstraction to avoid risk from changing standards APIs for iOS, Android apps Next tier up of service platforms emerging too Renewed interest in “realtime everywhere” No “religion” about WebRTC “purity” – just get on with it! Oct 2013 Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
  52. 52. WebRTC made easier via 3rd-party APIs CU-RTC-Web? Oct 2013 Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
  53. 53. 3-way support for WebRTC now expanding Enterprise Network tools Devices WebRTC Consumer Web Telco TV & gaming Oct 2013 Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
  54. 54. WebRTC rapidly expanding past “calls” Oct 2013 Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
  55. 55. View Oct’13: lead WebRTC use-cases Live & commercial Pilots / precommercial Trials & demos October 2013 Early enterprise adoption • “Call me” buttons • Contact centre • First telehealth apps Initial consumer web apps/devices • Remote 1-1 education/training/sales • Free standalone video-calling • Chromecast • Developer SDKs & APIs • Vertical niche solutions (finance, health) • Corporate conferencing • Full enterprise UC • Telco core/IMS extension • Entertainment & consumer electronics • M2M, CDN & data-centric apps Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
  56. 56. What use-cases lead? Existing web services Adding real-time comms capabilities Existing realtime comms services Extending via the web, blending web capabilities ? Oct 2013 Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
  57. 57. Provisional WebRTC timeline (at Q1’2013) History Prediction IETF working group set up Ericsson WebRTC demo at MWC Google opensources GIPS IPR 2011 Google, Cisco, Skype, Mozilla RTC-Web workshop Chrome & Opera browsers start supporting WebRTC APIs Broad adoption of WebRTC in massmarket 1 billion WebRTC contact centres capable devices 2 billion WebRTC User familiarity capable devices with in-website User familiarity voice/video with in-app voice/video W3C final draft submitted Telefonica acquires TokBox 2012 2013 Chrome supports WebRTC in stable channel 2014 2015 3 billion WebRTC capable devices 2016 First operatorbranded WebRTC /IMS apps emerge AT&T announces alpha WebRTC APIs Firefox supports WebRTC in stable channel by default Native-WebRTC smartphones gain traction 1 billion individual Microsoft IE active WebRTC supports WebRTC 1st WebRTC-primary users or CU-RTC-Web social/calling app goes viral Source: Disruptive Analysis WebRTC Strategy Report, Feb 2013 Assumptions - See disruptive-analysis.com for details Oct 2013 Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
  58. 58. Various “flavours” of WebRTC gateway Internet WebRTC Gateway IMS Internet WebRTC Gateway PSTN Internet WebRTC Gateway IP-PBX Internet WebRTC Gateway M2M -Signalling, eg SIP-over-WebSocket - Voice/video/data media over SRTP - STUN/ICE/TURN setup for firewalls Oct 2013 Varying functions & scale for gateways, eg WebSockets, ICE, SIP/XMPP etc, API exposure, transcoding, security etc Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
  59. 59. WebRTC gateways galore
  60. 60. WEBRTC INTEGRATION OPTIONS Tim Panton, Westhawk Ltd – @steely_glint
  61. 61. Demo – call a mobile  Demo calls my mobile from a browser
  62. 62. Not everyone wants to interop      Games Dating sites Whiteboards OTT Mayday For these sites a home grown signaling protocol may be simplest/best. (highest value apps will be in this class)
  63. 63. Problem statement WebRTC      HTTP(S) transport RIA 2.0 media Encrypted Opus VP8 ? Carrier IMS      SIP RTP Cleartext Ulaw (729, amr?) H263/4
  64. 64. Gateway needed ? Unless and until those incompatibilities go away.
  65. 65. HTTP to SIP – SIP in the Browser     Use javascript to build SIP messages and protocol Wrap in HTTP (or Web-sockets) Send to webserver Webserver unwraps and forwards to IMS
  66. 66. SIP in the browser Browser JS SIP SIP in HTTP WebSocket Server UDP SIP IMS
  67. 67. Problems       You still have a gateway – albeit a thin one. You have javascript injecting SIP messages into IMS The SDP isn’t compatible The media isn’t compatible What is Early media in a browser ? You have your SIP credentials out on the internet.
  68. 68. SIP in the browser with SBC DMZ Browser JS SIP SIP in HTTP WebSocket Server UDP SIP SBC UDP SIP IMS
  69. 69. Remaining Problems    The media isn’t compatible What is Early media in a browser ? You have SIP credentials out on the internet.
  70. 70. SIP in the browser with SBC, Media Gateway and Registration proxy DMZ Browser JS SIP SIP in HTTP RIA 2.0 WebSocket Server UDP SIP Proxy Reg SBC Media GW UDP SIP IMS RTP ulaw
  71. 71. REST in the browser      Use web ‘RESTful’ commands Sent from the browser To a webRTC gateway Gateway generates the SIP IMS needs Gateway controls transcode resource
  72. 72. REST in the browser with Gateway DMZ Browser app REST/HTTP WebRTC gateway UDP SIP IMS
  73. 73. Problems      Need to map from web Identity to SIP Select a web identity provider webRTC gateways don’t scale (yet) No standard for REST messages Home rolled protocol (may have holes)
  74. 74. XMPP in the browser with SBC DMZ Browser app XMPP/BOSH/ HTTP WebRTC gateway UDP SIP IMS
  75. 75. Problems Need to map from web Identity to SIP  Select a web identity provider  webRTC gateways don’t scale (yet)  More complex than necessary  Needless protocol mapping? However  BOSH is tested  XMPP well defined and federates 
  76. 76. Did we forget mobile? WebRTC isn’t mobile first yet.
  77. 77. WebRTC on Mobile      Browser isn’t a natural interface WebRTC codecs are heavy on battery No native App friendly API (yet) SIP (if used) not an efficient mobile protocol Audio hardware on android variable Both Chrome and firefox on Android support webRTC Expect to see RIA 2.0 with native APIs
  78. 78. Identity. DTLS can carry a certificate – but which one should be used?
  79. 79. Multiple identities on the web When I call from a webpage, which identity do I want to present?  E164 to the shop  Facebook Id to my fb friends  Anon to the game  Pseudo id to dating site Do I ever want to present facebook ID to G+ users?
  80. 80. Demo Phono using a Jira identity. (perhaps)
  81. 81. RECOMMENDATIONS & NEXT STEPS FOR TELCO WEBRTC October 2013 Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
  82. 82. Traditional telecom services: ugly outlook Source: Model for STL Partners, developed by Disruptive Analysis Focus on broadband, bundling, M2M, digital services & lower costs / better flexibility October 2013 Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
  83. 83. For telcos, it’s all looking pretty grim anyway Downsides Voice & SMS saturation & cannibalisation Regulation & competitive impacts Weak content & VAS propositions Economic pressures Ecosystem competition Upsides Connecting the last unconnected Smartphones & data growth Better segmentation & pricing Innovative services & enablers Embracing & exploiting fragmentation October 2013 Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
  84. 84. Neuroscience explains reluctance to change  Predictable irrationality  Endowment effect Optimism bias Confirmation bias Defence of belief systems    Oct 2013 Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
  85. 85. Network/service coupling: historical accident • Service = network • Only 1 service • Interop essential October 2013 Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
  86. 86. What is “OTT”? Any capability offered “over the top” of Public Internet Can be service, application, feature or function, decoupled from the underlying access network Calling OTT a “threat” misses its inevitability Overlooks 150+ examples of “Telco OTT” services October 2013 Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
  87. 87. Carrier strategies with/against OTT Needs developer skills Likely conflict internally Few telcos will succeed Buys time if done well But perceived value will fall Accounting questions TelcoOTT Bundle/ enhance Partner Block / degrade / Charge Add value to bundles May be revshare upside QoS not monetisable Needs regulatory OK Starts unwinnable arms race Admission of being “dumb” Also: Exit & allow customers to BYOVoice October 2013 Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
  88. 88. For telcos WebRTC is a magnifier/catalyst Now With WebRTC Bigger opportunities Worse threats Faster speed Oct 2013 Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
  89. 89. What % of future value comes from 3GPP? VoLTE & RCS Corporate UC Video conf Network APIs Core ntwk & legacy voice Corporate UC Video conf Developer APIs Cisco / MS Lync Bluejean s / Vidyo etc Twillio / Voxeo IMS as a platform Consumer Business OTTs Developers IMS, eventuall y The Theory The Reality • Various telco business units now disintermediating their own core network / platform • Increasingly partnering with 3rd-party players for voice/video apps • What % of future equipment/server need will reside in IMS/3GPP domain vs. 3rd party equipment or cloud platforms? October 2013 Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
  90. 90. Main WebRTC strategies for SPs? Extend onnet services & IMS / SS7 Strengthen enterprise & verticals Enhance developer platform October 2013 Turbocharge Telco-OTT apps Sell packaged WebRTC services to subscriber Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013 Also: invest / incubate Improve own CRM & systems Maybe M2M, devices etc
  91. 91. Conclusions      WebRTC is emerging very fast Standards are still settling Important to be “a part of the community” Early experimentation is mandatory Don’t confine WebRTC to IMS & Labs     Probably no more than 30% total WebRTC effort / resources should go on IMS integration Every unit in the telco with a website should be using it Think about second-order problems now Speed & design & purpose >> quality & evaluation October 2013 Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
  92. 92. For WebRTC report & quarterly update details email information@disruptive-analysis.com October 2013 Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
  93. 93. www.disruptive-analysis.com disruptivewireless.blogspot.com @disruptivedean www.westhawk.co.uk information@disruptive-analysis.com thp@westhawk.co.uk Skype:disruptiveanalysis October 2013 Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013 @steely_glint
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×