Integration of Rich Communication Services

1,109 views
992 views

Published on

Integration of Rich Communication Services:
- Converged (fixed/mobile) operator requirements
- Integration of rich communications as an enabler for advanced IPTV services
- Use cases and business perspectives of selected scenarios

Presented at Rich Communication 2012 in Berlin, Germany.

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,109
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
7
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
27
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Integration of Rich Communication Services

  1. 1. Integration of Rich Communication Services Sebastian Schumann Slovak Telekom 7. November 2012. Berlin, Germany
  2. 2. Slovak Telekom, a.s. §  Slovak Telekom Group is the telecommunication market leader in Slovakia §  T-Com, T-Mobile (merger in 2010), Zoznam, Posam §  We provide fixed network services, mobile communications, Internet access + content, data services, CPE, ICT services (data center + cloud), radio and TV broadcasting as well as commercial call center services §  The major shareholder is Deutsche Telekom AG, one of the largest telecommunications operators worldwide §  Successful deployments in SEE as well as in DT group §  One of the biggest national-wide deployment of NGN technology in Europe in 2004, whole city migrated to all-IP NGN in 2007 §  Fixed network IMS migration started in 2011 (class 5 replacement) §  Leader in IPTV (since 2006) and providing also hybrid sat TV (since 2009) §  Extensive FTTx deployments (370.000 households) §  First Flash-OFDM deployment for mobile data in 2005
  3. 3. Scope §  Integration of Rich Communication Services §  Converged (fixed/mobile) operator requirements §  Integration of rich communications as an enabler for advanced IPTV services §  Use cases and business perspectives of selected scenarios Textbox Headline §  What are rich communication services in scope of this presentation? §  How can integration help to improve the perception of the “uncool” Telco? Can it? §  Where do I see price tags to be placed in future network architectures? Share my vision how and where “former Telco’s” can gain some ground in the ever-changing service landscape Ideas from an operator for other operators.
  4. 4. Our environment changes! Calling from the fixed phone. §  (Younger) people barely use fixed phones anymore. §  Telephone use per se is going done, however, only legacy telephony use! §  People talk even more, but through different channels §  Mobile phone §  Skype §  Viber, Facetime §  Still used in the corporate environment, but for how long? §  Mobile phone §  Lync §  The demand for talking to a distant person remains, but is satisfied differently. Image: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2047625/Half-people-30-admit-using-home-phone.html
  5. 5. Our environment changes! Family/friends in front of the TV Image: http://theotherjournal.com/filmwell/2009/10/28/made-for-tv-filmwells-resident-telephobe-launches-new-series/ §  Households have multiple TV §  “TV” is not watched on the TV anymore (shift to iPads etc.) §  People are not gathering in one location anymore §  The demand for watching movies, even “together”, remains, but is satisfied differently.
  6. 6. Our environment changes! Choice of television program §  In the past, people had printed TV guides (and even paid for it) §  Set of channels §  Movie information §  Rating §  EPG is a first step forward, but demand still not satisfied §  Several ratings, discussion, link to actors’ other movies, etc. §  Differing per TV vendor, per program supplier §  The demand to know what currently runs remains, but is satisfied differently. Image: http://vintagedisneylandtickets.blogspot.com/2008/11/disneyland-album-tv-guide-january-1955_14.html, http://telekom.sk
  7. 7. Our environment changes! TV watching behavior §  People used to meet in front of TV at a certain time §  Evenings where scheduled acc. TV program §  If people were not able to watch something, it had been explicitly recorded §  People still watch content they want, but differently §  On the place of their choice §  At the time of their choice Image: http://www.netflix.com. http://videoload.de, http://telekom.sk
  8. 8. Why is there so much about TV? §  Slovak Telekom launched TV apps and OTT TV a while ago §  Television from Slovak Telekom marketed under the brand name “Magio” §  Magio IPTV & SAT apps on ST’s own web based framework with non NGN IPTV - including Hybrid TV interactive applications §  Facebook §  Video portal free.sk, sports app §  Magio Go includes device- and access-independent access to many local channels §  Web access §  Mobile web access §  Mobile app access §  Includes access to control the set-top-box at home (e.g. for recordings)
  9. 9. ST Magio Go – Operator OTT for multiscreen §  OTT multiscreen service over any network §  PC, mobile, iPhone §  Profile detected based on IP access network §  Additional service to Magio TV §  10 live TV channels §  HLS adaptive streaming §  PC browser, Android, iOS §  Limited to Slovakia §  (GeoIP) Images: http://www.magio.tv
  10. 10. Benefits of TV OTT §  Customer has access to content he pays for – independently of the current location §  Ideally also to TV archive/recordings §  Extend reach of customers – IPTV not limited anymore to own access infrastructure §  The inclusion of delivering TV off-net means also finding ways to deal with others delivering TV on-net §  Reduce amount of set top boxes (one of the most important cost factors for IPTV) §  Local operators can use the local presence and country as specific advantages §  Local content §  Language How can we apply our experience to communications – the current core business?
  11. 11. Think user centric and redefine our terms §  It is not telephony anymore, voice is only one of the communications means §  It is not text messaging between phones anymore, it is multi-device on multi-net multimedia messaging §  Decoupling of network and service is now technically possible – since it is all IP §  Service is accessible no matter how the user is connected §  “Just add voice” to own apps is now an option §  We started well off with taking TV to an OTT level, it has to continue with voice/messaging §  Customer should not be limited by access or device to access operator services §  Why can I not send SMS from my WiFi iPad? §  Why can I not do phone calls incl. in my mobile phone bundle using my PC? §  … §  All of this could generate revenues for the service operator!
  12. 12. Is RCS-e/joyn the way to go? §  Maybe. §  joyn as “chat for mobile phones” is – in fact – most likely not going to convince alone §  Messages have different values and are exchanged differently than legacy SMS §  Picture sharing is not done during a call but using Instagram §  RCS-e as a platform may enable interesting use cases, if the concept is done right §  Provide interfaces to extend basic service offers seamlessly §  Messaging on the TV, interop with SMS, carrier billing §  Phonebook, messaging integration on IPTV missing – why? §  Presence ( ) is nothing scary anymore for the users, but not delivered – why? §  Commonplace in communications applications, web sites, mobile phones for years §  many applications can be enhanced with communications, joyn as platform/enabler is not a bad idea as such, but it is not the new SMS!
  13. 13. Ideas
  14. 14. IPTV – a disregarded communications opportunity §  Seamless integration of IPTV services with regard to communications offer §  Phonebook integration §  Call initiation §  CLIP on TV §  Recommend via joyn §  Use benefit of not requiring particular TV (not “smart”, not new, not connected) but offer this “smart” experience through set-top-box (“valuable” end device) §  Make first integration experience of joyn communications enabler platform locally, to offer its capability later on to third parties §  Example §  Magio integration with Facebook §  Telekom Deutschland Entertain integrations §  Mediencenter, Shair
  15. 15. IPTV – a disregarded communications opportunity ctd. Sean Connery Roger Moore Pierce Brosnan Daniel Craig Phonebook PSTN IMS TelekomCloud
  16. 16. Refurbishing Telco services for today’s world §  New “former legacy” telecommunications services are currently just build acc. the previous requirements §  When “rebuilding the PSTN”, Telco’s should at least “mash up services” using web services or consider integration with today’s services §  Voicemail extension §  Speech to text, SMS to mail §  WAV file delivery via mail, web front-end §  Call Forwarding or Do Not Disturb based on calendar information §  Conferencing enhancement with web portal, mail invite, secure data store etc. §  Televoting integration to IPTV
  17. 17. Refurbishing Telco services for today’s world ctd. Televoting PSTN
  18. 18. Full service experience packaged by Telekom §  All services that are now only integrated using “bundled sales” can be fully integrated to offer device independent experience §  Fixed/mobile converged communications §  TV communications central §  PC + tablet extension §  Example §  1st step: Hometalk – use the “fixed line” on the mobile phone §  Future possibilities §  Provide convergence network-wise w/o separate app §  Use “mobile services”, e.g. MyPhonebook, through TV at the “fixed line” or on WiFi §  Permit seamless access to commodities like voice, messaging through non-classical access/devices (e.g. tablet on WiFi, PC)
  19. 19. What else can we do? §  Permit integration as features in third party products using APIs §  Do not only start integrating capabilities provided by Internet services, but also offer own capabilities to be integrated §  Sample: §  Elaborate new possibilities that may bring §  Support break-out to PSTN §  Add joyn communications features – enabled by the platform, not a particular client. §  Offer simple APIs to integrate what is missing on the app side §  Stop thinking in legacy patters, evolve communications + services. §  Don’t try to be “like OTT” without benefits users know from their proposition!
  20. 20. The IMS and RCS does not change anything per se §  Migration of legacy platforms is currently mainly cost driven §  IMS is seen as the best alternative at the moment – following the legacy view of telephony! §  What can Telco’s do once they have IMS or RCS infrastructure (for whatever reason) §  Wrong: Look at what we can do with it. Create need or technical motivation. §  joyn??? §  Right: Check what we need! And what our customers need. à Look how the IMS and transitioned Telco infrastructure can help. §  Optimize processes and infrastructure §  Find new business models §  Consider the web (also with regard to payment options, feature activation, etc.) §  Integrate, but offer also means to be integrated (messaging, voice) Technology driven services and features are wrong!
  21. 21. Summary §  Motivation to rather act now than wait for the perfect standard §  Utilize existing infrastructure §  Integrate on the back-end/blend services §  Development should happen for the future (with legacy support) and NOT to keep legacy logic and integrate it somehow with future systems §  Northbound integration of IMS service layer should not be an option, but a must! §  … and should be done with Web 2.0 technologies/protocols §  The Web 2.0 is user centric and open to be extended with 3rd party applications – the Telco 2.0 should follow this approach §  Integration on back-end (e.g. with IPTV, IMS services) is cheap and helps transition of the customer feeling of “Telco as single home communications provider” §  Not only keep QoS on IP (“assure it’s not worse”) but increase QoE (“make it better”) §  Integration is important (internally as well as opening for external access)
  22. 22. Thank you. Sebastian Schumann Senior Designer Slovak Telekom, a.s. Sebastian.Schumann@telekom.sk +421 903 419 345 @s_schumann sschumann
  23. 23. References §  http://newsroom.sprint.com/news/sprint-offers-personalized-names-as-alternatives-to-phone-numbers.htm §  Thanks to Juraj Matejka, Eugen Mikoczy, and Tomas Sustr for contributing to preparing this presentation!

×