From Larry Baziw, Rogers, important issue of focusing upon the customer experience, a point made at the start that was ignored by most other presentations.
From Larry Baziw, Rogers, this is a key value add – operators can aggregate many services, delivering services that just work and do not require both parties to be on the same OS / client, internet connected, and using a smartphone. Customer experience is critical.
From Larry Baziw, Rogers, this highlights an assumption made by many in the conference that operators deliverquality services because of network QoS, and over the top providers do not. For most customers that is not their experience, they do not think operators deliver quality of service given the dropped calls, low quality voice (especially compared to Skype), SMS disappearing into black holes, high charges, no feedback requested at the end of a poor call, etc. Note with fatter pipes QoS matters less.
From Huawei, a great slide highlighting simply the threat to operators core business from their current trajectory.
From Verizon, their IMS Service Architecture. Which because they need to migrate away from CDMA fast,requires they adopt LTE and VoLTE faster than the rest of the World. However, suppliers are not acting in theirGSM customers‟ best interest in advising on a path right, instead simply pushing for action on VoLTE now. VZ‟s other driver is LTE runs on contiguous 700MHz across the US, so coverage will be good including in-building.
From Verizon, their VoLTE development plan. With a solid LTE network and high definition audio, backed by Verizon‟s integrated customer experience, they‟re going to become a tough act for AT&T to compete with. Its impressive how Verizon has managed what would appear to be a significant challenge – betting on the wrong technology, to their advantage.
From Verizon, a great example on the importance of keeping it focused, no app stores or advertising, simplygetting voice working on their target network, LTE. Though roaming will remain a problem as national LTE networks for most GSM operators are many years away, perhaps never depending on their 4G plans.
From Telekom Srbija, highlight the many problems operators face in IMS implementations. A point highlightedwas around IMS being a destination without a route map. Key is to use mature solutions and take it step by step as it is complex.
From Genband, highlights some interesting issues with the PSTN model disappearing and telecom-centricnetworks displaced by IT/web-centric architectures. That last point is a key issue on the aging IMS architecture which was built in the old box and wire days.
From ACME Packet, another presentation with refreshing openness on the issues with IMS. It was a pity we didn‟t have many more, especially from operators with their challenges in IMS implementations.
From KPN, example of some of the simplifications that can be made in IMS. From the audience one of thesuppliers asked the question, „Where you able to get your supplier to make these changes?”. The answer was yes, but it‟s a sad reflection on our industry that a vendor asks at all, and in a public forum, such as question.
ALU‟s stated driver for IMS was service innovation, we‟ll ignore the fact it ignores the need for an SDP, this surprised me at the event many people couldn‟t understand what an SDP was used for, they thought anapplication server was adequate – this is a great example of the silo‟ed nature of people in telecoms when they lack an understanding of the total network, and think from their silo they have the complete answer – we need to „up the game‟ in telco, especially in understanding the totality of the business.
From Ericsson, VoLTE was given as one of the drivers for IMS, the other being Video. This was a commontheme at the conference VoLTE requires IMS, so do IMS. But this presupposed operators need voice over LTE,which many do not. My recommendation is wait for 4G when a national deployment is required. For LTE justuse it for hotspot data coverage. Note there‟s no discussion on call drops or voice quality – which matter much more to customers.
From Ericsson, their other driver for IMS was video, we‟ve been here before in 2000 with 3G. It‟s a pity the mistakes from the past are not included in today‟s thinking.
From Huawei, another example of vendors positioning IMS as the answer to all problems, and more dangerously claiming there is no alternative, that what is created in IMS will never be repeated. Firstly, it is to be hoped the wasted effort in IMS will never be repeated. Secondly, given the 100s of app stores, e.g. Apple, Android, RIM, Getjar, including all the existing operator app stores survive without IMS – this is an example of a slide that simply should not pass any basic quality review within an supplier.
From Huawei, same issue as the previous slide – this is an example of another slide that simply should not passany basic quality review within an supplier. Keep the message simple and focused – the above is not credible as much more than IMS is required.
Perhaps a rather rosy interpretation of what remain significant issues where over one third of respondents (only 22 in total) cite business case or BOSS integration asbarriers. Misses complexity issues many operators arefinding in their deployments
Interesting graph on subscribers connected to IMS, shows currently APAC dominates, and fixed line will continue to dominate with LTE only starting to impact the numbers in 2014 – though LTE was quoted as the driver for LTE at the conference by many (not just the vendors)
This highlight a couple of the problems we have in our industry – business requirements only appear once the GSMA gets involved, and apart from the business people involved in running their conferences, most otherpeople are technology biased. So we have a gaping hole in not being business-led through the ecosystem. Plusall the interop fora are not adequately addressing the problems operators are facing in implementing IMS – as highlighted in the survey I‟m running.
From ACME Packet, this slide for me summarizes where we are on IMS. We‟ve made the simple complicated.Just setting up a voice call through IMS requires far to many messages to be passed than today, and all those messages require processing. Some were claiming an IMS implementation has up to 25 times the message passing of an equivalent over the top services – how can we be competitive with we need 25* the data center