IMS market status IMS World Forum presentation Issue 1

5,426 views

Published on

Presentation prepared but then not presented at IMS World Forum 2011, so sharing on Slideshare.

Please note the data in the interim 2011 survey presented in these slide is only partial and missed many mobile operators (which as it happened were becoming quite active in IMS), I redid the survey at the end of 2011 into 2012 (spent more time talking with operators to get to the reality of what was going on as I wasn’t happy with the earlier results, you know how difficult it is to get operators to talk with you) and got quite a different result, which to be frank I’m more confident of and is better aligned to what I’m seeing in the market.
Those results are contained in this report: http://www.alanquayle.com/blog/2012/03/new-report-ims-status-report-m.html

Published in: Technology, Business
1 Comment
8 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Please note the data in the interim 2011 survey presented in these slide is only partial and missed many mobile operators (which as it happened were becoming quite active in IMS), I redid the survey at the end of 2011 into 2012 (spent more time talking with operators to get to the reality of what was going on as I wasn’t happy with the earlier results, you know how difficult it is to get operators to talk with you) and got quite a different result, which to be frank I’m more confident of and is better aligned to what I’m seeing in the market.
    Those results are contained in this report: http://www.alanquayle.com/blog/2012/03/new-report-ims-status-report-m.html
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
No Downloads
Views
Total views
5,426
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1,522
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
1
Likes
8
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

IMS market status IMS World Forum presentation Issue 1

  1. 1. IMS Market Status“There are three kinds of lies:lies, damned lies, and statistics.”April 12th 2011, IMS World Forumalan@alanquayle.comwww.alanquayle.com/blog5/1/2011 © 2010 Alan Quayle Business and Service Development 1
  2. 2. Background on the Analysis• Two surveys are being presented o One carried out in 2009 (137 interviews) o One currently underway (similar total number targeted with about 45% interviewed) – 2011 results must be treated as interim• Only where there are significant changes are the results updated given the survey is not yet complete
  3. 3. Interviewee Distribution3 (c) 2011 Alan Quayle Business and Service Development
  4. 4. Supplier Distribution Sales / APAC Account 22% Management Global 23% 38% Technology Office 44% EMEA 22% Marketing Americas 33% 18% Aim is to gather as global a market view as possible4 (c) 2011 Alan Quayle Business and Service Development
  5. 5. Interviewees• OPERATORS• AT&T, Belgacom, Bermuda Telecom, Bharti Airtel, BSkyB, BT, Cable One, Charter, City Telecom, Cox, Deutsche Telekom, Etisalat (and operating companies), Hong Kong CSL, Indosat, KPN (and operating companies), Kuwait Telecom, Maxis, Mobilcom, O2, Optus, Orange / France Telecom (and operating companies), Qtel, Rogers, SingTel, Sprint, Swisscom, T-Com, T-Mobile (and operating companies), Telecom Italia, Telecom New Zealand, Telefonica (and operating companies), Telenor (and operating companies), Telstra, Telus, Three (and operating companies), TWC, Verizon, Vodafone (and operating companies)• SUPPLIERS• 4dk, Alcatel Lucent, AppTrigger, Argela, Camiant, Cisco, Comneon, Comptel, Converged Network Systems, Dialogic, Ecrio, Espial, Genband, HP, hSeind, HTK, Huawei, IBM, Intellinet, jNetx, Motorola, NeuStar, Nokia Siemens Networks, Oracle, OpenCloud, Sigma Systems, Tekelec, Telcordia, TM Forum, Veraz, Wipro5 (c) 2011 Alan Quayle Business and Service Development
  6. 6. IMS Status (2009)Deployed: requireslive commercialservices beingmigrated onto theplatform 6 (c) 2011 Alan Quayle Business and Service Development
  7. 7. IMS Status (2011 - interim)Deployments are on track, 17% figure waspredicted in 2009. More mobile andconverged operators are getting involved.But there remains a significant watchingand waiting groupDeployed: requireslive commercialservices beingmigrated onto theplatform this year(2011)
  8. 8. Cumulative Percentage of Operators by year theyanticipate starting IMS Deployment (2009) 35% 32% 30% 26% 25% 22% 20% 17% 15% 12% 10% 8% 5% 0% 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014A follow-up question asked if MMTel would be included in the IMS deployments, 25% of those operators deploying IMS included MMTel in the deployment. Of the other 75% most have no „near-term‟ plans for MMTel8 (c) 2011 Alan Quayle Business and Service Development
  9. 9. Cumulative Percentage of Operators by year they anticipate starting IMS Deployment (2011) - InterimRemember these are interim results! My opinion is operators are discovering IMSdeployment is complex, I-C-S-CSCF, QoS, BOSS integration, charging, rapid growth ofOTT, RCS concerns, etc. Hence some operators are reconsidering whether the currentapproach is right…. 9 (c) 2011 Alan Quayle Business and Service Development
  10. 10. IMS Barriers: Operators‟ Views (2009) Frequency of Barriers occurrence Business case 80% Lack of standard compliance / proprietary extentions 62% BOSS integration 52% Gaps on basic service emulation - lawful intercept, ISDN2 48% Destination without a route map 45% Complexity 44% General confusion 44% Reaction to marketing hype 35% Network / IT organizational battle 31% Co-ordination between mobile, fixed and broadband divisions 28% Devices (mobile operator specific response) 25% Economy 25% Cheaper alternatives exist (Softswitch) 21% Lacking web-based protocols 20% For most operators business case remains the main uncertainty10 (c) 2011 Alan Quayle Business and Service Development
  11. 11. IMS Barriers: Operators‟ Views (2011) - interim 2009 2011 Frequency of Frequency of Barriers occurrence occurrence Business case 80% 71% Lack of standard compliance / proprietary extentions 62% 65% BOSS integration 52% 57% Gaps on basic service emulation - lawful intercept, ISDN2 48% 45% Destination without a route map 45% 45% Complexity 44% 63% General confusion 44% 45% Reaction to marketing hype 35% 33% Network / IT organizational battle 31% 35% Co-ordination between mobile, fixed and broadband divisions 28% 30% Devices (mobile operator specific response) 25% 23% Economy 25% 18% Cheaper alternatives exist (Softswitch) 21% 24% Lacking web-based protocols 20% 28% Business case remains an issue but not as sever. Complex has risen sharply.11 (c) 2011 Alan Quayle Business and Service Development
  12. 12. IMS Barriers: Suppliers‟ Views Frequency of Barriers occurrence Lack of standard compliance / proprietary extentions 67% BOSS integration 55% Complexity 55% Network / IT organizational battle 51% Business Case 48%For most suppliers business case is much lower on the list – implementation issues dominate 12 (c) 2011 Alan Quayle Business and Service Development
  13. 13. Service Drivers for IMS (2009) Service Driver FrequencyHD Voice 0%LTE 6%Mobile VoIP 6%RCS 8%Open Innovation 10%Postpay value added services on prepaid 15%Operator App Store 8%Other 5% Service need is not a significant driver13 (c) 2011 Alan Quayle Business and Service Development
  14. 14. Service Drivers for IMS (2011) - interim Service Driver Frequency HD Voice 5% LTE 23% Mobile VoIP 6% RCS 12% Open Innovation 8% Postpay value added services on prepaid 6% Operator App Store 4% Other 5% LTE (voice support) has emerged as the most significant service driver14 (c) 2011 Alan Quayle Business and Service Development
  15. 15. Initial Application of IMS (2009) Initial Application of IMS Frequency Converged voice platform across broadband, legacy and mobile networks 47% Voice over LTE (Long Term Evolution) 8% Voice over EVDO revA or HSPA+ 3% Converged multimedia service platform across broadband, legacy and mobile networks 2% Service innovation, e.g. RCS (Rich Communication Suite) 5% End of life softswitch replacement 29% Engineering bragging rights to maintain stock/share price 6% Voice remains key15 (c) 2011 Alan Quayle Business and Service Development
  16. 16. Initial Application of IMS (2011) 2009 2011 Initial Application of IMS Frequency FrequencyConverged voice platform across broadband,legacy and mobile networks 47% 32%Voice over LTE (Long Term Evolution) 8% 17%Voice over EVDO revA or HSPA+ 3% 1%Converged multimedia service platform acrossbroadband, legacy and mobile networks 2% 15%Service innovation, e.g. RCS (RichCommunication Suite) 5% 7%End of life softswitch replacement 29% 27%Engineering bragging rights to maintainstock/share price 6% 1% Voice remains key, VoLTE, and multimedia (particularly IPTV) appears much more strongly in this year‟s results 16 (c) 2011 Alan Quayle Business and Service Development
  17. 17. Application of RCS (2011) - Interim Aware of RCS? 2009 2011 Tracking RCS 35% 45% Aware not tracking 44% 40% Not aware 21% 15% View on RCS Frequency Frequency The break-through service IMS needed 18% 5% A user-centric, integrated experience, that finally moves the address book into the 21st century 24% 19% A political ploy to limit Skypes attempts at open access 43% 50% Lacking web integration 75% 80% An attempt to maintain legacy business models 55% 65% Skepticism on RCS remains high17 (c) 2011 Alan Quayle Business and Service Development
  18. 18. Alternatives and Paths to IMS (2011) - Interim 2009 2011 Alternatives to IMS Frequency Frequency JAIN SLEE 23% 18% SDP 42% 21% SIP Servlet and Service Broker 25% 25% Service Broker 28% 32% Softswitch 65% 71% Existing IN/SCP 67% 77% Paths being adopted Frequency Frequency Softswitch for commodity voice no plan for IMS adjunct in next 3 years 42% 40% Softswitch for commodity voice with IMS adjunct in place or planned 29% 31% IMS core for VoIP services between mobile, broadband and legacy (see Verizon case study) 18% 28% Continue to leverage existing IN assets (annually reviewed) 47% 41% Service Broker (Vodafone Spain and AppTrigger case studies) 23% 28% Focus on service exposure harnesses web services SDP (SIP AS/Service Broker/ParlayX) 34% 38%General move towards Verizon‟s position, with better understanding of SDP‟s role18 (c) 2011 Alan Quayle Business and Service Development
  19. 19. IMS Evolution: A destination without a route map to get there! IMS Adjunct Service Softswitch Broker Legacy SCP Legacy SCP IMS Adjunct Softswitch Softswitch Service Legacy Broker Legacy IMS Core SCP SCP Current Softswitch Transition IMS Core Service Legacy Legacy Broker SCP SCP IMS Core Legacy SCPCurrent transition is taking the industry into a more complex situation, were an IMS adjunct is added to a softswitch to support more complex services, and then transition out the softswitch to an IMS core. But regardless that legacy SCP keeps hanging on in there, though there are a few exceptions. 19 (c) 2011 Alan Quayle Business and Service Development
  20. 20. Vendor PerceptionsOnly difference iscombined NSN/Motois at roughly the meanof their combinesratings 20 (c) 2011 Alan Quayle Business and Service Development
  21. 21. Conclusions• The religious war has ended, IMS (IP Multimedia Subsystem) did not become widely deployed within the first decade of the 21st century. o Surprisingly for many in the industry, SS7 (Signaling System #7) remains in rude health and VoIP (Voice over IP) continues its linear, not exponential, growth.• So where is IMS? o IMS is moving away from niche deployment with 17% of those operators surveyed deploying IMS; by 2014 about 34% of operators interviewed anticipate commencing an IMS deployment, which they view as a 7+ year process.• Regionally, NAR (North America Region) provides the bulk of the growth in years 2010 and 2013, while EMEA (Europe Middle East and Africa) and APAC (Asia Pacific) regions provide the bulk of growth in later years. o Of the early adopters there are generally specific circumstances that create the case for IMS, which do not universally apply.21 (c) 2011 Alan Quayle Business and Service Development
  22. 22. Cumulative Percentage of Operators by year they anticipate starting IMS Deployment (2011) - InterimDo we need IMS-lite? (a simplified version with multiple route-maps laid out)Do we need an open-source IMS client – so its just there like IPV6?Do we need a reset on RCS? 22 (c) 2011 Alan Quayle Business and Service Development

×