Nortel Presentation

1
Wireless Service Providers ASPs Partnering
for Mobile Internet Apps Vish Nandlall Chief
Architect, Carrier Networks vnandlal_at_nortel.com
2
Agenda

• Why ASPs should partner with wireless service
  providers
• Implications of wireless service provider trends
  for ASPs
• Conclusions

3
Agenda

• Why ASPs should partner with wireless service
  providers
• Issues with Mobile Internets market traction
  being resolved
• Wireless service providers control key assets to
  enable apps
• E.g., Best-Effort VoIP May Not Be Good Enough
• Implications of wireless service provider trends
  for ASPs
• Conclusions

4
Low Bandwidth Relative to Fixed Internet
UMTS
WiMAX 802.16e EV- DO Rev C LTE
Mobile Internet
Cellular
Mobile Wireless BB
HSPA EV-DO / DOrA
Voice Messaging
802.11 n
WiFi
Local Area

• Mobile Internets historically low
• bandwidth ?
• Content limitations
• Consumer impatience
• Mobile, wireless broadband (BB)
• deployments will eliminate this issue!

802.11 a/b/g
WiMAX 802.16d
VDSL / FTTH
Fixed
Any App over Broadband
Increasing bandwidth
2007 Rollout
2008 beyond
Existing
5
Unfriendly Handset Ergonomics

• Unfriendly handset MMI ?
• User difficulty in obtaining
• viewing content
• Handset vendors improving
• iPhone set a new benchmark

6
No Mobile Content Development Guidelines

• Lack of guidelines ?
• Deters content development
• Hinders usability of content
• W3Cs Mobile Web Initiative (MWI)
• Best practices mobile device descriptions
• .mobi top level domain for MWI-based content

dotMobi Investors
W3C MWI Sponsors
7
Mobile Content Market Fragmentation

• Fragmentation of market across
• Device types
• Access network types
• Operators
• Limits market scope of developed
• content ?
• Reduces incentive for content
• development
• Mitigating factors
• Access distinctions diminish with
• wireless BB
• 3 device types will dominate

2010
TechNewsWorld, 4/2006
8
Walled Gardens
Walled gardens Limited access to Internet
? Reduces users bang for the buck
Sprint sees open model for WiMax (InfoWorld,
1/2007)
The walls are falling!
9
Operators Revenue-Sharing Models
YouTube, Verizon deal is official
GigaOM, 11/2006
X-Series from 3 Puts Internet on Your
Mobile Partnerships with Orb, Sling Media,
Google, Microsoft, Google Mobile Marketing
Magazine, 11/2006

• Historical models reduced incentive for content
  development
• Growing of operator partnerships indicate
  mutually agreeable terms

10
Fixed Internet Content Hasnt Met Mobile Users
Needs

• Online behavior of mobile
• fixed Internet users differs.
• Situational, mobile-relevant
• content emerging
• Timely
• Location-relevant
• Actionable

Navigational mapping services
Breaking news
Podcasts, video webcasts
Live sportscast
11
Mobile Internet Subscription Pricing Too High

• Price has reduced end-user demand ?
• Reduces market for content developers
• Prices likely to fall due to
• Market analysts recommending small
• premium above DSL access tariffs
• Competition from alternative wireless
• access (e.g., WiFi, WiMAX)
• Service providers re-examining pricing when
• VoIP deployed over wireless BB

Internet price
Subscriber Usage


12
Agenda

• Why ASPs should partner with wireless service
  providers
• Issues with Mobile Internets market traction
  being resolved
• Wireless service providers control key assets to
  enable apps
• E.g., Best-Effort VoIP May Not Be Good Enough
• Implications of wireless service provider trends
  for ASPs
• Conclusions

13
Wireless Service Providers Control Key Assets to
Enable Apps
14
E.g., Best-Effort (BE) VoIP May Not Be Good
Enough

• Voice KPIs
• Voice quality
• Call setup delay (i.e., post-dial delay)
• Wireless channel characteristics
• Shared ? BE traffic latency increases beyond a
  threshold of sector loading ? policy-controlled
  QoS
• Relatively slow ? over-the-air (OTA) propagation
  can consume major portion of delay budget ?
  access network-controlled header compression
  efficient voice encoding with VoIP packet
  alignment with L2 frame sizes
• Lossy ? frame loss impacts voice quality
  call-setup delay ? UDP transport for SIP
  limited SIP PRACKs loss-resilient codec
• User mobility may result in handoff to different
  channel, can result in movement to different
  point of attachment in operators intranet ?
  policy-controlled real-time enhancements to
  minimize break time
• Mobile devices optimized around use of
  wireless-specific, IPR-encumbered codecs, use
  of other codecs may perceptibly impact other apps

Only wireless service provider can consistently
deliver quality voice
15
Agenda

• Why ASPs should partner with wireless service
  providers
• Implications of wireless service provider trends
  for ASPs
• Conclusions

16
Implications of Wireless Service Provider Trends
for ASPs

• IMS
• Access-independent session control app-layer
  service routing
• Operator control billing for services
• Authentication service authorization
• Scalable, multi-vendor deployments
• Standardized roaming interconnects

• IMS
• Access-independent session control app-layer
  service routing
• Operator control billing for services
• Authentication service authorization
• Scalable, multi-vendor deployments
• Standardized roaming interconnects
• Provides for network evolution
• PSTN AIN/CAMEL inter-working
• VCC mobility between packet MSC access with IMS
  services

• IMS
• Access-independent session control app-layer
  service routing
• Operator control billing for services
• Authentication service authorization
• Scalable, multi-vendor deployments
• Standardized roaming interconnects
• Provides for network evolution
• PSTN AIN/CAMEL inter-working
• VCC mobility between packet MSC access with IMS
  services
• Relevant types of app servers (ASs)
• SIP AS for interactive, real-time communication
  services (e.g., VoIP video-telephony, PoC)
  messaging notification services
• OSA-SCS AS ParlayX/WS APIs providing ASPs with
  access to service providers network enablers

• Mobile Enterprise Services
• Mobile enterprise telephony
• One phone vs. one number
• IMS-hosted, Mobile IP Centrex

• Mobile Enterprise Services
• Mobile enterprise telephony
• One phone vs. one number
• IMS-hosted, Mobile IP Centrex
• Enterprise-hosted, Mobile IP PBX

• Mobile Enterprise Services
• Mobile enterprise telephony
• One phone vs. one number
• IMS-hosted, Mobile IP Centrex
• Enterprise-hosted, Mobile IP PBX
• Telephony-enabled apps e.g., CRM web portal
  with click-to-call

• Mobile Enterprise Services
• Mobile enterprise telephony
• One phone vs. one number
• IMS-hosted, Mobile IP Centrex
• Enterprise-hosted, Mobile IP PBX
• Telephony-enabled apps e.g., CRM web portal
  with click-to-call
• Federated apps e.g., presence
• Coordination between carrier- enterprise-hosted
  business apps
• Carrier-hosted, add-on business apps
  conferencing, presence IM, contact center, etc.
• Enterprise-hosted s/w FFA/SFA, CRM, ERP, etc.

• End Users Demands
• Broadband (BB) Access
• IP Ubiquity for E2E Connectivity
• Fixed-Mobile Convergence (FMC)
• Policy-Enabled QoS Charging
• IMS
• Over-the-Top ASP Competition
• Mobile Enterprise Services
• Service Bundling
• Service Delivery

• End Users Demands
• Broadband (BB) Access
• IP Ubiquity for E2E Connectivity
• Fixed-Mobile Convergence (FMC)
• Policy-Enabled QoS Charging
• IMS
• Over-the-Top ASP Competition
• Mobile Enterprise Services
• Service Bundling
• Service Delivery

• End Users' Demands
• Personalization
• Shift from network- to subscriber-centric
  services
• My content apps on my time _at_ my location
• My communication, my way
• Gen Y
• Web 2.0 social networking collaboration
• MMORPG
• Both can be voice enabled
• Seamless service access across all devices with
• Content/app adaptation per device/place/time/role

• Fixed-Mobile Convergence (FMC)
• Mobile access to both fixed BB via WiFi or
  femtocells cellular WAN
• Seamless app mobility via IP-based mobility or
  Voice Call Continuity (VCC)
• Consumer sticky service bundle with cheaper,
  better mobile coverage _at_ home
• Enterprise initially driven by cheaper mobile
  telephony costs
• Wireless service provider new market for
  provider-hosted, mobility-enabled, enterprise
  voice services ? mobile voice enablement of
  enterprise apps

• Broadband (BB) Access
• Complementary technologies
• Fixed BB _at_ office home
• OFDM-MIMO for WAN mobility
• Enables
• New, richer, multimedia apps
• Architectural shift stovepipe ? loosely coupled
  network layers
• Decoupling apps from access, both technically
  commercially

• Policy-Enabled QoS Charging
• Shared wireless pipe mobility ? QoS admission
  controls mobility enhancements needed to
  guarantee performance for some apps
• Discounted QoS packet counts for operators
  partners IMS non-IMS apps vs. best effort
  basic mobility for non-partners

• Service Delivery
• Internet Time ? over-the-top partnerships, web
  services development
• Internet Cost new, low cost, service economics

• Over-the-Top ASP Competition
• New business models e.g., free,
  advertising-subsidized apps
• Voice service competition based on cost ? erosion
  of service providers voice revenues
• Competitive, VoIP ASPs indeed have opportunity
  for cheap, wireless voice market wireless
  service provider will retain advantage for
  quality market

• IP Ubiquity for E2E Connectivity
• IP-based mobility between access nets

• IP Ubiquity for E2E Connectivity
• IP-based mobility between access nets
• Device access to IP-based apps ( eventually
  phasing out others)

• IP Ubiquity for E2E Connectivity
• IP-based mobility between access nets
• Device access to IP-based apps ( eventually
  phasing out others)
• Enterprise telephony ? IP
• Implications
• Mobile users more accessible to ASPs
• More mashups possible

• Service Bundling
• Voice-centric ? triple/quad plays ? content
  differentiation via...
• Competing portfolios of multimedia value-added
  services
• Service providers need ASPs help to compete!

17
Agenda

• Why ASPs should partner with wireless service
  providers
• Implications of wireless service provider trends
  for ASPs
• Conclusions

18
Conclusions

• Historical issues - technical, market,
  commercial - impeding collaboration between ASPs
  wireless service providers are being resolved
• Wireless service providers need the help of ASPs
  to compete with innovative apps, designed for the
  mobile handset delivered with expedited TTM
• Wireless service providers control assets that
  can enable or enhance certain applications
  delivered over the Mobile Internet
• Collaborating with the wireless service providers
  can open market segments for some ASPs, and
  improve market share for others

19
(No Transcript)