1 / 19

Wireless Service Providers & ASPs: Partnering for Mobile Internet Apps Vish Nandlall

Explore the significance of ASPs partnering with wireless service providers for mobile internet apps. Learn about key trends, implications, and conclusions for successful collaboration in the evolving mobile landscape.

renitam
Download Presentation

Wireless Service Providers & ASPs: Partnering for Mobile Internet Apps Vish Nandlall

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Wireless Service Providers & ASPs: Partnering for Mobile Internet Apps Vish Nandlall Chief Architect, Carrier Networks vnandlal@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 Internet’s 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 WiFi 802.11 n Local Area • Mobile Internet’s 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 • W3C’s 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 user’s bang for the buck “Sprint sees ‘open’ model for WiMax” (InfoWorld, 1/2007) The walls are falling!

  9. “Vodafone, Yahoo Extend Partnership” for IM LightReading, 2/2007 “Alltel Extends Mobile Content Delivery Contract” cellular-news, 1/2007 Operator’s 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 Hasn’t 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 Internet’s 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 operator’s 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. Visited IMS PBX Policy Server SS7 Peer IMS PSTN MSC 2G/3G WAN AS AS AS AS AS AS AS AS AS AS AS Mobility- Enabled Intranet Enterprise LAN SCP Internet Home IMS OFDM-MIMO WAN Fixed BB @home Implications of Wireless Service Provider Trends for ASPs • 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 • IMS • Access-independent session control & app-layer service routing • Operator control & billing for services • Authentication & service authorization • Scalable, multi-vendor deployments • Standardized roaming & interconnects • Mobile Enterprise Services • Mobile enterprise telephony • One phone vs. one number • IMS-hosted, Mobile IP Centrex • 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 provider’s network enablers • 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 • 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 • 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 @ 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 @ 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 @ 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 operator’s & 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 provider’s voice revenues • Competitive, VoIP ASPs indeed have opportunity for “cheap,” wireless voice market; wireless service provider will retain advantage for “quality” market • Service Bundling • Voice-centric  triple/quad plays  content differentiation via... • Competing portfolios of multimedia & value-added services • Service providers need ASPs’ help to compete! • 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 • IP Ubiquity for E2E Connectivity • IP-based mobility between access nets

  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

More Related