| Home |
| About Us |
| Latest News |
| Features |
| R-100 Index |
| Newsdesk |
| Free Email Alerts |
| - - - - - - - |
| Wireless Business Review |
| - - - - - - - |
| Insightz |
|
|
| Tuesday, 22 November 2005 | |
|
The latest in an occasional series
in which senior industry figures chew the fat with TelecomRedux. Here’s
Nortel EMEA director for Converged Multimedia Solutions, Daniel Blais,
examining the phenomenon that is fixed mobile convergence (FMC). TelecomRedux: FMC seems to mean quite different things to different people. What does it mean to you? Daniel Blais: It’s a three-part phenomenon. Convergence at the application means one common set of network hosted applications such as voice, presence, instant messaging, directory, call logs, click-to-call, personal number, unified messaging and so on available to a single user (with a single user profile) over a wide variety of devices, be they wireline (PC, IP phone, IAD, set-top-box, etc) or wireless (GSM/UMTS handset, PDA, and so on). Then there’s convergence at the handset offering a common mobile voice service user experience and the ability to access this service (make and receive calls) using a dual mode (WLAN/GSM) handset when in WLAN (using VoIP) and GSM (using standard GSM access). Then you have the combination of convergence at the application and handset, which is the best of both worlds and is where the battle will be won. TR: Why do you think fixed-mobile convergence is happening right now and where’s the interest coming from? DB: It’s a very popular topic but still at its very early stages in terms of trials and deployments. Terminal availability is very limited, and regulatory aspects are still not all worked out, especially for MVNO relationships. Some markets, like Korea, will take off faster than others. In Europe, we expect integrated carriers to lead the charge due to their ability to more easily integrate the fixed and mobile networks at the service layer. Wireline carriers are limited by the ‘arms-length’ MVNO relationship they have with their wireless partner and only when they can move into a ‘full MVNO’ relationship will they be able to offer a complete integrated service to the end user. Wireless carriers are in defensive mode and won’t do anything until they feel threatened due to cannibalisation of their wireless revenues. TR: What are the main attractions of FMC from an end user point of view, and from a service provider standpoint? DB: For the end user it’s simplicity through convergence of applications and handsets (one phone number, one voicemail, one personal directory and buddy list, and one phone bill). And it should be less costly than separate fixed and mobile services. Looking at service providers, for a fixed operator it’s a way to stop fixed-to-mobile substitution and increase ARPU by intercepting calls that would be made through a wireless network. For a wireless carrier it’s all about customer retention and loyalty - more of a defensive strategy because it will cannibalise wireless revenues, but it could also be an opportunity to offer value added services (personal number, meet-me, IP Centrex and so forth) and get into the fixed VoIP business. TR: How responsive has the telecoms vendor community been to this proposition? DB: Many traditional terminal vendors have been slow to market. There’s lots of talk, but not much in terms of products — yet. Asian (especially Korean) terminal vendors have been much more active and have products available. Most network equipment vendors have access and server solutions available for trial either in-house or OEM. TR: What are the main technical challenges with FMC? DB: QoS, roaming and security over WLAN. The lack of full standards makes interoperability testing between terminals and network more complicated. Another challenge is handset battery life due to high consumption of WLAN – but this is progressing. TR: Is seamless handover a big issue?DB: This is not emerging as a mandatory requirement in the beginning because carriers might want to give the end user the choice to manually manage handover from inexpensive (WLAN) to expensive (GSM/UMTS) calls. As the market matures, seamless handover will become a must have to simplify the end user experience. TR: Are there any regulatory issues with FMC – for example, has fixed traditionally been more heavily regulated than mobile, and do we now need a balancing? DB: Things like Lawfull Intercept and the handling of emergency calls will probably need to be addressed for a converged service. TR: Do you have a view on Unlicensed Mobile Access (UMA) versus Session Initiated Protocol (SIP) as the optimum platform for FMC? Ditto Bluetooth versus Wi-Fi? DB: UMA simply provides the same voice and SMS/MMS services as are available today from the wireless carrier. SIP allows you to do this but with the ability to also provide a full set of value added multimedia services like those mentioned above, plus a better integration with wireline SIP services and devices. Wi-Fi will be the end game for both residential and enterprise markets. Bluetooth is used for early market deployments due to terminal availability and will most likely be phased out over time. TR: Is FMC an enterprise opportunity as well as a residential one? DB: We believe it will start with the enterprise because that is where the end-user business case is more interesting and where terminal variety is less of a barrier. Residential will follow close behind and will really take off when a wide variety of less expensive dual-mode handsets will be available. TR: How important is it that there is a wide selection of FMC handsets? DB: Very important in order to reach residential mass market volume deployment of the service. Less important for enterprise users because the enterprise provides the handset to its employees. TR: Is FMC of more interest to integrated, fixed or mobile operators? Regardless of who’s most interested, who’s most likely to succeed? DB: As I say, integrated carriers are most likely to succeed because they are best positioned to converge their wired and wireless networks. Wireline carriers are most interested because this is a way to fight back from fixed to mobile substitution and increase ARPU by stealing revenues from wireless carriers. TR: Is there a sense in which FMC has already happened, with people simply giving up on wireline phones and just using cell phones? DB: That's the vision of a wireless carrier! TR: Finally, how important is QoS really? Does FMC have to be at least equivalent or even better than the existing alternatives? DB: Voice quality will have to be as good (or as bad) as GSM. QoS over WLAN is a challenge that is being addressed by standards. QoS on IP networks is now well implemented by all carriers that have already deployed a large scale VoIP service. TelecomRedux questions posed by John Williamson. |
| Next > |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|