1
Wireless Service Providers & ASPs:Partnering for Mobile Internet Apps
Vish Nandlall Chief Architect, Carrier Networks
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
Existing 2007 Rollout 2008 & beyond
Voice & Messaging
Any App over Broadband
Fix
edL
oca
l A
rea
Mo
bil
eIn
tern
et
802.11 a/b/g
WiMAX 802.16d
UMTS
Cellular
802.11 n
VDSL / FTTH
WiFiMobile Internet’s historically low bandwidth • Content limitations• Consumer impatience
Mobile, wireless broadband (BB)deployments will eliminate this issue!
Increasing bandwidth
WiMAX 802.16eEV- DO Rev C
LTEHSPA
EV-DO / DOrA
Mobile Wireless BB
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
W3C MWI Sponsors
dotMobi Investors
7
Mobile Content Market Fragmentation
Fragmentation of market across:• Device types• Access network types• Operators
Limits market scope of developedcontent • Reduces incentive for content development
Mitigating factors:• Access distinctions diminish with wireless BB• 3 device types will dominate
Other23%
Linux26%
Symbian22%
Windows Mobile29%
2010
TechNewsWorld, 4/2006
8
Walled Gardens
The walls are falling!
Walled gardens =Limited access to Internet Reduces user’s bang for the buck
“Sprint sees ‘open’model for WiMax”(InfoWorld, 1/2007)
9
Operator’s Revenue-Sharing Models
• Historical models reduced incentive for content development• Growing # of operator partnerships indicate mutually agreeable terms
“YouTube, Verizon deal is official”
“Vodafone, Yahoo Extend Partnership” for IM
LightReading, 2/2007
GigaOM, 11/2006
“Alltel Extends Mobile Content Delivery Contract”
cellular-news, 1/2007
“X-Series from 3 Puts Internet on Your Mobile”
Partnerships with Orb, Sling Media, Google, Microsoft, Google
Mobile Marketing Magazine, 11/2006
10
Fixed Internet Content Hasn’t Met Mobile Users’ Needs
Online behavior of mobile &fixed Internet users differs.
Situational, mobile-relevantcontent emerging:• Timely• Location-relevant• Actionable
Podcasts, video webcasts
Navigational &mapping services
Livesportscast
Breakingnews
11
Mobile Internet Subscription Pricing Too High
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
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
Service Provider Assets Use in Enabling or Enhancing Apps
Subsidized handset (in some markets) Preloading of application client; keyed access to platform features
Policy-enabled QoS & mobility for delay-sensitive apps
Beyond certain traffic thresholds, “best effort” packet delivery won’t deliver acceptable performance
VoIP & PTT as features Quality voice for games, social networking, etc.
Geographic location Enables or enhances location-based services
Subscriber identity & billing relationship
Enables i-Mode sorts of arrangements between service provider, authenticated users, and ASPs
Keying material Enables secure communication between user & AS
Presence Wireless user & network presence feeds to ASP or enterprise
Bearer services Conferencing, transcoding
Service provider’s web portal Application visibility
Current device and access attributes Enables content adaptation
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
Implications of Wireless Service Provider Trends for ASPs
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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 provider’s network enablers
> 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 Delivery• Internet Time over-the-top
partnerships, web services development
• Internet Cost – new, low cost, service economics
Visited IMS
Home IMS
Mobility-EnabledIntranet
OFDM-MIMO WAN 2G/3G WAN
AS
AS
SS7
PSTN
MSC
PBX
PolicyServer
AS
ASPeerIMS
ASASAS
AS AS AS AS
Enterprise LAN
Fixed BB@home
Internet
SCP
> 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.
> Service Bundling• Voice-centric triple/quad plays
content differentiation via...• Competing portfolios of multimedia &
value-added services• Service providers need ASPs’ help to
compete!
> 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
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