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

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