IMS — Today and Tomorrow

by Richard “Zippy” Grigonis   

Some services difficult to develop and deploy in the 56K circuit-switched connection worldSome services difficult to develop and deploy in the 56K circuit-switched connection world of 1990s Computer Telephony breezed back into favor with the rise of IP Communications. Similarly, the mass production of various services in a hybrid network may be difficult for IP developers, but will be a cinch under IMS. Even so, how much will it all cost? of 1990s Computer Telephony breezed back into favor with the rise of IP Communications. Similarly, the mass production of various services in a hybrid network may be difficult for IP developers, but will be a cinch under IMS. Even so, how much will it all cost?

It’s been quite a year for IMS, the IP-based Multimedia Subsystem. With so much current interest, trepidation and hope for IMS, developers, network operators and service providers have pondered it as long and as intently as a shaman would the patterns made by tea leaves in a cup, wondering whether to fully adopt IMS or not, and, if so, what “killer app” will pay for the whole undertaking. After having done this for the past year or so, however, IMS now resembles a diviner’s tea leaves less so than it does one of Dr. Rorschach’s ambiguous inkblots, wherein each segment of the telecom world sees in IMS what it wants to, giving us a glimpse into the deepest recesses of the corporate decision-making process.

IMS Lite?
Not everyone is a total fanatic over IMS. For example, in the “Disruptive Wireless” blog of technology industry analyst Dean Bubley, he relates what he encountered as “analyst in residence” at the Telco 2.0 / IMS Services Brainstorm event in London, organized by STL in October 2006.

“If you’re a fixed operator, or a fixed/mobile combined operator, IMS offers potential benefits, if you use the concept wisely (i.e., don’t swallow it whole). . .” writes Bubley. “. . .fixed operators are much more likely to pick and choose exactly how to use the IMS functional architecture. Various speakers from BT, KPN, Global Crossing and others spoke of selecting the bits they liked, combining some elements to form ‘IMS Lite’, and supporting parallel non-IMS domains for things like TV.”

“One thing came out clearly — IMS is not yet a viable investment for most mobile-only operators,” emphasizes Bubley. “One delegate from a very large and well-known mobile carrier described it as ‘a very expensive way to get simplicity’ — and also mentioned that, however, they might use it to offer fixed IP telephony services over broadband (now there’s a real irony. . .)”

Bubley also says that there are too many industry consortia promoting so-called standards. There are too many standards (some of which appear to overlap) and yet there aren’t enough ‘real’ standards, in that “many gaps are still left or exact details glossed-over. (phones, billing/charging, network security, multi-identities, etc).”

To get to the bottom of things, Yours Truly conducted interviews with eight well-known IP Communications companies that have thoroughly examined both the promise and reality of IMS. Their profound ruminations follow. . . .

AXIOM Systems
Brian Naughton is the VP of Architecture and Strategy at Axiom Systems (www.axiomsystems.com) a UK company firmly entrenched in the OSS space. He says: “There are various existing SDPs [Service Delivery Platforms]. IMS is considered the ultimate architecture that allows for multiple access into the network, roaming and all of what leads to fixed-mobile
convergence [FMC]. But smaller carriers tend to go with existing SDPs for triple-play and aren’t really interested in either
IMS or FMC. They’re more interested in simply an application server they can use to deploy new services across their IP network, or they resell a service from a different wholesale provider. To them, IMS is just an application architecture to get new services out the door. Besides, IMS keeps getting modified here and there, so one could see how the conventional IP application server approach keeps moving forward, whereas IMS has had a few stumbling blocks along the way and has been playing a bit of
‘catch-up’. Mobile operators, however, are becoming excited about IMS because it bridges them into fixed communications, and fixed continued...

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11                 < previous | next >