Evolutionary Innovation and Service Monetisation

Tsahi Levent-Levi posted an article on VoiP Survivor about the AMS and its (lack of) relation with the IMS. Furthermore he talks about the innovative nature of the AMS, expressing his hope that the AMS will not be based on stitching and patching of existing protocols. Finally he comments that: “There are those who believe that IMS is a network designed to make money, while AMS is a network designed to provide services to users”. I hope he doesn’t mean that I form part of the former group, although I’m afraid that …

AMS may possibly bring something new and fresh, I really like the focus on the service/application. Especially the idea of cooperation between end-user devices, the Jini vision comes alive again. As for the comparison between AMS and IMS, since AMS is still in its infancy it is indeed hard to compare the two. But they do overlap! And I think that therefore alone they should be compared, over and over and over. Too much money and time has been invested in SIP, XCAP and such that the overlap can not be ignored.

Also I have my fingers crossed that it stays really free of too much vendor influences. A completely academic standardisation probably wouldn’t be the best of ideas either, since a standard is for a big part meant for industrial use. A balance in this is required, in order for a standard to be successfully adopted.

As for the charging and billing stuff, it is perhaps not the sexiest thing to talk about. But if companies are investing in the development of new technology, and are putting large amounts of money in the day-to-day management and operations of services that are using that technology, someone will need to pay for that. The IP backbone and operator networks don’t run and power themselves. And phones and such still don’t grow of trees.

I’m not saying here that business models might not change, think for instance of sponsorship and such. I also think that a customer is certainly willing to pay for what he perceives as value (instead of distance times duration)!

Furthermore if technologies/networks/services are to be monetized, you should see charging, billing and settlement as an opportunity to further increase the customer experience! For instance: a customer is surely wont mind hearing that he/she received something for free, where he/she normally pays for. So why let him/her know at the end of the month on the bill, instead of immediately after or even during service usage!

To end my ramble on charging/billing: there are too many examples of projects where the order handling, provisioning, billing and other non-service customer-facing processes came last, but hugely impacted on the success of a product! Operators usually get more media attention when they screw up with their bills then when they run a cool new services.

Concluding: I applaud and follow with great anticipation any developments that push the state-of-the-art in new (multimedia) services! Be it research or industry standardisation. I however don’t expect a big-bang of mind-blowing unseen services and a customer value that has yet to be seen before.

Frens Jan Rumph

Posted by Frens Jan Rumph on June 6, 2008
Leave a Comment
Filed under Standardisation
Tagged with 3GPP, AMS, H.325, IMS, ITU-T, SIP, Standardisation, XCAP

AMS to the rescue?

I read an article yesterday titled AMS to the rescue, posted on VoiP Survivor. And to be honest, I was a bit shocked and puzzled. It talks about the Advanced Multimedia System which is currently being standardised by the ITU (in study group 16).

I was a bit shocked because the advances made by AMS (as described in the article) sounded like it would have a lot of overlap with the IP Multimedia System, which is being standardised for the last 8 years or so? Continuing to read the article I became a bit puzzled, since the article didn’t even mention the IMS, let alone making a comparision or describing their relationship. Furthermore, do we really need rescuing? Is this a signal from the ITU that we’re heading the wrong way with our current developments (e.g. the IMS)? This called for a little digging

 Some facts on the Advanced Multimedia System:

• It was formerly referred to as H.325.
• The goal of the AMS project is to create a new multimedia terminal and systems architecture that supports distributed and media rich collaboration environments.
• Presently, the project is in the requirements-gathering phase and is starting to look at possible architectures.
• AMS envisions an environment in which a user has many AMS-enabled devices including portable wireless, home entertainment and computer-based devices and is offered many applications and services that are either peer-to-peer or network-provided.
• AMS is viewed as the successor system to the legacy H.323 and SIP systems.

The objectives of the AMS project are:

• Improve the end user experience
• Enable innovative applications
• Enable mobility
• Enable multimedia
• Make it easy to use
• Improve productivity
• Ease application and service development

Some example applications of the AMS:

• Traditional voice and video
• Whiteboard
• File transfer
• Application sharing
• Text messaging
• Video streaming (e.g., IPTV)
• Gaming
• Multi-user data conferencing
• Streaming audio (e.g., “IP radio”)

The AMS project envisions the following components:

• “container” - This is the device that represents the user to the network (e.g., a desk phone, mobile phone, or softphone application)
• Application Protocol Entities (APEs) - These are the applications that register with the container to provide the user with voice, video, and data collaboration capabilities
• Service Nodes (SNs) - These are the network entities that enable the container to establish communication with a remote entity, facilitate NAT/FW traversal, and provide other network-based services
• Application Servers (AS) - These are elements in the network that provide various services, which might include IPTV,

 My n cents on AMS:

1. The focus of the AMS is more at the edge of the network then one would suspect when reading things such as ’AMS is viewed as the successor system to legacy H.323 and SIP systems.
2. A lot of goals of the AMS project are in line with the goals of the IMS, and IMHO seek to build on the efforts put in the standardisation of the IMS by 3GPP. The project description describes that liasons should be made with IETF, ETSI (TISPAN), 3GPP, 3GPP2 and the IMTC, and that it should draw on the work of OASIS, MPEG, IETF, ISO and IEEE. Lets just hope they do! There’s no point in starting all over again!
3. A lot of goals and the vision of the AMS project are in line with the Ambient Networks project, an EU FP6 research program, perhaps the ITU can learn from that research.
4. The project specifies a lot of Work Items, but NONE on accounting, charging or billing! This would IMHO mean a big gap in the research performed! Unless of course the ITU envisions a world without money or is getting communistic on us
5. I wonder how this relates to DLNA? I’m not an expert on that technology, but I have a hunch that there is a relationship here as well!

For further information ake look at this project overview presentation (pdf) from Packetizer, it provides a nice overview of the project. Or check out the AMS project description (pdf).

Frens Jan Rumph

Posted by Frens Jan Rumph on May 23, 2008
6 Comments
Filed under Standardisation
Tagged with Ambient Networks, AMS, Architecture, H.232, H.325, IMS, ITU, SIP, VoiP