0 service providers. This camp doesn??™t need IMS,
or at least they haven??™t shown much interest in IMS. On the other hand, this camp is
known for the cool innovative stuff like P2P VoIP (Skype), iTunes, and video PC such
as YouTube and more.
Members of the other camp are the legacy, facilities-based wireline, wireless, and cable
companies. Regarding IP service, this camp provides Internet broadband access and/or
functions as an ISP. The problem with these two services is that they are flat rate and
are considered commodities in most markets. For this camp, IMS presents perhaps the
only real opportunity to become innovative and profit like the camp one player.
So, what is missing in the Internet architecture that limits facility-based telecom
operators from improving their bottom line financially? Or better said, why do they
need IMS? First, the Internet was designed for best-effort routing and connectivity.
Adopting an IMS architecture over an IP-based infrastructure gives service providers
control over what the user is doing. With control, knowing what the user is doing or
what they want to do allows the operator to synchronize Quality of Service (QoS) with
service provisioning and, equally important, monetizing the transaction. In short, IMS
architecture provides a means to provide QoS with compensation.
Second, the camp one portals create value by combining non-telecom services with
telecom services or so-called service mash-ups??”for example, calling a buddy via VoIP
over broadband and delivering a map displayed on a screen that shows where you are
calling from.
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25