ITU Future of Voice 2007
Convergence and its Impact on
Users, Providers, and
Users as Providers of
Interactive Multimedia Services
Dr. Eric W. Burger
Deputy CTO, BEA Systems, Inc.
Member of the Board, SIP Forum
VP, IMS Forum
15 January 2007
Agenda
Points from other work
Fundamental technical enablers
Impact on traditional voice and video services
Regulatory implications
ITU Future of Voice 2007
Copyright © 2007, BEA Systems, Inc. | 2
Points From Other Work
(Today and Tomorrow)
Natural monopoly disappearing, yet ever-present

Excellent economic analysis of last mile and core network sunk cost
issues
Difference between telco, cableco, and mobileco?
Access Network ONLY!
Many examples of fall in price of communications due to IP
enabling new businesses and dramatic economic growth
It is hard to educate consumers about nature of VoIP,
Especially if framed as “Cheap Voice”
Voice IP traffic indistinguishable from other IP traffic

Barring port blocking or deep packet inspection
 Both defeatable (cf. Skype), but no defense against deliberate stream
damage
ITU Future of Voice 2007
Copyright © 2007, BEA Systems, Inc. | 3
First-Generation VoIP
Is convergence simply IP interfaces on TDM equipment?

Approach through 1990’s

Embodied by H.323, H.248

Many examples of equipment and architectures: e.g., SoftSwitch
Makes sense, coming from telco environment
FS
SCP
Parlay
SSP
PRI
Q.931
IP
ITU Future of Voice 2007
MG
H.248
Copyright © 2007, BEA Systems, Inc. | 4
MGC
H.248
H.248
MS
Problems With First Generation VoIP
Same applications: simple voice calling

More equipment

More vendors

Initially higher cost, but promises of “data center economics”
Worse yet, proprietary systems improved in performance
10% every 18 months, not promised 100%

Identical to performance improvements of traditional TDM equipment
“Data center economics” is not about IP interfaces or Intel

Cost to develop new hardware (€250,000 - €2,000,000/board)

Volume to amortize hardware development cost

Competitive pressure to use latest silicon
ITU Future of Voice 2007
Copyright © 2007, BEA Systems, Inc. | 5
Next Generation VoIP:
Is SIP the Only Difference?
Key point is not that we trade API’s for SIP everywhere
SIP everywhere means session establishment and
processing is transparent to client and server
SIP
SIP
MGC
SIP
P-CSCF
SIP
I-CSCF
SIP
I-CSCF
SIP
SCIM
SIP
S-CSCF
AS
SIP
SIP Phone
H.248
RTP
MG
MRB
Full 3GPP IMS Architecture
Get benefits today of
Applications and
Services infrastructure;
deploy IMS when ready
MRF
SIP
MGC
AS
SIP
SIP
H.248
MG
SIP Phone
MRF
RTP
ITU Future of Voice 2007
SIP
Copyright © 2007, BEA Systems, Inc. | 6
RTP
Leverage SIP
Routing Cloud
Physics of Media Processing
Conferencing Example
Many have welcomed or bemoaned the migration of
intelligence to the edge
Some things are best done “in network”
Provider
Network
ITU Future of Voice 2007
Copyright © 2007, BEA Systems, Inc. | 7
Physics of Media Processing:
All Intelligence at Edge
Many have welcomed or bemoaned the migration of
intelligence to the edge
Some things are best done “in network”
Each node receives at least
three times more traffic
Provider
Network
SL
Complex service logic
coordination and topology
All traffic going through thin
access pipe to provider
network
ITU Future of Voice 2007
SL
SL
SL
Copyright © 2007, BEA Systems, Inc. | 8
Physics of Media Processing:
All Processing Centralized at ASP
Many have welcomed or bemoaned the migration of
intelligence to the edge
Some things are best done “in network”
Straightforward service
logic and media processing
Media
Processor
Provider
Network
Each node receives single
stream
ASP
Lots of bandwidth required
at ASP
ITU Future of Voice 2007
SL
Copyright © 2007, BEA Systems, Inc. | 9
Physics of Media Processing:
All Intelligence at ASP, Media in Network
Many have welcomed or bemoaned the migration of
intelligence to the edge
Some things are best done “in network”
Each node receives single
stream
Straightforward service
logic and media processing
ASP
Only signaling (low bandwidth) needed at ASP
Customer data stays at ASP; heavy media
processing done by network
ITU Future of Voice 2007
Service
Logic
Provider
Network
MRF
Copyright © 2007, BEA Systems, Inc. | 10
Is Next Generation VoIP Really Different
than First Generation VoIP?
Key is how applications developed and deployed
First Generation
Second Generation
Use IP versions of SS7
Use real-time multimedia
extensions of Web

H.248

JAIN

SIP

Parlay

VoiceXML

Parlay-X

CCXML

MSCML
Developer pool


Java (or Web Services) developers
who are experts in SS7, CS-2
(Apologies to Zygmunt)
Impact unquestionably huge
for captive / TEM development
ITU Future of Voice 2007
Developer pool

Minimal training over HTTP (SIP)

Minimal training over HTML (XML)
Impact huge for enterprise,
user, and new entrant
development
Copyright © 2007, BEA Systems, Inc. | 11
Why is This Distinction Important?
Dramatically lowers barrier of entry for users to create
applications and content
Protocols built from ground-up to survive hostile
environments (Internet) enable disaggregation of functions,
such as MRF
Creates new opportunities for service providers
Creates environment for wealth generation
Flattens marketplace
1990: “In America, you open your garage door, and you see a market of
250 000 000 people; in Sweden, you open your garage door, and you
see 2 meters of snow.”
 2007: “You open your garage door anywhere in the world, put up a
server, and see a market of a few hundred million people.”

ITU Future of Voice 2007
Copyright © 2007, BEA Systems, Inc. | 12
Distinction Lost: The Voice Call
Innovative applications may use person-to-person, real-time,
audio communication

Teamspeak for World of Warcraft

Vivox for Second Life
Is this a phone call, or part of the game?

Truly indistinguishable: recalling other presentations today and
tomorrow

Defeating VoIP defeats new, wealth-creating applications (often worth
much more than displaced voice revenues)
ITU Future of Voice 2007
Copyright © 2007, BEA Systems, Inc. | 13
Distinction Lost: The Video Value Chain
Is BitTorrent a cable provider?

Provide access to movies

But also provide access to many other kinds of multimedia
Is YouTube a cable provider?

Provide access to movies

Most are not studio productions, but user productions
Anyone who has tried to create municipal networks
understands negotiating for content is hard

But when content comes from users, with implicit right-to-view, not an
issue

Still role for content aggregators
ITU Future of Voice 2007
Copyright © 2007, BEA Systems, Inc. | 14
Issues for Regulators
Universal services now mean IP access, not an analog voice
line or basic cable video service
Revenue from voice calling falling precipitously, but IP enduser access is nowhere near free
Technically difficult if not impossible to determine what is a
voice call (for tariff and tax purposes)

Expect to give up that source of revenue

Look for alternatives for universal IP access

Alternative: Lose national wealth potential, innovation, and competitive
advantage
ITU Future of Voice 2007
Copyright © 2007, BEA Systems, Inc. | 15
Thank You
Dr. Eric W. Burger
15 January 2007
Questions