article page
| 1
| 2
| 3
The folks at AT&T seem to agree, and have helpful things to say about what IMS is and isn't and what it can and cannot be expected to do. They released a document detailing these attributes and non-attributes, and concede that IMS is, indeed, an architectural framework based on SIP and IP that serves as a multimedia service delivery platform. They characterize it as "very sophisticated with complex capabilities," note that it "standardizes interfaces between applications, network layers and back-office systems," and state that it "delivers on the promise of wireless-wireline convergence." In addition, they assert that IMS is "capable of being deployed with its full capabilities by AT&T" (as a part of its Common Architecture for Real-Time Services (CARTS) initiative).
However, it bears mentioning that they note that IMS is not a service. It is not an application. It is not a "widely deployed, mature platform." It's not "rigidly defined," nor is it "completely standardized." It is not a "complete network architecture." However, their attitude, as indicated by their confidence that AT&T is capable of deploying IMS with its full capabilities, is that these shortcomings do not a crisis make. |
|
It's not just about what IMS can do now, which is limited. It's about the promise of things to come. |
|
for the technology to fully mature. A software upgrade down the line could enable a move to full IMS capability as the technology becomes more and more ready for prime-time.
The Skeptical View
However, there are those who find the entire IMS value proposition to be a bit of a boondoggle. Martin Geddes, Chief Analyst for STL Partners and noted IMS skeptic, is one of those. His problem with IMS? "It's way too complex and is trying to solve a problem of rationing out access that the users don't have."
Geddes, whose firm is behind the Telco 2.0 initiative, references alternatives to IMS, like the technologies offered by tiny startup Predictable Network Solutions (PNSol). PNSol, and, presumably, other companies like it,
|
|
|
|
That's probably true in any case. The technology can and will mature under heavy use, and probably requires such regular use to reach its full potential. There are, however, those in the market who want to move in the direction of IMS without waiting for the full architecture to bake. NEC, earlier this year, announced its "light IMS" product set and migration path. The approach involves a blade-based server platform combining a SIP server (though one based on IETF standards, as opposed to 3GPP standards) and SDP and OSS/BSS functions. The idea is to derive the essential benefits of IMS without waiting
|
|
offers solutions that allow companies to milk every last bit of value from a broadband connection. It doesn't create new capacity, but it doesn't involve massive CAPEX, either. It basically involves traffic categorization and prioritization, and pricing based on priority and bandwidth required. It fits the model for the future of telecommunications that many have, and does so at relatively low cost to the operator.
As for the merits of IMS that Geddes is willing to concede? "There might be some uses for recycling IMS technologies
article page
| 1
| 2
| 3
| |
|
