iOS6 to combine identities, Apple to challenge GSMA...?

Here is something interesting from Apple.
The story does not talk of VoIP, but IM and video is included, also over cellular radio.

Key part:
Apple just announced a new feature that'll make using iMessage and Facetime a lot more useful — you can choose to unify your Apple ID email address and your iPhone phone number, so that messages and Facetime calls are more reliably delivered across iOS devices and your Mac. Now, if someone calls your phone number for Facetime, you'll be able to answer on your Mac or iPad. The same goes for Messages — if you get an iMessage on your phone, it'll be delivered to your Mac and other iOS devices, even if the sender sent the message to your cell phone number and not your Apple ID email. While it's too soon to tell if this will fix the issues we had with Messages on Mountain Lion, it sounds like this change could go a long way towards making sure that when someone sends you an iMessage or Facetime call, you get it across all your devices.

Let's see what this could mean:
- cellular becomes backup channel
- it is easy to see VoIP in the pipeline, the technology is there
- the result would be fullblown CoIP in Apple domain
- let's look at Google and MS. They have all the necessary capabilities...

So, the world could be quite different, a year from now...

SWIS (See-What-I-See) is here...once again...

There was a term in the industry known as "Rich Call" some five or ten years back.
Idea was that the basic call would be enriched with other media components.
The term was kinda smart as it did not really say if the voice call would be circuit-switched or VoIP. Well, here it is once again.

Need to follow how this takes off. Would be surprised if this becomes a new Skype, though. But certainly wants to wish good luck to Sidecar!

Why Facebook phone?

The news have been plentiful this week on Facebook entering smart phone business.
I think there is a clear motivation behind.

Now first, a word of warning. I do not have inside information, so writing below is speculation. On the other hand, let's just note that according to rules of game theory, players move according to their interests (and capabilities).

Therefore, the right question we can ask is "What does Facebook see that would make them enter smartphone business?"

Let's first evaluate the arguments given in the link above.

1. Facebook already has an operating system to build on

It seems the argument here is weak. "Facebook could do it because it is doable". That would not make sense to investors. Let's also remember that there is room to grow in their old model.
Social advertising is not mature.


2. It has to justify its value to Wall Street

Entering new fiercely competitive businesses outside its own domain is not usually good reason.
However, Google did that. Verticalisation. But why did Google do that? Because Apple doing that? Fine, but just copying isn't enough.

3. There's enormous room for growth

Well, there is room to grow in emerging markets in their old model.

4. Facebook can't afford to fall behind Apple and Google

Here, it is interesting to notte the rumored Zuckerberg being "worried that if he doesn't create a mobile phone in the near future that Facebook will simply become an app on other mobile platforms."
What would be so bad with that? Looking at their current monetisation models...let's come to that.

5. It's in the company's DNA

Well, hardware being in their DNA? They sure can attract the talent but this is not their DNA.

So, the reason as I see it, key question is this:
What is it that Facebook is lacking today?
They have the user base, they are increasing their marketing, they are offering messaging and email.

Here comes:
Facebook does not have the capability for secure transactions.
Simple as that. Make a payment, you need access to SIM or similar element in device hardware.
In the first case, Facebook is at the mercy of the megaoperators, in the latter case the hardware vendors.
Put simple, one could say that the security token is being integrated in mobile hardware.

So, to summarise:
Are social e-commerce transactions a business with hugely attractive potential? Sure. Let me know if you argue against.
Secondly, FB is widely available as mobile app or via browser today. Isn't that enough? No it is not. They are not ready for the lucrative mobile commerce market emerging.

So there is the theory. Let's note that of course FB may not implement the phone (or acquire a maker) on their own, it maybe quite good for negotiations to have that capability.
But of course, there will be new competition ahead for FB..

TeliaSonera, charging for VoIP and gaming industry

TeliaSonera is planning to take money for non-operator VoIP.
This would create a clear risk to innovative companies developing Internet apps.

This taken from TeliaSonera quarterly report on their plans to charge extra for Skype and other VoIP apps.


This raises some further questions and concerns.

1. Would charging extra for non-operator VoIP providers be in line with the European Commission view on Net neutrality?

2. What is more concerning is that VoIP is more often an add-on than the application itself.
Let's think of gaming enriched by voice. We are very familiar with that kind of experiences and can expect LTE make these even more common in the mobile environment.
How would charging for the VoIP path impact rich gaming applications?
How about voice embedded as part of a browsing session?

3. Now naturally, someone may say that a voice call is a voice call and (multimedia enriched) gaming is gaming.
Well, question is how do you do that?
Assuming there is capacity in the network (which we can assume will be the case), do you somehow try to delay the non-operator voice packets?

4. TeliaSonera Finland said they have no plans currently to implement charging for non-operator VoIP. (In Finnish unluckily)

But I guess this will happen someday. So what is a game developer to do?
I guess the operator will be offering some VoIP alternative (based on IMS or whatever) but the world is yet to see an operator-provided VoIP solution that would integrate with voice.

Secondly, I guess this may not happen in all markets.

But, assuming the other Finnish operators join the band wagon and start charging or blocking for the voice path of e.g. gaming app, what would that mean for gaming developers in Finland?
Not a very fruitful playground...

I admit I have been making assumptions in the above, but just trying to project what could be ahead.

Finland needs innovation from startups utilizing Internet technologies. And real-time Internet communications will be an increasingly important component of such apps.

What we do NOT need is an industry which has been reducing jobs and R&D investment suffocating such attempts.

TeliaSonera to charge for all voice calls over IP?

Seems like TeliaSonera has some ambitious plans.

According to Finnish source, their CEO has stated that "data takes 80% of the capacity in the TeliaSonera networks, but 80% of their revenues comes from voice services."
And hence TeliaSonera targets being the first operator to charge for all VoIP calls.
They will offer their customers a fixed plan which includes VoIP calling, this to be launched in Spain first.

The Spanish offering sounds like VoLTE calling and terminated internationally. This is not unheard of, just look at what MetroPCS has been doing in the USA.

Gotta wish them luck if TeliaSonera wants to stop OTT providers.
It comes to the question of will QoS and bit differentation be enough.
And how about services like integrating voice to web sites? We are unlikely to talk of MSISDN numbers then...

Cisco goes altruistic...

Cisco raises the compatibility concerns to European Commission, in the Skype-MS merger.

Imagine how difficult it would be if you were limited to calling people who only use the same carrier or if your phone could only call certain brands and not others. Cisco wants to avoid this future for video communications, and therefore today appealed the European Commission’s approval of the Microsoft/Skype merger to the General Court of the European Union. Messagenet, a European VoIP service provider, has joined us in the appeal.

This raises a couple of thoughts:
- compatibility is more crucial in the lower layers of the network. How about router vendors defining compatible OSSs?
- let's remember when Apple iPhone came out, Cisco took Apple to court because of the name. One could ask if that was for real.
This time there could be real concerns behind this. Cisco has been looking for video to be a key application. Of course, the more traffic, the better for their infrastructure sales
- at least I have not heard of their court-case partner Messagenet earlier, need to check their background...
- of course Cisco concerns as such are valid. MS may have a lot cooking here...

VoLTE-3G handover: is there a case?

Qualcomm and Ericsson are making hand-offs.

Qualcomm Inc. (Nasdaq: QCOM) and Ericsson AB (Nasdaq: ERIC) announced Thursday they have completed the first voice call handed off from a Long Term Evolution (LTE) network, on voice-over LTE, to a WCDMA 3G network using Single Radio Voice Call Continuity (SRVCC).

SRVCC is required by the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) for a seamless hand-off when a VoLTE call leaves the LTE network coverage area. Qualcomm completed its first -- and, it claims, the world's first -- hand-off on Dec. 23, on an Ericsson network using a handset with the Snapdragon S4 MSM8960 3G/LTE multimode processor on board.

There are a couple of reasons why I fail to see the value of this.
Firstly, this is more of the same, nothing new.
There will be no new services because of this concept.

Secondly, handover requirement of this type is something defined by Homo Telecomus (aka "BellHead").
I have not seen any major need for a WLAN/cellular handover, so why for this?

But future evolution COULD be more interesting.
Will RCS be implemented by Qualcomm?
I don't think RCS will be a success, but certainly a well-defined slow-moving standard could be beneficial as a chipmaker could jump into the game.
Let's also note that Qualcomm has been recruiting IMS know-how.

Let's see if this will increase demand for IMS.
Some sources say that CSFB is fast enough.
But, the fact that Qualcomm has made this happen, means there will be mobile endpoints to support VoLTE.

Also, where will the SIP stack reside:
- in the chipset (yes,if you ask Q...but will it be only for voice then?)
- in the OS (does MS have an interest here?)
- in the application layer (maybe OTT players wish that...)

In the original story, there was also an interesting comment:

My question is when might we see a "hand-off" from data billing to voice minutes billing? Will VoLTE conversations be billed as "voice" minutes even though they are data streams?

Guessing that the telcos aren't going to want to "hand off" the lucrative voice minutes, even when they are just another data stream. Long live the clarity of wireless billing.