IP Convergence: Beyond VoIP, Beyond Cost Savings - WiMAX

IP Convergence: Foundation for Unified Communications

Thu, 06 Mar 2008 20:48:39 +0000

I had the opportunity to present the latest message from Global Crossing in support of Unified Communications. On March 27th, I attended a panel discussion at Sun Microsystem's Boston campus for masnetcomms.org and on March 28th I presented at a Global Crossing VoIP seminar in Cleveland.

My massnetcomms presentation was focused on the technology enablers (Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP), XML, Service Oriented Architecture, Price performance of general purpose computers , Software As a Service model, Network Convergence (IP and access), Protocol Convergence (SIP)) that have created the opportunity for Unified Communication adoption. Unified communications is not a new concept, it’s about 10 years old and really never took off. The early UC models were all hardware centric with specialized devices and lacked seamless integration into your desktop. However today, companies like Microsoft have taken a software only architecture that leverages their installed base of email (exchange) and identity (Active Directory) into realizing a seamless experience on my desktop.

In Cleveland, I shifted the discussion to a more network centric message and highlighted our internal IT success in deploying Microsoft OCS . Global Crossing’s internal IT team began the road to Unified Communications in 2003 when we deployed Cisco VoIP handsets .

The 2003 VoIP deployment was an important milestone in that both the network (LAN, WAN) and operations (Voice vs. Network team) had to come together and provide a reliable and consistent transport for Voice, Video and Data. This is an excellent example of IP convergence providing a solid foundation for our subsequent deployment of Unified Communications.

In 2005 Global Crossing deployed Live Communications System (LCS) (LCS is the predecessor to Office Communications System (OCS) ) and in 2006 our first deployment in support of Microsoft OCS beta. Global Crossing was one of 72 companies supporting the beta and tap phases of OCS and in October 2007 supported Microsoft with their OCS launch in San Francisco.

What we are experiencing is that not only can OCS provide unparalleled integration into our desktop environments, but more importantly business transformation as it is now embedded into our workflow, sales portals and company directory. We are able to work more efficiently , with better communications which will add to a better customer experience.

But the deployment of Unified Communications didn’t start in 2005 when we deployed LCS, it actually started in 2003 when we began deployment of a converged network.

At both presentations the message reasonated with other industry leaders and customers. Clearly IP and network convergence provides the foundation for a successful deployment of Unified Communications.

Femtocells the Answer?

Mon, 14 Jan 2008 17:30:00 +0000

Femtocells the Answer?

There have been some very interesting developments in the wireless world as of late. Femtocells are basically Access Point Base Stations that permit wireless operators to extend coverage in places where “dead spots” are problematic. This sounds like a great idea for those that have experienced the issues where a wireless phone call drops due to one moving into an area where coverage is “shady” at best – for instance an elevator or a remote location in a campus or building. But with this concept, comes some problems that need to be resolved, like E911, Lawful Intercept and other such governmental obligations.

First note the informal poll below from www.cellcoverege.com - this is a problem the industry wants to address.

Poll: How do DropZones Affect You?

Annoying & inconvenient (36%)

Cannot replace home phone (15%)

Creates a safety gap (13%)

Crimping social life (16%)

Poor reflection on business (14%)

Other (5%)

Femtocells have been designed to use licensed and unlicensed wireless spectrum. In the licensed scenarios, there are concerns around Interference with the already established towers that provide subscriber access. There are limits to the number of adjacencies that mean special attention needs to be spent with regards to the placement of the femtocells. This concern stems from marketing such solutions direct to the consumer base, and this means a “willy nilly” approach to spectrum access for subscribers causes confusion with regards to E911 and Lawful Intercept requirements that mobile network operators much meet.

Though femtocells are gaining momentum as an alternative, there are concerns that first need to be addressed before an expectation of widespread use can be realized.

Adam “voiploser” Uzelac

DISCLAIMER: The comments here are mine only. They don’t necessarily reflect intelligence, refined thoughts, or anything that the reader should take too seriously. Should the reader expect a polished thought process in the content addressed here, then a strong dose of medication should be prescribed to address that misconception.

Give Google a Break

Mon, 01 Oct 2007 16:26:02 +0000

This weekend I read a commentary by PC Magazine’s editor and Chief Lance Ulanoff “Don’t Give Google 700Mhz”

I posted a response at their website and I am still bothered by the position he has taken.

“ The position that 700Mhz digital data services may require antennas as broadcast analog TV is totally off base. An analog broadcast != (not equal to) digital data, broadcast TV is just that a broadcast signal without any protocol between the receiver and transmitter, whereas digital data receiver and transmitter have defined protocols that optimize reception given the available data rate e.g. WiFi, GPRS etc …
Some of the biggest advantages of wireless digital data at 700Mhz is not needing line of site , not prone to moisture (water in leaves) and a huge chunk of to be available spectrum.
The position that Verizon, Sprint and ATT know the business and can do better for the American public is weak at best.
“The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent United States government agency, directly responsible to Congress. The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable. The FCC's jurisdiction covers the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. possessions.”
The FCC’s job is to manage American spectrum for the country , e.g. the people.
When was the last time Verizon, Sprint and ATT acted on behalf of the people? Checkout your Verizon RZAR and you’ll find out they feature lock Motorola’s features (like local access to Bluetooth to transfer files), whereas T-mobile does not.
Google is acting to further itself , but there’s a difference here. Google’s advocacy on Open Access to Spectrum is disruptive and will create innovation in the wireless industry that will benefit the people.
Google’s greatest strength is their success, their greatest challenge is maturing as a regulatory influencer against the incumbents who have decades of experience on playing the game.”

I had to rewrite the post several times just to get my emotions out.

Google has and will change the wireless industry. The position they have taken on open access on spectrum will create innovate environment , which will open the markets to more companies that develop hardware, software or services (content).

The big three will need to be competitive to protect their base, this is no different than the FCC open market position in the 90’s that opened local markets which benefited users with more choices and lowered costs.

Om Malik is reporting that "Web Giants Team Up for Wireless Spectrum Auctions".

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 15:00:45 +0000

Take note as Om Malik is reporting that "Web Giants Team Up for Wireless Spectrum Auctions".

The item to take note is where in the Radio Spectrum the web giants are watching. 700Mhz could be a the space where higher bit rate , non-line-of-sight solutions may develop.

As a general rule of thumb, the available bit-rate increases as you move higher in the Radio Specturm. The 2.4Ghz range provides less available bit rate than say 5.3Ghz. However achieving higher bit rates at 5.3Ghz requires line-of-sight and is more suspectible to packet loss with sources of mositure (rain, snow, leaves, etc...).

The definition of line-of-sight is that the premise radio attenna must have a clear shot at the radio tower, any obstruction in-line will decrease the available bit rate and any trees that are in-line (depending on where you sit in the Radio Specturm) may cause packet loss due to the mositure they carry.

Lower rates of the Radio Specturm offer bit rates that don't require line-of-sight however don't have the bit rates available at higher frequencies.

Let's watch this play out as I'm sure there will be innovation that utilizes past technologies like 'spread sprectrum" that will harness the bit rate at lower frequencies taking full advantage of non-line-of-sight.

Advanced Solutions are an Art (Part 1)

Tue, 17 Oct 2006 15:28:57 +0000

I have always felt that Software engineering is an art. Anyone can write some code, but not everyone can develop a system that is flexible and maintainable .

Flexibility is important, as requirements tend to change and grow with use of a system and subsequent learning.

Maintenance is even more important in that you need have a cost effective way of achieving Flexibility , and not throwing parts of the system away and building upon proven parts of the system.

That is the art of Software on a hardware platform, and together they solve a problem and form a complex system onto itself. Expand this thinking into the definition of a Service Provider.

A service provider is a collection of complex systems - switches, routers, service provisioning , trouble ticketing, monitoring , billing as well as the people and centers that complete the service layer.

Service providers - like software engineering is an art - anyone can deploy a switch, anyone can expedite an order on the new switch. Not everyone can operationalize an offer that is both flexible and maintainable.

Flexibility is important as customer always want more and equipment vendors always deliver more features.

Maintenance is really important when it comes to a service fault that occurs at 3am during a long weekend.

A service is not something you can touch, it's the experience and customer satisfaction is its metric.

Advanced solutions are an art, anyone can propose a solution, not everyone can deliver one that meets customer needs while still being economically feasible.

technorati

Fri, 09 Jun 2006 22:06:03 +0000

Technorati Profile

Take your home phone with you almost anywhere – worldwide?

Thu, 20 Apr 2006 19:19:03 +0000

We’ve heard about WiFi phones for sometime, but look at the latest from Vonage , especially the price point.

In concept sounds great, however what about latency between a WiFi Hot Spot in Hong Kong and Vonage’s switches? What about QoS consistency across multiple locations within a single provider or worse yet between different WiFi Host Spot providers?

The value here is technology evolution, and based on a packetized, nomadic, wireless device.

Although the price point is attractive, consistent level of services given the current wireless standards, but look around the corner.

The promise of WiMAX is consistent QoS in not only a fixed or nomadic mode, but a mobile mode.

SIP on mobile phones, but no WiFi?

Wed, 19 Apr 2006 14:29:22 +0000

While cruising the blogosphere, I stumbled across an interesting tidbit of information. Dean Bubley blogs about a research project that he's putting together. I have never met Dean, but have been following his blog for the last 6 months or so. If the claim he puts forth comes true, then it's the consumer's loss.

From the post:

"Fewer than 15% of SIP-capable cellphones will have WiFi. Not just this year, but to 2010 and beyond."

Let's hope he's wrong. If true, the MNOs are just as bad as the LECs here in disrupting innovation.

-Adam Uzelac

What a tangled web we weave...

Fri, 07 Apr 2006 03:00:38 +0000

Now I love the concept of free Wif-Fi as much as the next consumer, but with the announcement that Google and Earthlink have been selected to build San Francisco’s “free” city-wide Wi-Fi network, here is an interesting question. Can the hotel industry, coffee houses, and other non-carriers who charge for Internet access file a 5th Amendment takings case against the city? If I was generating revenue from Internet access and the city came along and offered it for free, I would have a problem with that. The question is whether there has been due process of law. I am not sure the City bid process and approval by the Board of Supervisors constitutes sufficient process, but I am sure there will be a challenge raised at some point.

Incumbent carriers appear to be accepting of this situation, but that could be because they are looking at this through the prism of municipal competition. And with a looming battle over video franchises, incumbent carriers may be holding back or risk being perceived as too much of a bully against the poor municipalities.

But what about the small business owner who just had his business plan undermined because the city decided to offer Wi-Fi for free? I am sure that by the time San Francisco gets it Wi-Fi network operational, a host of lawyers will be lining up to demand compensation for their clients’ loss of revenue.

Oh, and if a battery of lawyers clamoring for compensation isn't enough, I wouldn’t be surprised to see a rise in identity theft correlating to the introduction of free city-wide Wi-Fi as unsuspecting consumers connect up and expose their home computers to hackers. Over-burdened by the deluge of criminal complaints, San Francisco may soon see what a tangled web Wi-Fi can weave.