Probably I did not put it right :)....
So everybody sees the devil in IMS now because of this QoS. But let's not couple it with the fear of discriminative access. That is something else, coming from the bit-carriers frustration that other people are making loads of money by adding value to the bits.
I see the Internet now as largely not QoSed. We are playing with this nice price-cutting thing called VoIP and suddenly we see the potential, but the services can't really evolve and equal the classic ones without QoS. As such we ask for it.
So the bit-movers will eventually upgrade their networks and add support for this and this will cost. This cost has to be supported by end-user and as such the prices for QoSed will probably be higher than that of non-QoSed access. And now we come back and we whine that we don't want to pay for it and we don't want it anymore if the bit-movers will have preferential access to it.
But hey, of course that it is going to cost. Anyway, we did not had flat-rates since the beginning, right? But eventually the "gardens" will start to open-up.
Conclusion: if you want extra QoS with that, you will have to pay for it. But this is no reason to bash IMS and to stop building open gardens.
Jiri Kuthan wrote:
At 00:19 10/10/2006, Dragos Vingarzan wrote:
That is relative. Almost all new mobile phones support now also WiFi ,so it is not only about UMTS and what the phones are implementing by default. Both Symbian and Windows Mobile are capable of running IMS soft-clients on top. And let's not forget TISPAN's NGN and the fixed networks.
I personally suggest to forget TISPAN and leave it out of scope of this mailing list.
About the walled garden, well, no operator would give to end-users QoS control because simply it would just cost too much and nobody would afford it. As such, I do not see any opened solutions.
With all respect I absolutely fail to see the argument's logic here.
-jiri
-- Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/