[Serusers] SIP to AS communication

[Greger V. Teigre]

So, you "dont think [TISPAN] is adding value to the SER community and 
would thus prevent not to spend time on this too much."

I'm not very well updated on TISPAN, but I thought TISPAN was an effort 
to adapt IMS to the needs of ISPs and fixed providers. With IMS 
implemented from FOKUS, why would a discussion on TISPAN not add value 
to the SER community?
I would say that anything SIP that is of interest to some of the SER 
users would be within the scope of this mailing list.
g-)

Jiri Kuthan wrote:
> At 10:10 13/10/2006, Greger V. Teigre wrote:
>   
>> Inline.
>>
>> 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.
>>>  
>>>       
>> I'm curious: why?
>>     
>
> I dont think this is adding value to the SER community and would thus prevent not
> to spend time on this too much.
>
>
>   
>>>> 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.
>>>  
>>>       
>> I think it depends on where you come from ;-)  The underlying assumption is that an operator has made an investment where it wants some return. The big question from an operator's point of view is what is the best approach to get the return?  There will different answer depending on your market position and your feeling of strength. Operators are afraid of becoming just a bitpipe. It was the same issue for big network operators a few years back (and still is): become an efficient bitpipe (Level3) or a full communication services provider (AT&T).  
>>     
>
> Sure, there is some 'I'm just a bitpipe guy' sentiment here. But what's the argument for QoS here?
>
>
>   
>> The truth is that a walled-garden approach works as long as you have some assets people want. But as the value chains disintegrate operators have to take a position somewhere along the value chain. 
>>
>> I think the big questions that operators are asking themselves now are these:
>> - How long time will my assets allow me to keep a walled garden?
>> - Exactly what are my true assets as the value chains disintegrate?
>> - When the walled garden comes down, what is the position I want?
>>
>> Some operators will be protective and keep a walled garden as long as possible, while others will try to open up, invite third parties in and try to make the pie bigger...  Most operators will probably do both as they don't really have any answers to the questions above yet :-)
>>     
>
> Sure but I still fail to see how this establishes a case for investing in QoS.
>
> -jiri
>
>
> --
> Jiri Kuthan            http://iptel.org/~jiri/ 
>
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sip-router.org/pipermail/sr-users/attachments/20061017/7b45525b/attachment.htm>