« Replies to Skype comments | Main | Venting mobile frustration »
June 06, 2005
More on SIP and Skype and IMS
Comment from Edmond Osstyn, Alcatel:
We all agree that SIP is a peer to peer protocol and so that the nature of SIP based communications is fundamentally different from the more traditional communication services based on a master slave infrastructure or protocols. Noone denies that Skype is fundamentally different from a POTS type infrastructure but the same rule applies to all types of SIP or IMS based communication
The real issue is in other words not if Skype is different from traditional master slave services but if SIP (IMS) based services which are all master slave services should be considered as traiditional communications and thus to be regulated. The statement however becomes much vaguer once Skype claims that they use SIP only end to end and the players like BT in BT communicator use SIP in a different way. Let's be clear, it is possible to use SIP end to end but then you will not be able to escape your private address space unless your PC does address translation in the end point, the to PSTN and to PLMN or from PSTN/PLMN calls will not be possible which are the calls which generate the revenue for services like BT communicator. Equally well;things like QoS will not be enabled
So I can agree that there is a possibility to define some kind of SIP (notIMS) end to end service which does not rely on any network intelligence or functions. Such a service could then be considered distinct from services which are IMS based and which rely on SIP but in a networking context. So the real issue is not whether Skype is different from traditional services but whether it is different from IMS based SIP services and if so whether a sustainable business model is possible just based on end to end.
Posted by bobe at June 6, 2005 04:44 AM
Comments
IMS is just a platform that allows operators to be able to deliver IP multimedia services - the name says it all. SIP is not essential; SOAP and Parley Le are also in there. The service does not need to be peer to peer, it can be broadcast. The phones do not need to be IMS phones, they could be 2G phones (through a gateway).
However, the marketing-BS-machine has grabbed onto SIP, voice and IMS, and now IMS appears as a SIP only peer-to-peer voice system. But wait a minute: don't the operators already have one of these (sans SIP)? Is this all an elaborate hoax, to get the operators to buy something they already have because it's got newer buzz words?
IMS = way to allow operators to use deliver lots of new services. Rather than a single service network, e.g. voice. Or a series of service stove-pipes running on an IP core.
Posted by: Alan Quayle at June 13, 2005 08:00 AM