Voice and SMS over LTE

iPhone 4 - video calling support

There has been a lot of fervor about the alledged "lost iPhone" in the press recently.

However, I think this follow-up article by Gizmodo is very interesting. Certainly, we've already heard that the new iPhone OS 4 adds new capabilities to support VoIP. But this article suggests that the new iPhone hardware may support a front facing camera needed to do video calling.

Video calling has been tried and flopped many times before, which is usually the kind of challenge Mr. Jobs  looks for.

Just putting a front facing camera on a phone isn't enough to 'support' video calling. The subscriber is now holding the phone away from their head, so it's either a very public speakerphone situation, or the subscriber needs to have a headset. Next is the issue of who to call and how.

Mobile operator-supplied video calling services were burdened by several issues:

- First, subscribers needed a video calling phone. While cool, they weren't overwhelmingly compelling. And, they required you and the person you wanted to chat with to get the same or similar 'supported' phones.

- Second, there was little (or no?) cross network compatibility. There are many issues to delivering video streams between unique network providers, especially when the service lives inside the walled garden.

- Third, there was little (or no?) support for non-mobile devices. The most prevalent video calling is desktop based today. The service should certainly interconnect with those desktop apps.

So basically, there were plenty of reasons for operator-based video calling to struggle.

Now along comes a potentially new iPhone. IPhones are compelling and people will get them regardless of support for video calling (overcoming issue #1). Assuming, as they do in the article, this video calling service is via iChat or Skype, the service won't be restricted by a walled garden, making cross network connectivity easier. And certainly if iChat and/or Skype are supported, the ability to connect to desktops will also be supported.

But I think this also addresses another unspoken issue with video calling... I really don't want to pay extra for it. Mobile operators are in the business to generate revenues. A massive investment in a new service with dim prospects on a return of that investment are not part of the business plan. But, if they tie in to free services like iChat and Skype, I think consumers might actually use it.

Will Mr. Jobs succeed again in giving us something we really weren't sure we needed?

The future of voice?

 I'm still a little old school. I was actually *reading* the newspaper this morning when I noticed a story with this shocking headline:

"Teens prefer texting to talking according to new study"

The article, in the Mercury News (my local paper), referenced a recent research report carried out by the Pew Internet & American Life Project. It was these two paragraphs that really caught my eye:

A new study published Tuesday reveals the texting habits of America's 12- to 17-year-olds. The Pew Internet & American Life Project found that 75 percent of teens own cell phones, which they use at an astonishing rate to send text messages to friends. Eighty-eight percent of the kids in that age group are sending text messages in a way that mimics - and in many instances replaces - the way kids once talked to each other.

For the average teenager, talking has now been supplanted by the text message.

So this is the future of voice? There's a new generation of mobile phone users, but their primary use case is texting? With mobile operators deriving 80% of their revenues from voice, the implications are profound.

The realities of LTE handset design

Martin Sauter over at Wireless Moves has written another interesting blog post. It points out the realities of LTE handset designs over the short to mid-term.

 

I agree with his thinking that the wide variety of LTE frequencies available for different operators in differernt regions is a jumbled mess. It will be hard for handset manufacturers to get the right mix of LTE frequency bands together with GSM and 3G, and therefore will likely impact global roaming. It will probably not be possible to have handsets supporting so many regions any time soon.

 

The result is that LTE devices, when roaming, will likely take the path of least resistance and simply camp on the 3G network.

 

What gets interesting is the impact this 'new reality' has on the current voice over LTE debate happening in the industry.

 

For the sake of argument (and simplicity), let's accept that handsets will roam to 3G networks when outside their operator's home network. How does this assumption impact an operator's approach to voice over LTE?

 

First and foremost, this completely eliminates CS Fallback as a potential technology to support inbound roaming. If the phone can't connect to LTE, why bother implementing CSFB, a technology which assumes an LTE connection to 'fall back' from? Just start the phone/session on 3G and move on.

 

Second, one of the concerns in the industry is potential 'fragmentation' in the voice over LTE market. The logic goes that if different operators implement different technologies, there would likely be a lack of interoperability.

 

But if we concur that handsets are unlikely to roam on LTE networks any time soon, then this really becomes a moot point.

 

Then, operators become free to implement a native voice over LTE solution (e.g. VoLGA, IMS Telephony) for their own subscribers. If their subscribers roam, they will roam to 3G, making the choice of LTE voice technology an internal/domestic decision.

 

Frankly, this is a win-win situation for LTE deployments.

 

Operators win because they are free to invest in a solution which matches their own situational requirements - they can decide on the voice over LTE strategy that makes sense for them. Operators can choose to start with VoLGA and move to IMS, or wait and jump right to IMS, depending on their own network evolution plans, business/investment timelines, competitive pressures and so on.

 

LTE vendors also win because operators will have separated their own voice over LTE decisions. Therefore, the market as a whole would progress at different rates to meet requirements in individual markets.

 

For some operators, there is a need to move forward with voice over LTE sooner rather than later. But if the market is forced to wait on a single IMS telephony specification, it would impact all levels of the IMS ecosystem, effectively dampening the market for years to come.

 

Actually this is the situation that Verizon Wireless is in right now. The company is charging ahead with LTE, but their flavor of LTE devices and their approach to LTE voice will be materially different from the GSM community for many years to come. Certainly they are targeting CDMA/LTE devices that are unique to them, and they will likely be using a non-GSM standard voice over LTE approach for the foreseeable future.

 

The big question is: Does it matter?

 

I posit no. There will be no devices which work on or with Verizon's LTE network for a long time. And if the handset manufacturers develop specific LTE frequency bands, it won't matter for other operators either.

 

22 networks and no voice

As reported in Total Telecoms, the GSA recently announced that the number of mobile operators commited to LTE has recently doubled. The GSA now expects 22 live LTE networks by the end of 2010 (8 months from now).

Here at the Voice over LTE site, we're all for LTE, and we think there are plenty of reasons operators will want/need to accelerate deployments. While these are certainly data-only deployments with USB cards, it's clear for build-outs to really happen in earnest, operaetors are going to need to embrace handsets. And as someone once pointed out, you can't build a phone without a way to make a phone call.

All of this makes the fact that a live VoLGA network was demonstrated at MWC 2010 (two months ago) all the more important. Sure there are lots of efforts to bring voice to LTE, but there's only one approach running today, providing the full complement of features and capabilities consumers as well as operators expect.