19 Jul
2006
19 Jul
'06
12:46 p.m.
inline
On 7/18/06, Juha Heinanen <jh(a)tutpro.com> wrote:
Of course, in a first phase carriers prefer to try out plain SIP and
not go to full IMS. But when "carriers" (or you can say "SIP service
providers") start needing to control resources consumed by SIP
sessions in their network and need to come up with a flexible and
cheaper way to roll out new SIP services, IMS was designed for that
(well or badly, we're not discussing that). You might argue you can
just use the Internet and don't care about QoS, but to access some
services the Internet may not be good enough, yet... And then "SIP
service" needs to be defined... it's certainly not just PSTN
termination. Can be anything provided via a SIP infrastructure.
Maybe we're getting too off topic here... I don't want to get into IMS
flame wars. I'm just saying some IMS concepts may make sense in
"non-IMS" environments, especially when trying to provide (SIP)
services in a flexible way.
JF
JF writes:
SIP-IPTV perhaps. Why would PSTN calls be the only motivation for
people to pay? When that becomes cheap or for free, people will
continue to pay for access to content that matters to them, no?
Following you e-mail analogy, you might subscribe to online magazines,
delivered to you via e-mail.
You can have pre-paid SIP services without PSTN.
why? i don't understand how anyone would subscribe to such a service.
how many email services you know that charge by the volume of email
messages sent?
Also, an IMS
S-CSCF based on SER would require this in order to be
fully compliant to 3GPP standards, but probably this is of no
importance in the scope of this list.
3gpp uses "SIP" to implement a walled garden. again, i have seen very
little interest for it in user community. they simply use their nokia e
series phones as regular rfc3261 compliant phones, not 3gpp phones.
-- juha