Insight Community

mobile voip is being held up by one thing: outdoor public coverage.  At the point where voip can be used in place of a traditional cell network in any given public area that has good cell coverage, then voip will become an overnight phenomenon.  However, without public broadband sponsored by cities, voip is unlikely to ever reach this coverage level.

 The intermediate step is a phone that can automatically switch between voip where available and cell coverage, similar to the t-mobile hotspot phone.  This technology should catch on as the near future of mobile voice communications, because it saves money whenever a voip network is available.

 Total voip coverage also will require tremendous bandwidth in order to accommodate all phones that are currently in use in high-traffic areas.  This may also limit the availability of voip for the next few years, until gigabit wireless is common.  

Wireless providers should embrace voip, because not embracing it will mean losing customers.  Service and support of voip networks is the future of mobile data/voice contracts, albeit a still fairly distant future.  I expect that voice, internet, video, and all other streams will be available from a mobile device with "global" (pan-national) unlimited coverage for a single flat fee.  

People ultimately don't want to think about their data services.  They want to reach in their pocket, pull out a device and have near-instant access to the following services:

the internet via small-screen-friendly browsing

their friends via voice

entertainment via movies or games 

etc.

The IPhone is successful because it attempts to provide all these things, and does a decent job.  However, the iphone is merely the beginning, just like the Macintosh was (arguably) the beginning of GUI personal computing.   As the power of these devices can increasingly take advantage of services like voip and anything else available, user adoption will increase exponentially.

Having lived with mobile VoIP for the last couple of weeks with the new 3SkypePhone I can only say that its a nice idea in principal but in reality, we are a number of years off it becoming the must have feature.

The killer app on the mobile device, from both the network operator's point of view and the consumer is still SMS.  The simplicity of this 160 character communication cannot be underestimated.  It just works.  The network carriers love it because they can get to charge a hugely inflated bandwidth cost (10p per 160 chars = £0.10 per 0.16KB) and not have to worry about their networks being overloaded.  Like who cares if an SMS is delayed for 30 seconds instead of going through in 2seconds?

However mobile telephony is a completely different animal.  It requires bandwidth there and then, and it requires it to be held for the duration of the call.   It is at this point the wheels are starting to wobble on the Mobile VoIP wagon.

The 3SkypePhone is a classic example.  Use it outside of a fully barred 3G area and you will experience a quality not seen since the days of the analogue mobile phones.  Infact even worse, as the device just cuts off, at least in the old days it was like talking over a MW radio!  You could nearly make out some of the words.

Another issue is the ease at which one can use the software.  The Skype phone has a long way to go here, as making a call isn't as quick as a conventional call.

But that is today.  Tomorrow, one can only hope these issues are resolved. 

For mobile VoIP to take off, you need long-range, high-powered nets. WiMax or something like it. The question is, how does WiMax deploy?

There are lots of possible solutions, but why not just like the Internet did...as a self-organizing linked system. Why don't towns and community foundations sponsor a local WiMax hub and link them into the conventional broadband Internet? A nonprofit foundation like so many of our great free software firms could sponsor this. Once it was going...linkage to the next town would be a peer-pressure/prestige thing. It would burn up and down coasts and through island communities.

Very cool.

Mobile VoIP is virtually useless for end users.  US Mobile Phone operates will restrict mobile VoIP as long as possible, as it presents a potential cannibal market against their primary revenue stream - voice functionality.

The only user end advantage of Mobile VoIP would be the cost of paying for a single data stream rather than a multiple stream (voice, data, video) plan.  Skype on mobile in sensible, but it won't happen for the above mentioned reasons.  US Carrier will hold onto their network ownership for as long as possible. 

VOIP is a technology that has been around for some time now. With the global availability of the SIP protocol, regular VOIP has become available to equipment other than computers, such as phones and mobile devices. The latter is the most interesting one, as it brings us cheap (often free) communication, where ever we are. There are a few obstacles though. I first started looking for a mobile VOIP solution (SIP based) quite some time ago. The first serious package I found is fring (www.fring.com). This is a software package, available for many (mobile) platforms that allows you to make use of Skype, SIP based VOIP and chat protocols like jabber (useful for gtalk) and MSN. The latter are less interesting, although this package combines them all.

But there is a little problem. These packages need a data connection to your mobile device. And that's the catch. Either you use mobile data plans over gprs or 3g, or you make use of WIFI. Fring enables switching between these for uninterrupted connectivity. The problem is however that gprs is simply too slow for good VOIP quality, and most data plans are not cheap. Fortunately, more and more providers offer flatfee data plans, enabling us to make proper use of mobile VOIP.

So how will the providers reach the general public ? First of all, no provider uses the ability to use VOIP as a sales pitch, because if people start using VOIP on a daily basis, the providers will see a steep rise in usage of bandwith, wich will cost money. They forget however that providers of homebased VOIP or VODSL offer the same thing with a flatfee attached, and they don't go bankrupt.

If providers start offering VOIP on mobile devices, support will not be difficult. There is not so much difference between a DSL connection to your home that you use for VOIP and a mobile (wireless) network that uses VOIP. As long as certain standards such as SIP are followed, we are dealing with known technology which can be supported easily.

I think the general public will start using mobile voip when providers start offering it as a product. Right now mobile voip is an added value, but imagine buying a pda with mobile connectivity, but without a gsm contract. It would be perfect as a phone using VOIP software and a flatfee data plan....I would buy one !

More on SIP is found on Wikipedia. 

 Servaas Schrama, www.tech-interest.com
 

Mobile VoIP is more of a technology than a service just like VoIP is to landlines. It will disrupt the mobile market just as VoIP is disrupting the landline market, but follow a quicker path. The meta-trend is that all services are migrating to IP because bit transport is cheap. Special purpose networks for voice or mobile voice are not required because the service can transport it with IP packets. IP is a great leveler because there are a variety of transport options. Wireline or wireless; it is just another medium to transport packets. Without a special purpose network, cost of transport goes down. Voice and data can be mixed to provide new services over the same infrastructure. In the mobile world, there are typically 3 or more "traditional" mobile providers, municipal Wi-Fi, private Wi-Fi, and WiMax. With VoIP users are no longer locked into "traditional" mobile providers. They have choices.

Landline voice is currently experiencing the same evolution. Voice over broadband providers saw an opportunity for a new business by tapping into the $500 billion market for fixed line service by offering flat-rate and inexpensive long distance calling. People who consistently make long distance phone calls quickly adopted VoIP to dramatically reduce their bills. Eventually other consumers started jumping on the VoIP bandwagon because of its attractive flat-rate pricing and unlimited long-distance service. Adoption was fairly easy because people could use their same handsets with an adapter that the VoIP provider sent. Most customers tolerated the lower quality service due to latency and jitter for the cheap price they were paying.

Next the cable providers got into the act with VoIP over their networks. Since they could control the quality of service, they labeled it digital voice instead of VoIP to avoid being associated with Vonage and their ilk. They offered a higher quality service with a full-feature set at a price much less than the ILEC. Now the ILEC had to get into the act of providing VoIP as a competitive response. This year U.S. consumers are expected to spend around $1.2 billion on VoIP services. A similar response occurred in the business space as ILEC watched their business customers switch to VoIP to reduce toll charges and achieve greater business efficiencies.

Now let's look at the mobile market. Residential and business customers would like to find ways to reduce their monthly phone bills. For 45 million people in the U.S., Germany, U.K, and South Korea the mobile phone is their only phone. They are surely looking for alternatives to using their minutes especially for international calls. Skype, fring, and other companies are taking advantage of smart phone capabilities to bring the same inexpensive calling to the mobile world. They rely on unlimited data plans to provide voice service without consuming costly mobile minutes. Some applications take advantage of ever increasing Wi-Fi enabled phones to run Skype or other applications. There are as many ways to offer mobile VoIP as companies out there doing it. The end result is to disrupt the traditional mobile market to offer inexpensive calling to mobile subscribers.

The drivers for business are centered around fixed/mobile convergence. Businesses are seeking ways to reduce there telephony expenditures while making the mobile employee more accessible. Most of the time an employee's deskset sits unused because the employee is away or using their cell phone. For many workers, a cell phone is their primary work number. The traditional deskset is an added expense that can be eliminated. IP-PBX and softswitch vendors are working with wireless carriers to build features to allow mobile phones to be used inside the office to make and place calls, retrieve e-mail, IM, and even access internal data like CRM applications. Once they get out of the office, these same applications stick with them in a secure environment. The result is that the company saves money and increases the employee's productivity. VoIP is an enabler in this scenario. Now you see IP-PBX and softswitch vendors building applications for mobile handsets supporting VoIP and wireless carriers supporting the service.

Traditional mobile carriers are going along with the VoIP transformation in business because they see this as a revenue enhancing opportunity. The problem is how to they keep the genie in the bottle for residential customers? Just like in the landline case, they will have to begin to eventually support it. T-Mobile USA is the first to embrace it because it is a revenue enhancing opportunity for them. They would love to convert young landline users to their T-Mobile@Home service to increase ARPU. It does not cannibalize their current business because they don't own landlines in the U.S. They own a nationwide hotspot network which increases their data use. It is a win-win for them. Sprint is the next major wireless provider jumping on VoIP with their Airave service. Airave differs from @Home because it uses a femtocell approach. While in the home the CDMA voice is received and coded as VoIP to their application servers over the customer's broadband connection. Just like T-Mobile, Sprint hopes to capture landline customers with an all you can eat price. Since shedding EMBARQ, they will not canibalize any of their business.

AT&T and Verizon will take a different approach since they have significant wireline businesses. They will ignore mobile VoIP applications until they reach a critical mass of lost minutes. They would like to keep their walled garden as long as possible but the FCC and competition may prevent them from doing so. With the current Net Neutrality and 700 MHz open-access auction looming, any attempt to block VoIP applications will be met with loud protests. Just like VoIP over broadband, they will attack it as an inferior service. Similar scenarios will play out in the rest of the world depending if the wireless carrier owns fixed facilities or not. In any case, mobile VoIP is an unstoppable train based on consumer demand for less expensive mobile service, business needs for fixed/mobile convergence, and the transformation of the network to an all IP architecture. The research firm Analysis predicts that mobile VoIP will surpass fixed line VoIP by 2012 for a $25.9 billion worldwide market. Personally I feel that the timing is right but the revenue is a bit large.

The underdog operators and ones without landlines to protect will embrace mobile VoIP as a way to capture customers by lowering their monthly service charges. The market leaders will resist it but will fail when FCC and EU regulations require them to open up their networks and the market speaks by customers adopting mobile VoIP. Business users will adopt mobile VoIP quickly as a productivity enhancing tool. Residential subscribers will be introduced to it in different ways. Companies like Sprint and T-Mobile will market it as a competitive advantage. Application/service providers will introduce their services to consumers through handset manufacturers and the Internet. Expect handset makers like Nokia and HTC to introduce it in markets where handsets are not subsidized by carriers. Google will promote it in the US with their OHA. This is how mobile VoIP will become mainstream and it will happen quicker than the transformation of the fixed network to VoIP because there is more revenue diversion here.

Early adopters will have no problem figuring out how to find and subscribe to mobile VoIP services and they will help their friends and family utilize it as well.

Until someone's brave enough to pump some cash into advertising their product to the general public, the only way people will be educated in the expanding usage of their mobile phone is by word of mouth or happening upon it while surfing the net.

I've just concluded a major study into mobile VoIP and VoIPo3G, so I have numerous thoughts on this topic.

Firstly, it's important to realise that the Skypephone is not Mobile VoIP. It is am optimised circuit access from a mobile phone to a fixed-Internet VoIP service. It does wireless presence-over-IP, but not wireless VoIP.

Secondly, it's worth considering that ultimately cellular operators will be forced to deploy their own VoIP, as next-gen networks like LTE, UMB and WiMAX are all-IP and cannot support circuit voice. However, it will probably make sense for operators to gain experience with mobile VoIP before they are forced to do it - the simultaneous optimisation of massmarket mobile VoIP, AND a brand-new radio architecture will be hugely risky. Some operators are also transitioning other voice services like push-to-talk to mobile VoIP platforms.

Thirdly, it is important to recognise the growing number of laptops with 3G connections, especially with USB modems. These typically have flatrate data, and are increasingly being pitched at consumers at prices which compete with low-end DSL and cable broadband services. Such users will expect to use softphones like Skype (or enterprise ones like Avaya's or Cisco's), and in the future will also voice mashups like Facebook plug-ins.

Lastly, it is becoming increasingly feasible to run full VoIPo3G applications on smartphones (and maybe in the future Java-based devices). Devices have fast enough processors, HSPA or EVDO Rev A, open operating systems and APIs enabling integration with phonebook & SMS clients. Flat-rate data plans are becoming more prevalent and 3G coverage is improving. One impediment is operators' terms of service for 3G data, which are often VoIP-hostile - but this is likely to change significantly over the next 18 months. An outstanding issue however is power management and battery life.

 Overall, VoIPo3G will be FAR more important than VoWLAN, both for operators and independent VoIP providers. For more details on Mobile VoIP services & trends, please contact Disruptive Analysis via www.disruptive-analysis.com

This is a particularly timely issue given this weeks news from Verizon. For those who aren't aware, Verizon Wireless announced an "Any Apps, Any Device" plan that will open up its network to 3rd party developers in 2008. Any 3rd party will be able to develop apps, systems or build any device to run on the EVDO network provided they meet "reasonable" certification requirements and pay a nominal fee.

Regardless of whether you think Verizon is doing this proactively or is instead bowing to the pressure of regulators (who are requiring openness for the bidders of the upcoming C-block of 700 MHz spectrum) and Google (who is threatening to bid on said spectrum and recently made noise with its Android mobile OS and Open Handset Alliance); the point is, change is afoot.

Verizon management has made it clear that they intend to put no restrictions on which kinds of devices can be certified. Theoretically, that opens the door for mobile VOIP devices that would run on the EVDO network and bypass Verizon's voice plans entirely. Although Verizon hasn't explicitly endorsed this; it would be somewhat of a backpedal for them to exclude VOIP devices after explicitly saying there were no limitations.

Now, the question becomes...how can entrenched wireless telcos like Verizon and AT&T allow mobile VOIP on their own networks? How could that possibly be profitable? Well, first of all openness is being forced on them; embracing change now and giving themselves time to transition to a new business model paradigm should be far less disruptive than being mandated by encroaching competition.

Second, just because Verizon (and presumably AT&T will follow suit if it wants a piece of the 700 MHz spectrum) opens up the network doesn't mean it won't monetize the bandwidth consumption. I would be STUNNED if a mobile VOIP phone wasn't required to pay on a PER BYTE pricing model. Even if the byte pricing was ultra-competitive, it's almost impossible to imagine that Verizon won't garner competitive ARPU from such a 3rd party arrangement.

Third, and perhaps most importantly. All voice services are not created equally. Mobile VOIP is fine and dandy, but Verizon and its major handset OEMs can protect their turf by focusing on QoS that VOIP can't match. Crystal clear voice, layered services, security (especially important for enterprises) and, of course, a much more attractive pricing plan that what someone will get if they try to use a MobileSkype phone on per byte pricing.

Change is afoot; but don't for a second think that Verizon, T-Mobile & AT&T don't have plans in place to protect their economic structure.

Mobile VoIP 'should' be a huge hit. There are 2 problems with it at present however:

1 - those that do know how it works know that the quality of service is variable at best, terrible at it's worst.

2- the rest of the world just doesn't have a clue what it is, how it works, what it's for, or why they need it. In my experience the marketing of VoIP has been confused, too many people trying to push too many 'value add' features instead of focusing on what is important - i.e. your normal voice calls for free if you have an internet facility.

I use Skype all the time, and half of the time I can't hear what the person on the other end of the line is saying. That's usually because my service provider is messing with the lines, but I'm an ex-network engineer turned Product Manager, so I understand the issues and give some slack. 'Normal' customers will not. Many have had a poor experience of Skype, and so have gone back to what they know, calls at a cost - besides, they pay a company to install the phone lines to run their broadband internet, so why not use the phone on them as well? Why run phone lines over the internet over phone lines, there seems to be diminishing returns there, so no wonder there's a diminishing service.

Why do we have to use so many buzzwords? Who cares what it's called, whether we're going to have a text service on our PDAs as well as Skype calls. Why not just tell me I can get free calls, wherever I am, if I have an internet connection? That works for me just as well as it will for Joe Bloggs on the street. Personally I'm sick of hearing/seeing '1000 Gb ADSL for only $2.99 a year' type of adverts. I never really cared about feeds and speeds when I was in networking, and they are more or less meaningless to me now. Who really buys a laptop because it's got a 'Dual core pentium processor for only 299'? I certainly don't. I buy one because it's what I can afford and it's got a lot of USB ports for all my peripherals, etc.

The same goes for phones. I never use my camera, I don't know what most of the menu does apart from text and find numbers. That's all most people need. If I have an internet phone, I want to use the internet, for sure, but I don't need it to do anything else except make calls if it's a mobile device. The average consumer will only start to look at VoIP when it becomes this simple. Dedicated handsets for VoIP, GSM cards pre-installed, contracts sorted out simply and not more expensive than their existing service. Wireless operators will need to support mobile VoIP by making GSM more reliable and widely available for a much lower price - perhaps introducing VoIP QoS or a dedicated service as a loss leader to introduce it to the market. 

Once this service is in the public's mind, it can only grow bigger. The reasons Skype has not been as successful as the telephone is because a) it doesn't work as well and b) it's only cheaper if you have the infrastructure. Make the service good and infrastructure invisible to the end user, and you're there. Once the service is in, you can only build on it - expand the devices to PDAs, notebooks, laptops, create USB GSM cards, extend it to text, mobile internet, etc. Imagination should be the only limitation, it should become another outlet for the internet which takes it that step further. I've been waiting to replace my phone for some time because I've thought this is on the way.  

The iPhone will probably see Skype becoming used more - because it has internet capabilities already, and a mouthpiece and earpiece built in, it is the ideal piece of equipment to integrate the service. The only problem is the cost of the contract. Skype calls will keep the cost of calls down, but connecting to the internet in the first place is still expensive. Once the phone companies lower this cost, the Skype calls will become more popular. But are the phone companies going to put themselves out of business like this? It will take a shift of some major infrastructure providers into this market to make this competitive and drive the market forwards. This will only happen when the service improves and more people start to adopt. This will probably happen as bandwidths improve, which they inevitably do with time.

This, for me, is the root cause of the discussion on net neutrality.

Mobile VoIP is an emerging and disruptive area of Telecoms today and the trend towards subscribers only using mobile phone through choice is growing.  In Europe some 20% of the population now only use a mobile.  In Finland this is as high as 47%.  The only use for a landline in many houses today is to use the copper to provide ADSL.

The emergence of Mobile VoIP applications is allowing these subscribers to make low cost calls using their mobile handset.  Players such as Fring, Skype, Truphone and Mobivox are acting as enablers in the new challenge to landline and cellular operators.

The pressure will increase as muni-nets, public WiFi and WiMax start to grow in popularity. 

All is not lost to the telco's though.  Most of the services today use a public WiFi hotspot as the transport layer.  Many of the services are applications that are downloaded to your handset.  The incumbent can still enable VoIP in an effort to stem the revenue flow.  Unlicensed Mobile Access, or UMA, allows users to transfer between the GSM network and WiFi transported VoIP call.  This technology would allow the telco to still earn some revenue, albeit far reduced from standard calling rates, but importantly keeps the relationship with the subscriber active.

Some operators offer such a service as a transfer to home service when you are talking on your mobile and enter your own WiFi serviced area in/near your home. 

Other, like the UK's Three, have partnered with the great disruptor to offer not only a mobile VoIP service but co-branded handsets.  The difference for Three is that as the newest player there are looking for ways to create churn to their network and free/cheap calls has to be a good starting place. 

 However some operators are already feeling the pinch, and this is not only limited to Mobile Operators.  There is a lot of speculation on Net Neutrality and deep packet inspection already reducing quality of, and in some cases stopping, VoIP applications.

Most of the usage on VoIP and Mobile VoIP is the reserve of the tech savvy subscriber that like to play with technology. 

An example would be users of Skype or Gizmo Project v4.0 on their Nokia N810 internet tablet. 

How will it break through into the mainstream subscriber base? as awareness increases and some highly visible source start to make the technology popular Mobile VoIP is set to take the stage.

There is a write up in the Economist on the subject and in the UK the number 1 supermarket chain is partnering with Freshtel for a Mobil VoIP service.  In the UK at least an influence from Richard Branson's Virgin Media group could be the spark that lights the fire. 

I hope that he continues to get a good deal from his MOU provider for his Virgin Mobile MVNO. Otherwise he is the sort of person that would partner with the Cloud and offer Mobile VoIP rates to his customers, combine that with a home service transported over the Virgin Media Cable service and you have the makings of a VoIP revolution in the UK. 

How should wireless operators support mobile VoIP?
__________

 Embrace the inevitable - the economic handwriting is already on the wall.

    MetroPC is blitzing the airwaves with unlimited airtime for $35.00 per month.
    Alltel is blitzing the airwaves with unlimited airtime to any network, wireless or landline.

 How long could it be before one of the big providers answers with unlimited airtime for $25.00.. and is countered by a competitor with unlimited airtime for $15.00?

 Even if wireless providers try to "defend their networks", in days whatever respective techniques they invent will be quickly defeated by tech-savvy mobile phone hackers, regardless. Consumers want mobile VoIP, and they will get it.

 We all remember when long distance was charged on a per-call basis. In a few short years, that became forever extinct. What could possibly lead wireless providers to think history won't repeat itself, in their market - especially as consumer-driven as their marketplace has come to be?

Why not be the first provider to say, and have the technology to prove it:
  "Our handsets work better with Skype than all the others.."

Bill Burke
http://wirelessspeech.blogspot.com

But it would be reckless for T-Mobile to unleash millions of VoiP-enabled cellphones onto an unsuspecting internet backbone without some preparation. So the second thing that has to happen is ensuring an infrastructure that can handle the huge "installed base" of cellphone users. This requires careful preparation with a data network — maybe several — to ensure widespread and reliable coverage.

That could also address the chief drawback of VoiP: quality. VoiP's occassional sound degradation always reminds consumers they're using a different network infrastructure. To achieve mainstream acceptance, cellphone VoiP needs to offer the same consistency consumers enjoy and expect from their conventional phone service. Consumers hate the way cellphones drop calls, and they'd be equally unforgiving for a spontaneous sound disruption in their VoiP calls.

But consumers could ultimately be the real beneficiary — especially if carriers could create an "instant switch-over" capability to transfer a conversation to VoiP without dropping the call. ("Can you hear me now?" could become "Okay, how about now?") Instantly carriers could eliminate the aggravation of dropped calls — providing a huge win for consumers and increasing the viability of cellphones.

Voice over IP is technically possible today, along with the benefits it offers. So for that potential to be realized, it's now up to cellphone carriers to recognize the opportunity that VoiP presents.

What do you think of mobile VOIP?

In two words: Not much.

An exception may be if WIMAX takes off, which is not looking very likely at all right now. In this case ubiquitous availability of VOIP mobile might make it an alternative to normal plans, but I'm not counting on this at all. and I don't even think Sprint's intention with WIMAX is to offer an alternative substitutes to their normal services and EVDO - rather to enhance their total offering.

VOIP technical problems remain even as the technology has seen great improvements in the last few years. However in the wireless realm mobile VOIP is even *more problematic* than home based VOIP which continues to struggle, faced with marketing challenges, capitalization issues, and consumer ignorance.

If VONAGE and SKYPE can't gain broad acceptance for home use they are also going to have trouble in the mobile space.

Even to be marginally valuable as a mobile offering, mobile VOIP would need to provide seamless logging on and off *without call dropping* when WIFI or other wireless internet was readily available and legally obtainable. Given that most wireless plans offer "all you can eat" services it's not at all clear that even a seamless wireless login would be worth much if anything to consumers.

Even the ultimate innovator in mobile and IP data processing, Google, is about to bid in the upcoming wireless spectrum auction. Here's a company that can run one of the most robust VOIP networks in the world, but still recognizes that Voice Over IP isn't currently a major factor in the space and probably won't be for several years.

I just don't see how mobile VOIP would offer much to users. Perhaps an exception that would apply to a modest number of users would be those who a lot of international calls from their mobile phone, and thus could avoid high cell charges in that fashion. However it would seem they'd prefer making the international long distance more from a dedicated VOIP rather than mobile both for privacy and technical and quality reasons.

Another problem is that users are unlikely to want to do any configurations even when VOIP is available to them via mobile. Simply using the normal signal will usually be preferable to a VOIP unless the transition is completely seamless, and that is not technically feasible or even possible in most areas and with most phones at this time.

Yet another drawback is that data networks are generally fairly cheap, are getting cheaper, and are moving to all you can eat transfers.  Few would benefit much if at all from the VOIP access unless it was ubiquitous, and that's some time off.