SIP/IMS = "Walled Gardens"?

I would like to take a minute to challenge the notion that SIP/IMS and Session Border Controller interest and ultimate adoption by service providers will lead to "walled gardens" in the telecom space. In order to subscribe to such a premise, one would have to believe that by SIP/IMS empowers only the service provider, and not the subscriber to the service. I argue that IMS will lead to more control of the SP's delivery of services because that's what the market wants.

I believe IMS _enables_ the service provider to empower the subscriber. Ultimately, the service provider has to meet the wishes of the subscriber, or the subscriber will spend there money elsewhere. With this in mind, it's the subscriber that will demand control of the infrastructure, with the SP providing that ability to control. The core functions of IMS are the HSS, the S-CSCF and the AS(es). Within the HSS, the subscriber is identified and services/features that the subscriber has signed up to are recognized by both the SP and the subscriber. The S-CSCF provides the fundamental call control necessary to "blend" the services, and/or supply the necessary services, like session routing, treatment, etc. The AS houses the applications, being either on demand, or pre-provisioned.

I don't understand the fervor around the "walled gardens", as it's counter intuitive to what the marketplace will ultimately demand. At the end of the day, IMS will be the enabler for a consumer controlled service delivery platform.

Adam "voiploser" Uzelac

Tags: IMS Walled Garden HSS S-CSCF