Confusion around IMS

There is a lot of confusion around IMS these days - and you know what? – it’s completely understandable. IMS can mean so many different things to so many different people, and most of the ambiguity stems from the technical angle of view. For instance, from a consumer’s point of view, there’s a popular and growing perception that IMS will lead to the “Walled Garden” approach to services/features and offerings. Brough Turner recently blogged about the evolution of the mobile application business in Asia, and compared it to the US/EU. He points out the in the US/EU, service providers are interested in controlling the subscriber base more and more, with the intention of offering services directly to the subscribers. Increasing the bundle to increase the revenue per subscriber, and make it more difficult and unattractive to part ways. He goes on to compare this “closed” model with the revenue-sharing models of Asia, where partnerships between the service providers and the application providers create an offering that is attractive to the widest audience.

Is IMS applicable in both approaches? I argue it is. I think that Brough might have missed that point. From a service provider’s perspective, it’s the ability of IMS to manage and direct sessions with QOS and securitythat is the most attractive. It shouldn’t matter that the SP, or a partner of the SP ultimately provides the “thing of attraction” – Most important is that the “thing of attraction” meets the expectations of the subscriber.

Adam "voiploser" Uzelac