Emerging Technologies

October 6, 2005 Master of Engineering in Telecommunications 1

Alumni Day 2005

University of TorontoMaster of Engineering in Telecommunications Executive Development Program

Master of Engineering in Telecommunications2

October 6, 2005

Agenda

6:00 Introduction to 2005 MET Projects6:20 IMS

Tutorial Service Control for Multicast Services

7:00 IPTV Introduction Regional Analysis: Asia Service Definition: BT Value Chain Analysis

7:45 Discussion & Recap


October 6, 2005

Current Trends

Transition to all-IP Infrastructure Heterogeneous access:

Wireline: Cable, xDSL, PONs Wireless: WiFi, 3G, Bluetooth, 802.16, Flarion/Qualcomm Trend: Give customers greater bandwidth

Heterogeneous devices: Computers / Laptops / PDAs / Cell phones… Trend: More computing/processing resources (Moore’s Law)

Search for New services & Applications Voice revenues in decline Lack of control of Internet applications Trend: Media-rich, Personalized, Context-Aware


October 6, 2005

2004 MET Summer Projects

Network Consolidation Layer simplification & network design Engineering models Economic Models Perspectives from different service providers

IP Performance IP Performance Model Core & Access (DSL, Cable, LAN, 3G) Voice Quality Prediction IP Performance Measurement

VoIP Industry Analysis Consumer Market Enterprise Market


October 6, 2005

What is New in 2005?

Architect-in-Residence

Senior network engineer from partner companies Participate in definition of MET summer projects Supervise one or more projects


October 6, 2005

IPTV Industry Analysis

IPTV Equipment Vendor Value Chain Analysis IPTV Telecom Service Provider Market Analysis IPTV Service Definition & Network Requirements

IPTV Media Delivery & Implementation Prototype IPTV Multicast IPTV Digital Rights Management

Sponsors: Shuming Li, Rogers Telecom Yuk-Wha Li, Tony Yuen and Al Leon-Garcia MET Advisory Board


October 6, 2005

IMS Service Control Architecture

IMS multicast using SIP IMS content management IMS and data plane requirements

4 Students

Sponsors: Jean Gravel, Nortel Al Leon-Garcia MET Advisory Board


October 6, 2005

Metro Ethernet Quality of Service and Traffic Management Bandwidth on demand management Application QoS Network reliability and scalability Metro Ethernet Cost Modeling

5 students

Sponsors: Jim Kozij, Allstream/MTS Al Leon-Garcia MET Advisory Board


October 6, 2005

Other Projects

Performance Testing Methodology of 3G IMS Push-To-Talk over Cellular

Video Service Portal

Sponsors: Al Leon-Garcia


October 6, 2005

Agenda






MET Networking Project 2005

“IMS Service Control for Video Broadcast and non-SIP Services”Chakrit NimmanantMET Alumni DayOct 6th, 2005


October 6, 2005

Acknowledgements

Supervisors Jean Gravel, Senior Network Engineer, Nortel

Networks. Professor Alberto Leon-Garcia

IMS Subject Matter Experts A group of IMS experts, Nortel Networks Nikos Katinakis and Sorin Surdila, Ericsson Canada Dan Del Fatti, Lucent Technologies Canada


October 6, 2005

Agenda

IMS Overview (Part I) What is IMS? The Needs for IMS The Advantages of IMS Evolution & Architecture of IMS

IMS Project (Part II) Motivation Network Model for Applicability Analysis Applicability Models of SIP & IGMP/MLD Assessment and Recommendation

Q&A


October 6, 2005

What is IMS?

Stands for IP Multimedia Subsystem defined by 3GPP

3GPP’s Service Control Architecture empowered by IETF’s Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Is not service, but acts as telecom service enabler over IP-based

infrastructure Mandates support of IPv6 (IPv4 optional)

Access-Network agnostic

Enable Fixed-Mobile Convergence and Quadruple-play

Standardized on interfaces and capabilities, not applications


October 6, 2005

The Needs for IMS

Unpredictable acceptance of new services Quick actions required

Develop and deploy promising services quickly Add resources to successful services on demand Reduce resources for unsuccessful services or remove them entirely on demand

Vertical vs Horizontal solution


October 6, 2005

The Needs for IMS (2)

Vertical solutions Current solutions of Service providers Issues: Interworking, CAPEX & OPEX, and so on.

Horizontal solutions Generic architecture for diverse applications IMS + IP offer modular, flexible service delivery, and speedy time-to-market

of services

IMS is the answer!!IMS is the answer!!


October 6, 2005

What IMS Provides to Operators

A common platform with reusable components which provides quick and easy service development

Decreased deployment and management costs

Combinations of the functionalities of each solution

Standardized, open interfaces for 3rd party developers

Value chain control


October 6, 2005

What IMS Provides to Users

Controllability of a plethora of available IP services

Personalized communications

Single public identity

Consistency of services across operators and access networks (roaming and interworking)


October 6, 2005

The Evolution of IMS

Early 3GPP Releases (up to Release 4) Only basic IP connectivity

IMS was introduced in 3GPP Release 5

Real-time services mainly after Release 6 IMS Stage 2 WLAN-Mobile Interworking IPv4/6 Migration

Release 7 is work-in-progress IMS Stage 3 IETF Protocol Alignment System Enhancements for fixed broadband access to IMS


October 6, 2005

A Basic SIP Call

302 (Moved Temporarily)

INVITE

200 (OK)200 (OK)

ACKINVITE

180 (Ringing)180 (Ringing)180 (Ringing)

200 (OK)

ACKACK ACK

RTP MEDIA PATH

BYEBYE BYE

200 (OK)200 (OK) 200 (OK)Session Teardown

MediaPath

Session Setup

UA client

UA Server

Proxy Server

Proxy Server

Location / Redirect Server

INVITE INVITE


October 6, 2005

IMS Architecture

Service Layer Application Servers and Services

Control Layer IP Call Control Servers: SIP servers (CSCF), Multimedia Resource Function Controller (MRFC), Policy Decision

Function (PDF) Control Plane: Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)

Transport Layer IP Transport Servers: Multimedia Resource Function Processor (MRFP) User Plane: Real Time Protocol (RTP) and Real Time Control Protocol (RTCP)

IP Network (Non-IMS Part) Routers: Policy Enforcement Point (PEP), e.g. GGSN, BRAS, CMTS

IP Network

Legacy VoIP Legacy

MRFC MRFC PDF PDF

PEP PEP

Beyond Voice


October 6, 2005

IMS Control Layer

CSCF Call Session Control Function

Proxy CSCF (P-CSCF) Acts as the point of entry

Interrogating CSCF (I-CSCF) Acts as Information, topology hiding

gateway Serving CSCF (S-CSCF)

Authorizes each session request by querying HSS

Communicates with AS to perform service control accordingly

Forwards each session request to the terminating network


October 6, 2005

Calling using IMS


October 6, 2005

Conferencing using IMS

1. MRFC & AS act as Conference Focus 2. MRFP acts as Media Mixer

3. Participants & the Focus control the session using SIP

4. All media are mixed at MRFP

5. Mixed Media is multicast or unicast to each participant


October 6, 2005

Agenda

IMS Overview (Part I) What is IMS? The Needs for IMS The Advantages of IMS Evolution & Architecture of IMS

IMS Project (Part II) Motivation Network Model for Applicability Analysis Applicability Models of SIP & IGMP/MLD Assessment and Recommendation

Q&A


October 6, 2005

Motivations IMS Service Control for Video Broadcast and non-SIP

services IGMP/MLD has long been used to trigger multicast

services at Network layer. Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) for IPv4 systems Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 systems

As a step towards the Fixed-Mobile Convergence SIP should be able to do the same thing and more but at

Application layer. To unravel the applicability of SIP & IGMP/MLD focusing

at PEP, e.g. BRAS. Should SIP be used instead of IGMP/MLD? Should SIP still trigger IGMP/MLD? If else, what should we do?


October 6, 2005

L3 CMTS(B/2)

Network Model*

UE#1

IMS Domain

Operator Data Network

GGSN(C/1)

SGSN

RNC

RNC

Internet

L3 BRAS(B/1)

L2 Switch

Wi-Fi

L2/L3 DSLAM

IMS-Reused BM-SC(A)

IMS-Reused BM-SC(B)

IMS-Reused BM-SC(C)

L3 BRAS(A/1)

L2 SwitchWi-Fi

L2/L3 DSLAM

Internet

L2/L3 DSLAM

L3 BRAS(A/2)

*For analysis purpose only, further proof is needed

Interworking & Consistency

Scalability


October 6, 2005

SIP Processes & The Point of Applicability

Where should the applicability take place?Where should the applicability take place?

Broadcast Multicast


October 6, 2005

Six Assessment Criteria

Interworking & Consistency of Signaling

Complexity

Security

Compatibility

Scalability

Roaming


October 6, 2005

Six Applicability Alternatives

1

2

3

4

5

6


October 6, 2005

Assessments Interworking &

Consistency of Signaling

Complexity

Security

Compatibility

Scalability

Roaming

Complexity

Compatibility

Scalability & Roaming

1

2

3

4

5

6

Security


October 6, 2005

The Model #5

SIP triggers IGMP/MLD to perform its functions at Network layer.

The exception is no IGMP/MLD message is sent.

SIP ACK and its description will be sent to IMS domain as usual.

PEP intercepts and extracts multicast information from SIP ACK and its description.

PEP forwards the SIP message to IMS domain


October 6, 2005

Recommendations

SIP should be used instead of IGMP/MLD by PEP (e.g. BRAS, GGSN, CMTS)

All intelligence are put within PEP to intercept and retrieve necessary information from SIP messages.

No complicated upgrade mandated for hosts or P-CSCF/PDF.


October 6, 2005

Benefits

Reduce redundancy of request

Reduce traffic of signals going into the network (40 bytes/user/time for IGMP and 76 bytes/user/time for MLD)

Improve operators’ controllability of Video broadcast and multicast services

Ease deployment and acceptance process


October 6, 2005

References

3GPP, www.3gpp.org RFC 3261, Session Initiation Protocol, IETF, www.ietf.org M. Harris, “IP multimedia in 3G”, Orange’s CEPT conference

presentation, 2003 “IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) Overview and Applications”,

3G Americas, July 2004, www.3gamericas.org “IMS IP Multimedia Subsystem”,

www.gemplus.com/techno/ims “Enhanced Service Delivery: IP Multimedia Subsystems and

AdvancedTCA”, Intel’s White paper, 2005, www.intel.com/network/csp/pdf/9342wp.htm


October 6, 2005

Q&A

THANK YOU!!


October 6, 2005

Agenda






October 6, 2005




Sponsors: Shuming Li, Rogers Telecom Yuk-Wha Li, Tony Yuen and Al Leon-Garcia MET Advisory Board


October 6, 2005





October 6, 2005

IPTV Overview

2. Cable Hybrid Fiber Coaxial (HFC) Network (Pay TV)

Telecom IP Broadband Network

Coaxial Cable

CopperxDSL

Optical Fiber FTTx

1. Analog Terrestrial (Free Broadcasting)

4. Digital Terrestrial (Free Broadcasting)

3. Satellite TV Network (Pay TV)

5. IPTV by Telecom Service Provider5. IPTV by Telecom Service Provider


October 6, 2005

IPTV Potential Applications



Coaxial Cable

CopperxDSL

Optical Fiber FTTx





Potential Applications • Broadcast/Pay TV• VOD & Interactive TV

• Fixed/Mobile Multimedia Services

Potential Applications • Broadcast/Pay TV• VOD & Interactive TV

• Fixed/Mobile Multimedia Services


October 6, 2005

Broadband and Pay TV Service Development

HH Penetration

2004 Pop (M)

HH (M)

GDP/ Capita at ppp US$

Broadband Cable TV

Satellite TV

Major ILECs

U.S. 293 110 39,820 26% 68% 22% Verizon, SBC, BellSouth

Canada 32 12 32,880 47% 74% 20% BCE, Telus, MTS, SaskTel

U.K. 60 24 30250 30% 13% 30% BT

Germany 83 39 27,140 14% 54% 33% DT

France 60 25 29,330 22% 6% 18% FT

Japan 128 49 29,722 31% 50% 7% NTT

Korea 48 16 22,190 61% 82% 10% KT

China 1301 369 5,780 5% 34% 0% CTC, CNC

HH – Household, ppp – Purchase Power Parity


October 6, 2005

Agenda






IPTV Service Provider Market Analysis Report

Mary Zhao MET 2005

Directed byProf. Alberto Leon-Garcia

Prof. Tony Yuen Prof. Yuk-Wha LiArchitect in residence Shuming Li


October 6, 2005

Report Content

Executive Summary Research Scope and Objective Methodology Regional Market Analysis -- Asia

, NTT, KT

Regional Market Analysis -- Western Europe British Telecom, France Telecom, Deutsche Telekom

Overview of North America Market Analysis and Comparison Summary and Future Work

PCCW


October 6, 2005

Methodology

MarketAnalysis

Competitive Analysis

CompanyAnalysis

Industry Analysis

• Major Battleground of IPTV in different countries : Korea , Japan , France…..• Different policy from the government

Example Google Searching Key Words : ‘Hong Kong IPTV’ ‘ Hong Kong IPTV regulation’

Defense / Attack ?

PCCW, KT, NTT, BT, FT, DT

•Broadband Industry•Pay-TV Industry

Example Key words:Hong Kong pay-TV market

Hong Kong broadband Hong Kong Cable TV/ modem

Example key words :PCCW Annual Report

PCCW IPTV PCCW competitor


October 6, 2005

Asia -- Japan and KoreaJapan Korea

Broadband Main Technology ADSL / FTTH ADSL /VDSL/ Cable

High Speed 10M – 100M( bps ) 4M -50M (bps)

Broadband HH Penetration 39% 78%

Government Regulation

Broadband e-Japan , u-Japan BcN; Home Networking

Subsidies $16.7B for e-Japan $7.7B Subsidy 2005

IPTV VoD, no Broadcasting VoD, no broadcasting

Potential advantage for

IPTV

Relative Industry Consumer electronics STB, Handsets

Active in new technology enthusiast enthusiast

Film Industry Share with Korea culture Korean soap opera

IPTV potential audience Housewives Housewives

IPTV players Incumbent NTT Not yet KT VoD only

CLEC Yahoo! BB ; ISPs –Plala Networks ; On Demand TV, Inc

No

Technology competition

Cable vs DSL vs FTTH Market share

Cable : DSL: FTTH

9% : 74% : 17%

Cable : DSL: FTTH

34% : 57% : 9%


October 6, 2005

Who are the main Broadband competitors ?

Usen (FTTH), 4%

Other (FTTH), 4%

Cable, 9%

NTT West (FTTH), 11%

NTT East (FTTH), 12%

Others (DSL), 4% Acca Networks,

6%

Yahoo! BB, 20%

NTT West (DSL ), 10%

eAccess (DSL), 8%

NTT East (DSL), 12%

Others, 14% Hanaro-Cable, 22.60%

KT , 50.70%

Dacom, 2.20%

Hanaro-DSL, 10.50%

Broadband Market Share in Japan ( Subs )Data Source : MIC 2004

Broadband Market Share in KoreaData Source : MIC 2004

Unlike North America, incumbents in Asia are facing

another competition mainly from CLECs, who are

driving incumbents to move to IPTV !!!


October 6, 2005

Case Study : Hong Kong / PCCW


October 6, 2005

Background of Hong Kong Market

Extremely Competitive

Telecom Market

Broadband – high HH

penetration – 63% Entertainment center in

Asia/Pacific One of the Largest film

Industries

Pay-TV penetration is not

high 50% ( U.S over 80%)


October 6, 2005

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

2001 2002 2003 2004

Others

Telecom

Drive for PCCW IPTV Business - NOW ( Network of the world )

Intense competition from

CLEC especially HKBB ( Hong

Kong Broadband ) and HGC

(Hutchison Global

Communications) driving

ARPU down and customer

loyalty declined

Fixed Line revenue dropped dramatically while PCCW doesn’t have wireless business

Add more value on the

existing infrastructure and

investment.PCCW total revenue vs telecom revenue

Source : PCCW annual report 2004

Million HK$


October 6, 2005

PCCW IPTV Service and Strategy

Service Broadcasting : 67 channels including 12 free

Target market ( pay-TV HH penetration was 50% end of 2004 ) The remaining 50 % pay-TV residence

Competitors i-Cable who is providing triple play ( Voice, Broadband , pay-TV ) Hong Kong Broadband who is offering IPTV

Strategies to differentiate itself Innovative price model – A la carte price model or Mini pack Low price entry strategy -- Free, Free, Free Exclusive and localized content – Revenue share with content providers


October 6, 2005

PCCW IPTV Results after 15 months

Subscribers are growing

very fast

ARPU is increasing

Broadband churn rate is

decreasing < 1%

Get pay-TV Market share

20%

20

147

214

269320

361

57

105

8870

62

050

100150200

250300350400

3Q03 4Q03 1Q04 2Q04 3Q04 4Q04

Subs (000)

020406080

100120140160

Subs ARPU

HK$


October 6, 2005

“ PCCW’s success in the IPTV arena has shown the way for telcos

worldwide as they begin deploying IPTV services and competing

against satellite and cable pay-TV alternatives. ” -- TelecomWeb

“ PCCW represents one of the most exciting success stories in the

global IPTV market and serves as a great role model for other

operators that are considering IPTV services. ” -- LightReading

“ With the world's largest and fastest growing installed base of TV over

DSL subscribers, PCCW's success confirms the business case for

Telco TV .” – BusinessWeek

PCCW IPTV Results after 15 months


October 6, 2005

However... Something is missing !

Re-exam its market entry strategy – Huge customer base doesn’t mean revenue !

Only 58% of the subscribers are paying for the service No installation fee, No compulsory monthly subscription fee A la carte model allows customers to pay for channel by channel , pay-per-view, or

month by monthIt is likely for subscribers pay for only a small amount fee

42% are watching free channels only Free STB and Free channels from PCCW No TV revenue at all !!!

At least 50% revenue is given to content providers

PCCW IS LOSING MONEY !


October 6, 2005

Lessons Learned

Is PCCW’ s IPTV Business Successful ?

Observation

IPTV market is still in its infancy

It is not trivial to find a lucrative business model or strategy for IPTV business

Yes and No !


October 6, 2005

MET Reports Are Available

WWW.MET.UTORONTO.CA


October 6, 2005

Thank You!


IPTV Industry Analysis:

Service Definition & Network Requirements

Prepared by: Alice Lam

[email protected]

October 6, 2005


October 6, 2005

Outline of Presentation

1. Project Overview & Objectives

2. Report – Table of Contents

3. Methodology

4. BT Case Study

5. Observations


October 6, 2005

Overview & Objectives

Look at ILEC IPTV deployment which requires wide geographic coverage

Define IPTV services and figure out how to evolve ILEC's network to provide the defined services

Study is divided into different geographic regions North America Europe Asia Pacific

Case studies are to map the network evolution to service deployment


October 6, 2005

Overview & Objectives – cont.

Equipment Industry Value Chain Analysis

Service Provider

Market Analysis

Media Delivery and Prototype

Implementation

IPTV IP Multicast

Survey on DRM Systems for IPTV

Video Content

ServiceDefinition

NetworkRequirements

TechnologyBusiness


October 6, 2005

1. INTRODUCTION

2. NORTH AMERICAN MARKET BELL CANADA

3. EUROPEAN MARKET BT GROUP

4. ASIAN PACIFIC MARKET NTT

5. CONCLUSION

6. SUGGESTED FUTURE WORK7. GLOSSARY OF TERMS8. REFERENCE

Report - Table of Contents

2.1. Current Business Model2.2. Current Network Architecture2.3. IPTV Roll-out Plan & Technology Preferences2.4. Proposed IPTV Service Definition2.5. Proposed Network Requirements2.6. Conclusion of the Case Study

2.4.1. Geographic Coverage2.4.2. Video Services2.4.3. Audio Services2.4.4. Gaming Services2.4.5. Other Bundled Services2.4.6. Advertising Services2.4.7. Interactive Programming Guide2.4.8. Other Value-Added Features

2.5.1. Headend2.5.2. Access Network2.5.3. Set-Top-Boxes / Residential Gateway

1.1. Purpose and Scope1.2. Methodology1.3. Why now?1.3.1. Business Decision1.3.2. Improvement in Technologies


October 6, 2005

Methodology

IndustryAnalysis

IndustryAnalysis

CompetitiveAnalysis

CompetitiveAnalysis

CompanyAnalysis

CompanyAnalysis

MarketAnalysis

MarketAnalysis

• TV Broadcasting Market• Broadband Market

• Bell Canada• BT Group• NTT Group

• IPTV industry


October 6, 2005

European Region:

BT Group Case Study


October 6, 2005

UK Market - Background

One of the most open telecom markets in Europe Broadband industry is dominated by DSL Satellite TV companies are the major competitors Free TV channels offered by Freeview and

Free-to-view digital satellite Geographic size is small relative to North

America which enable efficient access network


October 6, 2005

BT Group – Background

Largest incumbent service provider in the UK BT have over 30 millions exchange lines and

serve over 4 million broadband customers Offer both retail and wholesale services

BT only serves 24% of the broadband consumers in the UK

To launch IPTV service after a full-scale trial that starts in next March

Also announced to use Microsoft TV IPTV edition platform


October 6, 2005

BT – Proposed Service Definition

Geographic Coverage: Throughout the UK including England, Wales and Scotland

Video Services: both broadcast & VoD, but focus on VoD Audio Services: music channels & radio channels Game Services Other bundled services: voice & Internet services (at least 4

Mbps) Interactive Program Guide (IPG) Picture-in-Picture (PIP), parental lock-out, Digital Video

Recorder (DVR), pre-recorded High Definition (HD) TV programming

2 video streams, 1 Internet stream and 1 telephone line


October 6, 2005

BT – Current Network Architecture

Single Family Dwellings

Telephone

DSL Modem

PC

Splitter

Central Office

DSLAM

BRAS

PSTN PSTN

InternetInternet


October 6, 2005

BT – Current Network Architecture

Multi-Dwelling Unit

Telephone

DSL Modem

PC

Splitter

Central Office

DSLAM

BRAS

PSTN PSTN

InternetInternet

Basement / Node


October 6, 2005

BT – 21st Century Network


October 6, 2005

BT – Proposed IPTV Network Architecture

Single Family Dwellings

Telephone

PCSplitter

Central Office

DSLAM

BRAS

PSTNPSTNInternet

Internet

TV

Terrestrial / Satellite Data Receiver (Local Content)

Encoder

Local VoD Server

Multicast Router

Headend

Terrestrial / Satellite Data Receiver

Encoder

VoD Server

Multicast Router

OSS and DRMSTB

DSL Modem

1 – 1.5 Mbps1.5 – 2 Mbps 3 – 4 MbpsSD Real-time Program

5 -6 Mbps6 – 8 Mbps12 – 15 MbpsHD Pre-recorded Program

7 – 9 Mbps8 – 10 Mbps15 – 19 MbpsHD Real-time Program

WMV9MPEG-4MPEG-2Program Type

Compression Standard


October 6, 2005

Observations

The largest telco in the country may not be in the best position to offer IPTV services

BT might deploy IPTV services faster than most North America telcos due to its 21CN network schedule

IPTV deployment is a slow process


Thank you!

www.met.utoronto.ca


October 6, 2005

Agenda






October 6, 2005





October 6, 2005

Table of Content IPTV Equipment Vendor Value Chain Analysis1. Executive Summary2. Introduction & Scope of the Project3. Definition of IPTV4. Market Drivers for IPTV5. Issues Surrounding Video over IP6. Comparison of Services for Digital Cable & IPTV7. IPTV Architecture8. IPTV Deployment Cost Scenario9. Supply Chain of ILEC Offering IPTV10. Competitive Analysis of Equipment Vendors11. Equipment Vendors Selected by Service Providers12. Conclusion of the Report13. Future Work


October 6, 2005

Scope and Major Focus

By Irshad Shaikh Emphasis on Market Dynamics among Incumbent

Vendors, Entrants from Adjacent Industries and New Pure-play Startup Entrants

A Closer Look at the Equipment Vendor Value Chain by Segmenting the Vendors of IPTV Networking Equipment

Competitive Analysis of Equipment Vendors in Each Segment


October 6, 2005

Industry Competitors

Rivalry Among Existing Firms

Additional Methodology:Porter’s Industry Competition Model

Potential Entrants

Suppliers Buyers

Substitutes


October 6, 2005

Additional Methodology:Christensen’s Seeing What’s Next

1.Signals of Change

2.CompetitiveBattles

3. Strategic Choices

Disruptive Innovation

Resource, Process,

Value

Value Chain

Evolution

3 Theories of Innovation3-Part Process to Predict

Industry Change

4.Non-Market Force (e.g.

Government Regulations)


October 6, 2005

Observations on IPTV Equipment Market

IPTV Equipment Market is in Infancy but it is Important for Vendors to be in ILEC’s Suppliers List

Alcatel (Access, Transport and System Integration) and Microsoft (Middleware) Stand out among Vendors

Most of the Incumbent Telecom Vendors can only Play their Traditional Role in Transport and Access

Cable and Satellite Video Head-end, VoD Servers, Set-Top Box Vendors are Entering IPTV Telecom Network

IPTV also Provides Opportunities for New Entrants Targeting Asia Pacific and European Markets First


October 6, 2005

Future IPTV projects



Coaxial Cable

CopperxDSL

Optical Fiber FTTx





Projects 1. North America

Market between ILEC and MSO

2. Impact of Disruptive Business Model (s) by Internet Companies

3. Fixed/Mobile IPTV Convergence

Projects 1. North America

Market between ILEC and MSO

2. Impact of Disruptive Business Model (s) by Internet Companies

3. Fixed/Mobile IPTV Convergence


October 6, 2005

Agenda






October 6, 2005

Network & Application Consolidation

Op

eration

s & M

anag

emen

t

Managem

ent Sim

plification

ContentContent Consolidation

ApplicationsApplications Consolidation

Service ControlService Control Consolidation

IPNetwork Consolidation


October 6, 2005

Future Projects

Potential Applications of Emerging Technologies and Architectures

Competitive Analysis on Industry Dynamics and Trends

Current Network Evolution Challenges and Implications