Tag Archives | interoperability

Cisco Calls the Skype Kettle Black

By on February 17, 2012 in Telecom

I didn’t see this one coming – but it makes perfect sense.

Cisco communicates to the EU that Microsoft and Skype together may not be such a good thing for the industry, and thus appealed the approval of the merger to the EU. That isn’t in itself too surprising until you consider that the EU and the US have already approved the deal, and that the EU and US has already heard Cisco’s concerns. There is a very good chance that the decision won’t be changed. But there is also the chance some detail gets revised. There are two issues here: why did Cisco do this and is it a reasonable claim?

Why they did it largely falls into the nothing to lose category. It’s like challenging a referee’s call. There might be a small price, and it might be futile, but the call isn’t likely to come back any worse and there is a chance the outcome gets changed. But even if the EU makes no change in their decision, it slows down the merger. At the current rate of change, delaying things a few months is eternity. A lot can happen.

Consider how much has happened just since Microsoft announced the acquisition: Continue Reading →

Comments { 0 }

Dial M for Skype

By on June 9, 2011 in Telecom
The more I think about Microsoft acquiring Skype, the more I think it was a pretty smart move. The initial reports were all about synergies with various MS and Skype technologies, upon further reflection, I think the endgame will be carrier disruption.

Skype was Skype’s own worst enemy. Now obviously they did something right – and their valuation gives them every right to scoff at any criticism. So I’ll just say that their strategy worked up until now. Skype got pretty far with a closed network, but its time now to open up.

Skype for Asterisk was an anomaly. The Asterisk PBX could actually dial SkypeNames and see presence/status into one of the world’s most closed networks. Killing Skype for Asterisk could only make sense to Skype.  Skype Connect became the revised strategy, sell access to the network via VoIP’s lowest common denominator known as SIP. This is a more mainstream and efficient solution for interconnection, but reduces the value to basic voice. Skype rides the popularity of SIP trunking and positions its robust network as a dumb and cheap pipe for the PBX. Skype for Asterisk was probably viewed as a hinderance to Skype Connect’s success.
Skype had the right vision with Skype Everywhere. It was successfully delivering the vision; PCs, Macs, Tablets, Smart Phones, all available globally. Right vision, wrong implementation. Every device required a Skype client. They missed the concept of “Other People’s Money.” Microsoft excels [sic] at Other People’s Money – Look at Yahoo, Nokia, and RIM.
Consider These Numerous Themes:  
  1. MS has a heritage of partnering – something even Steve Jobs admires in Microsoft. MS is less proprietary than Skype. Operative word is “less,” Microsoft prefers defacto standards over real standards. Skype has the potential to create a defacto standard for UC interop.
  2. Metcalfe’s Law is why Skype was worth $8.5 B and why MS needs to keep on growing it. The more users on net, the more users to communicate with. This is telephone economics 101. Skype is the largest rich network of its kind.
  3. The general trend in enterprise communications embrace rich communications. Enterprise UC – from vendors such as Avaya, Cisco, and even Microsoft all include presence/IM, wideband voice, and video – but only for internal users.
  4. Copper is dying as we embrace VoIP everywhere. We need to free ourselves from the shackles of analog/copper networks. Stop equating ‘dial 9 to get out’ with ‘dial 9 to lose rich communications’.
  5. Interop is a disaster, wideband audio, video, presence federation are all a decade away from mainstream interoperability. Skype isn’t interoperable, but has Metcalf on its side (see 2 above).
  6. Smart devices and multiple applications are turning carriers into dumb pipes. They are racing to the bottom on pricing while delivering the same telephonic experience Ward had when he called June.

Initially, I thought Lync was the Skype opportunity for MS, and that’s where it will start. Microsoft may see a small increase in Lync sales. But that’s small fish compared to the Skype potential. Skype can define a UC interface open to every UC vendor (hosted and premise) that supports more than colleagues, but connects everyone together with rich communications.

Microsoft must do three things: 1) Keep growing Skype’s network (Metcalf’s law). It will add Skype to X-Box, combine with Messenger, and probably include it in Windows 8 or Office 365. 2) It needs to open up Skype to enterprise communications systems – not just Lync – but all of them. 3) It must strengthen the network and migrate from Internet best effort, to enterprise grade with SLAs.
I’m not saying MS can or even will do this, but they should and will probably try.See Expanded Feature: MS Skype Endgame (NoJitter) 

Comments { 0 }

Polycom’s “Ground Breaking News”: BFD.

By on June 1, 2011 in Telecom

For weeks Polycom has been teasing me with “ground breaking” news to come on June 1. If you are going to tease, you better deliver. Announcements and press releases are expected – normal and routine. “Ground Breaking” was meant to imply something beyond that… FAIL.

There were three major pieces to today’s news:

1) Polycom bought HP’s Halo for $89 million. This was HP’s proprietary telepresence play – equipment that typically sold for half a million dollars. Did I say “typically sold”? Scratch that. It was HP’s attempt at telepresence which didn’t sell. That is until today. What Polycom really bought was an alliance – competitors don’t align well, so HP evidently agreed to exit the market and sell Polycom. Both companies will make more money on future sales – but $89 million to acquire weaker technology than you already own seems a bit steep. (Although $8.5B for a video company (Skye) that loses $7M a year makes this look like a bargain). 


2) Polycom announces (again) Open Visual Communications Consortium (OVCC) described as “new levels of interoperability that will soon make enterprise-quality video calls as easy to make as a voice call on your mobile phone.” Interop is very important – but the problem is that this is currently interop between  Polycom devices. It is really about call setup. The new alliance is Polycom and a slew of carriers that now agree how to connect Polycom devices. The hope is more vendors will join the agreed parameters that Polycom “initiated” Until I see Cisco, LifeSize, Radvision, (Avaya), or even smart phones and tablet makers on the list, I think “interop” is a bit strong – but to be fair, all ground breaking ideas start small. 


3) Polycom announces native integration with Microsoft Lync. Considering these companies have been tight partners for a long time  and that Polycom’s CEO Andy Miller was actually at the Lync Launch – the only question is ‘what took so long?’. Worse, the announcement is only an intent (‘Rally’ is the code name) – when it ships or what it is called is some other future announcement. 


Polycom is a great company, a true market leader. They actually do lots of things that are ground breaking, just not today. 

Comments { 3 }

Upcoming Conference: InterOp

By on April 14, 2011 in Telecom

I used to love InterOp. Back in the late 90s it was the show for IT topics. I used to bring lots of my crew too. We would compete to see who could collect the most shirts. Boy we were whores – anything for a shirt.

I remember one year we could not get a hotel – InterOp was so big that Las Vegas was sold out. We ended-up at a dump pretty far from the strip. Though that was my best gambling night, I made $40 last 4 hours on roulette. I don’t gamble any more – not after my experience as a high rolling small business owner. Vegas games just aren’t a good bet, nor exciting. Running your own biz takes the fun out of lots of stuff – boss dissing too. 

I don’t know if it is possible to sell out Vegas any more. A lot of huge hotels have been built since the late 90s. I just booked my Interop room for $40. I’ll spend more on cab fare in 24 hours. 

As I moved away from IT back toward voice and even owning my own dealership – InterOp became less important to me. After all, what does voice have to do with InterOp (so sad). It’s been probably ten years since I’ve been to an InterOp conference. But, as with all things technology, what’s been around comes around and low and behold InterOp has (again) a UC track.

Previously, colleagues Marty Parker and Don Van Doren (UCStrategies) put on a UC boot camp. This year, Techweb (Enterprise Connect) is organizing a UC track. I have two gigs on the agenda. On Tuesday May 10, I will be a panelist on UC: State of the Art. And on Weds I will be moderating a panel titled: Adding Communications to Your Business Apps.

I am looking forward to returning to Interop, Let me know if you are going to be there.

Comments { 2 }

More on Interoperability

By on April 4, 2011 in Telecom

Interop was a big topic at both Enterprise Connect and the UC Summit.

Here’s the painful fact about commitment to standards–it’s only a starting point ,and effectively it’s just rhetoric without additional effort of alignment. Simply stated, standards are not enough. SIP, for example, has a high degree of variation in implementation. Vendors and carriers are still manually testing/approving supported partnerships because the standards leave too much to the imagination. Of the thousands of SIP providers, major vendors only support a handful or two, as the certification process is too cumbersome and expensive. As a result, standards-compliant systems can be totally incompatible with one another.

UC changes the interop story from a comedy of errors to a tragedy. Communications is busting-out of the confines of voice. New devices, applications, and capabilities are creating far wider interoperability challenges: presence, phone status, conferencing, collaboration, video, mobile phones, etc., all expected to seamlessly work together. Vendor component oper-ability (inter-what?) is a challenge in itself. An interesting character in this story is the UCIF (UC Interoperability Forum), but it isn’t yet clear if it is to be the protagonist or martyr.

Read The Rest at NoJitter. Operation Interop

http://www.nojitter.com/feature/229400106

Update:

From April 11 through April 15, 2011, the 28th bi-annual SIPit testing event, organized by the SIP Forum, will be held in Huntsville, Alabama at the Jackson Conference Center. Digium is hosting the event, with additional sponsorship from Polycom, Inc. (See More).

These testing events are both an indication of progress and the abysmal failure of the industry. The fact is interoperability, particularly with SIP is a disaster. The specification is so loose that fully compliant providers and equipment can be totally incompatible. As a result, it is up to individual service providers and manufacturers to manually test for compatibility which is highly inefficient and expensive. So much so that most manufacturers have a relatively short list of approved/supported partners. For example, Microsoft Lync can only officially be connected to 12 SIP service providers.

To speed up this ridiculous process, they have these orgies where everyone can show up and party til they drop – such as SIPit. They are billed as an example of industry interoperability, but they are actually a result of the absence of it.

Conversely, T1s or Analog compatibility is done with testing equipment in labs. A simple test that each provider and equipment maker can perform to verify compatibility. This is is the way most things are done in other industries. Can you imagine DVD players having to certify against each movie studio or each USB device having to certify against every PC or USB cable host?

Related:

UC Strategies: Waiting for Open UC

UCIF White Paper: UC: Driving the Next Step to Interoperability

Comments { 0 }

Telecom Industry Report Card

By on March 15, 2011 in Telecom

Enterprise Connect was a great time to meet with vendors, end users, and other media and analysts. The event was filled with news, keynotes, and alcohol resulting with a distinct impression about the industry. I figured fresh from the conference, it’s a good time to reflect. In many ways, the conference reflects the current state of the industry.

Of course, Enterprise Connect is subject to the reality-distortion magic common in Orlando: just because the vendors offer it, or even push it, doesn’t mean anyone is buying it (or that it even works). But the pitches do suggest that communications technologies are continuing to transform how business gets done. The report card below blurs the distinction between the conference and the industry, but the conference did provide a fresh glimpse of the latest and greatest as well as an overall industry tone.

reportcard

Cross Posted on NoJitter

Comments { 0 }

I’d Like to Exchange a Word with You

By on March 1, 2011 in Telecom

The Bell System network was an American marvel of technology, its “universal service” mantra aspired for a phone in every home; regardless of social class. It connected every home and business in the country, comparable in scope to the nation’s highway and road system, but with instantaneous communications. It made instant communication a reality on a scale never before accomplished, very likely inconceivable to many.

The Bell system belonged to a corporation, centrally designed per a master plan. The entire solution, including the switches, endpoints, wiring, and protocols were vertically integrated and designed in one of the most famous (and privately owned) laboratories in the world: Bell Labs. The network’s hardware was predominately produced to exact specifications by Bell’s manufacturing arm, Western Electric.

Today the Internet holds the title of the most popular and ubiquitous public network. It is not owned (or regulated) by a private corporation. It is completely decentralized in ownership, design, and management. Nor are the hardware and services centrally managed, but rather a result of innovative approaches to communications – email, presence, Napster, Bit-Torrent, iPhones, even Netflix streaming came from a free market of ingenuity rather than a central plan. The web and email are largely completely platform independent. Mac, PC, HP, IBM – it just doesn’t matter; interaction, shopping, and more take place regardless of computer brand (remote or local), device type, or location. The Internet has transformed communications globally, affecting every industry and life as we knew it.

Read the whole Post: Waiting for Open UC (UCStrategies.com)

Comments { 0 }

Un-Unified Communications

By on May 17, 2010 in Telecom

Un-Unified Messaging

Last week I wrote about OCS at the UCStrategies site (Microsoft’s OCS Rides Its Own Wave) which discussed the proprietary nature of OCS, I wrote:

“Active Directory and Exchange are not optional components with OCS. By committing to OCS for voice, the user is committing to network security and messaging standards. Is there any other UC solution that mandates the messaging solution? Microsoft positions this as infrastructure organizations already have, but that isn’t the same as infrastructure organizations will always want. Voice solutions tend to last a minimum of five years, longer than IT server life cycles. Even worse, with “Wave 14″ (AKA version 3), Microsoft is now recommending dedicated Exchange servers for voice and email – (un-unified messaging).”

For the past decade, voice mail systems and email systems have been trying to figure out the best solution for unity, which more often than not meant separate servers and duplicated/shared messages. Microsoft was pretty savvy with OCS to position Exchange as a single messaging server – true unity. Would’ve been a great strategy if voice wasn’t so darn picky about real time resources. With “Wave 14″ (nomenclature reminds me of the “K Car” from Chrysler), Microsoft is introducing speech to text capabilities. Like so many OCS features this spawns a requirement for new servers. But upon reflection, “Un Unified Messaging” was not a fair shot. The unified part represented the intended user experience, not the number of servers.

And that brings me to “Unified Communications”. The term I love to hate. I’ve written several times about the ambiguity of Unified Communications:

March 2010: The Emperor Has No UC

Dec 2008: Unified Communications, Yeah Right

UC brings together telephony, email, presence, conferencing, mobility, instant messaging, content sharing, and other communication (custom?) solutions. Most of these didn’t exist twenty years ago. As new methods of communication gained popularity, the communications puzzle got harder. The problem is unified communications today represents strategies to include, not unify disparate communication modalities.

Interoperability: The next big thing?

There are two mega-challenges to real unified communications:

  1. The customer experience between modalities: Return a call with an IM, Reply to an email with an SMS. First making the communications seamless, and secondly properly logging it in a searchable format.
  2. Vendor Interoperability: Step one is a challenge today with a single vendor solution, but single vendor solutions aren’t cutting it in UC. The model of a vendor creating a solution and tossing it out to the standards bodies in an attempt to get everyone to follow suit isn’t working either, nor is the API with reduced capabilities game going to deliver interoperable UC.

The first point is evolution – progress is being made. Step 2 is delayed for two reasons: the industry is moving faster than the standards bodies, and the vendors (in general) are reluctant to embrace competitors. There are always a few glimmers of light. Consider the Polycom Open Collaboration Network which embraces standards for interoperability. “standards based solutions, solutions that are scalable, flexible, multi-network, and able to run in mixed environments”. Polycom is in a unique position to pull this off as most of its relationships are partnerships rather than competitive.

Standards based solutions are always preferable, but the UC space is changing too quickly for overall standards. Some standards are just too weak. SIP is smack in the center of UC – and it has a terrible record for interoperability. SIP actually specifies five ways to place a call on hold – no wonder two SIP compliant vendors can’t inter-operate. Standards can’t keep up with either the rate of innovation in UC or the increasing demands from customers. Vendor interoperability is going to require more innovation and cooperation where standards leave gaps.

Anecdote Time:

New York Times Consumer Tech Columnist, David Pogue, recently did several pieces on the Apple iPad. Right after the launch, he did a “town-hall” interactive video were he fielded a variety of questions from 20 two-way video participants. Assuming you don’t have an Apple portable device, you can watch the video here in (Adobe Flash). The video is an impressive use of technology – inspiring really. Except it was totally fake. Pogue writes about how he pulled it off here. Basically, each of the 20 “participants” were pre-recorded videos his readers submitted. It wasn’t a town-hall interactive meeting, it was Pogue talking to 20 videos of people performing a part that he scripted. He faked it because the technology inexplicably isn’t here.

Why isn’t it here? Webcams are readily available. Broadband networks are commonplace. Such technology could be implemented within a closed system – but a 20 user town-hall experience with unaffiliated consumers is still science fiction due to interoperability constraints.

Standards won’t get us there. Standards bodies look at technology through a rear-view mirror. It is going to take a stronger proactive approach to interoperability – to fill-in the gaps where standards don’t exist. And there are no shortage of those gaps in the UC space. Single-vendor UC gardens should be by overall choice – not because one product/solution was selected. The equation is even more complex as cloud options become more compelling. How to create a unified communications solutions among different vendors, clients/servers, and cloud services.

Comments { 1 }