2011 Infonetics IMS Service Pro: 2011-Infonetics-IMS-Service-Provider-Survey-06-22-11.vider Survey 06-22-11

Continuous Research Service
IMS Services Strategies, Product Features, and Vendor Leadership:

Global Service Provider Survey
June 22, 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TOP TAKEAWAYS.................................................................................................................................. 1
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 2
Methodology and demographics overview......................................................................................................2
Equipment obsolescence, converged services and LTE drive IMS ..................................................................3
IMS as a global standard for network infrastructure and services....................................................................3
Large-volume IMS to come from fixed-line VoIP.............................................................................................5
Back-end system integration and business case lead IMS issues ...................................................................6
Residential VoBB and business hosted voice are the most widely deployed IMS services................................8
RCS and VoLTE have largest gains over next 2 years .....................................................................................8
CSCF: HEART OF THE IMS CORE............................................................................................................. 11

CSCF Implementation...................................................................................................................................12
Standards-based remains most important product feature .............................................................................13
NSN leads CSCF installations........................................................................................................................14
HSS INSTALLATIONS MOVING ALONG..................................................................................................... 16

Trio of must have HSS features .....................................................................................................................17
Manufacturer selection criteria......................................................................................................................20
Nokia Siemens Networks is the leading HSS vendor ......................................................................................21
PERCEIVED TOP IMS INFRASTRUCTURE MANUFACTURERS—ERICSSON LEADS, ALCATEL-LUCENT

FOLLOWS CLOSELY ............................................................................................................................... 23
BOTTOM LINE ....................................................................................................................................... 28
This is a paid service intended for the recipient organization only; reproduction and sharing with third parties is prohibited.
Copyright © 2011 by Infonetics Research, Inc. All rights reserved.
i
CONTINUOUS RESEARCH SERVICE
IMS Services Strategies, Product Features, and Vendor Leadership: Global Service Provider Survey
METHODOLOGY AND DEMOGRAPHICS..................................................................................................... 30

Respondents are influential in the purchase decision ....................................................................................31
The sample looks similar to last year’s survey ................................................................................................32
Respondents represent a third of worldwide service revenue..........................................................................33
Respondent service provider types and regional distribution ..........................................................................34
ii
LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT 1 IMS MIGRATION DRIVERS ................................................................................................ 4
EXHIBIT 2 LARGE-VOLUME IMS DEPLOYMENT AND EXPANSION DRIVERS ........................................... 5
EXHIBIT 3 IMS MIGRATION BARRIERS .............................................................................................. 7
EXHIBIT 4 IMS-ENABLED SERVICES ................................................................................................. 9
EXHIBIT 5 SINGLE VS MULTIPLE IMS CORES .................................................................................... 10
EXHIBIT 6 CSCF INSTALLATION........................................................................................................ 11
EXHIBIT 7 CSCF IMPLEMENTATION .................................................................................................. 12
EXHIBIT 8 CSCF FEATURES.............................................................................................................. 14
EXHIBIT 9 CSCF MANUFACTURERS INSTALLED AND UNDER EVALUATION........................................... 16
EXHIBIT 10 HSS INSTALLATION ......................................................................................................... 17
EXHIBIT 11 HSS FEATURES ............................................................................................................... 19
EXHIBIT 12 HSS MANUFACTURER SELECTION CRITERIA...................................................................... 21
EXHIBIT 13 HSS MANUFACTURERS INSTALLED AND UNDER EVALUATION ............................................ 23
EXHIBIT 14 TOP THREE IMS INFRASTRUCTURE MANUFACTURERS....................................................... 24
EXHIBIT 15 SERVICE PROVIDER FAMILIARITY WITH IMS INFRASTRUCTURE MANUFACTURERS.............. 26
EXHIBIT 16 TOP VENDORS FOR ALL CRITERIA ..................................................................................... 28
EXHIBIT 17 IMS DEPLOYMENT TIMEFRAME ........................................................................................ 30
EXHIBIT 18 RESPONDENT INFLUENCE ................................................................................................ 31
EXHIBIT 19 ANNUAL SURVEY SAMPLE COMPARISON.......................................................................... 32
EXHIBIT 20 RESPONDENTS PORTION OF 2010 CAPEX AND REVENUE ................................................... 33
EXHIBIT 21 RESPONDENT SERVICE PROVIDER TYPES AND REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION ............................ 34
iii
TOP TAKEAWAYS
IMS networks continue to be deployed by fixed-line operators and a growing number of mobile operators
and cable operators (apparent in the sample makeup of this year’s study). In comparing the results to our
2010 and 2009 service provider surveys on IMS, the top takeaway is that little has changed. Deployments
are continuing to progress, and new services are being deployed over IMS, but product requirements and
overall drivers and barriers are similar.
A quick summary of the respondent demographics: 74% of respondents have deployed IMS, 79% come
from EMEA (where the majority of IMS deployments exist), 57% are incumbents, and 22% are mobile
operators.
Fixed-line VoIP service continues to be the mainstay of IMS deployments; 57% of respondents run
residential voice over broadband and hosted business VoIP over IMS today, growing to 78% and 70%,
respectively, by 2013. RCS, video telephony, and video sharing services are each planned by at least
50% of respondents over the next 12–18 months. The transition from fixed-line VoIP to mobile services
over IMS is reflected in the responses regarding market drivers and challenges:
• Two key factors driving respondent IMS deployments are the ability to offer converged services
and LTE network deployment. With the desire to move toward converged services, operators are
making plans to move mobile services over IMS, including voice, data, and video.
• Mobile services are growing in importance; 61% of respondents plan to offer RCS by 2013, 48%
mobile messaging, 48% VoLTE, and 35% VoIP over 3G.
• No single factor is considered a barrier to IMS deployment by more than 48% of respondents.
The two factors rated a barrier by more than 40% of respondents are similar to those in our 2010
IMS survey: integration with existing BSS/OSS systems, and lack of compelling business case.
With increasing numbers of operators choosing IMS for fixed-line VoIP networks and mobile services, the
product requirements for CSCF and HSS have not drastically changed over the past three years.
However, this year’s survey data regarding installed vendors is closer to the market share we report in the
IMS Equipment and Subscribers quarterly market size and forecast service.
• Interworking with application servers and open, standards-based platforms are critical for CSCF
selection.
• Authentication/authorization, subscriber profile management, and rapid provisioning are critical
features in HSS selection.
• Nokia Siemens Networks is the leading CSCF and HSS vendor in terms of product installed and
under evaluation. However, when we asked respondents who they consider to be the top three
IMS infrastructure vendors, Ericsson and Alcatel-Lucent garner the most mentions, showing a
divergence between perception and reality. Additionally, more respondents are familiar with
Ericsson than with any other vendor (83% rate Ericsson familiar), which leads us to conclude
Ericsson has done a solid job in marketing its capabilities and participating in RFPs, even if it lags
behind Nokia Siemens Networks in installations.
1
• Huawei poses a credible and serious threat to Ericsson, Alcatel-Lucent, and Nokia Siemens
Networks. The vendor is considered a leader in certain vendor criteria and has been growing its
installed base every year among our survey respondents. More and more operators are familiar
with Huawei’s capabilities, but Huawei continues to come in fourth in terms of perceived
leadership and overall familiarity.
INTRODUCTION
The adoption and deployment of IMS core networks continues its path through fixed-line and mobile
operators worldwide. In Infonetics Research’s IMS Equipment and Subscribers quarterly worldwide and
regional market share, size, and forecast service, we track over 90 publicly disclosed IMS network
deployments. Many of these IMS deployments are with incumbent operators, with roughly 60% of total
deployment in EMEA, but expanding in Asia Pacific and the Americas, which helps explain the large
number of EMEA respondents to our survey. This survey captures a strategic overview from a range of
service providers, gaining insights into IMS.
Methodology and demographics overview
In April and May 2011, we interviewed 23 service providers who have IMS core equipment in their
networks or plan to at some point in 2011. Respondents have detailed knowledge of the IMS equipment
and services their companies use or will use to deliver voice services or transport voice traffic, and are
influential in planning and making purchase decisions for IMS equipment.
The respondents in this study represent more than 29% of worldwide capex and 30% of revenue in our
Service Provider Capex, Opex, ARPU, and Subscribers report. Our respondents are geographically
diverse, with a heavy bias toward EMEA. This is a reflection of where the majority of IMS activity has
been—in Infonetics Research’s IMS Deployment Tracker (part of our IMS Equipment and Subscribers
quarterly market share, size, and forecast service), 59% of the operators are from EMEA. It is also a
reflection of the overall telecom landscape; there are more service providers in EMEA than in any other
region. Our survey sample is a strong mix of operator types; 57% are incumbents and 22% are wireless
operators.
Please see “Methodology and Demographics” for details on the sample.
2
IMS DEPLOYMENT DRIVERS
Respondents rated factors in the migration to IMS, on a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 is not a driver, 4 is
somewhat of a driver, and 7 is definitely a driver. In the next chart, we show the percentage of
respondents rating each factor 6 or 7.
Equipment obsolescence, converged services and LTE drive IMS
In this year’s study, there is a collection of reasons driving operators to deploy IMS, and for the first time
LTE is in the top group. This is indicative of the acceleration of LTE deployment plans from operators
worldwide. Though converged services are once again a top driver, we find that infrastructure factors,
specifically the obsolescence of legacy equipment and the move toward LTE, are important drivers. Since
IMS has been chosen as the de facto standard for voice over LTE, we expect this to continue to be a top
driver.
With every passing year, the issue of legacy equipment obsolescence becomes increasingly important,
and for some operators, it is no longer an option to a expand on the legacy platforms. In our 2009 survey,
only 30% of respondents rated it a driver, whereas in the 2010 survey it was 55%; in this year’s study it’s
52%.
The ability to offer converged services has been a top driver for the past three years, topping the 2009 list
with 80% of respondents rating it a 6 or 7. It is still important (considered a driver by 50% in 2010 and
48% in 2011), but it’s tempered a bit by the importance of the infrastructure issues discussed above. It is
rated highly relative to the entire list of drivers, reflecting the number of operators moving to deploy fixed-
line and mobile voice services for business and residential and using IMS as the vehicle to deliver that
convergence.
IMS as a global standard for network infrastructure and services
This continues to be a top driver for IMS, compared with 25% in the 2009 survey and 50% in the 2010
survey, but slightly less critical with only 35% of respondents indicting it is a driver this year. In
discussions with operators at key conferences such as Mobile World Congress and IMS World 2.0 Forum,
a common theme is that the decision to move to IMS is based on it being a globally adopted standard—
period, no debate. We anticipate this will grow in importance as a driver for fixed-line and mobile
operators.
3
The other standout drivers are the ones at the bottom of the list, stark in comparison to the group of top
drivers. Once again, opex and capex savings are near the bottom of this list. As we saw in our 2009 and
2010 surveys, service providers realize opex savings will not be delivered by IMS. The deployment of IMS
is neither simple nor inexpensive. Additionally, nobody has demonstrated the amount of capex and opex
savings achievable with IMS. The other notable driver toward the bottom is network consolidation, a
driver for only 9% of respondents, down from 55% in our 2010 study. This change is two-fold: 1)
operators may still be considering IMS for network consolidation, but it is not an important driver for
moving to IMS, and 2) operators are looking toward deploying multiple IMS cores across their networks,
or it’s not applicable (as shown in Exhibit 5).
Exhibit 1 IMS Migration Drivers

n=23
Legacy equipment obsolescence 52%
Ability to offer converged services 48%
LTE network deployment 48%
Global std for network infrastructure

35%
& services
Availability of new apps & services 30%
Ability to reuse apps on fixed

30%
Drivers
& mobile networks
Competition 26%
Modernize networks with latest

22%
technology
Operational expenditure savings 13%
Capital expenditure savings 13%
Consolidate number of networks 9%
Demand for services only available

4%
from IMS
0% 20% 40% 60%
Percent of Respondents Rating 6 or 7
4
Large-volume IMS to come from fixed-line VoIP
We asked respondents what they regard as the primary factor driving large-volume IMS deployment and
expansion by their companies.
We are frequently asked where we’ll see the big growth of subscribers in IMS networks. As with the 2010
survey, the majority of respondents, 43%, cited the evolution of wireline telephony to IMS-based VoIP.
This is counter to our expectation that true large volume deployments of IMS will come from the
deployment of LTE, which won’t reach critical mass until 2015 at the earliest. Recognizing that those
volumes are long-term, 26% of respondents view LTE as the driver for large volumes. This is likely in part
because we won’t begin to see voice over LTE in any meaningful way until at least 2014, and that may be
too far off for some respondents. However, there are an increasing number of mobile operators that are
offering fixed telephony services over IMS-based networks as part of a bundle, in large part to combat
Skype, which has the potential to drive wireline VoIP volumes. We are also seeing operators with parts of
their PSTN networks underutilized, prompting shutdown and upgrades in parts that remain well alive.
Exhibit 2 Large-Volume IMS Deployment and Expansion Drivers

n=23
Evolving wireline telephony to

43%
IMS-based VoIP
Evolving mobile telephony for

26%
LTE to IMS-based voice
Offering converged fixed/mobile

service bundles covering voice, 22%
data, and multimedia
Factors
Offering multimedia comms over

4%
3G (e.g., RCS)
Integrating mobile multimedia

comms with social networking apps 0%
Other 0%
None 4%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Percent of Respondents
5
DEPLOYMENT BARRIERS
Back-end system integration and business case lead IMS issues
Respondents rated factors in the migration to IMS on a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 means not a barrier, 4
means somewhat a barrier, and 7 means definitely a barrier. The next chart shows the percentage of
respondents rating each feature a 6 or 7, or a barrier.
The top two barriers to IMS are identical to responses in our 2010 survey, with 48% of respondents this
year considering the integration with back-end BSS and OSS systems to be a barrier to IMS deployment.
Integrating new networks and services with existing back-end systems is a life-long challenge for
operators. The relative importance it has in this survey suggests that vendors with strong professional
service/system integration capabilities will be well positioned. We don’t anticipate service providers not
deploying IMS because of back-end integration, but rather believe it will be a key requirement.
Having a lack of compelling business case is a challenge we have heard of repeatedly over the past two
years; it is a problem particularly when IMS is being used to deploy replacement or similar services that
operate over existing networks today. And it can be challenging to clearly demonstrate to executive
management the business case for using IMS for new services.
6
Availability of IMS-compliant CPE rounds out the top three barriers, with 35% of respondents, which is not
overwhelming, but it’s still on some operators’ minds. The major handset manufactures have a limited
number of IMS-compliant handsets available; however, large operators are pushing handset
manufacturers to have a wide range of devices IMS/RCS-compliant by 2013. We expect this to continue
to be a barrier for IMS services, particularly for mobile voice services over the next several years.
Operators such as Verizon Wireless are pushing heavily on this by putting an IMS device framework from
Ecrio on LTE handsets rather than waiting for native capabilities from the handset manufacturers. NTT
DoCoMo and SK Telecom have used this solution for years with their mobile handsets.
Exhibit 3 IMS Migration Barriers

n=23
Integration with existing BSS/OSS 48%
Lack of compelling business case 43%
Availability of CPE 35%
Support for legacy feature sets 30%
Standards and product maturity 30%

Barriers
Capital requirements 26%
SR VCC 26%
Economic conditions 17%
Interop between legacy and IMS

17%
equipment
Interop issues between IMS cores 17%
Voice quality 17%
Integration with legacy networks 13%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
7
FIXED TELEPHONY CONTINUES TO DOMINATE IMS SERVICES
We asked respondents which of the retail services they offer are IMS-based now, and which will be by
April 2013. For the fourth year running, fixed telephony services dominate the list.
Residential VoBB and business hosted voice are the most widely deployed IMS services
Residential voice over broadband and business hosted VoIP services are run over IMS by 57% of
respondents, rising to 78% for residential and 70% for business by 2013. This is in line with what we see
in EMEA deployments (and most of our respondents are from EMEA). These two services have
consistently been the most widely deployed over IMS networks since we started conducting this survey.
We do not expect this to change, due to the number of existing service providers with IMS networks in
operation.
RCS and VoLTE have largest gains over next 2 years
Despite all the debate regarding RCS and operators’ wavering commitments to the service, 61% of
respondents plan to offer RCS by 2013, and17% offer it now. Some operators who have deployed RCS-
like services are included in the 17%; though a service may not be to the full specification of the GSMA-
led RCS, the capabilities are close. Additionally, many operators are building RCS into their VoLTE plans,
similar to Verizon Wireless’s, for which every handset that ships will have the RCS network address book.
Of the respondents who plan to offer RCS by 2013, only four plan not to have VoLTE.
We surveyed providers about VoLTE for the first time in our 2010 survey, and 27% of those respondents
planned to offer the service by 2012. This has increased to 48% of respondents by 2013. We still don’t
expect large-scale VoLTE deployments in 2013, but an increasing number of mobile operators are putting
plans for VoLTE up front in their LTE network builds.
There are a few noteworthy IMS-based services not as widely deployed by respondents:
• Video telephony remains a second-tier service, but the growth, with 57% of respondents
deploying it by 2013, is in line with last year’s survey. Most video telephony services today are
offered via a client application for fixed-line services, or via a mobile handset (by some mobile
operators). However, IMS is not necessary to deliver video telephony, as we see with popular
services such as Face Time and Skype.
• Video sharing over IMS is offered by several operators in North America and Asia Pacific. The
growth in video sharing services over IMS will expand through the launch of RCS over the next
two years.
8
Exhibit 4 IMS-Enabled Services

n=23, 23
78%
Residential VoBB
57%
70%
Business-hosted IP voice
57%
Class 5 replacement voice 65%

48%
65%
SIP trunking
48%
61%
RCS
17%
Retail Services
Video telephony 57%

35%
Video sharing 57%

22%
48%
Mobile messaging
26%
48%
VoLTE
4%
Converged mobile/fixed voice 35%
& messaging 9%
35%
VoIP over 3G
9%
17%
IPTV/multicast video
4%
2013
IP-based VOD/unicast 4%
0% Now
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Percent of Respondents
9
SINGLE VS MULTIPLE IMS CORES
We asked respondents whether they are using a single IMS core across multiple networks (e.g., mobile,
fixed-line) or deploying multiple cores.
The promise of IMS has always been to collapse networks into one, regardless of the end-user’s access
method, to deploy services over a common core. Though most IMS networks today are for fixed-line
services, a growing number of operators are beginning to expand into wireless services or are in the
evaluation phase. We have heard of a number of operators choosing to build out a completely new IMS
core for the wireless side, and added this question to this year’s study to get a better understanding of
operator plans.
For 13% of respondents, this is not applicable because they operate only a fixed or mobile network or
have no immediate plans to expand IMS into another network domain. However, 52% of respondents are
using a single IMS core as envisioned by the original proponents of the infrastructure. These respondents
comprise a wide cross-section of service providers including large and small incumbent operators with
fixed and mobile operations, mobile-only operators deploying fixed-line services over IMS, and
competitive carriers with fixed and mobile networks.
Exhibit 5 Single vs Multiple IMS Cores

n=23
Separate
Single
IMS cores
IMS core
35%
52%
Not applicable
13%
10
CSCF: HEART OF THE IMS CORE

In our IMS Equipment and Subscriber quarterly worldwide market size and forecast service, we saw the
CSCF market grow from $135.4M in 2009 to $187.4M in 2010, a 38% increase year over year. As the
core of the IMS network, CSCFs are the essential network element deployed. In the past year we have
seen an increasing number of deployments of IMS networks for services beyond fixed-line VoIP. Seventy-
four percent of respondents have a CSCF installed today.
Exhibit 6 CSCF Installation

n=23
Already
installed
74% By 2012
22%
After 2012
4%
11
CSCF Implementation
The next three charts include only respondents who have CSCF installed or who plan to install it by 2012,
referred to as “CSCF respondents.”
We asked CSCF respondents how they have implemented the CSCF core today and how they will by
April 2013, to get a sense of how widespread specific implementations are. CSCF is being centralized,
with three primary components (the I/S/P), by 59% of respondents today. However, that changes over the
next two years as more operators look to decouple the P-CSCF and put it at the edge either with a
combined I/S-CSCF or even a centralized but separate I-CSCF and S-CSCF. We suspect this shift is the
result of more SBCs becoming P-CSCF compliant and of operators’ growing familiarity with having that
functionality at the edge of the network.
Exhibit 7 CSCF Implementation

n=22, 22
45%
Centralized P-CSCF/I-
CSCF/S-CSCF
59%
CSCF Core Implementation
Combined and centralized

41%
I-CSCF/S-CSCF with
P-CSCF distributed at the
32%
edge
Centralized but separate

9%
I-CSCF & S-CSCF with
P-CSCF distributed at the
5%
edge
5%
Other 2013
5% Now
0% 20% 40% 60%
Percent of CSCF Respondents
12
Standards-based remains most important product feature
CSCF respondents rated the importance of various CSCF features in the purchase decision on a scale of
1 to 7, where 1 means not important, 4 means somewhat important, and 7 means critical. The chart on
the next page shows the percentage of respondents rating each feature a 6 or 7, or very important.
An overwhelming majority (86%) consider an open, standards-based platform adhering to specifications

laid out by the leading standards bodies to be a very important CSCF product feature. This was also the
most important feature in our 2009 and 2010 IMS service provider surveys, in which 85% and 90% rated
it a 6 or 7, respectively.
As in our 2008, 2009, and 2010 surveys, interworking with application servers (ASs) was rated highly as a
CSCF product feature by more than three-quarters of respondents. This year the feature ties with
standards-based platform for the top spot on the list. This remains an absolutely critical component of the
CSCF. As the S-CSCF (which makes use of the service profile to route SIP requests to application
servers) may have to forward SIP messages to several ASs, the finding does not come as a surprise. The
SIP-based communication procedure between the CSCF and both AS and HSS is clearly defined in
3GPP specification TS 24.229, but it is complex; the best way to avoid major issues is to ensure
adequate interworking between AS and the S-CSCF.
Multivendor interoperability is again the third-highest feature, rated highly by 77% of respondents, slightly
more than in 2010 (71%). In ongoing discussions with operators, we are seeing a growing number
moving to multi-vendor IMS deployments, which is in line with the growing importance of multivendor
interoperability over the past four years of our IMS deployment surveys. However, after six years of
deployments, not everyone is convinced that using CSCFs from various vendors will work, because each
vendor has its own interpretation of the standard. We believe part of this is early IMS adopters still
operating “legacy” IMS equipment.
High performance, high density, scalable server blades are rated highly by 64%, similar to the 2010
survey (62%). As IMS networks begin to scale with increasingly more subscribers, scalable solutions
remain a leading product capability.
13
The integration of BGCF and signaling gateway into the CSCF remain low on this list. Integrated BGCF
was rated very important by only 14% or respondents. We expect this s not because operators are
looking for standalone solutions for these elements, but rather they are already receiving an integrated
CSCF/BGCF that fits their need and are not actively seeking such a solution.
Exhibit 8 CSCF Features

n=22
Interworking with application servers 86%
Open, standards-based platform 86%
Multi-vendor interoperability 77%
High performance, high density,

64%
scalable server blades
Low latency routing 59%

Features
Integrated voice features 45%
Network agnostic 36%
Purpose-built, integrated platform 18%
Support for non-IMS endpoints

14%
and services
Integrated BGCF 14%
Integrated call signaling gateway

14%
(SS7)
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Percent of CSCF Respondents Rating 6 or 7
NSN leads CSCF installations
In an open-ended question, we asked CSCF respondents to name the manufacturers of CSCF equipment
currently installed in their networks, and those they are evaluating for purchase by 2012.
14
Nokia Siemens Networks (NSN) has been steadily growing its leadership in IMS and is the leading
manufacturer of installed CSCF products, and those under evaluation. Based on our IMS Equipment and
Subscribers quarterly market share, size, and forecast report, NSN led worldwide revenue market share
for CSCFs in CY10 with 20.2%, and Huawei, Ericsson, and Alcatel-Lucent had 19.4%, 17.3% and 15.4%,
respectively. It continues to be a tight battle between these four vendors.
Current installations by respondents line up with the market share order noted above. After NSN, Huawei
and Ericsson are deployed by 32% of respondents each, followed by Alcatel-Lucent at 27%. Huawei has
made inroads in the IMS market over the past three years, in China and internationally. After no mention
in our 2008 survey, Huawei has steadily grown each year as a vendor installed and under evaluation,
showing it has not only become a viable competitor but a key vendor in the space.
Three other vendors of note include:

• Acme Packet, whose session border controller acts as a P-CSCF for enabling secure transport
layer security (TLS) or IPSec connections, continues to raise its profile in this space. One
respondent currently has them installed.
• After a presence for the first time in 2010, ZTE continues to make inroads in IMS. Primarily
considered an IMS vendor to the Chinese market, they have had notable customer wins in EMEA
and are making continued investments in IMS. This is a vendor to keep an eye on.
15
The leading vendors of current installations tend to lead in evaluations for future purchase as well, and
this is the case here; it is due in part to the fact that many respondents are reluctant to change vendors.
Exhibit 9 CSCF Manufacturers Installed and Under Evaluation

n=22, 22
32%
NSN
36%
27%
Alcatel-Lucent
27%
23%
Huawei
32%
Manufacturers
18%
Ericsson
32%
5%
ZTE
5%
0%
Telcoware
5%
0%
IBM
5%
Under evaluation
5%
Acme Packet Installed
5%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
Percent of CSCF Respondents
HSS INSTALLATIONS MOVING ALONG

The HSS is a key component of IMS, and is an evolved version of the HLR, its equivalent in the wireless
world. The HSS provides a much wider range of features and is meant to act as a master repository of all
subscriber and service-specific information.
16
In our IMS Equipment and Subscribers quarterly worldwide market share, size and forecast service, we
are seeing growth of HSS deployments worldwide, spurred by LTE later in our forecast period. We expect
the HSS market for IMS networks to grow from $156.5M in 2010 to $257.5M in 2011, up 65%. The
demand for HSS is in line with CSCF deployments; 70% of respondents have an HSS already installed.
Exhibit 10 HSS Installation

n=23
Already
installed By 2012
70% 26%
After 2012
4%
Trio of must have HSS features
The next three charts include only respondents who have HSS installed or who plan to install it by 2012,
referred to as “HSS respondents.”
HSS respondents rated the importance of various HSS features in the purchase decision, on a scale of 1
to 7, where 1 is not important, 4 is somewhat important, and 7 is critical. In the next chart, we show the
percentage of respondents rating each feature 6 or 7, or very important.
The three most important HSS product features, with 73% of respondents rating each very important,
include subscriber profile management, authentication and authorization, and rapid provisioning.
Subscriber profile management and authentication and authorization have been consistently rated highly
in our past surveys. Rapid provisioning continues to jump in importance, going from 29% in the 2008
study to 73% and a tie for the top position in 2011. This is a clear reflection of the larger number of IMS-
based subscribers being provisioned and the need for systems that can manage high volumes of new
and existing traffic hitting the HSS on an ongoing basis.
17
One of the important advantages of the HSS is that it is a consolidated repository of end-user information.
In current networks, each application service module maintains its own version of the subscriber
database. Though carriers have been required to execute well-defined and complex mechanisms to
maintain consistency between the application modules and the HSS, the expectation is that all subscriber
data will migrate to the HSS. We believe the increase in importance is the result of operators beginning to
deploy multiple applications and services over their IMS networks, escalating this requirement.
As the HSS combines HLR/AuC (authentication center) functionality of GSM networks and provides
information specifically required by the IMS network, authentication/authorization is a key HSS feature for
anyone who does not have an AAA server or does not want to use an existing HLR.
18
A clear set of second tier of HSS product features—multi-vendor interoperability, CSCF and application
server access support, and 3GPP and 3GPP2 interfaces—were rated very important by 68% of
respondents. The 3GPP and 3GPP2 interfaces and multi-vendor interoperability were rated highly in
previous surveys and point to operators’ requirements for standards-based products and an increasing
utilization of multi-vendor environments across IMS network elements.
Exhibit 11 HSS Features

n=22
Authentication and
73%
authorization
Subscriber profile
73%
management
Rapid provisioning 73%
Multi-vendor interoperability 68%
CSCF and app server access

Features
68%
support
3GPP and 3GPP2 interfaces

68%
(Cx and Sh)
Data handling and

59%
synchronization
Single d/b across 2G/3G CS

50%
networks & IMS core
Easy-to-use Web-based GUI 23%
Flexible architecture (UNIX,

9%
Linux)
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Percent of HSS Respondents Rating 6 or 7
19
Manufacturer selection criteria
HSS respondents rated criteria for choosing an HSS vendor on a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 is not important,
4 is somewhat important, and 7 is critical. In the next chart, we show the percentage of HSS respondents
rating each feature 6 or 7, or very important.
There are no overwhelmingly highly rated selection criteria for choosing an HSS manufacturer. The top
two criteria, each very important to 41% of the respondents, are HLR/HSS support for Data Layer
Architecture (using Centralized User Database) and a single integrated HLR/HSS platform. Support for
Data Layer Architecture illustrates a challenge for operators that have subscriber data stored across
multiple application servers. By supporting Data Layer Architecture in the HSS, operators can manage
the data stored across application servers and the HSS. Having an integrated HLR/HSS platform is a key
requirement that narrows the field of eligible vendors to the top IMS vendors.
In our 2010 survey, a single vendor IMS solution was the top criterion; it has fallen in this year’s survey
and is rated highly by only 32% of respondents. This is indicative of what we are seeing with new IMS
deployments; more and more operators are choosing multiple vendor products across the various
network elements.
20
Being the incumbent HLR vendor does not guarantee an upper hand in HSS vendor selection. Some
respondents are focused on the fixed-line operation, with no existing HLR and no first-hand HLR vendor
experience.
Exhibit 12 HSS Manufacturer Selection Criteria

n=22
HLR/HSS support for Data Layer

Architecture (using Centralized 41%
User Database)
Single integrated HLR/HSS platform 41%

Criteria
HSS specialist 36%
Single vendor IMS solution 32%
Existing HLR vendor 9%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Percent of HSS Respondents Rating 6 or 7
Nokia Siemens Networks is the leading HSS vendor
In an open-ended question, we asked respondents to name the manufacturers of HSS equipment

currently installed in their networks, and those they are evaluating for purchase by 2012.
The HSS market is dominated by the four large IMS equipment vendors, but unlike in the CSCF market,
there is more willingness to use and evaluate HSS specialists such as HP. The installed base of HSS
vendors tracks fairly closely with the CSCF vendor breakdown, but in HSS Huawei has a slight edge over
Alcatel-Lucent and Ericsson. Nokia Siemens Networks leads installed HSS vendors (41% of
respondents), as they have a heavy product focus in this area through their Apertio assets. One operator
actually listed Apertio as the installed manufacturer (we count it under Nokia Siemens Networks), which is
no surprise given that Apertio was a pioneer and front runner in HSS.
21
With 27% of respondents, Huawei edges out Alcatel-Lucent and Ericsson (23% each) in current
installations. Among these three vendors, the number of respondents evaluating their HSS products is
also very close, showing what a competitive market it is among the top vendors.
As with the CSCF, the big four vendors lead with HSS installations and evaluations. A few interesting
data points:
• As in our 2010 survey, HP is represented by installations, albeit a small percentage, illustrating
that there are operators willing to go with HSS specialists rather than a single-vendor IMS
solution. For the smaller vendors with only a handful of deployments, the results are impacted by
the mix of survey respondents in any given year relative to the larger manufacturers that have
broader customer representation.
• As in CSCF vendor evaluations, we see ZTE gaining some customer traction with its IMS
solution, although nobody indicated they are under evaluation for future purchase.
22
In our 1Q11 Mobile Infrastructure and Subscribers quarterly market share, sized, and forecast report,
Ericsson, Nokia Siemens Networks, and Huawei are the leading HLR vendors in terms of revenue,
followed by Alcatel-Lucent, HP, and ZTE, which is similar to the list of HSS vendors under evaluation.
Exhibit 13 HSS Manufacturers Installed and Under Evaluation

n=22, 22
50%
NSN
41%
27%
Huawei
27%
27%
Alcatel-Lucent
Manufacturers
23%
23%
Ericsson
23%
0%
ZTE
5%
0%
Telcoware
5%
5% Under evaluation
HP
5% Installed
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Percent of HSS Respondents
PERCEIVED TOP IMS INFRASTRUCTURE MANUFACTURERS—ERICSSON LEADS,

ALCATEL-LUCENT FOLLOWS CLOSELY
In an open-ended question, we asked respondents who they consider to be the top three IMS
infrastructure manufacturers, a measure called unaided brand awareness, which provides a good view of
overall brand strength. Typically, the larger a vendor (e.g., broad product portfolio) and the more visible
their brand (e.g., TV commercials, product placement), the better they fare in this question.
23
Though Nokia Siemens Networks topped the lists of vendors whose CSCF and HSS products are
currently installed by respondents, it is interesting to note that Ericsson is perceived as a top-three IMS
infrastructure manufacturer by the most respondents. In fact, Nokia Siemens Networks is in third, behind
Alcatel-Lucent and only slightly ahead of Huawei. Ericsson was the first large vendor to put its weight
behind IMS, and as a result has momentum in terms of perceived leadership in the IMS market.
Vendors such as ZTE and Telcoware received mentions from operators using their IMS solutions.
However, three other vendors, Acme Packet, BroadSoft, and Nortel, received mentions as leaders in the
IMS market. Nortel, now owned by GENBAND but still identified as Nortel, is interesting since they have
little play in the IMS market but are leaders in the softswitch market, which is seemingly transposed onto
the IMS space. BroadSoft and Acme Packet, through voice application servers and SBCs respectively,
have a number of deployments in IMS networks and are highly valued by a small percentage of
respondents.
Exhibit 14 Top Three IMS Infrastructure Manufacturers

n=23
Ericsson 78%
Alcatel-Lucent 74%
NSN 57%
Manufacturers
Huawei 52%
ZTE 4%
Telcoware 4%
Nortel 4%
Broadsoft 4%
Acme Packet 4%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
24
SERVICE PROVIDER FAMILIARITY WITH IMS INFRASTRUCTURE MANUFACTURERS—

ERICSSON LEADS THE PACK
Though familiarity with a manufacturer’s offering does not necessarily translate into contract wins,
vendors need buyer awareness to be evaluated as potential suppliers. Without a degree of familiarity,
suppliers don’t even get invited to the table. Respondents rated their familiarity with each of a list of IMS
infrastructure manufacturers on a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 is not familiar and 7 is definitely familiar, a
measure called aided awareness.
The percentage of respondents rating each supplier a 6 or a 7 or familiar, is shown in the next exhibit.
Similar to the perceived IMS equipment manufacturer leaders, Ericsson has a strong lead in overall
familiarity in this space, with 83% of respondents rating them familiar, an increase from 76% in the 2010
survey. Ericsson has been able to turn its first mover advantage into strong brand awareness.
Nokia Siemens Networks places second, at 61%, which we expected since they have CSCF and HSS
products installed by the most respondents. Alcatel-Lucent is exactly where they were in our 2009 and
2010 surveys, with a little over 50% of respondents familiar with them. Interestingly, in the previous chart
they are perceived as a leader in the IMS market by 77% of the respondents, but fewer are actually
familiar with their products; Alcatel-Lucent has done a good job of marketing their IMS portfolio. Lastly,
respondent familiarity with Huawei’s IMS products continues to increase, growing to 52% this year from
43% in 2010 and 37% in 2009.
Over the past three years, Acme Packet and BroadSoft, both product specialists, have rated highly in
terms of familiarity, especially relative to bigger vendors such as Nokia Siemens Networks, Alcatel-
Lucent, and Huawei. In this year’s survey, Acme Packet came out third, familiar to 57% of respondents,
which illustrates the success it is having penetrating IMS networks. Both vendors have a strong presence
in IMS through work with the tier 1 network equipment vendors as distribution channels.
• Acme Packet benefits from the leading revenue share position in SBCs in VoIP networks and a
growing position in P-CSCF and BGW network element deployments. The third highest-rated
vendor after Ericsson and Nokia Siemens Networks, Acme Packet has done a good job
positioning itself as an IMS vendor with a more niche position relative to the larger, full-portfolio
manufacturers. Similar to BroadSoft, though a number of other vendors resell Acme Packet for
IMS, its brand remains strong, independent of partners.
• Given that BroadSoft is the leading independent manufacturer of voice application servers and is
heavily focused on IMS-based VoIP services, the awareness level is no surprise. Though
BroadSoft works through partners for many of its IMS deployments, it has developed a strong
recognition as the leading IMS VoIP application server.
25
No respondent rated NEC a 6 or 7 in familiarity, and this is most likely because NEC’s IMS solutions are
strong in the Japanese market but have not achieved the same level of deployment or familiarity outside
its home market—our sample includes no Japanese respondents.
Exhibit 15 Service Provider Familiarity with IMS infrastructure Manufacturers

n=23
Ericsson 83%
NSN 61%
Acme Packet 57%

Manufacturers
Alcatel-Lucent 52%
Huawei 52%
BroadSoft 43%
GENBAND 9%
ZTE 4%
NEC 0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
26
LEADING IMS EQUIPMENT SUPPLIERS—BUYING CRITERIA
We asked respondents to name the top three IMS equipment suppliers for each of eight important buying
criteria (this is a prompted question—respondents could only choose from a provided list of eight
vendors). The next chart shows the percentage of respondents who consider each vendor to be among
the top three for each criterion.
Across most categories there is a natural cluster of three groups—the four large IMS vendors, then
BroadSoft and Acme Packet, then GENBAND and ZTE (the two vendors toward the bottom in terms of
percentage of respondents familiar with their IMS products). Key findings include:
• Ericsson and Huawei stand out as the leaders across the eight criteria. Ericsson leads in
technology, product roadmap, service and support, and solution maturity. They came in a clear
second for financial stability behind Huawei, and tied Nokia Siemens Networks for the lead in
system integration capabilities. Huawei stands out as the leader in pricing, price-per-performance,
and financial stability. Huawei is second in IMS product roadmap, along with Alcatel-Lucent and
Nokia Siemens Networks, and second in system integration capabilities.
• Though neither Alcatel-Lucent nor Nokia Siemens Networks stand out as clear leaders in any
single category, they are tightly clustered with Ericsson and Huawei. Nokia Siemens Networks
ties Ericsson for the lead in system integration capabilities and is second in technology, product
roadmap, price-to performance-ratio, and solution maturity. Alcatel-Lucent is second in
technology, product roadmap, and service and support.
• Acme Packet and BroadSoft stick together across the categories, just below the top group of
four IMS vendors. The fact that they are considered to be among the top three vendors in many
categories (albeit by fewer respondents than the four large vendors) is a testament to their
leadership within their respective product categories.
27
Exhibit 16 Top Vendors for All Criteria

n=22
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Technology Product System Price-to- Pricing Financial Service and Solution
roadmap integration performance stability support maturity
capability ratio
Acme Packet Alcatel-Lucent BroadSoft Ericsson
GENBAND Huawei NSN ZTE
BOTTOM LINE
Our 2011 survey results show that fixed-line VoIP continues to dominate deployments. Over 90% of
respondents will have Class 5 replacement, business, and/or residential VoIP services running over IMS
by 2013. However, there is a shift to IMS continuing in the mobile world; this shift is clear when seeing the
rise of mobile services over IMS by 2013. Seventy-eight percent of respondents will have a mobile-
specific service such as mobile messaging, VoLTE, RCS, and/or VoIP over 3G by 2013, up from 35%
today
28
More operators, particularly incumbent providers, are moving forward with IMS deployments for multiple
areas of the network and service offerings. This is understandable when considering most started with
fixed-line VoIP and will eventually progress to mobile services over IMS. This transition is reflected in the
responses regarding market drivers and challenges.
• The top drivers for deploying IMS are legacy equipment obsolescence (rated a driver by 52% of
respondents, and the ability to offer converged services and LTE network deployment (48%
each).
• This year’s data reconfirms what we found last year—there are no longer big barriers to IMS
deployment. Integration with existing back-end systems tops the list (a barrier for 48% of
respondents), followed by lack of compelling business case (43%). So, though operators are
driven toward IMS due to legacy equipment obsolescence, the business case for new and
enhanced services is still lacking.
More operators are moving forward with IMS deployments, and the deployments are beginning to scale,
with larger bases of subscribers supported, which factors into the data on product features and
capabilities.
• Interworking with application servers, open standards-based platform, and multivendor
interoperability are all key product considerations for CSCF; these have been the top three for the
past three years.
• Authentication and authorization, subscriber profile management, and rapid provisioning are tied
for the most important HSS product features, which is in line with growing subscriber bases over
IMS networks and the need to support them with the HSS.
The one big stand-out in this year’s survey is in the IMS vendors. Nokia Siemens Networks is the
strikingly clear leader in terms of installed base and evaluation of CSCF and HSS, which is consistent
with the market shares we saw throughout 2010 in our IMS Equipment and Subscribers quarterly market
share, size, and forecast report. However, despite Nokia Siemens Networks’ installed base, Ericsson
leads the list of vendors respondents consider to be among the top three, and is familiar to the most
respondents. This leads us to conclude that, though they lead in deployments of IMS and are strong in
system integration capabilities, Nokia Siemens Networks has fallen short in effectively marketing its
successes in the IMS market.
It should be noted that the top four vendors, Alcatel-Lucent, Ericsson, Huawei, and Nokia Siemens
Networks, are very close in terms of market share and deployments we track, and it is a hard fought battle
between them. Huawei in particular has made noticeable strides over the past three years in terms of
leadership consideration, installed base, and overall perception.
29
METHODOLOGY AND DEMOGRAPHICS

In April and May 2011, using online, telephone, and in-person survey methods, we interviewed 23 service
providers who have IMS core equipment in their networks or plan to at some point in 2011. The vast
majority (74%) have IMS core network equipment currently deployed.
Exhibit 17 IMS Deployment Timeframe

n=23
Already
deployed
74%
2011
26%
30
Respondents are influential in the purchase decision
To qualify, all respondents had to have detailed knowledge of their companies’ IMS equipment and
services their companies use or will use to delivery voice services or transport voice traffic, and have
influence in planning and making purchase decisions for IMS equipment. The majority of respondents
(61%) are either the primary decision-maker or have a lot of influence.
Exhibit 18 Respondent Influence

n=23
Some A lot of
influence influence
39% 35%
Primary
decision-
maker
26%
31
The sample looks similar to last year’s survey
The respondent profile is similar to that of our previous two editions of this survey, with 45% of last year’s
respondents participating again this year. This is important to consider when comparing data year over
year. Also, note that all the incumbent operators and one competitive operator in the study also have
mobile operations, and this is clearly reflected in many of the answers provided.
Exhibit 19 Annual Survey Sample Comparison
Sample 2009 Survey 2010 Survey 2011 Survey

# of respondents 20 22 23
EMEA operators 75% 77% 79%
(% of respondents)
Incumbents 65% 64% 56%
(% of respondents)
Mobile operators 25% 27% 22%
(% of respondents)
32
Respondents represent a third of worldwide service revenue
Respondents in this study represent more than 30% of worldwide revenue and 29% of capex in our
Service Provider Capex, Opex, ARPU, and Subscribers report.
Exhibit 20 Respondents Portion of 2010 Capex and Revenue

n=23
40%
Percent of Worldwide Public Carrier Total
30%
30%
29%
20%
10%
0%
Capex Revenue
Source: Infonetics Research, Service Provider Capex, Opex, ARPU, and Subscribers:
By Provider Actuals and Short-Term Forecasts, Worldwide, June 2011
33
Respondent service provider types and regional distribution
Respondents are geographically diverse, with a heavy bias toward EMEA. This is a reflection of where
the majority of IMS activity has been—in our IMS Deployment Tracker (part of our IMS Equipment and
Subscribers quarterly market share, size, and forecast service), 59% of operators are from EMEA.
Our sample is weighted toward incumbents, all of which also have a mobile operation. One of the
competitive operators also has a mobile operation. The mix of carrier types reflects the market in EMEA,
where incumbents have been on the leading edge of IMS adoption.
Exhibit 21 Respondent Service Provider Types and Regional Distribution

n=23, 23
Mobile
Incumbent EMEA
22% Asia
56% 79%
Pacific
17%
Competitive
Cable 13%
operator
9%
North
America
4%
As always, I welcome your comments.
Diane Myers
Directing Analyst, VoIP and IMS
+1 (408) 583.3391
diane@infonetics.com
34

2011 Infonetics IMS Service Pro: 2011-Infonetics-IMS-Service-Provider-Survey-06-22-11.vider Survey 06-22-11

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

2011 Infonetics IMS Service Pro: 2011-Infonetics-IMS-Service-Provider-Survey-06-22-11.vider Survey 06-22-11

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Continuous Research Service

IMS Services Strategies, Product Features, and Vendor Leadership:

CSCF: HEART OF THE IMS CORE............................................................................................................. 11

HSS INSTALLATIONS MOVING ALONG..................................................................................................... 16

PERCEIVED TOP IMS INFRASTRUCTURE MANUFACTURERS—ERICSSON LEADS, ALCATEL-LUCENT

BOTTOM LINE ....................................................................................................................................... 28

Copyright © 2011 by Infonetics Research, Inc. All rights reserved.

METHODOLOGY AND DEMOGRAPHICS..................................................................................................... 30

Copyright © 2011 by Infonetics Research, Inc. All rights reserved.

EXHIBIT 1 IMS MIGRATION DRIVERS ................................................................................................ 4

EXHIBIT 2 LARGE-VOLUME IMS DEPLOYMENT AND EXPANSION DRIVERS ........................................... 5

EXHIBIT 3 IMS MIGRATION BARRIERS .............................................................................................. 7

EXHIBIT 4 IMS-ENABLED SERVICES ................................................................................................. 9

EXHIBIT 5 SINGLE VS MULTIPLE IMS CORES .................................................................................... 10

EXHIBIT 6 CSCF INSTALLATION........................................................................................................ 11

EXHIBIT 7 CSCF IMPLEMENTATION .................................................................................................. 12

EXHIBIT 8 CSCF FEATURES.............................................................................................................. 14

EXHIBIT 9 CSCF MANUFACTURERS INSTALLED AND UNDER EVALUATION........................................... 16

EXHIBIT 10 HSS INSTALLATION ......................................................................................................... 17

EXHIBIT 11 HSS FEATURES ............................................................................................................... 19

EXHIBIT 12 HSS MANUFACTURER SELECTION CRITERIA...................................................................... 21

EXHIBIT 13 HSS MANUFACTURERS INSTALLED AND UNDER EVALUATION ............................................ 23

EXHIBIT 14 TOP THREE IMS INFRASTRUCTURE MANUFACTURERS....................................................... 24

EXHIBIT 15 SERVICE PROVIDER FAMILIARITY WITH IMS INFRASTRUCTURE MANUFACTURERS.............. 26

EXHIBIT 16 TOP VENDORS FOR ALL CRITERIA ..................................................................................... 28

EXHIBIT 17 IMS DEPLOYMENT TIMEFRAME ........................................................................................ 30

EXHIBIT 18 RESPONDENT INFLUENCE ................................................................................................ 31

EXHIBIT 19 ANNUAL SURVEY SAMPLE COMPARISON.......................................................................... 32

EXHIBIT 20 RESPONDENTS PORTION OF 2010 CAPEX AND REVENUE ................................................... 33

EXHIBIT 21 RESPONDENT SERVICE PROVIDER TYPES AND REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION ............................ 34

Copyright © 2011 by Infonetics Research, Inc. All rights reserved.

Copyright © 2011 by Infonetics Research, Inc. All rights reserved.

Methodology and demographics overview

Please see “Methodology and Demographics” for details on the sample.

Copyright © 2011 by Infonetics Research, Inc. All rights reserved.

IMS DEPLOYMENT DRIVERS

Equipment obsolescence, converged services and LTE drive IMS

IMS as a global standard for network infrastructure and services

Copyright © 2011 by Infonetics Research, Inc. All rights reserved.

Exhibit 1 IMS Migration Drivers

Legacy equipment obsolescence 52%

Ability to offer converged services 48%

LTE network deployment 48%

Global std for network infrastructure

Availability of new apps & services 30%

Ability to reuse apps on fixed

& mobile networks

Modernize networks with latest

Operational expenditure savings 13%

Capital expenditure savings 13%

Consolidate number of networks 9%

Demand for services only available

0% 20% 40% 60%

Percent of Respondents Rating 6 or 7

Copyright © 2011 by Infonetics Research, Inc. All rights reserved.

Large-volume IMS to come from fixed-line VoIP

Exhibit 2 Large-Volume IMS Deployment and Expansion Drivers

Evolving wireline telephony to

Evolving mobile telephony for

Offering converged fixed/mobile

Offering multimedia comms over

Integrating mobile multimedia

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Copyright © 2011 by Infonetics Research, Inc. All rights reserved.