Open Sesame!

Opening up software solutions offers potentially more competitive products in technology and price.

The interworking of multivendor software solutions and equipment is prevalent throughout the computing and landline networking industry. Why, then, do most radio-base-station and wireless-switching-system suppliers still deliver closed and proprietary network systems?

If you consider wireless history, the reasons lie in the lack of preparation for the unanticipated wireless-services explosion. Ten years ago, there was no consideration for the benefits of replacing a single-vendor, proprietary network solution forwireless infrastructure components with standardized interfaces for a multivendor network. After all, wireless services were targeted toward a select market segment with limited growth potential. Closed, single-vendor systems from a short list of wireless "specialty" suppliers would suffice. Boom! The industry was hit broadside by a mass-market infiltration of wireless-service consumers, exceeding 60% market penetration in many countries.

Facing Interfaces
The concept of open wireless systems refers to standards-based interface protocols between radio base stations, mobile switches and other network-infrastructure components. Interfaces are required from the mobile handset to the BTS, BSC, MSC, IN service nodes and the public network. Each of these interfaces is labeled and most now have a defined standard. Deployed 1G and 2G wireless-base-station systems, however, still are dominated by proprietary interfaces. Although the WIN concept has taken hold for service-node applications, such as HLRs and authentication, the base-station-to-MSC interfaces remain largely proprietary and, consequently, single-vendor systems.

Data & Next-Generation Services
Wireless-service providers constantly are exploring ways to distinguish themselves from their competitors, increase customer loyalty and increase the value of usage on their networks. The Internet phenomenon has created the opportunity for brand new landline-service providers to build networks exclusively optimized for data transport. Might mobile-Internet access integrated with rich multimedia capabilities also provide the next "killer" applications for providers? If service providers believe there's explosive growth potential for wireless networks with audio and full-motion video applications requiring high data rates and throughput, then an equal opportunity exists for wireless-infrastructure providers to supply the network technology to build, enhance and optimize these wireless data or hybrid voice, data and multimedia networks.

Infrastructure providers that can build the radio base stations, the mobile switches, the routers and the intelligent peripherals to accommodate and optimize these data applications will be the innovators and winners for the next generation of wireless services. This will give rise to new infrastructure players as well as opportunities for existing suppliers whose equipment is embedded in today's networks. The opening for new players will depend on how astute the established suppliers are in recognizing the opportunities, their willingness to compromise their current proprietary offerings and their swiftness to build the next generation of equipment.

If this next generation of data-infrastructure equipment can be backward-compatible with existing voice networks, then the incumbent wireless circuit-switched service providers will have a distinct advantage over newcomers. Existing service providers that allocate spectrum for data networks and leverage their existing base-station and switching infrastructure for both voice and data technologies will realize dramatic investment and operational cost savings over those service providers that are required to purchase new and distinct infrastructure equipment for the emerging technologies.

A Case for Open Systems
If these network technologies are deployed in compliance with open-network-interface standards at the onset, then the opportunities for infrastructure suppliers will be extended to a larger base of equipment vendors from which service providers can chose.

The level of sophistication and size of a service provider will be a determining factor in whether to use open vs. single-vendor proprietary systems. A start-up provider with a small footprint in a market with a low teledensity may choose a single-vendor base station and switching system that meets the basic needs of its customer base. A sophisticated service provider, on the other hand, will have specific network requirements and a unique combination of network attributes.

The most efficient and cost-effective way possible for a savvy service provider to meet its unique requirements is by mixing and matching reputable system components.

The optimal network system is attained through an open, plug-and-play system approach. The open system allows the service provider to scrutinize the technology, pricing, support and reliability of each of the components, from base stations to switches to IN elements.

The establishment and adherence to interface standards is in the best interest of service providers that want the flexibility of multivendor systems. This is the principle driving the standardization of network interfaces and promoting open-network systems.

Lesser-known or smaller infrastructure suppliers are likely to embrace open-system standards far more readily than established suppliers of turnkey networks. The lifeline of new and smaller suppliers depends on the advancement and market acceptance of open systems. PacketVideo, for example, is a start-up company providing a mass-market technology based on the MPEG-4 video standard to deliver multimedia over wireless networks at varying data rates. Likewise, Telos and Tecore are small MSC vendors that claim to have multiprotocol switches that can handle GSM, TDMA and CDMA with open interfaces. Because of their open interfaces, these companies' products can be programmed and adapted to multiple RF protocols.

Although the large, dominant infrastructure suppliers are beginning to support the open-systems concept, they are proceeding with caution, realizing that their large customers that depended on them for radio equipment, switching systems and intelligent peripherals will have other choices in the future. But even the embedded base of prominent providers of infrastructure such as Ericsson, Lucent, Motorola and Nortel will have opportunities to offer system components to customers that might otherwise have selected a complete system from a competitor.

Initially, the sum of the "parts" of an open system from multiple vendors may add up to a higher price than a turnkey, proprietary system. Each of the individual suppliers of the system components needs to operate profitably, whereas the single supplier of a complete system may sacrifice margins on individual components. For example, for a large infrastructure provider to take a loss on a BSC or an HLR may be negligible when taken in the context of securing the sale of an entire network system, including a sizeable margin for switches and radio base stations in both the initial sale and subsequent network expansions. However, customers with long-term growth plans would do well to recognize that their investment in infrastructure should go well beyond their initial investment. They should be weighing the benefits of short-term capital savings in their initial investment against locking into a proprietary system from a single vendor that may hold them captive to high prices and fewer choices in the future.

Customer Choices
Even if a service provider opts to purchase a single-vendor network system, it's to its advantage to require that the system be developed to an open standard. This allows the service provider the latitude to expand its network with systems from other vendors and still assure interoperability of the network components. It also helps to keep the equipment pricing for network components from the initial vendor in check. This will become increasingly important as wireless networks expand beyond voice services and add the infrastructure necessary for data and multimedia.

Even with standardized-product capabilities, vendors can provide additional proprietary features to distinguish themselves from competitors. Also, standardization doesn't make all things equal between competing products. Beyond standards, the issues of quality, performance, service, and price, to name a few, can be used to distinguish products and create competitive advantage. Never let anyone give you the impression that standards create equality between all vendors. To the contrary, standards foster competition between vendors by driving them to find ways to distinguish their products.

Segmentation
There are vast differences in consumers of wireless services throughout the world. In "the old days," a fairly uniform set of cellular voice services was provided to all markets, which consisted primarily of business users in the highly developed countries of North America and Europe. Today, there is a wide variation in wireless-service-provider requirements, depending on the markets served. Some regions will require sophisticated, feature-rich applications with high bandwidth and high mobility for both voice and data services. Other regions need only a fixed-wireless or WLL application that provides basic POTS-like service or, perhaps, some limited mobility. This diversity in the flavor of network build-outs creates the opportunity for a variety of infrastructure players and niche markets (e.g., WLL, mobility, low-density systems, remote systems, distributed systems, etc.). It's unlikely that the "one size fits all" model for infrastructure will meet the needs of all the emerging market segments. This will create plenty of opportunity for new entrants, small players and for large players with multiple system offerings.

Standards
Standards such as ANSI-41 are defined and widely followed in order to implement and integrate IN solutions from multiple vendors in a single network. For example, the ANSI-41 standard defines interoperability for switching, roaming, fraud-prevention and voice-mail services that can be supplied by different vendors and integrated into a single network. However, the network infrastructure for radio base stations and mobile switches has been traditionally provided by one infrastructure vendor that would sell complete networks, soup to nuts, with proprietary interfaces each point of the way. There exists a reference point called the A-interface that calls out a standard protocol for communications between the BSC and the MSC. This allows different switch vendors to conceivably interface with different vendors of base stations. The A interface is just in the beginning stages of being implemented in networks. This can only be in the best interest of the industry. Just as ANSI-41 messaging opened wireless networks to third-party providers of mobility management, authentication, and numerous other IN applications, the A interface will give providers more flexibility to choose between radio-base-station and mobile-switch infrastructure vendors.

Standards are being forged and open-infrastructure systems are becoming a reality. The ANSI-634 standard is in place today for AMPS, TDMA and CDMA. As with most standards, ANSI-634 is often vague and offers many options, which makes it complicated to implement interoperability between multiple-vendor systems. However, there's an effort afoot to standardize on a more refined version of IS-634 for CDMA. This variation on IS-634 is referred to as the interoperability standard, designed specifically to simplify the A interface for CDMA systems. GSM has for years had a defined A interface for interoperability of base stations with mobile switches.

Standards Acceptance
Even with an approved standard, it can be quite an undertaking to provide interoperability of multiple-infrastructure-vendor systems. Service providers are going to drive the evolution to open interfaces, allowing them to deploy multivendor base stations in their networks.

Service providers also will be careful to demand open standards for new technologies such as wireless multimedia. Competitive infrastructure vendors will find themselves sitting across the same table from one another, cooperatively seeking solutions to make their equipment interoperable in service providers' networks.

In the long run, the acceptance and maturity of standards for network technologies and interfaces should increase competition among existing infrastructure suppliers, stimulate the entry of new infrastructure players, and drive down prices.

Bauer is PacketVideo director of carrier services.