Interoperability, Drivers and Inhibitors
Bernard Barani Attaché - DG INFSO-D [email protected]
ETSI Workshop “S.O.S Interoperability” Sophia Antipolis, 26 May 2005
NB: The views expressed herein are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of the European Commission Interoperability
There is no “One Size fits all” definition for Interoperability Framework Directive, service focus; Software Directive, focus on portability of codes across various machines and environments; Copyright Directive; EICTA White Paper; DRM High Level Group ???? ⇒ Not a new notion, but rapidly evolving and acquiring new dimensions Interoperability What is changing Once, a notion for ICT industry experts, e.g ATM/MPEG/IP/DVB co- existence or compatibility. But: an exploding number of heterogeneous network infrastructures, context dependent (still); a plethora of (web) services, with multiple combination/bundling capabilities; a bombing of (networked) Consumer Electronic devices, with most of the functionalities unknown to the user; Threats and vulnerability of IP based systems, compared to former TDM based systems ⇒ With networked ICT becoming more and more pervasive, consumers are becoming intuitively aware of what “interoperability” means (e.g DVD regional codes, fairplay DRM on i_pod…). This may be the real change, i.e where the pressure on interoperable solutions may be expected Interoperability, multifaceted • At the Network/Device Level – Wireless/Mobile/Fixed/Cable/ISP/Broadcasting networks need to interoperate • At the Service/application Level – Services need to run across homogeneous or heterogeneous networks • At the Media/Content Level – Different media formats must coexist
Interoperability is not an end in itself. It has to answer policy challenges: - Ensuring smooth technological transitions - Creating opportunities for disruption and innovation - Contributing to setting the right collaborative standards and widest market footprint - Optimising for innovation through accrued competition Interoperability & Home Networks Internet, Music and VoD, Video TV/video everywhere streaming, music download, storage Web Tablet Home Laptop Video walkman automation PDA and Control Bluetooth and Wi-Fi Phones Users want their devices to work together and share content
Printer Media Centre Voice and video Telemedicine Game Console IP STB and PVR conferencing Telework
Interoperability challenge in this context include notably: Consumer issues Home Gateway control Interoperability & Convergence Does convergence push the case for interoperability?? In principle Yes, but: In addition to the plethora of technologies, It introduces novel elements of complexity: m_payments, regulation on contents, rights holder… Untested and risky business models: more opportunities, but more risk; Different sectors (CE, mobile, broadband, broadcast..), with different logics: reducing customer churn and getting increased revenues; mastering content distribution; keeping control of established customer base; starting completely new « opportunity driven » businesses (e.g Skype) ⇒ For some players interoperability, insofar as it implies large scale convergence with significant levels of substitution, may mean risk of disappearing. Interoperability is it a natural trend? Still in the context of convergence: Untested business models, risks, requirement to protect investments may drive proprietary closed solutions, e.g music download fragmentation of devices and technologies; Some do however believe that market forces are enough to break the walls: "If you were to ask me which mobile device will take top place for listening to music, I'd bet on the mobile phone for sure. As good as Apple may be, I don't believe the success of the iPod is sustainable in the long run,“ (Bill Gates, to Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung) Some other believe that technology may be used as gatekeeper, no real incentive to move towards real interoperability and that legislative and regulatory intervention is needed (e.g case of Digital content portability and copy right) ⇒ But delicate issue to regulate on nascent markets; The Digital media formats maze Imaging Audio Video • BMP •PCT •a2b •MP4 •ASF •MPEG-1 •CLP•PCX • AAC • MPEG Audio • AVI •MPEG-2 •DCX•PNG •AC-3 •PCM •DAT•MPEG-4 • QuickTime •DIB• PPM • ADPCM •DivX • QuickTime • RealAudio •FPX•PSD •AIFF •DV•RM • PSP •TAC •GIF •ATRAC3+ •FLC•UIS •RAW • TwinVQ (VQF) •IMG •AU •FLI•WMV •RLE •u-law •JIF •CDDA Compression •FLX •TIFF •WAV •JPEG•WPG •DPCM •GIF •MAC •EPAC •WMA •MSP •MP3 Interoperability maze
• Numerous competing technologies and alliances with assets and drawbacks • The home networking market is immature and fragmented
Services Platforms (standards) Physical Layer (standards) OSA PhonePNA Web Services IEEE802.11 JINI HiperLAN OSGI Bluetooth MHP/DVB Home Plug Interconnect architecture (standards) Personalisation (standards) OSGi CC/PP JINI MPEG 7,21 UPnP Presence Interoperability Regulations and possible impacts (examples)
e.g content download authorised on an national basis , as a function of the rights acquired with the local Collecting society. (IP address filtering). Putting restrictions to “fixed mobile convergence”, on the basis of national market organisations? regulation for Home Gateway interconnection or routing of regulated services provided though « foreign » IP platforms, example of DVB-H case, will probably depend from sectorial regulations. It is convergent, interoperable (mobile, broadcast). May depend from sectorial developed regulation: TV w/o frontiers, e commerce directive, regulatory package, copyright directive, …. ( broadcast? Mobile?) ⇒ regulation has a potentially high impact on how “interoperable systems” are deployed. Media and Home Delivery, finding the right equilibrium
Consumers’ needs, wants, willingness to pay
Interoperability depends critically on cross industry agreements and on associated regulation/contractual framework
Technology Technology Media industry industry industry defining what defining what defining what is possible is possible is “allowed” Widespread Supply Side Enthusiasm for Interoperability
Industry standard to reduce confusion/aid adoption
Other 8% Non-interoperablity 4% will result in a market leading format via 13% competition/ choice
Interoperability reduces consumer Not necessarily what confusion/aids consumer would say! adoption (No DRM?) 75%
Question asked: Considering the compatibility of audio codecs and DRM technologies and their impact upon consumer adoption of digital music stores and services, please select from the following statements that which best describes your opinion
Source: JupiterResearch Music Executive Survey 07/04 (Western Europe only) Interoperability & Standards
There is a wide spread agreement that interoperability critically depends on standards. Yes but: It can not be the only answer; Standards and options Standardise what ?? Interfaces only or more? API’s? Standards are not neutral; Open Source has a role to play, but is more an implementation issue Open std is not ≡ to Open Source Standards form a key part of the picture, not necessarily the complete answer. Software: the fuel of Interoperability ia ia IT IT lications lications lications lications lications lications Convergence Mobiles Mobiles Multimed Multimed app app app app app app
Mobile IT MM Middle Middle Middle Middleware ware ware ware
Network Network Network Network Services (IP) Services Services Services
Telecoms Telecoms Telecoms Telecoms Telecoms Telecoms
Source: ITEMS International - 2004 Turning to Software
Software oriented middleware has implication on standards development process: Previous typical sequence: ex ante standard development, stable standard, development, product, business development; “Software” standardisation model: R&D and product development; product launch; ex post standardisation; further business development. Race for time and being « on time to market »; Interoperability depends on how easy it is to define ex post interfaces between software modules and components (e.g REL/ODRL trans-coding)
Source: ITEMS International - 2004 Vulnerability and Privacy • Increased connectivity, diversity of devices, global resource sharing and richer applications Annual losses increase complexity, amplifying $20 billion the vulnerability of the network and escalating the privacy 15 concerns. - 60% of all e-mail is spam 10 – 80% of all PCs infested with malware 5
0 1995 ’96 ’97 ’98 ’99 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ‘04 Challenges: - Pervasive connectivity will increase vulnerability and privacy concerns, requiring2000 new software solutions, - Establishment of “trusted” devices, servers and gateways will be required to accommodate dynamic network infrastructure and provide end-to-end security, - Containing the damage caused to businesses by malware, including the cost of fixing systems and lost revenue. Interoperability vs Security ?? Interoperability has to be addressed Globally North America • Research on systems beyond 3G e.g. at Motorola, Nortel, Lucent etc. China Dominated by global IT industry • 3G licenses not yet granted • Research on beyond 3G in 863 • IEEE activities in Europe FuTURE Project • IEEE 802.11a, b, g, h, n GlobalGlobal activitiesactivities • IEEE 802.15 •UMTS • Joint Research Center Shanghai • IEEE 802.16, a, d, e • UMTS enhancements • IEEE 802.20 • Research on systems • IEEE 802.21 beyond 3G in FP6 • Claims from start-ups and IT companies J • • a 3G • d • to provide 4G solutions ea 3 p pr E -s r R G e e D a • Flarion (Fast Low Latency Access with id nd n w u e ) h ea ith e o d n r iv se Seamless Handoff and OFDM) t w t a Ko tan riva C e c de n p u o • Arraycomm – advanced antenna technology el t X a R en A c l M M r o • m i e oy W G c and SDMA pl ( 3 y e ro ) nd o h m d iB 5G yo m W 3. e ( b e • Navini Networks – Advanced beamforming I / t s p o P en m e H m te r n n • p ys o n o t technology for range & coverage el s ev on p sys s t d h c o ( • IP Wireless – TD-CDMA with IP core network r o ea c s sa e f d R t • Aperto Networks – Fixed Broadband • e 3 m l m G Wireless Access vendor S a CJK – China, Japan, Korea s • Redline Communications – Fixed BWA u 2 p b 0 • Airspan – Fixed BWA • Cooperation on government level, one e e 0 r y 0
3 o , • Alvarion – Fixed BWA working group on mobile G n W • Intel – Active in 802.16 development and its communication d C
Globally 3 promotion in WiMAX D • Cooperation between SDOs G • Many activities are on short-range and WLAN • ITU-R Framework M A
enhancements Recommendation ) • WWRF, since 2001 Snapshot of Asian Roadmaps - mobile
Korea CJK: ☆ WiBro (Wireless Broadband, Portable Internet) Collaboration among China, - 2.3 GHz, 10 MHz Bandwidth, 0.5 - 50 Mbps, Japan and Korea for B3G < 60 km/h international Standards CJK Japan ☆ mITF China - Forum in Japan for 4G & Mobile Commerce, since ☆ FuTURE 2001 - Chinese National Project - Commercial introduction - 4 Phases: target: 2010 ① Ramp up ② Specification (2003 - 2005) ☆ Field experiments for 4G ③ Implementation (2007 - 2007) wireless access ④ Standardisation (2008 -) - DoCoMo, 100 Mbps transmission with outdoor, 1 Gbps with indoor (MIMO)
See also FCC and proactive approach towards global “standards/regulations”, e.g UWB For some, there is nothing to “interoperate” SAT + WLAN, CPL... •Satellite•Satellite DSLDSL offeroffer (20
BRAS x
Agregation x WIP+WLAN, CPL,... Remote DSLAM ADSL, ADSL2,... (> 100 subs. / site)
< 5 km Rural “Would be” ICT users require access to technology Interoperability & Availability
InfrastructureInfrastructure developmentdevelopment BroadbandBroadband forfor allall MoreMore useruser friendlyfriendly equipmentequipment
NewNew applicationsapplications ApplicationsApplications thatthat areare usefuluseful toto allall
MarketMarket dynamisationdynamisation
SolveSolve thethe standardsstandards riddleriddle PromotePromote andand communicatecommunicate newnew servicesservices
(Source:Telefonica) 3 fronts to address simultaneously, Metcalfe law and value of network, very close to the i2010 concepts Technology Platform/Industrial Initiatives: Facilitating global scale interoperability (Aeronautic ACARE example) T Trying to address he S issues through their tra GoP te gi multiple facets, c Pl an including standards ni Vision ng and deployment 2020 Ro u te The Report of the Group of T ACARE he How Personalities Im pl (2000-2001) em en SRA ta ti on The Strategic Ro u te What Research Agenda Stakeholders (2001-2002) - Revision every 2 years - Research Programmes
Public (EU, National, Research Eurocontrol, etc.) Projects And Private (Industry) NEM/e_Mobility.. Examples of Concrete Interoperability actions supported by DG INFSO
Trough IST/FP6 • DVB-H, 3G, China and Brazil; • MPEG over DVB-H, SVC, MPEG 21; • IPv4 IPv6 evolution, double stack migration; • DRM MPEG 21 Framework; • DVB CPCM Framework; • Ad Hoc Home Networks, OSGI environments; • Enterprise interoperability, RFID based integrated systems; • Digital Business Ecosystems, Ad Hoc Entreprise networks • ……. Policy, i2010
• An umbrella policy initiative, currently in the making; • In the context of a renewed commitment to the Lisbon Strategy • Commission adoption, planned Early June 2005, presentation to the Council end of June, Resolution end of year • 3 Pillars: deployment, innovation, inclusion • Salient features include – ICT as engine for growth – favourable environment for deployment :regs, stds, targeted actions on interoperability; – research; – cutting red tape (SME’s..) – in the context of telecom-media convergence – ….. • Complemented with Competitiveness and Innovation Programme Conclusions, promoting interoperability
∆ Interoperability as targeted Ad Hoc issue rather than through all encompassing definition and approach; ∆ Empowering Consumers; ∆ Addressing complementary fronts: standards, but also deployment, applications.. ∆ Clarifying applicable regulation to converged & interoperable environments; ∆ Possible careful public intervention where market failure & market size justify, ∆ Importance of international co-operation ∆ i2010, FP7, CIP are supporting instruments