Subject: RE: [Simple] Messages: Signaling, Data, or Theft (Was something t o do wit message threading)

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 16:10:44 -0000

Michael,
 
The signalling (packaging in your analogy) costs the operator x.  The
operator cannot realistically charge the customer for the signalling
(packaging), as the customer is unaware of and gets no value from most of
it.  So the operator is x out of pocket.
 
The operator can charge the customer for the services (the tablets).  The
services (tablets) cost y.
 
Most operators will charge y+x for services and keep the signalling 'free'
for the users.
 
Of course, this is more likely to be x + y + p, where p=profit ;-)
 
Ultimately, the signalling costs operators (especially across the radio
interface) and that cost should be kept at a minimum.
 
We have to be careful with things like instant messaging.  If I were able to
initiate a voice call towards you with some display text that appears on
your terminal as "Duncan is calling and wants to know if you still want to
meet him for a drink tonight," you could simply ignore the call.  So I have
passed a message to you that cost me nothing.  You then initiate a voice
call towards me.  This appears on my terminal as "Michael is calling and
yes, I'll meet you in the local bar at 8p.m."  I don't answer.  You have
replied to me free of charge.
 
Both of those call set-ups have cost the operator dearly, and he can't
really charge for it...
 
Regards,
 
Duncan

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Hammer [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: 13 March 2002 15:41
To: Dean Willis
Cc: 'Dean Willis'; 'Paul Kyzivat'; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Simple] Messages: Signaling, Data, or Theft (Was something to
do wit message threading)

Dean,

There are some things users care about and will pay for, and other things
they won't.  For connection oriented services, they consider the "air time"
when they have full cut-through to when they get disconnected to be the
value.  In connectionless services, they care about data packets getting
through, not overhead signaling packets.

You seem to be suggesting that the customer pay for the time they spend
waiting for the signaling to complete the call.  Or, you expect them to pay
for signaling as well as data-bearing messages.  This is analogous to making
customers pay for packaging, when all they want is the handful of tablets in
the little bottle inside the big box.

Near where I live there is an ice-skating rink that charges by the hour.
Most people won't put up including in that hour the time taken to fill out
forms and select skates.  Nor would they pay for time where they are
standing in line for that process.  Not standing in line, getting to the
rink sooner, and skating a full hour have value.

This is not just the service provider perspective, but the customer
perspective.

It's OK to get philosophical, just keep it real. :)

Mike

At 04:29 PM 3/12/2002 -0600, Dean Willis wrote:

> Warning: Philosophical Rant Follows
> 
> The key issue is buried deep in the underlying business 
> model. In the Internet world, you pay the same for the bits 
> used to signal a multimedia session as for the bits used by 
> the multimedia session itself. In the PSTN, the carriers pay 
> for the signaling used to set up the multimedia session. In 
> other words, there is NO signaling, as signaling is used in 
> the PSTN sense, on the Internet -- just application traffic. 
> There might be messaging applications, routing applications, 
> management applications, or multimedia applications, but 
> they're just all applications as far as the underlying 
> network in concerned. In the PSTN, signaling actually 
> traverses a separate, specialized network, driven by its own 
> economic laws.
> 

Reference remaining rant elsewhere.

Here's an example.

-----------
From last year's Next Steps in Signaling BOF:

6.5 James Kempf
   Radio access networks - air is expensive.  Optimize by using less
   bandwidth and more (for example) CPU cycles. Whatever the signaling
   protocol is, it must be very efficient for mobility. Providers pay
   big $$ for the airwaves, they don't want  to use it for signaling,
   but for user data.  Best: do the signaling through the backbone, and
   not over the air if possible.  The signaling must be efficient for
   mobility to minimize signaling while moving from area to area.
   Mobility signalling should be directly coupled to the traffic.
-------------

See http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bradner-nsis-bof-00.txt
<http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bradner-nsis-bof-00.txt> 

Clearly from the provider perspective, user data and signaling are two
different things. Therein lies the debate. For if a user were to do
something that "looks like" signaling, they would intrude on the
territory of the operator.

The problem here: is Messaging the same as signaling? Is Presence the
same as signaling? Is anything we do with SIP really "signaling" or is
it user data?

--
Dean

_______________________________________________
simple mailing list
[email-masked]
http://mailman.dynamicsoft.com/mailman/listinfo/simple
<http://mailman.dynamicsoft.com/mailman/listinfo/simple>  

_______________________________________________ simple mailing list
[email-masked]
http://mailman.dynamicsoft.com/mailman/listinfo/simple