Hummmm.... while 'yes', 'no' and 'both will survive' are neck and neck, it’s clear our work is NOT done!
First, I wonder to myself, why are we asked to consider just ‘UMA-based’ FMC? Has the market conceded that UMA is the leading approach for FMC? What about SIP-based FMC? Or VCC-based FMC? Or the ever-present IMS-based FMC?
Perhaps we here at UMA Today should be proud that UMA is considered the leading approach for FMC.
Second, and more importantly, it’s clear that the message of UMA as the de-facto standard for backhauling femtocells is just not getting through. Feedback from operators and vendors alike shows UMA provides the standardized, secure, cost-effective method for integrating hundreds of thousands of femtocells access points into a mobile core network. No other approach for femtocell backhaul comes close to meeting operator requirements.
Thus the irony is that femtocells are actually INCREASING the opportunity for UMA-based FMC. A vibrant market for femtocells will simply compound demand for UMA infrastructure.
UMA-based FMC was initially focused on dual-mode phones, then it expanded to include terminal adaptors and softmobiles. Now with femtocells, UMA has a near lock on the market for mobile operators leveraging the public internet for service delivery.
At the end of the day, UMA Today is proud that UMA is being held to a higher standard that other technologies or approaches, it means we’re making a difference.
No comments:
Post a Comment