Guest Blogger Shannon Lucas of T-Mobile on Differences Between MVS & Wi-Fi Calling

Recently, I've received a lot of questions from customers about the difference between RIM's new MVS 5.0 with Wi-Fi Calling (based on SIP) and T-Mobile's Wi-Fi Calling (based on UMA/GAN). There are some pretty important differentiators between these two services.

I see them as complementary solutions that address different user profiles. Customers who are mostly campus-based can take advantage of MVS with SIP while they are in the office or connected to their enterprise network through a VPN.

T-Mobile's Wi-Fi Calling allows customers to extend their PBX extension to their mobile phone over Wi-Fi and provides seamless mid-call transitions between the cellular and Wi-Fi networks. The T-Mobile solution also allows you to use MVS over Wi-Fi in public locations without having to have that VPN back to the corporate network.

T-Mobile launched Wi-Fi Calling four years ago, and the technology has had a lot of time to mature in the market place. It can also be used without MVS to provide coverage and the ability to make calls for free while on Wi-Fi. It's also simple to set up and use.

Both solutions offer benefits to enterprise users, but T-Mobile's Wi-Fi Calling provides a level of freedom and free calling for enterprise customers even when not connected to the VPN.

Guest Blogger Shannon Lucas of T-Mobile on MVS + UMA

I talk to customers every day and ask them to tell me what's on their wishlist to meet their technology and communication needs. Just yesterday, I sat in a room with a customer who spoke to me about how he can't wait for the day when all the networks converge; when users have one device that seamlessly moves back and forth between Wi-Fi and next generation mobile networks.

I sat there with a knowing smile, just nodding, because the solution that I was about to propose addresses all of his needs and then some.
The RIM Mobile Voice System solution with T-Mobile's UMA BlackBerries can provide the PBX extension that he (and many other companies) is looking for. MVS not only gives users single number reach capabilities, but it also allows users to make on-net international calls, reducing the international long distance spend. UMA allows companies to make Wi-Fi based calls for free, even internationally. Now, they can work together.
After I had gone over the MVS/UMA ROI slide with my customer, I asked if I could move on. He replied, "No. I am in love with this slide."

It really is fun to be able to give customers exactly what they want.

T-Mobile offers Wi-Fi Calling with MobileOffice(SM), an exclusive solution that enables organizations to extend their desktop phone functionality to a mobile device. Customers using Wi-Fi Calling with MobileOffice can now use the BlackBerry(r) Mobile Voice System (MVS) to mobilize PBX systems, bringing office phone features to BlackBerry smartphones. This will further improve productivity and reduce telecom costs, and I'm going to continue to spread the good news.

Read more from Shannon Lucas on this blog.

RIM, MVS and UMA

This is the week of RIM's big Wireless Enterprise Symposium (WES) event in Orlando. Hence the flurry of announcements related to new RIM devices, the new RIM 6.0 OS, and the addition of Wi-Fi calling to the MVS product.

Considering T-Mobile offers a UMA-based 'Wi-Fi Calling' service and offers MVS with 'Wi-Fi calling', there may be some confusion in the market. Is MVS competitive or complementary with UMA? The short answer:

They are complementary solutions.

UMA is the delivery of mobile services over Wi-Fi. With UMA-enabled BlackBerries (in this case), subscribers use their mobile services the same over Wi-Fi as over the GSM/cellular network. UMA offers two specific benefits to the subscriber: improved mobile coverage via Wi-Fi; and lower-cost calling, primarily due to T-Mobile's 'unlimited Wi-Fi Calling' offer for enterprises. We like to say that UMA makes the mobile phone "work better and cost less".

MVS addresses a different problem. The new Wi-Fi calling feature in MVS extends a subscriber's fixed-line PBX extension to their BlackBerry. Personally this isn't something I would want. If I really want someone to get ahold of me, I give out my mobile number. If it's not urgent, I give out my desk phone. But there may be subscribers (or enterprises) that want to push the fixed line onto a BlackBerry. More importantly, I think there are enterprises interested in managing how employees use their mobile phones and how accessable they are on their fixed lines. But I digress...

The point is that both MVS and UMA offer an overlapping benefit: lower cost calling. With UMA, it takes the form of mobile calls over Wi-Fi not using the bucket of minutes assigned to the enterprise. With MVS, it comes by not using the mobile network (and therefore the mobile operator's billing system) and routing calls through the enterprise PBX (and over negotiated fixed line contracts).

Therefore, it is possible to deploy MVS (ie put a PBX extension on a BlackBerry) with or without UMA. And conversely, it's possible to have a UMA-enabled BlackBerry without the MVS client. Ergo - it is also possible to have a BlackBerry with MVS *and* UMA.

For IT managers, what's better? Well, it comes down to what problem is being solved. UMA offers two benefits: lower cost mobile calls and better cellular coverage.

MVS offers at least two benefits: lower cost calls through by routing Wi-Fi calls through the PBX, better management/control of mobile calling and the ability to put a fixed line on the mobile phone.

For mobile operators, it's clear that UMA retains control of the call through the mobile network, where MVS takes Wi-Fi calls off the mobile network and into the fixed-line PBX.

To conclude, MVS and UMA are not competitive, they are complementary technologies, solving different problems for the enterprise.