1. Technical Interoperability to enable Mass Market Developments
Source: Hans van der Veer, ETSI Board Interoperability Evangelist

2. Introduction ETSI identified Interoperability as a Strategic Topic
Increasing importance
Resolution needed
to enable mass market acceptance (e.g. through user confidence) by combating market fragmentation
How can ETSI contribute as an SDO?
Improvement proposals?
Not limited to ETSI technical standards development work
Started study together with the Dutch government
Approach presented during Board#50
Support by several Board members
Initial results presented at GA#52

3. Aspects What is Interoperability?
The increasing importance of interoperability
Can/are the problems be solved by the market place
Motives for Standards Bodies and Governments to promote Interoperability
The need for an Interoperability Framework to identify further actions by ETSI
Recommendations

4. What is Interoperability?
The concept of interoperability has different meanings
E,g., European Directives, EICTA, ETSI OCG-ECN&S, OMA, Plugtests
For our purposes we talk about Technical Interoperability
Conformity and Interoperability Testing
The activities by which implementations are tested against the standard and by which successful cooperation between different implementations of the same standard is tested in practice
Inter-Standard Interoperability
The ability to link two or more systems, networks or services which differ essentially in technical respects, so that they can successfully provide an electronic communications service or can exchange and process information

5. Interoperability is gaining in importance
Increasing diversity of systems
Many competing technologies, trend to ex-post standardisation, many involved standards bodies and forums
Increasing diversity of services
To be delivered over more networks
To be accessible at more locations
More and more different user devices
More applications on intelligent device platforms
Networks are increasingly being built from building blocks
Move from “Silo” approach to “Lasagna” approach
Convergence, bundling of services (e.g., triple play)
Explosion of applications together service bundling
The structural unpredictability of markets
Leading to competing e.g. standards, forums, consortia
All leading to a greater demand for Technical Interoperability

6. Greater Demand for Technical Interoperability
An Interoperability problem? Most certainly yes:
Different administrative domains:
(access or core) Network providers,
Service providers
Many different technologies per layer specified by many different SDOs
Horizontal and Vertical interfaces (incl. QoS, security)
In need for efficient Network and Service management (OPEX reduction)
Application Layer
Services Layer
Session Control
Layer
Transport Layer
(incl. Access and Core Network)
Complementing Systems
Substituting
Technologies
Inter-Standard
Interoperability
Conformity and Interoperability Tests

7. Can’t the Market itself solve the Problem?
Implementation of multiple protocols in End-User devices
E.g., multi-standard mobile handsets, plug-ins for PDAs
Potentially high costs (e.g., support of different technologies, IPR)
Network related issues (e.g. numbering, QoS) are not addressed
The widespread implementation of IP
Approach is “Everything over IP and IP over Everything”
“Everything” still requires interoperability solutions (e.g. identity, info formats, semantics, QoS, single sign-on, security)
Will Operators or Service Providers solve the Interoperability problem themselves?
Solution costs are increasing
Sometimes too high for smaller parties especially when depending on interconnection to other parties’ networks and services
Greater complexity leads to greater pressure to take technologies into account early in the development process
Strong impetus to be actively involved in creating forms of interoperability

8. Initial Conclusion
There is a need for selective effort from, among others, standardization institutions, the EU and national governments in the area of technical interoperability, which market parties cannot themselves provide
Without this effort, the telecommunications sector will be faced with major problems in the medium term, certainly as far as user acceptance is concerned
Technical interoperability ought only to be available where there is substantial market demand
The absence of technical interoperability must not be the reason why final services for which there is great demand do not come into being.

9. Motives to Promote Interoperability
Standardization Bodies
Enhance attractiveness to their members (e.g. risk for early adopters decreases, specific expertise is built up)
Focus on functions that add a lot of value (e.g. Service control layer, middleware)
Play the role of Standards Integrator
Address Regulatory requirements (e.g., LI, emergency services with location information)
Achieve innovation and support introduction of new technologies
EU and National Governments
Central concept in New Regulatory Framework
Protect the public interest
Maximize value of telecom networks and services to end-users
Universal service, privacy, disability, regulatory requirements
Promote competition
Encourage innovation, lower barrier to enter the market
Technical neutrality

10. The need for an Interoperability Framework
To decide what the suitable activities for ETSI are
Forms of Technical Interoperability
Ex-post technical interoperability (Ad-Hoc or Systematic)
Interoperability tests: e.g., Plugtests
Inter-standard Interoperability: Gateway solutions (ad hoc or systematic)
Possible involvement of Standards bodies during design phase
Ex-ante technical interoperability (Systematic)
Conformance tests: PTCC
Interoperability with other systems, both at the same layer and at different layers
By Standards bodies
Slightly modified “Food Chain Model” can help to better relate the two concepts of technical interoperability to the various stages of the standards development process

11. Modified Food Chain Model*
Inter-Standards Interoperability
Integrator role: Ex-ante interoperability
Between and within the different layers (e.g. session control, transport, access and core networks, middleware)
E.g., Interoperability between services (e.g., eGovernment)
Addressed by many standards bodies
E.g. 3GPP releases, NGN releases
Good collaboration needed with related standards bodies and for a
Structured approach followed?
Marketing
Architecture +System
Protocols
Conformity &
Interoperability
Testing
Requirements
Regulation
Needs
Standards Making
Test, Certification
Need for Interoperability between different systems, technologies and applications
Other Technologies and Applications at various layers
Conformity and Interoperability Testing
Single standard
Inter-standard
Ex-ante as well as ex-post
Emphasis to be more on ex- ante!
* A. Urie: The Standardization Eco system, Understanding organization complexity”, Dec.2004

12. Identification of important interoperability areas
Where do SDOs need to spend more effort? Questions to be asked:
Where does the interoperability question play a role?
Should one aim for full interoperability or is it sufficient to create a common subset?
Towards what level or layer can the activities best be directed?
Is a unilateral effort sufficient or is there a need for intensive technical coordination with the sponsor of the other technology involved?
What other activities and initiatives in the area of interoperability have already been undertaken (e.g. LA, OMA, the Parlay Group)?
The question of what technical form is suitable also arises, including:
modifying or enlarging existing interfaces, or developing new interfaces
developing profiles
developing middleware and developing APIs

13. Proposed Recommendations
To develop activities in the area of Inter-Standard Interoperability of existing and future standards development work
To systematically integrate Interoperability activities into the development of standards
To further strengthen the Conformity and Interoperability Test activities