Thats a tongue in cheek headline. Recently I saw a short article that said Unified Communications is so today while mobile VoIP (and therefore mobile UC) is so tomorrow, the stated reason being that the U.S. doesnt have nationwide 3G and you need 3G in order to get decent quality from cellular VoIP.
You can do UC without VoIP. TeleWare does it using open standard based software with traditional PBX interfaces (this site is worth visiting), but in practice the majority of products have been designed on the assumption that the VoIP component will be transported over 3G. Thus, the author was right.
However, Europe does have good 3G coverage and the Old World has been at the forefront of mobile innovation and deployment its where digital cellular telephony started so one would expect to find that mobile UC is deliverable today.
That assumption is more or less correct: more because there are no significant impediments, less because its an application thats at the early adopter stage. But I would expect it to grow very rapidly since the productivity and cost benefits of mobile UC are significant, and it is logical to assume that they are higher than UC on office phones. Cell phones are, after all, the preferred communications device because we carry them around all the time. In addition, a high percentage of the average workforce is mobile, and many calls are not answered immediately, e.g. the individual may be driving, in a meeting or a noisy environment. The office environment is very different: when the phone rings you pick it up.
The operators voice mail service is expensive, and without UCs ability to see the called partys presence and availability, you can end up playing telephone tag. I pay my own phone bill, so if the mobile doesnt answer after a few rings I send an SMS saying that I am trying to get in touch. In contrast, when your employer picks up the tab, there is less reason to be concerned about costs. Thus, while enterprises tend to see productivity as being the biggest UC benefit, SMEs are more concerned about the bottom line, i.e., avoiding costs like excessive voice mail use. Nevertheless, according to a 2007 survey from EVUA, which is a global telecom user group, while nearly 30% of SMEs [across Europe] are deploying UC in some form, another 30% have no plans at all (or have not even heard of the term UC before).
One example of a mobile UC client is CiceroPhone (right), a converged multi-mode softphone that supports Fixed, VoIP and Cellular calls and media services on a single device. This UC client is available on Nokia S60 and Windows Mobile devices. The company also has an FMC solution that it markets to service providers.
PRESENCE IS A POWERFUL PARAMETER
Mobile UC is facilitated by the fact that mobile network operators know the presence status of all the subscribers on their network: its an operating parameter whose commercial value only became apparent when IM started hitting desktops. Unfortunately the MNOs held this card too close to their corporate chest and didnt allow it to be incorporated in UC solutions. The big bucks they saw was the youth end of the consumer market. Furthermore, MNOs love voice mail and telephone tag: the more wasted calls you make the more money they bank. They also love SMS and are not going to take kindly to IM on mobiles because the margins are much lower.
Yet, as in so many areas of telecommunications, operators have been overtaken by events. Mobile phones now have open operating systems Linux, Windows Mobile and Symbian and they have powerful computing and display resources. These devices can therefore download or embed application software and work in client-server mode. This development is well underway, and when it involves an enterprise server, there is no need to tap into the operators resources and pay for the privilege.
In response, a group of key operators, infrastructure and device vendors comprising Orange, Telecom Italia, Telef�nica, TeliaSonera, Ericsson, Nokia Siemens Networks, Nokia, Sony Ericsson and Samsung announced an initiative called the Rich Communication Suite, debuted at the Mobile World Conference earlier this year. The focus is on enriching communications, but the core technology elements are the same as for UC (voice, presence, messaging, video, all working together). For the telcos, the initiative is tightly linked to IMS and SIP. However, it may take quite a few years for presence to be federated across the telco and enterprise domains.
Meanwhile, there is some divergence of interests between the operators and the equipment vendors. Nokia, which employs the Symbian OS, is market leader by a very wide margin in Europe, and they have been very active in promoting their phones as open systems--one of several moves that have not pleased the operators. However, meeting the needs and aspirations of the marketplace is more important.
And then (inevitably) there is Microsoft. MS has no reason to be particularly concerned about operators, and of course there is a tight fit between Windows Mobile devices and the companys corporate UC solution. However, that does not guarantee success. Mobile phones have entered corporate environments as personal devices, and many employees would not take kindly to a forced swap and an unfamiliar interface. Asking a Nokia user to switch to the MS UI is like asking a Mac user to switch to Vista.
