Technology & Services
Deploying the Right Intelligent Networks for Mobile Ser vices
a report by
Nils Granath
Director of Product Management, Sicap Ltd
Background
Sicap Ltd is currently upgrading the intelligent
network-capable billing system at DiGi in Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia. This article describes the solution
at DiGi and explains how by adopting it, DiGi are
preparing themselves for anticipated mobile trends in
late 2002 and 2003.
Like many of the early prepaid systems, DiGi initially
adopted a prepaid application based on SIM
technology (so-called ‘hot’ or ‘warm’ billing
solutions). In order to remain competitive, DiGi
realised that an intelligent network (IN) solution
would have to be deployed for prepaid. The key
advantages of an IN solution are:
• realtime call rating and call management,
controlled from a centralised service control point
(SCP);
• migration path to Customised Applications for
Mobile (network) Enhanced Logic (CAMEL),
allowing seamless prepaid roaming; and
• possibility for realtime short message service
(SMS), GPRS and unstructured supplementary
services data (USSD) billing
By adopting a hybrid solution, taking network
infrastructure from Ericsson, an IN SCP from Alcatel
and by upgrading to Sicap’s IN-capable prepaid billing
(PPB) system, DiGi are able to implement a cost-
effective suite of solutions for rating and billing of calls
and value-added services such as SMS and GPRS.
The Move to IN
Initial implementations of mobile prepaid were not
based on IN due to lack of appropriate service logic.
When IN applications for mobile prepaid were
deployed, they were invariably based on the
Intelligent Network Application Protocol (INAP)
standard, which was originally developed for fixed-
line networks. As a result, INAP solutions could not
provide realtime control and rating on mobile-
specific services such as roaming and SMS delivery. It
BUSINESS BRIEFING: WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY 2003
is only with the advent of the CAMEL standards that
true, standardised IN-type control of mobile-specific
services has become possible.
The problem facing many operators, including DiGi,
was whether to make a full migration to an IN
solution or whether to continue to offer some
services outside the IN environment. Although IN
can offer complete call control, it comes at a cost,
both in terms of service-logic development and
network infrastructure (signalling requirements and
hardware). By deploying a system that offers both
conventional rating and billing (via call detail
records) using Sicap’s PPB product and IN control
from the Alcatel IN engine, DiGi could thus choose
on a per-service level (National Voice, Roaming
Voice, SMS, GPRS, value-added SMS, etc.) how to
implement rating and billing solutions.
The Right Platform for
Service Deployment
The approach adopted by DiGi highlights what might
be a significant sea-change to the adoption of IN
solutions by operators. Previously, IN was perceived
as an all-or-nothing solution where an operator would
perform a complete migration of all services to an IN
environment that was often perceived as being a
complete solution to all operator service deployment
problems. Operators are now realising that the key
requirements behind service deployment: features,
time-to-market and cost, do not always indicate
service deployment using an IN environment.
A prime example of this is customer loyalty. Many
prepaid IN systems offer realtime customer loyalty
programmes where call costs reduce in realtime as
certain thresholds are met. For example, after
spending RM100 per month, calls become 10%
cheaper. The key problem with this type of solution
is visibility to the subscriber. If there is no realtime
balance on the display (and IN solutions currently
cannot offer this feature) then it is difficult for a
subscriber to see the discount they are getting (or
even realise they are getting one). A non-IN
customer loyalty programme can deliver bonuses to
the subscriber balance by SMS (e.g. “Thanks for 1
 Technology & Services
spending RM100 this month, here’s a bonus of RM10”).
This is a clear example where non-IN solutions
might not only be more cost-effective but also
deploy a more subscriber-friendly service.
IN and 2003
This example is indicative of how hybrid solutions,
using both IN (and particularly CAMEL) and non-IN
technologies can offer a best-fit solution to an
operator’s requirements. This theme will be shown to
be effective in 2003 in three areas: adoption of Open
Service Architecture (OSA)/Parlay solutions, CAMEL
and wireless local-area network (WLAN) integration.
OSA/Parlay
OSA/Parlay is a set of standards currently just
finalised that allows the separation of service logic
from the signalling requirements of IN. A legacy IN
system combined both INAP and common channel
signalling system No. 7 (SS7) signalling with the
telephony switch with service logic. Today, there is
a move to separate the signalling and protocols from
service logic. This allows service logic to be
implemented outside typically expensive IN
platforms on more cost-effective (and multiple)
platforms. It also removes control of service logic
development away from IN vendors.
CAMEL
As mentioned, CAMEL is the first IN standard to
truly address the needs of mobile networks by
allowing IN control of roaming, SMS and GPRS
services. There are two interesting developments in
the CAMEL area that will become increasingly
important to operators in 2003.
CAMEL and Roaming
CAMEL allows seamless roaming for prepaid
subscribers. Before CAMEL, even IN systems could
not control calls outside the home network. With
CAMEL, and suitable bilateral agreements, a
subscriber can make prepaid calls in a visited network
and yet be under the control of the IN system in the
home environment. An alternative to CAMEL,
USSD call initiation, exists where a subscriber enters
a USSD into their mobile (for example,
*111*0044208123456# to call +44208123456).
This type of solution is less elegant than CAMEL but
does not require an IN solution or bilateral
agreements between operators. Interestingly, many
operators are realising that they have to offer both
CAMEL roaming and a USSD fall-back solutions for
those networks that have not yet implemented
CAMEL and thus to allow subscribers to roam
2 worldwide. Once again, this is the theme of using
appropriate technologies, based on IN or other
standards, to deploy effective services for operators.
CAMEL Gateways
Until recently, an operator considering a prepaid
CAMEL solution would normally have considered
migrating their entire prepaid service logic to IN.
However, with the advent of OSA/Parlay and also
many smaller players in the IN market, CAMEL (or,
more specifically, CAMEL Application Protocol
(CAP)) gateways are becoming more feasible as a
platform allowing CAMEL roaming without
migrating to a full IN prepaid product. Such a
solution takes advantage of a CAP Gateway to
handle the CAP and SS7 signalling requirements
withIN the network, and offers a proprietary or
OSA/Parlay interface to a prepaid roaming call
control application, which, in turn, interfaces to a
legacy PPB system. Such an approach can be up to
80% cheaper to deploy than full IN migration.
WLAN Integration
The final hot topic for 2003 is WLAN and GSM™
integration. Recent surveys in Europe show that
more than 50% of WLAN subscribers would like
GSM billing for their WLAN access. Integrating (IN
or non-IN) billing systems with WLAN services will
be necessary for many operators. WLAN access is
currently completely outside the scope of IN and
probably will be for many years. Once again,
integration of non-IN and IN services will be
required for effective deployment of WLAN billing
and rating services from a GSM prepaid (or non-
prepaid) account.
Conclusion
Prepaid is increasingly popular as a payment method
and IN and non-IN technologies are currently
meeting the needs of operators in rolling out cost-
effective prepaid solutions. There are undoubted
advantages to IN solutions, as no other technology
can offer realtime call control on a large scale.
However, small IN systems, such as those based on
CAP gateways for prepaid roaming will prove that
cost-effective niche IN solutions can also
complement an operator’s service portfolio. Finally,
non-IN solutions can often give an operator a niche
advantage with minimal rollout time.
As operators offer more services, the requirement to
integrate IN and non-IN solutions will become
stronger and more visible. A competition increases,
the need to implement the right solution on the most
cost-effective and appropriate platform will become
more important. These are the challenges for both
operators and vendors in 2003. ■
BUSINESS BRIEFING: WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY 2003