Today, softswitch vendor CopperCom appointed Manuel Vexler as its chief technology officer. Vexler is considered somewhat of a VoIP visionary for his contributions to both the International Packet Communications Consortium (IPCC) as vice president and the SIP Forum Service Providers Working Group. He brings 25 years of technical and sales experience in the worlds of TDM- and IP-based networks and their various protocols. He answered a few questions about his new role and the industry for Telephony’s Tim McElligott.

What was your role in the IPCC and SIP forums, and what did you accomplish?

The IPCC was my biggest role in last couple of years in terms of intensity. It is a very forward-looking organization. We focused very much on three working groups. One on wireless/wireline convergence, one on service provider interconnectivity--basically VoIP peering--and one on session border control, which will soon evolve into VoIP security as a generic topic.

We helped raise awareness about the industry and a number of critical issues. Because the IPCC is set between the wireless, wireline and cable industries, it looks at VoIP in a very holistic way and is protocol agnostic. So it is not a lobby organization. Part of our job was communicating that set of policies to members and future members, and presenting it at various trade shows. The other part, which was very interesting and forward-looking, was the technical work. As you know, the VoIP service providers are still backhauling their traffic through the PSTN, so we were working on the peering issues, which are very complex, not to mention the regulatory and security aspects of things.

Why did you make the move back to the vendor community?

Well, I really liked CopperCom. It wasn’t an easy move, but I believe they have an excellent team, and I think I will like working with the people here.

There are two types of vendors in this space. There are those that live only in the IP space. They are basically the visionary ones that look at a reality that says, “Tomorrow everything will be IP,” and they don’t care about today. Another set of vendors came to this space in an evolutionary way, and CopperCom is one of them. They think in both the TDM space and the IP space. To me, this is the best balance between business and technology.

The IP vendors are very strong, and we will all eventually be in the same space, but CopperCom provides me the opportunity to grow and to grow together as a company without leaving aside the legacy [aspect]. Because realistically, all the VoIP calls still touch the TDM network, and all the TDM calls go over fiber as VoIP in the backbone. I strongly believe we have to bridge those two worlds, and CopperCom is definitely one of the leaders in that space.

Is it too early to talk about your vision for the company?

It is a bit early. As a very big picture I can tell you about my biases when I joined, which does not mean they will be the final strategy for CopperCom.

As you know the world is moving toward IP, and IMS as sort of an architectural vision, and mobility and nomadic services are really what’s happening right now in the industry. With this in mind, I am trying to connect the dots between CopperCom’s current product line and its future, between the current market and CopperCom’s growth--particularly with the IOCs and the CLECs--and how it will shake out in the next two to three years. In a couple of months I will have a more clear answer.

Is it safe to say mobility will be a focus for CopperCom?

It is more my bias. In order for it to be a corporate focus I need to convince my colleagues and senior management that this is the direction to go, and I need to do some homework before I can say that completely.

How is the softswitch industry evolving in general?

There are at least three models in my mind. I see IMS as being an architectural vision and when I talk to fixed-line people versus the mobile people, I am not sure their visions match up yet. I think they see things differently. ILECS and CLECs are talking about modernization and the next generation. They see it as a way to stop or slow the defection of the fixed line toward mobility. They also talk about opex savings. But if you look at the model from the 3GPP [viewpoint]--and the way it was probably intended--it is still a model like the HLR/VLR, which is basically an extension of AIN. So I don’t think the two worlds have really met. I believe softswitching will probably respond to the demands from each camp in a different way.