Google's MVNO - Project Fi is disappointing

A first look at Google's MVNO to launch in the US on the Sprint and T-Mobile networks reveals itself a little disappointing (or a relief if you are a network operator). I had chronicled the announcement of the launch from Mobile World Congress and expected much more disruption in services and pricing than what is announced here.

The MVNO, dubbed project Fi, is supposed to launch shortly and you have to request an invitation to get access to it (so mysterious and exciting...).

At first glance, there is little innovation in the service. The Google virtual network will span two LTE networks from different providers (but so is Virgin's in France for instance) and will also connect "seamlessly" to the "best" wifi hotspot. It will be interesting to read the first feedback on how the device selects effectively the best signal from these three options and how dynamically that selection occurs. Handover mid call or mid data sessions are going to be an interesting use case, Google assures you that the transition will be "seamless".

On the plus side, Google has really taken a page from Iliad's free disruptive service launched in France and one-time rumored to acquire T-Mobile US. See here the impact their pricing strategy  has had on the French telecommunications market.

1. Fi Basic service comes with unlimited US talk and text, unlimited international text and wifi tethering for $20 per month.
2. The subscriber is supposed to set a monthly data budget, whereas he selects a monthly amount and prepays 10$ per GB. At the end of the month, the amount of unused data is credited back for 1c / MB towards the following month. The user can change their budget on a monthly basis. Only cellular data is counted towards usage, not wifi. That's simple, easy to understand and after a little experimentation, will feel very natural.
3. No contract, no commitment (except that you have to buy a 600+$ Nexus phone).
4. You can send and receive all cellular texts and calls using Google hangouts on any device.
5. Data roaming is same price as domestic but... see drawbacks

Here are, in my mind, the biggest drawbacks with the service as it is described.

1. The first big disappointment is that the service will run initially only on Google's Nexus 6. I have spoken at length on the dangers and opportunities of a fully vertical delivery chain in wireless networks and Google at first seems to pile up the drawbacks (lack of device choice) with little supposed benefits (where is the streamlined user experience?).
2. "Project Fi connects you automatically to free, open wifi networks that do not require any action to get connected". I don't know you, but I don't think I have ever come across one of these mysterious hotspots in the US. Even Starbucks or MC Donald free hot spots require to accept terms and conditions and the speed is usually lower than LTE. 
3. Roaming data speed limited to 256 kbps! really? come on, we are in 2015. Even if you are not on LTE, you can get multi Mbps on 3G / HSPA. Capping at that speed means that you will not be streaming video, tethering or using data hungry apps (Facebook, Netflix, Periscope, Vine, Instagram...). What's the point, at this stage, better say roaming only on wifi  (!?).

In conclusion, it is an interesting "project", that will be sure to make some noise and have an impact on the already active price war between operators in the US, but on the face of it, there is too little innovation and too much hassle to become a mass market proposition. Operators still have time to figure out new monetization strategies for their services, but more than ever, they must choose between becoming wholesaler or value added providers.

The future is cloudy: NFV 2020

As the first phase of ETSI ISG NFV wraps up and phase 1's documents are being released, it is a good time to take stock of the progress to date and what lies ahead.

ETSI members have set an ambitious agenda to create a function and service virtualization strategy for broadband networks, aiming at reducing hardware and vendor dependency while creating an organic, automated, programmable network.

The first set of documents approved and published represents a great progress and possibly one of the fastest achievement for a new standard to be rolled out; in only two years. It also highlights how much work is still necessary to make the vision a reality.

Vendors announcements are everywhere, "NFV is a reality, it is happening, it works, you can deploy it in your networks today...". I have no doubt Mobile World Congress will see several "world's first commercial deployment of [insert your vLegacyProduct here]...". The reality is a little more nuanced.

Network Function Virtualization, as a standard does not allow today a commercial deployment out of the box. There are too many ill-defined interfaces, competing protocols, missing API to make it plug and play. The only viable deployment scenario today is from single vendor or tightly integrated (proprietary) dual vendor strategies for silo services / functions. From relatively simple (Customer Premise Equipment) to very complex (Evolved Packet Core), it will possible to see commercial deployments in 2015, but they will not be able to illustrate all the benefits of NFV.

As I mentioned before, orchestration, integration with SDN, performance, security, testing, governance... are some of the challenges that remain today for viable commercial deployment of NFV in wireless networks. These are only the technological challenges, but as mentioned before, operational challenges to evolve and train the workforce at operators is probably the largest challenge.

From my many interactions and interviews with network operators, it is clear that there are several different strategies at play.

1. The first strategy is to roll out a virtualized function / service with one vendor, after having tested, integrated, trialed it. It is a strategy that we are seeing a lot in Japan or Korea, for instance. It provides a pragmatic learning process towards implementing virtualized function in commercial networks, recognizing that standards and vendors implementations will not be fully interoperable before a few years.
2. The second strategy is to stimulate the industry by standards and forum participation, proof of concepts, and even homegrown development. This strategy is more time and resource-intensive but leads to the creation of an ecosystem. No big bang, but an evolutionary, organic roadmap that picks and chooses which vendor, network element, services are ready for trial, poc, limited and commercial deployment. The likes of Telefonica and Deutsche Telekom are good examples of this approach.
3. The third strategy is to define very specifically the functions that should be virtualized, their deployment, management and maintenance model and select a few vendors to enact this vision. AT&T is a good illustration here. The advantage is probably to have a tailored experience that meets their specific needs in a timely fashion before standards completion, the drawback being the flexibility as vendors are not interchangeable and integration is somewhat proprietary.
4. The last strategy is not a strategy, it is more a wait and see approach. Many operators do not have the resource or the budget to lead or manage this complex network and business transformation. they are observing the progress and placing bets in term of what can be deployed when.

As it stands, I will continue monitoring and chairing many of the SDN / NFV shows this year. My report on SDN / NFV in wireless networks is changing fast, as the industry is, so look out for updates throughout 2015.

Worst of breed, golden silo

After some 13-odd years in new technology and product introduction, you can't help but look at trends that pop up in this industry with a cynical eye.

One of the catch phrases I hear often is best-of-breed approach. For me, every time I hear it, it is a sure sign that a market segment or a technology is not mature.

It is somewhat counter-intuitive. Best-of-breed pick-and-choose componentized approach to service delivery hints at ranges of well defined components, fungible, interchangeable. You would think that the interfaces being well defined, each vendor competes on unique differentiators, without impacting negatively the service delivery.

Conversely, silo has become an increasingly bad word in telecoms, evoking poorly architected, proprietary daisy chain of components that cannot integrate gracefully in a modern organic network.

Then why is it that best-of-breed always end up taking longer, being more expensive and less reliable than a fully integrated solution from a single vendor?

In my mind, the standards that have been created to describe the ideal networks, from WAP to MMS, from IMS to LTE have been the product of too many vendor lobby-ism. The results in many case are vaguely defined physical and functional components, with lowest common denominator in term of interface and call flows.
The service definition being somewhat excluded from standards has left little in term of best practice to integrate functional components efficiently.

There is a reason in my mind why the Chinese vendors ZTE and Huawei are doing so well. It is not only because of their cost structure, it is because their all in-house technology approach for business critical components make sense.
It allows fast, replicable deployment and trouble shooting. There is much less complexity in integration and roll out, which is the most consuming part of CAPEX.

Whenever you see these vendors using third party technology, it is because it is either so mature and stable that it is not worth developing in-house or so specialized that it has not been developed yet.
In any case, we are talking about fringe technologies. Anything that is business critical is identified long in advance and developed in-house.
Their product and services might not be as sophisticated or differentiating than specialized vendors, but they deliver value by providing the minimum services at the lowest cost, with good enough reliability.

The companies that will win will either be small niche vendors at the periphery of the larger market opportunities or companies that will be good at providing better value, with stronger benefit, but at a price that  is equivalent.