Interview by bnetTV at LTE World Summit

Interview from bnetTV at LTE world summit on future of mobile networks and video.

Speed = QoE?

I was chairing the LTE World Summit in Amsterdam last week. One of the great presentations made there was by Bouygues Telecom's EVP of Strategy Frederic Ruciak. He presented the operator's strategy for LTE launch in France that led the challenger to the number one market share on LTE in less than one year. He was showing that consumers were not ready to pay for "more speed" because they had been sold the myth of mobile internet too many times. Consumers had been sold wap on GPRS, EDGE, them wireless internet on 3G, HSPA with low satisfaction. Using internet as the reason to upgrade to LTE is a loosing proposition.

One of the mistakes many make in this industry is equating speed with quality of experience (QoE). 

Our quest to increase speed in wireless networks is futile if we do not consider the other side if the coin: service experience. 

For instance, there is always a wave of enthusiasm at the launch of a new radio technology, when few users have access to ample network resources and the services that ride on it are those that were designed for the precious generation. 
I have generation 1 iPad and the latest iPad mini both on wifi. When I bought my first iPad, I had a great browsing experience. Navigation was fluid and fast. Now, it is rare that I am able to have more than 10 minutes browsing without a crash. It is not that the browser is corrupted, just that web pages have grown in size and complexity and when it took 2 seconds to load 10 elements 4 years ago, it now tries to load 40+ elements and inevitably runs out if resource, memory and crashes. The ipad mini is not as bad but not as good as the first generation 4 years ago.

When we are looking at LTE and LTE advanced and soon 5G, it seems that the only "benefit" we are selling as an industry is speed. We tend to infer an improvement in QoE, but it is rarely there. If I used LTE to browse a monochromatic text-based wap site, I am sure that speed would be an improvement in QoE. But no, as LTE is launched, web pages grow in complexity and size, encryption and obfuscation is creeping in, video is graduating from SD to HD to 4K... With video, the problem is even larger as the increase in screen size and definition seems to consistently outpace network speeds.
It becomes harder to sell a new technology if all it does is keeping up or catching up with the service, not improve drastically the user experience.

LTE World Summit 2014

This year's 10th edition of the conference, seems to have found a new level of maturity. While VoLTE, RCS, IMS are still subjects of interest, we seem to be past the hype at last (see last year), with a more pragmatic outlook towards implementation and monetization. 

I was happy to see that most operators are now recognizing the importance of managing video experience for monetization. Du UAE's VP of Marketing, Vikram Chadha seems to get it:

"We are transitioning our pricing strategy from bundles and metering to services. We are introducing email, social media, enterprise packages and are looking at separating video from data as a LTE monetization strategy."

As a result, the keynotes were more prosaic than in the past editions, focusing on cost of spectrum acquisitions and regulatory pressure in the European Union preventing operators to mount any defensible position against the OTT assault on their networks. Much of the agenda of the show focused on pragmatic subjects such as roaming, pricing, policy management, heterogeneous networks and wifi/cellular handover. Nothing obviously earth shattering on these subjects, but steady progress, as the technologies transition from lab to commercial trials and deployment. 

As an example, there was a great presentation by Bouygues Telecom's EVP of Strategy Frederic Ruciak highlighting the company's strategy for the launch of LTE in France, A very competitive market, and how the company was able to achieve the number one spot in LTE market share, despite being the "challenger" number 3 in 2 and 3G.

The next buzzword on the hype cycle to point its head is NFV with many operator CTOs publicly hailing the new technology as the magic bullet that will allow them to "launch services in days or weeks rather than years". I am getting quite tired of hearing that rationalization as an excuse for the multimillion investments made in this space, especially when no one seems to know what these new services will be. Right now, the only arguable benefit is on capex cost containment and I have seen little evidence that it will pass this stage in the mid term. Like the teenage sex joke, no one seems to know what it is, but everybody claims to be doing it. 

There is still much to be resolved on this matter and that discussion will continue for some time. The interesting new positioning I heard at the show is appliance vendors referring to their offering as PNF (as in physical) in contrast and as enablers for VNF. Although it sounds like a marketing trick, it makes a lot of sense for vendors to illustrate how NFV inserts itself in a legacy network, leading inevitably to a hybrid network architecture. 

The consensus here seems to be that there are two prevailing strategies for introduction of virtualized network functions. 

1. The first one, "cap and grow" sees existing infrastructure equipments being capped beyond a certain capacity and little by little complemented by virtualized functions, allowing incremental traffic to find its way on the virtualized infrastructure. A variant might be "cap and burst" where a function subject to bursts traffic is dimensioned on physical assets to the mean peak traffic and all exceeding traffic is diverted to a virtualized function. 
2. The second seems to favour the creation of vertical virtualized networks for market or traffic segments that are greenfield. M2M and VoLTE being the most cited examples. 

Both strategies have advantages and flaws that I am exploring in my upcoming report on "NFV & virtualization in mobile networks 2014". Contact me for more information.

LTE Asia: transition from technology to value... or die

I am just back from LTE Asia in Singapore, where I chaired the track on Network Optimization. The show was well attended with over 900 people by Informa's estimate. 

Once again, I am a bit surprised and disappointed by the gap between operators and vendors' discourse.

By and large, operators who came (SK, KDDI, KT, Chungwha, HKCSL, Telkomsel, Indosat to name but a few) had excellent presentations on their past successes and current challenges, highlighting the need for new revenue models, a new content (particularly video) value chain and better customer engagement.

Vendors of all stripes seem to consistently miss the message and try to push technology when their customer need value. I appreciate that the transition is difficult and as I was reflecting with a vendor's executive at the show, selling technology feels somewhat safer and easier than value.
But, as many operators are finding out in their home turf, their consumers do not care much about technology any more. It is about brand, service, image and value that OTT service providers are winning consumers mind share. Here lies the risk and opportunity. Operators need help to evolve and re invent the mobile value chain. 

The value proposition of vendors must evolve towards solutions such as intelligent roaming, 2-way business models with content providers, service type prioritization (messaging, social, video, entertainment, sports...), bundling and charging...

At the heart of this necessary revolution is something that makes many uneasy. DPI and traffic classification, relying on ports and protocols is the basis of today's traffic management and is becoming rapidly obsolete. A new generation of traffic management engines is needed. The ability to recognize content and service types at a granular level is key. How can the mobile industry can evolve in the OTT world if operators are not able to recognize a content that is user-generated vs. Hollywood? How can operators monetize video if they cannot detect, recognize, prioritize, assure advertising content?

Operators have some key assets, though. Last mile delivery, accurate customer demographics, billing relationship and location must be leveraged. YouTube knows whether you are on iPad or laptop but not necessarily whether your cellular interface is 3G, HSPA, LTE... they certainly can't see whether a user's poor connection is the result of network congestion, spectrum interference, distance from the cell tower or throttling because the user exceeds its data allowance... There is value there, if operators are ready to transform themselves and their organization to harvest and sell value, not access...

Opportunities are many. Vendors who continue to sell SIP, IMS, VoLTE, Diameter and their next generation hip equivalent LTE Adavanced, 5G, cloud, NFV... will miss the point. None of these are of interest for the consumer. Even if the operator insist on buying or talking about technology, services and value will be key to success... unless you are planning to be an M2M operator, but that is a story for another time.

LTE world summit wrap up: VoLTE, Joyn, Loons and laughs

I was this week in gray Amsterdam for the LTE World Summit, where I chaired a track on mobile data explosion.
The atmosphere at the show was pretty upbeat, with over 2000 attendees happily walking the show floor and in and out of the various tracks, ranging from the co-located Sim-posium and Connected Car summit to the various monetization and technology tracks around data, video and VoLTE. The show was well organized and the alternation between round tables (mind share sessions on Monday), presentations, and panels was well executed.

I have to confess I was surprised by the large amount of time dedicated to VoLTE, Joyn and RCS, considering how uninteresting these subjects are (to me at least).

Throughout a few interactions I had at the show, I was reflecting on how mobile telephony continues to surprise and entertain me. There are many causes for laugh, for different reasons. 

On one hand of the spectrum, you have the wonderfully peculiar and whimsical announcement from Google on project Loon. A network of stratospheric balloons beaming internet for all, is ludicrous, crazy and beautiful. It shows a capacity to think out of the box and a capacity to try and address global issues by breaking convention that is missing in many boardrooms.

Some of the operators I was speaking with had a different kind of laugh, particularly when the Loon project is juxtaposed with Google's plan to build, run and operate mobile networks in sub-Saharan Africa and South East Asia... That is worth a good laugh. 

On the other hand of the spectrum, you got VoLTE and Joyn / RCS initiatives, who make me laugh twice as hard. I will admit to not being a specialist on either, but I can't fathom, why I should care about having a voice service carried over circuit switch or IP. I am a bit of a technology enthusiast and frankly, I don't get it. Particularly when vendors and some operators are touting use cases that were already making me laugh ten years ago when looking at SIP based communication / IMS.
Who cares whether you can have your call ringing on your 7 devices at the same time or whether you can have your call forwarded automatically from your tablet to your phone when you leave the room.... come on, let's be serious. If you are implementing VoLTE for infrastructure savings and scalability, that's great, but let's not have technology trying to dictate usage, that's just silly.

Sillier still is Joyn. It is kind of sad whenever operators try to compete with a content / service company on their own ground. I know that OTT messaging has hurt many operator's bottom line. This is the nature of disruption. 

You cannot compete with OTT by trying to offer and OTT-ish service, that is clunkier, awkward and that you want to "monetize". Come on, get real. First mover advantage is key in OTT service launch and there is not much room for me-too strategies. As an operator, you have two choices: innovate or collaborate. Create a new service, a new experience, or facilitate, enrich existing services even if they're not yours. Customers are not savvy technologists, they are savvy shoppers. It is about creating a better experience, stop listening to vendors trying to force-feed you new technology and start thinking new services.

LTE and video elasticity

I often get asked at events such as Broadband Traffic Management 2012, where I am chairing the mobile video stream this afternoon, "How does video traffic evolves in a LTE network? Won't LTE negate the need for traffic management and video optimization ?".

Jens Schulte-Bockum, CEO of Vodafone Germany shocked the industry last week, indicating that Vodafone Germany traffic in LTE is composed of mobile video for 85%.

I think what most people fail to understand is that video, unlike voice or generic data is elastic. Technologies such as adaptive streaming and source based encoding by content providers means that devices and content providers, given bandwidth will utilize all that is available. 

Device manufacturers implement increasingly aggressive versions of video streaming, grabbing as much bandwidth that is available, independently of video encoding, while content providers tend to offer increasing quality if video, moving from 480p to 720p and 1080p and soon 4K. 
This was corroborated this morning by Eric Klinker, president and CEO of BitTorrent. 

Operators need to understand that video must be managed as an independant service, independently from data and voice as it behaves differently and will "eat up" resources as they are made available.

So the short answer is no, LTE will not solve the issue but rather become a new variable in the equation.

NSN buoyant on its liquid net

I was with Rajeev Suri, CEO of NSN, together with about 150 of my esteemed colleagues from the press and analyst community on February 26 at Barcelona's world trade center drinking NSN's Kool Aid for 2012. As it turns out, the Liquid Net is not hard to swallow.

The first trend highlighted is about big data, big mobile data that is. NSN's prediction is that by 2020, consumers will use 1GB per day on mobile networks.
When confronted with these predictions, network operators have highlighted 5 challenges:

1. Improve network performances (32%)
2. Address decline in revenue (21%)
3. Monetize the mobile internet (21%)
4. Network evolution (20%)
5. Win in new competitive environment (20%)

Don't worry if the total is more than 100%, either it is was a multiple choice questionnaire or NSN's view is that operators are very preoccupied.

Conveniently, these challenges are met with 5 strategies (hopes) that NSN can help with:

1. Move to LTE
2. Intelligent networks and capacity
3. Tiered pricing
4. Individual experience
5. Operational efficiency

And this is what has been feeding the company in the last year, seeing sales double to 14B euros in 2011 and turning an actual operating profit of 225m euros. The CEO agrees that NSN is not back yet and more divestment and redundancies are planned (8,500 people out of 17,000 will leave) for the company to reach its long term target of 10% operating profit. NSN expects its LTE market share to double in 2012.

Liquid Net

Liquid networks is the moniker chosen by NSN to answer to the general anxiety surrounding data growth and revenue shrinkage. It promises 1000 times more capacity by 2020 (yes, 1000) and the very complex equation to explain the gain is as follow: 10x more cell sites (figures...), 10 times more spectrum and 10 times more efficiency.

The example chosen to illustrate Liquid net, was I think, telling. NSN has deployed its network at an operator in the UK where it famously replaced Ericsson last summer. It has been able since to detect devices and capabilities and adapt video resolutions with Netflix for instance that resulted in 50% less engorgement in some network conditions. That is hard to believe. Netflix being encrypted, I was scratching my head trying to understand how a lossless technique could reach these numbers.

The overall savings claimed for implementing liquid networks were 65% capacity increase, 30% coverage gain and 35% reduction in TCO.

Since video delivery in mobile networks is a bit of a fixation of mine, I decided to dig up more into these extraordinary claims. I have to confess my skepticism at the outset. I am familiar with NSN, having dealt with the company as a vendor for the last 15 years and am more familiar with its glacial pace of innovation in core networks.

I have to say, having gone through a private briefing, presentation and demonstration, I was surprised by the result. I am starting to change my perspective on NSN and so should you. To find out why and how, you will need to read the write up in my report.

BBTM Part 4:TIM & BitTorrent

TIM

Telecom Italy is facing the same issue most mature operators see today:

• Mobile video traffic is growing explosively, threatening to overcome current capacity
• LTE is a few years away and requires a completely new network overlay
• The introduction of tablets and smartphone is accelerating the phenomenon

Additionally, TIM is lobbying GSMA to implement fast dormancy directives so that device manufacturers and apps can optimize signalling by batch sending messages rather than on an ad hoc basis.

End to end QoS via CDN interconnection and QoS guaranteed on a private backbone (IPX) is high on their agenda for video services.

TIM is answering these issues in a somewhat classic manner, introducing fair usage caps (daily, monthly), throttling, video optimization and policy management. The innovative part is in the introduction of tiered QoS (speed, duration) per class of service, urging the subscribers to select the speed and capacity the most adapted to their current or projected usage.

An interesting data point from TIM's presentation is related to signalling congestion. In many cases, signalling is as much an issue as actual bandwidth in congested network. Signalling is not only a function of the number of subscribers in a cell, but also the type of device and type of apps being used. For instance, Angry Birds on Android  represents a +351% signalling increase compared to the iOS version, due to in-app advertising. The app polls and displays an ad at each level change, creating signalling overload.

 

 
BitTorrent

Eric Klinker, CEO of BitTorrent, walked in the room like a man with a target on his back. Seen as many as a powerful threat to the business model of content owners and telcos globally, BitTorrent is now advocating the use of their technology (mTorrent) as a highly scalable, secure way to transfer files, with a priority.

The plan for world domination means the replacement of TCP by P2P transfer, to allow capacity for the rest of the traffic.

 

What is interesting, is that BitTorrent has worked and is looking to work increasingly with carriers to help with P2P bandwidth consumption and traffic steering. For instance, in New Zealand,  BitTorrent works with Telecom New Zealand to prioritize to prioritize peer traffic on the island, reducing offshore traffic and associated costs .
Another example of opportunities for policies to transcend the core network, towards content and app providers.

BBTM part 2: Comverse & Continuous Computing

Comverse


Comverse is proposing a full spectrum holistic solution to video optimization, including PCEF, DPI, Optimization, Charging and some aspects of  PCRF.
What caught my attention is their strong push for Gi based optimization vs. Gn. 
They advocate that  measure of congestion at RAN level is inconsistent and inconclusive.

The big push is certainly as well an attempt to ward off the network vendors (ALU, NSN, Ericsson, Huawei, ZTE), by arguing that there is an inherent conflict of interest when these vendors are both trying to sell carriers capacity and optimization at the same time. (My experience of working with all these companies is that 80% of the time, the right hand does not know what the left hand does and that for conflict of interest to exist, it would require a lot better organization and strategy than what I have observed).



Comverse proposes that for effective cell-based congestion detection, a mechanism such as a radius interim messages,  triggered at cell level, not Rnc, would provide an effective way to relay RAN congestion indications to the core.


I agree with the premises but I am not sure of the conclusion. A lot of the congestion at RAN level is also signalling and you could end up in interesting snowball effects with Radius messages (notably inefficient, that is one of the primary reasons for Diameter's invention) could greatly contribute to the congestion they are trying to stave off. 


Now, Diameter repeaters at RAN level... that could help.

Continuous computing
I was curious to hear from CC after their recent acquisition by Radisys in May. They present themselves as an "arm dealer" in the optimization and traffic offload war between vendors and offer some interesting perspectives.



Offload is a cost effective way to manage surges and traffic increases but presents significant challenges in CALEA (Legal interception from Law Enforcement Agencies) and charging and policy. 
Effectively, when traffic is offloaded at RAN level, you need paths to trombone it back to the core network for charging, PCRF and optimization functions if you want to get most of your investment, while satisfying both legal regulations and customer SLA.

The rest of the presentation focused of course on Continuous Computing's solution that collocates DPI, traffic offload (on Lu interface, between Rnc and SGSN) and interacts "seamlessly" with their  video optimization, tromboning traffic back to the core before going to the internet through Gi.


I don't think that the "just another bump in the wire" theory actually works for video, where every millisecond of latency counts against the user experience.

LTE: it's a Little Too Early part 2

My analysis:

On mass market penetration, we are still far. Out of the 140 network commitments, 17 are launched so far, in many cases at the city level. I could not find many figures in term of LTE subscriber numbers except for Verizon, and I think in itself it is a sign. Additionally, out of the nearly 100 LTE devices out there, only 6 are smartphones. 7 are tablets, the rest are notebooks, modems, dongles, routers, etc...

The technology will certainly take off but we are far from mass market adoption.

On ease of use, I can't really comment. I haven't had yet my hands on an LTE device or accessed an LTE network. The peak speeds advertised make my head swoon and certainly raise questions about unplugging fixed line access. I am hoping LTE in itself won't negatively impact the current trend of intelligent devices that allow me a better connection to my network and apps.

Interoperability, once again in my mind is going to be the big issue here. One of the key advantages of LTE for an operator is to be able to reuse spectrum and bands allocated to older technologies (think GPRS, EDGE, 1X...). This result in about 20 paired bands frequency division duplexing that can be used by a given operator to roll out the service. Additionally, LTE can be implemented  in time division duplexing (TDD), adding another 12 bands.

Operators have bid or have been allocated frequencies to operate LTE in their country. In many countries, like in the US, operators have different bands, which will force device manufacturers to have multi-band devices. Multiply that at the scale of the 600+ network operators worldwide and you understand that it will be a long time before we get a world phone on LTE.

Additionally, you have to think that each band requires a specif radio module. It comes with an impact on antenna and battery life. Economically and form factor-wise, it is difficult to have a smartphone today that will accommodate more than 5 bands.

This situation will lead to a variety of short term hindrance:

• Operators asking manufacturers for devices supporting as many as 12 bands to cater for international roaming. This will increase price of devices, decrease battery life and slow down adoption of technology for business users and travelers.
• The only cost-effective devices in the short term are going to be stationary ones or devices tied to one operator. they will accelerate the transition from fixed broadband to mobile broadband.

In conclusion, I see LTE time frame for mass market to be ~7 years. I have no doubt it will be successful but the current growth in data traffic might choke current networks before LTE has a chance to flourish if the above issues are not addressed.

LTE: it's a Little Too Early part 1

As we are starting to see the first announcements about LTE deployments and their promises of speed comparable only to those experienced on the Autobahn, I wanted to dig a little bit into the maturity of the technology and its mass market time frame for applicability.
My conclusion? It's still a Little Too Early for LTE .

According to GSA, (the Global mobile Suppliers Association), the current number of commitments from network operators to implement LTE is 140, as of March 24th2011. GSA is a vendors-led association, so the forecast are somewhat optimistic, but this is a respectable number of operators who have bravely started to invest in LTE.


When I traditionally look at the penetration capability of a new technology in the wireless ecosystem, I usually rely on a few indicators to gauge where the technology is in its adoption cycle.

• Mass market penetration: I would look for at least 30% of a given population having implemented the technology and having devices in their hands capable of using it. That could mean 30% of network operators in the case of LTE, but more importantly, I would look at 30% of the subscribers of a given operator having an LTE subscription as a sign of maturity.
• Ease of use, ease of adoption: In this case, I look at what the barriers to entry are for subscribers or operators to acquire and use the technology. The cost of license auctions, the relative cost of increasing HSPA+ network density and investments. What will Femtocell or data offload do to the demand? 
• Interoperability: This is a key criterion, that is overlooked time and again in wireless technology introduction. This is about interoperability between the devices themselves, the devices and the network, backwards compatibility, the networks between themselves, roaming, interconnectivity, etc... This has been a consistent issue that has plagued the adoption and success of many wireless technologies over the last decades (WAP, MMS, PoC, IMS...).

In my next post, I  will provide my opinion on the challenges of LTE and the time frame for its mass market adoption.