Rant: Why do we need 6G anyway?

I have to confess that, even after 25 years in the business, I am still puzzled by the way we build mobile networks. If tomorrow we were to restart from scratch, with today's technology and knowledge of the market, we would certainly design and deploy them in a very different fashion.

Increasingly, mobile network operators (MNOs) have realized that the planning, deployment and management of the infrastructure is a fundamentally different business than the development and commercialization of the associated connectivity services. They follow different investment and amortization cycle and have very different economic and financial profiles. For this reason, investors value network infrastructure differently from digital services and many MNOs have decided to start separating their fibre, antennas, radio assets from their commercial operation.

This has resulted in a flurry of splits, spin off, divestiture and the growth of tower and infrastructure specialized companies. If we follow this pattern to its logical conclusion, looking at the failed economics of 5G and the promises of 6G, one has to wonder whether we are on the right path.

Governments keep treating spectrum as a finite, exclusive resource, whereas as private networks and unlicensed spectrum demand is increasing, it is clear that there is a cognitive dissonance in the economic model. If 5G's success was predicated on enterprise, industries and verticals connectivity and if these organizations have needs that cannot be satisfied by the public networks, why would MNOs spend so much money on a spectrum that is unlikely to bring additional revenue? The consumer market does not need another G until new services and devices emerge that mandate different connectivity profiles. Metaverse was a fallacy, autonomous vehicles, robots... are in their infancy and workaround the lack of connectivity adequacy by keeping their compute and sensors on device, rather than at the edge.

As the industry prepares for 6G and its associated future hype and non sensical use cases and fantastical services, one has to wonder how can we stop designing networks for use cases that never emerge as dominant, forcing redesigns and late adaptation. Our track record as an industry is not great there. If you remember, 2G was designed for voice services. Texting was the unexpected killer app. 3G was designed for Push to talk over Cellular, believe it or not (remember SIP and IMS...) and picture messaging early browsing were successful. 4G was designed for Voice over LTE (VoLTE) and video / social media were the key services. 5G was supposed to be designed for enterprise and industry connectivity but failed to deliver so far (late implementation of slicing and 5G Stand Alone). So... what do we do now?

First, the economic model has to change. Rationally, it is not economically efficient for 4 or 5 MNOs to buy spectrum and deploy their separate networks to cover the same population. We are seeing more and more network sharing agreements, but we must go further. In many countries, it makes more sense to have a single neutral infrastructure operator, including the cell sites, radio, the fiber backhaul even edge data centers / central offices all the way but not including the core. This neutral host can have an economic model based on wholesale and the MNOs can focus on selling connectivity products.

Of course, this would probably suppose some level of governmental and regulatory overhaul to facilitate this model. Obviously, one of the problems here is that many MNOs would have to transfer assets and more importantly personnel to that neutral host, which would undoubtedly see much redundancy from 3 or 4 teams to one. Most economically advanced countries have unions protecting these jobs, so this transition is probably impossible unless a concerted effort to cap hires / not renew retirement departures / retrain people is effected over many years...

The other part of the equation is the connectivity and digital services themselves. Let's face it, connectivity differentiation has mostly been a pricing and bundling exercise to date. MNOs have not been overly successful with the creation and sale of digital services, the emergence of social media, video streaming services having occupied most of the consumer's interest. On the enterprise's side a large part of the revenue is related to the exploitation of the last mile connectivity, with the sale of secure private connections on public networks in the form of MPLS first then SD-WAN to SASE and cloud interconnection as the main services. Gen AI promises to be the new shining beacon of advanced services, but in truth, there is very little there in the short term in terms of differentiation for MNOs. 

There is nothing wrong with being a very good, cost effective, performant utility connectivity provider. But most markets can probably accommodate only one or two of these. Other MNOs, if they want to survive, must create true value in the form of innovative connectivity services. This supposes not only a change of mindset but also skill set. I think MNOs need to look beyond the next technology, the next G and evolve towards a more innovative model. I have worked on many of these, from the framework to the implementation and systematic creation of sustainable competitive advantage. It is quite different work from standards and technology evolution approach favored by MNOs but necessary for these seeking to escape the utility model.

In conclusion, 6G or technological improvements in speed, capacity, coverage, latency... are unlikely to solve the systemic economical and differentiation problem for MNOs unless more effort is put on service innovation and radical infrastructure sharing.

State of Open RAN 2024: Executive Summary

 

The 2023 Open RAN market ended with a bang with AT&T awarding to Ericsson and Fujitsu a $14 billion deal to convert 70% of its traffic to run on Open RAN by end of 2026. 2024 started equally loud with the $13 billion acquisition of Juniper Networks from HPE on the thesis of the former company’s progress in telecoms AI and specifically in RAN intelligence with the launch of their RIC program.

2023 also saw the long-awaited launch of Drillish 1&1 in Germany, the first Open RAN greenfield in Europe, as well as the announcement from Vodafone that they will release a RAN RFQ that will see 30% of its 125,000 global sites dedicated to Open RAN.

Commercial deployments are now under way in western Europe, spurred by Huawei replacement mandates.

On the vendor’s front, Rakuten Symphony seems to have markedly failed to capitalize on Altiostar’s acquisition and convince brownfield network operators to purchase telecom gear from a fellow network operator. While Ericsson has announced its support for Open RAN with conditions, Samsung has been the vendor making the most progress with convincing market share growth across the geographies it covers. Mavenir has been steadily growing. A new generation of vendors have taken advantage of the Non-Real-Time RIC / SMO opportunity to enter the space. Non-traditional RAN vendors such as VMWare and Juniper Networks or SON vendors like Airhop have grown the most in that space, together with pure new entrants App players such as Rimedo Labs. With the acquisition of VMWare and Juniper Networks, both leaders in the RIC segment, 2024 could be live or die for this category, as the companies are reevaluating their priorities and aligning commercial interest with their acquirers.

On the technology side, the O-RAN alliance has continued its progress, publishing new releases while establishing bridgeheads with 3GPP and ETSI to facilitate the inclusion of Open RAN in the mainstream 5G advanced and 6G standards. The accelerator debate between inline and look aside architectures has died down, with the first layer 1 abstraction layers allowing vendors to effectively deploy on different silicon with minimal adjustment. Generative AI and large language models have captured the industry’s imagination and Nvidia has been capitalizing on the seemingly infinite appetite for specialized computing in cloud and telecom networks.

This report provides an exhaustive review of the key technology trends, vendors product offering, and strategies, ranging from silicon, servers, cloud CaaS, Open RUs, DU, CUs, RICs, apps and SMOs in the open RAN space in 2024.

Product Marketing as a Strategic Tool for Telco Vendors

Those who know me for a long time know that I am a Product Manager by trade. This is how I started my career and little by little, from products, to product lines, to solutions I have come to manage and direct business lines worth several hundred of millions of dollars. Along this path, I have become also a manager and team lead, then moved onto roles with increasing strategic content, from reselling, OEM, deals to buy and sell side acquisitions and integrations.

Throughout this time, I have noticed the increased significance of Product Marketing in the telecoms vendors environment. In a market that has seen (and is still seeing) much concentration, with long sales cycles and risk-adverse customers, being able to intelligently and simply state a product's differentiating factor becomes paramount.

Too often, large companies rely on brand equity and marketing communication to support sales. In a noisy market, large companies have many priorities, which end up diluting the brand promise and provide vague and disconnected messages across somewhat misaligned product and services.

By contrast, start ups and small companies often have much smaller range of products and services, but having less budget, focus in may case on technology and technical illustrations rather than exalting the benefits and value of their offering.

My experience has underscored the pivotal role of product marketing in shaping a company's valuation, whether for fundraising or acquisition purposes. Yet, despite its proven impact, many still regard it as a peripheral activity. The challenge lies in crafting a narrative that resonates—a narrative that not only embodies the company's strategic vision but also encapsulates market trends, technological evolutions, and competitive dynamics. It's about striking a delicate balance, weaving together product capabilities, customer pain points, and the distinct value proposition in a narrative that is both compelling and credible.

Many companies will have marketing communication departments working on product marketing, which often results in either vague and bland positioning or in disconnects between the claims and the true capabilities of the products. This can be very damaging for a company's image when its market claims do not reflect accurately the capabilities of the product or the evolution of the technology. 

Other companies have the product marketing as part of the product management function, whereas the messaging and positioning might be technically accurate, but lack competitive and market awareness to resonate and find a differentiating position that will maximize the value of the offering.

As the telecoms vendors' sector braces for heightened competition and market contraction, with established players fiercely guarding protecting their market share against aggressive newcomers, the role of product marketing becomes increasingly critical. It's an art form that merits recognition, demanding heightened attention and strategic investment. For those poised to navigate this complex terrain, embracing product marketing is not just an option; it's an imperative for sustained relevance and success in challenging market conditions. 

MEC: The 7B$ opportunity

Extracted from Mobile Edge Computing 2016.

Executive summary

Table of contents

Defining an addressable market for an emerging product or technology is always an interesting challenge. On one hand, you have to evaluate the problems the technology solves and their value to the market, and on the other hand, appreciate the possible cost structure and psychological price expectations from the potential buyer / users.

This warrants a top down and bottoms up approach to look at how the technology can contribute or substitute some current radio and core networks spending, together with a cost based review of the potential physical and virtual infrastructure. [...]

The cost analysis is comparatively easy, as it relies on well understood current cost structure for physical hardware and virtual functions. The assumptions surrounding the costs of the hardware has been reviewed with main x86 based hardware vendors. The VNFs pricing relies on discussions with large and emerging telecom equipment vendors for standard VNFs such as EPC, IMS, encoding, load balancers, DPI… price structure. Traditional telco professional services, maintenance and support costs are apportioned and included in the calculations.

The overall assumption is that MEC will become part of the fabric of 5G networks and that MEC equipment will cover up to 20% of a network (coverage or population) when fully deployed.
The report features total addressable market, cumulative and incremental for MEC equipment vendors and integrator, broken down by CAPEX / OPEX, consumer, enterprises and IoT services.
It then provides a review of operators opportunities and revenue model for each segment.

2015 review and 2016 predictions

As is now customary, I try to grade what I was predicting for 2015 and see what panned out and what didn't. I'll share as well what I see for 2016.

Content providers, creators, aggregators:

"They will need to simultaneously maximize monetization options by segmenting their user base into new price plans and find a way to unlock value in the mobile market.While many OTT, particularly social networks and radio/ audio streaming have collaborated and signed deals with mobile network operators, we are seeing also a tendency to increasingly encrypt and obfuscate online services to avoid network operators meddling in content delivery." 

On that front, I think that both predictions held true. I was envisioning encryption to jump from 10 to 30% of overall data traffic and I got that wrong, at least in many mature markets, where Netflix is big in mobile, we see upwards of 50% of traffic being encrypted. I still claim some prediction here, with one of my first post indicating the encryption trend 2 years before it started in earnest.

The prediction about segmentation from pricing as OTT services mature has been also largely fulfilled, with YouTube's 4th attempt, by my count, to launch a paid service. Additionally, the trend about content aggregators investing in original content rights acquisition is accelerating with Amazon gearing up for movie theaters and Netflix outspending traditional providers such as BBC with a combined investment by both company estimated in the 9$Bn range. Soon, we are talking real money.

In 2016, we will see an acceleration of traditional digital services that were originally launched for fixed line internet transitioning to predominantly mobile or mobile only plays. Right now, 47% of Facebook users are exclusively through  mobile and account for 78% of the company's revenue. More than 50% of YouTube views are on mobile devices and the corresponding revenue growth is over 100% year on year. 49% of Netflix' 18 to 34 years old demographics watches the service on mobile devices. We have seen signs with Twitter's vine,  and Periscope as well as Spotify , MTV and Facebook that the battlefield will be on video services.

Network operators: Wholesaler or value providers?
The operators in 2016 are still as confused, as a community as in 2015. They perceive threats from each other, which causes many acquisitions, from OTTs, which causes in equal measure many partnership and ill-advised service launches and from regulatory bodies, which causes lawyers to fatten up at the net neutrality / privacy buffet.

"we will see both more cooperation and more competition, with integrated offering (OTT could go full MVNO soon) and encrypted, obfuscated traffic on the rise". 

We spoke about encryption, the OTT going full MVNO was somewhat fulfilled by Google's disappointing project Fi launch. On the cooperation front, we have seen a flurry of announcements, mostly centered around sponsored data or zero rated subscription services from Verizon, AT&T.

"We will probably also see the first lawsuits from OTT to carriers with respect to traffic mediation, optimization and management. " 

I got that half right. No lawsuit from content providers but heavy fines from regulators on operators who throttle, cap or prioritize content (Sprint, AT&T, ...).

As for digital service providers, network operators are gearing themselves to compete on video services with services such as mobile TV /LTE broadcast (AT&T, EE, Telekom Slovenje, Vodafone), events streaming (China Telecom, ), sponsored data / zero rated subscription services (Verizon, T-mobile Binge On, Sprint, AT&T, Telefonica, ...).

"Some operators will seek to actively manage and mediate the traffic transiting through their networks and will implement HTTPS / SPDY proxy to decrypt and optimize encrypted traffic, wherever legislation is more supple."

I got that dead wrong. Despite interest and trials, operators are not ready to go into open battle with OTT just yet. Decrypting encrypted traffic is certainly illegal in many countries
or at the very least hostile and seems to be only expected from government agencies...

Mobile Networks Technology

"CAPEX will be on the rise overall with heterogeneous networks and LTE roll-out taking the lion share of investments. LTE networks will show signs of weakness in term of peak traffic handling mainly due to video and audio streaming and some networks will accelerate LTE-A investments or aggressively curb traffic through data caps, throttles and onerous pricing strategies."

Check and check.

"SDN will continue its progress as a back-office and lab technology in mobile networks but its incapacity to provide reliable, secure, scalable and manageable network capability will prevent it to make a strong commercial debut in wireless networks. 2018 is the likeliest time frame."

I maintain the view that SDN is still too immature for mass deployment in mobile networks, although we have seen encouraging trials moving from lab to commercial, we are still a long way from a business case and technology maturity standpoint before we see a mobile network core or RAN running exclusively or mostly on SDN.

"NFV will show strong progress and first commercial deployments in wireless networks, but in vertical, proprietary fashion, with legacy functions (DPI, EPC, IMS...) translated in a virtualized environment in a mono vendor approach. "

We have seen many examples of that this year with various levels of industry and standard support from Connectem, Affirmed Networks, Ericsson, Cisco and Huawei.

"Orchestration and integration with SDN will be the key investments in the standardization community. The timeframe for mass market interoperable multi vendor commercial deployment is likely 2020."

Orchestration, MANO has certainly driven many initiatives (Telefonica OpenMANO) and acquisitions (Ciena acquired Cyan, for example) and remains the key challenge in 2016 and beyond. SDN NFV will not take off unless there is a programmatic framework to link customer facing services to internal services, to functions, to virtual resources to hardware resources in a multi-vendor fashion. I still maintain 2020 as the probable target for this.

In 2016, the new bit of technology I will investigate is Mobile Edge Computing, the capacity to deploy COTS in the radio network, unlocking virtualized services to be positioned at the network's edge, enabling IoT, automotive, Augmented Reality or Virtual Reality services that require minimal latency to access content even faster.

In conclusion, 2016 shows more than ever signs that the house of cards is about to collapse. Data traffic is increasing fast, video is now dominating every networks and it is just starting. With 4K and then 8k around the corner, without talking about virtual or augmented reality, many of the players in the value chain understand that video is going the next few years' battlefield in mobile, OTT and cloud services. This is why we are seeing so much concentration and pivot strategies in the field. 
What is new is the fact that if mobile was an ongoing concern or barely on the radar for many so-called OTT, it has now emerged as the predominant if not exclusive market segment in revenue. 
This means that more pressure will rain on network operators to offer bandwidth and speed. My reports and workshops show that mobile advertising is not growing fast enough in comparison to the subscribers eyeball moving to mobile screens. This is mostly due to the fact that video services in mobile networks are a pretty low quality service, which will get worse as more subscribers transition to LTE. The key to unlock the value chain will be collaboration between operators and OTT and that will only happen if/when a profitable business model and apportioning of costs is worked out.

At last, my prediction about selfie kills seem to unfortunately have been fulfilled with selfies now killing more people than shark attacks. Inevitably, we have to conclude that in 2016, commercial drones and hoverboards will kill more people than selfies...

That's all folks, see you at MWC next month.

Video monetization and optimization 2014 market share update

As it is now customary, I am releasing today an end of year market share update for video monetization and optimization deployments. You can find here the market shares released in the spring if you want to compare the vendors' progression.

As usual, I provide market share calculations in term of deployment per vendor, the unit being one operator / country. For instance, Verizon Wireless counts for one deployment, even though the operator might deploy 40+ data centres. Groups such as Vodafone, Deutsche Telekom or Telefonica count for each of the properties where the technology is deployed.


This update is characterized by an acceleration of adoption and deployment of the technology in emerging and growth markets, together with replacements either on a per property or group-wide for tier one mature market groups. New categories of deployments, from MVNO to interconnect providers are also making their appearance, while some operators are also turning off the capability.

Large telecom equipment manufacturers have mostly abandoned their in-house projects and are relying on the vendors in this segment for video management, as illustrated by recent partnerships (Skyfire/Huawei, Flash Networks/Nokia, Openwave/Cisco...others unannounced).

Market shares

1. Citrix
   Citrix’ market share is 31%. The company has grown with the market in the period. Citrix regains the market leadership in deployment with this update.
2. Flash Networks
   Flash Network’s market share is 30% . The company has lost market share since the last update, and is sliding in second position.
3. Openwave Mobility
   Openwave Mobility's market share is 12%. The company has grown the fastest of all vendors since the last update.
4. Nokia, Opera & Vantrix
   Nokia, Opera and Vantrix market share are 6% each. Nokia has grown, Opera remains stable and Vantrix decreased market share since the last update.
5. Others
   Allot, Avvasi, Venturi, (in alphabetical order) share the remaining 9%.

The market share calculations are based on a proprietary {Core Analysis} database, collecting data such as vendors, resellers, value of the deployment in term of total cost of ownership for the operator, operator name, country and region. These data are cross-referenced from vendors' and operators' individual disclosures. This database also includes over 130 opportunities in video optimization that are at different stage of maturity (internal evaluation, vendor trial, RFI, RFx...) and will close over the next 18 months.

The market share is valid at the time of publishing but change on a weekly basis, as new deals are awarded.

The market shares in term of number of mobile broadband subscribers and revenue is not published here but is available as part of my workshop or retainer service on the video optimization market. The rankings in term of revenue per vendor are quite different from the installed market share, as different price strategies and different geographic markets are considered.

Full analysis, progression and strategy of each vendor is examined together with market dynamics in my report.

Strategies for multiscreen monetization

Pay TV and OTT providers are increasingly difficult to tell apart. Both are engaged in a battle to capture retain our interest. Many multiscreen strategies are being enacted on both sides to secure this $400 billion market.

Cord cutting, cord shaving are becoming familiar risks for MSOs as viewers’ habits change from scheduled to on demand and from linear to binge watching .

MSOs are hesitating between becoming OTT, partnering with them or embracing multiscreen, while OTT are experimenting with new charging models and are trying to secure exclusive rights for original programming.

These strategies and more are being analyzed in my latest white paper, co-written with Booxmedia.

As large OTT providers are helping consumer-viewing habits evolve, there are great opportunities for MSOs and content providers to offer OTT and multiscreen services that will strengthen their brand, expand their reach and grow their customer base.

Cloud TV everywhere emerges as one of the most successful strategies to date for customer acquisition, retention and monetization.  Robust recommendation, content discovery and ad management are keys for monetization of multiscreen.

Impact of Iliad's purchase of T-Mobile

Last month, I was musing about a world where wireless voice and messaging ARPU would be 0$.

While many are discovering the bid by Iliad to take over T-Mobile US, I have been following the company for nearly two years in its successful market introduction in France.

I thought it would be interesting to have a look at what has been the impact to date of Iliad on the French mobile market as a reference point.


Iliad launched a mobile service in France in January 2012 under the brand free Mobile. The offer was simple and a perfect disruption to the highly-regulated market. Building on their broadband payTV set top box offer, Iliad secured 3G and 4G licenses from the french regulator and started offering for free mobile services to their payTV customers.

The offering

Shortly thereafter, the company launched a disruptive offer: 19.99 euros per month for unlimited national (all) and international (fixed line) voice calls , unlimited text and picture messages in europe, 3GB of data in 3G and 20GB in 4G.
To accelerate their customer acquisition for the moderate users, the group launched in 2013 a no contract 2 euro per month deal for 2 hours national and international voice calls, unlimited text and picture messages in europe, and 50MB of data.

The results

This disruption was a commercial and popular success for the company but a disaster for the incumbents. 
Dominated by Orange, followed by SFR and Bouygues, the market was deeply disturbed by this introduction.

In two years, here is the impact of Iliad on the french market:

• Iliad as of March 2014 counted 8.6 million subscribers representing 13% market share and generating 1.2 billion euros of revenue.
• Iliad in 2014 covers 50% of the french population in 4G and 75% in 3G.
• Iliad's network quality has been rated worse of all French operators but the company ranks first in customer satisfaction.
• Average turnover by mobile operators decreased by 11% in 2012 and 13% in 2013 and net income by 20%
• Average Revenue Per User (ARPU) has decreased by 22% 
• Collectively, operators increased their CAPEX investments to 7.3 billion euros in 2013 (excluding licenses).
• Collective free cash flow has decreased by 40%

Conclusions

Of course, it would be difficult to draw a direct parallel between the successful introduction strategy of Iliad in France and what would happen if they purchased T-Mobile in the US. Nonetheless, Iliad is probably the company that has acquired the most customers in the shortest amount of time of all wireless operators globally, while focusing on what matters most: customer satisfaction. Of course a disruptive pricing strategy was the main vehicle for introduction, but ease of use, with no-contract offers, unlocked phones packaged or not with subscription were a large part of the company success as well. 

The lessons to draw here are that network operators need to prepare for a world where ARPU can drastically reduce while structural investments increase. Flexibility, elasticity but more importantly a customer centric approach will make the difference.

The themes are further addressed and analysed in my latest report to be released in September: SDN / NFV in wireless networks.

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.

I want my... I want my HBO part II

Our second story this week is local. Canada's regulator, the CRTC (Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission), has started consultations to un-bundle TV channels for cable and satellite payTV. In essence, the regulator asserts that TV bundling of channels might be consumer-adverse and that forcing someone to pay for basic cable/satellite + digital channels + movie package + HD + HBO in order to watch Game of Throne is not in the consumer's best interest.
Already both sides of the discussion are engaging in strong arguments. On one hand, it is true that bundling has allowed consumers to discover new content that might not have been their initial choice when selecting their channel line up. In many cases, you are drawn to a new show or a new series by a combination of peer recommendation, preview / advertisement and pure chance. If you did not select the channel to start with, you are removing a large part of the discovery opportunity and I do not see how that can benefit the consumer , the programmer or the announcer. There are already rumors that some US channels could just pull out of Canadian airwaves rather than bend to Canadian pick-and-choose TV which could set a precedent in the US.
On the other hand, TV bundling and prices have gotten out of hand in Canada. It is not unusual to pay over 100$ per month for TV programming which is a high price if, when all is said and done, you watch in average maybe 15 channels in your fixed rotation. Unbundling could certainly cut dramatically in cost to the consumer if they are allowed to select their channel individually rather than in bundles. That's if the MSOs practice a fair price, which is a big if in Canada. Coopetition has been the operating model rather than aggressive competition and prices for unbundled channels could end up being more expensive than bundled, which would end up damaging the consumer's wallet, angering the US right holders and precipitate OTT exodus.

I am in favor of unbundling, but it has to be done in a very careful fashion. It can be beneficial to the consumer only if:

• It leads to more choice rather than less (US channels need to stay)
• It is easy to add and remove channels, with no subscription longer than month to month and no penalty.
• Individual channel selection is not sub-bundled (you have to subscribe to channel x in order to pay extra for channel xHD). I should be able to select only HD channels if I want and not have to carry both SD and HD. It is ok to pay more for HD than SD.
• Catch up TV, time shifted and a la carte one demand offering could be bundled with individual channels (for instance, AMC SD 1$, HD 1.5$ with on demand 3$...).
• It is ok to have public programming as a bundle part of the basic subscription package.

In this manner, the successful channels will reap the bulk of the consumer money, but special interest channels will still reach their audience. Channels that have no audience will not be artificially sustained by bundled package. Channels will be able to compete on a series by series, show by show, encouraging original programming and exclusive rights, allowing true competition for premium content.

These two stories illustrate perfectly the risks and opportunities of OTT vs payTV. The business models are not settled yet, major players are announcing new moves every week. It is an exciting time to work in this industry.

I want my... I want my HBO

Two pieces of news caught my eye over the last week that spell in my mind both a vindication and a perfect example of the seismic changes being experienced in OTT and payTV landscapes in North America.

The first story is in the US. As I was mucking around provisioning my new car's hard drive with my eclectic music collection earlier this week, my son stumbled upon an old time favorite and I was elated to witness his discovery of Dire Straits' "Money for Nothing". As we were happily singing I want my.... I want my MTV, I was reminded of a post I wrote two years ago, musing about when HBO would be able to go direct to customer in North America.

It seems my question was answered this week, with Comcast launching a new plan for cord-cutters and cord-nevers, offering Xfinity Streampix, HBO and HBO Go together with broadband for $39.99. A US Comcast customer will be able to watch HBO over the web on their broadband subscription without having to be a cable customer. The FCC (US regulators) mandates that premium channels have to be bundled with basic broadcast, so that's in it as well, but this is a clear tipping point moment. For the first time HBO is going head to head with Netflix, going pure OTT. As I am moving to my new house next month, This had me rethink my TV strategy and I am certainly going to wait and see what trickle downs in Canada. Increasingly, I am thinking of upping my broadband subscription and shaving as much as I can if not cutting outright my Cable / Satellite subscription.

The implications are profound and it is a floodgate moment. On one hand, Netflix has now more subscribers than HBO, which prompts Comcast to start the self cannibalization. If you are loosing subscribers, you might as well loose them to yourself and a friendly content provider rather than a competitor. 
You will read about the second story tomorrow.

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.

How to monetize mobile video part II

These posts are excerpts from my article in Mobile Europe from October 2012.

The Age Of Video: How Mobile Networks Must Evolve

In 3G, mobile network operators find themselves in a situation where their core network is composed of many complex elements (GGSN, EPC, browsing gateways, proxies, DPI, PCRF…) that are extremely specialized but have been designed with transactional data in mind. Radio access is a scarce resource, with many operators battling with their regulators to obtain more spectrum. The current model to purchase capacity, based on purchasing more base stations, densifying the network is finding its limits. Costs for network build up are even expected to exceed data revenues in the coming years.

On the technical front, some operators are hitting the Shannon’s law, the theoretical limit for spectrum efficiency. Diminishing returns are the rule rather than the exception as the RAN (Radio Access Network) becomes denser for the same available spectrum. Noise and interferences increase.

On the financial front, should an operator follow the demand, it would have to double its mobile data capacity on a yearly basis. The projected revenue increase for data services shows only a CAGR of 20% through 2015. How can operators keep running their business profitably? 

Operationally, doubling capacity every year seems impossible for most networks who look at 3 to 5 years roll out plans. A change of paradigm is necessary.

 Solutions exist and start to emerge. Upgrade to HSPA +, LTE, use smaller cells, changing drastically the pricing structure of the video and social services, network and video optimization, offload part of the traffic to wifi, implement adaptive bit rate, optimize the radio link, cache, use CDNs, imagine new business models with content providers, device manufacturers and operators…

Detect

The main issue is one of network intelligence. Mobile network operators want their network utilization optimized, not minimized. Traffic patterns need to be collected, analyzed, represented so that data and particularly video can be projected, but not at the country, multi-year level as of today. It is necessary to build granular network planning capacity per sector, cell at RAN, Core and Backhaul levels with tools that are video aware. Current DPI and RAN monitoring tools cannot detect video efficiently and analyze it deeply enough to allow for pattern recognition. Additionally, it is necessary to be able to isolate, follow and act on individual video streams on a per subscriber, per service, per property, per CDN level, not simply at the protocol level.

Current mobile network analytics capabilities are mostly inherited from 3G. DPI and traffic management engines rely mostly on protocol analysis and packet categorization to perform their classification and reporting. Unfortunately, in the case of video, this is insufficient. Video takes many forms in mobile networks and is delivered over many protocols (RTSP, RTMP, HTTP, MPEG2TS…). Recognizing these protocols is not enough to be able to perform the necessary next steps. Increasingly, video traffic is delivered over HTTP progressive download. Most current analytics capabilities cannot recognize video as a traffic type today. They rely on url recognition rather than traffic analysis. This leads to issues: how do you differentiate when a user is browsing between YouTube pages from when he is watching a video? How do you discriminate embedded videos in pages? How do you recognize You Tube embedded videos in Facebook? How do you know whether a video is an advertisement or a main programming? How do you know whether a video should be delivered in HD or lower resolution?

It is necessary, in order to categorize and manage video accurately to recognize the video protocol, container, codec, encoding rate, resolution, duration, origin at the minimum to be able to perform pattern recognition.

Measure Experience, not Speed or Size

The next necessary step after identifying and indexing the video traffic is the capacity to grade it from a quality standpoint. As video quality becomes synonymous to network quality in viewers’ mind, mobile network operators must be able to measure and control video quality. Current capabilities in this space are focused on measuring network speed and content size and inferring user satisfaction. This is inadequate

Any hope of monetizing mobile video for mobile network operators beyond byte accounting relies on being able to reliably grade video content in term of quality. This quality measurement is the cornerstone to provide subscribers with the assurance that the content they view is conform to the level of quality they are entitled to. It is also necessary for network operators to establish baseline with content providers and aggregators who view content quality as one of the main elements of pricing.

A uniform Quality of Experience (QoE) measurement standard is necessary for the industry to progress. Today, there is no valid QoE metric for mobile networks, leaving mobile operators relying on sparse proprietary tools, often derived or created for broadcast and professional video, wholly inadequate for mobile networks.  Mobile network operators must be able to measure the QoE per video, subscriber, session, sector, cell, origin, CDN if they want to create intelligent charging models.

Analyze, Segment Consumers and Traffic

Mobile network operators have been segmenting efficiently their customer base, building packages, bundles and price plans adapted to their targets. In the era of video, it is not enough.

Once traffic is identified, indexed, recognized, it is important to segment the population and usage. Is video traffic mostly from premium content providers and aggregators or from free user generated sites? Are videos watched mostly long form or short form? Are they watched on tablets or smartphones? Are they very viral and watched many times or are consumers more following the long tail? All these data and many others are necessary to understand the nature of subscribers’ consumption and will dictate the solutions that are most appropriate. This is a crucial step to be able to control the video traffic.

Control, Manage

Once video traffic is correctly identified and indexed, it becomes possible to manage it. It is a controversial topic as net neutrality as a concept is far from being settled, at least in the mobile world. My view is that in a model were scarcity (spectrum, bandwidth) and costs are borne by one player (operators) while revenue and demand are borne by others (content providers and subscribers), net neutrality is impractical and anti-competitive. Unlike in fixed network, where quasi-unlimited capacity and low entry costs allow easy introduction of content and services, mobile networks’ cost structures and business models are managed systems where demand outgrows capacity and therefore negate equal access to resources. For instance, no one is talking about net neutrality in the context of television.  I believe that operators will be able to discriminate traffic and offer models based on subscribers and traffic differentiation, many already can. It is just a recognition that today, with current setup, traffic gets degraded naturally as demand grows and DPI and traffic management engine are already providing means to shape and direct traffic to everyone’s best interest. No one could think of networks where P2P file sharing traffic could go unchecked and monopolize the network capacity.

Additionally, all videos are not created equal. There are different definitions, sizes, encoding rates. There are different qualities. Some are produced professionally, with big budgets, some are user generated. Some are live, some are file based. Some are downloaded, some are streamed. Some are premium, some are sponsored, some are freemium, some are free… Videos in their diversity bear the key to monetization.

The diversity of videos and their mode of consumption (some prefer to watch HD content in the highest quality, and will prefer download over streaming, others prefer a video that runs uninterrupted, with small load time even with a lesser quality…) is the key to monetization.

Monetize

Mobile network operators must be able to act based on video and subscribers attribute and influence the users’ experience. Being able to divert traffic to other bearers (LTE, Wifi…), to adjust a video quality on the fly are important steps towards creating class of services, not only amongst subscribers but also between content providers.

It is important as well to enable subscribers to select specific quality levels on the fly and to develop the charging tools to provide instant QoE upgrades.

With the capacity to detect, measure, analyze, segment, control and manage, operators can then monetize video. The steps highlighted here provide means for operators to create sophisticated charging models, whereby subscribers, content providers and aggregators are now included in a virtuous value circle.

Operators should explore creating different quality threshold for the video content that transits through their network. It becomes a means to charge subscribers and / or content providers for premium guaranteed quality.

How to monetize mobile video part I

These posts are excerpts from my article in Mobile Europe from October 2012.

Video is a global phenomenon in mobile networks. In less than 3 years, it has exploded, from a marginal use case to dominating over 50% of mobile traffic in 2012.

Mobile networks until 3G, were designed and deployed predominantly for transactional data. Messaging, email, browsing are fairly low impact and lightweight in term of payload and only necessitate speeds compatible with UMTS. Video brings a new element to the equation. Users rarely complain if their text or email arrives late, in fact, they rarely notice. Video provides an immediate feedback. Consumers demand quality and are increasingly assimilating the network’s quality to the video quality.

With the wide implementation of HSPA (+) and the first LTE deployments, together with availability of new attractive smartphones, tablets and ultra book, it has become clear that today’s networks and price structure are ill-prepared to meet these new challenges.

From value chain to value circles: the operators’ broken business model

One of the main reasons why the current models are inadequate to monetize video is the unresolved changes in the value chain. Handset and device vendors have gained much power in the balance lately and many consumers chose first a device or a brand before a network operator. In many cases, subscribers will churn from their current operator if they cannot get access to the latest device. Additionally, device vendors, with the advent of app stores have become content aggregators and content providers, replacing the operators’ traditional value added services.

In parallel, the suppliers of content and services are boldly pushing their consumer relationship to bypass traditional delivery media. These Over-The-Top (OTT) players extract more value from consumers than the access and network providers. This trend accelerates and threatens the fabric itself of the business model for delivery of mobile services.

Mobile video is already being monetized by premium content vendors and aggregators, through subscription, bundling and advertisement. Mobile network operators find themselves excluded from these new value circles overnight while forced to support the burden of the investment. In many cases, this situation is a self-inflicted wound.

Operators have competed fiercely to acquire more subscribers when markets were growing. As mature markets approach saturation, price differentiation became a strong driver to capture and retain subscribers. As 3G was being rolled out in the mid 2000’s, the mobile markets were not yet saturated and mobile network operators business model still revolved around customer acquisition. A favourite tool was the introduction of all-you-can-eat unlimited data plans to accelerate customer acquisition and capture through long term captive contracts. As a result, the customer penetration grew and accelerated with the introduction of smartphones and tablets by 2007. By 2009. Traffic started to grow exponentially.

Data traffic was growing faster than expected: AT&T data traffic grew 80x between 2007 and 2010 and is projected to grow another 10x between 2010 and 2015. Korea Telecom traffic grew 2x in 2010, Softbank (Japan) traffic doubled in 2011, Orange France traffic doubled in 2010 and doubled again in 2011. In 2012, mature operators are trying to acquire smartphone users as it is widely believed that the ARPU (Average Revenue Per User) is much higher (nearly twice) than the one of traditional feature phone subscribers.

The cost to acquire these subscribers is important, as many operators end up subsidizing the devices, and having to significantly increase their network capacity.

At the same time, it appeared that increasingly, consumer data consumptions was changing and that the “bandwidth hogs”, the top 1% that were consuming 30 to 40% of the traffic were now consuming about 20%. They were not consuming less, the average user was consuming a lot more and everyone was becoming a voracious data user.

The price plans devised to make sure the network is fully utilized are backfiring and many operators are now discontinuing all-you-can-eat data plans and subsidizing adoption of limited, capped, metered models.

While 4G is seen as a means to increase capacity, it is also a way for many operators to introduce new charging models and to depart from bundled, unlimited data plans. It is also a chance to redraw the mobile network, to accommodate what is becoming increasingly a video delivery network rather than a voice or data network.

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.