Monday, October 8, 2018

Edge Computing and Changing TV Channels

As content delivery networks have improved user experience for web and content applications, so edge computing will enhance that role in the 5G era, a time when consumption of ultra-high-definition TV content will become more common.

Aside from reducing latency, CDNs also reduce traffic across internet backbones. But it is a prosaic use case that should become more important in the 4K and 8K video use cases: changing channels.

TV users expect that when they press a button on a remote control, and change a channel, that the new video appears instantly. That will be harder in the UHD era, as the amount of information to be displayed on the screen will grow.

High definition content requires bit rates in the 3 Mbps to 5 Mbps range. By some estimates, 4K requires bit rates of between 15 Mbps and 25 Mbps for high-quality, fast-motion content like live sports. That is roughly a four-fold increase.

But 8K could push those requirements up to 80 Mbps or even 100 Mbps for each channel or stream. That is about a 400-percent increase over 4K signals.


But that is only part of the user experience issue. Latency is the bigger issue. Early in the digital TV era, video subscription service providers encountered the lag time between sending a request from a remote control to change a channel (often especially when switching to a channel guide, or between channels with different resolutions), and the response time to act.

That problem of delay when changing a channel  will get worse in the 4K and 8K eras.

So though it might seem quite prosaic, an early use for edge computing will be to allow video subscribers to change TV channels (4K, 8K) without noticeable lag.

Sunday, October 7, 2018

Selling the Invisible Always is Tough

Selling the invisible always is difficult. Some products are intangible,  there being no way the buyer actually can determine “quality” in any direct way, until the services are provided. Legal, medical, financial or other services provide good examples.

Marketing advice, crisis management and other services also are very hard for buyers to evaluate, in advance of purchase. There is no physical object to inspect, so a potential buyer has to try and determine value some other way.


So think about it: all  communications and connectivity services are intangible products, for which a buyer has no way to determine quality in advance of purchase, and no way to compare quality to other potential buyers except to “try them.”

There are some obvious consequences. If a buyer cannot independently determine value or quality, buyers might be prone to distrusting quality claims. Perhaps that is why service providers tend to score low on consumer satisfaction surveys. People might know they have no way of making judgments as they can with physical products. And when “value” cannot be determined, it is hard to determine whether “price” is right, either.

In fact, every connectivity service--video, voice or internet access--scores at the bottom of multi-industry indexes in surveys of customer satisfaction conducted by the American Customer Satisfaction Index.

One might object that all internet apps also are “intangible,” and that is true. Consumer surveys tend to show higher satisfaction with apps than connectivity services.

Make it personal is one typical bit of advice for sellers of intangible services. In other words, explain “how it makes your life better.” “Show the benefits” (outcomes) is another way to sell an intangible product. When even that is tough, sell “peace of mind.”

That's why credentials, furniture, street address, references and "experience" become proxies for value and competence where an intangible product is concerned. Even tangible products such as fashion items or vacation resorts have a huge and similar problem, namely creating a brand or mystique that helps potential buyers evaluate the product, which either is a means to another end, or an "experience."

Trust also is important for selling intangibles.  As there is nothing tangible to show customers, customers have to trust their suppliers. And though it would be hard to show a direct correlation, one element that promotes trust might be that lots of other customers have chosen a particular supplier. So market share becomes a proxy for value and a reason for greater trust.

In his book Selling the Invisible: A Field Guide to Modern Marketing, Harry Beckwith makes the point that an intangible product cannot be sold in the same way as a physical product.

“In fact, a service does not even exist when you buy one,” notes financial analyst Ben Carlson. “If you go so a salon, you cannot see, touch, or try out a haircut before you buy it. You order it. Then you get it.”

Product failure also is harder to determine. Did you get good advice? How a good a job did your painter, dentist or doctor do?

That is unknowable. That is why products can have warranties. There is some way of knowing and quantifying the risk of product failure.

Most services cannot be similarly quantified, with the possible exception of outage or availability performance.

The big point is that customers buy connectivity services that mostly come without guarantees or certainty. So anything suppliers can do to provide proxies for quality should help.

And that is why “brand” reputation matters. Irt is a proxy for quality and a reason for trust. That is why personal relationships matter: they are proxies for quality and reasons for trust.

That is why good storytelling matters.

Companies and people sell themselves, their vision, philosophy and values. Being likable is a prerequisite when the customer has endless choices.

“Prospects do not buy how good you are at what you do. They buy how good you are at who you are,” says Beckwith.

That is why sellers of broadly similar products benefit from “accentuating the trivial.” That might be one of the few ways to differentiate, when products perform in broadly similar ways.

Service businesses are built on promises, it is fair to say. A good brand is synonymous with a firm or person who will fulfill those promises on a consistent basis so you know exactly what you’re getting when you sign up.

Verizon’s brand promise has long been “best network.” So anytime that is challenged, the whole value of the brand is challenged. It really is quite a bit harder to explain what the key brand promise is for the other tier-one service providers.

Comcast’s latest tagline is “the future of awesome.” Comcast customers who have used other major service providers might agree that tagline actually does tend to resonate with user experience.

T-Mobile US says it is the “uncarrier,” with a clear “we are not like the other guys” positioning. Many of T-Mobile US customers might agree.

AT&T changes its tagline every so often, so it is hard to say what the core brand promise happens to be. Sprint also makes changes every now and then. The point is that it is not clear what the brand promise is.  

That arguably is a problem for everyone except Verizon, which has been consistent. And that might illustrate the problem of selling intangible connectivity services. “Best network” is at least a proxy for quality that people understand. I am hard pressed, in most cases, to explain what the value proxies are, where it comes to service providers.

SDN and NFV are Different, But Telcos Will Use Both

Even if the terms are used interchangeably, network functions virtualization (NFV) and software defined networking (SDN) arguably are different. But both seem to be part of the broader push towards core networks that are virtualized and easily programmable. So SD-WANs reflects an SDN approach, while use of white box network elements represents NFV. Telcos will do both.

At a high level, one might argue that the business outcome for network functions virtualization (NFV) is lower cost networks. One might also argue that the business outcome for SDN, while contributing to lower cost, is greater network control.

NFV  is the process of moving services such as load balancing, firewalls and intrusion prevention systems away from dedicated hardware into a virtualized environment, many would agree. Others might note that NFV makes use of “virtual machines” to supply network functions.

And, as with many innovations, the initial drive to reduce cost eventually leads to new thinking about use cases, revenue streams and service creation. On the other hand, SD-WANs are a prime example of the opposite trend: a new service offering requiring separation of control plane and data plane.


And many would say one core attribute of NFV is the ability to separate control plane functions from data plane operations, so software can run on commodity hardware. But that is a core principle of SDN as well.  

Both are based on network abstraction. But SDN and NFV differ in how they separate functions and abstract resources.

SDN abstracts physical networking resources--switches, routers and other network elements--and moves decision making to a virtual network control plane. In this approach, the control plane decides where to send traffic, while the hardware continues to direct and handle the traffic.

NFV aims to virtualize all physical network resources beneath a hypervisor, which allows the network to grow without the addition of more devices.

In other words, SDN separates network control functions from network forwarding functions.  NFV abstracts network forwarding from the hardware on which it runs. You might also argue that NFV provides basic networking functions, while SDN controls and orchestrates them for specific uses.

So what makes that different from a software defined network (SDN)? That often is hardly to explain. SDN aims to automate processes, while NFV often aims only to virtualize them.  Software defined networking (SDN) is an approach to using open protocols, such as OpenFlow, to apply globally aware software control at the edges of the network to access network switches and routers that typically would use closed and proprietary firmware, some would say.

In principle, then, an entity can deploy SDN without NFV, or NFV without SDN.  

As a practical matter, NFV often ie easiest to understand as a way of separating software and controller functions from dedicated network elements. By implementing network functions in software that can run on a range of industry standard servers hardware, NFV aims to reduce cost and make networks more flexible.

SDN, on the other hand, seeks to create a network that is centrally managed and programmable. In other words, SDN separates lower-level packet forwarding from higher-level network control.

Saturday, October 6, 2018

Service Providers Embrace Open Source

The global telecom industry has come a long ways from the days of proprietary platforms, solutions and network elements. Consider the heavy service provider membership in the Telecom Infra Project, an effort to develop open source platforms for communications and mobile networks.


A survey of 150 mostly-technical professionals from 100 companies finds 73 percent are “extremely” or “mostly” confident that open networking solutions can achieve the same level of performance as traditional networking solutions.

Some 59 percent of respondents say they currently are using open networking solutions and some 84 percent of those that are not, plan to do so within the next three years.

Still, technology immaturity is the biggest concern for 46 percent of respondents. The next closest concern, at 23 percent, was performance itself.

As you would expect, cost savings are the driver. Some 75 percent of respondents say cost savings are the expected outcome of deploying open networking solutions.

The survey of 150 networking professionals from 100 communications service providers globally, included 48 percent who  work for converged service providers owning both fixed and mobile networks.

Mobile service providers were 25 percent of the sample, while wireline, cable and satellite operators made up 22 percent. Some 57 percent are in North America; 17 percent from Europe and 14 percent from Asia.

Respondents from Central/South America comprised eight percent of the sample, and those from Middle East/ Africa represented four percent.

Survey respondents worked in technical roles. Nearly 25 percent work in engineering and 20 percent say they work in network design and planning. Some 19 percent work in network operations and 11 percent in research and development.

Friday, October 5, 2018

Where Could Blockchain Add Value in Communications or Media?

Will disintermediation be one of the ways blockchain ultimately has value in the “technology, media and telecom” (TMT) industry? Possibly. Disintermediation is the process of removing distributors from any supply chain. Think “over the top” and you get the concept. So anything that promises disintermediation could have big consequences in the TMT space.

In the case of blockchain, that disintermediation could be a positive, not a negative, for content owners or distributors, though. Think about the problem of authenticating users and subscribers; participants in any social media transaction or in any highly-distributed access services environment.

Consider the case of a mobile services provider that amalgamates access to multiple networks, including assets secured from two or more other underlying service providers. Think of Google Fi, which uses Wi-Fi, Sprint and T-Mobile US networks. In some future scenario, perhaps blockchain is used to authenticate users for access to each of the participating networks.

To be sure, there are other ways of doing so. The issue is whether blockchain might be easier or cheaper, eventually, perhaps for cross-border (international roaming) transactions, for example. International settlements always are seen as a value of blockchain, in terms of taking cost out of such transactions.

The idea is that blockchain could have value whenever databases must be kept or transactions completed. Communications and content arguably have lots of places where those two things happen.

Blockchain is a technology of more than average potential usefulness in the “technology, media and telecom” industry (or industries; it is hard to say which is the more-apt description), according to consultants at McKinsey. In fact, in most industries, blockchain might have both low feasibility and relatively-modest impact, the consultants say.

Essentially, blockchain offers the hope of “perfect audit history,” without fraud. That obviously has implications for the financial industry, or any situation where “trust” is essential. And since “money” is always based on trust, that matters.

But trust has become a bigger issue for social media and advertising as well, which is likely why blockchain could have relevance in the TMT space. Though blockchain is not foolproof, it arguably is more hardy than most other ways of using databases, as fraud generally requires a wide level of willingness to commit fraud (something over half of all connected computers are in on the attempt, McKinsey essentially argues).

Nor can blockchain check on the integrity of data that is input into the database. “All that the blockchain itself does is ensure the integrity of the individuals making the transaction, ensuring that you have the right combination of a public and private key,” McKinsey analysts note.




Blockchain: One View of What it Is, and Is Not

Blockchain is one of those concepts one hears about all the time (artificial intelligence and machine learning also), is likely destined to be important in the communications industry, but in ways that are not always intuitive, or necessarily visible to most practitioners.

It is rather akin to "electricity,"  "computing" or "cloud computing" or "open source" in that sense. 




Thursday, October 4, 2018

AT&T Builds 5G on 4G

It often is said that 5G builds on 4G, and that is correct. Consider AT&T, which is boosting 4G speeds as it launches 5G markets. AT&T plans to bring mobile 5G to 12 cities in 2018, reaching at least 19 cities in early 2019.

AT&T also has announced 99 new 5G Evolution markets, bringing the total number of such markets with these technologies to 239. 5G Evolution markets are locations where peak theoretical wireless speeds for capable devices are at least 400 megabits per second.

AT&T says 5G Evolution will be available  in over 400 markets by the end of 2018. In the first half of 2019 AT&T plans to offer nationwide coverage, making 5G Evolution available to over 200 million people.

The other technology AT&T is deploying is LTE-LAA, which boosts peak theoretical wireless speed for capable devices to a gigabit per second. LTE-LAA is now live in parts of 20 cities with plans to reach at least 24 cities in 2018.

In terms of devices, AT&T offers 13 devices capable of accessing both 5G Evolution and LTE-LAA network technologies. The devices include: LG V30 and LG V35 ThinQ, Motorola Z2 Force Edition, Netgear Nighthawk Mobile Router, Samsung Galaxy S8 and Galaxy S9 series devices and others.

5G_map_cities.jpg

Directv-Dish Merger Fails

Directv’’s termination of its deal to merge with EchoStar, apparently because EchoStar bondholders did not approve, means EchoStar continue...