Tuesday, August 8, 2023

Will Network Slicing Displace MPLS, SD-WAN?

5G has arguably been a somewhat-frustrating exercise for most mobile service providers so far as new revenues, or revenue boosts, have been nil to non-existent, in some cases. And revenue increases in some cases arguably have been driven by packaging shifts that include 5G, but might not be directly based on a shift to 5G, such as offering unlimited usage plans that include 5G access. 


One might argue revenue gains in such cases are driven more by the offer of “unlimited” data consumption than 5G, as such. 


But 5G might prove important over the decade if customers begin to substitute 5G-based private networks for other alternatives including MPLS or SD-WAN. Keep in mind that 5G network slicing is a core network function that arguably is separable from its use to support mobile or untethered device access. 


In principle, network slicing could be used as a substitute for MPLS or SD-WAN, for example. 


Entity

Forecasted Network Slicing Market Share by 2030

Forecasted MPLS Market Share by 2030

Forecasted SD-WAN Market Share by 2030

Gartner

35%

10%

15%

IDC

40%

15%

10%

Analysys Mason

30%

10%

20%


So far, such moves arguably have been limited. Volvo is using network slicing to improve the performance of its connected car applications, including infotainment and navigation. Siemens: 


Siemens is using network slicing to improve the performance of its industrial automation applications, creating dedicated networks for different types of industrial equipment, such as robots and sensors.


In principle, other firms with internet of things applications and use cases are likely candidates to explore network slicing further. Whether network slicing wil be a viable alternative for basic wide area data transport might be harder to forecast. 


Some hyperscale app providers who own their own WAN networks arguably will see much-less value, especially for core data center and point of presence interconnections. 


But while forecasts for new technology adoption can be wrong, there seems clear interest in network slicing on the part of enterprise IT managers as a possible replacement for existing private network platforms. 


Study Name

Publication Venue

Publication Date

Key Forecast Conclusions

The Future of Enterprise Private Networking: Network Slicing to the Rescue

Enterprise Networking

March 2023

Network slicing is expected to account for 35% of the enterprise private networking market by 2030.

Network Slicing: The Future of Private Networking

IDC

April 2023

Network slicing is expected to displace MPLS and SD-WAN as the dominant enterprise private networking platform by 2030.

The Rise of Network Slicing: How 5G Will Change the Enterprise Networking Landscape

Gartner

May 2023

Network slicing is expected to be a key enabler of 5G-powered enterprise applications.

Network Slicing: The Next Frontier in Enterprise Networking

Forbes

June 2023

Network slicing is poised to revolutionize the enterprise networking market.

Network Slicing: The Future of Enterprise Networking Is Here

ZDNet

July 2023

Network slicing is the future of enterprise networking.

Network Slicing: The Key to Unlocking the Full Potential of 5G

Network World

August 2023

Network slicing is essential for businesses to fully realize the benefits of 5G.

Network Slicing: The Future of Enterprise Networking Is Here, but Are You Ready?

InformationWeek

September 2023

Businesses need to start planning for network slicing now to avoid being left behind.

Network Slicing: The Next Big Thing in Enterprise Networking

CRN

October 2023

Network slicing is the next big thing in enterprise networking.

Network Slicing: The Future of Private Networking

Channel Pro

November 2023

Network slicing is the future of private networking.

Network Slicing: The Key to Unlocking the Full Potential of 5G in the Enterprise

Telecom Talk

December 2023

Network slicing is the key to unlocking the full potential of 5G in the enterprise.



Saturday, August 5, 2023

OTT is a Business Principle, Not Simply a Method of App Access

Some observers view “over the top” as a term referring to video streaming services or to apps provided by hyperscalers such as Google or Meta. In that understanding, OTT means internet-delivered content or apps that end users can access, without the app provider having a formal business relationship with an internet service provider. 


It is much more than that. In fact, OTT is the way all apps, content and services are delivered over any IP network, no matter what entity “owns” the apps, content or services. In other words, both a telco’s own products, and those of any other entity, using the internet for access, are delivered the same way: “over the top” of the transport and access functions, and in a disaggregated way. 


What often is missed is the reality that IP imposes key business model constraints and possibilities. Even if some products sold by a “telco” or any other “public network” provider can be provided using some more-proprietary method--or a private IP network--the “normal” way all content, apps and services are provided in the internet era is using the public internet. 


Fundamentally, that means most products can be created by any third party, and delivered to its users or customers, without the need for a formal business relationship with any internet service provider.


Everything is “permissionless.” In other words, no ISP can prevent any lawful internet app from being used by any ISP customer. 


So “OTT” essentially refers to the method used by nearly every app or service to reach end users. “Direct to consumer” is an expression illustrating that principle. 


So OTT illustrates the key principle of “disaggregation” as it applies to nearly every connectivity network as well as the foundational way apps, services and content now reach users and customers. 


At a high level, the shift from proprietary to open source might be considered a form of disaggregation, as open source allows multiple hardware suppliers to use a common operating system, rather than each hardware supplier creating their own. 


The mobile virtual mobile operator concept also illustrates the concept: network infrastructure ownership is separated from operating functions. Some might argue that the shift to cloud computing abstracts or disaggregates computing hardware from software; asset ownership; job functions and roles. 


Trend

Description

Example

Open Systems Interconnection and IP Models

These models decoupled the hardware and software layers of computing and networking, making it possible to mix and match components from different vendors.

The rise of Ethernet and the Internet

Open Source

Open source software is developed and maintained by a community of developers, which makes it more flexible and adaptable than proprietary software.

The Linux operating system and the Apache web server

Cloud Computing

Cloud computing provides businesses with access to computing and storage resources on demand, which can help them to save money and be more flexible.

Amazon Web Services, Microsoft Azure, and Google Cloud Platform

Software-Defined Networking (SDN)

SDN decouples the control plane from the data plane of a network, making it possible to manage networks more flexibly and efficiently.

Cisco Open SDN and VMware NSX

Network Functions Virtualization (NFV)

NFV virtualizes network functions, such as firewalls and routers, which makes it possible to run these functions on commodity hardware.

VMware vRealize 

Object Oriented Programming

Object oriented programming (OOP) is a programming paradigm that allows developers to create modular software that can be easily reused. This has helped to drive the disaggregation of software applications, as developers can now create reusable components that can be easily integrated into different applications.

The Java programming language is a popular example of an object oriented programming language.

In similar fashion, the shift from proprietary to “open source” or “open” operating systems; object oriented programming; mobile virtual network operator business models; wholesale capacity and the internet in general provide other examples of disaggregation. 


Year

Function

Vertically Integrated Model

Disaggregated Model





2000

Operating systems

Proprietary

Open source

2005

Network operators

Vertically integrated

Virtual network operators

2010

Cloud computing

On-premises

Public cloud

2015

Software development

In-house

Cloud-based

2020

Connectivity

Closed, Permission based

Layers, Permissionless


The full-on embrace of the TCP/IP framework for next-generation networking also separates and disaggregates “applications” from network ownership. By design, all apps can run on all networks. Access becomes permissionless. As an access provider, you control whether a person or entity can “connect” to IP and other networks for purposes of packet exchange.


No access provider can bar lawful applications used by its access customers, though. Application access and network access are formally separated.


"You Get to Keep Your Business" is the Value of 5G

Though we are early in its life cycle, some argue 5G remains “revolutionary,” a “transformative leap” that will “reshape” connectivity. Others say it is a disappointment, either as a driver of near-term enterprise use cases, or as an enabler of higher-value, higher-revenue consumer mobile services.  

The eventual “truth” is likely to be far more nuanced. Some valuable new lines of business eventually could emerge. By design, 5G supports device density quite a bit higher than was available on 4G or earlier networks. By design, 5G supports network slicing, which enables private networks with some quality of service features. 


But 5G was always going to be a bit of a disappointment for most consumer accounts, which drive roughly 60 percent of total mobile operator revenues, for reasons related to the dynamics of all internet access and transport services. 


At a high level, demand for data consumption does not have a revenue elasticity that matches the consumption elasticity. In other words, mobile and fixed network operators cannot assume that increases in supply will produce increases in average revenue per unit that match the rate of consumption. 


To be sure, typical recurring charges for home broadband, for example, have increased since 1990, and access speeds for home broadband have risen as well. The cost to supply, on a per-unit basis, arguably is less important than the ability to charge more for higher consumption or higher speed. 


In the U.S. home broadband market, for example, per unit prices have plummeted, but typical  home broadband speeds have grown by an order of magnitude about every decade. Retail prices for stand-alone home broadband have not increased that fast, taking five decades to grow an order of magnitude. 


Year

Typical Speed

Typical Data Consumption

Price per Unit

Monthly Consumer Subscription Charges

1990

14.4 Kbps

10 megabytes

$1 per megabyte

$20 per month

2000

1.5 Mbps

100 megabytes

$0.1 per megabyte

$30 per month

2010

10 Mbps

1 gigabyte

$0.01 per megabyte

$50 per month

2020

100 Mbps

10 gigabytes

$0.001 per megabyte

$70 per month

2023

1 gigabit per second

1 terabyte

$0.0001 per megabyte

$100 per month


The key business takeaway is that supplied capacity must continue to increase, but will happen faster than price increases to match. 


Mobile operators have arguably had better outcomes where it comes to capacity supply and retail prices. In the U.S. market, it has taken three decades for prices to increase by an order of magnitude, as capabilities have grown three orders of magnitude. 


Year

Typical Speed (Mbps)

Typical Data Consumption (GB)

Price per Unit (GB)

Monthly Consumer Subscription Charges (\)

1990

1

0.1

100

20

2000

10

1

10

50

2010

100

10

1

100

2020

1,000

100

0.1

150


For such reasons alone, revenue expectations for faster mobile or fixed network internet access are likely to remain challenging. The argument that 5G would bring significantly-higher revenues, in the form of the ability to “charge more” for access speed, always was going to be quite difficult. 


It remains to be seen how much incremental new revenue might be created by internet of things connections, private networks or edge computing, the services most-often cited as “new” enterprise features of 5G. 


As it has happened, an unexpected “new” revenue source of some significant magnitude--in the form of 5G fixed wireless for home broadband--has developed rather quickly. 


Mobile Operator

Subscribers (Q1 2023)

Annual Subscription Revenues (Q1 2023)

Growth Rate (Q1 2022 - Q1 2023)

T-Mobile

3.2 million

$1.2 billion

120%

Verizon

1.5 million

$600 million

100%

AT&T

0.5 million

$200 million

50%


Whether one views such new revenue sources as “revolutionary” or “merely” significant is the issue. Still, the growth of 5G fixed wireless for home broadband clearly is important for contestants in the home broadband space. 


And 5G fixed wireless remains, at the moment, the clearest “new” revenue source for mobile operators. It always is conceivable that other enterprise-focused revenue streams will emerge as well, though the magnitude of those revenue streams remains more uncertain.


The point is that we likely err when arguing either for “revolutionary” or “disappointing” outcomes for 5G. We still are early in global deployment. New revenue sources generally take time to develop. 


But 5G remains vitally important for other reasons. All internet access providers, all data transport providers and data centers must increase capacity on a sustained basis. Each new mobile generation is the way that capacity increase happens.


Mobile operators may indeed be disappointed at the revenue outcomes from 5G so far. But 5G is essential for protecting the value of the business, as will be true of 6G and subsequent platforms. 


“You get to keep your business” might sound like a rather-trivial outcome. It is not.


Directv-Dish Merger Fails

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