RCS messaging: still a zombie, but now wearing a suit

This post originally appeared on October 4 on my LinkedIn feed, which is now my main platform for both short posts and longer-form articles. It can be found here, along with the comment stream. Please follow / connect to me on LinkedIn, to receive regular updates (about 1-3 / week)

Yesterday I followed the Mobile Ecosystem Forum stream of its #RCSWorld conference, on #RCS #messaging, especially business messages. I thought it was time to get an update.
 
As regular followers know, I’m a long-time critic of RCS. I saw it announced in 2008, wrote reports & advised telco clients about its many problems in 2010-2013, called it a zombie tech in 2015 (“28 quarters later”) and have been sniping at it ever since, including at Google’s acquisition of Jibe and its attempt to turn it into Android’s equivalent of Apple #iMessage.
 
Some flaws have been addressed (it finally uses E2E encryption), while Google’s tightening control of its features has maybe fixed its “design by committee” paralysis and historic fragmentation. Google is now hosting the whole application for many MNOs, rather than telcos relying on (and paying for) in-network IMS integration, but with an implicit threat of end-running them if they don’t support the services to customers.

There's about 1.2bn phones with RCS active - mostly Google #Android but also about 200m in China. This has been driven by its adoption as the default messaging client on new phones, rather than by consumer download.

I didn't hear any stats on genuine active use - ie beyond just using it as a pseudo-#SMS/MMS app because it's the default. Numbers always seem to be monthly MAUs rather than meaningful DAUs. No anecdotes of teenagers who swapped from FB / WA / iMessage / WeChat / TikTok / whatever because RCS is cooler with better emojis, birthday greeting fireworks or cat-ear image filters.
 
To be fair, the conference name was misleading. Almost the entire event was about RCS Business Messaging (RBM) rather than personal or group messaging. It was about targeted marketing campaigns (that’s spam to most of us), customer interaction with so-called “brands”, multichannel whatnot, and blather about engagement and “digital” marketing

Apparently A2P revenues for SMS are flattening, but the addition of "rich" interactive in-messaging customer experience functions will reignite growth. One operator in the audience asked why the same forecasts have been shown (and not come true) for the past 4-5 years. Apparently it's too complex for most developers.

So the big innovation is "basic RCS" with 160 characters. SMS with a brand logo, a verification tick and read receipts. It's aiming at the #cPaaS market to get more devs/marketers onto the first rung & hope to catalyse more fancy use-cases later.
 
IMO this is why Apple isn’t going to support it anytime soon, despite Google's cringey social media exhortations. The notion RCS is a standard for P2P messaging is a smokescreen. It’s an ad & CRM platform, not an SMS replacement or default way to chat with friends. It’s not going to be the messaging equivalent of USB-C chargers & forced on Apple by the European Commission
 
In a nutshell, it’s still a zombie. But now it’s a zombie in a suit spamming you with ads and "engagement" while it eats your brain

 

.

How will voice be delivered on private 4G / 5G & CBRS networks? Private VoLTE?

An area I've seen little discussion about is the intersection of new private 4G / 5G networks, with voice and unified communications, UC. Most debate is about either local IoT (i.e. data) connectivity, or neutral-host / wholesale approaches for in-building or rural coverage.

But where enterprises deploy "pure" private networks aimed at employees or visitors, they are likely to want voice / telephony capabilities, plus more advanced communications capabilities. While this is already done for highly-specialised local cellular deployments for mines, military or maritime, it is much less clear how this could scale to more general enterprise users. 

Many of the existing local-cellular users are also just based on 2G/3G, for which simple circuit-switched infrastructure has been available for years (I had a client supplying softswitches for private voice with pico-cells, as early as 2006).

My view is that UCaaS, cPaaS, cloud telephony, IP-PBX & collaboration solution providers should be looking much more closely at the impact of CBRS, and its international equivalents, providing localised 4G/5G wireless in new spectrum, and neutral-host models. 

It is unclear whether enterprises will want to deploy "private IMS" solutions, cloud-based VoLTE & SMS, or use some simpler forms of wireless-capable VoIP in their own domain. There are various deployment scenarios I can see, each of which will require careful thought & focused strategies: 

• Transition from two-way radio (eg TETRA) to cellular push to talk
• Integration of existing UC/UCaaS/PBX with private cellular voice
• IoT integration of realtime voice/video (for example "speak to an engineer" functions)
• Fit with conferencing, collaboration & messaging platforms
• Interoperability / roaming scenarios with public PSTN & mobile calling
• cPaaS scenarios & APIs tailored for private mobile networks
• Will private 5G networks using slicing techniques to prioritise QoS for non-3GPP VoIP?
• For neutral hosts, how will they enable roaming telephony / messaging / other voice & video applications
• What happens with numbering & identity?
• Can private cellular work for contact centres?
• Are there "IMS lite" options for enterprise, that cuts down some of the features and integration seen in telcos?
• Is this a prime candidate for multi-tenant "VoLTE-as-a-service" cloud propositions?

I'm going to be watching this whole area more closely in coming months, as it seems to be rather overlooked, at least publicly. Given that a number of companies in the UCaaS / cPaaS space also have footholds in CBRS or mobile core networks (eg Amazon, Google, Twilio) it wouldn't surprise me if there's a lot going on beneath the surface here too....

(Please contact me if you're interested in exploring this domain, have existing solutions, or would like to engage me on private advisory work)  

#5G, #cloudcommunications, #neutralhost, #UCaaS, #cPaaS, #voice, #collaboration

Sources of value in voice: Asking the right questions

In the last few weeks I've been doing a lot of work on voice communications (and messaging / video / context):

• I attended Enterprise Connect in Orlando discussing collaboration, UCaaS, cPaaS, WebRTC and related themes
• I spoke at a private workshop, for a Tier-1 operator group's communications-service internal experts team
• I've helped a client advise a strategy around the new European eCall in-vehicle emergency-call standard
• I've been writing a report on VoLTE adoption and impact, for my Future of the Network research stream published by STL Partners / Telco 2.0 (Subscribe! Link here)

A common, over-arching, theme is starting to form for me. The future sources of value in voice are all about SPs / vendors asking the right questions when they design new services and solutions.

Historically, most value in voice communications has come from telephony (Sidenote: voice is 1000 applications/functions. Phone calls are merely one of these). And in particular, the revenue has stemmed from answering the following:

• Who is calling?
• Where are they?
• Who is being called?
• Where are they?
• How long did they speak for?
• Plus (sometimes):
• When did they call?
• What networks were they on?
• Was the call high-quality? (drops, glitches etc)
• Is it an emergency?

This pretty much covers most permutations for ordinary phone calls: on-net/off-net, roaming, international and long-distance, fixed-to-mobile and so forth. 

Clearly, the answers to these questions are worth a lot of money: many billions of dollars. But equally clearly, they don't seem to be enough to protect the industry from competition and substitution from other voice-comms providers, or alternative ways of conducting conversations and transactions. As a result, voice telephony services are (mostly) being bundled as flat-rate offers into data-led bundles for consumers, or perhaps per-month/per-seat fees for unified comms (or SIP trunks) for business. 

In other words, current voice revenues are being delivered based on answering fewer questions than in the past. Unsurprisingly, this is not helping to defend the voice business.

The current "mainstream" telecoms industry seems to be focused only on adding a few more questions to the voice roster:

• Is it VoIP / VoLTE / VoWiFi? (Answer = sometimes, but "so what" for the customer?)
• Can we use it to drag through RCS? (Answer = No)
• How can we reduce the costs of implementation? (Answer = maybe NFV/cloud)
• Are there special versions for emergencies? (Answer = yes, eg MCPTT and eCall)
• Is there a role for CSPs in business UCaaS? (Answer = yes, but it's hard to differentiate against Microsoft, Cisco, RingCentral, Vonage and 100 others)
• What do we do about Amazon Echo? (Answer = "Errrrmmmm... chatbots?")

Given the huge expense and complexity involved in implementing IMS for VoLTE, many mobile operators have very little "bandwidth" left to think about genuine voice innovation, especially given wider emphasis on NFV. What limited resources are left may get squandered on RCS or "video-calling". 

Fixed and cable operators are in a slightly better position - they have long had hybrid business models partnering with PBX/UC vendors for businesses and can monetise various solutions, especially where they bundle with enterprise connectivity. For fixed home telephony, most operators have long viewed basic calls as a commodity, and are either protected by regulators via line-rental and emergency-call requirements, or can outsource provision to third parties.

In my view, there are many other questions that can be asked and answered - and that is where the value lies for the future of voice communications. None are easy to achieve, but then they wouldn't be valuable if they were:

• Why is the call occurring? (To buy something, ask a question, catch up with a friend, arrange a meeting or 100 other underlying purposes)
• Where is the call being made and received (physically)? For instance indoors, in a noisy bar, on a beach with crashing waves, in a car, in a location with eavesdroppers?
• Is the communication embedded in an app, website or business process? 
• Is the call part of an ongoing (multi-occasion) conversation or relationship?
• Is a "call" the right format, with interruptive ringing and no pre-announcement? Is a push-to-talk, one-way, "whisper mode", broadcast, team or other form more appropriate?
• Are both/all parties human, or is a machine involved as well?
• What device(s) are being used? (eg headset, car, wearable, TV, Echo, whiteboard?)
• Who gets to record the call, and own/delete/transcribe the recording?
• Are the call records secure, and can they be tampered with?
• What's the most effective style of the call? (Business-like, genial, brusque, get-to-the-point-quickly etc)
• What languages and accents are being spoken? Can these be adjusted for better understanding? What about background noise - is that helpful or hindering?
• Can the call add/drop other parties? Are these pre-arranged, or can they be suggested by the system in context?
• Are the participants displaying emotion? (Happiness, anger, eagerness, impatience, boredom etc) . How can this be measured, and if necessary, managed?
• Is there a role for ultrasound and/or data-over-sound signalling before or during the call?
• How can the call be better scheduled / postponed / rescheduled?
• Is a normal phone number the best "identifier"? What about a different number, or a social / enterprise / gaming / secure identity?
• Are there multiple networks involved/available for connection, or just one? What happens when there are multiple choices of access or transit providers? What happens where the last 10m is over WiFi or Bluetooth beyond the SP's visibility?
• Is encryption needed? Whose?
• What solutions are needed to meet the needs of specific vertical-markets or other user groups? (Banking, healthcare, hospitality, gaming etc)
• What are the desired/undesired psychological effects of the communications event? How can the user interface and experience by improved?
• Did the call meet the underlying objectives of all parties? How could a similar call be improved the next time?
• How do we track, monetise and bill any of this?

In my view it is these - and many other - questions that determines the real value of voice communications. Codec choice and network QoS are certainly useful, as is (sometimes) interoperability. Network coverage is clearly paramount for mobile communications. But these should not be put on a pedestal, above all the other ways in which value can be derived from something seemingly simple - people speaking to each other.

I'm seeing various answers to some of these questions - for example, contact-centre solutions seem to be most advanced on some of the emotional analysis, language-detection and other aspects. There are some interesting human-driven psychology considerations being built into new codec designs like EVS (eg uncomfortable silences between words). MVNOs and cPaaS players are doing cool things to "program" telephony for different applications and devices. The notion of "hypervoice" was a good start, but hasn't had the traction it deserved (link). Machine-learning is being applied to help answer some of these questions - most obviously with Alexa/Siri/Assistant voice products, but also behind the scenes in some UC and contact-centre applications.

But we still lack any consistent recognition that voice is "more than calls". 99% of effort still seems to go on "person A calls person B for X minutes". Very little is being done around intention and purpose - ask a CSP "Why do people make phone calls?" and most can't give a list of the top-10 uses for a "minute". Most people still use "voice" and "telephony" synonymously - a sure-fire indicator they don't understand the depth of possibility here. And we still get hung up on replacing voice with video (they have a Venn overlap, but most uses are still voice-centric or video-centric).

Until both the telco and traditional enterprise solutions marketplaces expand their views of voice (and entrench that vision among employees, vendors and partners), we should continue to expect Internet- and IoT-based innovators to accelerate past the humble, 140yr-old phone call. Start asking the right questions, and look for ways to provide answers.

Decoding T-Mobile's WiFi-Calling and VoLTE stats

A quick analytical post. I'm currently re-doing my WebRTC model for service provider use-cases, and as part of that I'm looking at data on adoption of VoLTE, WiFi-calling and other services/applications.

T-Mobile US is interesting as it's revealed various data-points over the past couple of years:

• 2007 - original launch of UMA-based WiFi calling, notably on BlackBerry
• May 2014 (link) - VoLTE launch, although the acquired MetroPCS had had a limited deployment since 2012
• June 2014 (link) - 17m WiFi-calling enabled devices, with "almost 5m" WiFi calling users (including older UMA/GAN). The user base quoted is monthly average users (MAU)
• July 2014 (link) - total of 52m VoLTE calls made
• December 2014 (link) - 19.2m VoLTE calls per day & 6.6m WiFi calls per day
• March 2015 (links here & here) -  7m WiFi calling users per month, 7.6m WiFi calls per day, 10% of calls on VoLTE
• October 2015 (link) c12m WiFi calls per day
• November 2015 (link) - a third of calls on VoLTE

Now, consider a few other data points. According to various surveys, a typical US mobile user makes/receives 6-7 calls per day. And T-Mobile had 61.2m subscribers at end-Q3.

That implies that T-Mobile US carries around 400m calls per day, assuming its users are fairly similar in usage pattern to AT&T & Verizon. (Note that the US quotes statistics including both inbound and outbound calls, in contrast to most other operators/countries which just count outbound)

In other words, only about 3% of T-Mobile's calls use WiFi calling. Put another way, VoLTE is 10x larger, despite being launched much more recently. And T-Mobile US has been by far the longest, largest proponent of WiFi calling, for more than 8 years, in both IMS and pre-IMS variants. The number is growing, as new devices support WiFi calling, but it's still a relatively small part of the total.

Also, looking at the user numbers, it seems probable that T-Mo is now on perhaps 10-11m MAUs for WiFi calling. But that's monthly - and those people collectively make more than 2 billion calls per month. So even among those users, only around 17% of calls are on WiFi - which makes sense as many will be using their phones outside their homes/offices.

To reconcile the numbers, it's probably better to think of perhaps 2m regular daily users, accounting for perhaps 8m calls per day, plus maybe another 8-9m per month whose phones switch to WiFi calling occasionally - perhaps in poor-coverage areas, or while travelling. The regular users will likely be those with poor coverage at home.

What does all this mean? In a nutshell, it suggests that WiFi calling is less of a big deal than many think - and is primarily a customer-retention tool for operators with in-building network limitations. It's not (currently) a meaningful source of voice traffic offload. 

3% of calls and 3% of subscribers as regular users, for the most-aggressive operator pushing the technology, is not hugely impressive. By contrast, the adoption of VoLTE has been surprisingly rapid, although the stats are possibly skewed a bit by high-end/telephony-heavy users.

It also implies that many operators may well not bother with full IMS-powered WiFi calling, instead taking a path towards using separate VoIP (or video) apps such as Orange Libon or Telefonica Tuenti Mobile. In particular, these "secondary" apps can offer a different experience to ordinary phone-calls from the native dialler, especially with WebRTC as a more flexible enabler/platform than IMS.

It's also worth noting that T-Mobile is starting to push its new 3G/4G small cell ("CellSpot") for people with poor coverage, which may mean that some users actually reduce their reliance on WiFi for calls at home or in small offices. (link)

Some of the comments I heard at yesterday's WiFi Now conference in Amsterdam seem over-hyped. I'm yet to be convinced that many enterprises will open up their private WiFi networks for carrier VoWiFi in large numbers, in particular.

So overall, I expect IMS-based WiFi calling to continue growing, especially in markets that have high numbers of calls-per-subscriber, plus variable-quality coverage indoors, or for operators with limited sub-1GHz coverage. Maybe, with Herculean and very expensive efforts, a few operators might reach the 10% mark for calls carried over WiFi. And that's only if they get all phones auto-provisioned, they work with enterprises and venues to integrate WiFi calling with in-house WiFi, and don't push hard on small cells or LTE-U.

Meanwhile, the overall market for "boring old phone calls" will continue to drop regardless. Yes, if WiFi-calling can be added cheaply and easily then it's a useful "maintenance" enhancement of legacy telephony. But it's not a substitute for (or component of) proper innovation around voice, video, WebRTC and contextual communiations. That needs to be the strategic priority, not window-dressing for a few percentage points on a decades-old service.

Disruptive Analysis publishes research & does private consulting/workshops, as well as conference speeches, on areas such as WiFi calling, VoLTE, WebRTC and next-generation voice/video/messaging applications. It has covered the convergence between WiFi and VoIP since 2003. Please contact information AT disruptive-analysis DOT com for more information.

Cisco and Ericsson: Will the Enterprise move to Private IMS & Cellular?

A lot has been written already about the ramifications of the wide-ranging Cisco / Ericsson deal. Most industry analysts and other observers have already come up with assessments of areas of impact, effects on other vendors (eg Juniper), and the implications for various telco-network technologies such as SDN / NFV.

A fair amount of output has been interpreting the “official line” from the two vendors’ press releases and briefings, which have been a little thin on exact details of how the collaboration will evolve. Light Reading has collated a good set of opinions here, for example.

So I'm going to speculate a little - and consider what is not being mentioned so far. This is a blog post about "what might happen" - there's a lot of variables, complexity and execution risk. Caveat lector.


The story so far: Selling & integrating IP gear & cloud platforms for telcos

Looking around the web, it seems that there’s a roughly 80/20 split between analysis of telco-area implications vs. enterprise. This is unsurprising, given the early focus areas announced - the Ericsson CEO says “Initially the partnership will focus on SPs” in the release. Also, the bulk of observers who cover both companies are strongly focused on SP networks.

But my sense is that a few angles have been overlooked, especially about enterprise. I'll highlight a line in the slide-deck the companies used: "Creating leadership to address converging telco and enterprise domains".

The assumption among most people seems to be that "convergence" here is viewed only in one direction. It's assumed to mean an increasing role for telcos in managing enterprise networks and communications functions. And yes, a lot is about combined sales to/through telcos. Cisco gets to sell IP gear via Ericsson's huge SP-focused services and integration teams, and better integrate its products with the OSS/BSS domain. Going forward, the partnership can allow better network/service coverage in corporate offices, or enable assorted business cloud and IoT offers to be provided by telecom operators.

Yet "convergence" occurs when two trends meet in the middle. There's another side here: enterprises starting to adopt or manage telco-type networks and capabilities. 

But what's in it for the enterprise?

So what does Ericsson have, that Cisco can sell / add value to via its enterprise channels? And what new combined products might come from both firms' R&D labs that could be of interest beyond the reach of telcos, sold directly into the corporate domain?

I have sensed for a while that Ericsson wanted more direct business with enterprises and governments - it recognises that its addressable market for telco capex/opex (whether hardware or managed services) is limited by telcos' own growth difficulties, as well as competition from Huawei, wariness of IT players like Oracle, and the move to software-based (and sometimes open-source) infrastructure. 

It was no coincidence that last year's analyst conference in Stockholm was held partly in Volvo's premises. Or in another area I watch closely, that its WebRTC activities have involved things like online banking (see here) without a mention of telcos at all.

It's not just Ericsson. We've also seen other telecom vendors pitch to goverments, city authorities, utilities, transportation companies and so forth. There are private cellular networks intended for railways and mining operations, to e-commerce and cloud propositions, or re-use of billing/charging for utilities and smart city initiatives. Quite a few vendors also sell to "non-telco SPs", ranging from call-centre providers to (ssshhhhh!!!) big Internet firms, as well as amenity-type public WiFi implementors.

So - the question is what the joint Cisco/Ericsson initiatives might be for enterprise. The briefing deck gives some rather vague lines like "comprehensive systems integration, managed services and technical support for enterprises" as well as "cloud and data-centres" which potentially cover a multitude of sins.

Another interesting line is "Networks of the future require new design principles to ensure agility, autonomy, and security". The interesting word there is "autonomy" which means "the right or condition of self-government." For whom, exactly? For telcos, it could mean the freedom to choose between multiple vendors' platform ad 3rd-party VNFs - but I'm not convinced that's a story that Cisco and Ericsson really buy into.

My sense is that actually - and this is probably a medium-term thing rather than immediate - there are three aspects:

• Distributed enterprise cloud platforms. This should be unsurprising given both references in the announcement, and Cisco's data-centre expertise. Ericsson SDN/NFV work could fit in here, although it's not the main focus of this post.
• Private wireless. This includes both WiFi and potentially private cellular networks, indoor, on campuses, and perhaps for large areas or governmental applications.
• Comms, Collaboration & Private IMS. Both partners have a lot of history in voice, messaging and video communications, not just in telcos but also deployed by businesses. Ericsson used to make PBXs but sold to Aastra in 2008. While UC, cloud and collaboration is impacting the traditional PBX/IP-PBX market, that doesn't mean that enterprises want everything delivered "as a service". Cisco & Ericsson can help both telcos' UCaaS propositions - but also help corporations take back control in-house.

It should be noted that the last two points are unlikely to be especially popular with the telecom service provider community, and would thus not be the focus of the initial SP-friendly announcement.


Private Wireless

Together, Cisco and Ericsson have a decent chance of “fixing” indoor mobile coverage, capacity and control for large enterprises. Both have WiFi assets and also small-cell exposure (Cisco especially via its SpiderCloud partnership), but the kicker here is Cisco’s footprint and understanding of the enterprise fixed LAN and security domain. 

There are two angles here:

• Helping mobile operators "reach" deeper into enterprises to allow better in-building cellular coverage, WiFi offload/voice and (in the GSMA's dreams) run corporate wireless data connectivity as a fully-managed service. Print-over-4G....
• Allow enterprises to better manage and run their own mobile infrastructure, most obviously in unlicenced spectrum. This could extend beyond traditional WiFi towards allowing private management of LPWAN (low power networks) for IoT, rather than using Opex-centric services like SigFox's.

Historically, one of the main problems for enterprise pico/femtocells, or use of corporate WiFi for offload and carrier VoIP, has been how these coexist with the corporate-run firewalls and in-house network management and prioritisation. Normally, telco visibility/control ends “outside” a demarcation point. Most enterprises will view outbound VPN tunnels from small cells, or external control of devices on the LAN, as a security risk. Telcos, in turn, are hesitant to offer service guarantees where they have limited ability to measure or manage performance – and will also see security issues. 

There are also various issues with security, privacy and legal liability when using a 3rd-party cloud platform for identity, data processing or storage.

There is a chance here for Cisco and Ericsson to create solutions to all these areas. The short-term headlines will probably be around better in-building cellular (competing with DAS and, implicitly, SpiderCloud) and IMS WiFi-voice support, but the longer-term vision will perhaps include:

• Carrier-managed enterprise WiFi, perhaps in neutral-host mode to support multiple cellular operators' subscribers on the same network
• Private corporate-run LTE-U networks, maybe using Qualcomm's MuLTEfire or something similar, for indoor or campus usage
• Private IoT networks using both unlicenced and licenced spectrum, linked into corporate IT and communications systems directly, rather than via a service provider
• Licenced-band cellular for non-telco organisations with access to cellular spectrum (eg public safety networks, rail/transport systems, maybe smart cities or big oil/mining companies in remote areas)
• (Perhaps, depending on regulation) ways to enable "corporate MVNOs" 

This is all pretty speculative - and it may be that some of these concepts are a long way off, and perhaps not even fully-considered by Ericsson and Cisco themselves. (Get in touch if you'd like me to run a brainstorm workshop, guys!)
 
 
Comms, Collaboration & Private IMS

Absent from the announcement was any clear reference to communications: UC/UCaaS, IMS, VoLTE, WebEx, Spark, WebRTC and so forth are, to me, elephants in the room.
 

Predictable things we'll likely see include various Cisco-to-Ericsson moves, around UCaaS and WebEX linked to Ericsson's IMS. But I think that's only part of the story that will emerge.

 

Let's go back to that term "autonomy" from above. 

 

It's easier to get seduced by the idea that enterprises (and small businesses) want to get rid of their old on-premise phone systems, recognise their employees are mobile-first and BYOD-minded, and shift to some form of UCaaS platform linked to a telco network and number. Yet on the ground, plenty of enterprises either want to keep control of their own communications system, or are using 3rd-party Internet-based tools like Slack, rather than an SP's integrated proposition. 

 

I don't think that's going to change - many businesses prefer to keep hold of their own "phone" system, especially as it becomes part of their messaging or contact-centre or contextual-comms platform. That doesn't mean it has to be a lump of tin, or a proprietary IP-PBX platform for call control - it could be in the cloud, or using standardised software elements. It just doesn't have to be a "per-seat per-month" cost model. 

 

A rather surprising term I’ve heard a few times recently – mostly from folk in the IT/cloud industry – is “enterprise IMS”. It’s not an industry-standard term, but basically, it means that some large businesses want to deploy their own internal IMS-type infrastructures as communications/service platforms. These might be owned outright, managed on-site by third parties, or delivered from multi-tenant clouds in the same fashion as UCaaS today. But I think this area is one of the likely mid-term outcomes of the Ericsson / Cisco deal, if the concept comes to fruition.

Remember - PBX stood for Private Branch Exchange. We should not be surprised if the IP and Mobile equivalent turns out to be the enterprise-owned PIMS, not a "mobile PBX" run as a service in a telco network. 

 

It’s being catalysed by a few things:

• Mobile and BYOD: many employees are using mobile devices for most of their business communications. But most UC/smartphone implementations are still a bit clunky, with varying UIs depending on device and especially iOS vs. Android. Having an enterprise-run IMS (and voice application) would potentially allow the CIO to regain control of the “native dialler” on a phone, especially when connected in-building. There are open questions about numbering, but they may be tractable.
• Cloud / Open-Source IMS: A few years ago, the idea of an enterprise owning an IMS would have been ludicrous, given the costs involved. But now, with virtualisation, cost pressures by telcos wanting cheap VoLTE, the emergence of open-source options like Metaswitch Clearwater, it is becoming much more downward-scalable. PIMS is starting to look like a cost-effective option.
• Applications: Currently pretty much the only useful IMS application is straightforward VoIP/VoLTE phone calls. That isn't enterprise-optimised - it lacks the typical PBX-type functions that are needed. There aren't really telco-IMS contact centre apps, and nonsense like RCS certainly doesn't address enterprise messaging. Having a PIMS/WebEx/Spark combination would be much more interesting. Potentially it could also be run as an operator-hosted service, but I think the real value is where it is owned outright.
• Middleware & APIs: Where this starts getting really interesting is in the creation of integrated apps blending a corporate comms platform, with corporate IT systems. Hooking into existing software platforms for sales or field automation, line of business and so forth. Potentially this is where a combination of a Cisco/Ericsson PIMS + Tropo starts looking interest. (Sidenote: unlike GenBand with Kandy, Ericsson lacks a WebRTC PaaS)

There’s a few other angles that play in here too. Most notably Cisco's earlier partnership with Apple, which I think many have underestimated. It is likely to optimise iPhones & iPads for use with Cisco's security, WiFi and collaboration tools. I can envisage a situation where companies ditch their old desk-phones for Apple i-Devices, either BYOD or company-issued, linked to Cisco communications apps running via an Ericsson PIMS, with outbound SIP/IMS trunks if needed. Potentially this could work with virtual numbers as well - not just for the US where fixed/mobile numbers are indistinguishable, but the rest of the world where mobile numbers are from separate defined ranges. 

Having a corporate-issued mobile number, anchored in a PIMS, would make a lot of difference - ability to use SMS, better fit with assorted apps that use mobile numbers for identity or authentication, porting in/out, maybe even assigning mobile numbers to IoT objects. There's a lot of variables here, and the rules will likely vary by country.

And for a long-range view, consider Apple’s work on virtual / eSIMs added in to this. Telcos might not like the idea of virtual SIMs in phones – but an enterprise, running its own IMS, its own WiFi network, and perhaps having access to LTE-U and maybe even its own mobile network code – may not be so squeamish. There are various types and styles of enterprise MNO and MVNO that can be envisaged here, depending on local regulation, willingness of local operators to wholesale or allow roaming, or even share spectrum. I can even imagine an “enterprise MNO” being run as a managed service by Ericsson.

Who would be impacted by this? Microsoft is at the top of the list, and also the traditional mobile operators’ enterprise units which still make good margins on corporate mobile subscriptions. It also sits against the emerging Google/Android/Telcos/BroadSoft/Switch enterprise ecosystem. Avaya is left looking a bit lonely here (although it also works with Google), as are the smaller UC players like Shoretel. It possibly even makes the bizarre Mitel/Mavenir acquisition look more sensible in hindsight, although that’s still pretty baffling.

The interesting question is whether Cisco and Ericsson have actually looked closely at what they might be catalysing – or whether they are themselves likely to be as surprised by the direction of travel. Obviously there are lots of questions about execution that come first, but if things go well, there could be a game-changer afoot.

(None of this is entirely new as a concept. About 10 years ago, I did consulting for a company called Zynetix (later bought by Sonus Networks) that sold enterprise-grade cellular-core MSCs that linked to PBXs. They could allow businesses to run private mobile networks, especially when linked to pico/femtocells running in “guard band” spectrum in the UK. However it was perhaps ahead of its time, hampered by some of the practicalities such as spectrum/radio limitations, needing clunky user-experience hacks like manually selecting different networks).

Conclusion

The bottom line is this: the notion that ALL enterprises will outsource the bulk of their internal networking or communications functions, especially to telecoms service providers, is a comforting myth. Yes, some will - hence the rise of UCaaS for mid-market businesses, and telco-managed WiFi in places like airports or sports stadia.

But that is only part of the story.  

Some enterprises will want to continue managing networks and communications in-house (whether on-premise or in a private cloud). This will ideally expand to include aspects of mobile networks/services where possible. Expect PIMS, better WiFi, PLWPAN and maybe PLTE and PMVNO models. Others will want to outsource these functions to IT-type service providers like IBM, rather than telcos.

Potentially, Cisco+Ericsson (with a side-order of Apple) can facilitate all these different paths to the user. This might not be popular among traditional telcos, but in my view the trend is inevitable. Enterprises will re-assert their control (and sometimes ownership) of wireless/mobile networks and communications platforms, especially as they become more-integrated with business processes and applications. 

There's a lot of reasons why this partnership might fail to bear fruit. But a lack of potential exciting and disruptive opportunities in enterprise isn't one of them.

Google buying Jibe Mobile is aimed at turning RCS into Android's iMessage

Like a lot of people, I was surprised by Google's acquisition of RCS specialist Jibe Mobile yesterday. Lots of theories were advanced on Twitter and blogs about this last night:

• Wow, Google is recognising that carrier standards, RCS and IMS are the future!
• Meh, it's an acqui-hire for people who understand messaging on Android
• Hmm, forget RCS device-side apps, Jibe offers cloud-based RCS servers to operators - it's Google's opening NFV play! (me)
• It's Google trying to get US carriers to push Android devices more, by acquiescing to demands for native RCS support (even if Google privately thinks it's rubbish)
• It's Facebook- and TenCent-envy. Google thinks it's missing out on messaging-as-social-platform as its previous efforts have been failures (also me)

On reflection I actually think there's a different story here. 

Forget telcos, the GSMA and 3GPP. Google buying Jibe Mobile isn't about carriers at all. They're a sideshow, or perhaps "useful idiots" in this scenario.

Google (I think) has three competitors in mind: Mostly Apple, but also Microsoft and Twilio.

First, let's step back. There are various uses for "messaging" apps on smartphones:

• Basic P2P or A2P text messages, ideally with features like read-receipts & pictures. And ideally free
• Enhanced messaging (not "rich") with better support for things like groups, white/black-lists, security, maybe "ephemerality" etc. Think of WhatsApp, BBM, Telegram and so on.
• Cool messaging (again not "rich" although they might use pictures or video) - things aimed at "lifestyle", flirting, self-expression, teenagers, and perhaps content streams. Instagram and SnapChat go here.
• Messaging as a platform, where users don't just send messages but can also use mini-apps or plug-ins inside the system for purchases or collaboration. WeChat and arguably Slack (in enterprise) fit in this category
• Messaging-as-a-feature, where messages get embedded into other applications or services via APIs, or are implemented natively. Twitter direct-messages are an example, but there are many others - perhaps even including iOS and Android push notifications.

These are imprecise categories. They overlap, and app providers try to push up from one type to the other - for example the content channels on SnapChat.

But right at the bottom of the list is basic P2P messaging. Traditionally the home of SMS (& MMS). It's been cannibalised in a lot of places by WhatsApp or close equivalents, although in places with flat-rate charging for SMS it's been more robust. But there is one important other player here: Apple iMessage, which gives an SMS-integrated experience built into iOS. iMessage is a well-designed, moderately "enhanced" version of SMS that is free between Apple users and has some better features (delivery notice & typing-awareness) than ordinary SMS whilst having a near-identical UI.

While Apple doesn't monetise iMessage, it makes usng iPhones a bit nicer. It does what the telecom industry should have done 10 years ago, and improved SMS without focusing on "multimedia" as a first step. It's the little things that count in messaging - ticks when someone has read something, an indicator that they're composing a reply and so on. Fripperies like file-sharing and "see what I see video" are irrelevant in 99.99% of use-cases. Get the basics right - usable texts & the occasional picture. Maybe an audio-message function for people with awkward languages that don't fit keypads & predictive text very well.

Now Google has had its own Hangouts messaging app on Androids in the past, which can be used as a default SMS app as well. But compared to iMessage, it hasn't been especially well-received, as it's optional. This means that Apple's automated and familiar green-becomes-blue messaging experience for Apple-to-Apple communications hasn't really been replicated in Android.

I suspect that acquiring Jibe Mobile (with RCS) is an attempt to change this. I think Google wants to use a service which handset vendors already accept being integrated "natively" to become its own free Android-to-Android messenger.

The fact that the mobile operators want RCS to be natively implemented is even better - Google gets the telcos to lean on all the handset OEMs to accept it. 

But of course, the devil is in the detail of the implementation. I suspect that a future version of Android will support RCS as a default app not because of its "richness", and not because of its "interoperability", but because it allows Google to compete with Apple on basic device-to-device enhanced and free texting. Messaging that goes via its own cloud most of the time, or which might interact with the telcos' networks either for "AndroidRCS-Out" or fallback to SMS. 

In other words, this turns RCS from being a "service" into being a basic messaging function within Android. It's not about "richness", either - video chat on Android will still be on Hangouts and via its WebRTC support 99.9% of the time. Google undoubtedly knows that RCS isn't really the basis of a "cool" messaging service either - I highly doubt it wants to compete with SnapChat, at least to begin with. It's not about lifestyle or messaging-as-platform - just a well-integrated way to do free basic messages.
 
So my views is that this is all about creating Google's iMessage, not a ringing endorsement of telco-run RCS or IPX or any of the other industry machinery. The telcos may get the scraps of RCS-in or RCS-out, most of which will be converted back to plain old SMS to terminate on iPhones, or older Androids.


There's also a secondary set of targets here, I think: B2C, B2B and A2P messaging. I'm sure that Google has noticed Microsoft linking Skype and Skype4Business and its other cloud properties. In future, businesses running Microsoft-powered UC or contact-centre software will be able to directly reach out to end-users via Skype, bring messaging, video, presence and so on. I don't think MS really cares so much about person-to-person Skype any more - it's nice, but not really monetised and faces lots of competition. But B2C Skype is different, if it entrenches Microsoft's enterprise platforms and gives businesses a rich (and free) way to talk to customers. Goodbye toll-free numbers, for a start. It also helps Microsoft become a more full-fledged UC player for internal enterprise communications.

I think that Google wants to do the same thing, linked to Google Apps for Work and other services. And having a native "AndroidRCS" (not "TelcoRCS") capability in every device will help. So perhaps, Jibe is intended to become Google's equivalent of Skype. And again, the likely majority scenarios would be internal within the Google ecosyste, plus a small minority of in/out to the telco (or enterprise SIP) domains.

Lastly, I wonder if this is an oblique way to compete with Twilio and a few other PaaS providers. Using a cloud-based messaging platform linked to a native client in Android gives a whole set of possibilities for developers to do free A2P messaging - basically a version of push notifications for people who don't have an app installed. Or easy, free web-to-device notifications (something missing in WebRTC when the user is outside the browser). And again, there is little reason to involve the phone networks except as exceptions or gateways to/from SMS on other devices.


In summary - this isn't a win for GSMA and RCS. It's not "fighting back against the OTTs". It's not going to suddenly revolutionise the market for messaging and promote the hoped-for renaissance of subscribers paying for "richness". It's not about video-chat or filesharing. It's not about QoS. It's not going to compete against SnapChat or Instagram or WeChat. (That traffic has gone to apps that are simply better and cooler. It might get a bit of basic text back from WhatsApp, but not much, as that's the cross-platfom winner in markets with a mix of Androids and iPhones).
I believe that, in fact, this is Google "stealing" RCS for its own purposes - free basic Android-to-Android messaging, with free B2C and A2P messaging to follow. It can vault into the big league with a billion AndroidRCS text users. The amount likely to touch the telcos' IMS's will likely be minimal. And the GSMA has done all the hard work encouraging the handset OEMs to support it. Thanks guys.

(And of course, there's also the very high probability that the whole thing is a total dud, or that users just ignore it, or only gets implemented in a sub-set of Android devices. Google's record here isn't great - think about Wave and Google+ debacles)

Dean Bubley & Disruptive Analysis specialise in analysing the future of voice, video & messaging, including VoLTE, WiFi-Calling, WebRTC and Contextual Communications. If you are interested in a private advisory workshop or project, please contact information AT disruptive-analysis DOT com