Telcos: Stop Thinking You're Always the Leading Actor

Hubris: "an extreme and unreasonable feeling of pride and confidence in yourself"

I've followed developments in the telecoms industry for over 25 years. I've seen positives (eg broadband, SMS, LTE) and negatives (UMA, RCS) as well as a shifting landscape of regulation, the rise of the Internet, and multiple generations of network technology and services infrastructure.

Undoubtedly, both fixed and mobile networks have added massively to economies, society and our current way of life. It's understandable that network operators - and their vendors and governments - feel proud of their legacy and want to perpetuate it.

Yet it's possible to take this too far. Even beyond obviously-silly pronouncements such as "5G is as important as electricity", there remains a constant thread among the telecoms industry that it is absolutely central to all future developments, and that the network's finely-engineered QoS mechanisms are the wellspring of technology-derived value, as well as pivotal to future GDP and world happiness.

But while self-belief and aspiration is helpful, arrogance and self-delusion is not.

 

Starring role, or supporting cast?

There is an assumption that the (public, traditional) network is always the leading actor in any movie about Industry 4.0, IoT, smart homes, AI, pandemic recovery & the "new normal", combating climate change, or creating new modes of communications and entertainment like AR/VR.

And yet in reality, the telecom network - especially public 5G - is often going to be a supporting actor. Or perhaps just have a walk-on role, or be relegated to an extra who gets dubbed in a different language.

You can almost imagine a C-list celebrity arriving at a busy party and shouting: "Guys, guys! Listen up! You can get rid of all your old stuff, all your Internet apps, all your legacy Industry 3.0 gear... just use our new [Technology X] instead, and we'll offer it all with a nice monthly per-GB subscription. You can even buy a slice!"

Heads swivel. Eyes roll. People refill their glasses & continue their conversations.

A bit more realism and humility is required. Telecoms isn't always the star of the show, and neither does it write the screenplay for the rest of the infrastructure or solution.

That doesn't mean it lacks value, or has a limited opportunity - but that it has to play nicely alongside others... and accept that the director and producer have other priorities to focus on - and a wide choice of alternatives to cast in the same roles.

Leaving the acting analogy aside, it's also important to understand that the nature of the word "telco" is itself changing. Looking out to 2030, the "telco of the future" isn't like todays - there won't just be 3-4 national MNOs and a handful of converged/fibre/fixed-line operators. There will be a vast diversity of service provider types and private/community networks. I've written before about the "new telcos" and this is a critical aspect for traditional ("legacy"?) operators to understand and even embrace.

This isn't just 5G-related

It's tempting to just see this as a problem with how 5G is being positioned and hyped. But while I discuss that below, it's far from being unique. This attitude has been around for years, and pervades the entire industry. Some examples of this mindset include:

• Telcos consistently assume that "voice" means the same as "telephony", since they only do the latter. Telephony is just one voice application of hundreds - and a 140yr-old clunky and poorly-optimised one at that. This is why telcos don't have a foothold in voice assistants, critical comms, gaming voice, podcasts and so on - and get out-competed by cloud players for UCaaS and cPaaS. (For more: see my upcoming workshop series on the future of Realtime Comms, Voice & Video, starting May 19th)
• 20 years ago, 3G networks were pitched as platforms for telco-created and telco-delivered videoconferencing, games, "value-added services" (ringtones, basically) and much more inside "walled gardens". The killer app was, in fact, plain vanilla Internet access - despite early dataplans trying to restrict the use of VoIP and IM.
• Some 1980s & '90s telcos saw themselves as central to enterprises' telephony systems and pitched "Centrex" services - basically a precursor to today's cloud-based UCaaS. Most businesses decided that running their own PBXs was a better option - it fit with their internal organisation and operations much better.
• Telcos' MEC edge-compute was supposed to take centre-stage against hyperscale cloud providers. Instead, MEC's main use is to host internal NFV or vRAN functions that run the network itself. Or enable some hyperscalers' own edge platforms on a wholesale basis, where they don't have other options. Meanwhile, edge-compute evolves in many other (non-telco) domains much faster, including on-device / gateway, or linked to non-3GPP technologies such as Wi-Fi and fibre.
• RCS was initially supposed to replace all Internet-based messaging apps. Then its believers pivoted to pitch it as a universal B2C tool for mobile customer interactions. In reality, it's (at best) just another slow-moving messaging app with few users and no loyalty, or special features. It turns out to be channel #17 for consumers dealing with companies that don't merit downloading a proper app or which have a lousy website. RBM's best hope is for things like tickets from that 3rd-tier airline you're forced to use to get to an obscure airport, or ordering a new recycling bin from the local council's chatbot. It's competing with the browser, not apps or Internet messaging.
• MNOs' public 5G with network-slicing was supposed to replace all the cumbersome enterprise network gear such as ethernet and Wi-Fi. There are still visions within obscure 3GPP work-groups about "5G LANs" and I still read and hear nonsense from the cellular industry about it replacing Wi-Fi at scale....
• ... or alternatively, the new story is that the 5G core is going to be the centrepiece of all telecoms and networking - it'll control Wi-Fi, fixed broadband, satellite connectivity etc. on operators' terms and policies, of course. (See the Broadband Forum's rather Machiavellian efforts here - led unsurprisingly by behemoths like Verizon & Deutsche Telekom that want the core network as a "control point" all the way to end-devices in the home). Yes, maybe Wi-Fi can easily just slot into 5G's shiny new cloud-native core - but in reality, 99% of Wi-Fi has nothing to do with cellular networks, offload, or non-trusted / non-3GPP access
• As I mentioned recently, the telecom industry tries to take 100% of the (carbon) credit for new technologies reducing energy consumption or emissions.

The ridiculous and judgmental term "OTT" exemplifies this - creating a them-and-us fallacy of "web" companies using "our" pipes. Never mind the fact those technology companies build their own infrastructure, and invest billions in R&D for everything from AI to chip design. Or that all telcos themselves deploy "OTT" apps, websites and Internet-delivered functions.

To use a more sociological phrasing, many network operators still have a "sense of entitlement". They feel that they should be running everything from voice and video communications to networked entertainment, smart homes, or B2B commerce and industrial automation.

This attitude extends into public policy, and discussions on topics like spectrum, where there is a sense of exerting "license privilege". There is often an attempt to exert control before earning it. This is different to (say) Apple's control of its AppStore.

(*Sidenote [And apologies to my clients if this stings!]:if you work in telecoms & talk casually about "OTTs" for anything other than TV streaming, you should be fired, and so should your boss. It's not only wrong, it's flat-out ignorant and damaging. It indicates gross incompetence. It's not quite a "hate crime" but it is a them-and-us divisive term for a distinction that simply does not exist).

Actions have consequences

There are several reasons why this problem is more than just "attitude" or normal marketing-related hyperbole. It directly translates to business successes and failures.

• Many telco technologies don't just benefit from n-squared network effects, but depend on them. They degrade "non-gracefully" if they're not ubiquitous - which means they need to be adopted by other telcos at the same time. Messaging is a good example - at 50% uptake, across 50% of operators that implement a new standard, there's a high % chance that two people on different networks won't be able to communicate, especially internationally. There's no focus on saturating small niches, or communities of interest, then expanding over time.
• Telcos spend so much time envisioning themselves as "platforms" that they fail to realise that pretty much every tech platform evolves from a great (and widely-used/loved) product. Google indexed the web & created a great seach function, before it started selling ads. Apple sold the iPhone for a while before launching the AppStore. It also had a loyal base of iPod users who wanted a music-phone, too. Amazon sold books before it launched AWS. All of them had platforms in mind earlier... but had to create a product before tuning the way the platform needed to behave for customers / developers.
• The telecom industry always assumes that it will be a "net exporter" (or even pure exporter) of capabilities and APIs. It expects it will sell more "exposed functions" than it buys. It assumes a role at the top of the value chain, rather than the middle. This is starting to change now with the recognition of the role of buying public cloud services for virtualisation, but prior to that it just relied on Google Maps for "find the closest store", or credit-checking agencies for new subscriptions. Almost all successful tech businesses these days are more like trading hubs, importing AND exporting functions, APIs and data. The assumption that telcos will always be the OrchestratORS rather than OrchestratED is leading to an unrealistic world-view and poor decisions.
• Conversations with regulators and governments try to amplify the supposed "special" status and reinforce the spurious divide with new telcos or Internet/tech firms. "We don't want to be dumb pipes, so please tax & regulate the clever people, because we can't compete". This might seem smart - and perhaps gets better access to new funds for rural coverage or pandemic recovery - but it also hampers and limits future options, for instance around international mergers and expansion. Domestic champions find it hard to live dual lives as global heroes.

What needs to change?

There needs to be a frank, honest discussion about "Telcos' place in the world", which works out how to transition from a world of a few licensed network operators per country, to one in which the landscape is much more complex and nuanced.

• Position the term "telco" as a broader church & consider the needs/roles of the wider group. MNOs and fixed telcos are important, but not alone here. TowerCo's are telcos. Neutral Hosts are telcos. WISPs are telcos. MVNOs are telcos. Governments can act as telcos. Community networks are telcos. Consider them peers. Insist that GSMA, CTIA, ETNO and others treat all telcos equally and offer membership (and governance) on reasonable terms.
• Don't push back against governments trying to enable new forms of competition and new entrants. Instead, exploit them. Offer reference designs for Open RAN internationally (see Rakuten). Launch Private 5G services in new countries with local spectrum (Verizon is doing this). Run MVNOs in other countries (Turkcell, China Mobile etc).
• Internet, IT and industrial automation (OT) companies need to be seen as equal and equivalent peers too. Amazon, Microsoft, Google, Siemens, Honeywell, IBM, HPE, Tech Mahindra, NTT Data & many others will often own the customer relationship. Sometimes telecoms fits into their frameworks, and sometimes theirs' fits into telcos. Maybe there are roles for gatekeepers, but only where there is enough competition.
• Telecom standards need to become much more "loosely coupled". The traditional insistence that a 5G radio needs a 5G core and IMS/VONR telephony needs to stop. 3GPP standards and interfaces should be mix-and-match. Rather than trying to push complex core networks into fixed broadband architectures, the industry should instead make core-optional lightweight variants of 5G RANs, or expose interfaces that make them controllable by enterprise IT, or a Wi-Fi platform.
• Offer both complete solutions and sub-component services. Don't assume primacy - sell what customers want. Maybe enterprises want their own Private 5G, but would happily use telcos to do the installation and maintenance, or to enable roaming or as a provider of eSIM-aaS
• Use 3rd-party infrastructure and connectivity where it makes sense - for instance on neutral host networks. Attempt to automate onboarding, and remove friction wherever possible. Accept national roaming if it means your customers get better access in remote places, or indoors.
• Work out better metrics to measure the business & communicate these to investors and regulators. See this article on what metrics are especially poor.
• Understand software and app developers' mindsets. They don't want to pay for "premium QoS" on a thousand networks. They want warning of congestion, and how to adjust their apps' demands - when/how to use on-device compute vs. cloud, which codecs and compression, and so on.
• Stop thinking that phone calls (and worse, video calls) are perfect manifestations of communications, with just an upgrade every 10 years from circuit to VoLTE to VoNR. Why doesn't the dialler app get updated once a month with new features, or give the user more controls?
• Look at alternatives to subscription business models. Why not an insurance-style annual premium? Or "dark spectrum" just like "dark fibre"? Or 100 others?
• Invent more stuff. Spend money on R&D rather than sports TV rights. Much of the current angst comes from competing against tech firms that actually create products and services that people want to buy/use.
• Have a much clearer policy and stance on buying/selling technology and services. Make using platforms effectively seem as important as creating platforms. This is starting to happen with cloud and Open RAN, but it's very slow.

It has been interesting to see that the most interesting - and lauded - new telcos have come from different backgrounds, and have different attitudes. Rakuten is a cloud/eCommerce company first and foremost. Dish started as a satellite TV provider. Jio's parent Reliance Industries is a broad conglomerate. Although not a new company, South Korea's SKT is part of the SK Group, which also has a broad set of non-telco assets.

To be fair, one area where telcos are taking a more hybrid position is around physical assets. Some are operators/co-owners of shared networks, some spin-out tower businesses, some sell dark fibre and some buy - or both in different places. Some use public colocation and data-centres, while others are looking at local offices as possible edge compute sites.

Conclusions

This undoubtedly comes across as a bit of a rant (and not for the first time...) but it's coming from a position of frustration. I've seen the same issues play out for years - and at the core is this attitude of entitlement that I mention above.

It's totally counterproductive, even if the inertia - and sense of history - is understandable.

Everyone wants to be the star, especially if they've been the lead actor for decades. But sometimes, the role just involves a couple of scenes. And often, it's just the cameo roles - if played well - that get the headlines after all.

[A quick plug again: my upcoming Future of Video & RTC workshop series is here]

Cross-Posted from my LinkedIn Newsletter Article (here). Please see comments there & Subscriber.

#telecom #5G #telco #cloud #technology #regulation #voice #edgecomputing

Platform regulation? Are you *sure*?

There's currently a lot of focus on regulation of technology platforms, because of concerns over monopoly power or privacy/data violations.

It's a central focus of the Digital Services Act proposed by the European Commission

It's under scrutiny as part of the US Congress House Judiciary Committee report on antitrust

Other governments also focus on "platforms", especially Amazon, Facebook, Google, Apple and a few others.

Typically, traditional telcos cheer on these moves against companies they (still!) wrongly refer to as "OTTs".

Yet there's a paradox here. While there are indeed concerns about big-tech monopoly abuse that must be addressed by regulators... they're not the only platforms that could be captured by the law.

I've lost count of the times I've heard "the network as a platform", or 5G is a platform" with QoS, network slicing etc often hyped as the basis for the future economy.

Yet telcos can have as much lock-in as Apple or Amazon. I can't get an EE phone service on my Vodafone mobile connection. I can't port-out my call detail records & online behaviour to a new operator. There's no "smart home portability law" if I sign up to my broadband provider's service. Or slice portability laws for enterprises.

 

On my LinkedIn version of this post [link], a GSMA strategist commented that unbundling some telco services "does not solve a customer pain point". Yet unbundling *does* often enable greater competition, innovation & lower consumer prices. You only have to look at the total lack of innovation in MNO/3GPP telephony & messaging services in the last 20 years to see the negative effects of lock-in & too-tight integration here. (VoLTE is not innovative, RCS is regressionary). 

 

Even more awkwardly, most of the mobile industry is currently using the exact same arguments in its push to get vendors to disaggregate the RAN.

 

Want 5G to be a platform? You'll be subject to the rules too. Be careful what you wish for... 

 

(By the way, I first wrote about this issue 6 years ago. The arguments haven't changed much at all since then: https://disruptivewireless.blogspot.com/2014/07/so-called-platform-neutrality-nothing.html )

 

Reinventing Telcos - a preview of my ITU World panel session

Reposted from an article I wrote for the ITU's blog (link)

On the 27^th of September, I’m moderating a panel discussion at the ITU World 2017 conference in Busan, South Korea, on the theme of “The transformation of telecom operators: reinventing telcos.”

This is a topic we’ve heard discussed for at least the last 10 years in various forms, yet we still seem to be at or near the starting point. The panel will look at what can we do differently, to change the dynamics. In particular, it will focus on the internal organisation and processes of the telecom industry, both within and between telcos. Other conference sessions will consider new services, industry verticals, and the customer perspective.

Across the globe, traditional CSPs are trying to adapt their cultures and operational models, in the face of ever-increasing competition and substitution from new players. As well as other rival service providers such as cable operators, telcos now face challenges from Internet-based peers, niche specialist SPs (for example in IoT), and even enterprises and governments building their own networks. On the horizon, new technologies such as AI threaten to change the landscape even more. The nature of what it means to be a “service provider” is changing.

This goes beyond just implementing next-generation networks, whether fixed or wireless. While these are necessary, they are not sufficient for true reinvention – and they also require enormous new investment. The real question is what options exist for operators to best-allocate scarce resources (money, skills and time) to maximize the value from such investments in infrastructure. There is also a risk that emphasis on the “hard challenges” of raising finance, acquiring spectrum or sites, and building networks, means less focus on the “softer” problems of culture change, service design, organisation, customer-centricity and partnership.

This in turn poses problems for regulators, especially at national levels. Usually driven by domestic politics and local economic situations, they somehow need to ensure a strategically-important sector remains healthy, while also recognising the huge global-scale advances from many technologies and services that transcend national or regional boundaries.

It is not realistic for every country to have three or four competing local providers of social networks, IoT management tools or future AI platforms. Citizens and businesses expect similar functions to work internationally and immediately, with rapid incremental improvements. Unlike networks, innovation in services and applications often favours fast-evolving proprietary platforms, rather than committee-led interoperable services like the PSTN.

Telcos – and their regulators – have until recently been poorly-suited to this new world, although some are making interesting attempts to “turn the super-tanker”.

The session will touch on four or five key areas:

• Innovation: What is the best way for telcos to innovate, given regulatory & cultural constraints? Arms-length subsidiaries? Huge retraining programmes? Business units targeted on verticals / technologies? How much freedom should product units have, for example should they be forced to use the company-wide core network & NFV platforms, or should they be able to go “off piste” and act independently? Are “platforms plays” viable in telecoms, or just unrealistic wishful-thinking?
• Regulation: What should regulators be doing, to simultaneously encourage new entrants/innovators, but also allow telcos to make enough returns to take long-term investment views? And how can regulators deal with the overlaps, competition and tensions between very distinct groups, such as traditional infrastructure-oriented telcos and Internet-based “web-scale” platforms? One group has huge capex and strict regulatory constraints, the other huge R&D and greater risk of failure: how can one set of rules span both, where they intersect?
• Industry coordination: How do the current pan-industry structures (eg bodies like ITU & GSMA & 3GPP) need to change? Can they be made faster, more willing to take risks, faster to acknowledge errors, bring in non-traditional stakeholders?
• Technology catalysts: Are 5G & NFV really “transformational” enablers of re-invention? Or will prolonged hybrid/transition phases from older tech mean there can’t be fast shifts? How should telcos deploy technologies such as AI, blockchain or IoT internally, as part of their reinvention?

One other thing should frame the debate: language – how we describe the problems, or wider communications environment. Words, analogies and narrative arcs are psychologically important – they shape the way we perceive problems, and can either enhance or misdirect our responses. We should recognise the unhelpfulness of terms like:

• “Digital”: Morse Code was digital in 1843. Telecom networks have used digital technology for decades, as have most businesses. It’s about steady progress and evolution, not a “digitalisation” step change.
• “OTT”: usually said in a negative tone, I believe this prejudiced description of Internet services has hugely harmed the telecoms industry over the last decade. For example, it obscures the fact that larger Internet companies do more deep technology than telcos: they make network equipment and chips, build infrastructure and conduct billions of dollars of R&D.
• “Level playing field”: telco executives, regulators and lobbyists use this phrase with abandon. Yet the analogy is meaningless, when everyone is playing different sports entirely.

The narrative needs to change substantially. My ITU Telecom World 2017 session aims to reset the debate, and catalyse thoughtful (but rapid!) future action by operators, regulators and industry bodies alike.


If you are seeking a moderator or speaker for a telecoms strategy or policy event, please contact information AT disruptive-analysis DOT com

Telcos & OEMS: You should ignore the GSMA's "Advanced Messaging", RCS & "Universal Profile"

Summary: There are  10+ reasons why RCS messaging has failed, despite a decade of trying. Even with Google's involvement, the GSMA's "Universal Profile" and "Advanced Messaging" only fix, at most, two of these problems - and introduce new ones. Despite the hype, mobile operators should continue to deploy VoLTE only when it is really needed, and should avoid Advanced Messaging, RCS and ViLTE entirely. There are many other better ways for telcos to retain relevance in communications apps & services.



What's happening? 

In the next couple of weeks, we will likely be hearing a lot about the GSMA’s “Universal Profile” (UP), developed with Google as a standardised setup for new Android devices to support VoLTE, plus the latest version of the decade-old failed RCS messaging "zombie" service, now being rebranded as “Advanced Messaging”.

UP also incorporates a version of ViLTE, the video-calling application that can’t even be called a zombie, as it was never alive in the first place. Essentially, UP is a combination of VoLTE and RCS6.0. The first spec was published in Nov 16 (link). (Microsoft is also apparently supporting it, although seems less deeply involved than Google).

Expect the MWC announcements to talk breathlessly about how this is going to enable “Messaging as a Platform” (MaaP), and there will likely be some dubious-seeming big numbers mentioned. Any claims of "XXXmillion active users" should be *very* carefully questioned and analysed - what actually counts as use? There will be a lot of spin, painting what is essentially legacy SMS usage with a new app, as RCS. Daily is much more relevant than monthly data here.

Most probably, you’ll hear lots of hype and PR noise about “mobile operators winning back against the OTTs”, or “people won’t need to download apps”, or “everyone is fed up of having 17 messaging apps”. You’ll hear that it can use network—based QoS, which is great for VoLTE primary-telephony calls, but irrelevant otherwise. Vendors will probably say “well you’ve got an IMS for VoLTE so you should sweat the assets and add extra applications”.

We might even get an announcement about “advanced calling”, which is a way to improve phone calls with pre/mid/post-call capabilities (not actually a bad idea if done well) but force-fitted to use RCS rather than a more pragmatic and flexible approach (which is a very bad idea, and likely executed very poorly).

So ignore it. There are no customers, no use-cases, and no revenues associated with “advanced messaging”. It’s the same pointless RCS zombie-tech I’ve been accurately predicting would fail for the last decade. It’s still dead, still shambling around and still trying to eat your brain. It’s managed to bite Google and Samsung, and they’ll probably try to infect you as well.

What's the background?

If you're new here: I've been following and talking negatively about RCS for 9 years now. The project started in 2007, and emerged as a lukewarm 2008 IM concept for featurephones (link) in the days when both iOS and Facebook where just emerging onto the stage. I described it as a "coalition of the losers" in a report in 2010 (link) It evolved to a dead-on-arrival branded app called "joyn" as smartphones gained traction (link), and it has tried climbing out of its grave so many times since that I describe it as a zombie (link). Various operators have deployed it, then given up - even in markets like Spain and South Korea where multiple operators offered it at first.

I'm currently writing a report on VoLTE trends and implications for my STL/Telco 2.0 Future of the Network research stream (link). It should be out in the next month or so. As part of my research, I've been updating myself about the GSMA's plans to blend VoLTE with RCS - hence becoming aware of the Universal Profile and Advanced Messaging developments. 

Most people I speak to in the mobile industry privately admit that it's been a huge white elephant. I've met people who've been given the "poison chalice" of RCS inside operators and eventually quit their jobs in desperation. Huge slugs of time and money have been spent on a no-hope service, that could have been better deployed elsewhere, on things that could make a real difference. 

It's been pushed by:

• A few operators misunderstanding the nature of user behaviour, requirements and preferences for communications services, thinking that there had to be a standardised and interoperable "magic bullet" to compete with WhatsApp, Facebook, iMessage and WeChat (and 100's of others).
• The desperation of network vendors trying to make IMS seem relevant for something other than plain-old phone-call VoIP, either for fixed broadband voice, or VoLTE.
• The GSMA's stubborn belief that it needs to predefine interoperability and lengthy specifications, rather than iterate on something basic that people actually like. Also, the belief that it has to tie in the phone number / any-to-any model.
• Google, wanting to find a way to compete in the messaging space it has repeatedly failed with, especially creating an Android version of iMessage based on the Jibe acquisition. Samsung has recently joined in with its own acquisition of Newnet.

So my "coalition of the losers" joke (er... jibe?) in fact has a reasonable basis in history. And history doesn't record many such coalitions having great success at anything, except maybe keeping a few people occupied.

A couple of operators have launched recently - Rogers and Sprint in North America - but the other operators are still delaying, and have big iPhone populations anyway.
 
In the meantime, while the telecom industry has procrastinated over RCS, various other adjacent players such as Twilio and Nexmo (now Vonage) have pushed the supposedly "dead" SMS market to become the standard mechanism for A2P messaging, and signed up thousands of developers for that, plus voice/video/notification cPaaS capabilities. In the time it has taken RCS to get to its 10th anniversary, we have seen Apple, Facebook, Whatsapp, WeChat and others create huge value and loyalty.


But, but... Google!
 

It’s a little difficult to tell if Google actually believes in RCS, or whether it’s just cynically using the GSMA and gullible MNOs to push Android harder – and especially, help reduce the horrendous fragmentation of its platform in terms of both OEM-specific skews and non-updated older OS variants.

As I wrote previously (link), it also seems likely that Google is using the surprisingly-pliant cellular industry to help it create its own version of Apple’s iMessage. The optional hosted RCS Hub could also be an early foray by Google into the NFV and cloud communications space – perhaps with an eye to ultimately competing not just with the Huawei/Ericsson/Nokia axis, but also maybe Amazon and Twilio over time. That’s quite an extrapolation on my part, though - not based on anything public from Mountain View.

What’s definitely clear is that Google doesn’t see RCS as “the one messaging platform to rule them all”, nor the Universal Profile as a way to replace all other forms of voice and video communications. It has a broad range of other services, including Duo, Allo, Voice, HangOuts (now being reoriented towards enterprise), WebRTC support in Chrome and perhaps natively in Android at some point. It also has a stake in Symphony (messaging/UC for finance and other verticals), and works with most of the larger UCaaS and hosted PBX/UC players.

It also wouldn’t be a surprise if Google acquires other cool youth-oriented messaging apps to compete with Facebook’s Instagram, although a post-IPO Snap might be too pricey. And of course, it has its own push-notification platform which is probably (quietly) the world’s biggest messaging service that nobody talks about.

In other words, Google seems OK about creating a lowest-common denominator function that's no worse than what it has already, but which brings extra cooperation brownie-points from the mobile industry, and a bit more leverage with its wayward licensees. Its downside is limited - and if miraculously it somehow it can create a MaaP platform, its upside significant. There's probably also some interesting data-analytics and machine-learning gains in here somewhere too - even if it's just a better understanding of what Android users don't like.

In other words, from Google's point of view, it's a worthwhile and almost risk-free punt. Whether the mobile industry wants to over-rely on a company with a reputation for ruthlessly shutting down failed ventures is another matter.

 

What's wrong with UP/Advanced Messaging? 

Where do I start?! Well, perhaps by pointing out what actually has changed for the positive. It's true that Google is offering a hosted RCS platform for operators that don't yet have an IMS. ("Effectively sponsoring this piece" - link). That's helpful as it reduces friction and cost of operators getting RCS to market. So to does having a pre-certified set of devices that should work with that platform, or in-house deployments. 

But while perhaps those are necessary, they are very far from being sufficient. Many other problems and concerns abound.

The biggest lie about RCS and the “universal profile” is that it will become universal or ubiquitous. Not only is Apple not likely to support it, but it is far from clear that Android OEMs will implement it on all their devices, especially those sold in the open market. It is unlikely to have good PC support (although to be fair, neither does Whatsapp). It is unlikely to be downloaded onto older Android phones. It is unlikely to work smoothly on dual/multi-SIM handsets, of which there are hundreds of millions. It’s unlikely to work well on many MVNOs’ devices (neither does VoLTE). It’s also unlikely to work nicely on the vast plethora of smart IoT devices that support SMS – even those with decent web-browsers and app downloads. 

I've seen some of the projections for RCS-capable handset penetration, and I think they're significantly over-enthusiastic, especially if considered on a country-by-country basis.

There is no relevance of RCS for the enterprise UCaaS and vertical markets that telcos urgently need to focus on. That has to integrate with all manner of other communications services that seem unlikely to have more than a loose coupling with RCS, if at all. It won't be replacing email, Office365, Cisco Spark, Slack, HipChat and numerous other collaboration tools, not to mention the universe of video-conferencing. It's also going to be a long time before it becomes another channel in contact centres' multi-channel platforms - there's a long list of bigger fish, especially if WhatsApp and Facebook offer APIs to billions of users.

The MaaP approach seems doomed to failure – there are no examples of successful technology platforms that have not been based on successful technology products first. Trying to pre-guess the requirements for a platform – let alone creating voluminous standards for it - ignores a wealth of experience: customers use products in unexpected ways, with spikes in viral adoption, unpredictable demographic biases, emergent behaviour and geographical patchiness.

Platforms are created in response to a product’s growth, not pre-ordained. Nobody predicted that Snapchat had the potential to become a media channel and camera/AR platform – those angles represent reactions to actual real-world usage, as well as improvements in “adjacent” technology in the interim. More importantly, developers are unlikely to become interested until there is evidence of real-world usage among a decent slice of their target audiences. You'd have to be a brave airline to ditch your native apps, ignore Facebook and WeChat and iMessage, and port your main loyalty "experience" to a mini-app inside the RCS client.

There are assorted other problems lurking as well - interconnect and roaming should be interesting. Will it really be free to do video-sharing and file-transfer to your friend in Singapore? Trying to work out the pricing aspects will be challenging too - unless everything is free, for everyone, and to everyone. While that might be feasible for post-paid customers with big data quotas, it's unlikely to translate to the worlds billions of prepay users. 

It's slow to evolve, as it's designed by committee. It's not set up to do A/B testing on live audiences - maybe 100 million on a redesign first, to see how it goes and then make a call on full rollout. Standardisation and interoperability doesn't work with the agile, devops approach to apps that is de-rigeur here.

And another of the herd of elephants - what's it for? Who is going to use it, and why? I can't foresee any case-studies of teenagers saying "I used to SnapChat my friends all the time, but now we only use HyperMessage+ from NetworkXYZ!". Is it just generic SMS-style "Hi, I'm running 5mins late" stuff? But with "rich" elements, at least insofar as the person you're connecting with is another RCS user who can see them? Why else are people going to use it, except maybe as some sort of lower-than-lowest common denominator? And moreover, whats going to keep them using it, given how dynamic the communications app market is. Unless it can capture the "cool" factor, it's toast.

This is the problem - pretty much everyone can get WhatsApp or WeChat or Facebook. There's a 90%+ chance your friends are on your platform of choice and have no reason to switch. iMessage is the obvious anomaly, but it's more of a hygiene factor between Apple users - who often also have multiple devices like tablets and Macs as well, and who expect to "fall back" to FB or WA for friends (or groups of friends) who aren't Apple users. I guess in low-Apple penetration countries there could be tighter communities of Android buddies, but they may well include people with a lot of prepay accounts, older open-market handsets (some multi-SIM) and little likelihood to upgrade to a new UP-powered one soon. (One possible exception is India, given Reliance Jio's influence). 

So what should you do? (Or not do?)

If you’re the head of advanced communications at an operator, or looking into future voice and video services, don’t bother wasting your time in Barcelona on RCS or "advanced messaging". 

Sure, speak to vendors and look at cheap ways to implement VoLTE. The industry painted itself into a corner with a horrendously complex and expensive approach, so finding quick/simple/reliable ways to launch or scale it make sense. (Think open-source, cloud-based, pseudo-NFV for IMS without the hugely complex MANOs etc). VoLTE is becoming increasingly mainstream, although its adoption in many operators' networks is quite gradual. Insofar as the Universal Profile helps with handset/network interop for voice calls, it has a role to play.

But beyond VoLTE, operators and handset OEMs need to ignore the exhortations of the GSMA to implement so-called “Advanced Messaging” (I wrote that before I realised the acronym spells SCAM). It will soak up money, technical and marketing resources, customer attention and credibility. Even if the Google-hosted RCS platform reduces the cost of operators deploying their own servers, it will still need testing, integration with in-house IMS platforms and new NFV systems and other actions.

Be very very skeptical of all the announcements. Any user statistics should be scrutinised carefully - while some operators technically have RCS servers live, the key statistic that won’t be mentioned is how many active users are doing anything beyond basic SMS-type messaging. How many are actually using RCS properly - and like it? The reality is that essentially zero people have switched from using Facebook Messenger, WeChat or Snapchat to using RCS for any meaningful purposes – and a reasonable forecast for 2019 would be roughly zero as well.

Go and see genuine innovators in messaging and communications platforms for inspiration. Have a look at the various business UCaaS providers. Seek out anything based on WebRTC. Speak to the cPaaS providers & talk about partnerships. Look for open-source platforms for infrastructure and IMS (eg from Metaswitch & Canonical). Track down in-app messaging, or ways to hook IoT devices' signalling traffic into the mix (MQTT and so on). Look for companies doing interesting things with SMS - it's not dead, especially for A2P uses. Look at what some vendors are operators are doing with 2nd/3rd-generation API platforms for developers.

There are dozens of clever options for messaging innovation available for operators (or MVNOs, cPaaS providers, UCaaS players and other types of SPs). RCS is not one of them.
It's notable that in all of the GSMA's literature & commentary I've been able to find, I've seen almost zero mentions of these words: Viral, Fun, Snapchat, Slack, Instagram, Emoji, Twilio. But there's lots of "interoperable" and "rich" and scare-stories about telephony ARPU.

Although, ironically, GSMA's own Twitter avatar is a SnapChat ghost at the moment. And it has its own Snap channel (link). Maybe if it announces at MWC that SnapChat is transitioning to/interconnecting with RCS it'd be a gamechanger. But otherwise, it speaks volumes that it's promoting one of the Internet success stories in 2017 messaging.

As I've said before: Ubiquity is earned, not imposed. RCS stilll needs to prove that users actually want it before it can have pretensions to being a platform. For now, remember So-Called Advanced Messaging is still a failure - it's an unfortunate acronym, but amusingly appropriate. If the Universal Profile had just been about implementing - and improving - VoLTE to improve the telephony experience, it would make sense. Instead, it's been weighed down with a lot of harmful baggage.


 
If you're thinking "So what else should I do instead?" or "How do I stop my management team making an expensive mistake?" then you're in the right place. Contact me about possible workshops or other advice. information AT disruptive-analysis DOT com