The Myth of "Always Best Connected"

 (This was originally posted as a LinkedIn Newsletter article. See this link, read the comment thread, and please subscribe)

It Was the Best of Times, it Was the Worst of Times

One of the most ludicrous phrases in telecoms is "Always Best Connected", or ABC. It is typically used by an operator, network vendor or standards organisation attempting to glue together cellular and Wi-Fi connections. It's a term that pretends that some sort of core network function can automatically and optimally switch a user between wireless models, without them caring - or even knowing - that it's happening.

Often, it's used together with the equally-stupid term "seamless handover", and perhaps claims that applications are "network agnostic" or that it doesn't matter what technology or network is used, as long as the user can "get connected". Often, articles or papers will go on to describe all Wi-Fi usage on devices as "offload" from cellular (it isn't - perhaps 5% of Wi-Fi traffic from phones is genuine offload).

There's been a long succession of proposed technologies and architectures, mostly from the 3GPP and cellular industry, keen to embrace but downplay Wi-Fi as some sort of secondary access mechanism. Acronyms abound - UMA, GAN, IWLAN, ANDSF, ATSSS, HetNets and so on. There have been attempts to allow a core network to switch a device's Wi-Fi radio on/off, and even hide the Wi-Fi logo so the user doesn't realise that's being used. It's all been a transparent and cynical attempt to sideline Wi-Fi - and users' independent choice of connection options - in the name of so-called "convergence". Pretty much all of these have been useless (or worse) except in very narrow circumstances.

To be fair, accurate and genuine descriptions - let's say "Rarely Worst-Connected" or "Usually Good-Enough Connected" or "You'll Take What Connection We Give You & Shut Up" - probably don't have the same marketing appeal.

Who's Better, Who's Best?

The problem is that there is no singular definition of "best". There are numerous possible criteria, many of which are heavily context-dependent.

Which "best" is being determined?

• Highest connection speed (average, or instantaneous?)
• Lowest latency & jitter
• Lowest power consumption (including network, device and cloud)
• Highest security
• Highest visibility and control
• Lowest cost (however defined)
• Greatest privacy
• Best coverage / lowest risk of drops while moving around
• Highest redundancy (which might mean 2+ independent connections)
• Connection to the public Internet vs. an edge server

In most cases involving smartphones, the basic definition of "best" is "enough speed and reliability so I can use my Internet / cloud application with OK performance, without costing me any extra money or inconvenience". Yet people and applications are becoming more discerning, and the network is unaware of important contextual information.

For instance, someone with flatrate data may view "best" very differently to someone with a limited data quota. Someone in a vehicle at traffic lights may have a different connection preference to someone sitting on the sofa at home. Someone playing a fast-paced game has a different best to someone downloading a software update. A user on a network with non-neutral policies, or one which collects and sells data on usage patterns, may want to use alternatives where possible.

In an era of private cellular, IoT, multiple concurrent applications, encryption, cloud/edge computing and rising security and privacy concerns, all this gets even more complex.

In addition to a lack of a single objective "best", there are many stakeholders, each of which may have their own view of what is "best", according to their particular priorities.

• The user
• The application developer
• The network operator(s)
• The user's employer or parents
• The building / venue owner
• The device or OS vendor
• A third-party connection management provider (eg SD-WAN vendor)
• The government

On some occasions, all these different "bests" will align. But on others, there will be stark divergence, especially where the stakeholders have access to different options for connectivity. A mobile phone network won't know that the user has access to an airport lounge's premium Wi-Fi, because of their frequent flyer status. A video-streaming app can't work out whether 5G or Wi-Fi will route to a closer, lower-power edge server.

So who or what oversees these conflicts and makes a final decision on which connection (or, increasingly, connections plural) is chosen? Who's the ultimate arbiter - and what do the other stakeholders do about it?

This problem isn't unique to network connectivity - it's true for transport as well. I live in London, and if I want to get from my home to somewhere else, I have lots of "best" options. Tube, bus, drive, taxi, walk, cycle and so on. Do I want to get there via the fastest route? Cheapest? Least polluting? Easiest for social-distancing? Have a chance to listen to a podcast on the way? If I want to put the best smile on the most people's faces, maybe I should go by camel or unicycle? And what's best for the city's air, Transport for London's finances, other travellers' convenience, or whoever I'm meeting (probably not the unicycle)?

 

There are multiple apps that give me all the options, and define preferences and constraints. The same is true for device operating systems, or connection-management software tools.

Hit Me With Your Best Shot

There are also all sorts of weird possible effects where "application-aware networks" end up in battle with "network-aware applications". Many applications are designed to work differently on different networks - perhaps "only auto-download video on Wi-Fi" or "ask the user before software updates download over metered connections". Some might try to work out the user's preferences intelligently, and compress / cache / adjust the flow when they appear to be on cellular, or uprate video when the user is home - or perhaps casting content to a larger screen. The network has little grasp of true context or user/developer desire and preferences.

Networks might attempt to treat a given application, user or traffic flow differently - perhaps giving it priority, or slowing or blocking it, or assigning it to a particular "slice". The application on the other hand might try to second-guess or game the network - either by spoofing another application's signature, or just using heuristics to reverse-engineer any "policy" or "optimisation" that might get applied.

You're My Best Friend

So what's the answer? How can the connectivity for a device or application be optimised?

There's no simple answer here, given the number of parameters discussed. But some general outlines can be created.

• Firstly, there needs to be multiple connections available, and ways to choose, switch, arbitrage between them - or bond them together.
• The operating system and radios / wired connections of the device should allow the user (or apps) to know what's available, with which characteristics - and any heuristics that can be deduced from current and previous behaviour.
• The user or device-owner needs to know "who or what is in charge of connections" and be able to delegate and switch that decision function when desired. It might be outsourced to their MNO, or their device supplier, or a third party. Or it could be that each application gets to choose its own connection.
• As a default, the user should always be aware of any automated changes - and be given the option to disable them. These should not be "seamless" but "frictionless" or low-friction. (Seams are important. They're there for a reason. Anyone disagreeing with this statement must post a picture of themselves wearing a seamless Lycra all-in-one along with their comment).
• Connectivity providers (whether SPs or privately-owned) should provide rich status information about their services - expected/guaranteed speed & latency, ownership, pricing, congestion, the nature of any data-collection or traffic inspection practices, and so on. This will be useful as input to the decision engines. Over time, it will be good to standardise this information. (Governments and policymakers - take note as well)
• We can expect connectivity decisions to be partly driven by external context - location, movement, awareness of indoor/outdoor situation, environment (eg home, work, travelling, roaming), use of accessories like headphones or displays, and so on.

Going forward, we can expect wireless devices to have some form of SD-WAN type control function. Using technologies such as multipath TCP, it will become easier to use multiple simultaneous connections - perhaps dedicated some to specific applications, or bonding them together. For security and privacy, the software may send packets via diverse routes, stopping any individual network monitoring function from seeing the entire flow.

Growing numbers of devices will have eSIM capability, allowing new network identities / owners to be added. Some may have 2+ cellular radios, as well as Wi-Fi (again, perhaps 2+ independent connections), USB and maybe in future satellite or other options as well.

Add in the potential for Free 5G (link), beamforming, private 5G, local-licensed spectrum WiFi, relaying & assorted other upcoming innovations to add even more layers here.

The bottom line is that "best connected" will become even more mythical in future than it already is. But there will be more options - and more tools - to try to optimise it, based on a dynamic and complex set of variables - especially when going beyond connectivity towards overall "quality of experience" metrics spanning eyeball-to-cloud. There's likely be plenty of opportunities for AI, user-experience designers, standards bodies and numerous others.

But (with apologies to the Tina Turner), users should always be wary of any software or service provider that claims to be "Simply the Best".

If you've enjoyed this article, please sign up for my LinkedIn Newsletter (link). Please also reach out to me for advisory workshops, consulting projects, speaking slots etc.

#5G #WiFi #cellular #mobile #telecoms #satellite #wireless #smartphones #connectionmanagement

Mobile Multi-Connection & SD-WAN is coming

I’ve written before (link) about the impact of SD-WAN on fixed (enterprise) operators, where it is having significant effects on the market for MPLS VPNs, allowing businesses to bond together / arbitrage between normal Internet connection(s), small-capacity MPLS links and perhaps an LTE modem in the same box. Now, similar things are being seen in the mobile world. This is the "multi-network" threat I've discussed before (link).

Sometimes provided through a normal CSP, and sometimes managed independently, SD-WAN has had a profound impact on MPLS pricing in some corporate sectors. It has partly been driven by an increasing % of branch-site data traffic going into the HQ network and straight out again to the web or a cloud service. That “tromboning” is expensive, especially if it is using premium MPLS capacity.

The key enabler has been the software used to combine multiple connections – either to bond them together, send traffic via differential connections based on type or speed, add security and cloud-management functions, or offer arbitrage capabilities of varying sorts. It has also disrupted network operators hoping to offer NFV- and SDN-services alongside access: if only a fraction of the traffic goes through that operator’s core, while the rest breaks-out straight to the Internet, or via a different carrier, it’s difficult to add valuable functionality with network software.

But thus far, the main impact has been on business fixed-data connections, especially MPLS which can be 30-40x the cost of a “vanilla” ISP broadband line, for comparable throughput speeds. Many network providers have now grudgingly launched SD-WAN services of their own – the “if you can’t beat them, then join them” strategy aiming to keep customer relevance, and push their own cloud-connect products. Typically they’ve partnered with SD-WAN providers like VeloCloud, while vendors such as Cisco have made acquisitions.

I’ve been wondering for a while if we’d see the principle extended to mobile devices or users – whether it’s likely to get multiple mobile connections, or a mix of mobile / fixed, to create similar problems for either business or consumer devices. It fits well with my broader belief of “arbitrage everywhere” (link).

Up to a point, WiFi on smartphones and other devices already does this multi-connection vision, but most implementations have been either/or cellular and WiFi, not both together. Either the user, the OS, or one of the various cellular hand-off standards has done the switching.

This is now starting to change. We are seeing early examples of mobile / WiFi / fixed combinations, where connections from multiple SPs and MNOs are being bonded, or where traffic is intelligently switched-between multiple “live” connections. (This is separate from things like eSIM- or multi-IMSI enabled mobile devices or services like Google Fi, which can connect to different networks, but only one at a time).

The early stages of mobile bonding / SD-WAN are mostly appearing in enterprise or IoT scenarios. The onboard WiFi in a growing number of passenger trains is often based on units combining multiple LTE radios. (And perhaps satellite). These can use multiple operators’ SIMs in order to maximise both coverage and throughput along the track. I’ve seen similar devices used for in-vehicle connections for law enforcement, and for some fixed-IoT implementations such as road-tolling or traffic-flow monitors.

At a trade show recently I saw the suitcase-sized unit below. It has 12 LTE radios and SIMs, plus a switch, so it can potentially combine 3 or 4 connections to each network operator. It’s used in locations like construction sites, to create a “virtual fibre” connection for the project office and workers, where normal fixed infrastructure is not available. Usually, the output is via WiFi or fixed-ethernet, but it can also potentially support site-wide LPWAN (or conceivably even a local private unlicensed/shared-band LTE network). 

It apparently costs about $6000 or so, although the vendor prefers to offer it as a service, with the various backhaul SIMs / data plans, rather than on a BYO basis. Apparently other similar systems are made by other firms – and I can certainly imagine less-rugged or fewer-radio versions having a much lower price point.

But what really caught my eye recently is a little-discussed announcement from Apple about the new iOS11. It supports “TCP Multipath”. (this link is a good description & the full Applie slide-deck from WWDC is here). This should enable it to use multiple simultaneous connections – notably cellular and WiFi, although I guess that conceivably a future device could even support two cellular radios (perhaps in an iPad with enough space and battery capacity). 

That on its own could yield some interesting results, especially as iOS already allows applications to distinguish between network connections (“only download video in high quality over WiFi”, etc).It also turns out that Apple has been privately using Multipath TCP for 4 years, for Siri - with, it claims, a 5x drop in network connection failure rates.

The iOS11 APIs offer various options for developers to combine WiFi and cellular (see slide 37 onward here). But I’m also wondering what future generations of developer controls over such multipath connectivity might enable. It could allow novel approaches to security, performance optimisation on a per-application or per-flow basis, offload and on-load, and perhaps integration with other similar devices, or home WiFi multi-AP solutions that are becoming popular. Where multiple devices cooperate, many other possibilities start to emerge.

What we may well see in future is multi-device, multi-access, P2P meshes. Imagine a family at home, with each member having a subscription and data-plan with a different mobile network. Either via some sort of gateway, or perhaps using WiFi or Bluetooth directly between devices, they can effectively share each others’ connections (and the fixed broadband), while simultaneously using their own “native” cellular data. Potentially, they can share phone numbers / identities this way as well. An advanced connection-management tool can optimise for throughput, latency or just simply coverage anywhere in the house or garden. 

This could have a number of profound implications. It would lead to much greater substitution between different networks and plans. It would indirectly improve network coverage, especially indoors. It could either increase or decrease demand for small cells (are they still needed, if phones can act as multi-network relays? Or perhaps operators try to keep people “on net” and give them away for free?). From a regulatory or law-enforcement standpoint it means serious challenges around identifying individual users. It could mean that non-neutral network policies could be “gamed”, as could pricing plans.

Now I’ll fully admit that I’m extrapolating quite a bit from a seemingly simple enhancement of iOS. (I’m also not sure how this would work with Android devices). But to me, this looks analogous to another Apple move last year – adding CallKit to iOS, which allowed other voice applications to become “first-class citizens” on iPhones, with multiple diallers and telephony experiences sharing call-logs and home-screen answerability.

Potentially, multipath in iOS allows other networks to become (effectively) first-class citizens as well as the “native” MNO connection controlled from the SIM.

I’m expecting other examples of mobile connection-bonding and arbitrage to emerge in the coming months and years. The lessons from SD-WAN in the fixed domain should be re-examined by carriers through a wireless lens: expect more arbitrage in future.

A Core Problem for Telcos: One Network, or Many?

In my view the central question - maybe an existential dilemma - facing the telecoms industry is this:

Is it better to have one integrated, centrally-managed and feature-rich network, or several less feature-rich ones, operated independently?

Most of the telecoms "establishment" - operators, large vendors, billing/OSS suppliers, industry bodies - tends to prefer the first option. So we get notions of networks with differentiated QoS levels, embedding applications in-network with NFV and mobile edge computing (MEC) and perhaps "slicing" future 5G networks, with external customer groups or applications becoming virtual operators. There is an assumption that all the various standards are tightly coupled - radio, core network, so-called "telco cloud", IMS and so on. Everything is provided as a "network function" or "network service" in integrated fashion, and monetised by a single CSP.

It's not just the old guard either. New "non-establishment" approaches to managing quality also appear, such as my colleague Martin Geddes' views on clever and deterministic contention-management mechanisms (link). That takes a fresh look at statistical multiplexing.

Yet users, device vendors and cloud/Internet application providers often prefer a different approach. Using multiple network connections, either concurrently or being able to switch between them easily, is seen to help reduce costs, improve coverage and spread risks better. I've written before about using independent connections to create "Quasi-QoS" (link), especially in fixed networks with SD-WAN. In mobile, hundreds of millions of users have multi-SIM handsets, while (especially in IoT) we see multi-IMSI SIM cards that can be combined with roaming deals to give access to all mobile networks in a given country, or optimise for costs/performance in other ways. Google's Fi service famously combines multiple MVNO deals, as well as WiFi. Others are looking to blend LPWAN with cellular, or satellite and so on. The incremental cost of adding another connection (especially wireless) is getting ever lower. At the other end of the spectrum, data centres will often want redundant fibre connections from different providers, to offset the risk of a digger cutting a duct, as well as the ability to arbitrage on pricing or performance.

I have spoken to "connected car" specialists who want their vehicles to have access not just to (multiple) cellular networks, but also satellite, WiFi in some locations - and also work OK in offline mode as well. Many software developers create apps which are "network aware", with connectivity preferences and fallbacks. We can expect future AI-based systems to be much smarter as well - perhaps your car will know that your regular route to work has 10 miles of poor 4G coverage, so it learns to pre-cache data, or uses a temporary secondary cellular link from a different provider.

There are some middle grounds as well. Technologies such as MIMO in wireless networks give "managed multiplicity", using bouncing radio signals and multiple antennas. Plenty of operators offer 4G backups for fixed connections, or integrate WiFi into their same core infrastructure. The question then is whether the convergence occurs in the network, or perhaps just in the billing system. Is there a single point of control (or failure)?

The problem for the industry is this: multi-network users want all the other features of the network (security, identity, applications etc) to work irrespective of their connection. Smartphone users want to be able to use WiFi wherever they are, and get access to the same cloud services - not just the ones delivered by their "official" network operator. They also want to be able to switch provider and keep access - the exact opposite of the type of "lock-in" that many in the telecoms industry would prefer. Google Fi does this, as it can act as an intermediary platform. That's also true for various international MVNO/MNO operators like Truphone.

A similar problem occurs at an application level: can operators push customers to be loyal to a single network-resident service such as telephony, SMS or (cough) RCS? Or are alternative forces pushing customers to choose multiple different services, either functionally-identical or more distant substitutes? It's pretty clear that the low marginal cost of adding another VoIP or IM or social network cost outweighs the benefits of having one "service to rule them all", no matter how smart it is. In this case, it's not just redundancy and arbitrage, but the ability to choose fine-grained features and user-experience elements.

In the past, the trump card for the mono-network approach has been QoS and guarantees. But ironically, the shift to mobile usage has reduced the potential here - operators cannot really guarantee QoS on wireless networks, as they are not in control of local interference, mobility or propagation risks. You couldn't imagine an SLA that guaranteed network connection quality, or application performance - just as long as it wasn't raining, or there wasn't a crowd of people outside your house. 

In other words, the overall balance is shifting towards multiplicity of networks. This tends to pain many engineers, as it means networks will (often) be less-deterministic as they are (effectively) inverse-multiplexed. Rather than one network being shared between many users/applications, we will see one user/device sharing many networks. 

While there will still be many use-cases for well-managed networks - even if users ultimately combine several of them - this means that future developments around NFV and network-slicing need to be realistic, rather than utopian. Your "slice" or QoS-managed network may only be used a % of them time, rather than exclusively. It's also likely that your "customer" will be an AI or smart application, rather than an end-user susceptible to being offered loyalty incentives. That has significant implications for pricing and value-chain - for example, meaning that aggregators and brokers will become much more important in future.

My view is that there are various options open to operators to mitigate the risks. But they need to be realistic and assume that a good % of their customers will, inevitably, be "promiscuous". They need to think more about competing for a larger share of a user's/device's connectivity, and less about loading up each connection with lots of QoS machinery which adds cost rather than agility. Nobody will pay for QoS (or a dedicated slice) only 70% of the time. Some users will be happy with a mono-connection option. But those need to be identified and specifically-relevant solutions developed accordingly. Hoping that software-defined arbitrage and multi-connection devices simply disappear is wishful (and harmful) thinking. Machiavellian approaches to stopping multi-connection won't work either - forget about switching off WiFi remotely, or connecting to a different network than the one the user prefer.

This is one of the megatrends and disruptions I often discuss in workshops with telco and vendor clients. If you would like to arrange a private Telecoms Strategic Disruptions session or custom advisory project, please get in touch with me via information AT disruptive-analysis DOT com.

2017 Predictions and Anti-Predictions

I am tempted just to repost last year's "10 Awful Tech-Industry Terms to Stop Using in 2016" (link) with just a revised date... it's all still accurate - and as I recently said in an interview, anyone still using words like "digital", "OTT" or "seamless" in the telecoms industry should be fired for gross ignorance & incompetence.

But there's such a lot of interesting stuff going on at the moment - and a lot of hype as well - that I decided it was worth doing a proper post on predictions, and also (in many ways more fun) anti-predictions. 

(Note: This is an edited/tidied-up version of my original post from December 21st)

I reckon that anti-forecasting - predicting what won't happen despite a "consensus", is massively underestimated in value in the telecom industry, because nobody (especially marketers) likes a negative story. My first anti-prediction is that, sadly, this won't change in 2017, and we'll be back here again in 12 months grudgingly acknowledging that we got things wrong again, and believed too much hype and spin.

As clients and regular readers/followers probably realise, I cover quite a broad spectrum of areas - from future voice / video / WebRTC / messaging applications and platforms, to 5G / NFV / WiFi / LPWAN networks - and also a smattering of cool new "telecom futurism" stuff such as blockchain and AI. I could try to structure this post into "buckets", but actually they all interconnect in complex ways, so I'm blending them all together deliberately - and also not separating the positive and negative predictions. 

So, in no particular order: 



AI gets everywhere. This is the big one. I generally don't go to big trade events like MWC or CES any more (not a good use of my time), but I'm willing to bet that both of them have a proliferation of AI, machine learning, deep-learning, speech/image recognition & associated analytical techniques as top themes. As well as headline use-cases like self-driving cars, I think what's going to be the real story for the telecoms industry is the operational uses in network management / planning, BSS/OSS, management of NFV & SDN, customer care, fraud management and more. For example, using pattern recognition to spot abnormal behaviour in network elements to indicate impending failure (hardware or software). What's going to be interesting is seeing who's had the foresight - or good luck - to have been collecting the right types of datasets to train the algorithms. Certainly, any new systems and services being implemented - or partnerships/deals being struck - should have a strong component of both "instrumentation" to collect data, and a strategy/team in place to analyse it properly. (See also my recent post on 5G vs AI - link)


5G IoT hype gets punctured. I'm a bit saddened at the moment by aspects of 5G. There has been a genuine - and laudable - attempt by the telecom industry to understand "verticals" and various use-cases upfront, in defining 5G. The problem has been the focus on the "sci-fi" scenarios - unsurprising as multiple industries look at each others' predictions and say "wow!". Everyone is getting distracted by the wildest visions, ignoring pragmatism, humdrum issues like legacy systems, and economic/practical bottlenecks in the process. Aided and abetted by governments, industry bodies and consultants trying to "5G-wash" everything in their promised "Digital Society" and "Internet of Everything" nonsense, and egged-on by telcos hoping for cheap spectrum and lax regulations, the 5G/IoT story has got ahead of itself. (At CES in Jan'17, Qualcomm's CEO came up with the most ludicrously hyperbolic prediction - that 5G would rival electricity in importance).

Meanwhile, in the real world, IoT at the low end is being satisfied today using anything from LoRA to WiFi, while 4G-based NB-IoT is "real soon now!" and won't hit the right price points anyway. A 5G variant will be many years away, and is unlikely to get to the $1-3 price needed for mass adoption. At the top end, it's far from clear there's enough latency-critical endpoints to justify the system-wide costs and complexity that will get added. QoS-managed, 1-millisecond latency flying robots sound great, but even if there's a million of them, they'd need a $10k/mo ARPU to offset the other 19.999 billion things that won't need all that extra network intelligence & machinery.

Add in the coverage issue - a lot of IoT will be in-building or on-site, in places that telcos have patchy presence and understanding of, and I think the industry is overselling itself. 5G - as I've written about recently (link) - is mostly going to be about fixed and mobile broadband once more.

Messaging-as-a-Platform disappoints. We've all heard the stories of WeChat embedding commerce and transactions elements. And it seems like Facebook, WhatsApp, and even the perennial no-hope RCS crew are trying to emulate it, plus add in chatbots for good measure. I think it'll fail, except maybe for occasional interactions with businesses you don't care enough about to install a proper app. Nobody is going to switch from a favourite taxi or airline loyalty app to a sub-standard experience inside a messenger. It's easier & makes more sense to put messaging (and voice/video) in the vertical app, than vice versa.


Network re-intermediation: Forget the term "end-to-end". 2017 is going to be about new companies, boxes, platforms and bits of software in the network. We're going to see more "multiplicity", with SD-WAN growing in enterprise, bonding together multiple Internet connections to supplement or replace MPLS. In mobile, we're going to get many new players offering various combinations of multi-IMS or eSIM-based platforms (buy my report! - link) to enable new IoT-SP or MVNO models (although I think they're going to stay very small and niche for the next 2 years). We'll maybe get a smattering of true multi-radio designs too - as seen in Apple's recent patent. In WiFi there's an interesting trend towards cloud platforms (eg Google WiFi for the home, or KodaCloud for small businesses), where multiple access points are intelligently controlled via a remote service that manages deployment, coverage, security and more. All this extra layering is also going to make life harder for the (late-to-market) NFV crowd, as it's going to mean that a user's data flows through multiple paths, and multiple core networks. (see this post of mine - link)


"Fake everything". We're used to hearing about fake news, and Photoshopped images. Expect 2017 to bring even worse things - in particular, fake videos, fake audio recordings, and fake IoT data. There will be a growing need to demonstrate that the images, sounds and other data are indeed genuine. Some of this can be done by "fingerprinting" in various ways, but I think we'll need better ways to demonstrate "data integrity" automatically. I'm increasingly swayed that blockchains and distributed ledgers might be part of the answer.


RCS - still dead. We're now on the 7th or 8th sequel to the zombie movie, and the producers still think they can find a blockbuster, even though everyone else just watches out of amusement at the hammy acting and cliched ending. Google's involvement via the acquisition of Jibe, and subsequent attempt to cajole RCS into being some telco/Internet alternative to Apple iMessage or "SMS updated" is a dead duck. I'm sure there will be some announcements at MWC, but I bet they don't quote any MAUs & DAUs (for *proper* use, not just as an SMS client). There's vague talk of repurposing it for MaaP, but nothing to attract developers or users. I'm seeing signs that the next attempt by the industry to force RCS into the market might be as a part of next-gen European emergency NG112 standards, as a platform for what's called "content-rich emergency calling". Given that Twitter, WhatsApp and other services are widely used to send pictures or video of emergencies, I can't see that one succeeding either.


Private Cellular is going to start to move higher up the vendor and regulatory agenda. I wrote about spectrum-sharing and IoT recently (link) but that is only part of the story. Many other factors are making enterprise or government cellular more plausible - small cells, cloud/NFV core networks, open-source elements, eSIM, wider availability of skilled people, MuLTEfire, moves to issue MNC (mobile network codes) to non-telcos, enterprise/scalable IMS platforms and so on. This isn't going to happen overnight, but the signs are coalescing - and even bits of government is noting, such as the UK National Infrastructure Commission report from December (link), which called for private networks in businesses and universities (see screenshot below).

LPWAN lift-off While some use-cases for IoT will definitely need (or at least prefer) managed spectrum and and networks, there are many others that will be happy with unlicensed and little/no cost connections, as demonstrated with WiFi and Bluetooth, and even USB. National and city networks are emerging, with some local technology / government organisations like the UK's Digital Catapult even allowing free use for low-scale developers (link). I expect we will see more integrated solutions for agriculture, city-management, non-critical transportation systems and more, where the connectivity is just baked in, perhaps without a subscription requirement for a formal "service". I view it as being a bit like electricity - we all need mains power, provided as a service, but we can also get our own batteries, generators or solar cells. (Or, at large scale like airports, even build our own power stations). NB-IoT should helpfully bring more telcos into play, but only for some sub-sectors that can bear the cost (and the wait) for a service-type model.


(Dis)unified Comms-as-a-service proliferates. The enterprise world for voice, video and messaging defies neat trends, beyond a continued shift away from old PBXs and towards the cloud. Microsoft Office 365 is clearly a huge driver, but so are SP-based UCaaS from 8x8, Vonage, RingCentral and hundreds of others. Some are homegrown systems, some based on BroadSoft or other platforms. New work stream-style offers like Cisco Spark, Unify Circuit and others are growing, whilst others are looking more at social/messaging approaches from Slack, Facebook (see my recent post - link) and numerous others. Meanwhile a host of contact centre and sales force platforms are integrating all sorts of communication functions (and bots) and many clever, well-designed conferencing solutions abound. In other words, it's a bit of a mess - partly because of mobile apps and WebRTC "democratising" some of the hard stuff, along with numerous open-source components. There are industry-specific vertical solutions like Symphony [a client I recently wrote a  paper for - link] that can claim differentiated roles as well. I don't expect 2017 to bring any more clarity - indeed, we will probably see even more "disunification" of both the vendor side and actual user behaviour. (Worth noting that Enterprise Connect is one of the bigger events that I still consider worth attending). 

Telcos have some decent opportunities in enterprise, both generally and in verticals. However, the enterprise unit needs to exercise increased autonomy from the core operations and network groups, except where clearly synergistic, eg maybe NFV-powered NaaS connectivity. It needs to be able to partner rapidly, adopt 3rd-party solutions, and not be "religious" about specific technologies or standards if the market dictates otherwise. There is very little synergy between UCaaS and IMS, for instance - as Mitel has learnt to its cost with its failed acquisition of Mavenir & subsequent spinoff. In future, expect a much greater need for vertical customisation, professional-services driven engagements, cloud partnerships (including Amazon, Google, Facebook, Salesforce et al) and a focus on solutions rather than minutes/trunks. There are some interesting opportunities for wholesalers and other intermediaries too. Fragmentation = purpose-specific solutions. 2017 will need to be the year that "unified" and "disunified" get embraced as distinct trends.


Blockchain: The telecom industry has been a bit of a laggard with blockchain and distributed-ledger technologies in 2016, but that should be remedied in 2017 as there is a fair amount going on below the surface. Various vendors and operators are looking at trials, or niche use-cases. I'll have more to say on this in Jan/Feb, but I'm expecting traction in data-integrity protection, use in telcos' vertical projects in eGovernment, some aspects of NFV and authentication/identity, as well as micropayments. (See my presentation from IIT RTC on Blockchain & Telecoms here - link)


NFV realism: 2017 is going to bring a set of realisations - similar to those in 5G - that NFV and network-slicing is not going to "fix world hunger". Grandiose projects aiming to transform telcos' overall service creation, deployment, control and billing will be seen as over-ambitious and fragile. More effort will go into smaller islands of virtualisation, whether for dedicated IoT core networks, particular services/functions (eg vEPC, vIMS), particular network elements' scalability & assorted others. Over time these islands will get glued together - messy and inelegant, but more viable than huge projects that risk collapse under their own weight. Lack of skilled staff is a major bottleneck that will only be partly fixed in 2017. Network slicing will be recast as an internal tool for multiple telco units on the same transport - not a customer-facing one where an IoT provider can get its own custom slice. It'll still get hyped at MWC though, but it's not the, er, best thing since sliced bread. (My post on slicing vs. hacking - link)


Regulation: I'll be honest - it's still anyone's guess what Trump means for the FCC. It's notable he's had a meeting of tech co's - but not a similar round table of telcos. I suspect that Net Neutrality will still have legs, and lawyers will still make most of the money in that area rather than vendors or operators. In the EU there is a battle shaping up between the Commission and BEREC the regulator's group about national vs. EU rules, especially on neutrality and spectrum, and how much is defined at each level. BEREC's implementation guidelines on Neutrality were seen as quite strong. Meanwhile, various aspects of the "Digital Single Market" plans are rumbling on - some good, some bad, and some window-dressing. The "Community WiFI" initiative is in the last category & is destined for failure or irrelevance - although it might take until 2018 for the wheels to fall off. Elsewhere, there are some trends to liberalisation in spectrum management and numbering - unlike most industries, telecom regulation tends to be a battle between two or three distinct groups of big players (old telcos, Internet, governments) which all have divergent/convergent interests. I'll be doing a lot more on policy stuff in 2017.


Universal Basic Income (UBI) hype
As well as my "day job" as a telecom/Internet analyst, I'm also involved in more general futurism and some aspects of policy. The last 6 months has seen a huge surge of interest in "technological unemployment" because of automation and AI, and the potential to use some form of UBI or negative income-tax to offset the predicated millions of lost jobs. Many researchers and authors have opined on this (I recommend Calum Chace's book - link). However, I am less pessimistic, especially on a 10-year view. I think tasks will get automated, but even where whole jobs get replaced, there is plenty of work to do, although re-skilling will be an issue. As for UBI, I think it's interesting and it's good that proper trials are going on in Finland and elsewhere. But I have serious doubts about its affordability and practicality. I also think that ageing and retirement may impact the workforce more than robots - many domains *need* automation to cover a shortfall of people. I think will governments will need to better support those impacted by AI or automation, but I'm unconvinced that the universal/unconditional aspects of UBI are the best approach. It's all very well saying people shouldn't need to work - but somebody has to pay for them not to, so it makes sense to be efficient about it. (AI should make administering more complex schemes much cheaper and easier, anyway). I think 2017 will see a continuing of UBI hype, but also some much-needed sover pragmatism. (I recently spoke on this at a London Futurists' / Transpolitica conference - link)


Random rants: Things I'd like to kill off in 2017 
- Conference apps. Just have a mobile website & email a PDF agenda. I don't want a personalised, privacy-invading "engagement" platform
- Link-hijacking and spam-blog social aggregation services like link.is, Crowdfire & paper.li. Just use "raw" links please!
- Survey / feedback spam. I'm getting deeply fed up with multiple "rate my X" messages and emails. Travel companies are some of the worst - Expedia sends up to 3 spam emails for each booking. Let's shame them online with the #surveyspam hashtag
- Automated social-media tools which send "Welcome" introduction messages on Twitter, add you to irrelevant lists and so on. Do it manually or risk getting blocked. 


I look forward to debating any or all of these with people in person at various events in 2017, or online either in the comments, on Twitter or LinkedIn. If you're looking for a keynote speaker, or internal advisory project in these areas, then please get in touch via information AT disruptive-analysis DOT com. Also, I run the Future of the Network research programme for STL Partners, so if you're interested in my detailed reports on 5G, NFV, spectrum, LPWAN and so on, please check this link for details.