Note: this post was first published via my LinkedIn Newsletter. Please subscribe (here) & also join the comment & discussion thread on LI
Context: I'm going to be spending more
time on telecom/tech policy & geopolitics over the next few months,
spanning UK, US, Europe & Global issues. I'll be sharing opinions
& analysis on the politics of 5G & Wi-Fi, spectrum, broadband
plans, supply-chain diversity & competition.
Recently,
I've seen more calls for governments to demand mandatory
interoperability between technology systems (or between vendors) as a
regulatory tool. I think this would be a mistake - although incentivising interop
can sometimes be a good move for various reasons. This is a fairly long
post to explain my thinking, with particular reference to Open RAN and
messaging.
Background & history
The
telecoms industry has thrived on interoperability. Phone calls work from
anywhere to anywhere, while handsets and other devices are tested &
certified for proper functioning on standardised networks. Famously,
interoperability between different “islands” of SMS led to the creation
of a huge market for mobile data services, although that didn't happen
overnight in many countries.
Much the same is true in the IT world
as well, with everything from email standards to USB connections and
Wi-Fi certification proving the point. The web and open APIs make it
easier for cloud applications to work together harmoniously.
 |
Image source: https://pixabay.com/illustrations/rings-wooden-rings-intertwined-100181/
|
But not everything valuable is interoperable. It isn't the only approach. Proprietary and vertically-integrated solutions remain important too.
Many
social media and communications applications have very limited
touch-points with each other. The largest 4G/5G equipment companies
don’t allow operator customers to mix-and-match components in their
radio systems. Many IT systems remain closed, without public APIs.
Consumers can’t choose to subscribe to network connectivity from MNO A,
but telephony & SMS from ISP B, and exclusive content belonging to
cable company C.
This isn't just a telecom or IT thing. It’s
difficult to get different industrial automation systems to work
together. An airline can’t buy an airframe from Boeing, but insist that
it has avionics from Airbus. The same is true for cars' sub-systems and
software.
Tight coupling or vertical integration between different
subsystems can enable better overall efficiency, or more fluid consumer
experience - but at the cost of creating "islands". Sometimes that's a
problem, but sometimes it's actually an advantage.
Well-known examples of interoperability in a narrow market subset can
obscure broader use of proprietary systems in a wider domain. Most
voice-related applications, beyond traditional "phone calls", do not
interoperate by default. You could probably connect a podcast platform
to a karaoke app, home voice assistant and a critical-communications
push-to-talk system.... but why would you? (This is one reason why I
always take care to never treat "voice" and "telephony" synonymously).
Hybrid, competitive markets are optimal
So there is value in interoperable systems, and also in
proprietary alternatives and niches. Some sectors gravitate towards
openness, such as federation between different email systems. Others may
create de-facto proprietary appoaches - which might risk harmful
monopolies, or which may be transferred to become open standards (for
instance, Adobe's PDF document format).
And even if something is based on theoretically interoperable
underpinnings, it might still not interoperate in practice. Most
enterprise Private 4G and 5G networks are not connected to public mobile
networks, even though they use the same standards.
Interoperability
can be both a positive and negative for security. Open and published
interfaces can be scrutinised for vulnerabilities, and third-parties can
test anything that can be attached to something else. Yet closed
systems have fewer entry points – the “attack surface” may be smaller.
Having a private technology for a specific purpose – from a military
communications infrastructure to a multiplayer gaming network – may make
commercial or strategic sense.
In many all areas of technology,
we see a natural pendulum swing between openness and proprietary. From
open flexibility to closed-system optimisation, and back again. Often
there are multiple layers of technology, where the pendulum swings with a
different cadence for each. Software-isation of many hardware products
means a given system might employ multiple layers at the same time.
Consider this (incomplete and sometimes overlapping) set of scenarios for interoperability:
- Between products: A
device needs to be able to connect to a network, using the right radio
frequencies and protocols. Or an electrical plug needs to fit into a
standardised socket.
- Within products or solutions (between components): A
product or service can be considered to be just a collection of
sub-systems. A computer might be able to support different suppliers’
memory chips or disks, using the same sockets. A browser could support
multiple ad-blockers. A telco’s virtualised network could support
different vendors for certain functions.
- Application-to-application / service-to-service: An
application can link to, integrate or federate with another - for
instance a reader could share this article on their Twitter feed, or mobile user can roam onto another network, or a bank can share data access with an accounting tool.
- Data portability: Data
formats can be common from one system to another, so users can own and
move their "state" data and history. This could range from a porting a
phone number, to moving uploaded photos from one social platform to
another.
There’s also a large and diverse industry dedicated
to gluing together things which are not directly interoperable – and
acting as important boundaries to enforce security, charging or other
functions. Session Border Controllers link different voice systems, with
transcoders to translate between different codecs. Gateways link Wi-Fi
or Bluetooth IoT devices to fixed or wireless broadband backhaul.
Connectors enable different software platforms to work together. Mapping
functions will eventually allow 5G network slicing to work across core,
transport and radio domains, abstracting the complexities at the
boundaries.
Added to this is the entire sphere of systems
integration – the practice of connecting disparate systems and
components together, to create solutions. While interoperability helps
SIs in some ways, it also commoditises some of their business.
Coexistence vs. interoperation
Yet
another option for non-interoperable systems is rules for how they can
coexist, without damaging each other’s operation. This is seen in
unlicensed or shared wireless spectrum bands, to avoid “tragedies of the
commons” where interference would jam all the disparate systems. Even
licensed bands can be "technology neutral".
Analogous approaches
enable the safe coexistence of different types of road users on the same
highway - or in the voice/video arena, technologies such as WebRTC
which embed "codec negotiation" procedures into the standards.
Arguably,
improving software techniques, automation, containerisation and AI will
make such interworking and coexistence approaches even easier in
future. Such kludginess might not please engineering purists who value
“elegance”, but that’s not the way the world works – and certainly
shouldn’t be how it’s regulated.
In a healthy and competitive
market, customers should be able to choose between open and closed
options, understanding the various trade-offs involved, yet be protected
from abusive anti-competitive power.
A great example of consumer
gains and "generativity" in innovation is that of the Internet itself,
which works alongside walled-garden, telco or private-network
alternatives to access content and applications.
Customers can
have the best of both worlds - accelerated, because of the competitive
tensions involved. The only risk is that of monopolies or oligopolies,
which requires oversight.
Where does government & regulatory policy fit in this?
This
highlights an important and central point: the role of government, and
its attitude to technology standards, interoperability and openness.
This topic is exemplified by various recent initiatives, ranging from
enthusiasm around Open RAN for 5G in the US, UK and elsewhere, to the
EU’s growing attempts to force Internet platform businesses to
interoperate and enable portability of data or content, as part of its
Digital Services Act.
My view is that governments should, in general, let technology markets, vendors and suppliers make their own choices.
It
is reasonable that governments often want to frame regulation in ways
to protect citizens from monopolists, or risks of harm such as
cybersecurity. In general, competition rules are developed across
industries, without specific rules about products, unless there is
unfair vertical integration and cross-subsidy.
Governments can certainly choose to adopt or even incentivise interoperability for various reasons – but they should not enshrine it in laws as mandatory.
If you're a believer in interventionist policies, then incentivising
market changes that favour national champions, foster inward investment
and increase opportunities can make sense - although others will clearly
differ.
(Personally, I think major tranches of intervention and
state-aid should only apply to game-changers with huge investment needs -
so perhaps for carbon capture technology, or hydrogen-powered
aviation).
Open RAN may be incentivised, not mandated
A
particular area of focus by many in telecoms is around open radio
networks. The O-RAN Alliance and the TIP OpenRan project are at the
forefront, with many genuinely impressive innovations and evolutions
occurring. Rakuten's deployment is proving to be a beacon - at least for
greenfield networks - while others such as Vodafone are using this
architectural philosophy for rural coverage improvements.
Governments
are increasingly involved as well - seeing a possible way to meet
voters' desires for better/cheaper coverage, while also offsetting
perceived risks from concentrations of power in a few large integrated
vendors. This latter issue has been pushed further into the limelight by
Huawei's fall from favour in a number of countries, which then see a
challenge from a smaller number of alternative providers - Nokia,
Ericsson and in some cases Samsung and NEC or niche providers.
This
combination of factors then gets further conflated with industrial
policy goals. For instance, if a country is good at creating software
but not manufacturing radios, then Open RAN is an opportunity, that
might merit some form of R&D stimulus, government-funded testbeds
and so on.
So I can see some arguments for incentives - but I
would be very wary of a step to enshrine any specific interop
requirements into law (or rules for licenses), or for large-scale
subsidies or plans for government-run national infrastructure. The world
has largely moved to "tech neutral" approaches in areas such as
spectrum awards. In the past, governments would mandate certain
technologies for certain bands - but that is now generally frowned upon.
No, message apps should not interoperate
Another
classic example of undesirable "forced interoperability" is in
messaging applications. I've often heard many in the telecoms industry
assert that it would be much better if WhatsApp, iMessage, Telegram,
Snap - and of course the mobile industry's own useless RCS standard -
could interconnect. Recently, some government and lobbying groups have
suggested much the same, especially in Brussels.
Yet this would
instantly hobble the best and most unique features of each - how would
ephemeral (disappearing) messages work on systems that keep them stored
perpetually? How would an encrypted platform interoperate with a
non-encrypted platform? How could an invite/accept contact system
interwork with a permissive any-to-any platform? How would a
phone-number identity system work with a screen-name one?
... and
that's before the real unintended consequences kick in, when people
realise that their LinkedIn messages now interoperate with Tinder,
corporate Slack and telemedicine messaging functions.
That doesn't mean there's never
a reason to interoperate between message systems. In particular, if
there's an acquisition it can be useful and imporant - imagine if Zoom
and Slack merged, for instance. Or a gaming platform's messaging might
want users to send invitations on social media. I could see some
circumstances (for business) where it might be helpful linking Twitter
and LinkedIn - but also others where it would be a disaster (I'm looking
at you, Sales Navigator spamming tools).
So again -
interoperability should be an option. Not a default. And in this case, I
see zero reasons for governments to incentivise.
Conclusion
Interoperability
between technology solutions or sub-systems should be possible - but it
should not be assumed as a default, nor legislated in areas with high
levels of innovation. It risks creating lowest-common denominators which
do not align with users' needs or behaviours. Vertical integration
often brings benefits, and as long as the upsides and downsides are
transparent, users can make informed trade-offs and choices.
Lock-in
effects can occur in both interoperable and proprietary systems. I'll
be writing more about the concept of path dependence in future.
Regulating or mandating interoperability
risks various harms - not just a reduction in innovation and
differentiation, but also unexpected and unintended consequences. Many
cite the European standardisation of GSM 2G/3G mobile networks as a
triumph - yet the US, Korea, Japan, China and others allowed a mix of
GSM, CDMA and local oddities such as iDen, WiBro and PHS. No prizes for
guessing which parts of the world now lead in 5G, although correlation
doesn't necessarily imply causation here.
There's also a big risk
from setting precedents that could lead to unintended consequences.
Perhaps car manufacturers would be next in line to be forced to have
open interfaces for all the electronic systems, impacting many
automakers' potential revenues. Politicians need to think more broadly.
As a general rule, if someone uses the obsolete term "digital" in the
context of interop, they're not thinking much at all.
I've written
before about the possible risks to telcos from the very "platform
neutrality" concept that many have campaigned for. Do they imagine
regulators wouldn't notice that many have their own ambitions to be platform providers too?
In
my view, an ideal market is made up of a competitive mix of
interoperable and proprietary options. As long as abuses are policed
effectively, customers should be able to make their own trade-offs - and
their own mistakes.
As
always - please comment and discuss this. I'll participate in the
discussions as far as possible. If you've found this thought-provoking,
please like and share on LinkedIn, Twitter and beyond. And get in touch
if I can help you with internal advisory work, or external
communications or speaking / keynote needs.
Note: this post was first published via my LinkedIn Newsletter. Please subscribe (here) & also join the comment & discussion thread on LI
#5G #openran #regulation #telecom #mobile #interoperability #competition #messaging #voice #innovation
An aggregation & marketplace tier for #ISPs, #AltNets and #infracos is emerging, among the UK fixed #broadband market's various groups:
- Incumbents with wholesale & retail units, although in theory separated - BT Retail & OpenReach, and VMO2 (Virgin) with its new wholesale JV Nexfibre (with Liberty Global & Infravia)
- AltNets with their own FTTP infrastructure solely for their own ISP retail services, eg Hyperoptic
- AltNets with FTTP for both inhouse ISP retail and wholesale to others
- Wholesale-only FTTP providers such as CityFibre
- Retail-only ISPs, such as Zen & TalkTalk, which buy wholesale fibre (and historically copper / FTTC)
The wholesale market is expanding rapidly, with infracos still building, Openreach accelerating (and trying to discount with its contentious Equinox 2 plan) and existing AltNets looking to supplement slow conversion of homes-passed to homes-connected by offering access to other ISPs.
But the patchwork quilt of wholesale FTTP is very messy. There is growing overbuild, lots of "passed" homes that need extra work to get to individual buildings (or inside them to flats), a mishmash of vendors and construction practices, variable-quality networks and processes - and ongoing consolidation and possible financial woes.
This brings a need for aggregation & simplification. There is both a "buy" and a "sell" side here.
Retail ISPs want access to well-defined and standardised wholesale fibre access, across multiple FTPP owners - both major players like Openreach and AltNets. They want to sell consistent products to end-customers, with promises on provisioning "live next Tuesday at 11am" or ways to deal with faults. They don't want 50 integration projects - but they do want good pricing.
The AltNets, meanwhile, want to be able to sell to those ISPs, even if they've built IT systems and processes that weren't originally designed for wholesale. They also need to conform to Ofcom's new one-touch-switching rules.
Maybe I'll think of a snappier term, but given that the #ConnectedNorth conference took place in Manchester, the term Open Access Solution as a Service, or #OASaaS, seems rather fitting...
There are already a number of OASaaS contenders. Some AltNets formed the Common Wholesale Platform | CWP in 2020. CityFibre is working on its own ecosystem, with Toob as its first partner. There's also The Fibre Café, Vitrifi & BroadbandHub - as well as TOTSCo which is purely focused on the one-touch switching process. Not all seem to focus equally on buy and sell sides.
I wonder if agreed standards or specs (or even regulation) are needed. Perhaps an equivalent to JOTS (Joint Operator Technical Specification) for shared/mobile infrastructure such as neutral host systems? We don't want OASaaS to look back in anger...