In the spirit of the holiday season and New Year, this is another list about 2016.
But it's from me, so it's a rant, rather than clairvoyancy with a crystal-ball.
There's a bunch of words and concepts used in the technology industry that make you look like a fool, or at least lazy and sloppy. They're often meaningless, duplicitously-used to "misframe" an argument, or just generally cringe-worthy. Some of them I've tackled before, and yes, mea culpa, I've been guilty of some of them before too. But I've learned from the errors of the past, and apologise unreservedly for any historical fluffiness and telcowash.
So let's double-check our terminology in 2016, call out offenders, and make a collective New Year resolution to ditch the telco-industry b*llocks....
1. Digital
Meaningless drivel. The last
time the word "digital" was informative or cool was in the 1970s, or
maybe, if you absolutely must, relevant for newer telecoms switches in the
1980s. But apart from retro nods to Casio, it's now just a useful short-cut to
determining if someone is ignorant, tech-illiterate, or desperate for a marketing
hook - think "digital agency" as cringespeak for advertising, or
"digital single market" for the EU's half-witted bureaucrats and
their fawning legions of lobbyists.
And don't get me started on
the clueless telco and vendor folk talking about "digital" services.
Because hey, we don't want to go back to those awful days of the analogue
Internet in the 1990s, do we? I suppose I should be happy that at least some of
the politicos have switched over from the similarly-execrable "ICT",
but frankly "digital" is even worse. So sneer at the digitalistas with both pride and
prejudice – and perhaps a raised middle-digit.
2. OTT
This one I've tackled before,
but it bears repetition. "OTT" just means "bits of the Internet
we don't like". It's arbitrary, divisive and hypocritical (all telcos have
websites & Internet apps). It’s also a form of telecom industry self-harm,
as the "O" for "over" conjures images of a vertical
hierarchy, with content/apps/comms being at the top (and therefore implicitly
better) than everything "beneath". Along with “dumb pipe” the
false-dichotomy of ISP vs. OTT is at the base of many of the industry’s current
woes, as it re-frames a simple reality in a deliberately antagonistic way. Telecoms
industry regulators and lobbyists who use “OTT” are especially
unfit-for-purpose, and should be fired for incompetence.
There is an exemption for
anyone saying “OTT” if they also refer to networks as “UTF” (Under the Floor) providers,
as that’s where the plumbing goes.
3. Transformation
I have a little bit more tolerance
of this word, as it is slightly better
than some of the industry’s other gibberish. Elements of the industry are
undergoing profound change, yes… but that’s mostly being forced by events, with
grudging acceptance, rather than true enthusiasm. Even where networks are
genuinely being “transformed”, it is rare that the culture, process and
business model is following suit. More generally, it’s important to note that
telcos, and their networks and services, have been in a state of constant flux
for the last century, often with discontinuities in technology.
Either way, the only meaningful use of the word "transform" I've heard this year was by my Haitian guide when I visited in July - to describe a voodoo curse which he reckoned was turning him into a cow. To listen to some of the snake-oil merchants in the telecoms industry, you'd think we were watching something similarly magical occurring, rather than just mythology.
4. Seamless
Another
one I’ve taken aim at before – seams are important. Seams are borders, where
important things happen. Pretending that they don’t exist denies their
significance – and can lead to mistakes or complacency, in terms of user
perception, technical capabilities, pricing, security and more. A prime example
is the combination of WiFi and cellular connectivity for smartphones, where two
very different domains exist, and blending them needs to be done with care and
humility. Creating frictionless shifts between one and the other is important –
much like real-world borders. But the premise of “seamlessness” removes
visibility and agency from end-users and other market participants – and often
presupposes (wrongly) that network operators are the only/most-important actors
involved. Seamless transitions allow inertia and lock-in to be perpetuated,
rather than allowing users or app-developers scope to make “wrong” decisions.
5. Carrier-grade
This is another term which
exemplifies the telecom industry’s arrogance and self-absorption. It imbues
certain bits of infrastructure – or engineering practices – with a magical aura
of uniqueness and competence. And while many examples are indeed praise-worthy,
they are far from the only purveyors of excellent network engineering.
Corporate-grade networks are often just as secure, resilient and cost-effective
– but also often more flexible. Military-grade networks are often more secure.
Consumer-grade networks or various ad-hoc networks are often more democratic
and market-responsive. Internet-grade networks such as Google/Facebook
data-centres or Akamai’s CDNs are often cleverer.
Telecoms carriers are not “special
flowers” nor sit in “ivory towers”. Continually using terms like “carrier-grade”
perpetuates the arbitrary distinctions between telecom and Internet worlds, and
fosters harmful distinctions that inhibit service-providers from making
pragmatic, market-aware decisions.
6. Engagement
This is not limited to the
telecoms industry, but is a general example of horrific marketing-industry and
social-networking semantics and practice that needs to be stamped out. “Engagement”
usually involves forcing people to “interact” when they’d often rather not, or
measuring social-network actions in a cringe-worthy fashion. My recent example
of WiFi “monetisation” charlatans bragging of “engaging” users for 45 seconds
highlights the misanthropy present in this way of thinking. The whole area of “click-bait”
posts, or those stupid list-based websites that force you to find the “next
page” button, or click an invisible “x” on an intrusive floating advert are others.
This is not to say that it’s
a bad thing to allow people to interact with you. Yes, they should be able to comment
or share if they choose. But that’s the point: they are choosing to interact. They have agency, and take action. They
should not be encouraged or forced to “engage”.
It’s the coercivity that is wrong.
7. Content (& especially
content-marketing)
“Content” is just
one-directional application data, which flows from a “publisher” to a “consumer”.
Despite some commentators’ and legislators’ ignorant comments, it does not
constitute the whole Internet. While the likes of Netflix and the BBC are
clearly important, so too are Amazon, Twitter, Skype, SAP, email, backups to
iCloud, downloaded virus definitions and innumerable enterprise applications
and services. The latter are communications, transactions, applications and raw
data – not “content”. Yet too many laws and structures are designed with an
historical “media” mindset, rather than an IT or Internet-native one. For
example, the majority of the Net Neutrality discussion was centred on “content”
and “content provdiers” – although to be fair, some regulators have talked
about “edge providers”, which is a slightly more generic term.
Hopefully the rise of ever
more non-content mobile apps, plus also IoT devices and traffic, will make more
people (especially regulators and politicians) aware that networks are used for
much more than lumps of video entertainment, media websites and music.
To be honest, “content” is mostly
another sleazy, marketing-inspired word anyway – often used with a hidden
meaning of “that stuff we can embed
advertising in”. That also gives rise to the most repugnant use of the term
– in “content marketing”, which is basically just “long-form spam”, often
masquerading as journalism or analysis. The technology industry is widely
infested with dodgy “content marketing” – particularly corporate blogs masquerading
as independent sources of news or analysis. You know the type: one-sided puff-pieces
which laud a particular type of technology or product or brand. “Why WiFi-calling is transformational & will
change telecoms for ever and allow operators to fight back against the OTTs
with new digital services and improved customer engagement” (posted on
WiFiCallingForEver.com, with a tiny note at the bottom that it’s sponsored by
VendorX.com). The worst content-marketing of all is that derived from fake,
quasi-corrupt, pay-for-play industry “awards”, where marketing companies offer “sponsors”
a full package of PR and churnalism “content” in exchange for a “submission fee”.
8. Rich
Obviously exemplified by the
ludicrous RCS of zombie fame, the word “rich”
also crops up in various other telecom and Internet contexts as well. It
usually means “we didn’t have any proper designers involved, so we just threw
in as many random features as we could, hoping that people would muddle through
and ignore the incoherent clutter”. I don’t think I’ve ever seen Apple use the
word – or even Facebook. I’m scared to look, but it wouldn’t surprise me if
Yahoo or LinkedIn have used it, though. Rich services or apps don’t even have
the redeeming benefits of rich food – they’re unpalatable as well, as bad for
you.
Applications should be right not rich.
9. End-to-end
Whenever you see anyone in
the telecom talking about “end-to-end” capabilities – especially QoS – you should
laugh and dismiss them and their products/services immediately. In almost every
case, the so-called “ends” just refer to arbitrary points over which they have
some modicum of visibility and control. They are never the actual ends where a
service is generated or consumed, just points on an architecture diagram where
somebody else takes over responsibility. So for a streamed video, there are origination
servers (perhaps even the production, editing and encoding process) and the
end-device, with screen and associated processors and memory. Quality of
experience ends at the retina, the eardrum – and maybe even the cortex of the
brain. A great example of the end-to-end fallacy is around VoIP, where much of
the quality and performance is gated by the device’s silicon and its microphone
and speakers, as well as the various processing algorithms used. The network is
important – and bits of it may indeed be well-managed. But they’re not “ends”.
I’m writing this in an
airport, where BA takes responsibility for getting me from gate to gate. It
conspicuously doesn’t refer to my journey “end-to-end”. The handful of airlines
which offer limo-service to and from
your home and hotel would have a better claim – but even they can’t control the
traffic on the roads outside Heathrow, just the seat you sit in.
10. Ecosystem
This
is the term beloved of people who used to say “value chain”, especially as it allows
a temporary warm & fuzzy feeling from its environmental and natural background.
But for that very reason, it’s a lousy analogy. Ecosystems aren’t “built”, they
evolve. It means a group of interacting organisms AND their (physical)
environment and resources. It implies co-dependency – if one part of an
ecosystem gets removed, damaged or destroyed, it has an impact on everything
else. It’s not just a convenient term for a software or web company’s developer
and partner programme.
While
real ecosystems might have some symbiosis, they also typically have an apex
predator, plus lots of unfortunate other creatures and plants that get eaten,
or just manage to scratch a living, before rotting after their death with the
help of microbes and parasites. Hmm, maybe it is a decent analogy after all. I’ll leave it to the reader to identify
the parasites in the mobile “ecosystem”.
Summary
So let’s
have a collective New Year’s resolution to avoid telecoms-sector “trigger words”
and acknowledge what we actually mean in 2016. Let’s get rid of:
- Digital
- OTT
- Transformation
- Seamless
- Carrier-Grade
- Engagement
- Content
- Rich
- End-to-End
- Ecosystem
And, I’m sad
to admit, there’s also probably a number 11 that’s past it’s sell-by: “Disruptive”.
But yeah, let’s forget about that one, given that I was disruptive before it
went mainstream. I reckon I can claim some form of retro-irony exemption…
Rant
over.
Happy New Year!
