Blockchain and the Telecoms Industry: Thoughts from TMForum Live

I’ve just returned from TMForum’s annual conference in Nice. Blockchain / distributed-ledger technologies (and even more so AI, which I’ll cover in another post) figured quite highly.

(I'm expecting this post to be read by some non-telecom people, so a bit of background is likely to be useful here)
 

TMForum Live is an event traditionally aimed at the IT-facing parts of the telecoms industry. This is usually called BSS and OSS in the vernacular – business and operations support systems, such as billing, ordering, customer service, network & fault management etc. TMF was originally the “telemanagement forum”. The event talks about top-level industry themes (5G is a hot topic, as is IoT) but couches them in terms of “monetisation” and “operationalisation”. It’s necessary back-office stuff, but sometimes a bit dry.

So for outsiders – such as blockchain specialists - looking at the telecom industry, the BSS/OSS sphere is a pretty impenetrable forest of acronyms, legacy software, IT frameworks and solutions to deal with telcos’ sprawling operational and customer-facing needs. It also showcases “catalysts” – joint R&D projects run by consortia of companies, highlighting future possibilities – which are a bit more accessible, with dozens of workgroups exhibiting demos and results of their work.

In recent years, two major trends have led to the event’s character changing significantly:

• A blurring of the boundaries between IT systems and the telcos’ networks, as virtualisation (NFV – network function virtualisation & SDN – software defined networking) takes hold
• An increased focus on IT systems to support new customer-facing services, or adjacent areas that telcos hope to find new roles in servicing, such as IoT platforms, content, banking and smart cities. (Yes, the dreaded word “digital” makes frequent appearances)

More mundanely, the event has looked at ways to enhance the bread-and-butter costs and effectiveness of BSS and OSS solutions. Terms such as “customer experience management” and “service assurance” are everywhere, with user-centric improvements to mobile self-care apps, contact centre automation tools, chatbots, better ways to monitor network coverage and so on.

This year, quite a few conference sessions and exhibiting vendors mentioned Blockchain. It definitely wasn’t as high-profile as AI and machine-learning, but it provoked a lot of curiosity. A year ago, few attendees would have heard of it, much less thought it relevant to telecoms. Now, there is an internal working group, a panel session linking Blockchain & IoT, at least one Catalyst project, and a significant number of TMForum’s members who are taking an interest. I spoke at a smaller event TMForum ran in Portugal a few months ago, outlining my thoughts about applications, and had a significant amount of interest.

The main use-cases being discussed for telecoms blockchain included:

• Device identity & authentication, especially in IoT. There was a Catalyst exhibited (link) which used a Microsoft blockchain to create unique identities for medical sensors (wearable patches), via an Ericsson IoT platform, and also involving AT&T and others. This was also used for data time-stamping and asset management.
  
• Smart contracts, both as a possible new "Contract-as-a-service" play for enterprise-facing telcos, but also as a way to offer and manage SLAs (service level agreements) for CSPs' own network services.
• Mobile banking and micropayments, including for IoT-type use cases such as smart electricity grids. Again, blockchains might be used by telcos to either build complete "vertical" services for end-user, or as Enabler-as-a-Service wholesale/API plays for domain specialists.

I also had private discussions with vendors in Nice that covered a lot of other possible use-cases, including ones around NFV monetisation, fraud prevention, wholesale reconciliation and data-integrity protection. Another one that I've talked about before is use of distributed databases for new shared-spectrum usage and localised private radio networks - and that was independently mentioned by a speaker at another recent conference, the Wireless Broadband Alliance's congress in London.

All of these areas, and others, will be discussed at the Telecoms Blockchain & AI workshop I'm running on May 31st in London. There are still some spaces available - you can sign up here (link) or email me at information AT disruptive-analysis dot com.

My general sense is that development of blockchain applications in telecoms is taking a rather different evolution path to AI. There are some big “framework” plays around telecoms AI, including massive shared “data lakes” relating to customer data, network status and other variables. These can help drive more-reliable operations, better planning and happier customers who are prepared to spend more. Conversely, interest in blockchain and distributed ledgers is (for now) much more dispersed. Individual projects and functions are looking at these as solutions for “point problems” – cheaper registries and databases, ways to secure identity, whether smart contracts could help create enforceable SLAs and so forth.

As such, it’s harder to see telcos developing a centralised, coherent “blockchain strategy” – it’s probably going to be used tactically in very isolated niches, for the next 1-2 years at least. There will be a lot of pilots and prototypes – and each domain will also have a wide range of alternative options to consider. We might see more strategic use in IoT in future, as that seems to be a focus of quite a lot of work. This fragmentation of effort also means that multiple vendors, integrators and blockchain platforms (private, but also potentially public blockchains) are likely to be relevant. As yet, there is no real centralisation of effort for telecom blockchains in the same way there is for banking and healthcare. That may be a next step, beyond the TMForum's own working group.

I'm interested in others' views about this - and it's something that the May 31st public workshop (the first I'm running) should shed further light on. (Workshop details here).

Microsoft / LinkedIn helps kill the phone number as a primary B2B identifier

I'll keep this focused, as there will be hundreds of articles dissecting the MS / LI acquisition that will no doubt cover most angles.

For me, the key element is that LinkedIn has one of the only "identity spaces" that allows people from different companies to connect. The two other most-popular ID types, which cover company-to-company communications, are phone numbers and email addresses. Unlike those, LinkedIn actually has a functioning searchable directory, with real names and mutual-connection "opt-in" model to reduce spam. It also follows people from job to job.

Other options are very minor - some business-people connect via Twitter's messaging function, some have industry-specific IM systems like Bloomberg & Symphony in finance, and some interact via channels on Slack and similar services niche collaboration platforms. 

Three other identities stand out - Google ID (used for HangOuts and a few strange folk on G+), Skype, and Lync/Skype for Business. Some business-people probably end up communicating via iMessage but that's usually triggered via an initial phone-number exchange, as is WhatsApp and pretty much all the other major mobile messaging services.

None of the other UC/UCaaS services from Cisco, Avaya, Unify, Mitel or Broadsoft-enabled operators really have their own inter-company addressing, directory and search/discovery function, although they can sometimes use specific federation techniques, or indeed integrate with Microsoft's Office365 and other systems.

If it can put the pieces together, Microsoft now has:

• LinkedIn's real-name addressing
• Outlook / Office365's ability to link email addresses to presence and Microsoft's own identity space
• Skype IDs for both consumers and individual business-people
• Phone numbers provided for SkypeIn and PSTN Calling in Skype4B
• WebRTC/ORTC for "guest access"
• Dynamics for CRM / sales automation

It is thus now the only company that can legitimately claim to control directories for both internal and external connections among business users, plus a fair number of consumers as well. It is already quite common for people to use LinkedIn as a surrogate contact database, when they cannot immediately find someone's phone number or remember their email address - especially when they move jobs.

(It should however be noted that LinkedIn tends to polarise opinion quite a lot - while it has a proportion of regular users who exploit it for networking, recruitment, groups and articles, it also has many members that have neglected profiles and limited active use. I'd been expecting LinkedIn to add realtime communications with WebRTC for some time but nothing has appeared - although it will be interesting to see if there's been anything behind the scenes that Microsoft will accelerate).

That has big implications for two groups:

• Telcos will see the role of the phone-number diminish further in a B2B context, as it becomes ever-closer to being just a lowest common-denominator fallback option. Added to its diminishing scope for B2C (because of in-messaging chat, app notifications etc), this doesn't augur well for E.164's continued primacy
• Cisco, Broadsoft and others need to think closely how to tie together inter- as well as intra-company connections. I'll be interested to see if Cisco tries to leverage its Apple relationship, or if the UCaaS platform-players try to lean on Google [Which has been cropping up regularly at events, pitching Android for Work]. We could also see attempts by competitors to federate their various cloud platforms - perhaps using something like Matrix.org as an intermediary.

This also puts the pressure on Facebook to step up with its long-promised enterprise offer, and means that any sign that Slack, HipChat or peers are gaining viral adoption will be greeted with enthusiasm (and perhaps acquisition offers). We will also see redoubled interest in industry-specific federated messaging in healthcare or finance or government verticals.

[There are also impacts on other companies like Salesforce in the CRM arena, but I'll leave that for others to discuss]

Of course, all this is contingent on Microsoft/LinkedIn gaining approval from competition authorities - and of course also assumes Microsoft can do a rather better job with integration than it managed with Skype in the first place.

But overall, this is hugely important - and has ramifications that extend across the business communications sphere, and may ultimately prove to be (another) nail in the coffin of the phone number & PSTN as the primary B2B identity-space.

A new "killer app" for WebRTC? Video-identity verification / know-your-customer

I've recently come across an interesting new use-case for WebRTC, which I think could be a major driver of adoption - because it has a very clear monetisation model. It may also be a catalyst for growth of video-based contact centres, beyond the Amazon Mayday-style customer support scenario.

I'm referring to the use of video-authentication for web/mobile transaction security. This is also called “Online Legitimation” and is already widely used in Germany, especially for major financial services transactions such as opening of accounts, or setting up loan agreements, which have “know your customer” requirements.

The user is directed to a short two-way video session with a customer-service advisor, allowing verification of the user's identity against a photo on file, or by holding an ID/passport up to the camera. A code is then sent via SMS for two-factor security. (The latter approach has been approved by the German Federal Financial Supervisory Authority as an alternative to conventional offline legitimation procedures). 

This is very different to a normal person-to-person videoconference or "see what I see" application. It is using a video session (not a "call", really) to compare the likeness of two things (as well as conduct other vocal checks through a Q&A process).

At least four providers have already emerged in Germany (email me for names), and a large number of banks and credit-card companies have signed up with one or other of them. One of them has a price-list suggesting prices of between €4-8 per transaction, depending on volumes expected by the client. As well as WebRTC (desktop and embedded in mobile apps), there are sometimes options for Skype, FaceTime, fallback to Flash and so on.

The regulatory approval in Germany has clearly catalysed a sudden market uptake – it will be interesting to see if this is replicated elsewhere. This has the hint of a “killer app” for video contact centres, especially in finance but potentially also for other sectors such as online casino sign-ups, contract-witnessing, notarisation or other applications where visual ID approval is needed. 

This also fits very well with the move of many services online/mobile channels. It would be ridiculous to require an in-person identity check or notarisation, to set up a new online-only bank account. 

The precise number of relevant transactions requiring "hard" identity proof is a little hard to estimate - but a rough number of a billion annually does not seem unreasonable as a potential addressable market. There is a good argument for WebRTC solution providers to consider lobbying finance regulators or other bodies, to get them to clearly accept video-based "know your customer" processes.

Disruptive Analysis is about to publish an update for its WebRTC Market Analysis & Forecasts report, including analysis of various new & emerging use-cases such as this. Please get in touch to receive details & pricing (or to arrange a private workshop or project on WebRTC) information AT disruptive-analysis DOT com

---

WebRTC, telcos, phone numbers and identity - there won't be one ID to rule them all

Earlier this week, I spoke at AT&T's Developer Summit event in Las Vegas, presenting an overview of WebRTC market trends (which I'll upload to my Slideshare in the next few days), and also appearing on a panel with longstanding WebRTC luminaries like Cullen Jenning (Cisco), Dan Druta (AT&T), Eric Rescorla (Mozilla) & Daniel Enstrom (Ericsson).

This tied in with AT&T's launch of its new WebRTC API and platform offer, which is now in public beta and which was one of a variety of API areas it covered yesterday - others interesting from a service-creation standpoint were around M2M/IoT, connected home and car sectors and various others.

One aspect of the AT&T WebRTC offer to developers that is different to that seen from other platforms is a choice of identity enabled via its gateway - either using:

• The user's AT&T mobile phone number, if they have one
• A "guest" virtual number, which can also support SMS and other functions
• A web domain-linked identity for the WebRTC service, user@domain.com or similar

This prompted a round of discussions about how far E.164 phone numbers are likely to go as Web/WebRTC identities. It is not a new concept for operators - especially in mobile - to look to reuse phone numbers and their subscriber databases as a platform for identity management. It's also worth recognising that a number of apps like Whatsapp already do use phone numbers as a way to plot social graphs and as (essentially) persistent virtual identities even when decoupled from a SIM card. (I wrote about this here).

As always, there is a broad spectrum of opinion, ranging from some within operators who assert that phone numbers could be a "universal identifier" spanning payments, communications, personal data, and even linked to citizen databases and government ID scheme. At the other end, there are people who regularly pronounce "the death of the phone number" and think we'll all just have a personal WebRTC URL or SIP URI or Google ID or similar.

The reality is likely to be more nuanced - as well as probably varying by demographic and geographic groups. I suspect that most people will end up with 3-6 "primary" online identities, and then a bunch of others linked to those or standalone for niche purposes.

I think phone numbers intersect with WebRTC for some use-cases, especially for voice- rather than video, and in instances where:

a) Primary use of a given application is through a phone, with secondary access via WebRTC on another device
b) Where there are regulatory stipulations involved, eg mandatory records of identity, need for 911-type functions etc
c) National rather than international usage predominates
d) The application provider has an existing relationship with the user based on phone numbers

So for example, many people have their caller-IDs registered in their favourite food takeaway's CRM system, so that they can recognise your number and ask if you want your usual pizza when you call. There is some sense in having a WebRTC front-end emulate your number and ID, so they can link your new form of ordering with their existing database profile. Other B2C instances - banks, airlines, tax offices etc - may want the same.

On the other hand, if you're a developer creating a global karaoke app with WebRTC, it's probably not really useful to drive it from a phone-number ID. Your users might prefer to login with Facebook, so their friends can laugh at their awful drunken choice of music displayed on their timeline the next morning.

A WebRTC video job-interview on LinkedIn would probably use its own identity space. A realtime voice debate around a contentious blog post might be best-suited to your Twitter handle. Web advertising-triggered customer service interactions might use a Google ID, and so on. An enterprise internal extension number - or email address - might be appropriate for UC or an comms-embedded vertical app. We will also likely see completely separate personal-administered identities, for those who are wary of relying on 3rd-party owned and controlled ID.

I think it's good that AT&T (and also 3GPP in some of its WebRTC standards work) seems to recognise that non-E.164 numbers have relevant roles to play. Also within the phone number space, there is potential for both your "real" phone number, and a secondary/temporary one. It's quite possible that some telcos will be able to monetise their number ranges here, as well as in other online areas such as commerce and privacy. I've seen a couple of presentations by Ericsson about GSMA's Mobile Connect approach recently, and I can see some interesting uses - although there are also some pitfalls such as full support of number portability with E.164-triggered ID, or how you deal with people with multiple (or shared) phone numbers.

We need to be realistic - there is not going to be "one ID to rule them all", at least for most of us. But having the flexibility to pick-and-choose on a use-case basis is beneficial to all. For me, a combination of phone, Facebook and Twitter handle probably cover 60-70% of my needs, but I still also want LinkedIn, Skype, Yahoo, email and various others as well. Everyone is going to be different here.

That said, there are also questions about whether it is right for companies and especially government bodies to insist on phone numbers as ID for communications, as they are not free for the user. I think there needs to be concerted action to make businesses give users a choice of online and "phone" identity options. I already make a point of entering my Skype ID or a WebRTC URL in web-forms if they don't force a numerical response, and I'm tempted to get an obscure international or premium-rate number to use if I'm forced to provide E.164 when I don't want to. But at the same time, there are instances where I'm happy to provide a +44 mobile or fixed number, especially if I trust a company not to send spam SMS. Offering that capability in WebRTC platforms is a positive option.