There will be a pushback against user profiling, big data & analytics

When it comes to Internet or telecom companies and personal data and privacy, I think there are two classes of abusive behaviour that tend to annoy end-users:

• Revealing specific data-points without permission
• Over-analysis of user behaviour during longer periods of time

The first class is more "obvious" - we've seen outcries about abuses from companies such as Google (with its WiFi logging and Google Streetmap content), Telefonica O2 (revealing phone numbers to websites during mobile browsing) and Carrier IQ (logging all on-handset activity).

But the second type is more insidious, yet leaves many people with a sense of unease. Just how much does Facebook know about you? What can Vodafone or AT&T or Etisalat deduce from your mobile phone usage - and link to your billing/registration details? What exactly are the "dark sides" of Google new privacy policy as it integrates its various personal datasets

Of course, this worry isn't confined to telecom and Internet companies. Both Microsoft and Apple probably see more of our behaviour than we feel comfortable with. And, obviously, governmental scrutiny extends to both instantaneous activity (eg CCTV, passport checks) and longer-term analytical capabilities.

Many libertarians rightly dislike the idea of governments joining the dots & connecting various datasets about citizens. The state should fear the people, not the other way around.

The same is true of online and telecoms user data as well. It needs to be collected to *serve* end-users, not creepily over-analyse them for the purpose of selling advertising, or attempting to up-sell them. I always have a sense of unease when I speak to a OSS/BSS companies that try to predict when customers are about to churn through service usage analytics, for example. I don't want to have my intentions inferred, especially by companies I'm paying money to. It's slightly different for Facebook, where I am consciously aware that I am "the product", as it's a free service.

Now some companies seem to use analytics responsibly - they're open about it, and demonstrate how it offers value. Amazon's recommendations are pretty useful, for example - and moreover, they are not intrusive (this is critical). Conversely, many mobile operators know exactly where they have coverage gaps, from their RAN analytics, but do nothing to plug the holes (some get the same data from their social media analytics & ignore that too).

Either way, we are likely to see more abuses (and also more useful instances as well). Both telecom companies and Internet players are acquiring more and more personal data - and are aggressively expanding their analytics capabilities. I'd expect "big data" to be a big deal at MWC.

However, I sense a mounting push-back against privacy invasion and over-analysis. We already see regular outcries about Facebook's fluid and questionable privacy policy and website tactics. Disgruntled people use that very same service (as well as Twitter and others) to complain vociferously - and have succeeded in getting changes made rapidly by the company. CarrierIQ fell before the lynch-mob of social media too - and O2 shut down its phone-number exposure within hours after a concerted online campaign.

I expect we'll see more of that type of thing... but I also think we'll see a fightback about on the analytics front too. I'm expecting to see a steady rise of behaviours and software tools that deliberately set out to undermine oveer-analysis of customer data, especially where there is low transparency, or the value accrues disproportionately to the company rather than user.

We'll see software plug-ins that log you out of Google automatically unless you're specifically searching or using gmail.com. We'll see obfuscatory smartphone apps that send "spare" bundled SMS
to random (well, actually pre-agreed) numbers. We might get easier or automated ways to switch off the cellular radio to avoid location tracking. We'll get software layers that make it easier to manage multiple Facebook accounts. We may get ways to share or pool "identities" - if necessary with record-keeping to keep law enforcement happy. We'll get browsers that generate random traffic & go to random websites to minimise any profiling from the likes of Phorm.

You get the idea. There is a built-in negative feedback loop with customer data and analytics. If the "market" perceives that over-analysis of "big data" is a danger, then there will be a concerted effort to pollute those datasets, made ever easier by social media, HTML5 and smartphones apps. The interesting thing is that this trend will apply equally to telcos and Internet companies.
 
**NEW! DISRUPTIVE ANALYSIS' REPORT ON TELCO-OTT STRATEGIES here **

An update on @DApremium - the world's first paid Twitter channel. Now available with quarterly or annual subscriptions

It's now been six weeks since I announced the launch of @DApremium, my second Twitter stream - one which is available only to paid subscribers. (The original announcement with the background of the disruptive and ground-breaking concept is here).

Since then, I've added 173 tweets to @DApremium, and signed up a couple of dozen followers; a mix of standalone paying Tweet-stream subscribers, and those who have obtained access bundled with purchasing the new Telco-OTT Strategy Report, or various consulting engagements.

Firstly, it has been pretty exciting to see an entirely new business model come to life. I had a number of people express doubt that anyone would pay for Twitter access - and given my normal cynicism about many social media "innovations" (and my historic Twitterphobic stance) I can't really blame them. Nevertheless, it's been very edifying to prove them wrong.

It's also been interesting that other people have been watching the progress closely - my Future of Communications associate Martin Geddes tweeted the other day that he may follow suit, and a couple of my analyst peers have also asked about progress, when I've bumped into them. A few watchers of general social media trends also appear to have taken an interest. I'd love others to follow my lead here, as it would further validate the concept and give encouragement to more people to subscribe as a mainstream alternative to newsletters or other premium analyst content formats.

I've now got a good feel for how the Premium-Tweet concept should work going forward, both in terms of content and sign-up process. I think I've got the balance right between my normal free-to-air @disruptivedean posts, and the paid-for content. The paid tweets include my real "ah-hah!" insights and epiphanies, as well as more company-specific commentary.

This is a selection of recent paid Tweets:

1. Virtualisation of core IP infrastructure may be the answer to wholesale LTE mobile networks - have various network nodes as multi-tenant

2. Cisco's Videoscape + soft client architecture is an enabler for #TelcoOTT video services (eg telco buys football rights, sells/streams OTT)

3. Bundling SMS plan with data plan may stem short-term SMS rev erosion. But "forced bundles" cause customer resentment if low perceived value

4. Many telcos reporting results soon. Will be embarassing if vendor slides at MWC still show "scissor diagram" if data rev growth > volumes

5. For #RCSe to be taken seriously as a developer platform, G5 operators need to show it working for own major IT systems eg customer support

6. Microsoft more likely to acquire RIM than Nokia IMO. Easier integration Seattle-Waterloo & US Gov will much prefer NAm buyer for RIM

7. Think about your personal spend on voice/telephony. What % would you ascribe to the utility of true "moving about" element of mobility?

8. If Net Neutrality laws modified to permit "premium" QoS for certain services, strong argument that must be available non-discriminatorily

9. There's a strong argument for 3GPP to be broken up into radio, core & application bodies. Integration was synergistic, now its a liability

10. Discussion on LinkedIn VoLTE group asserts it is an "open" standard. Open? But biz model is closed: subs, SIMs, IMS, roaming etc.

Going forward, I am going to be putting the majority of my "event" tweets on the premium channel - notably from MWC - although I'll be keeping the items that should drive open discussions & debate on @disruptivedean. It's still too early to know how the "community" aspect will evolve on the premium channel - given that there are unlikely to be other analysts or pundits on it, I suspect there won't be as much to-and-fro. But over time, it may shift from a broadcast / newsletter model to one which looks closer to the LinkedIn philosophy. (I might actually set up an LI group anyway).

I'm also closing down the introductory pricing structure, and moving to a new plan. There are now two options: quarterly ($100) or annual ($300) subscriptions. The quarterly option has been added as a way to get a "trial run" for those uncertain about a full year's commitment.

The terms and conditions otherwise remain the same as I'd previously published . One new point though - I'm getting a number of "speculative" follow requests without payment. I'll try to track these down & send a Twitter direct message from @disruptivedean about subscription options, but I will reject the requests after a week if I don't hear anything.

The sign-up process is simple:

1) Pay for 3-month or 12-month subscriptions via credit card or Paypal, below.
2) Access @DApremium on Twitter, and request to follow
3) Send an email to information AT disruptive-analysis.com with relevant VAT details if you opt for the EU VAT-exempt pricing. Also, drop me a note with any particular areas you'd like me to cover when possible.
4) I will authorise the follow-request ASAP, typically within 24 hours of payment, unless I'm travelling somewhere obscure

Many thanks to my original pioneering followers, many of whom have shown an enthusiastic interest in the business model as well as the content. I look forward to having valuable online and offline discussions with a larger community of participants in future. (I'm also interested in discussions about extending the general notion of paid/disruptive social and community models for analysis - get in touch if you've got a neat business idea I might find valuable).

12-month subscription to @DApremium

Non-UK/EU $300.00 USD UK/EU (+20% VAT) $360.00 USD EU (no VAT, send EU VAT# via email) $300.00 USD

3-month subscription to @DApremium

Non-UK/EU $100.00 USD UK/EU (+20% VAT) $120.00 USD EU (no VAT, send EU VAT# via email) $100.00 USD

If for some reason this doesn't work (sometimes PayPal can be a bit flaky), contact me via information AT disruptive-analysis DOT com and I can issue an invoice or payment email request.

You may want to send me an email anyway, or add me on LinkedIn so I can get to know my community a bit better. If you're an existing Disruptive Analysis client, please let me know and I can give you a complimentary subscription.

BYOD trend means BYOSP (bring your own service provider)... and will driveTelco-OTT services

One of the largest trends in enterprise IT right now is “BYOD” – standing for “bring your own device”. This is just a snappy acronym for what’s been happening for a while – employees using their own mobile phones, tablets or other products for work as well as in their personal life. Previously, it was given the less-cool name of “consumerisation of the enterprise”, although pedantically that also implies the use of consumer-grade services (eg Skype) as well as hardware.

BYOD is important for a whole host of reasons relevant to enterprise CIOs and their suppliers – security, management, fit with IT applications and so on. In the past, IT departments would have typically had a proscriptive “Thou shalt use company-approved Device X if thou wisheth to receive support”. Or in other words “Use your BlackBerry or E71 for business email, not your iPhone or Galaxy S”. But over time, the pushback has become more solid – often starting with C-level executives or top staff ignoring those edicts and demanding that IT support their favoured products. It’s a brave IT manager that will tell the CEO or top salesperson that they can’t use their iPad when they’re with clients.

But this post is not about those practical issues – it’s about how this impacts telcos.

The first point is that this potentially doesn’t just mean BYOD – it also implies BYOSP (bring your own service provider). Employees’ own devices, if used for business, are likely to be connected via a broad array of mobile network operators, or if WiFi-only, perhaps no SP at all. This is a completely different model to the idea of a corporate “fleet” of mobile devices all provided by the same company, with a bundled device+SIM deal. Instead, BYOD means that employees will have various SIMs, and various operator-customised versions of phones, plus some that are “vanilla” bought through retail.

This is a major problem for operators that have been trying to develop and sell enterprise mobility applications such as mobile PBX clients, or dedicated middleware for connection to back-end corporate applications. If a company’s IT department now has a mix of users with iOS, Android, Windows and other devices, connecting via Vodafone, O2, Orange and WiFi, it makes it much less likely that they will want (say) Vodafone OneNet or an Orange VPN client .

Instead, they will want applications that can work on any device (and OS/firmware build), running on any network. In other words, OTT-style functions using generic data connectivity – probably via the public Internet, but perhaps also via a dedicated connection like BlackBerry’s BES.

If you’re a regular reader of the blog, you can probably see what’s coming next:

If mobile operators seriously want to offer advanced mobile enterprise services, they are going to need to run them over their competitors’ networks, at least part of the time. Maybe they will be better when integrated with their own optimised device and network, but to reach the BYOD community they will need to push towards an OTT model themselves.

MNO services + BYOD + WiFi-only devices = mandatory Telco-OTT

That, needless to say, is easy neither for operators to accept, nor execute upon. Yet it will be essential, unless operators want to confine their enterprise exposure to the dwindling group of corporate-provided homogenous fleets of users.

This is one of the themes covered in Disruptive Analysis’ new report on Telco-OTT Strategies. If you're interested, contact information AT disruptive-analysis DOT com or click here

Telco-OTT Strategies report now published

The report is now available.

• 135 pages
• 88 operator services mentioned
• 4 service categories
• Content, video & portals
• Communications, social & identity
• Corporate & cloud 
• Connectivity

Comprehensive discussion of what "Telco-OTT" means, why it's inevitable, and key success factors for making it work. Covers everything from VoIP to femtocells to SaaS to IP-VPNs to portals to IPTV-anywhere.

For full details or to order via PO/invoice, please email:    
                                                                     information AT disruptive-analysis DOT com


**NEW! Contents are available here **

Or to purchase immediately by credit card or Paypal, please select licence option (1-3 users, or corporate) and click the links below. The report will be emailed as a PDF, wherever posssible within 24 hours.

Telco-OTT report (PDF) 1-3 users

Non-UK/EU $1,500.00 USD UK/EU (+20% VAT) $1,800.00 USD Non-UK EU (only if you send EU VAT# via email) $1,500.00 USD

Telco-OTT report (PDF) Corporate Licence

Non-UK/EU $2,500.00 USD UK/EU (+20% VAT) $3,000.00 USD Non-UK EU (only if you send EU VAT# via email) $2,500.00 USD

Peak Telephony - why voice has to be about more than phone calls

This thread is from my Facebook page. The original poster is a 23yo friend, others range up to about 40-45yo. I thought it was worth a post as it highlights the reason why re-organising a trillion-dollar industry about something as near-obsolete as the 100-year old "phone call" is so dangerous.


[Note: I don't know "Samuel" who defends the phone call, but by an interesting coincidence there's someone on LinkedIn who's a "technology analyst" with the same age & academic background].

Ruth: Am I alone in really not liking talking on the phone? Or am I a bit weird? It's just that someone phoning you on a mobile is a bit like someone leaping into the middle of your room yelling "Talk to me! Drop everything you are doing and talk to me RIGHT NOW! Talk to me!"

Samuel:  No different to a Facebook update

Scott: I like voicemail. My phone is for me to talk to people when i want to. Not for them to bug me at their leisure.

Ruth: Totally is, and to a text message. Those I can ignore and deal with at my leisure.

Matt: ‎*nods* Asynchronous communication FTW!

Samuel:  You can ignore the phone call too. No-one is making you answer it, it's just that the alert is a little longer. You obtain and deal with the information at a later date, just like with a text, except that rather than opening, reading and replying to a text, you're calling, listening and replying to a contact. Or opening, listening to a voicemail, and then calling back.

Dan: I totally agree with your aversion to phone calls. I used to think it was all talking to someone and not being able to see their expression but now I realise it's the inherent guilt that I'm busy doing something else at the same time as talking. Somehow it's fine to chat to someone face to face but it's impossible to talk on the phone without needing something else to do. Which is why Skype is evil - they can see what you are doing!!

Ruth: Sam, on a day when I am clearly very irritable anyway, do you have to make everything an argument? I was clearly just asking for a little light moral support for my stance, not a serious debate.

Fleur: Totally agree. People should ask for permission by text or email before calling.

Alex: I HATE talking to people on the phone. I can't see their expressions, and my own voice sounds so droning, and my gesticulations are wasted, and I get distracted so easily and my eye wanders to a book or something and then I lose track of the conversation and get flustered, and the horrible nagging ring just breaks in on life demanding to be heard, usually when I'm busy. Aaargh. I can talk to close family (who I can read even without expressions) while walking at night when there's not a lot to see or in Camden where there's a lot I don't want to see, but beyond that, ugh. I usually leave my phone off, or 'forget' to charge it, or 'mislay' it. Currently, I'm not entirely sure where it is, and suspect that it may be out of charge.

Ruth: I wish I could do that with my phone but it's also my texting device and I'm a very happy and regular texter. Is there a way to just "accidentally" turn off the phone part of an iphone? But not leave it permanently unserviceable in case I need to phone utilities to yell at them or etcetera (which rules out just smashing the microphone unfortunately)

**NEW! DISRUPTIVE ANALYSIS' REPORT ON TELCO-OTT STRATEGIES here **

800+ providers of telephony services in a shrinking market? Consolidation to Telco-OTT, not federation, is the answer

Every telco, fixed or mobile, operates its own telephony service. Some operate two or more - either with separate enterprise platforms, IMS (mostly fixed, but VoLTE for some in the future), or OTT-style VoIP.

This is ridiculous.

The conventional telephony market is peaking, and in various areas declining. Apart from emerging markets with new users, even mobile telephony is reducing in price and popularity, as people switch to messaging or in some cases Internet-based VoIP alternatives. Pricing regulation, and accounting changes, are also driving down the measured market size.

Yes, we see some consolidation in terms of networks for various reasons, but really, given that data use is growing and voice telephony is falling, it makes sense to decouple them. Telephony service consolidation is massively overdue, and has been hampered by legacy constraints about numbering, interconnect, roaming and so forth. Some of those constraints are regulatory, and some are about commercial inertia.

The advent of Skype and its peers is changing this. Skype is taking over a significant share of the most "open" part of the market, international direct-dial calls. That's a good and easy starting point, because pricing is egregiously-high, and most calls are from fixed locations, but there is much more to come.

The current "federation" model where each network owner runs its own voice service and they interconnect is a quirky legacy. The telecoms "establishment" would have you believe that on-net telephony will always be the highest quality. But the QoS argument is a red herring on at least two counts:

• Customers pay the highest prices for the lowest QoS guarantee - when roaming, where your home operator has very little visibility or control over the quality of the visited network.
• Continued insistence by operators and vendors that (if Net Neutrality laws were permitted) they could offer guaranteed QoS to third party providers such as Skype.

If you take the latter point to its logical conclusion, it suggests that, ironically, Net Neutrality is the only thing that allows operators' own telephony services to differentiate quality from third parties'. Today, the only voice service that most operators are allowed to optimise is their own.

If you stop to think about it, the economics are ridiculous. maybe 1000 global companies each offer the same simple service, locally, with expensive equipment, which could easily be centralised or redesigned with different architectures. That is 1000 providers of a flat or declining "electronic" service. They typically tie the "phone service" to other products like Internet access or  TV. Ten years ago, there were probably 1000 global mid-size retail chains of booksellers.

Even in banking and finance (a traditional national-oriented industry), we see cross-border acquisitions and centralised functions. We have centralised currency trading hubs, rather than each country having its own marketplace.

I recently flew between Singapore and London on Qantas, the Australian airline, quite literally "over the top" of both places. There's no mandate that anyone walking into (accessing) Changi Airport only uses Singapore Airlines.

In future, it will be ridiculous to suggest that anyone using AT&T or Vodafone's network can only use their telephony services. Obviously in fixed networks, various models of unbundling have been possible for years, and that will make similar logical sense in mobile as well. Either QoS mechanisms will be good enough to allow "managed" third-party access, or VoIP software will be good enough not to need it.

Looking ahead, I expect to see massive consolidation in the provision of basic commodity telephony services. The GSMA/ITU view that each network operator should have its own telephony service is an anachronistic, obsolete picture. We may well see innovative "non-telephony" voice services tailored to particular demographics, geographies or customer bases, but basic "Person A calls Person B for 5 minutes" will surely see aggregation.

We will also see some telephony move away from being a "service" altogether - speech will be a feature of the web, with spoken forms of words essentially little different to italic or bold. HTML5 and WebRTC are already starting that next phase of development. Some telephony will just become a mere feature or function of browsers or apps, rather than a third-party administered "service".

I predict that maybe 3-5 global players will dominate in "telephony services" by 2020, plus perhaps some regional or country-specific companies, for example if regulations are limiting factors in market evolution. There will also be some low-end vertically-integrated operators that just run 2G or 3G networks, for which 3rd-party telephony service is a more complex proposition - but even there, much of their back-end infrastructure is likely to be provided wholesale, by a company with more scale.

The obvious contenders from today's perspective are Microsoft/Skype, Google and maybe Facebook or Apple. Maybe also an infrastructure UTF player such as Ericsson or Huawei, offering their own direct-to-consumer voice services, hollowing out operators or just using them as a wholesale channel. Other newcomers like Viber or Vox.io might also spring from nowhere, with innovative approaches garnering massive support almost overnight.

But telcos could still have a role to play, if (and only if) some of them break free from the shackles of linking access and telephony service, ignore new "one-deployment-per-network-operator"  blind alleys like VoLTE, and emulate the new winners.

In my view, there is scope for a few telcos to become Tier-1 Global telephony players in 2020, after the market has consolidated massively. Those that win will be those that become proficient and successful at what I term "Telco-OTT" forms of voice service.

The current industry trajectory, of international operator groups sharing some core-network and application-layer infrastructure gives some scale benefits, but not enough. It lacks the "viral" nature of the best Internet-OTT players, which can capture users' minds, hearts and wallets, irrespective of their access providers.

The federation model can never win again - it is too slow-moving and bureaucratic, and cannot evolve services fast enough to keep up with the needs and whims of today's fickle communications users. The tired "ubiquity" argument is one which Facebook, with close to a billion users, and Google, with probably 2 billion+, have already won. There are close parallels between today's telephony and 2001's email market.

So, there will likely only be 1 or 2 telcos with major revenues from "vanilla" telephony in 2020.

And the real value will come from additional services, perhaps based around innovative voice and messaging concepts. Apple is showing the way here, with Siri. Microsoft may well do something clever with Skype and its other properties like Kinect or XBox. Google might do real-time translation in the cloud. Facebook might do some clever form of "social voice". None of those would work in "federated mode", based on the legacy telecom interconnect/standards worldview.

The Telco Telephony winners in 2020 will not only be those who can implement "Telco-OTT", but also those with a true vision of the "Future of Voice" that goes beyond just protecting the 100-year accident of linking phone service to network access.

Disruptive Analysis' new strategy report on Telco-OTT Services & Strategies is out next week. 

For details, email information AT disruptive-analysis DOT com, or see my pre-announcement blog post here.

2012 Winners and Losers

It's time for the annual merry-go-round of analyst predictions, and so I'll thrown my hat into the ring as usual. Some of these will come as "no surprise" to my regular readers & clients, others represent a bit of a change of stance.

I'm hideously busy before I head off for the holidays, so I'm afraid these are just bullet points. More detail & explanation will crop up here over time, or on my new subscription @DApremium Twitter channel.

Winners:

• Telco OTT services & business models This won't surprise many regular readers as it's a theme I've talked about for many years. It's a complex and nuanced area though, and we'll see as many failures as successes, if not more. Nevertheless, trial & experimentation are essential "you have to be in it, to win it"
• Loyalty business models for telcos - I think much of the future revenue growth opportunity for operators comes from clever pricing and marketing, assisted by network technology where needed. "Top up your account by $10+ by Wednesday and get a free 20MB of data and a discounted movie ticket".
• Charging/billing related policy engines  - the key enabler of loyalty schemes and other similar offers. The policy "intelligence" will primarily reside in the IT side of the operator, with enforcement on the network side. We'll also see on-device policy clients extending beyond today's simple dashboard / quota apps.
• Enhanced telephony & SMS services or functions - Making existing 20-100 year old services better should be prioritised above creating new ones. So-called HD voice is a start, but it's shameful that the industry abdicated its responsibility and to let Apple create Visual Voicemail and Siri, or Palm and others developed threaded SMS. Unfortunately, the obsession with standards and interoperability seems to stop the telco industry itself from improving the user experience of basic functions.
• Non-seamless operator wifi (offload, onload & other models). "Frictionless" will be a particular winner, not "seamless" (ie user will remain in control most or all of the time). A regular topic of mine: see various blog posts and this white paper I wrote on Carrier WiFi.
• iPads & Kindle Fires as complementary devices - OK, I'll admit I was unduly pessimistic about the impact of the iPad when it first launched. However, I still see it largely as an *extra* device for people rather than a substitute. I still don't buy this "post PC era" rhetoric. Netbooks were extra devices too, sold to people wanting a cheap portable second computing device - and iPads fit in the same category, with added coolness and new use-cases. I see the Fire as doing something similar - it looks like something new and fun, but again is incremental not substitutive.
• Microsoft & Nokia smartphones - I'll take a flyer on this and say that I expect MicroNokia to be a surprise success, although I think the buyout rumours are bunk. That said, it's critical we see continued developer traction - my main reason for not getting a Lumia at the moment is lack of support for some critical apps for me (BTFon for WiFi, Onavo for roaming data-saving, not sure if the Barclays London bike hire scheme has one yet)
• Mobile broadband data plans based on speed, location, time, device & user - all of these criteria can be determined accurately and easily (unlike application type). Ever more sophisticated pricing plans will be developed around them, supported by realtime information about network congestion, and perhaps ways to offer "happy hours" or similar.
• On-device network-intelligence for connectivity, policy & control (including both telco-driven innovations & more user-centric apps). Another theme of mine recently: trying to manage the network just from the core won't work - there needs to be intelligence out at the real edge to understand what's going on. Trying to guess about "video optimisation" when you don't even know if the user is watching a foreground player, or downloading in a hidden window makes no sense, for example. To know, you need footprint on the phone. Same deal with managing WiFi access and maybe policy in accordance with user wishes & expectations
• Consent-based mobile video delivery eg based on Operator CDNs, adaptive bitrate streaming &  close cooperation with video publishers. Where the operator works directly with a content company, they get "consent" to reformat or otherwise manage a video stream. That is going to be much more acceptable than trying to use boxes in the network to "optimise" it without permission or transparency. I wrote about the idea here (and comments) and I spoke about this at a conference recently - watch for an upcoming white paper.
  
• Wholesale 3G / 4G networks - yes, LightSquared has problems with GPS. But the general model of wholesale-centric LTE networks is a very strong one. Depending on the market, some will see disruptor new entrants, some will see government intervention, and others may see existing tier-2/3 operators opt for structural separation.
• Freemium Twitter / LinkedIn business models for analysts, consultants & other professional services companies. Sooner or later, someone clever is going to find a way to make money out of Twitter *coughs modestly*

Losers:

• RCSe - It was dead. It's now still dead, but shambling around like a zombie. I'm hoping to publish a report shaped like a wooden stake during 2012.
  
• NFC payments - classic case of a solution looking for a problem, with the added bonus of squabbling over who controls the wreckage. Massively overhpyed.
• QR codes - They're everywhere it seems. But have you ever actually seen somebody use one in public? Just give me the URL: I'm not going to "engage" with your marketing until *I* decide to.
• LTE in Europe - Spectrum, devices, voice, business case. Oh and flattening demand for data as well.
• SMS revenues - they've been a sitting duck for years. 20 years ago, sending 160 characters of text was quite a feat. Now, not so much. I expect massive price erosion (even within bundles) as a response to the continued viral adoption of iMessage, BBM, WhatsApp & whatever 2012 brings us.
• Cellular-enabled tablets - Poor fit of subscription "data plan" model with computing devices that tend to get used in unpredictable and ad-hoc fashion, often in places with WiFi anyway. And in the idea that you'd be happy to let an operator policy-manage your computing/Internet experience, and you've got a recipe for disaster. I told you so, 3 years ago.
• Telco control of user identity - I think the idea of SIM=identity will break down irretrievably in the next 24 months. Operators *do* have a role to play in ID and authentication, but it needs to be much more nuanced and user-centric. Some of the stuff that my associates at Telco 2.0 are doing with the World Economic Forum is interesting, but the industry still has too much of an arrogant belief that it can "own" more customer knowledge than it will get in practice.
• App-based policy control & charging - Another familiar theme of mine. The network doesn't see apps the way that users do. HTML5 makes the problem even worse - how do you charge for "Facebook" when there's 800m different versions, created on the fly in the server?
• Eurozone-exposed telecom companies - I'm not an economist, but delving into the topic with Telco 2.0 for a recent paper made me realise some of the problems that next year might bring. Hopefully I won't be writing the 2013 predictions from a cave, looking at the smouldering ruins of civilisation. All things considered though, I'm quite glad to be living and working this side of the Channel, despite the Monty-Python inspired taunting from our friends in Paris.
• ANDSF, IFOM, I-WLAN & seamless wifi offload - There's some good stuff in ANDSF (eg advising the user which WiFi access point is best), but it's a bit buried in the general belief that operators can control users' WiFi overall, forcing connectivity and enforcing policy. They can't, expect in a few corner-case instances. Attempting over-control will backfire: telcos can either control 30% of user WiFi, or zero. I suspect they'll aim for 100%, and the push-back will mean they'll get zero.
• Operator API balance-of-payments vs. Internet companies - Telcos are still pushing "capability exposure" via initiatives like OneAPI and Telefonica's commendable BlueVia project. But they're still not doing the right APIs in many cases (eg "does the user have a suitable data plan?", or "does the user have good coverage & network speeds?"). Meanwhile, Google, Facebook and others are starting to charge for bulk access to *their* APIs: telcos are often major users. Result: the net API balance of payments won't be pretty.
• Full mobile network outsourcing to "under the floor" players - another theme I've talked about for a while: in some cases, vendors' "UTF" managed services offers are larger strategic threats to telco business models than so-called "OTT" providers. Loss of control over the network might mean Opex savings, but it introduces massive opportunity costs from lower flexibility. Conference presentation here - and watch for an upcoming report I've written for Telco 2.0 on the subject.

Questionmarks

• NFC non-payment applications - interactions, not transactions. More likelihood of success, as it could be driven by a million developers doing cool new things, rather than people wanting a slice of transaction values. But dependent on Apple actually launching NFC as a catalyst, mostly.
• Mobile VoIP as a telephony replacement - we're getting closer, but we're still not *quite* there yet. Still issues with data network coverage, user interaction, numbering, ringing and so forth. Maybe we'll get the real viral trigger in 2012. Hear the issues in more depth at a Future of Voice workshop (and sign up for the newsletter!)
• Operator reported "voice" revenues - driven more by price bundling & accounting than VoIP at this stage. Some of the recent discussions I've had suggest that operator execs think they're inevitably losing the voice revenue battle. Add in some dry-but-important accounting changes and they're probably right.
• Development of simultaneous dual-radio LTE + GSM/UMTS phones - In my view, a sensible alternative to CSFB or VoLTE for LTE voice, but it might be a good idea too late (a bit like VoLGA). See this post & comment stream. One sneaking suspicion - the first such device might be a TD-LTE / GSM phone as I suspect that we're a long way behind implementing both CSFB and VoLTE on TDD networks.
• Android tablets - can't see the point really, unless you get something much cheaper and more interesting like the Kindle Fire.
• Blackberry resurgence/demise - 2011 as been an awful year for RIM. A big outage. Storm over encryption. The PlayBook is a cool device lacking an essential capability (email). It hasn't capitalised on its BBM franchise well enough either and is being "outcooled" in its core teenage market, while being sidelined by BYOD policies in its legacy enterprise customers. Can it survive 2012 as an independent? I'm a lot more pessimistic now than a year ago. Clearly some organisational issues to deal with, but at least it's actually still making some profit.
• Possible network overcapacity as "data explosion" fizzles out - Let's watch the stats over the next 6 months. I've a feeling that the Cisco VNI numbers have created a self-denying prophesy - the industry has developed 20+ solutions to the "data explosion" problem, and it seems that at least 10 have worked - perhaps too well.
• HTML5 impact on mobile networks if (& that's a big if) web apps take over from downloaded apps. Nobody seems to have thought about signalling, overall traffic load etc. I spoke about this at a recent Telco 2.0 event in Singapore, and I'm writing a research note for them for early 2012.

I hope you've found this interesting & thought-provoking. As always, I'd love to hear your opinions or disagreements on any of this. 

I'd also like to suggest that you challenge your own company - I do numerous workshops and advisory projects for operators, investors and vendors on "Disruption". Some of this focuses on individual issues mentioned here (eg "What's the negative story around RCSe?"), while sometimes I'm asked for an across-the-board wake-up call to provoke thought and discussion. Please get in touch via information AT disruptive-analysis DOT com.

New! Disruptive Analysis Premium Twitter subscription stream @DApremium - sign up today at an introductory promotional rate

What am I doing? 

I am launching the first analyst paid channel for Twitter: a subscription for "premium" exclusive tweets of my analysis, opinion and market observations.



Why am I doing this?

I've been using Twitter for over a year and a half, posting as @disruptivedean. I was a hold-out for a long time before grudgingly signing up. Although I've got a fairly good "reach" from it, I've been vocal in criticising it. I'd much prefer to just use something more useful like LinkedIn or Quora for "status" updates and more detailed discussions instead.

But unfortunately, Twitter is like tax - as an analyst, you have to grit your teeth and do it, painful, time-consuming and distasteful as it is. I end up spending time on Twitter that could be more profitably spent writing posts on this blog, advising clients or taking briefings. It adds cost, but brings little in the way of value or revenue.

There's a temporary warm feeling of "being part of something", and some undeniable self-validation in counting followers. But that's emotion, not business (and I don't use Twitter for my personal life).

One of the problems is that the main beneficiaries of Twitter are the Fourth Estate - journalists, and their digital equivalents and entourage: bloggers [no, I'm not one], PRs, marketing folk and analyst relations people. It does a lot of their job for them. Unsurprisingly, this group of users then promotes it as being the best thing since sliced bread, since for them, it probably is. As a result, it's become table-stakes, and because I've had to do it, I've tried to do it well.

I spoke recently at an IIAR (Institute of Industry Analyst Relations) debate about social media, and described Twitter's realtime platform as "seductive but irrelevant" to the work of an analyst, with little or no real value. 
 
So today, I'm hoping to change that. To use a telecoms metaphor, I'm "monetising the opinion pipe". I'm launching a premium Twitter channel, open only to paying subscribers or my existing clients. I'm keeping @disruptivedean but adding @DApremium


How will it work?

Ideally, Twitter (or, preferably, one of its better rivals) would have had a ready-made freemium + revshare platform, but at present I'm having to work it out with a mix of "protected" Tweets and offline payment through other channels. Looking about online, it looks like there were a couple of experiments doing paid Twitter streams around 2009, but I'm not aware of anything that currently does what I want.

This is experimental. It's genuinely disruptive. I'm not aware of anyone else doing this successfully. It's possible that Twitter may take a dim view and try & shut it down. Or it's possible that the model becomes more widely successful and I get bragging rights in a couple of years' time, albeit wishing I'd set it up as a software platform instead & sold it for a huge sum.

Clearly, most analyst firms offer various subscription models for their content and advice. This is not something that Disruptive Analysis has not done to date, preferring to use a mix of free content via this blog, as well as standalone published reports, papers and advisory services. A paid subscription Twitter stream, at a low price, fits into the trend towards providing analyst material in short, pithy, concise bursts.

I will maintain this blog at its current frequency, for longer & more analytical pieces. Depending on the response to @DApremium, I may add extra pay-walled material for subscribers in 2012. I'll also keep my free Twitter stream, especially for discussions and interactions, and as a marketing tool.


What's the deal?

So... what does @DApremium offer?

• My best insights and discoveries, delivered immediately. My existing blog & Twitter readers will recognise the regular "I told you so" moments. Future epiphanies will be on @DApremium
• 1000+ exclusive tweets per year (not retweetable, no forwarding allowed)
• A bias towards tweets which name & analyse specific vendors / organisations / operators
• The bulk of any conference coverage on @DApremium
• Answers to specific subscriber questions on @DApremium where feasible
• Additional content & benefits for @DApremium subscribers
• The ability to interact with a narrower group of high-level industry figures, with a much better "signal to noise" ratio to the open Twitter. In future, may set up a separate forum on LinkedIn or elsewhere for more full debate & longer-format discussions.

(Incidentally, I'm willing to be quoted about @DApremium, as an example of business model innovation in social media, and monetising supposedly free services)

What are some examples?

I only set up @DApremium on 13th December, and I am putting up this page a day later. The first 20 tweets have been (from first to last):

1. The premium Twitter stream of @disruptivedean, exclusively for subscribers & clients. Vendor analysis, event streams, unique insights etc

2. RT @disruptivedean BBC iPlayer 3G streaming approach points to death of non-consensual video optimisation model bbc.in/uufHaA

3. My dislike of Twitter is well known, but if DApremium enables monetisation of the "opinion pipe", I'll admit to seeing the value in it.

4. 2 telcos clearly embracing Telco-OTT concepts most strategically today: Telefonica & Telenor. Most others have smaller tactical activities

5. EverythingEverywhere had 326TB data traffic in last year bit.ly/uTPsFq but 3UK claims 137TB per DAY bit.ly/vcsBKn

6. I know that 3UK has lot of USB dongles & is still unlimited, but find it hard to believe 50x or 100x data traffic of EE. Miscalculation?

7. BBC using HLS adaptive bitrate streaming: self-optimising content. Will be more important than in-network optimisers see.sc/GHBBrI

8. Ah, seems EverythingEverywhere 326TB traffic just applies to the sharing/roaming deal T-Mo/Orange, not "native" data on each network

9. Still a disparity though: 3UK=137TB with 6m subs, EE=maybe 50TB/day with 27m subs. Big difference is down to market share of 3G USB modems

10. Telcos likely to be net losers on API balance-of-trade with Google, Facebook etc. eg GMaps charging coverage checkers see.sc/JtEH3b

11. Trying to work out whether there are actually any real-world implementations LIPA or SIPTO offload standards yet. Some vendor support.

12. Interesting presentation on RCS-e: suggests Spain launch now early 2012, not 2011 after all. Embarassing for GSMA see.sc/c97hGw

13. Congrats 3GPP for saying user WIFi prefs take priority over MNO steering. From OPIIS docs "Solution shall allow UE to override rules"

14. Thinking a lot about impact of HTML5 on networks. Totally kills app-based policy - there could be 200m different versions of Facebook Mobile

15. 2012 is likely to see dampening of NFC hype. Where it happens, it will be driven by non-financial interactions, not transactions or purchase

16. Wondering if the attempt by network depts & 3GPP to "own" online charging infrastr is the most damaging strategic mistake by mobile industry

17. Nokia Lumia devices seem well-received & even selling out in some places. But is that just because nobody had the confidence to order many?

18. Rogers in Canada extending its subs' numbers & voice services over the web via an OTT-style CounterPath platform t.co/igvIaiz

19. Ericsson's slow & grudging embrace of small cells seems to reflect fears over cannibalisation & commoditisation http://see.sc/sAsqoE

20. Uploaded my intro preso on LTE ("A contrarian's view") that I gave at last week's Layer123 LTE/EPC event in London www.scribd.com/doc/75687759

I can send across some more recent tweets via email if you get in contact with me


What does it cost?

Pricing for a new service like this is difficult. There are few benchmarks. Obviously, full analyst subscriptions can cost $10s of thousands per year, but with much more content. Disruptive Analysis' own research reports (such as January's forthcoming Telco-OTT report) vary from $hundreds to $thousands. At the other end of the spectrum, consumers getting a daily horoscope via SMS can cost $140 a year.

Now, I'd like to think that my insight is worth rather more than an astrologist's, even in volume terms - you can expect at least 3x the number of messages per year.



How can I sign up / pay?

Given the relatively small transaction size, I'm hoping that the bulk of subscribers will use credit cards or Paypal.


EDIT 1st Feb 2012: The introductory discount pricing period has now finished. 
Please go to the new price-plan page here

If for some reason this doesn't work (sometimes PayPal can be a bit flaky), contact me via information AT disruptive-analysis DOT com and I can issue an invoice or payment email request.

You may want to send me an email anyway, or add me on LinkedIn so I can get to know my community a bit better. If you're an existing Disruptive Analysis client, please let me know and I can give you a complimentary subscription.


If you sign up - thanks for valuing my input, and recognising the value in a new form of analyst interaction & advisory delivery model. I'll share feedback as we go along, and I hope you find the service useful & thought-provoking.



The fine print

A full set of terms & conditions are available on request. Key terms include:

- @DApremium Tweets may not be retweeted, copied/pasted into other Twitter streams, forwarded via email or otherwise distributed.
- Subscriptions are per-user, with the expectation that a maximum of 3 people have access to any individual Twitter account. Corporations [eg company-wide accounts @XYZcorp] will need to contact Disruptive Analysis for access
- Unauthorised distribution will result in removal of the subscriber's ability to access @DApremium
- @DApremium subscriptions will last for 12 months from the date of payment. Renewal reminders will be sent 1 month and 1 week before expiry.
- Subscribers recognise the limitations of Twitter's 140-character posts - this means that abbreviations, approximations & concise statements are typical. Complex ideas, trademarks etc may need to be condensed, and nuances may be lost. Any issues with accuracy, clarity or disputes should be raised with Disruptive Analysis, which will use either Twitter, blog or other channels to make clarifications or corrections if necessary.
- Subscribers recognise that paid Twitter streams represent an innovative business model and may be subject to change because of circumstance beyond Disruptive Analysis' control
- In particular, Twitter may change its terms of service, block or delete the @DApremium account, or require a new payment mechanism
- If there are problems or interruptions to the @DApremium service, Disruptive Analysis will attempt to find alternative channels for delivering status updates. These could include LinkedIn, private blogs, other social networks or, if necessary, email lists
- I'll be travelling over the Xmas and New Year period until around Jan 10th, so posts over the next few weeks will be less frequent than during normal periods. This is part of the rationale behind making the intro subscriptions valid until 31st Jan 2013

Telco-OTT Strategies & Case Studies: Pre-publication discount on forthcoming Disruptive Analysis report

**UPDATE! DISRUPTIVE ANALYSIS' REPORT ON TELCO-OTT STRATEGIES NOW PUBLISHED - PRICING AND CONTENTS DETAILS here **

I've discussed for several years (via private advisory work and this blog) the prospect of operators running their own "access independent" services. This means mimicking the major Internet players' role by offering what I'm calling "Telco-OTT" services. In other words, decoupling the network from the application - something which is highly controversial, especially for telecom traditionalists.

Google, Facebook, Skype and others have shown the power and value of standalone applications and services. Finally, operators are exploiting the scale of the multi-billion user Internet, the flexibilty of PCs, and the ease and virality of the smartphone app paradigm, to go beyond the narrow confines of their own access customer base. In other words, they are embracing the doctrine of "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em". But while compelling, it is not easy - there will be failures as well as successes.

I'm now in the final stages of putting together a landmark Disruptive Analysis strategy report on Telco-OTT services. It will span both fixed and mobile operators, and a broad set of applications and case-studies. It will be published in January, but I'm giving advance notice here, a taster of some of the thinking in the report, and offering this blog's readers a promotional discount for pre-orders.

This will be the first analyst report to focus on, describe and identify the trend - and "give it a name".

There are two broad strategies I see emerging for operators' own inhouse OTT activities:

• Add value to existing access subscribers, by adding service "accessibility" via 3rd-party networks and devices
• Extend brand and service/content reach to non-access subscribers

A prime example in the first category is fixed-broadband IPTV or cable providers, which are increasingly offering their subscribers a mobile app to watch content while "on the go" - typically on smartphones or tablets connected via other operators' networks. In the communications arena, Telefonica is trialling its O2 Connect VoIP service (based on Jajah) with an initial focus on existing O2 subscribers connecting via WiFi. Even RCSe believers see value in a "broadband access" option for OTT linkage into a user's service, via a PC client and generic Internet connection.

The second class is a more "full" vision of OTT-style services by operators, reaching new users who do not have a "subscription" at all. Orange's ON Voicefeed (a third-party visual voicemail) is a good example, as is T-Mobile US Bobsled (a Facebook-based communications app). Many operators also have traditional web portal or video/audio businesses, selling or delivering content to the Internet at large.

The first strategy is generally lower-risk and easier to monetise; the second is much more difficult (essentially on a par with any other Internet startup) but ultimately could generate more value. The report considers both paths, as well as the different options for organic development and acquisition. It also looks at strategic pitfalls and mistakes for Telco-OTT services, such as the creation of custom hardware (eg Vodafone 360 handsets).

There are also various other offerings that fall into the Telco-OTT envelope - classical enterprise VPN remote access services, femtocells connected over another operator's broadband lines, even WiFi "onload" used as a way for one operator to gain a service "pipe" onto another operator's smartphone fleet. New markets as diverse as M2M and social networking also yield opportunities and examples.

**NEW! DISRUPTIVE ANALYSIS' REPORT ON TELCO-OTT STRATEGIES NOW PUBLISHED - PRICING AND CONTENTS DETAILS here **

What is the cost of VoLTE? Is it a huge strategic error for the mobile industry?

I'm sitting at the Layer123 conference on EPC and LTE in London.

I've just heard a joint presentation on VoLTE from the GSMA and the MSF. The latter was about the recent interop trial, and the former was a general flag-waving / propaganda pitch. Apparently "everyone" is now agreed on VoLTE deployment. (I assume that comes from the same GSMA dictionary as "ubiquitous" used in discussions on RCS / RCSe). The subsequent presentation is from Germany consultancy Detecon, and the former one was from BT Wholesale.

Some outputs so far on LTE Voice:

- General agreement that CSFB still reduces QoE by increasing call setup time and dropping the LTE data connection
- "Pure" VoLTE should be available without handoff when the user moves out of LTE coverage in late 2012 / early 2013, after trials in early/mid 2012
- E911 support is a bit of a hassle for the US and a short-term cludge will be needed
- VoLTE with SRVCC (for handoff to 2G/3G at the edge of coverage) is late and complex
- Massmarket VoLTE with SRVCC "should" be available in 2014. I think that's both (a) delayed from initial discussions, and (b) very optimistic. I think 2016 is more likely when you take into account various other factors like devices

But the elephant in the room is the growing realisation in the industry that mobile voice telephony revenues are declining. A survey of strategists at the London Telco 2.0 event I attended a few weeks ago suggested 20-30% revenue erosion for operators on telephony in the next 3 years. The Asian equivalent in Singapore last week was even more bearish. Private conversations I've had with telco voice and strategy executives also demonstrate pessimism - sometime to the extent that they see telephony revenues evaporating almost entirely, under the onslaught from MVNOs, Google, Skype and the regulators.

So let me get this straight:

- Telephony revenues are declining because of external (and unstoppable) factors
- CSFB gives a worse user experience than circuit telephony
- VoLTE is only useful where there's actually LTE coverage
- Without SRVCC, VoLTE will drop calls (worse QoE than circuit)

Now in theory, VoIP means more calls can be squeezed into a Hz of frequency - so there are efficiencies on the radio and on backhaul capacity. But all the complexity of policy management, QoS, legacy interworking needs to be factored in.

Can anyone honestly say they believe that VoLTE will offer a lower "production cost" for telephony than GSM? Or are the costs per unit about to go up, just when the revenues are going down? And CSFB probably means higher costs AND lower quality than today's GSM.

That doesn't make economic sense - what operator will want to invest in more-expensive technology in order to provide a worse service in a declining market?

EDIT - a couple of people have pointed out that CS voice infrastructure isn't that cheap either, and neither are the legacy billing/OSS systems. True, but modern developing world 2G/3G networks show that CS can be really cheap if deployed today. I think a CS refresh (or full OTT-style service with a chance of Future of Voice type new revenue streams) may be a better bet than VoLTE.

Controlling telephony IN and supplementary features by app

This is a very quick post, before I dash to the airport. I'll be in Singapore for the rest of this week at Telco 2.0's New Digital Economics event, speaking on both Mobile Broadband, and also on the telco-world implications of HTML5. More to follow on that topic another time.

I was out with a friend last night, and he bemoaned the fact that he can't easily adjust the number of rings his phone does before it diverts to voicemail. (He's using an Android handset on a major operator). He said he'd been able to do something via some obscure code like *7529# , but it had taken him ages to find it - and he's a serious geek as well.

It struck me that this is the sort of thing that should be done via an app, linked to the voicemail server. (I don't know if Apple's visual voicemail allows this, or 3rd-party consumer options like ON VoiceFeed, but this is just about the normal operator-provided vmail).

More broadly, there's a ton of supplementary services and other legacy IN stuff around in the telephony space that never really gets properly thought about, except how much of a pain it is in terms of ensuring backward-compatiblity. Why? Why isn't there a decent operator-provided app for voicemail, 3-way calling or whatever other features they've got? Who cares if it only works on some people's phones - and who cares if it emulates *# codes or hooks directly into the server?

It's this type of thing that Martin Geddes and I mean when we say that the basic telephony service hasn't evolved. You don't need to go to HD Voice or even application-embedded voice to make a difference - nobody seems to have sat back and thought "how can we make telephony 1.0 work better, given the tools we've got at our disposal?". Yes, I'm sure there are security issues - but sort them!

Anyone got an answer to why there's no easy "configure my voicemail" app? Or even a web interface through the operator self-care portal?

[or maybe there are examples, but I'm not aware of them. In which case, an alternative question is "why don't you tell anyone about this?"]

The top 10 assumptions the telecoms industry makes about communications services

This is a slightly-edited repeat of a post I made last year. I think it is more relevant than ever, especially as the telecoms industry sleepwalks into another generation of mistakes, notably RCSe.

Disruptive Analysis' tagline is "don't assume". It is worth quickly stepping back to understand some of the basic premises and unspoken assumptions of the telecom industry “establishment” around personal communications. These are themes and concepts burnt into the mind of the "telecoms old guard", especially standards bodies, telecoms academics and traditional suppliers; they are seen as unwritten laws.

But are they really self-evident and unquestionable? Maybe not. It needs to be remembered that the telecom industry has grown up around the constraints and artificial boundaries of 100-year old technology (numbering, for example, or linking of length of a conversation with value). Many of those unnatural constraints no longer apply in an Internet or IP world - it is possible to more accurately replicate society's interactions - and extend them way beyond normal human modes of communication.

For any telecoms company wanting a continuing role for the next 100 years of the industry, it is worth going back to first principles. It is critical that everything previously taken for granted is reassessed in the light of real human behaviour - because we now have the tools to make communications systems work the way that people do, rather than forcing users to conform to technology's weird limitations.

For instance, we currently see the weird phenomenon of companies pushing so-called “HD” (high-definition) voice, as if it’s an amazing evolution. Actually, they mean “normal voice”, as it comes out of our mouths when we speak. We’ve only been using low-def voice because the older networks and applications weren’t capable of living up to our everyday real-life communications experience. Shockingly, this has taken decades to make a “big jump”, rather than evolving gradually and gracefully as technology improved.

So, in no particular order, these are the assumptions Disruptive Analysis believes are unwarranted.

1. A “subscription” is assumed to be the most natural way to engage with, or pay for, communications services.
2. The most basic quantum of human communication is assumed to be “a session”.
3. It is entirely rational to expect people to want a single presentation layer or interface, for all their various modes of communication (ie “unified” communications or messaging).
4. Communications capabilities are best offered as “services” rather than being owned outright, or as features of another product.
5. A phonebook is assumed to be the best metaphor for aggregating all of a person’s contacts and affiliations.
6. A phone call – (person A sets up a 2-way voice channel with person B for X minutes) is an accurate representation of human conversation & interaction, and not just a 100-year old best effort.
7. People always want to tell the truth (presence, name, context) to others that wish to communicate with them.
8. People are genuinely loyal to communications service providers, rather than merely grudgingly tolerant.
9. Ubiquity is always more important than exclusivity or specialisation.
10. The quality of a communications function or service is mostly determined by the technical characteristics of the network.

These are the types of issue discussed in much more depth my research reports, private advisory engagements, and in the Future of Voice workshops run by myself and Martin Geddes. 

If you'd like more detailed explanation of these assumptions - and what they mean for next-generation communications business models, please get in touch. I'm at information AT disruptive-analysis DOT com