Category Archives: telecom

Updates from Ciena

What’s Next for Cable Business Services?
By Darren McKinney – The state of cable business services, fiber versus coax, the addition of mobile services along with the advent of 5G (friend or foe), new service offerings, service level agreements, the move to virtualization, and more, were all hot topics at the recent Light Reading “Future of Cable Business Services” conference.

I have attended this conference for several years, and as it falls at the end of year it’s always a good time to reflect on what this means for the cable industry moving forward. Here are my top takeaways from the 2018 event, and what I’m thinking about heading into 2019.

For years business services represented 20%+ year-over-year revenue growth for cable MSOs – a significant growth engine given MSOs have experienced declining video subscribers (due to OTT competition), and have generally had consolidated revenue growth of 5-10% in recent years. MSOs have experienced higher growth rates in business services with small (100 employees), where these customers require more sophisticated services and competitive service level agreements (SLAs). more>

Related>

Where Did Qualcomm Go Wrong?

By Bolaji Ojo – It’s a justifiable question. The Qualcomm–NXP trip was an expensive sortie: Qualcomm has paid $2 billion in mandatory break-off fees to NXP, but the bill for the hidden costs may be much higher. For nearly two years, the communications IC and IP supplier and its target endured prolonged uncertainties. Even now, the spasms from customer disruptions remain strong while many employees, though heaving a sigh of relief, must figure out where they truly belong in the enterprise.

Qualcomm is moving on resolutely from the NXP debacle. It must. However, the implications and lessons — if any — are industry-wide. One of the largest acquisitions in the history of the semiconductor industry foundered because of oppositions from various fronts, including customers who might have benefited from it. Simply dumping the blame on nebulous factors and faceless regulators will result in the industry learning nothing from the experience. Perhaps the transaction was destined to fail. Perhaps it could have been better managed and successfully, too. A thorough assessment of why this deal collapsed would offer lessons that can be applied to future deals.

There are no signs that Qualcomm will conduct a detailed analysis of why and how the bid unraveled. It is easier — again — to simply toss more money at stakeholders and move on. NXP’s management and shareholders who had tendered their equity could slake their thirst with $2 billion in Qualcomm’s money. more>

American power at stake in great innovation race


By Peter Engelke – Americans like to think of themselves as the most innovative people in the world. At least since 1945, they have had good reason to believe so. During the Cold War, the United States built the most formidable technology-producing innovation system the world has ever seen.

Coordinated action by the U.S. government, the private sector and academia, combined with America’s unique postwar culture, crafted this system.

But the American system has seen better days. America’s leaders, at federal and state levels, have failed to maintain this system much less upgrade it.

As a result, America’s long list of difficulties includes falling public investment in research and development (R&D, a critical and under-appreciated factor in national innovativeness), an under-skilled workforce, flagging support for public higher education, decaying infrastructure and much more.

The global tech-innovation economy therefore is more than a just crowded place. It is also crowded where it counts: at the very top, where it no longer can be said that the U.S. stands alone. Several of the countries listed here, plus others, routinely score higher than the United States in global innovation rankings.

The U.S. will not long remain the global leader in innovation unless it takes decisive action across several fronts. more>

Why you should use cloud direct connect

datacenter.com – Cloud direct connect allows enterprises to access public cloud services (i.e. Amazon, Google, Microsoft, TencentCloud, etc) over a dedicated, private connection rather than over the public Internet. The benefits of direct cloud connections to your own network include greater reliability, better performance (better speed, lower latencies) and a higher security than typical connections over the Internet.

The costs of WAN and public Internet connectivity can be significant. The cost of moving a lot of data to your cloud provider vary per provider, but often are expensive. By using a neutral data center, you have access to multiple carriers who can provide you the necessary public Internet connections and direct cloud connect services. By segmenting the various network workloads, you can often realize savings in bandwidth and reduce the costs of moving data to your public cloud provider.

By replacing a “best effort” network, such as the public Internet with a direct connection to your cloud provider, you gain consistency in throughput and performance. As the mathematical principle states, “the shortest distance between two points is a line.” By using cloud direct connect services you’re connecting to the cloud provider in a straight line and increasing your performance. more>

A goal realized: Network lobbyists’ sweeping capture of their regulator

By Tom Wheeler – “Here’s how the telecom industry plans to defang their regulators,” a September 12, 2013 Washington Post headline announced. “[T]elecom giants including Verizon, AT&T and Comcast have launched multiple efforts to shift regulation of their broadband business to other agencies that don’t have nearly as much power as the FCC,” the article explained.

The companies’ goal: to move regulatory jurisdiction from the Federal Communications Commission to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Strategically, it is a brilliant sleight of hand since the FTC has no rulemaking authority and no telecommunications expertise, yet the companies and the policymakers who support them can trot out the line that the FTC will protect consumers.

With this vote, the FCC walked away from over a decade of bipartisan efforts to oversee the fairness and openness of companies such as Comcast, AT&T, Charter, and Verizon. These four companies control over 75 percent of the residential internet access in America, usually through a local monopoly. Henceforth, they will be able to make their own rules, subject only to very limited after-the-fact review.

The assertion that the FTC will be able to provide that protection adequately is an empty promise. The people at the FTC are good people, but they have neither network expertise, nor the authority to make rules. more>

The FCC’s net neutrality proposal: A shameful sham that sells out consumers

By Tom Wheeler – Fighting against monopolization in the internet era…meet ideologically-driven “do what the big guys want.”

A fair and open internet is the backbone of the digital economy. The FCC has sold out to the wishes of the companies it is supposed to regulate over the consumers it is supposed to protect.

For more than a decade, previous Republican and Democratic FCCs have tried to bring fairness and balance to the delivery of the internet to consumers. Every one of those efforts has been opposed by the corporations that consumers rely on to deliver the internet. Now the Trump FCC has simply cut to the chase, there is no need for the big companies to sue—they’ll just be given everything they want.

The assertion that the FCC proposal is somehow pro-consumer is a sham that doesn’t pass the straight-face test. It is impossible to find anything pro-consumer in the expert telecommunications agency walking away from its responsibilities in favor of an agency with no telecommunications expertise or authority. more>

Related>

David Brooks Is Mistaken: The Economy Is Broken

By Steve Denning – Brooks concludes blithely that “the market is working more or less as it’s supposed to.” It is therefore wrong to conclude that the U.S. economy has “structural flaws.” That is “a story that is fundamentally untrue.”

The difficulty with the argument, as Brooks well knows, is that one or two good years don’t make an era. Two years of income growth don’t undo the trauma flowing from 50 years of wage stagnation, much less lead to the conclusion that there are “no structural flaws” in the economy.

The brute fact remains that median salaries have stagnated for some 50 years. That’s the real problem of the U.S. economy that economists ought to be talking about.

When moderates deny the obvious, the disaffected inevitably turn elsewhere.

If moderates want to be listened to, they will need to take a harder look at what is going on, come up with coherent explanations for what has gone wrong, and offer plausible remedial action. more> https://goo.gl/zuoJbQ

The Difference Between Real And Pretend Strengths

BOOK REVIEW

The New Leader’s 100-Day Action Plan, Author: George Bradt.

By George Bradt – Real strengths are made up of talent, knowledge and skills. It’s not enough to study a subject. Expertise is born of practice.

Real strengths enable people to do what they need to do. Pretend strengths may be intriguing at first, but end up disappointing.

Too many people think they should be able to sell because they’ve worked with salespeople before, either as buyers themselves, providing support to sales, or making products or services that others sell. They can’t sell. Selling requires talent, knowledge and skills born of practice.

Too many people think they can teach because they’ve been students.

Frontier Communications bought AT&T’s wire line services in Connecticut. They were excited because the transaction was going to: “be accretive” and “improve Frontier’s dividend payout” while customers “will have the same products and services that they currently enjoy”. (From their press release.)

Wasn’t true. The day of the transfer, my voicemail service got “disabled”. And it stayed disabled for 11 days. Each of the four times I called Frontier I was informed that they would “open a ticket”. I didn’t want a ticket. I wanted voicemail.

Frontier’s not a real phone company. It just plays one on TV. more> https://goo.gl/pH2m1L

Apple vs Qualcomm. It Is More Than Money


By Gabe Moretti – I t would be impossible to grow an industry without standards that make it possible for various portion of the industry to cooperate and allow tools and methods to work together. To this end that are organizations that develop, distribute, and manage such standards. The IEEE is the one most familiar in the US.

Qualcomm and Apple are both members of ETSI, an SSO based in Sofia Antipolis, France, which includes more than 800 members from countries across five continents. ETSI produces globally accepted standards for the telecommunications industry. For example, ETSI created or helped to create numerous telecommunication standards, including the 2G/GSM, 3G/UMTS, and4G/LTE cellular communication standards.

Developing a standard requires the contribution of Intellectual Property (IP) by entities, usually corporate entities, universities, or other research organizations. Offering IP without restrictions would, almost always, hurt the offering entity financially, so a legal tool that protects it has been developed. For patents that companies have declared “essential” to the standard, patent law is reinforced by contractual obligations to license such patents on Fair, Reasonable, And non-Discriminatory commitments. The legal wording of the tool is called a FRAND (or RAND) commitment. The entire issue revolves around the definition of the term “Reasonable.”

The first thing to be realized is that this claim is about how to share revenue, not about standard making processes. Apple wants a larger share of revenue from the sale of its product, while Qualcomm wants to protect what it gets right now by re-defining how royalties are computed. Yet, there are other issues raised that may impact the electronics industry and EDA vendors.

Should royalties be fixed at a certain amount regardless of the sale price of the unit that use the licensed IP? Or, as Qualcomm contends, should royalties be a percentage of the price charged to the customer? more> https://goo.gl/rcESby

In 2017, Cost Per Bit Exceeds Revenues

By Carol Wilson – This is the year when most telecom network operators will see their revenue-per-bit fall below their cost-per-bit, says a veteran industry analyst, and that financial reality is going to reverberate through the industry for at least the next two years, prompting further consolidation and cuts by network gear makers, as operator capex budgets shrink.

Companies such as AT&T Inc. (NYSE: T) have been very open in saying the revenue-cost crossover drives their aggressive transformation efforts, because they recognize it is impossible to meet bandwidth requirements of the future doing things the way they’ve been done in the past.

That will mean continued price pressure on equipment vendors, CIMI Corp. CEO Tom Nolle, maintains. He points to declining revenues, quarter over quarter, for companies such as Cisco Systems Inc. (Nasdaq: CSCO), and to the fact that Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. is alone among vendors in growing its revenues because it is a price leader in many categories.

The analyst expects 2017 and 2018, at minimum, to be pretty bleak years for the telecom equipment space. more> https://goo.gl/ayoS7W