NFV: Great Promises, but How to Deliver?

Introduction

What’s the fuss about NFV?

Today, it seems that suddenly everything has become virtual: there are virtual machines, virtual LANs, virtual networks, virtual network interfaces, virtual switches, virtual routers and virtual functions. The two most recent and highly visible developments in Network Virtualisation are Software Defined Networking (SDN) and Network Functions Virtualisation (NFV). They are often used in the same breath, and are related but different.

Software Defined Networking has been around as a concept since 2008, has seen initial deployments in Data Centres as a Local Area Networking technology and according to early adopters such as Google, SDNs have helped to achieve better utilisation of data centre operations and of Data Centre Wide Area Networks. Urs Hoelzle of Google can be seen discussing Google’s deployment and findings here at the OpenNet summit in early 2012 and Google claim to be able to get 60% to 70% better utilisation out of their Data Centre WAN. Given the cost of deploying and maintaining service provider networks this could represent significant cost savings if service providers can replicate these results.

NFV – Network Functions Virtualisation – is just over two years old and yet it is already being deployed in service provider networks and has had a major impact on the networking vendor landscape. Globally the telecoms and datacomms equipment market is worth over $180bn and has been dominated by 5 vendors with around 50% of the market split between them.

Innovation and competition in the networking market has been lacking with very few major innovations in the last 12 years, the industry has focussed on capacity and speed rather than anything radically new, and start-ups that do come up with something interesting get quickly swallowed up by the established vendors. NFV has started to rock the steady ship by bringing the same technologies that revolutionised the IT computing markets, namely cloud computing, low cost off the shelf hardware, open source and virtualisation to the networking market.

Software Defined Networking (SDN)

Conventionally, networks have been built using devices that make autonomous decisions about how the network operates and how traffic flows. SDN offers new, more flexible and efficient ways to design, test, build and operate IP networks by separating the intelligence from the networking device and placing it in a single controller with a perspective of the entire network. Taking the ‘intelligence’ out of many individual components also means that it is possible to build and buy those components for less, thus reducing some costs in the network. Building on ‘Open’ standards should make it possible to select best in class vendors for different components in the network introducing innovation and competiveness.

SDN started out as a data centre technology aimed at making life easier for operators and designers to build and operate large scale data centre operations. However, it has moved into the Wide Area Network and as we shall see, it is already being deployed by telcos and service providers.

Network Functions Virtualisation (NFV)

Like SDN, NFV splits the control functions from the data forwarding functions, however while SDN does this for an entire network of things, NFV focusses specifically on network functions like routing, firewalls, load balancing, CPE etc. and looks to leverage developments in Common Off The Shelf (COTS) hardware such as generic server platforms utilising multi core CPUs.

The performance of a device like a router is critical to the overall performance of a network. Historically the only way to get this performance was to develop custom Integrated Circuits (ICs) such as Application Specific Integrated Circuits (ASICs) and build these into a device along with some intelligence to handle things like route acquisition, human interfaces and management. While off the shelf processors were good enough to handle the control plane of a device (route acquisition, human interface etc.), they typically did not have the ability to process data packets fast enough to build a viable device.

But things have moved on rapidly. Vendors like Intel have put specific focus on improving the data plane performance of COTS based devices and the performance of the devices has risen exponentially. Figure 1 clearly demonstrates that in just 3 years (2010 – 2013) a tenfold increase in packet processing or data plane performance has been achieved. Generally, CPU performance has been tracking Moore’s law which originally stated that the number of components in an integrated circuit would double very two years. If the number of components are related to performance, the same can be said about CPU performance. For example Intel will ship its latest processor family in the second half of 2015 which could have up to 72 individual CPU cores compared to the four or 6 used in 2010/2013.

Figure 1 – Intel Hardware performance

Source: ETSI & Telefonica

NFV was started by the telco industry to leverage the capability of COTS based devices to reduce the cost or networking equipment and more importantly to introduce innovation and more competition to the networking market.

Since its inception in 2012 and running as a special interest group within ETSI (European Telecommunications Standards Institute), NFV has proven to be a valuable initiative, not just from a cost perspective, but more importantly with what it means to telcos and service providers in being able to develop, test and launch new services quickly and efficiently.

ETSI set up a number of work streams to tackle the issues of performance, management & orchestration, proof of concept, reference architecture etc. and externally organisations like OPNFV (Open Platform for NFV) have brought together a number of vendors and interested parties.

Why do we need NFV? What we already have works!

NFV came into being to solve a number of problems. Dedicated appliances from the big networking vendors typically do one thing and do that thing very well, switching or routing packets, acting as a network firewall etc. But as each is dedicated to a particular task and has its own user interface, things can get a little complicated when there are hundreds of different devices to manage and staff to keep trained and updated. Devices also tend to be used for one specific application and reuse is sometimes difficult resulting in expensive obsolescence. By running network functions on a COTS based platform most of these issues go away resulting in:

Lower operating costs (some claim up to 80% less)
Faster time to market
Better integration between network functions
The ability to rapidly develop, test, deploy and iterate a new product
Lower risk associated with new product development
The ability to rapidly respond to market changes leading to greater agility
Less complex operations and better customer relations

And the real benefits are not just in the area of cost savings, they are all about time to market, being able to respond quickly to market demands and in essence becoming more agile.

The real benefits

If the real benefits of NFV are not just about cost savings and are about agility, how is this delivered? Agility comes from a number of different aspects, for example the ability to orchestrate a number of VNFs and the network to deliver a suite or chain of network functions for an individual user or application. This has been the focus of the ETSI Management and Orchestration (MANO) workstream.

MANO will be crucial to the long term success of NFV. MANO provides automation and provisioning and will interface with existing provisioning and billing platforms such as existing OSS/BSS. MANO will allow the use and reuse of VNFs, networking objects, chains of services and via external APIs allow applications to request and control the creation of specific services.

Figure 2 – Orchestration of Virtual Network Functions

Source: STL Partners

Figure 2 shows a hypothetical service chain created for a residential user accessing a network server. The service chain is made up of a number of VNFs that are used as required and then discarded when not needed as part of the service. For example the Broadband Remote Access Server becomes a VNF running on a common platform rather than a dedicated hardware appliance. As the users STB connects to the network, the authentication component checks that the user is valid and has a current account, but drops out of the chain once this function has been performed. The firewall is used for the duration of the connection and other components are used as required for example Deep Packet Inspection and load balancing. Equally as the user accesses other services such as media, Internet and voice services different VNFs can be brought into play such as SBC and Network Storage.

Sounds great, but is it real, is anyone doing anything useful?

The short answer is yes, there are live deployments of NFV in many service provider networks and NFV is having a real impact on costs and time to market detailed in this report. For example:

Vodafone Spain’s Lowi MVNO
Telefonica’s vCPE trial
AT&T Domain 2.0 (see pages 22 – 23 for more on these examples)

Executive Summary
Introduction
WTF – what’s the fuss about NFV?
Software Defined Networking (SDN)
Network Functions Virtualisation (NFV)
Why do we need NFV? What we already have works!
The real benefits
Sounds great, but is it real, is anyone doing anything useful?
The Industry Landscape of NFV
Where did NFV come from?
Any drawbacks?
Open Platform for NFV – OPNFV
Proprietary NFV platforms
NFV market size
SDN and NFV – what’s the difference?
Management and Orchestration (MANO)
What are the leading players doing?
NFV – Telco examples
NFV Vendors Overview
Analysis: the key challenges
Does it really work well enough?
Open Platforms vs. Walled Gardens
How to transition?
It’s not if, but when
Conclusions and recommendations
Appendices – NFV Reference architecture

Figure 1 – Intel Hardware performance
Figure 2 – Orchestration of Virtual Network Functions
Figure 3 – ETSI’s vision for Network Functions Virtualisation
Figure 4 – Typical Network device showing control and data planes
Figure 5 – Metaswitch SBC performance running on 8 x CPU Cores
Figure 6 – OPNFV Membership
Figure 7 – Intel OPNFV reference stack and platform
Figure 8 – Telecom equipment vendor market shares
Figure 9 – Autonomy Routing
Figure 10 – SDN Control of network topology
Figure 11 – ETSI reference architecture shown overlaid with functional layers
Figure 12 – Virtual switch conceptualised

Software Defined Networking (SDN): A Potential ‘Game Changer’

Summary: Software Defined Networking is a technological approach to designing and managing networks that has the potential to increase operator agility, lower costs, and disrupt the vendor landscape. Its initial impact has been within leading-edge data centres, but it also has the potential to spread into many other network areas, including core public telecoms networks. This briefing analyses its potential benefits and use cases, outlines strategic scenarios and key action plans for telcos, summarises key vendor positions, and why it is so important for both the telco and vendor communities to adopt and exploit SDN capabilities now. (May 2013, Executive Briefing Service, Cloud & Enterprise ICT Stream, Future of the Network Stream).

Potential Telco SDN/NFV Deployment Phases May 2013

Figure 1 – Potential Telco SDN/NFV Deployment Phases

Source STL Partners

Introduction

Software Defined Networking or SDN is a technological approach to designing and managing networks that has the potential to increase operator agility, lower costs, and disrupt the vendor landscape. Its initial impact has been within leading-edge data centres, but it also has the potential to spread into many other network areas, including core public telecoms networks.

With SDN, networks no longer need to be point to point connections between operational centres; rather the network becomes a programmable fabric that can be manipulated in real time to meet the needs of the applications and systems that sit on top of it. SDN allows networks to operate more efficiently in the data centre as a LAN and potentially also in Wide Area Networks (WANs).

SDN is new and, like any new technology, this means that there is a degree of hype and a lot of market activity:

Venture capitalists are on the lookout for new opportunities;
There are plenty of start-ups all with “the next big thing”;
Incumbents are looking to quickly acquire new skills through acquisition;
And not surprisingly there is a degree of SDN “Washing” where existing products get a makeover or a software upgrade and are suddenly SDN compliant.

However there still isn’t widespread clarity of what SDN is and how it might be used outside of vendor papers and marketing materials, and there are plenty of important questions to be answered. For example:

SDN is open to interpretation and is not an industry standard, so what is it?
Is it better than what we have today?
What are the implications for your business, whether telcos, or vendors?
Could it simply be just a passing fad that will fade into the networking archives like IP Switching or X.25 and can you afford to ignore it?
What will be the impact on LAN and WAN design and for that matter data centres, telcos and enterprise customers? Could it be a threat to service providers?
Could we see a future where networking equipment becomes commoditised just like server hardware?
Will standards prevail?

Vendors are to a degree adding to the confusion. For example, Cisco argues that it already has an SDN-capable product portfolio with Cisco One. It says that its solution is more capable than solutions dominated by open-source based products, because these have limited functionality.

This executive briefing will explain what SDN is, why it is different to traditional networking, look at the emerging market with some likely use cases and then look at the implications and benefits for service providers and vendors.

How and why has SDN evolved?

SDN has been developed in response to the fact that basic networking hasn’t really evolved much over the last 30 plus years, and that new capabilities are required to further the development of virtualised computing to bring innovation and new business opportunities. From a business perspective the networking market is a prime candidate for disruption:

It is a mature market that has evolved steadily for many years
There are relatively few leading players who have a dominant market position
Technology developments have generally focussed in speed rather than cost reduction or innovation
Low cost silicon is available to compete with custom chips developed by the market leaders
There is a wealth of open source software plus plenty of low cost general purpose computing hardware on which to run it
Until SDN, no one really took a clean slate view on what might be possible

New features and capabilities have been added to traditional equipment, but have tended to bloat the software content increasing costs to both purchase and operate the devices. Nevertheless – IP Networking as we know it has performed the task of connecting two end points very well; it has been able to support the explosion of growth required by the Internet and of mobile and mass computing in general.

Traditionally each element in the network (typically a switch or a router) builds up a network map and makes routing decisions based on communication with its immediate neighbours. Once a connection through the network has been established, packets follow the same route for the duration of the connection. Voice, data and video have differing delivery requirements with respect to delay, jitter and latency, but in traditional networks there is no overall picture of the network – no single entity responsible for route planning, or ensuring that traffic is optimised, managed or even flows over the most appropriate path to suit its needs.

One of the significant things about SDN is that it takes away the independence or autonomy from every networking element in order to remove its ability to make network routing decisions. The responsibility for establishing paths through the network, their control and their routing is placed in the hands of one or more central network controllers. The controller is able to see the network as complete entity and manage its traffic flows, routing, policies and quality of service, in essence treating the network as a fabric and then attempting to get maximum utilisation from that fabric. SDN Controllers generally offer external interfaces through which external applications can control and set up network paths.

There has been a growing demand to make networks programmable by external applications – data centres and virtual computing are clear examples of where it would be desirable to deploy not just the virtual computing environment, but all the associated networking functions and network infrastructure from a single console. With no common control point the only way of providing interfaces to external systems and applications is to place agents in the networking devices and to ask external systems to manage each networking device. This kind of architecture has difficulty scaling, creates lots of control traffic that reduces overall efficiency, it may end up with multiple applications trying to control the same entity and is therefore fraught with problems.

Network Functions Virtualisation (NFV)

It is worth noting that an initiative complementary to SDN was started in 2012 called Network Functions Virtualisation (NFV). This complicated sounding term was started by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) in order to take functions that sit on dedicated hardware like load balancers, firewalls, routers and other network devices and run them on virtualised hardware platforms lowering capex, extending their useful life and reducing operating expenditures. You can read more about NFV later in the report on page 20.

In contrast, SDN makes it possible to program or change the network to meet a specific time dependant need and establish end-to-end connections that meet specific criteria. The SDN controller holds a map of the current network state and the requests that external applications are making on the network, this makes it easier to get best use from the network at any given moment, carry out meaningful traffic engineering and work more effectively with virtual computing environments.

What is driving the move to SDN?

The Internet and the world of IP communications have seen continuous development over the last 40 years. There has been huge innovation and strict control of standards through the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Because of the ad-hoc nature of its development, there are many different functions catering for all sorts of use cases. Some overlap, some are obsolete, but all still have to be supported and more are being added all the time. This means that the devices that control IP networks and connect to the networks must understand a minimum subset of functions in order to communicate with each other successfully. This adds complexity and cost because every element in the network has to be able to process or understand these rules.

But the system works and it works well. For example when we open a web browser and a session to stlpartners.com, initially our browser and our PC have no knowledge of how to get to STL’s web server. But usually within half a second or so the STL Partners web site appears. What actually happens can be seen in Figure 1. Our PC uses a variety of protocols to connect first to a gateway (1) on our network and then to a public name server (2 & 3) in order to query the stlpartners.com IP address. The PC then sends a connection to that address (4) and assumes that the network will route packets of information to and from the destination server. The process is much the same whether using public WAN’s or private Local Area Networks.

Figure 2 – Process of connecting to an Internet web address

Source STL Partners

The Internet is also highly resilient; it was developed to survive a variety of network outages including the complete loss of sub networks. Popular myth has it that the US Department of Defence wanted it to be able to survive a nuclear attack, but while it probably could, nuclear survivability wasn’t a design goal. The Internet has the ability to route around failed networking elements and it does this by giving network devices the autonomy to make their own decisions about the state of the network and how to get data from one point to any other.

While this is of great value in unreliable networks, which is what the Internet looked like during its evolution in the late 70’s or early 80’s, networks of today comprise far more robust elements and more reliable network links. The upshot is that networks typically operate at a sub optimum level, unless there is a network outage, routes and traffic paths are mostly static and last for the duration of the connection. If an outage occurs, the routers in the network decide amongst themselves how best to re-route the traffic, with each of them making their own decisions about traffic flow and prioritisation given their individual view of the network. In actual fact most routers and switches are not aware of the network in its entirety, just the adjacent devices they are connected to and the information they get from them about the networks and devices they in turn are connected to. Therefore, it can take some time for a converged network to stabilise as we saw in the Internet outages that affected Amazon, Facebook, Google and Dropbox last October.

The diagram in Figure 2 shows a simple router network, Router A knows about the networks on routers B and C because it is connected directly to them and they have informed A about their networks. B and C have also informed A that they can get to the networks or devices on router D. You can see from this model that there is no overall picture of the network and no one device is able to make network wide decisions. In order to connect a device on a network attached to A, to a device on a network attached to D, A must make a decision based on what B or C tell it.

Figure 3 – Simple router network

Source STL Partners

This model makes it difficult to build large data centres with thousands of Virtual Machines (VMs) and offer customers dynamic service creation when the network only understands physical devices and does not easily allow each VM to have its own range of IP addresses and other IP services. Ideally you would configure a complete virtual system consisting of virtual machines, load balancing, security, network control elements and network configuration from a single management console and then these abstract functions are mapped to physical hardware for computing and networking resources. VMWare have coined the term ‘Software Defined Data Centre’ or SDDC, which describes a system that allows all of these elements and more to be controlled by a single suite of management software.

Moreover, returning to the fact that every networking device needs to understand a raft of Internet Request For Comments (or RFC’s), all the clever code supporting these RFC’s in switches and routers costs money. High performance processing systems and memory are required in traditional routers and switches in order to inspect and process traffic, even in MPLS networks. Cisco IOS supports over 600 RFC’s and other standards. This adds to cost, complexity, compatibility, future obsolescence and power/cooling needs.

SDN takes a fresh approach to building networks based on the technologies that are available today, it places the intelligence centrally using scalable compute platforms and leaves the switches and routers as relatively dumb packet forwarding engines. The control platforms still have to support all the standards, but the platforms the controllers run on are infinitely more powerful than the processors in traditional networking devices and more importantly, the controllers can manage the network as a fabric rather than each element making its own potentially sub optimum decisions.

As one proof point that SDN works, in early 2012 Google announced that it had migrated its live data centres to a Software Defined Network using switches it designed and developed using off-the-shelf silicon and OpenFlow for the control path to a Google-designed Controller. Google claims many benefits including better utilisation of its compute power after implementing this system. At the time Google stated it would have liked to have been able to purchase OpenFlow-compliant switches but none were available that suited its needs. Since then, new vendors have entered the market such as BigSwitch and Pica8, delivering relatively low cost OpenFlow-compliant switches.

To read the Software Defined Networking in full, including the following sections detailing additional analysis…

Executive Summary including detailed recommendations for telcos and vendors
Introduction (reproduced above)
How and why has SDN evolved? (reproduced above)
What is driving the move to SDN? (reproduced above)
SDN: Definitions and Advantages
What is OpenFlow?
SDN Control Platforms
SDN advantages
Market Forecast
STL Partners’ Definition of SDN
SDN use cases
Network Functions Virtualisation
What are the implications for telcos?
Telcos’ strategic options
Telco Action Plans
What should telcos be doing now?
Vendor Support for OpenFlow
Big switch networks
Cisco
Citrix
Ericssson
FlowForwarding
HP
IBM
Nicira
OpenDaylight Project
Open Networking Foundation
Open vSwitch (OVS)
Pertino
Pica8
Plexxi
Tellabs
Conclusions & Recommendations

…and the following figures…

Figure 1 – Potential Telco SDN/NFV Deployment Phases
Figure 2 – Process of connecting to an Internet web address
Figure 3 – Simple router network
Figure 4 – Traditional Switches with combined Control/Data Planes
Figure 5 – SDN approach with separate control and data planes
Figure 6 – ETSI’s vision for Network Functions Virtualisation
Figure 7 – Network Functions Virtualised and managed by SDN
Figure 8 – Network Functions Virtualisation relationship with SDN
Table 1 – Telco SDN Strategies
Figure 9 – Potential Telco SDN/NFV Deployment Phases
Figure 10 – SDN used to apply policy to Internet traffic
Figure 11 – SDN Congestion Control Application

Cloud 2.0: Telstra, Singtel, China Mobile Strategies

Summary: In this extract from our forthcoming report ‘Cloud 2.0: Telco Strategies in the Cloud’ we outline the key components of Telstra, Singtel and China Mobile’s cloud strategies, and how they compare to the major ‘Big Technology’ players (such as Microsoft, VMWare, IBM, HP, etc.) and ‘Web Giants’ such as Google and Amazon. (November 2012, Executive Briefing Service, Cloud & Enterprise ICT Stream.)

Below is an extract from this 14 page Telco 2.0 Report that can be downloaded in full in PDF format by members of the Telco 2.0 Executive Briefing service and the Cloud and Enterprise ICT Stream here. Non-members can subscribe here or other enquiries, please email contact@telco2.net / call +44 (0) 207 247 5003.

We’ll also be discussing our findings at the New Digital Economics Brainstorms in Singapore (3-5 December, 2012).

To share this article easily, please click:

Introduction

This is an edited extract of Cloud 2.0: Telco Strategies in the Cloud, a new Telco 2.0 Strategy Report to be published next week. The report examines the evolution of cloud services; the current opportunities for vendors and Telcos in the Cloud market, plus a penetrating analysis on the positioning Telcos need to adopt in order to take advantage of the global $200Bn Cloud services market opportunity.

The report shows how CSP’s can create sustainable differentiated positions in Enterprise Cloud. It contains a concise and comprehensive analysis of key vendor and telco strategies, market forecasts (including our own for both the market and telcos), and key technologies.

Led by Robert Brace (formerly Global Head of Cloud Services for Vodafone), it leverages the knowledge and experience of Telco 2.0 analyst team, senior global brainstorm participants, and targeted industry research and interviews. Robert will also be presenting at Digital Asia, 4-5 Dec, Singapore 2012.

Methodology

In the full report, we reviewed both telcos and technology companies using a list of 30 criteria organised in six groups (Market, Vision, Finance, Proposition, Value Network, and Technology). We aimed to cover their objectives, strategy, market areas addressed, target customers, proposition strategy, routes to market, operational approach, buy / build partner approach, and technology choices.

We based our analysis on a combination of desk research, expert interviews, and output from our Executive Brainstorms.

Among the leading cloud technology companies we identify two groups, which we characterise as “Big Tech” and the “Web Giants”. The first of these are the traditional enterprise IT vendors, while the second are the players originating in the consumer web 2.0 space (hence the name).

Big Tech: Microsoft (Azure), Google (Dev & Enterprise), VMWare, Parallels, Rackspace, HP, IBM.
Web Giants: Microsoft (Office 365), Amazon, Google (Apps & Consumer), Salesforce, Akamai.

In the report and our analyses below, we use averages for each of these groups to give a key comparator for telco strategies. The full strategy report contains individual analyses for each of these companies and the following telcos: AT&T, Orange, Telefonica, Deutsche Telekom, Vodafone, Verizon, China Telecom, SFR, Belgacom, Elisa, Telenor, Telstra, BT, Cable and Wireless.

Summary

The ‘heatmap’ table below shows the summary results of a 4-box scoring against our key criteria for the four APAC telcos enterprise cloud product intentions (i.e. what they intend to do in the market), where 1 (light blue) is weakest, 4 (bright red) stronger.

Figure 1: Cloud ‘heatmap’ for selected APAC telcos

Source: STL Partners / Telco 2.0

In the full report are similar tables and comparisons for capabilities and used these results to compare telco to vendor strategies and telco to telco strategies where they compete in the same markets.

In this briefing we summarise results for Telstra, Singtel, China Mobile, and China Telecom.

Telstra – building regional leadership

Operating in the somewhat special circumstances of Australia, Telstra is pursuing both an SMB SaaS strategy (typical of mobile operators) and an enterprise IaaS strategy (see Figure 2). Under the first, it resells a suite of business applications centred on Microsoft Office 365, for which it has exclusivity in Australia.

Under the second, it is trying to develop a cloud computing business out of its managed hosting business. VMWare is the main technology provider, with some Microsoft Hyper-V. Unlike many telcos, Telstra benefits from the fact that the major IaaS players are only just beginning to develop data centres in Australia, and therefore cloud applications hosted with Amazon etc. are subject to a considerable latency penalty.

Figure 2: Telstra: A local leader

Source: STL Partners / Telco 2.0

However, data sovereignty concerns in Australia will force other cloud providers to develop at least some presence if they wish to address a variety of important markets (finance, government, and perhaps even mining), and this will eventually bring greater competition.

So far, Telstra has a web portal for the reseller SaaS products, and relies on a mixture of its direct sales force and a partnership with Accenture as a channel for IaaS.

Figure 3: Telstra benefits from geography

Source: STL Partners / Telco 2.0

To read the note in full, including the following analysis…

Introduction
Methodology
Summary
Telstra – building regional leadership
SingTel – aiming to be a regional hub
China Mobile – the Great Cloud?
China Telecom – making a start
Conclusions
Next steps

…and the following figures…

Figure 1: Cloud ‘heatmap’ for selected APAC telcos
Figure 2: Telstra: A local leader
Figure 3: Telstra benefits from geography
Figure 4: SingTel’s strategy is typical, but well executed
Figure 5: China Mobile: A less average telco
Figure 6: China Mobile has a distinctly different technology strategy
Figure 7: China Mobile has some key differentiators (“spikes”) versus its rivals
Figure 8: Comparing the APAC Giants
Figure 9: Cluster analysis: Telco operators

…Members of the Telco 2.0 Executive Briefing Subscription Service and the Cloud and Enterprise ICT Stream can download the full 14 page report in PDF format here. Non-Members, please subscribe here or email contact@telco2.net / call +44 (0) 207 247 5003.

Technologies and industry terms referenced: strategy, cloud, business model, APAC, Singtel, Telstra, China Mobile, China Telecom, VMWare, Amazon, Google, IBM, HP.

The Cloud 2.0 Programme

This research report is a part of the ‘Cloud 2.0’ programme. The report was independently commissioned, written, edited and produced by STL Partners.

The Cloud 2.0 programme is a new initiative that brings together STL Partners’ research and senior thought-leaders and decision makers in the fast evolving Cloud ecosystem to develop new propositions and new partnerships. We’d like to thank the sponsors of the programme listed below for their support. To find out more or to join the Cloud 2.0 programme, please email contact@telco2.net or call +44 (0) 207 247 5003.

Stratus Partners:

Cloud 2.0: Telcos to grow Revenues 900% by 2014

Summary: Telcos should grow Cloud Services revenues nine-fold and triple their overall market share in the next three years according to delegates at the May 2011 EMEA Executive Brainstorm. But which are the best opportunities and strategies? (June 2011, Executive Briefing Service, Cloud & Enterprise ICT Stream)

NB Members can download a PDF of this Analyst Note in full here. Cloud Services will also feature at the Best Practice Live! Free global virtual event on 28-29 June 2011.

To share this article easily, please click:

Introduction

STL Partners’ New Digital Economics Executive Brainstorm & Developer Forum EMEA took place from 11-13 May in London. The event brought together 250 execs from across the telecoms, media and technology sectors to take part in 6 co-located interactive events: the Telco 2.0, Digital Entertainment 2.0, Mobile Apps 2.0, M2M 2.0 and Personal Data 2.0 Executive Brainstorms, and an evening AppCircus developer forum.

Building on output from the last Telco 2.0 events and new analysis from the Telco 2.0 Initiative – including the new strategy report ‘The Roadmap to New Telco 2.0 Business Models’ – the Telco 2.0 Executive Brainstorm explored latest thinking and practice in growing the value of telecoms in the evolving digital economy.

This document gives an overview of the output from the Cloud session of the Telco 2.0 stream.

Companies referenced: Aepona, Amazon Web Services, Apple, AT&T, Bain, BT, Centurylink, Cisco, Dropbox, Embarq, Equinix, Flexible 4 Business, Force.com, Google Apps, HP, IBM, Intuit, Microsoft, Neustar, Orange, Qwest, Salesforce.com, SAP, Savvis, Swisscom, Terremark, T-Systems, Verizon, Webex, WMWare.

Business Models and Technologies covered: cloud services, Enterprise Private Cloud (EPC), Virtual Private Cloud (VPC), Infrastucture as a service (IaaS), Platform as a Service (PaaS), Software as a Service (SaaS).

Cloud Market Overview: 25% CAGR to 2013

Today, Telcos have around a 5% share of nearly $20Bn p.a. cloud services revenue, with 25% compound annual growth rate (CAGR) forecast to 2013. Most market forecasts are that the total cloud services market will reach c.$45-50Bn revenue by 2013 / 2014, including the Bain forecast previewed at the Americas Telco 2.0 Brainstorm in April 2011.

At the EMEA brainstorm, delegates were presented with an overview of the component cloud markets and examples of different cloud services approaches, and were then asked for their views on what share telcos could take of cloud revenues in each. In total, delegates’ views amounted to telcos taking in the region of 18% by revenue of cloud services at the end of the next three years.

Applying these views to an extrapolated ‘mid-point’ forecast view of the Cloud Market in 2014, implies that Telcos will take just under $9Bn revenue from Cloud by 2014, thus increasing today’s c$1Bn share nine-fold. [NB More detailed methodology and sources are in the full paper available to members here.]

Figure 1 – Cloud Services Market Forecast & Players

Source: Telco 2.0 Presentation

Although already a multi-$Bn market already, there is still a reasonable degree of uncertainty and variance in Cloud forecasts as might be expected in a still maturing market, so this market could be a lot higher – or perhaps lower, especially if the consequences of the recent Amazon AWS breakdown significantly reduce CIO’s appetites for Cloud.

The potential for c.30% IT cost savings and speed to market benefits that can be achieved by telcos implementing Cloud internally previously shown by Cisco’s case study were highlighted but not explored in depth at this session.

Which cloud markets should telcos target?

Figure 2 – Cloud Services – Telco Positioning

Source: Cisco/Orange Presentation, 13th Telco 2.0 Executive Brainstorm, London, May 2011

An interesting feature of the debate was which areas telcos would be most successful in, and the timing of market entry strategies. Orange and Cisco argued that the area of ‘Virtual Private Cloud’, although neither the largest nor predicted to be the fastest growing area, should be the first market for some telcos to address, appealing to some telcos strong ‘trust’ credentials with CIOs and building on ‘managed services’ enterprise IT sales and delivery capabilities.

Orange described its value proposition ‘Flexible 4 Business’ in partnership with Cisco, VMWare virtualisation, and EMC2 storage, and although could not at this early stage give any performance metrics described strong demand and claimed satisfaction with progress to date.

Aepona described a Platform-as-a-Service (PaaS) concept that they are launching shortly with Neustar that aggregates telco APIs to enable the rapid creation and marketing of new enterprise services.

Figure 3 – Aepona / Neustar ‘Intelligent Cloud’ PaaS Concept

In this instance, the cloud component makes the service more flexible, cheaper and easier to deliver than a traditional IT structure. This type of concept is sometimes described as a ‘mobile cloud’ because many of the interesting uses relate to mobile applications, and are not reliant on continuous high-grade mobile connectivity required for e.g. IaaS: rather they can make use of bursts of connectivity to validate identities etc. via APIs ‘in the cloud’.

To read the rest of this Analyst Note, containing…

Forecasts of telco share of cloud by VPC, IaaS, PaaS and SaaS
Telco 2.0 take-outs and next steps
And detailed Brainstorm delegate feedback

…Members of the Telco 2.0^TM Executive Briefing Subscription Service and the Cloud and Enterprise ICT Stream can access and download a PDF of the full report here. Non-Members, please see here for how to subscribe. Alternatively, please email contact@telco2.net or call +44 (0) 207 247 5003 for further details.

The Roadmap to New Telco 2.0 Business Models

$375Bn per annum Growth or Brutal Retrenchment? Which route will Telcos take?

Over the last three years, the Telco 2.0 Initiative has identified new business model growth opportunities for telcos of $375Bn p.a. in mature markets alone (see the ‘$125Bn Telco 2.0 ‘Two-Sided’ Market Opportunity’ and ‘New Mobile, Fixed and Wholesale Broadband Business Models’ Strategy Reports). In that time, most of the major operators have started to integrate elements of Telco 2.0 thinking into their strategic plans and some have begun to communicate these to investors.

But, as they struggle with the harsh realities of the seismic shift from being predominantly voice-centric to data-centric businesses, telcos now find themselves:

Facing rapidly changing consumer behaviours and powerful new types of competitors;
Investing heavily in infrastructure, without a clear payback;
Operating under less benign regulatory environments, which constrain their actions;
Being milked for dividends by shareholders, unable to invest in innovation.

As a result, far from yet realising the innovative growth potential we identified, many telcos around the world seem challenged to make the bold moves needed to make their business models sustainable, leaving them facing retrenchment and potentially ultimately utility status, while other players in the digital economy prosper.

In our new 284 page strategy report – ‘The Roadmap to Telco 2.0 Business Models’ – we describe the transformational path the telecoms industry needs to take to carve out a more valuable role in the evolving ‘digital economy’. Based on the output from 5 intensive senior executive ‘brainstorms’ attended by over 1000 industry leaders, detailed analysis of the needs of ‘upstream’ industries and ‘downstream’ end users markets, and with the input from members and partners of the Telco 2.0 Initiative from across the world, the report specifically describes:

A new ‘Telco 2.0 Opportunity Framework’ for planning revenue growth;
The critical changes needed to telco innovation processes;
The strategic priorities and options for different types of telcos in different markets;
Best practice case studies of business model innovation.

The ‘Roadmap’ Report Builds on Telco 2.0’s Original ‘Two-Sided’ Telecoms Business Model

Source: The Roadmap to New Telco 2.0 Business Models

Who should read this report

The report is for strategy decision makers and influences across the TMT (Telecoms, Media and Technology) sector. In particular, CxOs, Strategists, Technologists, Marketers, Product Managers, and Legal and Regulatory leaders in telecoms operators, vendors, consultants, and analyst companies. It will also be valuable to those managing or considering medium to long-term investment in the telecoms and adjacent industries, and to regulators and legislators.

It provides fresh, creative ideas to:

Grow revenues beyond current projections by:

Protecting revenues from existing customers;
Extending services to new customers;
Generating new service offering and revenues.

Stay relevant with customers through:

A broader range of services and offers;
More personalised services;
Greater interaction with customers.

Evolve business models by:

Moving from a one-sided to a two-sided business model;
Generating cross-platform network effects – between service providers and customers;
Exploiting existing latent assets, skills and relationships.

The Six Telco 2.0 Opportunity Areas

Source: The Roadmap to New Telco 2.0 Business Models

What are the Key Questions the Report Answers?

For Telcos:

Where should your company be investing for growth?
What is ‘best practice’ in telecoms Telco 2.0 business model innovation and how does your company compare to it?
Which additional strategies should you consider, and which should you avoid?
What are the key emerging trends to monitor?
What actions are required in the areas of value proposition, technology, value / partner network, and finances?

For Vendors and Partners:

How to segment telecoms operators?
How well does your offering support Telco 2.0 strategies and transformation needs in your key customers?
What are the most attractive new areas in which you could support telcos in business model innovation?

For Investors and Regulators:

What are and will be the main new categories of telcos/CSPs?
What are the principle opportunity areas for operators?
What are and will be operator’s main strategic considerations with respect to new business models?
What are the major regulatory considerations of new business models?
What are the main advantages and disadvantages that telcos have in each opportunity area?

Executive Summary & Introduction
Pressures on Operators
The new Telco 2.0 Framework
Principles of Innovation and Services Delivery

– Strategic Positioning
– Design
– Development and delivery

Categorising telcos
Category 1: Leading international operators
Category 2: Regional leaders
Category 3: Wholesale and business-focused telcos
Category 4: Challengers & disruptors
Category 5: Smaller national leaders
Conclusions and Recommendations

Tag: HP

Software Defined Networking (SDN): A Potential ‘Game Changer’

Figure 1 – Potential Telco SDN/NFV Deployment Phases

Introduction

How and why has SDN evolved?

Network Functions Virtualisation (NFV)

What is driving the move to SDN?

Figure 2 – Process of connecting to an Internet web address

Figure 3 – Simple router network

The Roadmap to New Telco 2.0 Business Models

$375Bn per annum Growth or Brutal Retrenchment? Which route will Telcos take?

Who should read this report

The Six Telco 2.0 Opportunity Areas

What are the Key Questions the Report Answers?

Contents

Sample Reports