Telenor's - Ericsson

issue – an efficiently functioning
m2m ecosystem is an essential
safeguard against market
fragmentation.
The demands on the network
and the platforms that handle
the devices and their connectivity
will grow. There will also
be an increasing need to make
mobile network internet applications
similar to fixed internet
applications, from a development
point of view. It must
be attractive and cost-efficient
to build applications for m2m
over mobile systems or to adapt
existing applications to work in
a mobile environment.
If solutions are not based on
both network and communications
knowledge, operators risk
losing some of the new m2m
opportunities, such as monetization
of data.
m2m will progress from smsbased
to internet-based applications.
Mobile and fixed devices
should seamlessly integrate
into enterprise applications
side by side.
All operators running networks,
fixed as well as mobile,
work with QoS. The combination
of a scarce resource like
spectrum – and the need to
cater for a large number of lowarpu
devices in mobile systems
means there is a strong argument
for the differentiation of
service levels and hence service
level agreements (slas).
Two key conclusions about the
demands on an m2m platform
are:
� The mobile network needs
to be isolated from the application
to the extent that as many
as possible of the mobile specifics
– such as direct ip addressing
and having devices “always
on” – are hidden and taken care
of by the platform.
� The platform needs to cater
for differentiation and enforcement
of different slas to provide
cost-optimized solutions
for a variety of applications.
As a result, an operator aiming
to seize a major share of future
internet traffic and revenues
needs a platform that is efficient
in both provisioning and managing
devices, as well as control-
ling traffic in real time in order
to implement the sla chosen.
How Telstra gained speed to
market – without blowing the
budget
By Colin Goodwin and Mark Chaseling, page 45
▶ Traffic volume across Telstra’s
fixed and mobile network
has doubled over the last few
years. Yet the company’s annual
capital spending on the
national transmission infrastructure
actually declined over
this period.
Telstra started to transform the
structure of its national transmission
network in 2005. The
original telephony-oriented
architecture was replaced with
a much more powerful and
flexible Ethernet-enabled architecture.
Telstra can now
bring both fixed and mobile
IP-based services to market
more quickly.
Historically, Telstra was the
incumbent ptt, with its focus
squarely on telephony. The success
of first generation broadband
in adsl and data services
on mobile networks in the early
2000s showed Telstra that fixed
and mobile data/ip traffic would
soon overtake telephony traffic.
In 2005, a new hierarchical
transmission architecture was
established and then progressively
put in place. For 2008 to
2010, capital expenditure on
long-haul transmission equipment
decreased somewhat –
yet the capacity of the network
has continued to grow to support
a doubling of traffic volumes
– an effective growth rate
of about 30 percent a year to
the end of 2009.
Telstra’s transmission network
now covers every town and city
in Australia. The network has
ample capacity and the scalability
needed for growth is
largely decoupled from equipment
investment spending.
New network services can be
rolled out rapidly and at low
incremental cost.
As a result of the scalability of
the network and the fact that
the majority of mobile base stations
now have gigabit Ethernet
interfaces, Telstra has been able
to repeatedly increase the
speeds of the 3g hspa access
network without a specific
transmission upgrade program.
The new transmission network
is also the foundation for Telstra’s
new iptv service. Telstra
is building a content distribution
network (cdn) that caches
video content at key transmission
points around Australia.
Video capacity requirements
are simply rolled into the overall
capacity growth program.
The network strategy adopted
by Telstra is not limited to exploiting
cost efficiencies. It is
firmly grounded in the operator’s
future business requirements.
Telstra’s success with its
network transformation is a
lesson about the close connection
between network strategy
and business benefits, as well
as between technology solution
provider and carrier.
The benefi ts and barriers of
network sharing
By Mike Tankard, page 49
▶ The arguments for network
sharing are well known. The
real challenge with network
sharing is to make cooperation
between competitors work.
The top 10 challenges that operators
face when approaching
a partnership with what might
be considered a competitor are:
� Cultural alignment, stakeholder
management and sponsorship
� Network coverage and control
� Program complexity and risk
� Shareholder and cost pressure
� Network growth
� Asset valuation and management
� Experience and resources
� Vendor risk sharing
� Regulation and spectrum
� Market dynamics
The reasons for sharing may
vary, but it is the approach
taken towards network sharing
that is truly important. Typically
a small team is set up in
order to assess the feasibility
and financial benefits. If the
executive summary
numbers look good, agreement
in principle is reached, although
some groups may remain skeptical.
The operators invest considerable
internal resources in
setting up a joint technical team
to develop the architecture and
implementation plan. Key vendors
are then invited to engage
and the executive teams then
wait for the originally identified
benefits to emerge.
This highlights the two main
errors made when trying to
create a shared environment.
Devolving a complex set of
business decisions from two
independent executive teams
to a joint technical and engineering
group is not the optimal
case for sharing. Not managing
the competitive tensions
between two operators will fuel
skepticism and increase the
risk of failure.
In well-founded sharing partnerships,
these joint business
decisions were made quickly
and decisively across the businesses.
The executive teams
gave clear and decisive direction
to the rest of the organization
and to the external market
generally. While it may appear
obvious to engage executive
sponsorship, the partnerships
that have struggled generally
had poor executive alignment.
Managing these tensions requires
the identification of a
collaborative approach on
many levels in an operator’s
organization. It can be difficult
for many employees to understand
that collaborating with a
competitor will help them compete
better with others. Some
may consider that too much is
being given away, others may
appear to buy in but do not actually
feel involved and end up
abstaining from the program.
It helps to first determine where
it is important to maintain independence,
and balance that
against the potential benefits of
selectively sharing the network.
This demands a longer-term
strategic perspective.
Key suppliers play a significant
role in supporting operator collaboration.
Neutral or independent
governance can also be a »»»
EBR #3 2010 65