Net Neutrality and startups

How much power should the operator have? I was involved in related discussions for some ten or more years at previous job.

So let me emphasize first that I have nothing against operator business.

The problem, however, is some kind of relative instability: either the operator is a bitpipe which neither they nor the investors like, or then they have significant power and vertical integration happens which seems to be bad for innovation. Unluckily there are few middle-ground examples.

Now the leading daily in Finland, Helsingin Sanomat had today a big story how the net neutrality related legislation may give the operators in Finland some new freedoms. Sorry, this in Finnish, but you can guess the main points.

The story outlines that the consumer may be sold service bundles with some services as operator-preferred, with better QoS. 

Firstly, it would be naive to think that there would be only some such service plans sold, it is easy to see that this is where the operators would focus on with collaborative efforts.

Why is this important? What has changed?

After the Nokia layoffs, the Finnish startup scene has been remarkably lively and this has been noted by international media too. 

But now there are dark clouds in the horizon with this emerging (Finnish) Net Neutrality issue.

Then why is this an issue not only for the netflixes and skypes? The answer is simple: this current debate and its outcome will impact everyone. Most startups are partly or fully web-based or their value proposition is based on a web service. And now, technology will allow the easy integration of realtime functionality to web apps.

This has been possible until now of course, but it will now happen in a smooth transparent easy-to-use way for developers, thanks to the WebRTC standard.

It is no wonder that e.g. Google, Mozilla seem to be keen to drive forward the WebRTC. They seem to see a vision where isolated non-compatible VoIP (and video) islands is replaced by dynamic apps having realtime components which will be compatible for the consumers.

This change will apply to companies, big and small alike. And this is especially important to make happen the right way in Finland, as our future depends on innovation taking place in the startups and small companies which should be treated on equal terms.

A non-value adding "bitpipe tax" by operators will prove harmful for the startup scene.

Of course a similar-type discussion is on-going in the USA. According to the Helsingin Sanomat story, Barack Obama is here against treating the bits flowing in the Internet differently, depending if they are operator-preferred or not.

This makes perfect sense. In the USA, the operator industry has lost tens of thousands of jobs, while the Internet-oriented startups are creating a major boost in productivity. 

So, we have a similar discussion ahead of us in Finland. Of course, the operator camp will downplay the impact of regulation-related decisions ahead. 

However, let's note here that besides high hopes on new innovative companies, the Finnish communications market is also vulnerable as it is less attractive for alternative providers than for e.g. the UK market.

In Finland, it is widely acknowledged that growth will emerge from small and medium-sized growth companies. The risk scenario is that an application by such companies would need "operator approval" to perform well, allowing in essence an operator tax, is a scary one. 

Domestic regulation could be more strict in Finland than in competing EU markets or in the USA. Interestingly, there seems to be debate in the EU Commission on the topic.

In such a market, one could ask how this would motivate a Finnish company with some initial success to stay in Finland.

It is annoying to read the argumentation from telecom industry which has methodologically laid off thousands of people over recent years. Their lobby, FICOM, is arguing that new methods are needed to make capacity management successful. It is easy to note that for some reason, current setup is working well as seen by the innovative companies and the consumer. Skype video calls have dominated in popularity similar telecom-centric services in the market place.

One does not want to throw good money after bad. It is important to understand that the true role of the telco operator is that of a utility. Let Finnish innovation happen unharmed!

One billion WebRTC devices cannot be wrong...or?

So Google estimates there could be  1.000.000 WebRTC devices by end of 2013. One could criticise this as overly optimistic, but the numbers could be big still.
But how many is enough? The answer could be seen in at least a couple of ways:
- A needs to contact a well-known B who may or may not have a WebRTC device. If not WebRTC, then via gateway (a lot more clumsy), sol this could be difficult
- A needs to contact some B, like in playing a game where one wants to play against someone. This is quite good scenario for take-up if one looks the Chrome and Firefox market shares
- the take-up will be determined by network effecs. Not Metcalfes Law, but Reed's Law. Again, one should think of the winning user scenario...

Google vs. Nokia IP clash: circle closes

So, Google and Nokia seem to be clashing over the VP8 codec which is planned for the WebRTC standard.
Or actually, Google has e.g. Mozilla Foundation as its WebRTC partner, along with others. Nokia collaborates with Microsoft, which has been promoting an alternative approach to WebRTC.
However, we do not know if Nokia and Microsoft collaborate in this particular topic.
Being personally based in Finland, the history is interesting. I have been informed by a person closely involved, that actually Google's VP8 codec was developed by Finland-based Hantro.
Hantro was acquired by On2.
Then, On2 was acquired by Google. 

What is the conclusion? We can develop and innovate demanding software in Finland.
And not only for Nokia, there are actually quite a lot cooking here...

2013: The optimistic scenario for WebRTC takeup

A friend of mine told me his guess is that it takes still some two three years maybe that WebRTC is a factor in the markets.
Let's challenge this view a bit.
What it takes for WebRTC to enter markets is:

1. Credible interop from prestandard versions. Firefox and Chrome have demonstrated this.
2. Codecs are settled. Seems VP8 deal closes this issue.
3. NAT/Firewall traversal is not an issue. Seems that it won't.
4. There are enough WebRTC-dedicated companies to create a credible market. Well, there are tens of those and some acquired by companies like Yahoo and Telefonica.
5. Endpoints will have WebRTC-enabled software. Updated over-the-air.
6. The endpoints need to be able to process the voice and the video. This will be interesting to follow. A realtime app on top of the browser layer could be a challenge. It will be interesting what kind of hardware integrations we will see. But if even the early WebRTC Android versions run in a Nexus 4, then the issue could still be getting adequate operating times. 
7. There has to be a realtime IP bitpipes available. Well, wifi has been there for years and LTE is being rolled out.
8. There has to be network-to-network interop. Well, that is not so. That's the beauty of it. In telecomms, that is one important factor slowing down the evolution. In WebRTC, we talk of dynamic islands. A and B go to same web site, download same WebRTC signaling and off they go. 

So it seems that 2013 could be the year for first roll-outs and wide roll-out in 2014, including also mobile. Unless, of course we see an unheard-of wave of IPR lawsuits.

Mozilla+Ericsson demo WebRTC...how about operator identity?

Another great WebRTC video by Mozilla. 

It is interesting to try to see beyond these demos.

A key moment in this video is around 1:17, when the speaker says that "because the operators customers are logged in their network, the (operator customer) user can log in with a single click with her  mobile number"...

Does that mean somehow linking access network authentication with service layer?

Well, could be. But there is the Wi-Fi access which is SIM-agnostic.

<deleted>

Therefore, we could argue that the answer is Open ID.

Actually, Open ID is the truly open alternative for the Web, so of course it makes sense for WebRTC, too.

<deleted>

Yes, at first I thought Open ID might be used here, but Mozilla's Persona is more likely.

For the operators this is attractive, since some may see Open ID as Google driven initiative.

And of course, we have the Firefox OS devices coming up too.

This one introduced in Barcelona today.

Personally, I don't expect this to mean that WebRTC will appear in mobile devices in the short run.

It will get there. Question is if the launches happen in MWC 2014 or earlier?

Anyway, the operators and open source guys are looking to neutralize the branded software players. 

Chrome talks WebRTC to Firefox!

Chrome talks to Firefox and viceversa!

But actually, in WebRTC world the C2B and B2C cases will be hugely important, so it may be that this will not turn out so relevant as it seems.
However, this is certainly a great boost for WebRTC initiative.
It is easy to imagine Opera joining the interop. Now let's just ask: what does this mean to Microsoft?
The major risk for WebRTC is the codec-related potential patent wars.

Yahoo gives up on VoIP and goes VoIP...WebRTC that is...

Yahoo acquired WebRTC technology with OnAir in December.

Yahoo recently acquired OnTheAir, a startup that offers interactive live video over the Web, in a move that shows the company’s commitment to increasing its mobile technology offerings.

OnTheAir, which uses WebRTC technology, is the second key acquisition by Yahoo under the watch of new CEO Marissa Mayer. 

Now, Yahoo announces the ramp-down ofYahoo Voice.

Just learned that Yahoo Voice is shutting down at the end of January. Yahoo! will no longer offer Phone In and Phone Out services to our users, although free Messenger-to-Messenger calls will still be available through your Yahoo! Messenger service.   

Yahoo VoIP direction is clear. From thick clients to Web.

Ads in Facebook call? Who wants that?

Interesting view on why Facebook is implementing VoIP. 


From the story:

There's a few ways Facebook could make money off of this too. It could offer low-cost, off-net VoIP calling services, similar to the way Skype does. This could allow a user to drop to the lowest-cost voice plan and just make calls over VoIP. The cost of data plan overages could make this unattractive, but if a user utilized the service only when connected over WiFi, it could significantly reduce the cost of calling from a cell phone. Another idea could be to somehow insert ads into the interface or a short one at the start of the call. However they do it, this might be Facebook's fastest path to being able to monetize mobile.

The idea of insterting ads with phone calls was trialed in the late 90s, if I remember right. I have a hard time seeing any success in that.

Why  would Facebook not want to connect consumers with businesses with easy to make voice call? A lot easier way to monetise.

Fair enough, you argue that this will get expensive for the mom&pop store to handle all those call. Well, let's put it this way: sure and there are smart folks working to make it feasible...

Why is Facebook doing VoIP?

Facebook has started to offer voice messaging in some markets with apparently plans to offer VoIP too in near future.

The voice messaging is obviously a smart usability enhancement. Rather than typing text, say something.
The realtime bi-directional VoIP is a different animal.

There are some factors for and against full VoIP by Facebook happening in the markets.

Pro:
+ may generate more service stickiness
+ one more modality to communicate, text has been there quite a while
+ Facebook may quite well be so much more powerful that the operators cannot stop it
+ WebRTC is around the corner and as an open technology may steal the middleman position Facebook has envisioned for itself between companies and consumers. The game around WebRTC is evolving to an interesting one

Cons:
- operators are an important distribution channel for Facebook in many markets (but what can they do?)
- questionable use case.  People may use social networking separate from realtime communications and prefer avoiding phone calls

I believe the key driver is Facebook's will to remain between the consumer and businesses.
This is hard to argue against, one needs only to look at Google to understand why.

Facebook to target IM market and drive XMPP?

Chat is not a new innovation in customer service. IKEA has it, travel agencies have it, several others have it.
There is nothing as such new in the fact that Facebook has it. And the short-term benefits to FB are obvious.

Facebook’s customer-service department has been quietly testing a Salesforce-powered system that lets businesses contact it over Facebook Chat rather than with a phone call. This gives merchants a quick and convenient way to get answers while they run their businesses, and it keeps call-center costs down for Facebook.

But Facebook is a powerful force and attracting small businesses to it.
Let's now remember that Facebook chat is based on XMPP. Not the usual XMPP service, but any XMPP client can in theory be used as a Facebook chat client.

Facebook Chat should be compatible with every XMPP client, but is not a full XMPP server. It should be thought of as a proxy into the world of Facebook Chat on www.facebook.com. As a result, it has several behaviors that differ slightly from what you would expect from a traditional XMPP service...

Therefore, the truly interesting question is what is waiting around the corner?
Will Facebook be allowing its users (consumers) to directly connect with advertisers over chat?
Let's note that today, this seems not the primary target of FB chat. This by judging what FB says of chat in the above. But technically it could be done.

For the business using the FB-provided service could in principle mean enhanced opportunities to get consumer attention. For example, the service use case of "chat or video chat with a celebrity" is a known one.

The scenario would also call for some business analysis because one could argue that FB might be bypassed and that it is in Facebook's interest to remain somehow between the advertiser and the consumer, to monetise the service in the right way.
However, if this happens, then this would be a great boost for XMPP and openness in instant messaging.

Let's remember that also Google Talk is based on XMPP.

Is this the way how IM market finally opens up? The IM in principle would be "open" but in reality dictated by the Big Internet Players?

The Firefox WebRTC demo video is a cool one

The Firefox video showing new ways to share images, videos, files or whatever is just cool. 
It all integrates in one smooth user experience, bringing your friends and colleagues close.

It is easy to see how systems based on WebRTC will challenge current proprietary players.
And once again, we will see incumbents trying to slow down evolution or even stop it.
They will be working hard to move the battlefied to other areas where proprietary elements come to play. Exciting times ahead.

WebRTC: an enabler for embedded devices?

The Internet of Things calls for intelligent peripherals. It would be nice even low-cost devices would support CoIP. Technologically, the issue is not so much about implementation capability. Of course any cost penalty is highly unwanted.
However, I would argue that the most important factor here is the market fragmentation in CoIP standards implementation. There is uncertainty of standards to be supported and fear of their incompatibility and cost of possibly exhaustive testing.
Now it will be interesting to see if WebRTC will change things.
Of course implementing basic underlying technologies required by WebRTC takes time and effort.
But at least Plantronics will be doing some cool things. 

Wearables is a natural first step. But a dynamic CoIP interoperability and capability in e.g. a smart sensor would have certainly a lot of use cases.
Waiting eagerly for news from hardware players.

VoIP and push notifications (e.g. Skype): consumer experience?

Can one really get a good VoIP experience when Push Notifications is used to wake up the B-party app?
Let's take the Skype case.
It seems they have made changes to their plans over the course of this year.
At least what Skype says so, in February the story was:

The company noted that some other VoIP clients on Windows Phone can jump-start into the foreground when a call comes in using the standard push notification system (which Microsoft has had in place since the original release of Windows Phone 7), but that this wouldn't work for Skype — they say it takes too long to process the notification, open the app, and set up the call to make it practical. On iOS and Android, Skype is able to keep its agent running whether the app is in the foreground or not, which allows calls to ring immediately.

But now, Skype is utilising Push notifications.

Last week, if you recall, Microsoft announced Skype for Windows 8, a touch-friendly app that appeared in the Windows Store the same day Win 8 went on sale. Now, with Windows Phone 8 getting its big reveal, the company is following up with a WP8 version, which Microsoft says is coming soon. Like the new Windows 8 app, it runs in the background, delivering push notifications even when you're looking at something else. 

Emerging Issue 1: 

How is a VoIP (realtime) service consumer experience impacted by Push Notifications?

If A wants to contact B over e.g. Skype, then if Skype is not in foreground in B's device, there needs to be a wake-up by the push notification.
Then, the app is activated, and then the actual call setup signaling starts. 

All this may slow down the response times experienced by the consumer.

Emerging Issue2: 

What if one is roaming abroad? For the consumer this is typically expensive and she would prefer wifi.

Now I many Push Notifications systems use the cellular channel only.
What if roaming is off? No way for incoming calls if the VoIP app is not in the foreground?

There are a couple of possible reasons why e.g. MS/Skype has designed it this way. 

First one is the battery consumption. From that point of view, it makes sense to have Skype in the background of course, rather than refreshing itself continuously.
But the VoIP apps in some other systems, e.g. Symbian could reside as default in the foreground with quite good battery times.

Second one I have heard is that Windows Phone 8 is not a genuinely multitasking OS or rather, the multitasking services are open to first party apps only. 

WPCentral got the word from a source they trust that this improved multitasking will only work for 1st party apps. To take advantage of this functionality 3rd party developers will have to use a small hack and list their apps as " GPS apps". However it's not clear if this will influence the certification process, which it might.

Of course it is easy to come up with conspriracy theories also, especially in the Skype case.
One is that operators have been concerned of Skype and MS combination taking the call revenues. It can be argued that push notifications create less load on the networks (but how relevant that is in 3G coverage needed for Skype?) and therefore operators have in essence ensured that the circuit-switched call remains the primary means of communications in Windows Phone devices.

Comments welcomed. Will be keen to check out how VoIP apps utilising Push Notifications perform.

Telefonica: A Super Service Provider?

Telefonica is now standing out from the operator crowd. 

It is now rolling out TuMe (based on Jajah) acquisition, with no revenue targets. TuMe is about offering OTT VoIP by Telefonica to its customers.
"If you can't beat them, join them" is a way to say it.
Tu-Me allows Telefonica to expand its scope and serve customers anywhere.
The next step sounds even more interesting, cloud-based telco. From the story above:

The next stage, to be rolled out later this year, is called TuGo, and turns the offering much more cloudy as well as generating some revenue. TuGo users will be able to move their mobile number into the cloud service, which will route incoming calls to whatever device they happen to be using as well as permitting outgoing calls from that device to any phone - billed to the customer in the usual way. TuGo redefines the customer: they are no longer subscribing to a mobile telephone service, they're subscribing to a phone number which will drift between mobile and fixed networks as best suits them.

The really mind-blowing thing is if they are really able to separate services from network ownership. Or rather, what used to be a mobile network will be just another access network:

The vision is for service and carriage to be separated entirely, just as LoveFilm delivers video over a home broadband connection, so one could take a telephony service from O2 and cellular carriage from Vodafone or anyone else, assuming that was economically viable.

It is more than interesting to note how the open-source movement (Firefox OS) will align with the interests of the operator. A flood of HTML5 phones overtaking the market...?

The third step is also logical, ie. opening up APIs to the developers. That needs to happen however rather fast, with Twilio gaining ground in the marketplac.

To summarise:
It seems that Telefonica is looking to be a "Super Service Provider".
I know the term is a little vague and boring, but that's what we used when discussing various provider concepts when at Nokia some years ago.

VoIP: Verizon dancing with Google

Some interesting news. Verizon offering integrated VoIP with Google Apps.

From the story.

Verizon has launched a new cloud phone service for small and midsize businesses (SMBs) called Virtual Communications Express. The voice-over-Internet protocol (VoIP) service integrates with Google Apps to offer click-to-call functionality from email, calendar, and chat.

Observation 1: 

Now Google Apps, as we know, are web-based.

It will be interesting to find out about implementation of the Virtual Communications Express.

VCE needs not be based on (prereleases of) RTCWeb necessarily, but let's put it this way: would not be surprised if it was.

Observation 2:

Competitively, it appears that this is a pre-emptive move from Verizon. Better for Verizon to offer its own VoIP, rather than Google offering Gtalk (which it will of course do, sooner or later). From the story:

The devil's advocate--or, better yet, the truly bootstrapped small business--might ask: Why not just use Skype or Google Talk alongside Google Apps?

Observation 3:

It is interesting to note that Verizon value-add here is customer service.

Makes sense. I recently heard someone joke "has anyone heard of Google customer service number"...

Feature comparisons aside, Verizon apparently intends to flex its customer support muscle here. "We've found in the SMB space it's really important that there be a high touch, high customer care installation," Dalrymple said, adding that an "implementation coordinator" will be assigned to each new account to oversee the process from sale to deployment.

Observation 4:

Not surprisingly, it seems that this service has some very evolutionary elements from customer point of view. Traditional telco strongholds ie. PSTN-connectivity and numbering important:

Deployment takes seven days, according to Dalrymple; if you're porting over existing numbers, that will take about twice as long, but Verizon will issue temporary numbers in the interim.

Germany NGN Interconnection...but where is IMS?

Interconnecting VoIP networks I thought was the job of IMS and related peering setup (IPX?).
Now it seems that XConnect is doing it in a partnership. And the XConnect I know has emerged from Internet VoIP technologies, connecting the Internet VoIP islands.
Definitely an interesting case to be followed. If we see more of these, it will change the world.


From the story:
The DE-CIX NGN service resolves these challenges by offering national and international network operators a secure hub for NGN interconnection, with benefits including:

• Multilateral NGN interconnection to multiple networks, by-passing the PSTN, and reducing the need to create and manage numerous commercially and technically onerous bilateral IP interconnects
• Improved Voice quality and support for higher-value multimedia services
• Number portability corrected routing via a Centralised Number Portability database (CDB) to ensure accurate call routing
• Policy control to define and manage the technical terms of each interconnection and support for different settlement models between operators
• Reduction of capital and operating expenses, transit charges, and resource requirements for creating and managing interconnects, from interoperability testing to implementation

WebRTC could be huge...but where is MS/Skype?

Today, September 5th, Nokia launched two new Windows8-handsets.
Instead of focusing on the devices themselves (which deservedly are getting attention elsewhere!) let's talk of an emerging Internet technology standard that could fundamentally change how we communicate: WebRTC.

Basically, WebRTC could revolutionise how we communicate.
Reason is that it will enable Web developers to include voice and video communications to the web page development.
Think how you retrieve information from the Web, from any www-site. The promise of WebRTC is that communications will become as friction-free.
Think of a hotel chain. They can embed a WebRTC call-to link in their web pages and enable consumers to talk to their agents.
No need to download a VoIP client, just do it from any browser.

Until now, the VoIP providers have in reality been isolated islands, but communications moving to the browser that could change.
Let's remember, VoIP-in-browser as such is a known solution, but here we are talking of a standard, meaning the user needs not install proprietary plugins.
While this sounds elementary, the VoIP and Web industry could change with the new transparency.

But we are not quite there yet. Summer was an interesting one for WebRTC.
The good news was Google promoting WebRTC in its IO conference.
Clearly, Google and the browser vendors are leading the way for WebRTC.

But what happened then?
Microsoft (remember, MS acquired Skype some time ago...) entered the stage.

They made a comprehensive proposal on how they see WebRTC.
The concern is that if MS has its way, the WebRTC will either change course or diverge.

The MS proposal could change radically the concept of WebRTC.
One issue is the need for lower level APIs they see. This would in turn require more functionality at javascript layer, meaning burden to the developers.

Also, it is interesting to see that MS wants IETF to take network conditions into consideration. That is what the mobile industry has argued for, while IETF has always developed their solutions to "generic IP networks", assuming their performance will be adequate.
Now the word in the industry is that MS wants to slow WebRTC down, simply because Skype is the dominant VoIP network, and a closed one. This is of course very logical. Meanwhile, Google (and browser vendors like Mozilla Firefox) want to move on.
So, the game is on.
But, Google Chrome supports WebRTC basic functionality early version today, and seems others will follow.

Then, how does all this impact Nokia? Well, many Nokia devices support wifi and LTE is around the corner. LTE is an excellent bitpipe for VoIP.
Question for Nokia is: will MS/Skype be left off the WebRTC train?

Tele2 of Sweden...challenging GSMA with VoIP?

Telcos are more and more coming out with VoIP apps of their own.
Tele2 has done exactly that, their announcement today.
Unluckily in Swedish only.

Key points translated:
- available via Apps Store and Google Play
- they call this "traveler's app", key benefit being able to make and receive calls over wifi when traveling

But they may have more in the pipeline, seems RCSLabs is working for Tele2 here?
This COULD mean Web based VoIP-client for Tele2?
RCSlabs seems to be promoting a SIP based client in their webpages.

So Tele2 announced a rather simple solution now, but a step forward nonetheless.

Korean operators to charge more for VoIP...

The war against innovative IP Communications and VoIP apps is picking up.
Now Korean operators have announced they will be charging more for VoIP.

"This will set a precedent for coming apps such as FaceTime, where SKT and KT already said they will apply the same pricing policy as with local apps, and this can clash with global players like Apple and Google," said Jiho Park, an activist with the Citizens' Coalition for Economic Justice.

This is in a sense surprising to hear. Some questions:
- how does this move map to Korean industry policy? One would think net neutrality would promote the chances of Samsung and LG who want to sell endpoints, rather than be at the mercy of megaoperators
- or is this just that? This way Samsung the infra vendor is learning to play by the new rules?

In general, it is easy to note that this scheme will create a lot of confusion. Think of an iPhone Facetime user who moves between free wifi and 4G.
4G being flat rate would be the easy way to go, but now he has to be aware of different pricing schemes.

Secondly, VoIP is quickly becoming "just another media component", as it should be.
How then to charge apps combining various types of media?
I guess "multimedia" as such is not a new topic...for folks outside telcos...

Browsers starting to support WebRTC

Opera12 has it, WebRTC support.

Opera 12 has a lot to offer Web developers. The new version includes preliminary support for WebRTC, an emerging standard that is being drafted by the W3C Web Real-Time Communications Working Group. WebRTC will eventually enable standards-based audio and video chat in Web applications.

Also, other browsers like Chrome seem to have early support.
This is excellent news as voice and video chat will greatly enhance the Web apps.