x
Optical/IP

Why Telcos Need Web 2.0

IMS might not be the answer, it turns out.

Service providers looking to create new revenue-driving applications will instead have to adapt to the Web 2.0 world, using the concept of "mashups" to quickly create new Web-based services, according to the latest Services Software Insider report, Telco Web 2.0 Mashups: A New Blueprint for Service Creation.

The alternative -- using telecom-oriented standards such as IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) and the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) -- just won't be fast enough, analyst Caroline Chappell argues in the report.

"To beat the Internet companies at their own game, a growing number of network operators believe they need to find a way to harness the service creation potential of Web 2.0 and steer it toward making money," Chappell writes.

What's at stake is the operators' place in a Web-driven world. The services realm is getting hijacked by non-telcos like Google (Nasdaq: GOOG) and Yahoo Inc. (Nasdaq: YHOO) -- often called "over-the-top" providers -- that are beating telcos to the punch when it comes to creating hip new services.

"SIP servers or no SIP servers, telcos cannot -- on their own or even with select partner ecosystems -- build all the services the long tail of users and niche markets will possibly want," Chappell writes.

Mashups are browser-based applications that draw content from multiple sources on the Web, and they're often created by third-party developers that are given the chance to tinker with applications. Mashups are the key to the speed at which Web 2.0 moves, because you've got so many developers trying out new ideas. Telcos should embrace the concept if they want to keep up, Chappell argues.

BT Group plc (NYSE: BT; London: BTA) is trying the idea in pilot mode with what it's calling Web21C, a service aggregation environment for the 21CN network project. Web21C supports "normal" telco services as well as Web 2.0 services, as BT expects it will need both.

The project has taken some serious commitment. In laying out a case study of Web21C, Chappell notes that BT had to quickly develop an "agile" development process "significantly different from the 18-month, waterfall-based lifecycles common among telcos."

Web21C isn't generating much money yet but has attracted 2,500 developers, Chappell writes.

The report also includes an overview of mashup design tools from: — Craig Matsumoto, West Coast Editor, Light Reading


The report, Telco Web 2.0 Mashups: A New Blueprint for Service Creation, is available as part of an annual subscription (12 monthly issues) to Light Reading's Services Software Insider, priced at $1,295. Individual reports are available for $900. To subscribe, please visit: www.lightreading.com/servsoftware.

Page 1 / 2   >   >>
tomaz1 12/5/2012 | 3:06:59 PM
re: Why Telcos Need Web 2.0 Maybe to go back to IMS and Web 2.0 ... Language lives and it changes, adding new words etc. Have you read Shakespeare? Strange how different was the Gǣold EnglishGǥ. English is not my first language, so I have to learn it by ...hmmm, let me think! Reading blogs or taking formal education and reading novels?!
What is in here about IMS and Web2.0? Well for communication it is OK to have right tools and procedures, standards and some kind of order as English grammar (analogue to Telco/IMS), but on the other hand blogs and slang communication lives in parallel and we can't avoid or ignore it (like Web2.0). So taking the best from both worlds may result in some progress. History is full of such cases.
Michael Poole 12/5/2012 | 3:07:23 PM
re: Why Telcos Need Web 2.0 Sorry, I really must agree with "Mr. Picky"!

Many years ago, when we complained that our twin sons weren't being taught spelling, the teacher replied with "Oh, we don't worry about the spelling. It spoils the spontaneity."

"Spoils the spontaneity" be blowed! The advantage of unified spelling, punctuation etc., messy though it is in English (plus the US-Commonwealth split), is that it makes life easier for the reader, so that struggling to work out what was intended doesn't spoil the spontaneity.

So let's get those apostrophes right, shall we?

M
bobmachin 12/5/2012 | 3:07:26 PM
re: Why Telcos Need Web 2.0 Gee, Mr Picky, you must be having a quiet day. I'm as pedantic as anyone I know, but I don't come on here looking for lessons in the Use and Abuse of English.

For what it's worth, I thought David's piece made some valid and interesting points and appreciate his contribution. And that's more important in the context of this message board, I'd say, than his command of grammar.
materialgirl 12/5/2012 | 3:07:33 PM
re: Why Telcos Need Web 2.0 tomcoseven says:
"Materialgirl, I think I agree... bandwidth, storage, security, QoS, caching... none of it web 2.0. So where does that leave Cisco with all its 2.0 talk and web software investments? Who do they sell to? They are convinced the telcos and MSO can play the web 2.0 game. I can't imagine buying my SaaS from AT&T, Comcast or BT."

Good point. I think the whole thing is a multi-billion dollar sham. For the cost of this sham we could build a "real" (open, high-bandwidth, FTTH). But instead we are chasing this fiction that with enough complexity, telcos can run away from the demise of voice by repositioning themselves. The only question not being asked is "how" and "to what end".

How do telcos make money in a video world when they not only do not understand the business, but have no strategy for success other than copying the dying cable model.

Right now they are running, but not to anywhere in particular. No wonder why Ed Whitacre split with the dough.
rjmcmahon 12/5/2012 | 3:07:33 PM
re: Why Telcos Need Web 2.0 Right now they are running, but not to anywhere in particular.

They ran to the FCC who has enabled them to reconstitute their monopoly. Future generations will have to laugh that while the FCC espouses "facilities based competition" Whitacre renamed his company AT&T and consolidated voice even further adding mobility.

No wonder why Ed Whitacre split with the dough.

And Google gave youtube 1.6B.

Few are willing to pay for basic works so many lean on secular faith using things like "innovation", "markets" and "growth" as their deities. Wall St. street's way to build little more than basilicas.
gbennett 12/5/2012 | 3:07:36 PM
re: Why Telcos Need Web 2.0 Comrades,
DavidGs blog stands as an example of one of the great dangers of GǣWeb 2.0Gǥ and the associated hype around the Interweb.

I know that message boards and blogs are hardly likely to be paragons of the use of the English language (the number of times I see the word GǣlooseGǥ used when the writer clearly intended to say GǣloseGǥ), but after the SIXTH punctuation error in a single blog entry I snappedGǪ

Telco's are renowned

OK, so Telco isn't a real word anyway, but it's used here in the sense of a noun. In this sentence there's no possessive sense for Telco. The Telco doesn't "own" or "have" anything. YouGre simply using a plural form, and that use doesnGt need an apostrophe.

the Telco's have a real challenge

Ditto. But at least youGre consistent!

The wish of IMS and it's any content any screen with it's foundation

AAAARGH! Twice in a single sentence! This is one of the best known incorrect uses of the apostrophe. And, yes, itGs a quirk of English, but if youGre going to use the language at least make an effort to use it properly.

GǣItGsGǥ is a contraction of the form Gǣit isGǥ, while the possessive form of GǣitGǥ is simply GǣitsGǥ. So your sentence actually meant

The wish of IMS and it is any content any screen with it is foundation


MVNO's GǪitGs that plural thingy again.

Today's Telco's needGǪ AAARGH! One right, one wrong. If youGre really not sure how to use the apostrophe, just re-write the flipping sentenceGǪGǥThe Telcos of todayGǪGǥ, for example.

Even Word has a better chance of getting the punctuation correct! And if thatGs not a damning indictmentGǪ

The voices are telling me it's time to take my medication now, but could I suggest your next purchase G BEFORE you write any more blogs or GǣinsightsGǥ G should be this?

http://www.amazon.com/Eats-Sho...

Cheers,
Geoff
digits 12/5/2012 | 3:07:36 PM
re: Why Telcos Need Web 2.0 Geoff, wait until all blogs are written in 'instant messaging' styleee -- I fully expect your head to explode then.

Until that time, you surely should be crowned as 'King of the Message Board Pedants' -- and thats [just kidding] an honor indeed!

Ray
gbennett 12/5/2012 | 3:07:36 PM
re: Why Telcos Need Web 2.0 Aw, shucks Ray! I'm blushing.
davidmould 12/5/2012 | 3:07:37 PM
re: Why Telcos Need Web 2.0 What are the key differences between the IMS/SIP clusters and the Web 2.0 platforms?

The main difference for me is that Web 2.0 allows the consumer to be the creator and this where the main gain for the Telco is. Typically Telco's are too far removed from the customer and not generally very creative. When was the last time you saw something truly innovative from a Telco opposed to a slight variation of something that's been tried before. If the Telco was smart they would allow the users to drive the creative process and facilitate from their core competency, Network Operation.

See: http://orient-expression.blogs...
tomcoseven 12/5/2012 | 3:07:37 PM
re: Why Telcos Need Web 2.0 Materialgirl, I think I agree... bandwidth, storage, security, QoS, caching... none of it web 2.0. So where does that leave Cisco with all its 2.0 talk and web software investments? Who do they sell to? They are convinced the telcos and MSO can play the web 2.0 game. I can't imagine buying my SaaS from AT&T, Comcast or BT.
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
HOME
Sign In
SEARCH
CLOSE
MORE
CLOSE