Comments on: Meet the new pipe, same as the old pipe? Texting turns 20

By: ME and ME

ME and ME — Tue, 08 May 2012 14:18:25 +0000

You can’t feel sorry for companies because the greed their CEO’s exude is disgusting. I, for one, can NOT wait for the day when they are merely dumb pipes and have to give in to the innovators…

http://attsmscashcow.com/

By: Dean Bubley

Dean Bubley — Tue, 08 May 2012 08:24:27 +0000

I’m starting to think that this supposed value chain is the wrong way around. *Services* are generally the commodity, and well-run / well-managed / well-priced “data delivery” is the value-add. And people *do* pay for delivery – enterprises have long spent big bucks for leased lines, cellular operators themselves use metro ethernet or dark fibre for backhaul, and others in the satellite & wireless businesses do well for themselves acting as “pipes” of varying levels of smartness.

Conversely, a lot of what we think of today as “services” such as voice (more correctly telephony), or messaging is becoming downgraded to being a mere feature, either of other apps, or perhaps even the browser.

And in fact, as Apple demonstrates, at the top of the heap is actually hardware – or even silicon.

Services have their role. But that’s not where a lot of the most valuable innovation actually happens. It’s also important to note that the way the current telecom accounting methods are set up, services revenues tend to get systematially overstated in importance, compared to reality.

By: Dave Wright

Dave Wright — Tue, 08 May 2012 03:41:47 +0000

Stacey, you make some good points, especially the delineation of the periods before and after IP was available all the way to the mobile handset. This opened up the platform to the service innovation/disruption you are describing. Same pattern as when IP found its way into the 3270 terminal (bye bye SNA) or deskphone (so long PBX).

People may not buy delivery mechanisms, but they certainly are willing to pay for some forms of access, fixed residential and licensed mobile being two examples. There seems to be a default assumption that MNOs cannot survive as “mere” access providers. And yet Chetan Sharma’s 2012 Mobile Assessment reported that access was the fastest growing revenue segment. Some may be able to offer access and provide services as well (full service), but others will not be able to compete effectively in the new services market (infrastructure only).

I wonder how long we’ll keep calling these services “OTT”. Everything will be OTT before too long. It’s what IP does, it assimilates services onto itself.