SIM Replacement

500 million new mobile connections are expected to be added this year which means 500 million new sims. Wireless Intelligence estimates that quarterly churn rate for the world is 3% which means annual churn rate is 12%. Taking 12% churn on existing 5 billion connections mean that additional 600 million new sims are being manufactured without any compelling reason. Because the user already had a sim card which is just going to be thrown away. So there are issues related to costs of manufacturing a new sim card but also costs associated with either recycling the old sim card or it becomes even a bigger issue if stays in the environment.

I have always struggled to understand the logic behind changing the sim card every time a user is changing the service provider. Surely there is technology available which would help the user use the same sim card with different service providers.

If I have to change my electric or gas provider, I dont go about changing my meter circuitry or components inside it. I just simply call my new provider and ask them to switch it and they switch it in 10-15 days without me worrying or changing anything. This should be equivalent any post pay mobile subscriber where if he/she wishes to change the provider, a call to the new provider should be sufficient.

Similarly If I have to put petrol in my car I dont go about changing the tank everytime I am using a different petrol filling station. Now this is like a pre paid subscriber. So everytime a subscriber needs to change the provider, all he should be doing it is charge the new balance with the new service provider and there you go.

I dont see that happening and neither do i see ppl talking about it. Is this too small a cost attached to it or is it not worth it. Surely if utility companies can learn something from mobile providers, mobile service providers can learn something from utilities.

Lets look at the cost implications for sim replacement. I mentioned earlier that every year there are close to 600 million sims being replaced. This number is going to increase rapidly as number of prepaid subscribers will increase. Lets assume that cost to produce a single sim is 10 cents which gives us savings of $60 million which is actually insignificant. This might though become a big cost if we were to take the present value of all the future savings as well.

But for me the bigger cost is the environment cost. As the sim cards non-biodegradable they are hurting our earth and responsible for problems which we are seeing today. So if not for short term savings, environment preservation does make a strong point to negate the case for sim replacement.

Other than that, I believe users (at least pre pay subs) would also be more empowered if changing a service provider was as easy as buying top up time from new provider.

Finally, I'll be really glad if somebody could come up with technology like this to help the operators save costs, create value for the mankind, save the environment and empower users at the same time.

BSS Buying trends in Communication space

I had always believed that BFSI was the biggest consumer of IT and they are the biggest spenders but my recent research on telecom proved it otherwise. Communication Service Providers (including hardware) is apparently the biggest single consumer of the IT and forms almost the 50% of the total IT spend worldwide. Quite a surprise. Yes I thought so.

I would have loved to estimate how much of this is contributed by Communication Service Providers (CSPs) alone but sadly I dont have any data with regards to that. But conservatively speaking it should be close to 50%. And my guess is 20%- 30% of that would be on IT software and services. CSPs would then spend 30% - 50% of their total IT software spend on BSS/OSS (including internal and external)...If the total spend on IT spend worldwide is $1.5tr then BSS/OSS market should be close to $40bn. Its a rough estimate but not should not be too far off. Sounds like a huge market and it is. Moreover BSS/OSS is the fastest growing space in the telecom software space. It feels as if this is the place to be in. Then why are we seeing so many companies in BSS/OSS space struggling and finding hard to survive.

There are lots of reasons for it and I think the biggest one is internal spend is far more than the external spend. Gartner estimates that CSPs spend more than 50% of their total BSS/OSS spend intenally rather than externally. So if BSS/OSS providers could convince these CSPs to outsource their operations to them, it could be a big plus. But the problem here is CSPs are comfortable outsourcing their operations to individual software vendors and they look to outsource their operations to one big SIs or outsourcing company such as IBM or Accenture. BSS/OSS have so many parts that CSPs end up buying different solutions from different companies so its virtually not possible for them to outsource these small parts to individual companies. So even if outsourcing grows, BSS/OSS providers stand to loose out if they dont have very strong relationships with firms like IBM, Accenture, Tatas etc.

The second one is traditional carriers have historically considered BSS as a big differentiating factor, and most CSPs today incorporate the idea of network enablement and wholesale service to other providers as part of their strategic plan. This is good in a sense that their are wholesale BSS/OSS opportunities for vendors but bad in a sense that any new operators would use the services from existing provider rather than buying it from BSS/OSS vendor. In developing markets where a strong wireline/wireless incumbents exist, some new entrants and mobile carriers will use the existing BSS of the incumbent operator: the same is true in almost all MVNO operations except the largest. New BSS will seldom be purchased complete in mature markets, as relatively few Greenfield operators enter: in fact, consolidation is the watchword in most of the developed markets today. The biggest bright spot I can see today is in convergent players who may seek to purchase new support systems for their new convergent services and offers. But even here it's likely they will rely at first on existing solutions from legacy carriers, especially as they test the waters with new customers the latter have served for decades.

New services, upgrades to broadband-level infrastructures, content and convergent developments in devices and applications will bring additional opportunities to upgrade and add on to existing BSS/OSS. This will be particularly important in countries that are moving toward Open Access Networks (OAN), including Singapore, Australia, New Zealand and Malaysia. Some governments are offering incentives in the form of grants to boost network investment, and BSS/OSSwould be one such priority.

In South Africa, the government has made a distinction between network operation licenses and those for service provision, which will emphasize the need of the network operators to provide BSS/OSS services on behalf of potentially hundreds of new entrant providers. Then there are operators who are winning additional services licenses for example a fixed line operator winning a mobile license and vice versa. Iliad in France, Telkom in South Africa could be examples of this, and would likely require new BSS/OSS functionality as and when they start their services after getting the license. The same will be true in most cases where new mobile licenses are being offered in the emerging world, although much uncertainty exists and if a regional power (such as Zain or MTN) wins a license in a small country it's not as likely that it would need to purchase new BSS/OSS capabilities.

Similarly, power and cable utility companies in Latin America have received regulatory encouragement to enter communications services. While power and utility companies already have BSS systems, they would have to upgrade their systems considerably if they want to become a serious competitor in the market (including broadcast TV, broadband, mobile).

Obviously based on my research there are companies which I think would buy new or upgrade their BSS/OSS systems, I dont think I have the liberty to publish it here.

Overall I think BSS/OSS space is still very exciting and a growth industry. Vendors need to invest in new verticals and markets where new regulations or services could create new requirements for BSS/OSS products. Vendors should also go out and forge some strong relationships with big outsourcing companies so that they can partner with them in BSS/OSS space. Acting like a traditional BSS/OSS vendor is not going to be good recipe for growth.

Network sharing - Future of telecom

The day Vodafone and Telefonica made their intentions of sharing 3G infrastructure public, everybody has started talking about passive network sharing and how fast will we see consolidation in this market...Like anyone else, mine will also be a guess but this deals is certainly a step in the right direction...For too long, service providers have worked inefficiently and havent really utilized their infrastrucutre judiciously. This deal might just break the jinx.

One wonders the real reason for this move. Would these companies have taken this route had we still living in the markets of 2007 where money was cheap and flush...So is this because of money markets still not showing any signs of getting relaxed or is it because execs have seen the real opportunity to improve the efficiency....I think its probably because of latter due to former. That is execs facing cruch of cash have started identifying opportunities where operational efficiencies can be squeezed out...

Let me talk a little bit about infrastructure sharing - There are two types of sharing. First one is active infrastructure sharing which involves sharing of radio frequency...This happens in the case of MVNOs. The other type of sharing is passive infrastructure sharing which involves sharing of the physical sites that is towers. This is where we are going to see majority of action initially. Companies can save immensely on leasing and rental costs and operational costs of maintaining the infrastructure. This is where the focus is....

Using the latter sharing, companies can expand coverage more rapidly. Moreover the environment also benefits from less infrastructure and lower power requirements. As we see goverments around the world taking more stringent measures to help the environment, mobile companies will soon be under the radar of regulators to tap any opportunities to help the environment and thats when this kind of sharing will gather momentum...

Obviously there are innumerable advantages of network sharing but companies should do it very carefully...As network coverage was the prime USP (differentiator) for companies, they would have to learn with common coverage and focus on creating differentiation in providing services. Moreover netco will have to create infrastructure whereever serv co would ask net co to. Companies would have to draft very clear guidelines and SLAs around this...

In the end, there are clear signs and opportunities for companies to go for network sharing. But it should be done very carefully and properly.

Infrastructure in the telecom business

When one looks at any infrastructure in the country, mostly it is owned by the government or there are just two infrastructure providers...We can take innumerable examples and we will find this case everywhere...

For example, lets take the example of road infrastructure...In most of the countries this will be owned by the government and different transport providers will use this infrastructure to provide services paying road tax to the government and charging customers for the transport services....Every transport provider will have the same roads to use but they differentiate themselves by the type of carrier, type of services and quality of services....But there is no duplication of infrastructure and wastage of resources...

And we can find similar kind of examples in rail infrastructure, electricity infrastructure, water infrastructure and even in air infrastructure...In most of the developing nations we have government owning this infrastructure and in most of the developed nations we will see maximum duopoly...This kind of arrangement helps the nation use the infrastructure in best possible fashion. It also helps the nation in getting to invest in right services and no undue investment in resources which are not required...

After mentioning all these examples one wonders why governments around the world havent adopted the same approach for telecom infrastructure...Over the time, I think if we look at different markets, I am sure even the telecom infrastructure will evolve into duopoly but it has taken far too long for it to evolve itself into it...The question is why didn't the governments around the world look at different examples and took this approach from day one...This would have helped customers getting better services and even much better competition because every services provider would have used the same infrastructure...Specifically for India's case, this approach could have resolved this whole spectrum issue itself. The biggest bottleneck for indian telecom infrastructure development...

We do see this starting to happen everywhere...All the major companies around the world have already started developing infrastructure in partnership...For example recently Vodafone partnered with Telefonica to develop 3G infrastructure together everywhere in the world...Similary we will soon see similar kind of parterships developing everywhere...These kinds parternships help the company spread the cost base and use the money judiciously...We all know money is getting costly and even difficult to come by...These measures will only help our cause not only these difficult times but help us use our resources most effectively even in good times.

I know this is more of infrastructure sharing rather than the above point I was making. But I think this is a more realistic solution in todays world and I will talk more about it in my next blog.

Costly Post Paid Mobile Services in UK...Is it?

Since the time I have come here in UK, I think I have heard and read so much about costly mobile services here in UK...Some of the rates are as high as 20p per minute for domestic calls which seem apallingly high...Obviously there are factors such as high labour rates which force the services to be costlier than services back in India ( or other developing nations), 20P a minute does not seem to be justifiable at all...Infrastructure costs, IT costs, operationals costs are all same anywhere in the world, then why mobile per minute costs are almost 20 times more than costs back in India...



I thought probably EBITDA margins for companies here are higher and I was not surprised when I saw that margins were more less in the same range...So does that mean these companies here are less efficient and are not quite adept at keeping costs down...First reaction was not possible and hence did a small analysis on the cost strucutre or incoming revenue (that is ARPU).. Tried to map out all the different costs which the operators have to take out from the monthly ARPU...Following is my analysis based on the current plan of £20.00 per month (ARPU) I have from O2...I got this plan 4 months back...Following are the services I have for £20.00 per month

- 18 Months Contract

- 600 Voice Minutes

- 1000 Texts

- Unlimited Web Browsing (Mobile Data)

- Free Paper Bill (Normally charged £1 extra)

- Sony C905 Phone (Retail price 4 months back was £350.00 - Assume cost price for O2 to be £200.00)



Following is my analysis and it might be very surprising for few to see what is the actual cost per minute for any subscriber in the contract...

Total Money paid by me in 18 Months - 20 * 18 = £360.00
Cost of Mobile for O2 - £200.00....
Money Left with O2 for providing services - 360-200= £160.00
For 1,000 texts every month, fixed costs of texts can be taken as £0.50
For 18 months, texts costs = £9.00
O2 charges £7.5 for web bolt on (mobile broadband)...Taking 80% gross profit on it, cost for O2 to provide mobile broadband - £1.5
For 18 months cost of mobile broadband is - 18 * 1.5 = £27....

Money left for providing voice services = 160-9-27 = £124 for 18 months
Money left every month to provide 600 minutes = 124/18 = £6.8
Cost per minute in pences = 6.8 *100/600 = 1.14 Pence = Rs. 0.86 = 86 paisa in Indian currency....

Do you still think, mobile phone calls are costly here....I know this probably is not the best way of calculating the actual costs but they do give an idea of actual costs for the users who are using full 600 minutes (One example is me)....

Any thoughts are welcome