« 21C Global Summit: A Weird Consensus… | Main | Ring! Ring! Monday News Analysis, 17th September »

Putting the “service” into Service Delivery Platforms

One of the things keeping us busy right now in preparing the stimulus for the Telco 2.0 brainstorm in October is the practicalities of how operators can turn themselves into platform businesses. A platform business is one that:

  • Makes money without having to define the whole end-user value proposition: that is left to third parties.
  • Is integral and value-adding to those third party products and services, beyond just product distribution or retail.

Operators already have several successful platforms, such as i-mode and premium SMS, where third parties create the content and applications. They need to develop more. The challenge going forwards is threefold:

  • What to open up to 3rd parties, beyond billing functions?
  • How to technically integrate the core real-time functions of telephony and messaging?
  • How to make money?

A key enabling technology of a platform is the Service Delivery Platform (SDP). This is a piece of software that telephony and other real-time applications can run inside. An SDP deals with the nuts and bolts stuff of failover, scalability, and monitoring. It also provides a standardised interface to that application software to the heterogeneous network and IT world beyond. They are complex and expensive to buy and deploy, so it matters if you buy one and how you use it.

However, SDPs are positioned by vendors as a technology sale, and the business model often remains fuzzy. The sales message tends to breathlessly begin “Now you can deploy hundreds of new services in weeks, not years!” Just nobody knows what they are, or how they’ll be sold or supported. (Just go tell customer care you’re launching thirty new services next week, and see what happens. I advise wearing body armour.)

So in this post we review the core ‘Telco 2.0’ business strategies and explore some of the context for SDPs and a platform business strategy.

Examples of platform businesses

Microsoft Windows is one archetypal platform business. You buy Windows, but only because you want to run the applications it supports. Apple’s iTunes is another. They don’t have to do A&R work, or understand anything about the vagaries of musical tastes. The VISA network is a platform for merchant commerce.

I was told the story this week of another example that really drives home the difference between a platform and a product business: Home Depot in the USA. They retail home, car and garden equipment. Yet they don’t carry the inventory risk of the goods on the shelves, or even have to think about how much weedkiller is needed in Minnesota in May. They rent shelf space to the product businesses that make those products, and charge a transaction fee on both sales and returns.

This also happens to align their interests with those of the end user. Don’t think that lawn trimmer does the job? Return it! Home Depot will be delighted to capture the re-stocking fee off the mower maker. They won’t resist making the customer happy. This is a fundamentally different way of making money.

For most operators, it’s time to trim down the product development group (if there’s anyone left), and build a new business division around platform and partner services.

Why share the customer relationship with a third party?

Traditionally operators are expected and encouraged to create end-user services like MMS or video telephony. They recognise, however, that for many reasons this vertically integrated model is dissolving away. So-called “over the top” Internet applications reach the price and performance levels needed without special help from the network.

If telcos really understood user needs, this wouldn’t be a problem. They would be product innovation businesses, like Apple or Microsoft, and would have highly differentiated products. Clearly, this is not the case. It took Apple to come along and remedy the glaring usability failures of voicemail. You get your telephony service from the folk who operate the cell towers and radio network because you have to, not because you want to.

The business model therefore needs to evolve, but most network operators are clinging onto the triple/quadplay offering (fixed voice, video, Internet, mobile). This leaves them with a lot of capex and debt (to build out fibre to support me-too IPTV and high-speed Internet). You then hope your way of offering video and voice service (in a one-size-fits-all package) is exactly the right way. (Are you really, really sure that the users want the TV to pause when the phone rings?) And that same Internet connection ensures they eternally suffer low margins in their voice and video services. No wonder confidence is low in the industry’s future.

Get out of jail cheap?

The answer is to horizontalise. Do fewer things, but better. That leaves five (and a half) core Telco 2.0 business strategies.

  • Product innovation. Where possible and advantageous, operators should indeed opportunistically invest in end-users products and services. This can be via internal or insourced means (e.g. Cyworld at SK Telecom). However, much of the current product development creates considerable cost without compensating revenue: the top footballers are the biggest winners from IPTV.
  • Protection of existing voice and messaging products, aligned to some product innovation to extend the franchise’s lifespan. Business as usual.
  • Platform business, based on partnerships and supply chain.
  • Pipe business, based on scale and price. These may start to merge into other utility and infrastructure businesses over time.
  • Packaging business, based on customer intimacy, that assembles offerings from a variety of sources, is agnostic to technology and suppliers, and works without the network or technology capital asset base of a platform business.

The extra “half” are the various other forms of diversification into adjacent industries, such as into payments and banking, healthcare, home security, etc.

If you can’t stand the heat, then sweat

When you focus, you also sweat your assets far harder. The companies to look to for inspiration are folk like Costco and Ryanair. Their revenue per square foot or per aircraft leave competitors in the dust. Ryanair in particular recognised early on that the plane seat was a loss leader for rebooking fees, baggage overage charges, food, hotels, rental cars, ground transfers, and lotto tickets. IBM mastered the “smorgasbord” approach to business in the 1990s, blending services, hardware and software.

Operators have a wide variety of under-exploited assets, for which the network is just the bait:

  • A mass of user identity, user context and usage data.
  • IT assets like expensive data-mining suites.
  • Tangibles like retail stores, which are woefully short of customer-centric innovation. How come you don’t go to a network operator to buy your home network gear? How come operators are the only retailers who can track goods at the individual items level, with both forwards and reverse logistics, but can’t exploit this?
  • Intangibles, like brands, and established partners and supply chains.

The network can also be worked harder: it often sits idle waiting for an unfortunate roaming mobile customer to start a data session at some outrageous price.

Every one of these is an opportunity for a partner or platform interface. That may be an API, but it could equally be other formats, such as a web site for partners to do business intelligence functions based on service usage, or a weekly spreadsheet emailed out, or a co-marketing arrangement.

Product vs. platform

The Home Depot example we gave earlier shows how product and platform businesses can look confusingly similar. That means operators need to develop a finer sense of when and why to offer product vs. partnering (via a platform approach) vs. pipe. Just because you can develop the product doesn’t mean you should.

Those products that are developed should clearly

  1. extend existing successful product lines (e.g. SMS auto forwarding or reply, premium SMS), or
  2. utilise an asset or capability that only operators can technically or economically offer, when compared to over-the-top players, or
  3. diversify the business outside ( e.g. adverts, mobile payments, etc.).

Aligning investment to assets means reworking the tools and processes that gatekeep the investment and product pipeline. Projected return-on-investment alone is not a strategic criterion, as you end up with dozens of “chase the buck” activities with no synergy. In particular, operators need to understand and model the weaknesses in the Internet and “over the top” business model, and thus the opportunities to partner. Sometimes these are quite subtle.

Building a services platform, not just a portal

Most of the innovation in applications and content will come from 3rd parties. This is well known. Therefore operators need to organise around these platforms that enable outsiders to reach operators’ customers. To date these initiatives (e.g. Vodafone Live!) have tended to fail to meet expectations because of being simultaneously too narrow, too ambitious, and too closed:

  • too narrow in that just a portal and a billable event don’t go nearly far enough to solving the user’s problems, and a far richer platform is needed;
  • too ambitious in trying to fill every possible entertainment and information need rather than focusing on a few ( e.g. navigation, messaging, music) and perfecting them;
  • and too closed in that operators, with few exceptions like DoCoMo’s i-mode, have put up large bizdev and technical barriers that only the biggest partners can overcome.

The glaring omission remains the integration of core voice and messaging into the platform suite. So an SDP is a piece of technology in search of a business model; and the business model can be one of internally driven product innovation, or as an external platform approach to support third party services as well as own-brand ones.

What is a service?

To the end-user, a service is a combination of ALL of the application, content, connectivity, and device; as well as support, sales, payment, etc. Therefore a service delivery platform has to be far more than just a bunch of APIs into network elements and IT systems. It has to support the full lifecycle of the application (retail to replacement), as well as payments and remittances. It’s just as important to offer a usage data mining service that matches the users to market segements as it is to offer purely technical capabilities like location dips.

In short, a business platform, not just a technology platform.

Evolving the service platform offering

The most important part of the platform is delivering the right connectivity and application together. Only a telco can do this. But the ISP access model of selling expensive unlimited Internet access plans isn’t working long-term. This is because:

  • the broadband incentive problem (it’s more profitable to throttle the heavy users than build new capacity),
  • a proliferation of devices means it’s too expensive to users to buy the same Internet access plan over and over, and
  • user confusion at being sold an intermediate factor of production, not something of direct tangible value. (You don’t need to guess the voltage, phase and usage profile of your electricity supply in advance, so why ask the same of users of broadband?)

Thus we need new business models. Indeed, taking a quick peek at our online survey results (you have done it, haven’t you?), I see that over 50% of commercial respondents from fixed networks believe a new business model is needed (i.e. not an ISP model or n-play).

There will be a fragmentation of the broadband product (“slice and dice”) into tiers of quality and various degrees of quantity, as we’ve previously documented here. We already see precedents for this (Sprint Vision, X-Series, Blackberry, Sony Mylo, etc.) The ability to route money will remain critical; putting smart boxes into networks to control sessions and applications, less so.

From gatekeeper to supplier

The operator is in the best place to do this job of managing this services layer. This is because of technology (you get better performance processing the data near the user in the network) and payments (you already have billed them for access, so why not generalise that to any billable event). Furthermore, the average service developer has zero interest in learning about complex technologies like IMS. Operators will have to expose simple, easy to use web services that hide most of the complexity. Application developers can then focus on developing applications, not nuts and bolts enabling technology. Operators need to engage partners like Microsoft, with their Connected Services Framework — and several million developers — to become suppliers to those developers.

The future will be one of thousands of mashup applications, with far fewer mass market horizontal applications. These are going to have to be easy to create. Even simple scenarios like the TV pausing when the phone rings are fraught with complexity: what happens if the TV is turned off after the ringing starts, or what if the phone is participating in a find-me/follow-me service? An application develop will be content to let someone else deal with that part.

Hence there is an opportunity for the “phone company” to act as a supplier to application developers and hide this complexity. The developer may use far simpler web services protocols to configure the desired behaviors, and never touches any of the session control directly. Indeed, we’re already seeing this being taken to its logical conclusion, where business people can create applications, just as data mining and analytics went from requiring specialist programming and database skills to graphically-driven user interfaces.

Part of the business transformation is to create all the support infrastructure to enable this: partner education, recruitment, 24×7 support for your APIs, etc.

What’s the revenue model?

The operator will make the money from charging for access to these APIs, or via the APIs driving the core business metrics of the existing product set (via lower churn, lower cost of acquisition because of a more differentiated product that sells itself, etc.) This is very operator-specific, and varies with local business conditions.

In summary

SDPs can be used to support two different business models: a product business (legacy voice and messaging aligned to new internally-driven product innovation), or a platform approach. A few operators like BT and TeliaSonera are taking the platform approach very seriously and are re-structuring to support it as a business. The critical word is “service”. A true service delivery platform differentiates itself from a mere application server running a bunch of telco APIs. It does this by supporting the full life cycle of the user service — most notably the provisioning and payment for connectivity or content delivery as part of the user proposition.

Brian Levy, the CTO of HP’s CME business, gave it a better name during a panel we moderated this week - “Service Integration Platform”.

To share this article easily, please click:

Comments

As is often the case, your posts raise many thought-provoking points. I'm going to address some key themes, and the potential for a Telco to re-imagine the notion of an SDP model for the 21st Century.

In order to make sense of all the insights that you outline, however, it might help to think of the scenario like a social anthropologist that's conducting ethnographic research -- qualitative and quantitative descriptions of human social phenomena (based upon interaction and observation).

I believe that cultural shifts are responsible for the current unrest within the status quo of both the communications and entertainment sectors. Marketers schooled in mass-market thinking - a legacy concept from the 1950s - are aware of the shifts, but are reluctant to unlearn the conventional wisdom of a bygone era.

I wrote the following column to addresses a key observation, and the apparent implications.

SXSW 2007: Digital Storytelling Phenomenon
http://snipurl.com/1qr4s

As you have previously noted on the Telco 2.0 blog, most telecom service providers are fixated on me-too multi-play product bundling exercises - with the implication that they know what their customers want (even when the mounting evidence, and STL Partners survey results, indicate otherwise).

Here's another major disconnect. The typical Telco SDP implementation is still rooted in a rigid architecture that assumes the notion of "managed scarcity" is a viable business model. Again, this is contrary to pervasive market trends.

Multimedia authoring tools, de facto standards-based digital media file formats, and simplified content syndication methodologies have created a free-flow environment of unfettered abundance. Furthermore, those persons that are currently unable to create new content are still able to contribute to the evolving mix via content mash-ups.

But, order and structure has emerged from this potential abundance chaos - the "tagging" of content artifacts, and the people who align and identify themselves with these lifestyle and interest attributes.

We now see the beginnings of yet another key shift, and associated trend - from keyword searching, to tag finding. Automated approaches to enhance personalization and multimedia content relevance (including advertising) are now very sophisticated - visit ChoiceStream.com to learn more about the state of the art.

In summary, I envision the intersection of two new skill-sets that will positively enable a forward-looking Telco to embrace (not fear or reject) these key shifts. The first is that of a communications network applications integrator, and the other is a human network applications integrator.

I just wrote another column to address this observation, and the apparent SDP opportunity.

Entry for the Cisco Connected Life Contest
http://snipurl.com/1qpz1

We *almost* got this right in T-Mobile a few years ago, where I lead their SDP initiative (see for example http://www.dulciana.com/publications/Systinet_T-Mobile_2005.pdf).

Unfortunately, and as you say, the T-Mobile management were too interested in creating and retailing their own services through the t-zones portal, and insisted on treating the third parties as mere suppliers (i.e. badly!).

It is to my regret that I could not convince them that the same technical platform could support a much better (wholesale) business model where they instead were the *suppliers* of technical "context services" to the third parties as customers.

These context services allow third parties to exploit the operator's network assets, primarily identity, payment, messaging and location. Voice and presence would be useful also, but are technically much more difficult.

Because the context services add value to third party services, you can charge for them, creating a new and incremental revenue stream for the operator.

The goal for the operator is to make the context services *extremely* easy to use such that third parties can adopt them cheaply and innovation can occur rapidly within an ever increasing ecosystem of third party service providers.

Sadly, most off-the-shelf SDP products and solutions are far too complex to allow this to happen (and don't even get me started about the mess that is IMS!).

The same focus on "ease of use" and "user experience" that we should be applying to our consumer products needs to be applied to such context services also.

Aside from the technical challenges, which are solvable, I find that the most limiting factor is the lack of executive focus and understanding of the wholesale business, which is unloved and seen as very unsexy compared to devices and consumer marketing.

-Mike Glendinning, freelance strategy consultant.

If I'd work for a small application developer company, and all network operators would offer me different APIs with different functionalities, I would have serious problems in offering my service to customers of all network operators in a country. Of course, I'd like to do so because I cannot afford to only target a part of the possible customer base with my niche service.

As such, I anticipate two possible scenarios in which a large number of application providers will appear:

a) Some standardization gremium / industry forum develops a common set of APIs that all network operators offer. I don't see this happen in the near future.

b) Broker or mediator companies evolve that hide the complexity of the different network APIs from the developer, like it happens today e.g. in Germany for SMS or ringtones with Materna, Jamba etc.

To Bernhard:

I agree a standard API definition would be nice (and the answer is *not* Parlay!) but rather than an "up-front" intermediary, I would prefer that the operators integrate their APIs in the background.

If I buy a phone service from Vodafone, I can still call and text customers from T-Mobile and vice versa. The days are long gone when the networks could operate "walled gardens" for such basic communication traffic (although the situation still exists in the much more immature Internet market, viz. Google, MSN, Ebay, Paypal, etc).

So, if I buy my APIs from O2, I should be able to use them to deal with customers from Vodafone, T-Mobile and everyone else as well.

We can then have a proper market for APIs where each content provider can choose his own supplier/operator.

Any single up-front broker/mediator is an unnecessary monopoly. Multiple such entities is economically wasteful.

Of course, some of the back-end integration required to achieve this is quite complex, but we already have the basic business and technical agreements in place with SS7, GSM roaming and MMS interconnect, for example.

The lack of this feature is another example of the missing "customer focus" in this area. The operators must start to consider the needs of the content providers rather than their own.

I'm writing you because I like your blog and haven't seen you address the Mobile Payments arena with anything similar to MobillCash.

Have you ever looked at MobillCash? We place a GUI interface on the PSMS systems of carriers and have integrated over 100 carriers in 15 countries and growing rapidly.

Consumers simply enter their mobile phone number in the billing form and they receive a text message, respond with a Y and they will be billed by the mobile carrier.

Before you look at MobillCash as another SMS system with a twist, consider the key points I show below as well as this new level of business we've attained. Two weeks ago the U.K. government recognized MobillCash as a "Financial Transfer Service", the first of its kind for a Mobile Payment Platform world wide. Moving credits and money from customers, to Telco, to merchant is now exempt from all Telco and VAT taxes for the consumer's equivalent to the same level as Visa/MC in U.K. and Europe.

• Real time approvals from the carriers,

• Consumers in different countries see amount to pay in their own currencies

• Merchants don't worry about collections or international currency exchanges

• MobillCash even guarantees the payment to the merchants

• Immediate Merchant Set up.

o The Process is approved as long as a merchant is selling online digital media, services or membership programs. No longer individual approvals for every SMS sales campaign

• No longer limited to a single short-code for a campaign - Although it is excellent for smaller payments there are merchants accepting $400 membership fees in some countries.

• Merchants can now actually be individuals in social networks selling a personal photograph, document, etc. SSl secure websites are not required.

• Consumers no longer have to give out personal or financial ID to complete a transaction nor is that information connected to the transaction, so ID fraud is substantially improved over the current credit card processes in place today.

The end result for consumers/merchants is greatly reduced end user costs or merchant profits depending on how the merchant sets up the payment option, and improved personal ID and financial security.

The end results for carriers is increased ARPU (Average Revenue per Unit) and decreased churn rates.

No SMS system is as easy to use, or now as profitable to use throughout Europe.

If you wish to reply back and speak to me directly, I can get you in touch with others for you to interview and decipher this in more detail yourself.

Sincerely,

Philip Tarazi
MobillCash
VP Affiliate Marketing

As always I enjoyed reading this thought-provoking post. Thank you for inspiration!

First time I have got insights about platforms theory from brilliant article named "Strategies
for two-sided markets" which was published in Harvard Business Review
in October 2006. Very nice article, I recommend it to anyone who is not yet accustomed to this theory.

Then I was interested to apply the knowledge I have got about two-sided
markets and have written the article applying two-sided
market approach to the wireless access networks.

I decided to post here key findings of this article. Thank you in advance for any comments regarding these findings!

1. Why we use the term "platform"?
We can apply the term "platform" to the modern IP-based wireless access networks because in such networks the service level is definitely separated from access level. This leads to the transformation of traditional value chain as illustrated in the picture below. Services are not the essential part of the networks anymore and could be outsourced to the service, application, content providers by the wireless access network operator.

This fact allows distinguishing network users (one side), service and content providers (second side) and wireless access providers as platform provider.

2. Analysis of expected network effects

Following network effects are expected for this two-sided network:
 Positive same-side effect for users side (the more users network has the more attractive is the network to new users)
 Positive cross-side effects for both sides (more users could attract more application developers, more services could attract more users)
 Negative same-side effects for developers' side (more developers cause more competition between them for users' attention for their services and applications)

3. Analysis of "winner-takes-all" dynamics

The market is not likely to be served by one platform; at least when we talk about wireless access networks in general, because:
 Multi-homing costs are expected to be low for both sides. Services and application developers just use standard IP-network features irrespective of wireless access methods. Network users use modern devices which have multiple wireless interfaces (Wi-Fi, GSM, GPRS, UMTS etc) and such devices allow them to switch between different networks freely. But this applies only to the similar networks. If one of the networks is more preferable for users, the switching costs are getting higher.
 Basic network user needs are similar: to have basic kinds of connectivity (voice, data, video etc.) anytime and anywhere. There are no very specific benefits of using only one wireless access platform. If we assume that modern technologies provide similar functionality, users have no preferences in using only one of them. But this applies only if the competitive platforms have similar functions, availability, coverage, pricing. If one of platforms has distinctive features that no other platform can offer, users will prefer use it instead of other. Today user's choice is compromised (use wide coverage of cellular with low data transmission speed or use limited coverage of Wi-Fi hotspots with high data transmission speed).
 Cross-side network effects are positive and strong, this is why the network users will tend to converge on one platform.
 Wireless networks are based on the use of radio frequencies. Frequency spectrum is limited resource and is strongly regulated. Limited availability of frequencies limits the number of wireless access networks in one region. For example, in case of Wi-Fi in 2,4 GHz there could be only one operator in one place (standard provides only 3 non-overlapping channels in this frequency band)
This is why the market will be most likely served by a handful of operators, who were able to build preferable platforms. In case of comparable wireless standards performance, they will most probably be based on different standards.

4. Recommendations for wireless access network owners as platform providers

A. To reach the critical mass of network users as soon as possible in order to attract service and content providers. Possible ways:
 To subsidize them by offering competitive price proposition. Take into account the fact that users' entry barriers are already subsidized by Intel (free Wi-Fi adapters from Intel, free WiMAX adapters are expected)
 To acquire the large "anchor" customer: public safety, large corporate users, city workers etc.
 To make their platform "the choice number one" for network users in terms of functionality, availability, coverage, pricing.
 To exploit the benefits of social networking via network communities in order to reinforce positive same-side effect for network users side
 To attract more price-sensitive users by subsidizing them for viewing of advertising
B. To limit the number of service, application and content providers in order to save attractiveness of the platform to this side. To charge them accordingly for the access to the large number of network users (monthly fee plus share of their revenue). To provide them with some kind of exclusive right to use platform (by territory or by the type of service). There is no only one "killer application"; this is why it is easier to service providers to find their own exclusive market niche.
C. To invest in the fastest network construction in order to build preferable platform in terms of availability and coverage and occupy the place in the wireless platform business. The more preferable the platform is, the more users it can attract, and the more competitive it will be in the marketplace.

5. Case studies of wireless access platforms

FON project is two-sided network. Both sides are network users. One side is free-of-charge users who share their connection in exchange for free access to other connections. Second side is chargeable users who get access to the shared connections for money. This platform is unique because is created by one side of the network with strong positive same-side network effect. Every user of this side is the contributor to the platform.


Telephony is a complex service because it required the co-ordination of many different parts. To make it the success it is it required control over the entire production and delivery process. That is why in national telephone companies came into existence (or at least made sense from an economical perspective). But now that telephony is good enough, customers are overshot and new, potentially disruptive, technologies are available the industry evolves to a state of modularity, in which leading companies are responsible for critical pieces in the value chain. Modularity enables the creation of spcialist firms, over the top firms, with products and services that replace individual components.
This allows incumbents to outsourc pieces of the value chain to others. You suggest that product innovation could be outsourced. But more interestingly in doing so what is effectively outsourced is software and product development. A discovery-driven approach will still be required by incumbents if it wants to address the, often latent, individual customer needs.

In your post you point to differantiation by incumbents. This would require some control over de production and delivery process. Interestingly, you mention both Apple and Microsoft, both msters of the integrated model. Windows is a highly integrated operating system. iPod and iTunes are highly integrated. Even the iPhone has classic integrated model attributes.

I agree with the platform approach and the characteristics you describe. This is not so different from the century old telco model. But the main difference is that it represents a shift from an integrated architecture to integrated processes and a modular architecture. That shift is difficult for a telco because it requires different skills, processes and values. To make it even mor complex, access networks are still largely driven by the skills. processes and values telco's are good at; to amortize high fixed costs.

Something else to touch on in your blog is innovation. You suggest to include sustaining and disruptive innovations. However, these two require different skills and processes to commercialize. The first is 'business as usual'. It is the latter that is so difficult. Because it revenue pools and margins seems so small when compared to the 'bread-and-butter' services of a telco. In your blog this is overlooked a bit.

One classic pitfall of new technology is that incumbents incorporate it in their mainstream products or target it to their mainstream customers. That is the reason why so many innovations fail, they are in the early stages not good enough for the mainstream. And this is not an area where telepony companies fail alone. Apple, for example, made the same mistake with their Newton handheld. They basically tried to shrink the PC to a handheld, whereas customer want a complementary product.
So it is a case of a too narrow to ambigious focus (mainstream produts and customers with their corresponding performnace demand levels). It is not a case of too closed. It did not address what customers (latent) needs good enough. As I said there are many examples where closed models work, very, well. (Apple iPod/iTunes, Skype, Instant Messaging, etc).

Post a comment

(To prevent spam, all comments need to be approved by the Telco 2.0 team before appearing. Thanks for waiting.)

Telco 2.0 Strategy Report Out Now: Telco Strategy in the Cloud

Subscribe to this blog

To get blog posts delivered to your inbox, enter your email address:


How we respect your privacy

Subscribe via RSS

Telco 2.0™ Email Newsletter

The free Telco 2.0™ newsletter is published every second week. To subscribe, enter your email address:

Telco 2.0™ is produced by: