Blog of Random Thoughts and Pictures

A User Centric Always Best Connected Service Business Model for MVNOs

October 15th, 2010

As announced on the Perimeter blog, on October 14th last Anwesh got to present our joint paper on “A User Centric Always Best Connected Service Business Model for MVNOs” during the Mobile Connectivity Platforms session of the Business Models for Mobile Platforms (BMMP 10) workshop.
We’ve taken a good hard look at the current state of the Mobile Virtual Network Operator (MVNO) business model, which is mainly based on the concept of reselling minutes (cheaply), and really it seems the long term viability of the MVNO is unclear from the existing telecom industry structure.
But we believe there is a big opportunity for MVNOs in the way they can offer IP-based communication services and we think the model has to change from Value Chain to Value Network.
In our view the vertical integration world of the telecom industry will be unable to satisfy the new range of value added services (VAS) and we’re sure that more collaborative business models based on core competencies are likely to emerge. We think that next generation mobile services will leverage robust access platforms, with the emergence of a dedicated service composer.
Given this view we think MVNOs are in a better position to deliver innovative VAS as more tightly integrated partners with equipment vendors and through our paper we introduce a new MVNO as a Broker (MVNOB) model.
Take a closer look at the slides as we provide an analyses of the characteristics of our conceptual MVNOB model.

The presentation raised some interesting comments and questions from the audience as it was seen to be disruptive to the present mobile communications business model. Most of the presentations at the conference and workshops were heavily in favour of mobile operators while we presented the opportunity for virtual operators in the changing telecommunications landscape.
Some of the questions/comments from the audience which we need to consider are:

  • Why is MVNOB not a threat to the MNO?
  • What will happen will MVNOB start creating services themselves to satisfy a unique opportunity in the market?
  • Nokia-Siemens Networks (equipments vendors) are good candidates for MVNE.
  • Is this something theoretical or is it something real happening in process?
  • What is the technology enabler?
  • What about information flow with regards for missed call, unavailability for example, among various operators and MVNOB?
  • How tightly or deeply will the MVNOB be integrated with the MNO?
  • Radio spectrum sensing issues – Broker platform can lead to power shift from the operators to broker and is highly disruptive to the present industry structure.

I must admit I’ll have to take a little to time to address each one of these questions and I wonder do you have any other questions to add?
Update: The paper is now avaialble on IEEE Xplore “A user centric always best connected service business model for MVNOs

Protection and Trust in Financial Infrastructures

September 24th, 2010


Not one our first projects to start in the FP7 programme, but our first project to finish. PARSIFAL was a coordination action, funded by the European Research Programme for Critical Infrastructure Protection. Its objective was to define how to better protect Critical Financial Infrastructures (CFI) in Europe.
There were a limited set of partners on the project ATOS Origin Sae, Spain (coordinators), ACRIS GmbH, Switzerland; @bc – Arendt Business Consulting, Germany; Avoco Secure Ltd, UK; EDGE International BV, Netherlands and of coures ourselves from the TSSG.
The key achievement of the project was to strengthened engagement between the European Commission and the Financial Services Industry in terms of trust, security and dependability. Financial Services are seen as a critical ICT infrastructures and so the purpose of this project was to provide direction for future research programmes, helping to align research in this area to the needs of the Financial Services Industry.
Parsifal has produced a whitepaper to highlight its acheivements [pdf].
There is also a document which gives some further details of the main research gaps in the area such as the classification of identity attributes for on-line and mobile users of financial services. The document points out this these identity attributes should be defined and well understood by providers of these services and their customers and in particular the:
3.1 Classification of identity attributes for online and mobile users
3.2 Trust Indicators for financial services to determine risk level
3.3 Multiple-identity management platforms
With the new dimension of cloud computing/architectural changes and de-perimeterization, can lead to new needs for standardization and regulations (flexible virtual concentration)
4.1 Standard and cross border digital identities in the financial market
4.2 Data-linked security policies
4.3 De-perimeterization of organizations: models and cross order issues:
5.1 Design and implementation of secure platforms and applications
5.2 Model Definition
For the full document read Section 3.1 of the Gap analysis report by clicking here
One of the main research items from the project has been the draft ontology of financial risks & dependencies within and without the Financial Sector (D2.1 – V2.0) [pdf].
The aim of the document is to contribute to a common understanding of the key concepts in risk management and financial infrastructures. It presents a simple model combining the ontologies from both the security and the financial sector.
There are ontologies in three work areas (business continuity, control engineering, trusted sharing of sensitive /confidential information). These ontologies lay the ground for further approaches, while one-page roadmaps illustrate the instant benefits of this approach.
ASimpleOntologyofDigitalIdentity.png
There is an extensive structured glossary in the document too. This glossary is based on a compilation of terms, available from public institutions (like the European Central Bank) or known experts. It includes more terms appearing in the other deliverables of the Parsifal project and being especially relevant to our context.
The main contributors to this work were J.-Yves Gresser, B. Haemmerli, S. Morrow, H. Arendt and Keiran Sullivan (TSSG), with Keiran leading a paper in the area “Risk ontologies – Security or Trust? Terminological & Knowledge Organisation”, TKE 2010, Sept. 2010.
All in all not a bad output from a humble CSA.

Looking back on a project that is 4WARD

September 6th, 2010

The ICT 4WARD project has come to a close and it’s time to reflect on what was been billed as a clean slate project which was to combine sets of radical architectural approaches towards the future Internet, building on a strong mobile and wireless background to design inter-operable and complementary families of network architectures.

4WARD was my first project in the FP7 programme, and was quite different from the FP6 projects that I participated in, FP7 has been an interesting experience to say the least! Work on the proposal started in the summer of 2006, and took 8 months to complete, and then another 8 months were taken with its review and contract negoations with the project itself starting in ernest on Janurary 1st 2008.
30 months later, after 7 project meetings stretching from Lisbon to Stockholm and in excess of 32,000km travelled, upteen conference calls and many many more wiki updates, I come to the end of 4WARD.
Well I have to say I worked with some hugely talented people in the project, with Patsy, Zohra, Chris and Eamonn making huge strides to further our research in component based architecture, domain specific languages and in-network management, and all of this work is reflected in the delieverables of 4WARD, which are the main visable output from a project.
WP2
D-2.1 Technical Requirements
D-2.2 Draft Architectural Framework
D-2.3.0 Mechanisms for Generic PathsArchitectural Framework: new release and first evaluation results
D-2.3.1 Final Architectural Framework

WP4
D-4.1 Definition of Scenarios and Use Cases
D-4.2 In-Network Management Concept
D-4.3 In-network management design
Papers are also a clear output form the project and I collaborated on 6 specific 4WARD papers:
1. In the paper “Towards a New Architectural Framework; The Nth Stratum Concept“, we presented our new architectural framework called the Nth Stratum concept, which takes a holistic approach to tackle these new needs and requirements on a future communication system.
2. In the paper “A Framework for In-Network Management in Heterogeneous Future Communication Networks“, we proposed the radically new paradigm of in-network management, which targets the embedding of self-management capabilities deep inside the network nodes. In this paper, we focus on our framework for in-network management, which allows management logic to be embedded and executed within network nodes. Based on a specific use-case of bio-inspired network management, we demonstrate how our framework can be exploited in a network failure scenario using quorum sensing and chemotaxis.
3. In the paper “Mobility Scenarios for the Future Internet: The 4WARD Approach”, we highlight the 4WARD research approach to make a vision of a “network of information” reality. New system design methods for customized architectures on flexible network platforms will be combined with the capabilities of virtualization of all network resources including the wireless access. Together with a new generic path concept for flexible interconnection of objects of any type and a new paradigm for naming, addressing and managing mobile objects, the envisaged “network of information” model will be constructed.
4. In the paper “Architectural Principles and Elements of In-Network Management” we propose the in-network management (INM) paradigm, which adopts a clean slate design approach to the management of future communication networks that is brought about by evolutionary design principles. The proposed paradigm builds on embedded management capabilities to address the intrinsic nature, and hence, close relationship between the network and its management. At the same time, INM assists in the gradual adoption of embedded self-managing processes to progressively achieve adequate and practical degrees of INM. We demonstrate how INM can be exploited in current and future network management by its application to P2P networks.
5. In the paper “An Introduction to Network Stack Design using Software Design Patterns” we present our architectural framework which proposes a component-based architecture consisting of building blocks of reusable functionality, components that allow the construction of these building blocks and the composition of complex functionality, control elements facilitating communication between blocks, and a repository of building blocks. The architecture allows for rapid composition of federations of components, enabling an easy transition from present network infrastructure towards the future Internet and realizing the on-demand creation and configuration of protocol stacks for components.
6. In the paper “A Case Study for defining Interoperable Network Components using MDD”, we present a case study using Model Driven Development addressing interoperability requirements in next generation networks. Our approach focuses on the specification of a high level Contract Domain Specific Language we combine Component-based Software Engineering for the design with our long-term experience of network resource management and performance optimisation. Part of our case study is a tool chain that supports the network engineers who deploy next generation networks.
None of these papers would have seen the light of day without the kind support and drive of my co-authors who included Patsy, Zohra, Sven, Chris, Eamonn, Sasi, Dmitri, D. Dudkowski, M. Brunner, G. Nunzi, C. Mingardi, C. Meirosu, S. Engberg, M. Söllner, C. Görg, K. Pentikousis, J. Mª Cabero Lopez, P. Bertin, M. Johnsson, J. Huusko, T. Frantti, F-U Andersen and T-M-T. Nguyen. I have gained many friends going through this process.
Finally the one surprise output from the project has been the open source release on the CBA concept, which has been the seed for OpenTinos. All in all I see the support of OpenTinos keeping me quite busy in the coming months.

Recent eRead: The Art of Innovation, IDEO, Palm and Project 2010

August 29th, 2010

It’s taken me a while to get through the book The Art of Innovation: Lessons in Creativity from IDEO, America’s Leading Design Firm, by Tom Kelley, but not because it’s a hard book to read, no it was because it was an eBook!

Well more to the point a Kindle eBook, being read on an iPod Touch. I found it really handy to purchase and download the book, and while obviously the reading format was optimised for the smaller screen I found it hard to figure out where exactly I was in the book. I mean it takes me a while to get into a book, but once I hit half way, I rip through the second half, but this just wasn’t the case with the eBook. The eBook gave me no sense of where I was in the book.

Also I found the iPod Touch to be a distraction, in that I read email, twitter, news feeds and surf the web on the device, and with the eBook I found myself reading less of the book and drifting off to do those other things. It makes me think that a dedicated eReader really might be a better option, but one without the email, twitter, news feeds and web surfing capabilities. Oh but whispersync was great, although I hate the idea of “the system” knowing exactly how, were and when I’m reading a book!

Anyway to the book itself.

Even 9 years after it’s creation, The Art of Innovation still holds some interesting insights into ways of looking at the creative design process. I found it particularly relevant when it came to talk about Palm and how IDEO helped in the transition from Palm III to Palm V. At the time (2000) I had a Palm IIIx I remember synchronising it to web pages via a desktop PC and a RS232 cable, said pages then read offline, especially when I was dragged to the shops, the little Palm IIIx was a lifesaver.

Palm IIIx

Palm IIIx

The book talks a little about the creative process in that design transition from the Palm III to Palm V, much of which rang true for me, as I transitioned to a Palm m500 I really noticed the difference. Actually I still have the m500 I must see if I can get anything for it on eBay.

Palm m500

Palm m500

The one thing I wanted to look into after reading the book was Project 2010. Given that it’s mentioned as a news piece on Business Week I wanted to check in and see some of the predictions. A link to Business Week: Welcome to 2010 can be found here.

As I read through the pages of this article I see predictions which include:
1. Entirely wireless world where broadband is ubiquitous,
2. Flexible LCDs.
3. Artificial Intelligence. In a decade, data will drown us. AI software will filter, prioritize, and communicate.
4. Holography. Moving 3-D images in real time.
5. PDA of the future will mean we say goodbye to money, keys, credit cards, beepers, and TV remotes.
6. Thumbprints will replace credit-card numbers etc…
7. Shades with built in screens
8. Computer displays and TV monitors are replaced by one lightweight, flat LCD panel that can be placed on a desk or hung on a wall.
9. Medial Mirror
10. Home server will manage a wireless, high-bandwidth home network.
11. Sports Watch monitors vital statistics, and analyzes performance.
12. Golf Buddy has GPS, cameras, and sensors to help your game
13. Lightweight moving map that displays your exact location in all terrains.
14. Compact printer
15. Smart Chair

I have to say wow, that’s not bad, flexible LCD nearly got here in 2010, but it looks like a number of big companies are just starting to pull out of ePaper business. I must say data has drowned us completely and there’s no A.I. helping me just yet, or should I say Google is doing this for us anyway. As for the 3-D prediction would the raft of 3-D movies in 2010 count here? Just saw Toy Story 3-D today, good show. And the thumbprints will replace credit-card numbers, maybe RFID is doing that today, and the final big one, can you see the Apple iPad in anyone of those predictions? I certainly can.

I’m quite impressed, but may be I’m being too optimistic in viewing these items, what do you think?

RINA is networking and networking is IPC

August 24th, 2010

I’ve been involved in some research recently which has more than a passing interest in the networking concepts of RINA a clean slate Internet architecture which is proposing to resolve the challenges of today’s internet.
 PhotoCredit: jurvetson on Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/jurvetson
The reason for the interest is that RINA has brought the networking challenge back to it’s basics, and bases itself on the concept that networking is just Inter Process Communication (IPC).
This is to say in a RINA world any two application processes in different systems are able to communicate using the services provided by a DIF. A DIF is nothing more than a number of cooperating application processes, with the DIF as the structural unit for organizational purposes, which in another way could be referred to as a ”layer”.
A DIF is different from the traditional definition of layer in the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) architecture. Firstly, a DIF does not perform a single function or small subset of pre-determined functions, but a coordinated set of policy managed functions to achieve the desired IPC service.
Secondly, the DIF naturally separates various concerns, including operation over different timescales (e.g. short -term data transfer and multiplexing vs. long-term connection management and access control issues). By the way DIFs are repeated, making RINA recursive.
This proposal of a new network architecture through RINA is currently being evaluated by its ability to address the shortcomings of the current Internet architecture and how it manages to provide solutions to these issues.
To paraphrase the researchers at Boston University (BU), RINA tackles the following set of challenges and provides an answer to most of them without extra effort but inherently:
Multihoming: By adopting and extending Saltzer’s proposal [1] for a naming and addressing schema, RINA names nodes as well as interfaces (Point of Attachment (PoA)). Thus, it is able to identify a node by its name and achieve multihoming.
Mobility: RINA simply sees this as a dynamic version of multihoming with controlled “link failures”, i.e., as a wireless signal becomes weak, the link “fails”.
Multicast: For RINA all addressing (anycast, multicast) can be treated as a set of addresses and a rule. The rule determines the number of members in a set that satisfy the rule.
Security: RINA addresses security in that a DIF provides a secure container. Users of the DIF only see the destination application name and a local handle. RINA does not use addresses nor well- known ports.
Policy Based Configuration: With RINA, policy and mechanism are separated. By using policies in conjunction with the common mechanisms, RINA can be configured to meet the different requirements of applications.
A detailed overview of RINA innovations and features can be found in the papers [2, 3, 4]. Tutorials and reference material are available from the Pouzin Society (PSOC) website.
[1]. J. H. Saltzer. On the naming and binding of network destinations. In Proceedings IFIP/TC6 International Symposium on Local Computer Networks, pages 311–317, April 19-21 1982.
[2] J. Day. How PNA Works: The Future of Networking [pdf].
[3] J. Day. Patterns in Network Architecture: A Return to Fundamentals (ISBN 0132252422), December 2007.
[3] J. Day, I. Matta, and K. Mattar. “Networking is IPC”: A guiding principle to a better internet [pdf]. In CoNEXT ’08: Proceedings of the 2008 ACM CoNEXT, pages 1–6. ACM, 2008.