Skip to main content

Irony of the Service Delivery Platform Paradox

Broadband service providers (BSPs) will be investing billions of dollars over the next five years on service delivery platforms (SDPs) in order to bring the benefits of on-demand IP services to their wireline and mobility customers, according to Insight Research.

SDPs are computing and software platforms that support emerging standards such as IMS and SIP while continuing to inter-work with legacy protocols. According to the study, SDP adoption by carriers will facilitate the delivery of on-demand telecommunications services by integrating network element performance with critical business processes.

Functionally, these SDPs will enable the adoption of a service-oriented architecture (SOA), making it possible to reuse individual service components in order to quickly build a new complete service offering, as well as to separate the creation and execution of new service applications from the underlying network.

"These platforms will loosen the knot that ties network elements to business processes, thus increasing carrier flexibility when it comes to the Business Support System (BSS) and service creation, which should translate to quicker time to market for new services," says Robert Rosenberg, President of Insight Research.

"This loose coupling of business processes means that carriers will also be able to work more efficiently with their business chain partners," Rosenberg concludes. However, I wonder if monolithic enterprise software vendors can develop the flexible and scalable platforms that service providers need the most, to compete cost effectively.

Many of the legacy OSS/BSS vendors have traditional business models, and associated pricing strategies, that precludes them from providing modular open-platforms that are inherently built for process agility. In fact, big expensive platforms have plagued the telecom sector for many years.

Ironically, some of the smaller vendors in the SDP sector have already been acquired by larger software vendors that have engulfed the nimble player into a corporate bureaucracy that tends to reduce their speed and dexterity. Moreover, these small modular elements are then tightly integrated into the existing bigger new parent company platform.

It's an interesting paradox, because several industry analysts have already expressed concerns about vendor implementations of IMS that are based upon architectures that seem to mimic the shortcomings and mistakes of legacy closed-platform OSS/BSS solutions.

Popular posts from this blog

Frontier AI Peaked. Here's What Comes Next

The prevailing narrative around artificial intelligence (AI) has been one of relentless scale. Bigger models, bigger clusters, bigger budgets. The assumption, largely unchallenged until recently, was that raw parameter count translated directly into competitive advantage. New research from Omdia suggests it's time to retire that assumption. According to the latest market study by Omdia, parameter growth in frontier AI models has slowed to around 5 percent annually since 2021, a stark contrast to the more than hundredfold expansion seen between 2019 and 2021. Enterprise AI Market Development For executives who have been making infrastructure and investment decisions based on the assumption that AI would keep demanding ever-larger, ever-more-expensive hardware, this finding deserves serious attention. The race to the top of the model size leaderboard has, at least for now, plateaued. Crucially, Omdia's analysts are not reading this as an AI winter. Alexander Harrowell, senior pri...