The importance of the back-end alignment

The next-generation OSS is definitely a moving target, especially in the U.S. And it happens to be moving quickly. If you are a vendor today working on OSS and are met with the challenge of multiple technologies — such as traditional TDM, a GSM overlay of TDMA or maybe GSM alone and then GPRS while simultaneously supporting customers moving from CDMA to 1xRTT using BREW — well, you really have to be on top of your game to cover all those bases.

Ten years ago, the challenge was moving from analog to digital, and even that ended up taking longer than predicted. The OSSs really had to take off to marry up with the differences in that evolution.

So when you are talking about next-generation OSS, you are really talking about an alignment. You really have to have an in-depth understanding of where the network and the devices are going to align the OSS.

As people move to new network technologies and new products supported by BREW and our own JAMBA, there is a lot of pressure on OSS vendors to align with that. To me, it is impossible to believe anyone can build an OSS in advance of all that. There is no way you can know what to develop until those networks and devices are in play. What people can develop is an architecture that is flexible enough to support whatever emerges, something with expandable fields, error correction and revenue assurance. You can build a function-set around the basic requirements of the industry that are needed to be successful.

A lot of people thought the next-generation OSS had to replace the legacy systems. Obviously, that hasn't proven to be true. More money has been spent than you can count trying to do that. But the fact is you can buy surround technology to do a lot of the things that need to be done. People who say they can overhaul an OSS are usually consultants looking to make a lot of money on integration work. And cost control remains an issue for the carriers. With all the competition out there and ARPUs dropping — except for a couple of guys — it's all about volume and new features and capabilities. In fact, one of the key goals of the OSS is to provide tools that allow you to serve more customers with less people.

One way to do that is with self-service. There are so many people focused on customer care that they don't realize most people would rather do things themselves like they do on the Internet. Some people say the Internet is the greatest self-service tool invented. That may be true. I don't think people are opposed to managing their own environment. So if you are thinking in terms of next generation OSS, you really want to move to a model closer to the Internet where the customer is in charge.

The same thing goes for the commerce side. There was no one doing real commerce on the Internet until someone figured out how to make it secure. And we are seeking to do on the wireless side exactly what we did on the Internet side, which is to make commerce secure. Putting intelligence not only into the network, but the devices, and building an OSS around that is going to be key to people's success down the road.

Then there's content. It's a gray area that puts a lot of pressure on your work order processing systems and your database systems to keep in sync. With all the third-party content providers and the advent of companies like Virgin that act as a conduit for third-party content players, the revenue distribution system in your OSS becomes essential. Everybody wants to know where their money is coming from.

Can one standard OSS platform serve all the emerging network technologies? No. But there are parts of an OSS system that can be repetitive. Others need to be component-oriented. We are very interested in staying involved in and driving standards in OSS, but we can't wait for them. Our priority is to align ourselves with our customers' network evolution. No one is going to pay me for being compliant with standards. They're going to pay me for allowing them to give away fifty ringtones for using 200 minutes of voice.

You have to keep an eye on the standards bodies though. Take the standards on MEID (manufacturers electronic identification). The standards people got together and decided they were running short of ESNs and suddenly every OSS in America has to be ready to accommodate that. It's all about alignment. You can't plan in advance for everything.