Get PDF The Asia Hands: OSS Operators in Southeast Asia and China (The Operators Book 3)

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online The Asia Hands: OSS Operators in Southeast Asia and China (The Operators Book 3) file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with The Asia Hands: OSS Operators in Southeast Asia and China (The Operators Book 3) book. Happy reading The Asia Hands: OSS Operators in Southeast Asia and China (The Operators Book 3) Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF The Asia Hands: OSS Operators in Southeast Asia and China (The Operators Book 3) at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF The Asia Hands: OSS Operators in Southeast Asia and China (The Operators Book 3) Pocket Guide.

e-book The Asia Hands: OSS Operators in Southeast Asia and China (The Operators Book 3)

Vendors like Nokia, Ericsson and Thai telecoms operators have also set up 5G labs at the site. Huawei, which gets nearly half of its revenue from outside China, says it has secured more than 30 commercial 5G contracts globally. But it has not yet signed a 5G contract in Thailand.

Huawei is in talks with telecoms operators, such as Advanced Info Service Pcl and TRUE, to secure local partnerships ahead of a national rollout scheduled for December , industry sources with knowledge of the matter said. Huawei has repeatedly denied US-led allegations that its equipment could be used by Beijing for spying.

Earlier, a U. Ties between the United States and Thailand have cooled since the Thai military took power in a coup. Relations between Bangkok and Beijing, on the other hand have, warmed in recent years as evident from a pick up in defense trade and Chinese investment in the Southeast Asian nation.

This stands in stark contrast to the intense scrutiny being faced by Chinese investment in other parts of the world amid a crippling Sino-U. Reuters reported exclusively on Jan. The Alliance highlights its commitment to ensure successful 5G development, testing and standardisation in Read more….

Get e-book The Asia Hands: OSS Operators in Southeast Asia and China (The Operators Book 3)

SK Telecom says it has successfully tested 5G handover between base stations using the GHz band in an outdoor environment in a field trial with Samsung Electronics. Because handover between millimeter-wave 5G base stations is Read more…. This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed. To date, few SDOs have been able to internalize cloud technologies and methods or shape the operator service portfolio toward the cloud era.

The role of standards is not all good or all bad. There is clearly a place for, and benefits from, many types of standards. Component standards are useful, not only in telecoms, but also much more broadly: for example, standards for headphone jacks, power receptacles and tires. Problems can arise when standards become too large in scope. Imagine standards that would prescribe the entire headphone, exactly which devices could be attached to power receptacles, or entire cars or trucks.

Standards with system-wide scope will, by nature, take longer to establish and react to changes in the marketplace. But carriers typically desire or, in some cases, are regulated, to comply with these standards to provide globally interoperable communications. In contrast, OTTs can freely determine the system architecture for their services. They do not need to cooperate with their competitors, and their constraints are simply to build on top of existing common infrastructure and interoperate over the Internet.

System standards are typically driven top-down, with specs that efficiently support the use cases that were used to form them. Operators often have siloed 5 networks and operations based on different services that follow different standards or came from different acquisitions. Consequently, rather than being a source of innovation, the model has become to develop standards as an industry harmonizer. Despite hiring the brightest engineering minds, the industry has been incapable of reforming SDOs to create real-world, operator-class cloud solutions.

There are other drivers in the mature telecoms industry that have led to compartmentalization and specialization over time. Some of these include divestment of the industry into manufacturers and operators, separation of regulated and non- regulated services, freezing of service definitions into tariffs, network unbundling regulations, and long-term, negotiated relationships with suppliers of materials and labor. This is the backdrop to the strategic challenge and opportunity facing the industry. All these characteristics are desirable for maximizing efficiency within a status quo.

However, gaining access to much more innovation, supplier options, and service options means disaggregating system standards and taking a fresh look at the business from many facets, including technology, interfaces, and component choices. The change does not come without a cost. Adhering to system standards for networks has allowed operators to reduce their levels of engineering and design skills. However, the flipside is that operators might have also lost their technical and operational capabilities to onboard new technologies and innovate.

Sadly, without this skill set, the well-intentioned efforts to advance and adopt SDN and NFV are largely without real benefit to operators.

Operators are not getting the technologies they need and are unable to use the ones they get. There is not yet a proven approach or credible supplier to internalize cloud technologies, and one may never emerge if the industry follows its current trajectory. Collectively they believe, if access networking could be rewritten as a cloud-native workload running on COTS infrastructure, it would open three significant and attractive possibilities. First, the increasing traffic demands could be better served using the more efficient cloud technologies and operations.

General MacArthur Snubs the OSS

Second, the flexibility offered by programmable, general-purpose, cloud-like infrastructure enables highly targeted elastic approaches without the need to forklift the whole system. Third, access need not be the only workload in such a deployment, and new services, from infrastructure to applications, can be made available to wholesale users and customers. The following section describes this concept and illustrates how this clean-sheet approach can enable operators to experiment with and internalize cloud technologies to positively transform their businesses.

To remain relevant, the industry must adopt data center technologies and align its operating model with cloud ways of working:.

http://bbmpay.veritrans.co.id/ligar-gratis-oliana.php The central office pod, or CO pod, is a new design that takes a different approach to operator transformation. It avoids boiling the ocean with long-lead-time, multi-domain-operator transformation programs. Instead, it focuses on reimagining the operator production platform as a cloud-services platform, starting with the access network. However, this design is critically different from its proprietary equivalent in three ways. First, the CO pod can run access as well as other application workloads on the same hardware and software stack.

This requires a re-think of networking as something that can be dealt with in an IT way.

Beepsend heads out to Asia

Second, it uses the same open-source tools, cloud networking, data center technologies, and service mind-set that are used by cloud behemoths. Third, it uses the same DevOps techniques to automate workload and infrastructure management. The combined effect of these architectural changes is creation of altogether new possibilities for operator production platform transformation. Access networks and associated IT systems represent a large proportion of industry capital spending, so even small improvements in competitiveness from one operator to the next can boost operator value generation capability and ROI significantly.

The CO pod also de-risks potential cloud services and network edge services, because it does not isolate capital investment to only one purpose. Because there is a constant need to invest in network upgrades and expansions, and since there are regular technology advances that increase the data rates in networks, there is a safe business plan to deploy cloud infrastructure solely to support network growth.

Additional services on that same cloud are at little or no risk of stranding capital and can be opportunistically explored. In our collective view, because the CO pod provides a safe place that lowers the costs and risks of experimentation and learning cloud concepts in the operator production environment, it is uniquely able to drive service innovation — and therefore, it is a winning design. Origins of the central office pod. Mimicking the cloud architectural pattern, it sees central-office infrastructure engineered, provisioned, and orchestrated, just like with web-scale data centers.

In this new design, modules of network, compute, storage, and applications work together to deliver networking services in a repeatable design pattern that supports both fixed and mobile applications. It is a single, multipurpose architecture that allows workload pooling, which lowers cost and complexity. It has also been shown to be more capital, energy, and labor efficient. As a result, it has a track record of elastic scalability to handle large numbers of devices and traffic compared with the ability of traditional network and data center platforms.

Finally, it has been shown to enable rapid innovation in one of the most competitive marketplaces: the World Wide Web. The physical basis of the new design is a modular, multipurpose infrastructure pod engineered for the central-office environment, as shown in Figure 2. The CO pod is not based on one- off hardware designs from telecoms industry vendors or OEMs; rather, it is based on general-purpose OCP hardware specifications, which are supplied by many vendors and used across many industries — with some diligence to ensure they can work in central-office environmental conditions.

It consists of a composable rack of compute, storage, high-speed, programmable switching fabric, as well as special-purpose devices to enable FTTx access, called disaggregated OLTs; all of which are supplied by cloud industry vendors or ODMs. Like many cloud systems, there is no need for a complete consensus on several important elements, such as deployment topology and the appropriate software environment. There is room for system differentiation, even though these are constructed from similar or even identical components. The ecosystem enjoys multiple options and approaches, which enables higher levels of technology control.

An appropriately equipped CO pod can support multiple workloads. The CO pod can focus be economically justified on fixed-network access in FTTx environments, and also serve as an edge production platform for smart home or office and perimeter security services. The CO pod can support stand-alone edge services, future 5G services, and edge cloud applications.

China & Southeast Asia

Bringing together mobile and fixed workloads in a common pod allows truly converged services, enabling transparent, access-agnostic traffic aggregation and management. The CO pod can also be used for much more than simply hosting operator edge functions, including cloud value pools. With the right security and isolation between internal and third-party workloads, spare capacity can be made available to third-party developers. Leveraging the locational advantage of the pod to provide low-latency infrastructure services, developers can deploy latency-sensitive workloads such as augmented reality and localized, data-intensive workload processing as a precursor to ultra-reliable low-latency services in 5G.

Redesigning access networks also provides the tools for operators to innovate services and user experiences - emulating cloud players. Just like a public-cloud DC, the pod is a delimited infrastructure resource, which means it can be managed, provisioned, orchestrated and patched in isolation from the rest of the production platform. As a result, it provides a safe place to experiment with new product ideas and software prior to widespread deployment.

Alternatively, the ability to locally host services can be used to delocalize centralized service delivery platforms, as well as customer and order management systems 7. This can enable a new type of quasi-autonomous production model that contains locally hosted application services; subscribers consume most of their services from central-office infrastructure. This new approach to production can provide a transient or permanent solution to the complexities of dealing with dozens of legacy services and platforms.

In addition, under the right conditions, local hosting and other local micro-services can be extended to third parties, based on an open-edge infrastructure services model akin to the public cloud, to cement partnerships and capture additional revenues. Adopting the CO pod allows operators to not only address the forces of change, but also recast themselves as infrastructure- based service companies built for service differentiation, or ultra- lean, low-cost connectivity providers to edge-based applications.

Bringing cloud technologies and practices inside the telecoms operator allows the industry to align itself with the cloud paradigm. It is not yet apparent whether operators should replicate existing cloud models for innovation and monetization or find other ways. Whatever the direction, the architecture enables operators to fast-track transformation as well as have a go at innovation, creating meaningful differentiation among operators. However, for the CO pod to become reality, it must be industrialized, productized and deployed. In the next section, we make the strategic and economic case to invest in doing just that.

Looking at Figure 3 and taking penetration as a factor in determining revenue, it should become clear that developing bespoke approaches to the most popular of services may be possible. However, that approach adds increasing overhead as you move along the long tail and will prevent deploying profitable services at some point. When developing, using, and reusing common automation across services, the incremental expense needed to support the next service is only in its use of infrastructure resources, not any additional design, deployment and operations cost.

In short, the ability to support and monetize long-tail workloads is contingent on the ability to drive end- to-end automation. The CO pod gives operators a safe place to start over; we see three options:. No two operators have the same priorities or starting point, so a thorough economic analysis must consider the specific competition, technology roadmap and debt for each case individually.