Comments on GSMA and mobile industry initiatives

stein@opensky

Lately I have made various short commentaries about specific themes that have triggered or still trigger me. This one is slightly longer again and follows on from my previous one on “What’s left of opportunities for MNOs?” and is on GSMA and mobile industry initiatives.

As commented in my previous commentary here, I am discouraged by what seems to be left of business opportunities for mobile operators – but there may be opportunities I don’t see. I hope I am right. MNOs will in any case need to continue with cost cutting. This time I will comment on the wider mobile industry and what can be done in common as an industry, typically through the GSMA.

As commented in the previous article, I have been engaged with the GSMA for 15 years or so (not anymore though). The GSMA started off as the GSM MoU to ensure interoperability between operators in a multi-local environment – and roaming, interconnect and service interoperability have made every “G” a ubiquitous service. Any mobile subscriber can call to and from any country and use their mobile phone with their home subscription in any country.

With the app ecosystem, the emergence of eSIM etc, the need for interoperability has been gradually reduced (with a global server handling it all across the globe, it is all centralized). MNOs have thus for many years stopped charging explicitly for voice and SMS and included it into data bundles.

In addition to basic interoperability, we tried for many years within the GSMA to create mobile telco services that would scale across the industry. The first example I can recall is the “Personal IM (PIM)” service which was launched with “great” enthusiasm at the very first MWC in Barcelona in 2006. Eight high-profile Group CEOs were on stage launching it; however, it never took off – probably as there was lack of internal commitment. Further, the first specification for RCS was launched already in 2008 – but it took 15+ years for it to start taking off in the market (and it still is not ubiquitous around 20 years after the start of its initial development). It could be said that RCS is too complicated – but anyway. Another example includes e.g. Mobile Connect – a very good initiative on a potential global mobile telco identity – but which also failed due to issues of global coordination and governance.

So what can we learn from this? The GSMA Board of Directors represents probably 80-90% of the world’s mobile subscribers. In other words, common initiatives could, in principle, have significant global impact if all would follow-through – and this is the challenge. Operators are multi-local, mostly occupied with competing against their next-door neighbours – and, although industry-wide initiatives would make strategic sense, they are not the priority of local CMOs – and if a Group CEO does not push through, it will not happen. Basically, short-term priorities tend to trump strategic sense. A former colleague of mine once made the statement: “A CEO who only focuses on today is not there tomorrow – and a CEO who only focuses on tomorrow is also not there tomorrow.” An MNO needs to combine short-term priorities with long-term strategy – but it needs direction.

Earlier in January, I wrote a short commentary on Network APIs, an initiative heavily supported by the GSMA and 80+ operators plus large telco vendors across the globe. The jury is still out on network APIs – but it is worth a try. It will not save the MNO business models though.

Earlier in January, I also wrote a short commentary on the EU Digital Networks Act and MNO business models. The DNA did not quite result in (see e.g. here) what the operators have been dreaming of, i.e. “fair share” and opportunities for two-sided business models  - which not only the MNOs but also the GSMA have been lobbying for.

Finally, earlier in January, I also wrote a short commentary on AI and the network traffic challenge. A prediction that seems to be generally viable is that AI is and will be all around us. This will, however, imply a significant traffic increase which operators are not yet positioned to monetize (from a business model as well as regulatory perspective). AI will generate huge amounts of background traffic, not only across the RAN but, even more importantly, between data centres across the globe. From an industry perspective, there are two aspects: 1) how do we handle AI in the networks – and 2) how do we develop networks for AI. Without getting into the details of this, AI can and must be used to optimize networks – and networks must be able to accommodate the AI-type traffic, respectively. These topics on AI are being looked at not only by MNOs individually but also within the GSMA.

To summarize the grim picture for the GSMA and the mobile industry then: While the original core business of the GSMA was to secure interoperability, the need for interoperability has been gradually reduced year by year. It is still needed, but less important than earlier. The GSMA, however, has a number of permanent Working Groups working continuously and diligently on interoperability as their main job.

On top of this, the GSMA has been focusing gradually more on advocacy / lobbying over the last decade or so (with varying success), including direct lobbying towards e.g. the EU, the ITU and regulators across the world – and also on promoting the mobile industry as a responsible industry supporting the UN development / sustainability goals. The biggest focus area for the GSMA these days, though, is their conference business, including the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona and several regional conferences across the world. MWC Barcelona is the main global meeting point for the mobile and more and more its adjacent and beneficiary industries – and is also the main revenue generator for the GSMA.

I commented also last year after MWC25 that “the mobile industry is no longer just a mobile industry and the GSMA is no longer just the trade association for mobile operators – with 56% of the MWC attendees coming from industries adjacent to the mobile industry.” Actually, the GSMA IS the trade association for mobile operators, but its potential impact is quite reduced compared to earlier. While the GSMA Board consists of large mobile operators only, GSMA Working Groups as well as the decision processes for reference documents are open to the wider ecosystem.

Geopolitics: The GSMA Board includes all the major operator groups in the world, including all the three gigantic Chinese operators – and the GSMA is treading very carefully not to displease the Chinese Board members. Huawei is also a very important contributor to the GSMA. As geopolitics are on the increase, with e.g. the USA doing all it can to limit Chinese influence and Chinese companies, this could well be a challenge for the GSMA going forward.

So what should the GSMA focus on going forward? First of all, in my mind, the fundamental business of the GSMA, in all areas of their work (technical, marketing, communication, lobbying etc), is to drive the industry development in the best interests of its members (i.e. the operators).

At a high level, since the early start of the GSM MoU, the work of the GSMA has gone from mostly technical and commercial work on interoperability (which is still there, however) towards a greater focus on advocacy – and, most of all, on the conference business. Through the years, there have also been a number of coordinated strategic programmes with some success, like e.g. financial services and IoT. What has not really succeeded are programmes or projects with expected common implementation of some kind of service (e.g. PIM, RCS, Mobile Connect etc).

Important areas to maintain:

Basic interoperability is the original core business of the GSMA and must be kept in focus. It is, however, less important than earlier and has minimal focus at GSMA Board level – but the Working Groups are the only place where every local operator (paying GSMA member) can participate. It might be that work on interoperability could be reduced with time – but not at this stage. Securing basic interoperability is about “making it all work” and has been a success factor for every “G” since 2G and is still critical for 5G and 6G.

Advocacy: Lobbying, although with variable success so far, needs to continue, even though it is mostly about protecting legacy business models (something typically criticized by the anti-operator lobby). Examples include a continued focus on the DNA, spectrum at the WRC, net neutrality etc – and all the regional activities being done. Maybe the industry could focus more proactively on future evolution and innovation?

GSMA Intelligence and technical studies: The GSMA has for some years had their GSMA Intelligence unit, which operates as a mobile industry data hub and intelligence unit. GSMAi collects industry data and does a number of strategic and technical studies - providing their results to their member community – and also sells it all to the external world. These studies are generally objective but also supporting the GSMA’s strategic communication activities. In addition, there are various technical studies within the GSMA technical community (e.g. in the 5G, 6G, AI, NTN and general network areas). These studies are all important and should continue.

Networking and information sharing: An area not to be underestimated is what the GSMA directly or indirectly does on networking and information sharing. The GSMA Working Groups, although working on concrete topics, have a very important role in this area. The same applies to the strategic Leadership Groups as well as the Board itself. As a multi-local organization, such information sharing is critical.

Fraud & security: Security is a critical element for trust in mobile networks and services. I was personally engaged in stepping up GSMA’s efforts on industry security some years back – and I believe this will remain a very important focus areas for the GSMA to drive forward in support of the mobile industry as well.

Network data and network APIs: An old and possible worn-out expression now is that “data is the new oil” – but it is probably true. MNOs have a lot of network data that they can exploit - and the GSMA is already pushing for Network APIs (see here) – which they should continue. It may be a big bet, and has the referred challenges of common implementation, but it is worth a try.

Mobile World Congress: Obviously MWC should be an area of focus – as it the main global meeting place for the mobile industry and also the main revenue generator for the GSMA. There is a risk that MWC gets too much focus though (?).

Potential new areas to consider:

Use a more OTT-like way of work in selected cases: A key difference between the mobile industry / telcos and the OTTs is that the OTTs work with global reach and scale directly through their own company internal development and launch processes, resulting in short time to market and fast optimization and debugging – while telcos are multi-local and require standards and time to develop interoperability and scale.

The operators in the mobile industry have on some occasions tried to establish common initiatives outside or inside the GSMA to develop solutions faster than what it would typically take in a full GSMA setting – most of the time without success. The GSMA could still consider establishing common and centralized development or operational services in selected cases on behalf of the industry. It has been tried before, but the optimum way of doing it has not been found yet. A challenge with it is that MNOs are skeptical of outsourcing such activities to the GSMA. In any case, if the GSMA travels to California to learn from OTTs, they might want to make use of any learnings they get.

New areas or areas to step up:

Balkanization: While the mobile industry has had earlier setbacks in standards and “G”s (e.g. divergent 2G and 3G standards in the USA and China) due to geopolitics and support of local industries, this has always been resolved in the next “G”. Due to geopolitics, there are, however, signs that it could happen again, so avoiding Balkanization should be an important focus area for the GSMA going forward.

Partnerships: Operators have for some years been jealous of OTTs / big tech companies. They are mostly seen as bothersome entrants eating into the operator business models, but they are also kind of admired – and, of course, MNOs like the traffic they generate. Therefore, Chief Strategy Officers (CSOs) from operators love to go to California and talk to these big tech companies. Individually, operators are these days making partnerships with big tech companies, and it is something the GSMA potentially might be facilitating as well, if the operators would go along with it (unless they want to compete between themselves with different partnerships – which could well be the case). For this reason, my guess is that a global partnership between the mobile industry and specific OTTs will be hard to reach.

In any case, such partnerships should be explored by the GSMA. The recent comments from the very new Chief Strategy Officer of the GSMA is that, based on the recent California visit, “the future of connectivity will be shaped by deep collaboration between the mobile ecosystem and the platforms powering AI, cloud, devices, and digital services. From networks and spectrum, to AI, enterprise monetization, security and digital inclusion, the opportunities are global in scale.”

Areas to drop or reconsider:

Services and service interoperability: Services and service interoperability have been a challenge for GSMA over the years, mainly due to lack of commitment and follow-through by the operators and insufficient governance within the GSMA (e.g. PIM, RCS, Mobile Connect etc). There might be some light in the tunnel for RCS these days, but it has generally been a hard sell. The GSMA (and mobile industry as a whole) might need to consider if telco services and service interoperability are at all worth spending time on – or, IF it should be done, a proper model for governance and operator follow-through must be in place. Due to the OTTs and app economy, it might not be so needed going forward, but possibly in selected very important cases.

Other considerations:

Marketing: GSMA has a good marketing organization, however, most of its focus to date has been on marketing the MWC and related activities, i.e. the GSMA’s own business. There is practically no marketing on behalf of the mobile industry – which is an area that potentially could be strengthened / activated, i.e. promoting all the good things operators and the mobile industry is doing – not only towards policy makers / regulators, but also possibly towards consumers. This would, however, have to be operator independent. GSMA’s Mobile for Development (MfD) is indirectly doing some of this, but more could be done.

GSMA Board effectiveness: As it is today, the GSMA Board is mainly a very good meeting place and networking arena where Board members (Group and local operator CEOs) can meet their peers. It should also be noted that GSMA Board meetings are not core business for them – and they may easily go home to their companies after a Board meeting feeling that it was a good meeting, but then they will quickly come back into the busy agenda of their day job and forget about the Board meeting. The GSMA Board should strive to make clear and concrete decisions and also be clear on concrete expectations from the Board members so that the Board members will follow-through on decisions made at the Board. This would specifically be needed for any kind of common initiative.

Common initiatives: Common initiatives by the GSMA (on technical level) have had challenges in the past, in particular in the services area requiring some form of common implementation. Such initiatives could still be relevant though – provided the GSMA governance model would support it with follow-through by GSMA Board members – or if a centralized model would be applied.

Staff-driven or operator-driven initiatives: The GSMA’s original way of working was a very collaborative approach with joint development and a (sometimes long) process of consensus building on the technical side. Some of this has also taken place within technical programmes driven top-down with operator lead. Other initiatives have been GSMA staff driven – and more and more we can see that GSMA initiatives are driven by the GSMA staff. This is good in the sense that time and effort is put on the initiatives (operators generally don’t set aside many resources to industry activities anymore) – but it also removes commitment from the mobile operators.

A key point to note in this context is that the GSMA cannot be run purely as a company in the normal sense – except for the conference business and GSMAi which are revenue generators for the GSMA. The GSMA is an association, and the success of the GSMA lies in making industry impact, which mostly relies on execution by its members (at least on the technical side). Thus, operator commitment and a certain anchoring process are clearly needed.

Summary

I have been skeptical about writing this article, partly because I am an old insider in the area (no longer though) and partly afraid of annoying some of my old GSMA colleagues interfering with internal matters. I hope my comments on the GSMA and mobile industry as such can be seen as constructive inputs though.

As commented in my previous article on “what’s left of opportunities for MNOs”, I am discouraged by what seems to be left of business opportunities for mobile operators – but there may be opportunities I don’t see. I hope I am right. MNOs will in any case need to continue with cost cutting.

Thus, to conclude:

The GSMA should have a lot of praise for the global success of GSM (2G) and its successors – as basic interoperability has been ensured, global fragmentation has been avoided, and the interests of the mobile operator industry have been protected through various advocacy over many years. The GSMA is not free of challenges though.

Although the GSMA is a trade association, it has over the years developed more and more into a business. The MWC (and regional conferences) plus GSMAi make a lot of money, and a lot of effort is spent in these areas. On top of this, the GSMA Board (which controls 80-90% of the world’s mobile subscribers) is a talking shop and mainly a good networking arena for mobile operator CEOs. Not many important decisions are made there that make industry impact.

Some thoughts are therefore made around possible focus areas going forward:

1. GSMA should not forget about its reason for existence, i.e. facilitating interoperability between mobile networks across the world. Due to OTTs and the app economy, interoperability is becoming less critical, but basic interoperability is still very important for 5G and 6G.

2. The GSMA might want to forget about telco services and service interoperability – which have been a challenge for the GSMA over the years, mainly due to lack of commitment and follow-through by the operators and insufficient governance within the GSMA. If to be done (possibly in very important cases only), a proper operating model needs to be in place.

3. GSMA should continue with its important advocacy efforts across the world, specifically the DNA, spectrum at the WRC, net neutrality etc – and all the regional activities being done. Maybe apply a more forward-looking focus?

4. Handling fraud & security is critical for trust in mobile networks and services – and this will remain a very important focus areas for the GSMA to drive forward and possibly step up even more.

5. GSMA is already pushing for Network APIs – which they should continue. It may be a big bet, but it is worth a try.

6. Due to current geopolitics, there are risks of Balkanization in standards and ecosystems. To avoid Balkanization is an important area for GSMA to step up going forward.

7. GSMA should carefully consider existing ways of working, i.e. whether staff-driven or operator-driven initiatives are best suited for maximum impact.

8. GSMA should consider new ways of working for common initiatives in selected cases to speed up and have greater impact (if operators would agree). Examples could include using more centralized development and operations processes, using methodology typically used by OTTs etc.

9. Partnerships with OTTs is a difficult area, as different operators may have different priorities. GSMA should, however, work on learning from the OTTs and consider if any partnerships or common initiatives could be found - or various facilitation and support initiatives for MNOs.

10. A final area which could be critical for industry impact is to make important GSMA Board decisions with proper follow-through by the operators.

Obviously, GSMA’s conference and intelligence businesses need continued focus, however, without losing focus on other important areas.

Another area which is underexploited is marketing. Most of GSMA’s focus in the area has been on marketing the MWC and related activities but could consider doing more on promoting all the good things operators and the mobile industry is doing - on top of its Mobile for Development (MfD) and UN SDG activities. It may be contentious, however, and may require a lot of MNO coordination.

The GSMA is the global trade association for the world’s mobile operators, and the success of the GSMA lies in making industry impact – and the fundamental business of the GSMA in all areas of their work (technical, marketing, communication, lobbying etc), is to drive industry development in the best interests of its members. If we look at these different focus areas for the GSMA, I see the following:

• Technical delivery: The original core business of the GSMA, i.e. GSMA Working Groups, technical programmes and leadership in all areas need to focus on and ensure delivery. This requires good internal GSMA governance but also strong MNO follow-through and direction. The area has become more difficult since it was compared to “standards activities” some years ago – but the GSMA and GSMA Board still have scope to improve effectiveness and way of working “in the best interest of its members”.

• Lobbying: Lobbying and advocacy are really to be seen as an influencing business and is a quite separate way of working – and should continue as indicated above.

• MWC and the conference business is a separate business already and should continue so – making money for the GSMA. The only question I have, though, is if is becoming too much a general industry conference beyond the mobile industry (?)

As an old mobile telecoms guy involved more or less from the start, I have been to practically every MWC in Barcelona (and before that in Cannes as well) – and I will be there this year also. The MWC is a very good place to network and to get an update on what’s going on in the mobile (and adjacent) industry.

Maybe I will see some of you there …. 😊