I’ve just taken on a new role with Ovum, as leader of our telecoms strategy practice, which includes our Wireline Strategy, Regulation and Wholesale advisory services. As a result, I’m in London this week meeting the new team and a few other people and trying to get to grips with things.
One of the themes that has arisen several times, and which figures to be a pretty large component of our wireline strategy research in particular is “Transformation.” This isn’t a term I’ve come across a lot in my work over the last few years in the enterprise space. But as it turns out, it refers to a set of things I’m already pretty familiar with, and in essence relates to the process through which telcos are shifting from their legacy structures, mindsets and services to new structures, processes, infrastructures, networks, services and so on. As such, it encompasses several major areas:
Network transformation – the shift from PSTN to IP, and the introduction of IMS and common platforms in place of a raft of dedicated platforms for various different services
A greater focus on marketing and serving customers as the core business of the telco, and a smaller focus on technology and running networks
As a result, it often also involves the outsourcing of management of network operations to third parties, most commonly network equipment vendors. We met with representatives from Alcatel-Lucent and the CTO of Telstra as they came to visit our London office, and the Telstra CTO remarked that he’d noticed this trend was most prevalent in countries with populations under 20 million (Australia, New Zealand, Belgium and others are current examples).
Next-generation access, or in other words fiber in the access network. FTTH, FTTN and other architectures and services are used to deliver a range of services, often as a triple play bundle of TV, telephone and Internet access.
I think what we’ll be focusing on is how carriers are approaching these various tasks and how far along they are. I imagine there might well be scope for some sort of transformation scorecard at some point which would formalize this. Telstra is actually one of the carriers which seems to be furthest along in its plans at this point, and which has a clear roadmap for achieving the rest. BT and Bell Canada are other examples of carriers which have aggressively approached at least some of the elements of transformation. I’m looking forward to embracing this as a theme in my new role. I’d be interested in your thoughts and comments on what would be useful to our customers.
Several news sources this week covered the formal disintegration of Sprint’s partnership with the cable companies, which had been marketed under the brand name Pivot. This news was a long time coming, and neither Sprint nor the cable companies had been investing in the service for some time.
In fact, it seemed as if none of the companies really ever invested anything significant in the venture beyond the initial outlay to set up the entity which ran it. Cable company call center representatives were not apparently paid commission on Pivot sales and thus had very little incentive to sell the service when they had plenty of other options to pursue with their customers. It also never really made it out of the initial test markets.
There clearly are people who want to watch TV on their handsets, and there are even people (myself included) who would like to be able to set their DVRs from their cellphones. But that doesn’t mean they want a service which revolves around those features. And they especially don’t want a service which feels like it is tied down to a particular feature set and a secondary relationship which they may or may not want to keep over the long term.
This is the same problem which doomed Mobile ESPN – people want ESPN content on their phones (the Sports Center audience numbers don’t lie, and they pretty much all have cellphones), but they first and foremost want great phone service, good prices, attractive devices, good customer service and so on. Then they want to be able to layer that other stuff on top, and add and remove it as necessary over time, whether for financial reasons or just because something better has come along.
Even though mobile services tied into quad plays from telcos have been more successful, they haven’t been hugely so, and it comes down to the same reason. People want to make an individual decision about mobile phones that is decoupled from the other decisions they make about communications and media services they subscribe to. The two-year contracts they’re locked into are quite enough restriction for most people, and they don’t want any more.
It appears the cable companies realize that, and perhaps always have. Although the logic of the partnership was sound at a high level – the cable companies have everything except wireless, and Sprint had only wireless, in a world which appears to be moving towards bundles – but that logic breaks down once you get into the details. People are buying bundles, but they’re buying bundles of home services and not typically bundles including mobile.
The cable companies, though, still feel they need a play in wireless, if not because of the bundling trend, then for two other reasons: other companies are offering mobile TV services, which may erode their share at the margins, and because they are experiencing the same slow-down in their core business that is driving the telcos in their bid for TV- and mobile-driven growth. They need wireless as a source of growth, even if not a source of higher ARPU from each individual customer.
As such, it appears they’re making some moves to get back into the wireless market via a more direct route. Having acquired AWS spectrum, some of them also acquired 700MHz spectrum in the recent auction.
There have been unofficial rumors that the cable companies may be planning to do a deal with Google, Sprint and Clearwire to build a national WiMAX network. And Comcast has apparently hired the former CTO of Telefonica O2 Europe to investigate options for the company’s wireless strategy.
There’s no telling at this point whether they will be successful this time around – joint ventures are notoriously bad at working out. But with the cable companies more in control of their own destinies they probably have a better chance with this than they did with Pivot.
Great piece on the Implemented blog this week about Web 3.0. Essentially, the piece tracks down lots of different definition of Web 3.0 that are floating around the web and sorts them into four main categories:
Semantic Web
APIs and Web Services
Mobile Web
Implicit Web.
The Semantic Web category seems to be the one getting the most buzz, and the one most people seem to think of when they talk about Web 3.0. But it is important to note that there are at least as many definitions of Web 3.0 as there are of Web 2.0 (in part because no-one really coined the phrase in the way Tim O’Reilly did with Web 2.0). It was always an obvious step to start talking about Web 3.0 as soon as the Web 2.0 term got any traction, but inevitably it just became a buzzword to talk about all the next developments on the web.
I think the Semantic Web – the idea that computers will be able to go a step further in making connections between people and things on the web than they can at present based on various tags and other metadata – is the most compelling of these various ideas and so is deservedly at the top of the list, in that it involves the biggest change from the way the web works today and so provides the biggest step forward in terms of what people can do with the web.
The Web Services and Mobile Webs described in the post at Implemented feel like enablers or corollaries of the semantic web, and are in fact very much part of Web 2.0 as well. And the Implicit Web described at the end of the post is either an extension of the Semantic Web or the flip side of it – it’s still about computers deriving connections that are not explicit, but this time based on user behavior rather than tagging in web pages. As such it’s also an important part of Web 3.0 but probably secondary to the Semantic Web.
The post ends by discussing a few other views, including one that’s time-based. This is interesting but it really doesn’t make any sense because the various generations (to borrow an analogy from the mobile world) of the web co-exist at any particular period in time. Right now we arguably have Web 1.0 and Web 3.0 sites living alongside Web 2.0 sites and that’s likely to continue for a long time. The lines are very blurry indeed in the meantime. The term Web 3.0 is in some ways therefore even less useful than the term Web 2.0. But what we’re really talking about is how to make the web better, and what the components need to be, and that is a helpful discussion when it’s revealed by sweeping away the jargon.
I am constantly astonished by the fact that many websites still use Mapquest on their “directions” pages. It makes me wonder why they do so, when surely no-one really uses Mapquest anymore when there are alternatives like Google Maps and Yahoo Maps around. For several years now, those two alternatives have been considerably better options, with a much more usable interface (both on PCs and on mobile devices) and much higher quality maps (Mapquest’s were until very recently still those funny line drawings where roads are shown as single lines instead of two dimensional objects although this appears to have changed in the last couple of months).
And yet, according to Hitwise, Mapquest still has an over 50% share of the online mapping market. Google Maps, while coming up quickly, is still around 20%. Yahoo Maps, which had been in second place, has recently dropped to third, losing subscribers to Google along with Mapquest itself. Microsoft’s Live Maps product, meanwhile, is hovering around 3% of the market.
I found this astonishing, because I’m not sure I’ve ever used Mapquest, and I certainly never have in the last 5 years. For a time, Google Maps and Yahoo Maps were playing leapfrog in courting my attention by launching new features alternately. But Mapquest was never a serious contender. So why is Mapquest still such a major player?
I think the answer lies in the fact that many people on the Internet are inherently inert when it comes to choosing service providers. Their inertia ties them to the first service they used that worked in a particular space – be it mapping, search or photo sharing. They don’t actively seek out alternatives and so never realize that there are better services available. In the case of Mapquest, it was so dominant in the early days that its name transcended its brand and became generic in the manner of Kleenex, Hoover or Ziploc (”shall I give you directions?” – “no – I’ll just Mapquest it”).
I think this same inertia is what has allowed AOL (coincidentally, the owner of Mapquest) to continue to exist as a walled garden provider even when the same content and services that you can pay $10 to $26 a month for is now available for free at aol.com. The same group of subscribers probably make up much of the customer base for both Mapquest and the old AOL service. And this group of relatively inert Internet users is large and probably growing as more seniors and others who are less adventurous on the net come online.
This all gives a massive advantage to the first company that makes a significant new service work well enough for these relatively conservative users of the Internet. Google is able to overcome this advantage in the case of mapping and other areas such as email because it already has a strong entrenched position in search and is good at leveraging its strength across its properties through those links at the top left of each of its pages.
This is in contrast to Yahoo!, whose website is so cluttered that finding new services is very much more difficult. There are lessons to be learned both from Mapquest and from Google here. From Mapquest we can learn that being the first good provider of an online service is a massive advantage. But from Google we can learn that it is possible to overcome that advantage by leveraging mind share in an existing market into an adjacent one. And we can also learn that the time to market for competing services is very much shorter today than it was when Mapquest first launched, so that the first mover advantage is being eroded over time.
Service providers on the Internet have essentially two choices: they can target this large group of inert users, which takes a long time to jump on a bandwagon but will then ride it for many years, or to target the equally large group of more technically savvy users who are more adventurous and therefore faster to adopt a new service but also faster to jump ship when something better comes along. A third option, the holy grail, is to produce a service which serves both markets and can therefore grow quickly but also retain a large base over time. But that’s a rare service indeed.
Unified Communications is one of the areas I cover pretty closely in my work. Everyone in the business knows that Cisco and Microsoft are the two dominant players at present in UC, especially from the point of view of marketing dollars invested in this market. But over the last few weeks I’ve been struck by the positions of two other players: Dimension Data and BT.
I’ve heard a fair amount from BT about its UC strategy over the last few months as it gears up to make a big push around its solutions in this area. And its focus is going to be on integrating the Cisco and Microsoft solutions. BT is of course a big Cisco partner and through its INS acqusition (now rebranded as BT Professional Services) it is also a big Microsoft partner. As a result, it’s in a great position to bring the two together, and has a project underway to make this happen.
Dimension Data is Cisco’s biggest reseller. It also has a significant business in reselling and managing Microsoft software including Exchange, Sharepoint, and Live Communications Server / Office Communications Server. As such, it too is in a great position to bring the two together, and it also recognizes this and is making it a major thrust of its UC strategy. DiData is in a stronger position with Cisco, whereas (in the US at least) its Microsoft partnership is new and relatively undeveloped compared with BT’s.
Each company has its strengths and weaknesses in this area, but both have recognised a crucial point: that customers will buy many of their UC solutions from Microsoft and Cisco, not one or the other, and most of those will need help integrating the two. For those not directly selling their own UC solutions, this could be a great opportunity, and for these two companies in particular the fit is particularly good. AT&T, Verizon and others will also attempt to play in the UC space, but for these two carriers at least the focus is actually on providing clients that will compete with the Cisco and Microsoft Communicators rather than doing integration work. Although this will win some customers, my money’s on BT and Dimension Data to really make money on UC.
The standard story told in the US media, by certain politicians and by consumer rights groups is that the US lags the rest of the world in broadband, with studies often placing the US well down the international rankings. This week there was a report from the INSEAD / the World Economic Forum which contradicted somewhat those glum findings and accords more closely with my own views on this topic.
The problem with many of these reports is that they focus on price and availability of high speeds without investigating the negative effects associated with heavy government intervention in the market. As an example, Japan is often cited as the beacon of international broadband, often closely followed by Korea, but in both of these countries the government has intervened in a heavy-handed fashion to achieve the results seen today. European countries often also score highly, often because of the competition introduced via local loop unbundling regulations – a less intrusive form of intervention than in Japan and Korea but nonetheless a much more aggressive form of regulation than that which applies in the US.
Another flaw is that it is assumed that faster speeds are always a good thing, and that diminishing returns never set in. The fact is that, beyond a certain point (currently around 10Mbit/s or so) extra bandwidth is just that – extra. There is almost no application in existence today which requires more than 20Mbit/s when in peak use, and so 100Mbit/s is a senseless benchmark. Getting more of the population to 5, then 10 and ultimately 20Mbit/s is a reasonable goal, but beating up on the US for the paucity of 100Mbit/s connections is an exercise in futility that could lead to bad investment decisions. Verizon’s FiOS infrastructure is certainly capable of delivering that kind of bandwidth, although AT&T’s U-Verse probably isn’t under the present architecture. But the point is that it doesn’t matter.
Another thing that’s rarely examined is the pricing side of the equation. Providers in Korea in particular have a very spotty financial history due to the suicidal price wars they’ve engaged in. But that competition has been spurred by the fact that they – like the US – have inter-modal competition between various infrastructures, not just regulation-based service-level competition on a common infrastructure. The latter gets quick results in terms of number of providers and price competition but it rarely foments real innovation because the underlying wholesale services everyone is using are the same. With a shift from bitstream to local loop unbundling products that changes somewhat, but competing infrastructures – especially ones built on fiber – are much more likely to provide real differentiation.
Hence the massive speed and price competition that’s been triggered in the US in areas where fiber has been rolled out by either AT&T or Verizon. In time this will reach more and more of the population and provide a further boost to both the speed and price sides of the equation.
The biggest issue for me is that these reports rely a lot on the question of timing. Where the US is today, other countries either were yesterday or will be tomorrow. We’re all heading down pretty much the same path, just at different speeds. The impatience that often accompanies the criticisms of US broadband deployments is misguided too. It usually leans on an argument about competitiveness and the ways in which broadband can transform the way we work by providing more opportunities for home working / teleworking and so on. But guess what? The measly 5Mbit/s so derided in these studies is just fine for most homeworkers and is available to almost everyone. The biggest barrier to adoption of home working is the cultural change involved, not the technology. Many companies and individual managers are still uncomfortable with the idea and suspect that a home worker is a less productive worker. That attitude needs to change more than we need more government intervention or sackcloth and ashes about the parlous state of the US broadband market, and it’s great that we finally have a study that seems to get that.
Firefox introduced a feature to their browser a while back that allows you to restore the session if it shuts down “unexpectedly”. The idea is presumably to cover for the times when the browser crashes, but it works equally well when you restart your computer while Firefox is running or if you deliberately shut down Firefox using the Task Manager’s process tab.
I find this a tremendously useful feature because I often have 20 or so tabs open in Firefox for a couple of days, because I haven’t got around to reading / blogging / otherwise dealing with the tabs yet, and then it crashes on me. No problem -fire up the browser again, choose the “Restore session” option and I’m back up and running.
So, two questions:
For those times when I just need to shut down a few windows but want to retain my Firefox session, how hard would it be for Firefox to have a manual “shut down but remember my session” option. I can deal with the problem via Task Manager but that always feels a little extreme and is a pain in the neck compared with simply clicking on the “close” button. It could simply be another option on the little dialog box that pops up when you attempt to close a window with multiple tabs open. Please, Mozilla, implement this, would you?
A little harder perhaps, because they don’t seem to have the underlying functionality in place yet as Firefox does, but couldn’t other browsers implement this too? It’s a major reason why I use Firefox over other browsers at present, as I’m reminded every time I get sucked into a Safari session because it’s still my default browser in OS X and it then crashes with several tabs open, losing everything I had planned to read later (grrrr). Internet Explorer needs this too, although somehow I haven’t been tempted to use that much recently.
One other request for Firefox, which I understand may be solved in version 3: what’s with all flash videos ceasing to work when you’ve got more than about 10 tabs open? In my experience, they play (with no sound) for 2 seconds, then stop indefinitely. I’ve used the Task Manager reset option about a dozen times or more to deal with this problem, but it really is a bug they ought to be able to fix. Haven’t been able to replicate the problem in the OS X version yet – it seems to be Windows-specific.
Rick Whitt of Google has come clean about its strategy in the 700MHz auction and confirmed what many suspected – that Google deliberately bid up the price of the C Block, even upping its own bid in the absence of a higher competing bid several times, in order to trigger the open access provisions.
Given that it must have been fairly clear early on that Verizon Wireless was the other bidder, and it’s already initiated its open access program, what did Google really gain by doing this, other than using its own cash to force Verizon to part with more of its money? One of three scenarios must hold true:
Google wasn’t sure Verizon was the other bidder and wanted to make sure any other bidder (AT&T) would be subject to open access too
Google merely wanted to force Verizon to pay more for the spectrum because there weren’t any other serious bidders for it
Google believes that the open access provisions attached to the C Block will require more of Verizon than it has already announced it will provide.
The most likely scenario is 3. But isn’t Google mistaken here? Is it assuming that the FCC’s open access rules go further than what Verizon Wireless had already agreed to do? The FCC’s rules (see page 89) are unfortunately vague, and it may be counting on a more favorable interpretation of them than Verizon is. But there are one or two areas where Verizon has not yet agreed to go as far as it will now be required to:
Scope of the requirement for open platforms for devices and applications. Wireless service providers subject to this requirement will not be allowed to disable features or functionality in handsets where such action is not related to reasonable network management and protection, or compliance with applicable regulatory requirements. For example, providers may not “lock” handsets to prevent their transfer from one system to another. We also prohibit standards that block Wi-Fi access, MP3 playback ringtone capability, or other services that compete with wireless service providers’ own offerings. Standards for third-party applications or devices that are more stringent than those used by the provider itself would likewise be prohibited. In addition, C Block licensees cannot exclude applications or devices solely on the basis that such applications or devices would unreasonably increase bandwidth demands. We anticipate that demand can be adequately managed through feasible facility improvements or technology-neutral capacity pricing that does not discriminate against subscribers using third-party devices or applications. In that regard, we emphasize that C Block licensees may not impose any additional discriminatory charges (one-time or recurring) or conditions on customers who seek to use devices or applications outside of those provided by the licensee. Finally, C Block licensees may not deny access to a customer’s device solely because that device makes use of other wireless spectrum bands, such as cellular or PCS spectrum. However, we also note that, in accepting a multi-band device for use on its network, a C Block licensee is not required to extend the requirement for open platforms for devices and applications to other spectrum bands on which the provider operates.
However, the FCC goes on to limit the scope of these rules:
We emphasize that we are not requiring wireless service providers to allow the unrestricted use of any devices or applications on their networks. In particular, we are mindful of the risks network operators face in protecting against harmful devices and malicious software. Wireless service providers may continue to use their own certification standards and processes to approve use of devices and applications on their networks so long as those standards are confined to reasonable network management. For example, providers are free to choose their air interface technology, and to deny service to devices or applications that cannot operate on the same technology, since such a restriction permits significant network efficiencies without significantly reducing consumer access to services and features. We also recognize that wireless providers have legitimate technical reasons to restrict particular non-carrier devices and applications on their networks, specifically to ensure the safety and integrity of their networks. In particular, we believe that it is reasonable for wireless service providers to maintain network control features that permit dynamic management of network operations, including the management of devices operating on the network, and to restrict use of the network to devices compatible with these network control features. Standards to ensure that network performance will not be significantly degraded would also be appropriate.
If I were Verizon, I would be pretty annoyed with Google at this point, whatever its rationale. It artificially bid up the price of the spectrum, triggering both a higher price paid by Verizon and the open access requirements, even though it apparently never had any plans to own the spectrum. I’m not sure it would have any legal grounds for taking action on this, but it certainly appears that Google abused the system for its own advantage and to Verizon’s disadvantage.
At any rate, Verizon is pressing ahead with its plans to use the 700MHz spectrum for its LTE network, as is AT&T with its 700MHz spectrum, and so far it isn’t complaining too hard about those open access rules. Since it has done an about face on the question of “openness” perhaps it is willing to embrace these additional conditions too. But I would guess that it will fight for the loosest possible interpretation of the remaining conditions when the time comes, while Google will probably put some high-paid lawyers on the other side.
I’ve just spent the last couple of days at CTIA (see yesterday’s post). I wanted to present some thoughts I’ve had during that time.
Firstly, it’s been interesting to see the shadow the iPhone casts over everything even though Apple isn’t visibly present at the show. Sprint’s big announcement was around the Samsung Instinct, which is a clear iPhone competitor. But the devices on display were running beta software which was glitchy and slow, and it was clear that – though they have some nifty features – these devices are not a match for the iPhone. AT&T itself had another device which mimics certain aspects of the iPhone – the LG Vu – but it is another poor match for the device on everyone’s minds. Of all the things that people love about the iPhone – the design, the UI, the browser, the ease of use – none of them are matched by most of the devices on display here, even though the manufacturers of those devices have been making phones for far longer than Apple. The Sony Ericsson Xperia X1 showed the most promise of any device I saw at CTIA, but won’t be launched for several months.
And AT&T appears to be keen to cement the thought leadership the iPhone deal has given it. Its announcement that it will deploy Microsoft Surface tabletop computers in some of its stores will further up the cool factor for AT&T and put more pressure on its competitors to find ways to compete. I haven’t seen much from AT&T’s competitors that can match it in terms of providing differentiated experiences on devices or in stores. (I have to admit that throughout the Surface presentation I was thinking about this YouTube video which I first saw a few months back – “take that, Apple”).
I discussed managed mobility services with several players at CTIA, and found broad consensus in several areas. It seems clear that the next several months will see launches from major players including both AT&T and Verizon around managed mobility services, and that a range of factors are coming together to create a fertile environment for uptake of these services. The complexity I have referred to previously in the enterprise mobile arena is creating demand for these services. And technology is now available to enable the supply side, both from specialists like Mformation, Sybase and Nokia/Intellisync and from RIM and Microsoft. Launches in the next few months from those two big carriers and increasing uptake over the next year or two should follow.
“Openness” appears to be becoming the new “convergence” in that it is a term everyone seems to feel compelled to insert into every pitch and keynote despite the fact that it means different things to different people. AT&T still appears frustrated that Verizon has got so much attention for playing catch-up with the GSM world: as Ralph De La Vega (head of AT&T Mobility) put it today, “we were open before open was cool”. But he also suggested AT&T now views Android much more favorably than it did at first, ironically because Android will be “open” to AT&T’s branding and applications in the device UI, rather than being restricted to just Google and open source software. I’m hoping the open thing will soon blow over at least in the form of hype, and that we’ll start to see some significant real moves towards openness. Android will be important to watch when it launches – Texas Instruments is demoing two Android devices here – but it can’t be the only game in town.
Carriers need to get better at explaining that they already offer openness on the RIM, Windows Mobile and Palm platforms, where users get unfettered access to the Internet and the ability to install their own applications. But they also need to find ways to extend that openness all the way down the portfolio for those customers who want that. And they need to stop pretending that “choices” and openness are synonyms. Just because you give your customers a choice between two hand-picked applications does not mean your approach is open. Allowing them to pick the application they want regardless of whether you have endorsed it is. And carriers still have some learning to do in this department.
Overall, the show is as always a nice snapshot of a point in time for the wireless industry. But I hope that by the time the Fall show rolls around we’ll have moved forward in all these areas – compelling devices, managed mobility and openness in particular.
Just got back from dinner with Dan Hesse, Sprint CEO, at CTIA here in Vegas.
While these conversations are generally informal and more or less off the record, there were some insights he shared which I think I can safely pass on without breaching the spirit of the evening. My first question was what he had learned about what had gone wrong at Sprint which had led it to the predicament it’s in today.
His main answer was that it ultimately all comes down to the merger with Nextel. He made a reference here to the invasion of Iraq, which is worth thinking about more as an analogy, since he implied that the merger was both poorly planned and poorly executed. The main issues stemmed from the fact that the merger was ultimately billed as, and contracted as, a “merger of equals” because the market valuations of the two companies were similar. This created huge problems, both in terms of the price paid and in terms of the structures and policies which flowed from that decision.
Firstly, in terms of the price paid, this led to massive synergy requirements to provide a return on investment. These synergy targets (which I would characterise as negative, meaning they revolved around cutting costs, rather than positive, which would be true synergies, resulting in a whole that was greater than the sum of the parts) were overly ambitious and became the driving force for all the other targets at the company. The focus was therefore on massive cost-cutting, was very internal, and ignored external considerations, and especially considerations of customer care, churn and customer service, all of which suffered as a direct result.
The second problem was that the “merger of equals” narrative required an equitable distribution of various goodies after the merger concluded. This included seats on the board and in the senior management roles at the company, which were distributed equally between Sprint and Nextel. The split headquarters between Reston and Overland Park also resulted from this mentality. And it meant that no single unifying strategy led the company during that time, but rather it was constantly torn between the competing visions and philosophies of the people who had brought the two companies together.
From all this flowed the lack of focus on the important things, the over-focus on secondary considerations, and the mess Sprint is in today. Hesse is quickly changing all of this – one of his first moves was instituting greater accountability throughout the business (Gary Forsee had been the only person in the company with P&L responsibility before he left). And he has also made customer care, churn and other external metrics key to incentive structures and reporting throughout the business.
There is still a massive mountain to climb at Sprint, but Hesse certainly seems to have grasped the essential issues and made quick changes which should lead to the kind of turnaround that’s required. It remains to be seen whether the rest of the company can execute on his vision, but it certainly appears to be the right vision in many respects.
"A Social Telco is an operator which seeks and achieves deep integration between its own core assets and functionality and that of social networks and the broader sphere of web 2.0 services and applications in order to develop new channels for its services and harness greater innovation in the creation of new services."
This post provides a brief introduction to the topic. This blog as a whole provides more detail! The term is my own invention but I hope it may prove useful in describing one of the ways telcos need to evolve to stay relevant to their customers.
Several 
alternatives like 
I find this a tremendously useful feature because I often have 20 or so tabs open in Firefox for a couple of days, because I haven’t got around to reading / blogging / otherwise dealing with the tabs yet, and then it crashes on me. No problem -fire up the browser again, choose the “Restore session” option and I’m back up and running.
