<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 1/26/22 23:04, Christopher Morrow
wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAL9jLaYDLgAzh8Dy8LbdYga7qCNtgETiTOLfLaypXuOjp+quVg@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>It seems like some of the situation is:<br>
"5g/mobile builds include a bunch more 'general machine'
resources which offload a bunch of the work from what was
dedicated appliances/etc."<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>Followed quickly by:<br>
"Well, we don't have the resources/etc to
design/build/run/maintain that sort of thing in the field"<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>In a bunch of mobile deployments (in the US at least) a
lot of the work was done by some vendor already, so swapping
one vendor for another isn't particularly new.<br>
"Out with Nortel, in with Ericcsson!"</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>As to 'is this cloud?' or not, that's probably not super
important? If the telco (as an example) could come to an
agreement with ~bunches of local sysadmin shops</div>
<div>who'd all cooperate and build/deploy 'the same thing'
(from the goes-into and goes-outof perspective) a price
points which would be palatable. I imagine the telcos would
have taken that direction. Instead, they choose to minimize
the number of contracts and options and get cookie-cutter
deployments.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Folk may grate at 'aws' or 'azure' or 'gcp' ... but
really the telco folk (the customer in this case) is
choosing someone to run infra for them, under contract with
what they hope are appropriate SLO/SLA and repair
properties. It certainly behooves them to think about
failure scenarios, but that's what SLO/SLA are for, right?
:) and offloading the methods of repair/avoidance is part of
the contract process.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
The classic MNO's will continue the same operational model, of
contracting a vendor and giving them a floor in their building so
they can operate the network. For them, it's a case of "if it works,
don't fix it".<br>
<br>
What content are doing by getting in on the game is, really, to open
up the industry to other players that may want to either run their
own private cellular networks, or start new mobile businesses at
whatever scale they can muster, without having to lay out a ton of
fresh capital in terms of money and people, to get going.<br>
<br>
There is still room for both classic MNO and content-backed
infrastructure. Which one wins out in the end is a matter of time,
but it's great for the user, because they just want to get
connected. They don't really care, anymore, who gives them that
connection, as long as it works and doesn't break the bank.<br>
<br>
Mark.<br>
</body>
</html>