|
|
Depending on the business model, the costs of the enablement can be covered either by the price of the application paid by the end-user, or in the case of Ad supported usage of the application, the owner of the application will cover the costs. In addition, an end-user can purchase the ‘video streaming’ package to cover the costs of the required enablement.
In conclusion, the overarching idea is that each party is paid according to the added value it brings to the ecosystem. At the same time, end-users should have a choice regarding what they pay and what experience they receive in return.
|
|
OTT players and CSPs don’t have to be bitter enemies. |
|
based mainly on network ability to
carry the content with appropriate
QoS, the CSPs should get a relatively
high revenue share. Video streaming
applications are an example of this. On
the contrary, in case of an end-user
application, whose main value is not
based on connectivity but on some
other business logic (where
connectivity is not intensively used),
the CSPs’ share should be relativity
lower. In either case CSPs may receive
adequate compensation for network
related costs. For us - as end-users - it
seems to be a perfect solution as
everybody receives a fare share
according to the value they bring.
|
|
|
|
|
CSPs vs. the Over-the-top players
The idea presented above - of CSPs
playing the role of a web enabler - is
attractive as it allows both competition
and cooperation with the over-the-top
players while in each case gaining a
profit. Competing means that CSPs
endeavor to create their own
developer community. Cooperation on
the other hand is treating the over-the-
top players much the same as
developers, which means that they are
treated as application providers. But in
this scenario over-the-top players are
likely to have direct access to
customers which distinguished them
from just individual developers. As
CSPs are to sell User Experience
enablement rather than just being
‘dumb pipes’, it should allow them to
have a fare share of revenue
generated by the customers of over-
the-top players. This is because the
proposed mechanism would allow CSPs
to be compensated according to the
added value they bring to the end-user
applications. For example, in case of an
end-user application, whose value is
|
|
Conclusion
Over-the-top players and CSPs don’t have to be bitter enemies. They can cooperate or at least compete on fair terms where each party is compensated for the costs it endures and receives revenue share according to the value it brings. This is also good news for end-users who, after all, always pay the final bill. If the role of web enabler was to be taken over by CSPs, and connectivity costs covered by applications, this would allow end-users to retain the freedom which flat rates provide. Freedom means the ability to enjoy applications without counting consumed kilobytes. At the same time heavy usage users don’t have to add to the bills being paid by modest users or broaden the CSP revenue-costs gap. It also dispels the CSPs’ frustration caused by thriving over-the-top players being the only winners, while CSPs suffer the costs.
|
|
|
