Analysys Mason M2M Competition

Research report

M2M scorecard for communications

service providers: 2011

Steve Hilton

October 2011

3 M2M scorecard for communications service providers: 2011

Analysys Mason Limited 2011 Contents

Contents

0 Executive summary 5

1 Recommendations 8

2 M2M CSP scorecard: questionnaire and methodology 9

3 M2M CSP scorecard: results 10 3.1 The M2M overall excellence category reveals the CSP that scored best overall

at providing M2M services 10 3.2 The M2M strategy category focuses on the strategic intent of CSPs 15 3.3 Partnerships are key to driving overall M2M success 17 3.4 The M2M scale category ranks top CSPs by numbers of M2M device connections19 3.5 R&D is critical to drive future M2M solutions 21 3.6 CSPs recognise the importance of strong OSS/BSS to support managed services 23 3.7 CSPs that understand the network are implications more likely to avoid

challenges related to growth 25

4 M2M CSP scorecard questionnaire 27 4.1 Introduction 27 4.2 About you 27 4.3 Questionnaire 28 4.4 Comments 48

5 Market definitions 49

Author 50

About Analysys Mason 51 Research from Analysys Mason 52 Consulting from Analysys Mason 53

List of figures and tables

Figure 0.1: A summary of Analysys Masons M2M CSP scorecard results, 2011 6 Table 0.1: M2M CSP scorecard performance groups and descriptions 7 Figure 3.1: CSPs ranked according to their responses in the M2M overall excellence

category 11 Figure 3.2: CSPs ranked according to their responses in the M2M strategy category 16 Figure 3.3: CSPs ranked according to their responses in the M2M partnerships

category 18 Table 3.1: CSPs ranked according to the number of enterprise M2M device

connections, 31 March 2011 20


Analysys Mason Limited 2011 Contents

Figure 3.4: CSPs ranked according to their responses in the M2M R&D category 22 Figure 3.5: CSPs ranked according to their responses in the M2M OSS/BSS

category 24 Figure 3.6: CSPs ranked according to their responses in the M2M network category 26


Analysys Mason Limited 2011 0: Executive summary

0 Executive summary

The number of machine-to-machine (M2M) device connections worldwide will grow from

62 million in 2010 to 2.1 billion in 2020.1 Communications service providers (CSPs) are

among the most important participants in the M2M value chain. However, some CSPs are

providing more-compelling M2M solutions and selling and delivering these more

effectively than others: these are the CSPs to watch.

Analysys Masons M2M CSP scorecard is a ranking of 12 global CSPs according to how

they are performing in matters related to M2M, and how they are positioned for growth in

this market. The data comes from a questionnaire we asked participating CSPs to complete

during June and July 2011. We compiled the data into a series of categories and used this to

create our M2M CSP scorecard. This report is our written description of the M2M CSP

scorecard, providing full details of the rankings, and of the M2M strategies, offerings,

strengths and weaknesses of the participating CSPs.

The following CSPs participated in our M2M CSP scorecard:

AT&T

Deutsche Telekom

Everything Everywhere

KPN

Sprint

Telekom Austria Group

Telefnica

Telenor Connexion

TeliaSonera

Telstra

Verizon Wireless

Vodafone.

1 For more information, see Analysys Masons Machine-to-machine device connections: worldwide forecast

20102020.
http://www.analysysmason.com/Research/Content/Reports/RRE02_M2M_devices_forecast/http://www.analysysmason.com/Research/Content/Reports/RRE02_M2M_devices_forecast/



We ranked the 12 participating CSPs according to 6 M2M categories. The categories are:

M2M strategy

M2M partnerships

M2M scale

M2M R&D

M2M OSS/BSS

M2M networks.

We present these rankings, and a discussion of the best performers in each category, later in

this report.

We also developed a combined M2M performance ranking, to show the strongest and

weakest CSPs out of the 12 leading operators who participated in our study. This combined

ranking is based on two factors: M2M scale (that is, the number of enterprise M2M

device connections that the CSP has reported or we estimated), and M2M overall

excellence(that is, the average of each CSPs rank in the 5 other categories (M2M

strategy, M2M partnerships, M2M R&D, M2M OSS/BSS and M2M networks). We

plotted the results in Figure 0.1 and assigned each CSP to one of four performance groups

(that is, Industry icons, Trailing titans, Challenged underdogs and Niche notables).

Figure 0.1: A summary of Analysys Masons M2M CSP scorecard results, 2011 [Source:

Analysys Mason, 2011]

Key: 1=Vodafone, 2=Telenor Connexion, 3=AT&T, 4=Verizon, 5=Deutsche Telekom, 6=Telefnica, 7=Sprint,

8=TeliaSonera, 9=KPN, 10=Everything Everywhere, 11=Telekom Austria Group, 12=Telstra.

Trailing titans

M2M overall excellence

Challenged underdogs Niche notables

M2

M s

ca

le

(nu

mb

er

of

en

terp

ris

e M

2M

de

vic

e c

on

nc

eti

on

s)

1

2

3

45

67

89

10

1112

Industry icons



Table 0.1 provides a more-detailed description of the characteristics of each performance

group.

Table 0.1: M2M CSP scorecard performance groups and descriptions [Source: Analysys

Mason, 2011]

Performance

group

Description CSPs

Industry icons These CSPs dominate the M2M market.

They have the largest M2M businesses in

terms of the number of enterprise device

connections and have shown themselves

capable of co-ordinating OSS/BSS,

network, partnerships, strategy and R&D

to work toward success.

AT&T, Deutsche Telekom,

Telenor Connexion,

Vodafone

Niche notables These CSPs are small, but effective at

what they do.

They have fewer M2M enterprise device

connections than the Industry icons, but

have shown themselves capable of co-

ordinating OSS/BSS, network,

partnerships, strategy and R&D to work

toward success in their more-limited

markets.

Everything Everywhere,

Sprint, Telekom Austria

Group, Telstra

Trailing titans These CSPs have large M2M businesses

and could be quite commanding in the

market.

Unfortunately, they often do not

demonstrate their unique understanding

of the M2M market and how they

effectively dominate.

They risk being undermined if they are

not careful.

Telefnica, Verizon

Challenged

underdogs

These CSPs have relatively small M2M

businesses.

They seem either to be unable to amass

the critical elements of their M2M

business that are required for them to be

more successful or they prefer to keep

their activities hidden where no one

including potential customers can see

them.

These CSPs risk getting lost in the market

or becoming after-thoughts.

KPN, TeliaSonera

This is our first annual M2M CSP scorecard. We look forward to inviting even more CSPs

to participate next year.

Our scoring is based on our evaluation of questionnaire responses from the CSPs and

information obtained through interviews with M2M vendor partners of the CSPs. There is


Analysys Mason Limited 2011 1: Recommendations

an element of subjectivity in all scorecards. For more information about specific questions

and scoring, please see Section 2 (M2M CSP scorecard: questionnaire and methodology).

1 Recommendations

CSPs need to offer service level agreements (SLAs) associated with mobile

connectivity and their broader M2M value-chain proposition.

It has become clear that SLAs quite common in the fixed-line world are sorely lacking

in the mobile world. But M2M provides CSPs with a new way to differentiate themselves,

and the best CSPs are offering SLAs that make a difference to the attractiveness of their

M2M propositions.

Focus on the end-to-end solution, and the large numbers of M2M device

connections will come.

If CSPs are to be successful in the M2M sector in the long term, it is important that they

offer solutions that include connectivity, managed services, platform services and

applications support. The results of our questionnaire revealed that several smaller-sized

CSPs had very strong scores in various categories. This does not surprise us, because it is

often difficult for larger entities to co-ordinate disparate geographic business units. M2M

requires a detailed focus on efficiencies in operations and not all CSPs excel at that.

Start focusing on the strongest partners in the platform and applications

development areas.

For the past 24 years, CSPs have been partnering with platform vendors to complement

their OSS/BSS layers. The best platform vendors are those that bring plenty of customer

deals to the CSPs and integrate deeply with the CSPs OSS/BSS platform and other

operations. It is time for each CSP to identify and commit to a single vendor because

having numerous platform partners is a sure-fire way to have less lucrative relationships;

platform vendors become disenfranchised and, ultimately, CSPs become less efficient at

offering M2M solutions.


Analysys Mason Limited 2011 2: M2M CSP scorecard: questionnaire and methodology

Managed services and value-added services are absolutely essential to

making M2M a more-attractive business to CSPs.

We recognise that some CSPs strategically choose to only focus on their connectivity layer

for M2M solutions, but based on our research, those CSPs that offer a more-complete

solution have M2M ARPU many times greater than CSPs that only offer core connectivity.

Focus on the energy/utility, transportation/logistics and automotive sectors.

Most CSPs believe these are the top-three sectors to drive future M2M profitability. CSPs

also believe the consumer electronics sector is a future driver of M2M profitability, and we

agree. Because marketing to the consumer electronics sector will require a different

emphasis than M2M solutions already on offer, CSP M2M teams will need tight

relationships with their consumer marketing organisations in order to succeed.

2 M2M CSP scorecard:

questionnaire and methodology

Much of the analysis and ranking in this report is based on our questionnaire. We shared

this 33-question document (see Section 4) with senior employees in the M2M business

units of participating CSPs in June 2011, requesting responses 78 weeks later. We

received completed questionnaires from 12 CSPs.

In order to rank the CSPs in six M2M categories, we used the questionnaire responses: for

the M2M strategy category, we used the responses to six questions; for the M2M

partnerships category, we used two questions; for the M2M scale category, we used one

question; for the M2M R&D category, we used one question; for the M2M OSS/BSS

category, we used eight questions; and for the M2M networks category, we used three

questions.

We scored each answer on our questionnaire on a linear scale of 010 (1 signified a

performance that was well below average, and 10 signified a performance that was well

above). Average performance received a score of five.

CSPs that chose to leave a question blank were given a score of 0 for that question, unless

they provided follow-up commentary in the Comments section at the end of the

questionnaire. We took into consideration everything written in the Comments section, and

recognise that our treatment of Comments was subjective.


Analysys Mason Limited 2011 3: M2M CSP scorecard: results

We summed the scores for all questions within each category (with a few exceptions see

discussion of device connections and ARPU below), and re-calibrated these to a 100-point

scale for the category, scaling up the base score of the top-performing CSP in the category

to a scaled score of 100. The remaining CSPs then received scores for that category,

showing their relative position away from the leading CSP. For example, a CSP that had a

total composite score of 70% of the leading CSP in that category received a scaled score of

70.

We treated the questions about numbers of M2M device connections and ARPU slightly

differently. Some CSPs are forbidden by their legal departments from providing such

information to third parties, even under non-disclosure terms. For CSPs that were unable to

provide this information directly, we have chosen to estimate the number of M2M device

connections based on the CSPs number of total mobile device connections. For CSPs with

publicly available figures for M2M device connections, we have modified those figures to

make sure we are comparing only the categories of M2M as we define it. (Please see the

Market definitions section of this Report for our definition of M2M.)

We offered CSPs the option of sharing information about numbers of device connections

and ARPU under non-disclosure terms and thank those CSPs that took advantage of this

offer. We have taken measures to secure those data points submitted under non-disclosure.

Some CSPs also provided sensitive information on topics including network usage, SLAs

and target segments, and submitted the information under non-disclosure terms. We have

taken this information into account, but have secured those data points as well.

In addition, we interviewed several major vendor partners of these CSPs to understand how

partners prioritise their relationships with the carriers and to understand which carriers are

best positioned for success. We captured these partners views in our scorecard as well.

3 M2M CSP scorecard: results

3.1 The M2M overall excellence category reveals the CSP that

scored best overall at providing M2M services

We measure M2M overall excellence as the average of each CSPs scaled scores across

five categories: M2M strategy, M2M partnerships, M2M R&D, M2M OSS/BSS and

M2M network.

We exclude the category of M2M scale from our calculation of overall excellence,

because we believe the size of a CSPs M2M business (which is what the M2M scale

score reflects) is a variable that depends on all these other categories.



In general, we believe that a CSPs M2M business is best facilitated through a strong

centralised R&D, product and partner development programme. Initial successes in an

M2M business require creativity and a willingness to craft new partnerships. But in the end,

supporting a profitable M2M business requires a relentless focus on operational excellence

with a heavy dose of systems automation. The combination of upfront creativity and

longer-term operational execution is best served by a centralised M2M organisation.

That being said, excellence in M2M sales, technical support and some marketing is best

accomplished by teams that are based in-region or in-country. Many M2M opportunities

are country-specific, and having on-the-ground sales and support staff is absolutely

necessary to address customers needs. In addition, hearing the country-specific voice of

the customer is critical when creating operationally scalable M2M solutions to solve

multiple countries needs.

Figure 3.1 presents the results of the M2M overall excellence category. The higher the

ranking (the higher the score), the better we judge the CSP to be at providing a complete

M2M experience to customers.

Figure 3.1: CSPs ranked according to their responses in the M2M overall excellence

category [Source: Analysys Mason, 2011]

Vodafone

Vodafone ranks highest in this category. It came top in 3 of the 5 categories: M2M

strategy, M2M partnerships and M2M OSS/BSS. We think Vodafones strategic aim is

summed up in this quote from their questionnaire response:

0 20 40 60 80 100

Verizon

KPN

TeliaSonera

Telefnica

Telenor

Telstra

Deutsche Telekom


Telekom Austria

AT&T

Sprint

Vodafone



For Vodafone, M2M is a key strategic growth area with significant investment and

commitment; its our vision to enable the M2M mass market by reducing complexity and

simplifying implementation to be a one-stop shop for M2M solutions with single contract,

price, invoice.

Vodafone also described the three foundational pillars of its M2M programme

(paraphrased): cost-competitive and reliable M2M communications in all localities;

premium customer support across project lifecycles; and complete solutions through

partnering and acquisitions.

Sprint and AT&T

Sprint and AT&T hold the second and third positions in the M2M overall excellence

category. These two US-based CSPs are closely matched competitors (ignoring the

differences in size of their M2M businesses AT&T is considerably larger).

Sprint held the top position in the M2M network category and performed strongly in

most of the other categories. Sprint continues to emphasise the capacity and speed of its

network, which will help it differentiate itself in a market where network speeds have

received a lot of public criticism since the launch of the iPhone several years ago. Sprint

has an impressive list of vendor partners, many of which speak quite highly of their

engagement with Sprint. The Sprint M2M Collaboration Center in California is a well-

conceived venue for bringing together partners across the value chain to create innovative

M2M solutions.

AT&T closely follows Sprint in the M2M overall excellence category. AT&T failed to

win any single M2M scorecard category, but did very well across the board. This

performance gave AT&T the edge over other carriers. It is difficult to compete with AT&T

in the area of innovation. R&D has been a mainstay of the company since it was founded.

We believe the AT&T Foundry and the AT&T Developer Program innovation networks

hold much promise in creating leading-edge applications for the M2M sector. These

programmes bring together application developers with others in the ecosystem to create

innovative products for the market.

AT&T also performed very well in our M2M OSS/BSS category. A company with

USD124 billion in operating revenue in 2010 needs to have a deep understanding of its

OSS/BSS platform. While M2M is just a small piece of AT&Ts portfolio we are

impressed with its AT&T Control Center (powered by Jasper Wireless) and Enterprise On-

Demand service delivery platform.

Telekom Austria Group and Everything Everywhere

Telekom Austria Group came fourth in our M2M overall excellence category. Telekom

Austria Group is one of the smaller mobile CSPs participating in our M2M research. It



scored strongly in the M2M strategy, M2M OSS/BSS and M2M network categories,

but was weakest in the M2M partnerships category and middling in the M2M R&D

category. We believe Telekom Austria Group has a strong partnership programme, but

did not do a good job explaining its value or the participants in the programme to us.

Telekom Austria Group needs to improve the manner in which it conveys the value of its

partner programme.

Everything Everywhere came fifth in our M2M overall excellence category. Everything

Everywhere is also one of the smaller mobile CSPs participating in our M2M CSP

scorecard research. It performed fairly strongly in the M2M strategy, M2M R&D,

M2M OSS/BSS and M2M network categories and was weaker in the M2M

partnerships category. Everything Everywheres partner programme seemed a bit light to

us and the partners we spoke to did not generally regard Everything Everywhere as a

long-term strong player in the market. Everything Everywhere might want to strengthen

its partnership programme and work with Deutsche Telekom and France Telecom.

Deutsche Telekom and Telstra

Deutsche Telekom came sixth in our M2M overall excellence category. Deutsche

Telekom took the top honours in the M2M R&D category with a very strong description

of its innovation vehicles, the International Competence Centre for M2M and DT

Laboratories. Deutsche Telekom put in an average performance in the other four categories

covered in this research. It is quite possible that the decentralised M2M sales and marketing

approach at Deutsche Telekom operating units could hamper the success of its M2M

business, but its performance on our scorecard overall was solidly average. More emphasis

on partnerships and the value of the Deutsche Telekom device and applications platform

would help their go-to-market story. Additionally, we think Deutsche Telekom has an

opportunity to offer SLAs for M2M solutions, but needs to concentrate on a series of

company-wide SLAs rather than SLAs with geographic limitations associated with

Deutsche Telekom business units.

Telstra came seventh in our M2M overall excellence category. This Australian CSP did

fairly average in all categories, but performed poorly in the M2M R&D category. It is

pretty clear to us that Telstra relies on its Chief Technology Office to determine M2M

requirements and create solutions appropriate for the market, but this approach does not

allow Telstra to focus closely enough on M2M solutions. We think a dedicated M2M

technology centre would enhance Telstras position in the market.

Telenor Connexion and Telefnica

Telenor Connexion came eighth in our M2M overall excellence category. Telenor

Connexion has pursued M2M opportunities probably longer than any other CSP in the

world. Its position in this category may reflect its realisation that M2M is a difficult



business, particularly as the number of device connections starts to make the number of

residential mobile phones in the market look small. If CSPs are to provide M2M solutions,

they must completely re-think their OSS/BSS and platform, re-evaluate ancillary network

componentry, retrain sales people and change the focus of customer operations and support

activities. Telenor Connexion might also be re-evaluating itself following Ericssons

purchase of the Telenor Connexion platform from the CSP in August 2011. Telenor

Connexion has plenty of work to do in figuring out new ways to differentiate itself and its

services in the M2M sector.

Telefnica came ninth in our M2M overall excellence category. Telefnicas large

footprint in Europe gives it the opportunity to offer some strong M2M solutions and then

export that experience to its emerging markets in Latin America where it could be a leader

in M2M. However, we believe the decentralised nature of the Telefnica business and

underinvestment in centralised M2M team resources has hampered Telefnicas role in the

M2M ecosystem. Telefnica has a good line-up of partnerships, but most of those partners

believe Telefnica will be an M2M follower rather than a leader. Telefnica must develop

a more-cohesive story around its R&D capabilities and the value of the platform in enabling

a high-quality service across geographies in developed and emerging countries.

TeliaSonera, KPN and Verizon

TeliaSonera came tenth in our M2M overall excellence category. TeliaSonera did very

well in the M2M strategy category and averagely well in the M2M partnerships

category. However, although it has many years of experience in the M2M sector, it did very

poorly in the remaining categories compared to the other CSPs. It is possible that

TeliaSonera is facing some of the same issues as Telenor Connexion; the M2M market is

relatively well developed in countries such as Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden,

making it more difficult to find creative ways to address the market and requiring CSPs to

adapt their assets to these new connected device opportunities. Sometimes, turning a big

ship can take a lot of time and energy.

KPN came eleventh in our M2M overall excellence category. KPN focuses on providing

M2M connectivity and uses partners to provide other pieces of the M2M solution. In that

sense, KPNs strategy is not to directly provide an end-to-end M2M solution to customers.

While KPN does a good job describing its role in the ecosystem, we do not believe it will

successfully provide connectivity-only solutions in the long term. In fact, we believe KPN

will become the de facto low-end, SIM-only provider. We also found KPNs partnerships

to be relatively limited, compared to those of other CSPs its responses on this topic

emphasised just a few module manufacturers, Jasper Wireless for their device platform, and

roaming partners.

Verizon came twelfth in our M2M overall excellence category. We tried to be as liberal

as possible in our scoring of CSPs, but Verizon did not live up to its reputation in the

market. It scored fairly averagely in the M2M partnerships category, but well below



average in all other categories. For a fairly large CSP that prides itself on quality network,

we expected Verizon to score more highly in a number of categories, particularly M2M

network.

3.2 The M2M strategy category focuses on the strategic intent

of CSPs

In the M2M strategy category, we scored CSPs according to their stated strategic intent

and activities. This category captures aspects of CSPs strategy such as:

target market segments

strengths and weaknesses in the M2M sector

focus on providing high-quality, reliable service to customers

involvement in standards bodies.

We scored the CSPs on M2M strategy according to their responses to questions 5, 6, 7,

20, 32 and 33 of our questionnaire (see Section 4 of this report).

CSPs that scored highly in this category:

have a fairly broad range of target segments

can articulate weaknesses of their offering so they can dedicate resources to overcome

those weaknesses

can provide SLAs associated with network, platform and applications that are

meaningful for M2M customers

have strong opinions and active involvement in standards bodies.

Figure 3.2 presents the results of the M2M strategy category.



Figure 3.2: CSPs ranked according to their responses in the M2M strategy category

[Source: Analysys Mason, 2011]

Vodafone

Vodafone received the top ranking for M2M strategy. We were particularly impressed

with Vodafones position that M2M solutions can have and should have meaningful

SLAs associated with them. These SLAs give enterprise buyers confidence in the quality of

the underlying solution.

Several CSPs noted that they can provide some SLAs associated with their core (wireless)

connectivity, but Vodafone expanded on that by describing SLAs associated with its

network, portal, RAN, service desk, change management and logistics.

When we speak to enterprises about their desire to implement M2M solutions, SLAs and

maintaining a high quality of service is at the forefront of their minds. We recognise that

the SLAs associated with mobile networks are not often as rigid as the SLAs associated

with fixed-line network, but CSPs are able to offer SLAs in the enterprise mobile

environment and enterprises are going to expect it for M2M solutions.

Telekom Austria Group

Telekom Austria Group came second in the M2M strategy category. Telekom Austria

Group has launched M2M as a dedicated business unit within the Group. The dedicated

experts and specialised technologies allow Telekom Austria Group to focus on and adjust

to developments in the M2M market. Telekom Austria Group also focuses on SLAs

covering areas including network up-time, platform availability, escalation management

0 20 40 60 80 100

Verizon

KPN

AT&T

Telenor

Deutsche Telekom

Telefnica

Telstra


Sprint

TeliaSonera

Telekom Austria

Vodafone



and SIM-card defects. This focus on quality particularly matters for an operator like

Telekom Austria Group that rightly understands that one of its greatest weaknesses lack

of geographic coverage could unhinge its opportunities in M2M if it does not provide a

higher-quality solution than larger CSPs.

Telekom Austria Group also has a strategic focus on the markets it serves in Central and

Eastern Europe. As expected, these countries are slower than those in Western Europe to

adopt M2M solutions, but the capabilities and experiences Telekom Austria Group brings

are going to facilitate growth in the Central and Eastern European region during the next

35 years. Telekom Austria Groups good reputation in those countries will also facilitate

market share growth.


Everything Everywhere came third in the M2M strategy category. We believe

Everything Everywhere appropriately identified its biggest challenges or weaknesses in

the M2M sector getting other stakeholders at Everything Everywhere to recognise the

importance of M2M and differentiation of M2M products relative to more-traditional

mobile products with unique tariffing and unique SLAs. These two challenges are likely to

affect many CSPs.

Everything Everywhere also identified continued innovation of the service delivery

platform as a critical element of their strategy. While M2M is 10 to 15 years old in some

industry sectors, it is still in its infancy compared to other enterprise mobility solutions like

push-to-talk, mobile workforce, mobile salesforce and others. Developing service delivery

platforms tailored to M2M solutions with flexibility to change is critical to M2M success

for CSPs.

3.3 Partnerships are key to driving overall M2M success

In the M2M partnerships category, we rated the CSPs according to the fullness and

completeness of partnership offerings. This category also captures vendors opinions about

the quality of partnerships between themselves and CSPs. We interviewed numerous

vendor partners in particular those that showed up multiple times on CSPs questionnaire

submissions to ascertain which CSPs were best to work with and which would be most

successful in the eyes on their partners.

We scored the CSPs in the M2M partnerships category according to their responses to

questions 9 and 10 of our questionnaire (see Section 4 of this report).



Figure 3.3 presents the results of the M2M partnerships category.

Figure 3.3: CSPs ranked according to their responses in the M2M partnerships category


All CSPs did well in the M2M partnerships category. All had scores above 60, testament

to their realisation that partnerships are absolutely critical in finding M2M success.2

Vodafone, Sprint and TeliaSonera take top honours in this category. Each has many

partnerships across all relevant categories including vendors of chip sets, modems/modules,

platforms, applications, and systems integrators. Each would consider more partnerships,

procuring solutions for resale to enterprise customers and acquiring companies or products

to further their M2M solutions.

We took very seriously our conversations with vendor partners in the chipset,

modem/module, platform and application space. We know vendors are often reluctant to

pick CSP winners and losers, but we asked the question Which CSPs are good to work

with and which CSPs will be most successful in M2M? of fairly high-level executives

and got very candid answers.

2 For more information, please see Analysys Masons M2M: the rush is on to find partners.

0 20 40 60 80 100

KPN

Telekom Austria


Deutsche Telekom

Telefnica

Telenor

AT&T

Telstra

Verizon

TeliaSonera

Sprint

Vodafone
http://www.analysysmason.com/Research/Content/Comments/RDTN0_RDME0_M2M_Forum_Europe_Jul2011



Without breaching confidentiality, vendors revealed that, in their view, successful CSPs in

the M2M sector have:

M2M platforms that are tightly integrated to core OSS/BSS platforms

a centralised approach to M2M platform development

simple device-certification processes for M2M devices

transparent expectations of future growth in various sectors.

We created a separate metric for vendors impressions of CSPs, and included it when

calculating scores in the M2M partnership category.

3.4 The M2M scale category ranks top CSPs by numbers of

M2M device connections

In the M2M scale category, we ranked the CSPs according to the number of M2M device

connections they had compared with other CSPs. We asked CSPs to provide the

information as it was on 31 March 2011. We will not present actual numbers of M2M

device connections by CSP, because the information was submitted to us under non-

disclosure terms in many cases. We will provide an estimate for one of the winning CSPs in

this category based on our re-estimate of its publicly available connected device data. In

addition, we recognise that the M2M scale category is highly dependent on the overall

size of a CSP. Therefore, we do not include this category in our calculation of M2M

overall excellence.

We scored the CSPs in the M2M scale category according to their responses to

question 12 of our questionnaire (see Section 4 of this report).

The data provided by CSPs under non-disclosure terms will help us more-accurately

forecast the M2M opportunity in future forecast updates. In this section, we will discuss

some of the general device connection and ARPU trends without attributing the information

to any particular CSP.

Some CSPs publicly disclose the number of M2M device connections, but often it is not

completely clear what is included in those figures. We have had to dig a little more deeply

into these publicly disclosed M2M numbers to make sure we are comparing like products

and services.

We do not include mobile broadband data cards (USB modems, USB cards, PCMCIA

cards) nor do we include consumer electronics (eReaders and digital connected cameras,

etc.) in our M2M device connection figures. In cases where CSPs include these types of

connections in M2M figures, we have omitted them from our M2M device connection

estimates.



Table 3.1 presents the results of the M2M scale category.

Table 3.1: CSPs ranked according to the number of enterprise M2M device connections,

31 March 2011 [Source: Analysys Mason, 2011]

Rank CSP

1 Vodafone

2 AT&T

3 Telenor Connexion

4 Verizon

5 Deutsche Telekom

6 Telefnica

7 Sprint

8 TeliaSonera

9 KPN

10 Everything Everywhere

11 Telekom Austria Group

12 Telstra

Device connections

Vodafone has the largest number of M2M device connections, according to our M2M CSP

scorecard. It has been quite successful at offering M2M services in the 20-odd

countries/regions where it owns at least 50% of the mobile or fixed-line communications

operations; this includes businesses in countries with emerging economies.

AT&T takes the second position in the M2M scale category of our M2M CSP

scorecard. AT&T publicly disclosed 10.6 million connected devices as of 31 March 2011.

This figure includes mobile broadband cards, USB modems and connected consumer

electronics such as eReaders. We have estimated the number of enterprise M2M device

connections for AT&T at 5 million. It is also interesting to note that according to AT&Ts

public disclosures, the number of connections grew by 14% between end of 4Q 2010 and

the end of 1Q 2011 and by 134% year-on-year between the end of 2009 and the end of

2010. Once again, these figures do not reflect M2M device connections as Analysys Mason

defines them, but includes mobile data cards, USB modems and connected consumer

electronic equipment.

Telenor Connexion came third in the M2M scale category. Telenor Connexion has a

global footprint and particularly focuses on key markets in Western Europe (France,

Germany, the Netherlands and the UK), North America and some of Developed Asia

Pacific. Telenor Connexion serves the international needs of its M2M customers while

Telenor (the telecoms operating company) has M2M customers in its operating region.

While Telenor Connexion has recently sold its M2M platform asset to Ericsson, we



believe it will continue to be a strong player in the industry, building on its extensive

experience of M2M technologies and services.

CSPs are expecting growth in the number of M2M device connections in the order of

between 20% and 60% during 2010 and 2011. In general, the CSPs that offer a more-

complete M2M solution core connectivity plus value-added services are expecting

higher levels of growth in the next year.

ARPU

We asked for two types of ARPU in our M2M CSP scorecard questionnaire. First, we

asked for the ARPU derived from M2M core connectivity. This is the ARPU associated

with delivering only the connectivity between the connected device and the core mobile or

fixed-line network. This ARPU varied between EUR0.50 and EUR10 per month. Second,

we asked for the ARPU derived from M2M core connectivity plus value-added services

including platform services, application management, device management, professional

services, system management and so on.

For CSPs that actually provide value-added M2M services, the full solution ARPU can vary

considerably from EUR1 to EUR200 or more. The range of ARPU is tremendous when

CSPs offer value-added services on top of core connectivity. The numbers speak for

themselves: CSPs that offer value-added services have more-lucrative M2M businesses and

we believe more profitable ones, although calculating profitability is outside the scope of

this report.

3.5 R&D is critical to drive future M2M solutions

In the M2M R&D category, we ranked the CSPs according to their commitment to M2M

R&D across the supply chain. This category captures a CSPs ability to succinctly describe

its thought leadership in the M2M sector and describe to us (or a prospective client) why it

leads the industry in M2M R&D. We were looking for a strong, centralised M2M R&D

team or facility that is robustly integrated with vendor and service provider partners across

the supply chain. We believe that CSPs need to lead the development of new solutions,

rather than rely on solution research and design from vendors. M2M is highly dependent on

connectivity a technology that CSPs understand deeply.

We scored the CSPs in the M2M R&D category according to their responses to question 4

of our questionnaire (see Section 4 of this report).



Figure 3.4 presents the results of the M2M R&D category.

Figure 3.4: CSPs ranked according to their responses in the M2M R&D category [Source:

Analysys Mason, 2011]

Deutsche Telekom took the top position in this category. Deutsche Telekom focused on

three areas of R&D associated with M2M.

Deutsche Telekom launched its International Competence Centre for M2M in February

2010. The Centre focuses on European and transatlantic solutions while drawing from

the global know-how of the Deutsche Telekom Group to develop its M2M product

offerings.

Deutsche Telekom has a dedicated group at Deutsche Telekom Innovation

Laboratories (T-Labs) working on innovative solutions for future Deutsche Telekom

M2M services. According to Deutsche Telekom:

Our research covers many topics, e.g. sensor networks, security or next generation networks.

T-Labs is the central research and development unit for the whole Deutsche Telekom Group.

Organisationally, T-Labs belong to the central Product and Innovation division of Deutsche

Telekom. It is simultaneously a scientific institute organised under private law and associated

with the Technische Universitt Berlin. More than 300 experts and researchers work in the

laboratories: among them 125 Deutsche Telekom employees, 65 postdoctoral staff and

around 80 postgraduates from all over the world.

0 20 40 60 80 100

Verizon

KPN

Telefnica

Telstra

TeliaSonera

Telekom Austria

Telenor


Sprint

Vodafone

AT&T

Deutsche Telekom



Deutsche Telekom relies on T-Systems a global systems integrator for large

enterprises to develop highly specific M2M-related solutions for customers. T-Systems

is another strong R&D vehicle for Deutsche Telekom, both in the creation of a custom

enterprise solution and in catalysing M2M products for the Deutsche Telekom group of

companies. We believe systems integrators will play a key role in selling and

implementing early stage M2M solutions that require a fairly high degree of

customisation.

AT&T came second in the M2M R&D category. The AT&T Foundry an application

development collaborative and AT&T Labs are the drivers of AT&Ts M2M R&D.

AT&T has several other product and device-centric organisations that also spearhead R&D

activities for the company. AT&T opened its device certification laboratory in 2009, .. and

have certified nearly 1000 devices since 2005 to serve a very broad range of applications.

Vodafone came third in the M2M R&D category. Vodafone splits R&D between the

Group Research and Group Technology organisations. Vodafone focuses on the joining

together of Vodafone and partner solutions to facilitate more simple purchasing of M2M

solutions across a complex supply chain. Vodafone passes on the cost saving engendered

by a horizontal supply chain approach to its enterprise customers in the form of a lower

total cost of solution ownership. Vodafones R&D efforts seek to integrate its complete

M2M solution including connectivity services, SIMs, platform development and partner

integration.

3.6 CSPs recognise the importance of strong OSS/BSS to

support managed services

In the M2M OSS/BSS category, we ranked CSPs according to the ability of their

OSS/BSS layer to handle M2M connected world. This category captures a CSPs ability to

describe its position on platform development and strengths of its OSS/BSS approach. We

were looking for CSPs that:

had detailed SLAs across several areas of the value chain (not just connectivity)

had customer self-service portals

were able to describe the changes they made to various components of their OSS and

BSS

could explain their approach to in-sourced versus outsourced customer and operations

management.

We scored the CSPs in the M2M OSS/BSS category according to their responses to

questions 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28 of our questionnaire (see Section 4 of this

report).



Figure 3.5 presents the results of the M2M OSS/BSS category.

Figure 3.5: CSPs ranked according to their responses in the M2M OSS/BSS category


CSPs take different approaches to the OSS/BSS. Some CSPs have created separate

OSS/BSS infrastructure to manage their M2M businesses, others have modified existing

OSS/BSS platforms. All are relying on third-party platform vendors to do some of the

device or applications management for M2M solutions.

OSS/BSS refinements allow CSPs to offer value-added services and SLAs for enterprises

requiring them. These services differentiate one CSP from another and are vitally important

in the long-term success of a carriers M2M activities.

Vodafone took the top position in the M2M OSS/BSS category. Vodafone has been very

direct in its OSS/BSS approach. It has made changes to almost all areas of its OSS/BSS.

The work was done either internally or with the help of in-house contractors, rather than

turning to OSS/BSS vendors to do the implementations. Vodafone uses existing platforms

to handle billing, SDP, service assurance, service fulfilment and customer care.

Vodafone offers a variety of SLAs associated with device, network, platform, portal,

service desk and SIM management. These SLAs give extra reassurance to enterprise buyers

about the quality of service. We believe Vodafones attention to OSS/BSS has facilitated

its ability to offer a broader range of SLAs.

0 20 40 60 80 100

Verizon

TeliaSonera

Telefnica

KPN

Telenor

Deutsche Telekom

Telstra

Sprint


AT&T

Telekom Austria

Vodafone



Telekom Austria Group came second in the M2M OSS/BSS category. Telekom

Austria Group has modified or supplemented all aspects of OSS/BSS for M2M. Some of

these modifications were completed by in-house staff or vendors under new contracts. Its

service delivery platform has all areas of CRM, billing, reporting, administration, self care,

operations, service fulfilment and service assurance incorporated. Telekom Austria Group

also offers some unique SLAs associated with its M2M connectivity platform, escalation

management and SIM-card quality. The modifications to its OSS/BSS have facilitated these

types of SLAs and allow Telekom Austria Group to differentiate itself in the sector.

AT&T came third in the M2M OSS/BSS category. AT&T relies on its AT&T Control

Center based on the vendor Jasper Wireless and its Enterprise On-Demand service

delivery platform to provide highly scalable M2M deployments. AT&T offers SLAs to

qualified customers associated with its core wireless network and various aspects of service

delivery. AT&T also provides customers with service level objectives (SLOs) if they meet

their revenue commitment level.

OSS/BSS challenges are critically important in allowing CSPs to offer value-added services

associated with M2M. Some of the CSPs in our analysis are considering OSS/BSS

transformations to address their burgeoning M2M requirements: these CSPs will find

themselves well suited to the connected world of the future. Those CSPs that avoid the

issue will harm themselves with systems incapable of extending into the connected device

future.

In order to measure the importance of OSS/BSS to CSPs M2M aspirations, we asked CSPs

how much they agreed with the following statement: Internal OSS/BSS issues are

critically important in addressing our ability to offer value-added services associated with

M2M. On average, CSPs scored this question a 1.5, where a score of 1 indicates the CSP

strongly agrees with the statement and 6 indicates the CSP strongly disagrees with the

statement.

3.7 CSPs that understand the network are implications more

likely to avoid challenges related to growth

In the M2M network category, we scored CSPs according to how their understanding of

their network allows them to differentiate their M2M offerings and the possible network

challenges to overcome. This category captures a CSPs ability to describe its position on

network readiness and thoughts about the future.

We scored the CSPs in the M2M network category according to their responses to

questions 29, 30 and 31 of our questionnaire (see Section 4 of this report).

CSPs that understand the network implications of M2M have a much better chance of

creating profitable businesses. This is particularly important for a service where ARPU is

not as high as those for traditional feature phones or smartphones. Also, some M2M



applications use a lot of bandwidth and pose both signalling and network capacity issues if

not handled correctly. In essence, we were looking for insights into a CSPs network

utilisation and possible challenges to network signalling from M2M connectivity. In

addition, we wanted to understand some of the key network components that need to be

dedicated to M2M services. We were not looking for a CSP to be able to solve all their

network-related challenges today, but rather be able to discuss them intelligently. CSPs

with little insight into their networks were penalised in this category.

Figure 3.6 presents the results of the M2M network category.

Figure 3.6: CSPs ranked according to their responses in the M2M network category


Sprint and Telekom Austria Group tied for first place in our M2M network category.

Both had a good sense of the amount of traffic generated by M2M on their networks. Both

were able to articulate the network components home location register (HLR), SIM

management, etc. that were best kept separate for M2M, although Sprint did a marginally

better job at this discussion than Telekom Austria Group.

In our M2M questionnaire, we also probed the issues of signalling traffic caused by M2M

connectivity and both leading CSPs had insightful responses. Telekom Austria Group was

better able to articulate some of the issues associated with high levels of signalling traffic

on its networks due to M2M. Telekom Austria Group discussed its concerns due to both

concurrent signalling bursts (possibly spread over a large geographical area) as well as

signalling bursts within a very narrow geographical area (possibly within one cell site).

Both of these signalling concerns can have an impact on total network reliability and

0 20 40 60 80 100

Verizon

KPN

TeliaSonera

Telenor

Telefnica

Vodafone

Deutsche Telekom

Telstra

AT&T


Sprint

Telekom Austria


Analysys Mason Limited 2011 4: M2M CSP scorecard questionnaire

performance. Telekom Austria Groups recognition of this potential problem allows them

to proactively address any problems that might arise.

Everything Everywhere came third in the M2M network category. It understands the

amount of traffic generated across its network by M2M and clearly articulated the network

components best kept separate for M2M deployments. Its insights into the impact of

signalling traffic only focusing on time-of-day congestion were a bit weaker than the

winners in this category, but still a fairly strong showing relatively speaking.

4 M2M CSP scorecard

questionnaire

This section of the report is the questionnaire that we sent to CSPs in June 2011.

4.1 Introduction

Thank you for taking part in our M2M communications service provider (CSP) scorecard.

We appreciate your time. We will use your responses to rank CSPs according to several

M2M attributes. We will also use this information to create published research on the

successes of, and challenges facing, CSPs across the world.

For purposes of this questionnaire, we are evaluating CSPs M2M businesses. We consider

M2M to be devices connected over mobile (GPRS, EDGE, GSM, LTE, CDMA, satellite)

networks or fixed-line networks (T1/E1, Frame Relay, other fixed-line broadband access).

We count device connections in our analysis, not the number of actual devices in the end-

user market. For example, if there are ten smart meters connected to one aggregation point

and the aggregation point uses a GSM SIM to backhaul the meter data to a processing

facility, we count that as one device connection. Conversely, if those ten smart meters each

have a SIM card and communicate independently to a processing facility, we count that as

ten device connections. In addition, we are not counting the number of module shipments

from module vendors (such as Sierra Wireless and Telit) as part of our analysis. We are

strictly focusing on the number of unique device connections. We also do not include

RFID, Zigbee or Wi-Fi-only connected devices in our connection counts.

4.2 About you

Please provide the following information and contact details.



Name

Job title

Organisation

Contact details Landline:

Mobile:

Email:

4.3 Questionnaire

Please answer the following. Feel free to contact us at [email protected] to

ask clarifying questions or provide clarifying text in the comments section at the end of

this questionnaire.

Question 1

Please describe your M2M strategy in 200 words or fewer, as you would describe it to a

prospective partner or customer. Focus on the pieces of the supply chain (such as modules,

equipment, connectivity, device platform, application platform, applications, systems

integration and professional services) that your solution addresses. Please also focus on

your approach to national, regional and worldwide markets. Include whatever you believe

differentiates your service from those of others.

Question 2

In which countries do you currently have M2M device connections deployed and activated

on your network? Note: Please only list countries in which you own more than 50% of the

mobile or fixed-line network operator.



Question 3

Which countries do you believe present the greatest M2M opportunity? Note: they do not

have to be countries in which you currently operate or countries in which you currently

have networks.

Question 4

Please describe your M2M research and development (R&D) activities in 200 words or

fewer.



Question 5

Please rank the following industry sectors in order of importance to your firm. The most

important industry sector will be the one that is expected to generate the highest levels of

cashflow from M2M services for your firm over the next five years.

Sector Level of importance

1 = most important; 10 = least important.

Please use each number only once.

Energy/utility

Financial services

Retail

Automotive

Consumer electronics

Industrial/manufacturing

Healthcare

Other: (Please specify)



Question 6

What do you believe are your firms greatest M2M strengths and why? Please respond in

100 words or fewer.

Question 7

What do you believe are your firms greatest M2M weaknesses and what are you doing to

overcome them? Please respond in 100 words or fewer.



Question 8

Please state your level of agreement with the following statements. Score them between 1 and 6, where 1 is

strongly agree and 6 is strongly disagree.

Statement Level of importance

Strongly agree Strongly disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6

Internal OSS/BSS issues are critically important in addressing our

ability to offer value-added services associated with M2M.

Our 2G wireless network is capable of handling our expected levels

of M2M traffic over the next 5 years.





We believe the potential signalling network problems associated

with M2M are significant.

The biggest problem in the M2M supply chain is lack of standards.

The biggest problem in the M2M supply chain is module prices.

The biggest problem in the M2M supply chain is the need for custom

deployment for each solution.

The biggest problem in the M2M supply chain is the time required

for device certification on mobile CSPs networks.

CSPs that wish to participate in the M2M opportunity must own and

operate their own M2M platforms.

We strongly favour the use of soft SIMs for M2M.



Question 9

Describe the strategy your firm takes with respect to each element of the M2M supply chain. Select yes or no

from the drop-down menus. You may have multiple yes and no answers on each row.

Element of the M2M supply chain

Strategy our firm would

procure products

or services from this

type of player to

resell an M2M

solution to a

customer

partner with this

type of player to

provide these

products or services

to an M2M customer

consider

acquiring this type of

player to provide an

M2M solution to a

customer

Chip set (such as AMD, Ericsson, Intel and QUALCOMM)

Modem/module (such as CalAmp, Sierra, Telit and Wavecom)

Equipment manufacturer (such as Bose, Bosch, Dell, Elster, Itron, General

Electric, Itron and Sony)

Communication service provider (such as Aeris, AT&T, China Mobile, NTT

DOCOMO, Orange and Vodafone)

MVNO (such as KORE, SIM services and Wyless)

Service platform (such as Ericsson, Jasper Wireless and nPhase)

Professional services systems integrator (such as Accenture, IBM Global Services, Logica

and Logicalis)

Application provider (such as 4Home, EnergyHub and OnAsset)



Question 10

For each box above in which you have answered yes, please provide up to ten names of vendors or service

providers from which you have procured products/services or with which you have partnerships.

Element of the M2M supply chain

Strategy our firm would

procure products

or services from this

type of player to

resell an M2M

solution to a

customer

partner with this

type of player to

provide these

products or services

to an M2M customer

consider

acquiring this type of

player to provide an

M2M solution to a

customer

Chip set (such as AMD, Ericsson, Intel and QUALCOMM)

No answer required

Modem/module (such as CalAmp, Sierra, Telit and Wavecom) No answer required

Equipment manufacturer (such as Bose, Bosch, Dell, Elster, Itron, General

Electric, Itron and Sony)

No answer required



No answer required



No answer required

MVNO (such as KORE, SIM services and Wyless)

No answer required

Service platform (such as Ericsson, Jasper Wireless and nPhase) No answer required

Professional services systems integrator (such as Accenture, IBM Global Services, Logica

and Logicalis)

No answer required

Question 11

Please provide us references for three customers that are using your M2M solution today. Describe the total

solution, the role of your firm and any co-vendors or sub-contracting vendors in the delivery, and provide a

contact for at least one customer with whom we could discuss your M2M engagement.



Customer reference 1

Name of customer

Please describe the total

solution

Please indicate your role in

the delivery (for example,

prime contractor or sub-

contractor)

Please name the other co-

vendors or sub-contracting

vendors on the project and

describe their roles

Please provide us with a

contact at the customer

organisation with whom we

could discuss your M2M

engagement.

Name:

Phone:

Email:


Name of customer


solution




contractor)









engagement.

Name:

Phone:

Email:




Name of customer


solution




contractor)









engagement.

Name:

Phone:

Email:

The next set of questions addresses the scale and scope of your M2M business. Please

indicate clearly which of the numbers you are providing to Analysys Mason under non-

disclosure terms. We will use the numbers below to help create our scorecards; however,

we will not disclose numbers that are offered to us under non-disclosure terms.



Question 12

How many live M2M connections (to the nearest thousand) does your firm have across its

footprint? Please only include countries in which you own more than 50% of the mobile or

fixed-line network operator. Please only count M2M connections for devices connected

over mobile (GPRS, EDGE, GSM, LTE, CDMA, satellite) networks or fixed-line networks

(T1/E1, Frame Relay, other fixed-line broadband access). Please do not include RFID,

Zigbee or Wi-Fi-only connected devices in your connection counts below.

Date (end of period) Total M2M connections

(to the nearest thousand)

Data offered under

non-disclosure terms?

31 December 2009

20 June 2010

31 December 2010

Current

Please specify date: Type

here



Question 13

How many live M2M connections (to the nearest thousand) does your firm have in each of

the countries you listed in Question 2?

If you cannot provide country-level data, please provide regional data (for example, North

America, Western Europe, Caribbean and Latin America, AsiaPacific and so on).

Please provide counts for the most-current period, or as of 31 December 2010 if this data is

not available. Please indicate here which date you are using: Please type here

Country or region Total M2M connections


Data offered under




Question 14

What percentage of your firms worldwide activated M2M connections are being used in

the following industry sectors?

Please provide percentages for the most-current period, or as of 31 December 2010 if more

current data are not available. Please indicate here which date you are using: Please type

here

Sector Percentage of M2M

connections

Data offered under


Energy/utility

Financial services

Retail

Automotive

Consumer electronics

Industrial/manufacturing

Healthcare




Question 15

What percentage of your firms worldwide activated M2M connections are over a mobile

network (such as EDGE, GPRS, GSM, LTE and satellite) and what percentage are over a

fixed-line network (such as T1/E1, Frame Relay, ATM, Ethernet and other forms of fixed-

line broadband)?

Please provide percentages for the most-current period, or as of 31 December 2010 if more

current data are not available. Please indicate here which date you are using: Please type

here

Network technology Percentage of M2M

connections

Data offered under


Mobile network

Fixed-line network



Question 16

What M2M connection growth rate (as a percentage of total connections) does your firm

expect to achieve between 31 December 2010 and 31 December 2011?

Question 17

What is the average M2M ARPU per month associated with core connectivity for your firm

across its footprint? Please only include countries in which you own more than 50% of the

mobile or fixed-line network operator.

Please indicate here which currency you are using: Type here

Date (end of period) ARPU per month Data offered under


31 December 2009

20 June 2010

31 December 2010

Current


here



Question 18

What is the average ARPU per month for all M2M-related services for your firm across its

footprint? This would include core connectivity, platform services, application

management, device management, value-added services, professional services, system

management and so on. Please only include countries in which you own more than 50% of

the mobile or fixed-line network operator.

Please indicate here which currency you are using: Type here

Date (end of period) ARPU per month Data offered under


31 December 2009

20 June 2010

31 December 2010

Current


here

Question 19

ARPUs vary according to the type of M2M solution or M2M application (for example,

smart metering compared with telematics or public sector surveillance). With this in mind,

what was the range of ARPUs associated with core connectivity for your firms various

M2M solutions as of 31 December 2010?

Please provide a range for example, EUR0.50 per month to EUR35 per month, or

USD0.75 per month to USD20 per month. Please indicate which currency you are using.

If you prefer, you may provide ARPU ranges by the industry sectors you listed in question

5, above.

Please type here



Question 20

Has your firm offered M2M service level agreements (SLAs) to customers? Please indicate

yes or no for each of the following categories of SLA, and provide other categories as

appropriate. For SLAs that you offer, please give a sample metric for example, a device

certification time SLA of 25 days.

SLA category Has your firm offered

this type of SLA to

customers?

If yes, please provide a sample

metric

Device certification time

Up-time of network (on-

net)

Up-time of network (off-

net)

Mean-time-to-repair

Mean-time-to-provision

Mean-time-to-disconnect











The next question addresses the scale and scope of your total mobile business (including

services for M2M devices, handsets, smartphones, USB modems and so on). Please

indicate clearly which of the numbers you are providing to Analysys Mason under a non-

disclosure agreement. We will use the numbers below to help create our scorecards;

however, we will not disclose numbers that are offered to us under non-disclosure terms.



Question 21

How many live mobile device connections (to the nearest thousand) does your firm have

across its footprint? Please include M2M devices, handsets, smartphones, USB modems

and so on. Please only include countries in which you own more than 50% of the mobile

network operator.

Date (end of period) Total mobile connections


Data offered under

non-disclosure

terms?

31 December 2009

20 June 2010

31 December 2010

Current


here

The next set of questions addresses your current and anticipated OSS/BSS platforms.

OSS/BSS refers to your internal telecoms software associated with billing, service delivery,

service assurance, service fulfilment, customer care and so on. More-thorough definitions

are provided in the questions below.

Question 22

Do you currently offer or plan to offer an M2M self-service portal to customers?



Question 23

Have you made, or do you plan to make, changes to the following aspects of your OSS/BSS

to enable M2M services?

OSS/BSS aspect Changes

Billing (including rating and pricing, partner and interconnect,

mediation and business optimisation)

SDP (including telecoms application servers, mobile device

management, content management and real-time charging)

Service assurance (including service management, fault and event

management, performance monitoring, workforce automation and

probe systems)

Service fulfilment (including order management, inventory

management, activation and engineering tools)

Customer care (including customer relationship management,

master catalogues, subscriber management, customer interaction

and retail store systems)




Question 24

For each item in question 23, if you have made or plan to make changes to OSS/BSS, who has done or will do

this work? (Please check all that apply.)

OSS/BSS aspect

Who has done or will do the work?

In-house

staff/contractors

Vendors under

new contract

Vendors under

existing contract

Other

(please specify)

Billing

SDP

Service assurance

Service fulfilment

Customer care







Question 25

For each item in question 23, if you have made or plan to make changes to OSS/BSS, please describe the

completed changes or planned changes in 50 words or fewer.

OSS/BSS aspect Description of changes

Billing

SDP

Service assurance

Service fulfilment

Customer care





Question 26

Do you offer services such as customer care, operations and maintenance to your M2M

customers in a service bureau or outsourced arrangement? If so, please describe this type of

service in 50 words or fewer.



Question 27

Do you:

a) separate the M2M enablement platform from your existing OSS/BSS (possibly using an

adjunct solution)

b) use your current OSS/BSS solutions for M2M enablement.

Select an answer here: a

Please describe your enablement platform in 50 words or fewer.

Question 28

What are the most-critical processes (from an effort, complexity and cost perspective) in

managing and delivering M2M connectivity services and why? For example, enterprise

customer onboarding, service level agreements, ordering, billing and invoicing.

Please respond in 50 words or fewer.

This last short section of questions is about your wireless network and M2M standards.



Question 29

How much total wireless network traffic (in terabytes per month) do the M2M device

connections you mention in question 12 (either at 31 December 2010 or currently) generate

on your network?

Please indicate here which date you are using: Please type here

Question 30

Which elements of the network do you believe must be dedicated to M2M services? (For

example, GGSN, SGSN, HLR, CDN or SIM management.) Please respond in 50 words or

fewer.

Question 31

Do you believe there are any risks associated with M2M signalling traffic on your network?

If so, what are the risks? Please respond in 50 words or fewer.

Question 32

Do you contribute to M2M standards bodies? If so, please identify which ones and your

level of involvement.



Question 33

Which standards body do you expect to be most influential in achieving M2M

standardisation?

4.4 Comments

If you would like to provide comments or clarifications to your answers above, please do so

below. Please reference the question number to which you are providing comments or

clarifications.

Thank you for participating in Analysys Masons M2M communications service provider

scorecard. We look forward to compiling the results. If we have additional questions or

require clarification of your answers, we will email your primary contact.


Analysys Mason Limited 2011 5: Market definitions

5 Market definitions

Machine-to-machine (M2M) is a technology that uses a device attached to a machine to

capture an event which is relayed through a network to an application that translates the

event into meaningful information. M2M solutions are deployed in sectors including

automotive/transportation, energy/utility, security/surveillance, public safety, financial

services, retail, healthcare, industrial and warehousing/distribution. We exclude solutions in

the consumer electronics or household electronics sector including eReaders, connected

digital cameras, connected picture frames and digital signage. By our definition, mobile

broadband USB modems, PCMCIA mobile broadband cards, traditional feature phones and

smartphones are also not included in our calculation of numbers of M2M device

connections.


Analysys Mason Limited 2011 Author

Author

Steve Hilton (Principal Analyst) is the lead analyst for Analysys

Masons Enterprise research programme. His primary areas of

specialisation, which focus on large and small enterprises, include fixed

and mobile communications services, IT and communications products

and sales channels. Steve has 17 years experience in technology and

communications marketing. Prior to joining Analysys Mason, he

managed the Enterprise and SMB team at Yankee Group. He has also

held senior positions at Lucent Technologies, TDS and Cambridge

Strategic Management Group (CSMG). Steve is a frequent speaker at industry and client

fora, and publishes monthly articles in several respected trade journals for the enterprise

and channel partner community. He holds a degree in economics from the University of

Chicago and a Masters degree in marketing from Northwestern Universitys Kellogg

School of Management.

Published by Analysys Mason Limited Bush House North West Wing Aldwych London WC2B 4PJ UK

Tel: +44 (0)845 600 5244 Fax: +44 (0)20 7395 9001 Email: [email protected]

www.analysysmason.com/research

Registered in England No. 5177472

Analysys Mason Limited 2011

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in

any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior

written permission of the publisher.

Figures and projections contained in this report are based on publicly available information only and are produced

by the Research Division of Analysys Mason Limited independently of any client-specific work within Analysys

Mason Limited. The opinions expressed are those of the stated authors only.

Analysys Mason Limited recognises that many terms appearing in this report are proprietary; all such trademarks

are acknowledged and every effort has been made to indicate them by the normal UK publishing practice of

capitalisation. However, the presence of a term, in whatever form, does not affect its legal status as a trademark.

Analysys Mason Limited maintains that all reasonable care and skill have been used in the compilation of this

publication. However, Analysys Mason Limited shall not be under any liability for loss or damage (including

consequential loss) whatsoever or howsoever arising as a result of the use of this publication by the customer,

his servants, agents or any third party.

ISBN 978 1 906881 94 8.

For definitions of acronyms used in this report, see: http://www.analysysmason.com/Key-to-acronyms/.
http://www.analysysmason.com/Key-to-acronyms/


Analysys Mason Limited 2011 About Analysys Mason

About Analysys Mason

The only constant is change. What worked yesterday wont necessarily work today. Thats why

we look beyond the obvious, seeing things from a clients perspective so that a truly effective

solution is delivered every time. A key part of this is our international perspective. Business

never sleeps, and with offices spanning six time zones, neither does Analysys Mason.

Telecoms, media and technology are our world; we live and breathe TMT.

This total immersion in our subject underpins and informs everything we do,

from the strength and reliability of our market analysis, to improving

business performance for clients in over 100 countries around the globe.

Were experts in telecoms, media and

technology (TMT). This know-how

underpins everything we do and helps

our clients change their businesses for

the better.

At the heart of our approach

is a simple, but enormously

powerful idea: applied intelligence.

By harnessing our collective

brainpower we can solve real-world

problems and deliver tangible benefits

for our customers. As a Japanese

proverb says, all of us are smarter

than any of us.

Were passionate about what we do, with the focus and determination to take on and solve

the toughest problems to help our clients. Well rise to the challenge and enjoy it. In fact

when it comes to problem solving, theres a real sense of the tougher the better.

Its this unique combination of our applied intelligence, effective problem solving and the

ability to look closer and see further that makes Analysys Mason special.

Systems

and

infrastructure

Transaction

support

Regulation

Strategy

and

planning

Technical

audit and

assurance

Marketing

and

products

Procurement

Telecoms,

media and

technology

(TMT)


Analysys Mason Limited 2011 About Analysys Mason

Research from Analysys Mason

Our subscription research programmes address key industry dynamics

in order to help clients interpret the changing market

The programmes focus on five key areas:

We analyse, track and forecast the different services accessed by consumers and

enterprises, as well as the software, infrastructure and technology that underpins the

delivery of those services. Subscribing to our research programmes gives you regular and

timely intelligence. It also provides direct access to our team of analysts that is, the

opportunity to engage one-to-one with our subject experts for insight, opinion and practical

advice relating to your most-critical business decisions.

Take advantage of this service and youll be in good company. Many of the worlds leadi

Documents

Analysys Mason M2M Competition