Over the past year or so, cloud computing has become all the rage.
Everyone is talking about it as the next great hope for the IT industry
in general and communications in particular. But I have to wonder if
those who see cloud computing as a sort of miracle worker really know
what it is. If you ask 10 people to supply a definition of cloud
computing, you’ll likely get 10 divergent responses.
But first things first – cloud computing is not a technology play -
in fact I would be hard-pressed to identify a single piece of new
technology that is fundamental to cloud. And unlike Twitter or
Facebook, it's not a social-psychology phenomenon in any real sense -
there is no “man-in-the-street” movement that is driving the uptake or
need for cloud computing. It is one of those rare beasts - a practical,
common sense driven initiative.
Putting it simply, cloud computing makes much more efficient use of
resources. In the early stages, these resources are essentially
processing power and storage, but increasingly the focus of cloud will
converge on efficient use of software resources from a bewildering
array of sources. The concept of a user being able to gain access to,
and pay for, these resources on a per-use basis makes great economic
sense for everyone from the lone mobile game developer in his garage,
to the uber-large scale financial institution. It also happens to be
industry changing. Unless someone spots a fatal flaw with the concept,
over the next 10 years we will move from a predominantly distributed
computing and storage world to a centralized computing and storage
world.
What makes cloud so very interesting is that every one of the global
vertical industries (Telecom, Financial, Retail, etc.) has to have two
conversations about the cloud – first, how do we become a cloud user to
enable more efficient operations; second, how do we leverage our
existing platform assets to become a cloud provider?
It’s About the Bottom Line
The best way to understand the force behind cloud computing and make
it accessible to the masses is to talk about it in purely financial
terms. Let’s say you’re a developer in a large communications company,
and you want to launch a new project. You’d probably have to sit down
and write out a purchase requisition to buy the new hardware and
software. That will go through the approval cycle, and once it’s been
signed off, you’re probably looking at a 6-12 week order timeframe. So
all told you’ve been delayed about 3 to 4 months before your project
can really get off the ground.
By contrast, in the world of cloud computing, you’d log on to
something like the Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud (EC2) and purchase
capacity for a few cents or dollars an hour. Instead of spending
$30,000 or more on hardware and software – to say nothing of being
delayed by weeks or even months – you can be up and running instantly
and with a completed solution for a few hundred dollars in
infrastructure cost. This is the propaganda anyway from the cloud
suppliers, and it is a reasonably credible argument.
From the point of view of an IT department within a large service
provider, this is a stunningly brilliant idea. It gives them the
flexibility they need and takes away the pain of maintaining the
infrastructure. Instead, the entire infrastructure resides with a third
party who is getting huge economies of scale.
Amazon has very publicly run with this concept, and undoubtedly
we’ll see many other giant players such as Google, Cisco, IBM, Juniper
and Sun making a big splash in this world. With their access to
hardware and/or data centers, they won’t have any trouble scaling this
type of environment and offering it at an attractive price. This is the
concept known as Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS).
But the cloud vision also embraces Platform as a Service (PaaS), and
the long established Software as a Service (SaaS). In these two
scenarios, we have companies offering either a comprehensive solution
stack as a service – referred to as PaaS; or online use of discrete
software applications on a per-use basis – referred to as SaaS.
So a model like this makes a lot of sense, but there’s always a
downside, isn’t there? I’d say one of the biggest concerns people have
with cloud computing is security. I’m not questioning the cloud
providers’ ability to shore up their infrastructure and platforms;
rather whether potential customers genuinely trust them enough to put
their mission-critical data in there where they may or may not be able
to touch it when they most need it.
It’s an irrational fear…but a fear nonetheless. To counter this, I
expect a lot of companies are eyeing opportunities for security
overlays on top of the public cloud. There’s also a movement toward
private clouds, where a big corporation might build its own cloud where
hundreds or thousands of employees can plug into it. This would
certainly alleviate any fears of losing control of your data or
processes.
Clouds: The Great Communications Savior?
Communications companies in particular are questioning how they
shift their own business models to allow them to emerge as one of the
winners in the new cloud world. They are looking at everything from
opening up their own data centers to hosting other third parties, to
(more realistically I believe) opening up their own “crown jewel”
applications and offering them in a “Platform as a Service” fashion.
For example, a service provider might expose their billing system as
a third-party service in the cloud. Customers would be able to pay a
fee on a per-transaction or other revenue sharing basis and plug into
the billing system. Other opportunities surround their service delivery
systems, their location systems and so on.
This goes back to the idea of a “two-sided” business model that TM
Forum has been talking about for the past year, where traditional
communications companies morph from only delivering services to end
users downstream to also opening up their core capabilities and
offering them to upstream customers. In this case, the services would
be offered through the cloud.
Now whether any service provider is doing this today is another
matter entirely. It’s certainly something they are talking about, but
it’s not a trivial task to take your formerly internal systems and
reconfigure them so they are suitable for consumption by the outside
world. Risk and scalability are the two key watchwords here. On one
hand, they could make the significant investment to open up their
typically closed internal systems only to find that there is no market
for such a platform. On the other hand, they could find the service is
a resounding success and realize that they just can’t handle the global
scale that cloud services imply.
At TM Forum, we’re in a great position to help providers who want to
reach for the cloud. Our Service Delivery Framework feeds very strongly
into enabling providers to manage their environments so they can open
up their interfaces and expose their services in a cloud setting.
We’ve also got our IPsphere program, which is all about creating
federated services from multiple providers in a cloud. Our Information
Framework (SID) and our SOA-based Solution Frameworks (NGOSS)
architecture is the underpinning for the expansion of communications
companies into the cloud. This and many more of our cloud initiatives
(and those of our member companies) will be showcased at our Management
World Americas event in Orlando this December.
We may still be a ways from pervasive cloud computing, but I’m
confident that the cost savings, time-to-market and other advantages of
this kind of infrastructure will get communication companies to see
cloud computing as a mainstream challenge and opportunity for their
enterprise. So if you’re not discussing this within your company, now
is the time to start!
Posted
11-27-2009 2:15 PM
by
Martin Creaner