Why Not a Single Vendor for Policy and Charging Controls?

February 13, 2012 - Openet

There’s been an interesting debate within the policy market –whether or not it is advantageous to have the same vendor for Policy Management as for Online Charging Systems. Since I've had the luxury of working on these systems both as a carrier and a vendor, this is a topic where I couldn't resist sharing my experiences.

Let me start by providing a few simple, but powerful reasons a single-vendor PCC environment has far more benefits than a multi-vendor environment.
  • Network Simplification– with the rapid growth in data consumption, operators are now prioritizing network simplification to control OPEX and CAPEX costs. This simply means that with fewer network nodes and vendors to manage, capacity augmentation costs are less complex to support operationally.
  • Standards – getting two vendors on the same release of a standard like 3GPP takes time and interoperability testing. With a single vendor, this doesn’t factor into the equation, nor do you see workarounds like Gy proxy (PCEF Gy to PCRF then a proxy to OCS) which can force operators away from standards compliance.
  • Roadmaps – one of the ongoing challenges for operators is managing the evolution of their networks from end-to-end today, tomorrow and two years from now. This entails working with multiple vendors on independent product roadmaps to ensure new features are implemented in future releases within the same timelines, and without negative effects on subscribers. Based on my experience, the planning here isn't too difficult, but when things don’t work, vendors often start to point fingers at each other. With a single vendor, there’s accountability, far less chance of interoperability issues and tighter alignment between releases.
  • Time to Market – probably the biggest advantage of a single PCC vendor is time to market. Repeatedly, I’ve seen Openet selected for both Policy and Charging because the operator had a time-sensitive and high-priority project that could only be done by a single vendor in the timeframe needed.
  • Solutions – anyone that works for an operator or vendor knows that implementing more complex and innovative use cases takes longer the more vendors are involved. For example, from a Charging perspective, operators often deal with the limitations of legacy IN systems –rarely do any vendors see “greenfield” sites. Typically operators want these INs to remain in place, for a host of reasons, so usually PCC is about modular augmentation. Being able to do this with a vendor who has best-of-breed policy and charging offerings is a big advantage – both architecturally and for performance reasons – and is a cost saver and revenue generator in the long term. 

One could argue that different vendors offer best-of-breed software in particular areas. But there’s a huge difference between vendors that have a core competency in PCC and offer a handful of products, versus large vendors that sell hundreds of products in a sin.

By Chris Hoover, VP Product Marketing & Product Management, Openet


How the 5G value plane will turn revenue dreams into reality

April 5, 2021

5G will spark re-invention in a defining year for telecoms

March 22, 2021

Standalone 5G – Service provider revenues will be driven by network-embedded services

February 1, 2021