As traditional revenue streams plateau and consumer expectations soar, communications service providers (CSPs) are at a crossroads. The need to diversify by launching new services is no longer a strategic choice – it’s a matter of survival. Furthermore, these new services need to be increasingly personalized to engage both consumers and enterprises.
The key, however, is charging – an embedded component of the service itself. Indeed, the charging experience has become more critical than ever, having the ability to make or break a service, regardless of its type. In this new paradigm, charging will require much greater flexibility to cater to more highly diverse offerings. This applies to prepaid and postpaid plans alike, as well as those with add-ons or new subscription elements tied to 5G features. Furthermore, as we roll out new, previously unavailable services, charging system flexibility will become even more paramount.
In today’s complex environment, with its vast array of service opportunities, the following will always hold true: If it’s not worth charging for, it’s not worth doing. And while launching any new service will involve numerous considerations beyond charging, we need to ask ourselves what happens when the charging element itself becomes a bottleneck?
For CSPs, the outcome can be catastrophic.
Who’s in charge?
Clearly, no two CSPs are exactly alike – but we can make generalizations. In this light, the analysts at Analysys Mason have revealed some eye-opening trends in their latest report. What’s particularly noteworthy isn’t just the findings themselves, but their scale and implications for our industry.
There were some stark numbers, including:
- While 80% of CSPs expressed concerns related to limitations of existing systems, the need to mitigate high operating and maintenance costs scored much lower (33%) as did a need overcome performance issues with inefficient legacy systems (also 33%).
- Only 40% of respondents have fully implemented convergent charging systems (CCS).
- 53% of CSPs are considering upgrades through adjunct charging systems, running them in parallel for different service types and brands.
Let’s explore these a bit deeper. The report reveals an interesting paradox: CSPs clearly recognize the need for diversification, yet most don’t view their existing systems’ costs as prohibitive. This apparent contradiction suggests a deeper issue: CSPs are constrained not by day-to-day operational costs, but by the perceived risks of transitioning to more flexible charging systems.
Now consider this: with only 40% of CSPs believing they’ve completed the necessary work on their convergent charging systems (CCS), for the remaining 60%, this journey must therefore seem either endless or barely begun. Given this dilemma – knowing they need to upgrade but hesitating to do so – it’s not surprising that many are considering a middle ground. This explains why so many are exploring upgrades through adjunct or separate systems, despite all the discussions about consolidation and convergence.
Clearly, when it comes to charging capabilities in our industry, we have a long way to go. But for CSPs, the message is that this technological lag threatens to place significant constraints on business growth – something that needs to be urgently addressed.
To explore which services are driving the need for charging system upgrades and to dive deeper into these insights, we encourage you to read the full Analysys Mason report.