6 ms·

Blockchain is very applicable to industries where middlemen extract large value by being intermediaries between competing parties. As an example, in telecom th

Blockchain is very applicable to industries where middlemen extract large value by being intermediaries between competing parties. As an example, in telecom there is the issue of settlement. Every phone call generates a Call Data Record (CDR) that has information about who called who, call length, etc. This is critical because every telco negotiates individual rates for voice, SMS, data roaming, etc. between every other carrier on earth (although often you negotiate with one company that provides a package rate for multiple telcos). Your "unlimited" plan obfuscates the fact that how you use your plan, what carriers the people you call are on, where you use data, reflect different levels of profitability for you as a customer. Large companies like Amdocs[0] make billions of dollars handling settlement for telcos. Every month, a carrier has to "settle" all of their CDR's with every other carrier. Issues get sorted out because CDR's never match perfectly, and then carriers pay each other to balance out based on their contractual obligations. A blockchain solution that all telcos agreed on would guarantee data correctness (CDR's all look alike), allow instant settlement and payment (settlement happens once a month), and eliminate the middlemen like Amdocs, Synchronoss, etc. in regards to settlement. Obviously this is a tough problem to crack, and you'd need to get the telcos on board, but I am explaining this as an example where blockchain could provide real value. Indeed, Maersk, the largest shipping conglomerate, is going to release a blockchain solution to move the international shipping industry away from paper and to a unified system.[1] Maersk is in a unique position to do this because they are the largest player, and most other companies just follow what they do, but I mention this as an example where blockchain can help competing companies interact more efficiently. [0] https://www.amdocs.com/ https://www.amdocs.com/ [1] https://www.economist.com/briefing/2018/04/26/the-global-logistics-business-is-going-to-be-transformed-by-digitisation https://www.economist.com/briefing/2018/04/26/the-global-log...

TylerE 8y ago
But if all the telcos have to agree anyway, why not just use a centralized db with cryptographic signatures?
- abtinf 8y ago
  A key element of blockchain is the associated business logic (smart contracts). You need an immutable ledger and you need agreed upon business logic. You have your choice of consensus algorithms. Most of the time when people say blockchain, they mean the public networks like bitcoin or ethereum. But if you move to a private, permissioned network model, you can use consensus algorithms that don’t need mining and have very high transaction speeds. This is the approach taken by IBM Blockchain (via the Linux Foundation’s open source hyperledger fabric project) and a few others.
  - pphysch 8y ago
    How is a private blockchain functionally different from the average database?
    - TylerE 8y ago
      IBM can charge 8-figure consulting fees instead of 7.
    - abtinf 8y ago
      The database is distributed among independent nodes. Each participant has their own copy of the immutable ledger and world state. Entries are cryptographically signed. All interactions run through smart contracts (you can’t just insert/update). You can form channels to engage in private transactions between a subset of the network, without divulging the existence of the transaction to the full network.
  - Joeboy 8y ago
    So eg. if telco A says a call was 8 minutes long and telco B says it was 15 minutes - what kind of smart contract / business logic decides how long the call was?
    - zeroxfe 8y ago
      That's conflict-resolution logic, and up to the peers to decide a priori (they will likely already have this, since it is not an uncommon scenario.) The value here (in addition to decentralized validation and consensus) is also in transparency and accountability, which disincentivizes fraud.
pphysch 8y ago
Going from "paper" directly to blockchain, with not a peep about traditional databases. Surely the executive is just using blockchain as a buzzword for database.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- wmf 8y ago
  The comment you replied to mentioned that "Large companies ... make billions of dollars handling [databases] for $companies." Central databases have become excuses to erect toll booths that blockchain may eliminate.
  - pphysch 8y ago
    So why doesn't $company roll their own database? Why go the extra mile and roll out an infamously-inefficient blockchain? It's a lot of work, that's why.
    - wmf 8y ago
      This stuff is being proposed for data that needs consensus between multiple companies, so each company can't have their own.
      - foepys 8y ago
        If you don't trust your business partner, don't do business with them. If there are problems, contracts and courts decide what to do. There is no need for blockchain.
        zeroxfe 8y ago
        This is not how the real world works. When you have large industries with thousands of peering organizations all over the world, you can't just "trust" -- there is, in fact, no metric for trust and no ability to measure trust. That's why the middlemen exist. This is especially true in finance, healthcare, and other industries where blockchains are being used.
Joeboy 8y ago
> CDR's never match perfectly With a blockchain based system, what happens if two telcos send CDRs that don't match?
- zeroxfe 8y ago
  Typically a conflict-resolution mechanism will be built into the consensus mechanism, with the rules set by the peers. But there will always be transparency (even the bad CDRs will be logged) and accountability (you know who said what, so the incentive for fraud is significantly decreased.)
root_axis 8y ago
So I am assuming there is no proof of work involved in this system, correct? If so then it sort of escapes the normal criticisms of blockchain tech (extremely slow and expensive to run)
what-the-grump 8y ago
They are going to end up with a big database. Also, let me know when we can fire our ops (finanace) and make billions more. Hope you guys appreciate how huge this would be, billions are spent daily to recon trades and positions. You mean to tell me some guy already figured it all out and all we have to do is write a wee bit of code. Next we are going to get the Hasidic Jews on 5th ave to start using spreadsheets instead of little notebooks so they can price fix diamonds and settings faster.
thisisit 8y ago
You are describing a Master Data Management(MDM) system. Also referred to as "single source of truth" in a data oriented system. The data in a MDM is homogeneous. The most important requisite for MDM's effectiveness that every downstream system needs to get data from MDM. No system should generate it's own data. While those are general rule in practice, it is a difficult task to pull off. The problem is not technical but rather due to people. There are tons of department in a company. And every time an input is made things change a little. It's due to human mistakes, software restrictions and lot more. I haven't worked in teleco but here's an example on what goes wrong when data is recorded. Marketing will send out flyers to say 100 people. One of them is named ABC XYZ. This person is interested in a phone line from say AT&T. When sales of AT&T take this up due to some problem, the name is recorded as ABC-XYZ ie with a hyphen. Now this data is human readable but doesn't make sense to a computer. So, when it comes to tallying up marketing and sales it doesn't work. Now things get worse when a connection has been sold, the address field in sales might be smaller compared to a full fledged customer system. So, sales says address is "XYZ Street" whereas customer system says "SSS Boulervad, XYZ Street". And then this snowballs further. To resolve this many companies try to implement a UCM - Unified Customer Management systems, a branch of MDM. But then there are people's ego, money considerations etc come in the way. So companies don't bother with it and go with settlement vendors. Now, this is a similar situation when it comes to CDR. Different equipment means different sets of data, that's why they need a settlement company. So, the problem is not a simple - middlemen eating money. There are lot of things going on.

TylerE 8y ago

But if all the telcos have to agree anyway, why not just use a centralized db with cryptographic signatures?

abtinf 8y ago
A key element of blockchain is the associated business logic (smart contracts). You need an immutable ledger and you need agreed upon business logic. You have your choice of consensus algorithms. Most of the time when people say blockchain, they mean the public networks like bitcoin or ethereum. But if you move to a private, permissioned network model, you can use consensus algorithms that don’t need mining and have very high transaction speeds. This is the approach taken by IBM Blockchain (via the Linux Foundation’s open source hyperledger fabric project) and a few others.
- pphysch 8y ago
  How is a private blockchain functionally different from the average database?
  - TylerE 8y ago
    IBM can charge 8-figure consulting fees instead of 7.
  - abtinf 8y ago
    The database is distributed among independent nodes. Each participant has their own copy of the immutable ledger and world state. Entries are cryptographically signed. All interactions run through smart contracts (you can’t just insert/update). You can form channels to engage in private transactions between a subset of the network, without divulging the existence of the transaction to the full network.
- Joeboy 8y ago
  So eg. if telco A says a call was 8 minutes long and telco B says it was 15 minutes - what kind of smart contract / business logic decides how long the call was?
  - zeroxfe 8y ago
    That's conflict-resolution logic, and up to the peers to decide a priori (they will likely already have this, since it is not an uncommon scenario.) The value here (in addition to decentralized validation and consensus) is also in transparency and accountability, which disincentivizes fraud.

pphysch 8y ago

Going from "paper" directly to blockchain, with not a peep about traditional databases. Surely the executive is just using blockchain as a buzzword for database.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
wmf 8y ago
The comment you replied to mentioned that "Large companies ... make billions of dollars handling [databases] for $companies." Central databases have become excuses to erect toll booths that blockchain may eliminate.
- pphysch 8y ago
  So why doesn't $company roll their own database? Why go the extra mile and roll out an infamously-inefficient blockchain? It's a lot of work, that's why.
  - wmf 8y ago
    This stuff is being proposed for data that needs consensus between multiple companies, so each company can't have their own.
    - foepys 8y ago
      If you don't trust your business partner, don't do business with them. If there are problems, contracts and courts decide what to do. There is no need for blockchain.
      - zeroxfe 8y ago
        This is not how the real world works. When you have large industries with thousands of peering organizations all over the world, you can't just "trust" -- there is, in fact, no metric for trust and no ability to measure trust. That's why the middlemen exist. This is especially true in finance, healthcare, and other industries where blockchains are being used.

Joeboy 8y ago

> CDR's never match perfectly With a blockchain based system, what happens if two telcos send CDRs that don't match?

zeroxfe 8y ago
Typically a conflict-resolution mechanism will be built into the consensus mechanism, with the rules set by the peers. But there will always be transparency (even the bad CDRs will be logged) and accountability (you know who said what, so the incentive for fraud is significantly decreased.)

root_axis 8y ago

So I am assuming there is no proof of work involved in this system, correct? If so then it sort of escapes the normal criticisms of blockchain tech (extremely slow and expensive to run)

what-the-grump 8y ago

They are going to end up with a big database. Also, let me know when we can fire our ops (finanace) and make billions more. Hope you guys appreciate how huge this would be, billions are spent daily to recon trades and positions. You mean to tell me some guy already figured it all out and all we have to do is write a wee bit of code. Next we are going to get the Hasidic Jews on 5th ave to start using spreadsheets instead of little notebooks so they can price fix diamonds and settings faster.

thisisit 8y ago

You are describing a Master Data Management(MDM) system. Also referred to as "single source of truth" in a data oriented system. The data in a MDM is homogeneous. The most important requisite for MDM's effectiveness that every downstream system needs to get data from MDM. No system should generate it's own data. While those are general rule in practice, it is a difficult task to pull off. The problem is not technical but rather due to people. There are tons of department in a company. And every time an input is made things change a little. It's due to human mistakes, software restrictions and lot more. I haven't worked in teleco but here's an example on what goes wrong when data is recorded. Marketing will send out flyers to say 100 people. One of them is named ABC XYZ. This person is interested in a phone line from say AT&T. When sales of AT&T take this up due to some problem, the name is recorded as ABC-XYZ ie with a hyphen. Now this data is human readable but doesn't make sense to a computer. So, when it comes to tallying up marketing and sales it doesn't work. Now things get worse when a connection has been sold, the address field in sales might be smaller compared to a full fledged customer system. So, sales says address is "XYZ Street" whereas customer system says "SSS Boulervad, XYZ Street". And then this snowballs further. To resolve this many companies try to implement a UCM - Unified Customer Management systems, a branch of MDM. But then there are people's ego, money considerations etc come in the way. So companies don't bother with it and go with settlement vendors. Now, this is a similar situation when it comes to CDR. Different equipment means different sets of data, that's why they need a settlement company. So, the problem is not a simple - middlemen eating money. There are lot of things going on.