OTT Isn’t the Enemy, but Competition Remains for Service Providers
New research from Amdocs, conducted by Coleman Parkes, shows that most service providers now view over-the-top (OTT) players as potential partners rather than outright threats. The study, however, also highlights lingering competitive tensions and strategic maneuvering between the groups.
The research is based on interviews with a mix of industry stakeholders: 50 interviews with global service providers, 35 interviews with OTT and internet companies, and 15 with device manufacturers. Together these discussions reveal how the market is shifting as new services and players emerge.
As content distributors, online retailers, social networks, and other digital service providers expand their offerings, traditional service providers are under pressure to form partnerships and adapt their business models to remain competitive. Rather than seeing OTT firms strictly as adversaries, most service providers recognize potential opportunities for collaboration.
Key findings underline that OTT “isn’t the enemy.” Approximately 70% of service providers view OTT as an opportunity, and 64% believe OTT brings valuable innovation to the industry. Among device manufacturers, three in five expressed the idea that OTT players need to “partner or die,” signaling a widespread sense that cooperation is essential for long-term success.
Despite a generally positive framing, the relationship remains complex and sometimes adversarial. For example, 42% of service providers said they could deliver a better version of any OTT service, and nearly two-thirds (62%) indicated that partnering could be a strategy to “counter or eliminate” the OTT factor. Those responses suggest that alliances can also be tactical moves aimed at protecting market position or eroding competitors’ influence.
Ian Parkes of Coleman Parkes sums up the shift: “It’s a whole new partnership landscape for service providers.” He adds that whereas service providers historically formed partnerships primarily for roaming agreements and with device manufacturers, they now must navigate a much more complicated environment that includes OTT companies, internet players, and new types of financial settlement and platform partners.
Another notable tension concerns customer ownership and control of the user experience. Two-thirds of service providers say they must retain ownership of the customer relationship in any partnership arrangement. By contrast, only 14% of device manufacturers and 13% of OTT providers imagine a future in which they would surrender ownership of the customer experience. This disparity highlights a central negotiating point: who controls the interface, data, billing, and customer engagement in joint offerings?
When asked what service providers contribute to potential partnerships, respondents from OTT firms and device manufacturers largely agreed with the service providers’ self-assessment. Brand strength, network quality, and access to customer data were identified as the main assets service providers bring to the table. These strengths make service providers attractive partners for companies that lack direct customer relationships or carrier-grade infrastructure.
Overall, the three-way dynamic among service providers, OTT players, and device manufacturers remains fragile but pragmatic. All parties recognize the benefits of collaboration—shared reach, complementary capabilities, and faster innovation—yet strategic self-interest and control over customers and services continue to shape negotiations and alliances.
Is this shift the start of a genuinely collaborative ecosystem, or a strategic ruse where partnerships mask competitive intent? The research suggests both forces are at work: cooperation where it delivers clear advantage, and rivalry where market control and customer ownership are at stake.