6G convergence or "network of networks" must be bi-directional, not assume a 3GPP umbrella

This post originally appeared on my LinkedIn feed, which is now my main platform for both short posts and longer-form articles. It can be found here, along with the comment stream. Please follow / subscribe to receive regular updates (about 1-3 / week)

 Following on from my (rather controversial) post the other day about #6G and #IMT2030 needing to be indoor-primary and also have an IEEE / #WiFi candidate, I'm now going to *further* annoy various people.

There's a lot of talk about 6G being a "network of networks". This follows on from previous similar themes about #convergence and #HetNets. At one level I agree, but I think there needs to be a perspective shift.

There has been a long string of attempts to blend Wi-Fi and cellular, going all the way back to UMA in the 2G/3G era around 2005. (I was a vociferous critic).

There's been a alphabet-zoo of acronyms covering 3GPP gateway functions or selection/offload approaches - GAN, ANDSF, TWAG, N3IWF, ATSSS - and probably others I've forgotten. From the Wi-Fi side there's been Hotspot 2.0 and others. More recently we've seen an attempt to bridge fixed and mobile networks, even going as far as pitching 3GPP-type cores for fixed ISPs.

Pretty much all of these have failed to gain traction. They've had limited deployments and successes here and there, but nobody can claim that true "converged wireless" is ubiquitous or even common. 99% of WiFi has no connection to cellular. Genuine "offload" is tiny.

But despite this, the 6G R&D and vision seems to be looking to do it all over again. This phrase "network of networks" cropped up regularly at the 6GWorld #6Gsymposium events I attended this week. It now usually includes integrating #satellite or non-terrestrial (NTN) capabilities as much as Wi-Fi.

But there's a bit of an unstated assumption I think needs to be challenged. There seems to be unquestioned acceptance that the convergence layer - or perhaps "umbrella" sheltering all the various technologies is necessarily the 3GPP core network.

I think this is a problem. Many of the new and emerging 6G stakeholders (for instance enterprises, satellite operators, or fixed providers) do not understand 3GPP cores, nor have the almost religious devotion to that model common in the legacy cellular sector.

So I think any "convergence" in IMT2030 must be defined as bi-directional. Yes, Wi-Fi and satellite can slot into a 3GPP umbrella. But satellite operators need to be able to add terrestrial 6G as an add-on to their systems, while Wi-Fi controllers (on-prem or cloud based) should be able to look after "naked" (core-free) 3GPP radios where appropriate.

This would also flow through to authentication methods, spectrum coordination and so on. Also it should get reflected in government policy & regulation.

My view is that 3GPP-led convergence has largely failed. Maybe it gets fixed in 5G/6G eras, but maybe it won't. We need #5G and 6G systems to have both northbound and southbound integration options.

I also think we need to recognise that "convergence" is itself only one example of "combination" of networks. There are numerous other models, such as bonding or hybrids that connect 2+ separate networks in software or hardware.

 

6G must be indoor-primary and have a Wi-Fi candidate technology

This post originally appeared on my LinkedIn feed, which is now my main platform for both short posts and longer-form articles. It can be found here, along with the comment stream. Please follow / subscribe to receive regular updates (about 1-3 / week)

I'm giving a lot of thought to #6G design goals, priorities & technology / policy choices. Important decisions are coming up. I'll be exploring them in coming weeks and months. Two important ones I see:

- 6G / #IMT2030 must be "indoor-primary"
- There must be a IEEE / Wi-Fi Alliance candidate tech for 6G

The first one is self-evident. The vast bulk of mobile use - and an even-larger % of total wireless use - is indoors. It's inside homes, offices schools, factories, warehouses, public spaces like malls and stadia - as well as inside vehicles like trains. Even outdoors, a large % of usage is on private sites like industrial complexes or hospital campuses.

Roughly 80% of mobile use is indoors - more if you include wireless streaming to smart TVs and laptops/tablets. By the 2030s 6G era, there will be more indoor wireless use for #industrialautomation, #gaming, education, healthcare, #robotics and #AR / #VR / #metaverse and so on.

This implies that economic, social, welfare and cultural upsides will be indoor-primary. 80%+ of any GDP uplift will be indoor-generated. This suggests 6G tech design & standards - and associated business models and regulation - should be indoor-oriented too.

The IEEE / #WiFi idea follows on from this. The default indoor wireless tech today is Wi-Fi. There is a lot of indoor cellular use, but currently 5G is supported poorly - and certainly not everywhere.

While 5G and future 6G indoor #smallcells, #neutralhost and repeaters / DAS are evolving fast, *nobody* expects true ubiquity. Indoor cellular will remain patchy, especially multi-operator. And many devices (eg TVs) don't have cellular radios anyway.

This means that WiFi - likely future #WiFi8 and #WiFi9 - will remain central to in-building connectivity in the 6G era, no matter how good the tech for reconfigurable surfaces or other cellular innovations become.

IEEE decided not to pitch WiFi6 formally for 5G / IMT2020, but instead just show it surpassed all the metrics. But "we could have done it if we wanted" isn't good enough. There are no government-funded "WiFi Testbed Programs" or "WiFi Innovation Centres of Excellence" because of this lower visibility.

Governments are ITU members and listen to it. If policymakers want the benefits of full connectivity, they need to support it with spectrum, targets and funding, across *all* indoor options.

And if the WiFi industry wants full / easy access to new resources, it needs to be an official 6G / IMT2030 technology. It needs access to IMT licensed spectrum, especially for local licenses with AFC.

This idea will be very unpopular among both cellular industry (3GPP pretends it is the "keeper of the G's") and the WiFi sector, which sees it as a lot of extra work & politics.

But I think it's essential for IMT2030 to embrace network diversity, plus ownership- & business-model diversity as central elements of 6G.

 

Edge computing meets Private Networking: quick thoughts

This morning, I gave a short presentation & then joined a panel of other speakers from Athonet, Ericsson, Huawei & Hewlett Packard Enterprise on a webinar session organised by TechUK.

It covered the role of edge computing in the context of private networks.

There are many possible different touch-points I see evolving between these two domains:

• Enterprises wanting both private networks & on-premise edge compute for inhouse IoT systems and analytics (eg in manufacturing). This is not necessarily 3GPP-style MEC, though - it could be a local hyperscale node eg AWS Outpost
• MNOs offering enterprises their own on-prem EPC/5GC node
• MNOs offering 3GPP Release 16/17 5G with network slicing & integrated MEC edge capabilities (personally, I'm a bit skeptical that this is a big opportunity(
  
• Metro edge datacentres for SPs running multiple private/vertical networks in a city, for hosting their own multi-tenant virtual cores or Open RAN elements
• Neutral-host wireless networks for buildings or metro areas also offering "neutral edge" facilities, eg TowerCos or campus-network specialists
  
• An edge data centre operator deploying its own citywide CBRS-type network for "one hop to the cloud" 4G/5G. (This harks back to my belief that Amazon could start using Whole Foods stores as mini data-centres, with direct fibre or cellular connectivity to the surrounding area)
  
• Localised interconnect facilities (between MNOs, or private cellular network operators reaching cloud & public Internet). There's a whole host of edge-interconnect models I think will be essential - for instance where users of different MNOs have to interact with low latency (eg AR gaming), or where companies need external inputs to private networks & applications (eg 3rd party AI microservices for analytics).
  

In essence, this is a hugely complex intersection, which I'm only scratching the surface of here.

Ping me if this is an area where I can help you brainstorm new ideas, or test existing ones

Mobile standards may fragment again, driven by geopolitics

I think we might see a return to the old days of multiple competing mobile standards.

But rather than the US/Europe technical war of 2G/3G over the nuances of GSM & CDMA, this time I see a scenario driven more by US/China geopolitics and ideology, enabled by various technology catalysts.

[This is an extended and more nuanced version of a post of mine on LinkedIn - link, which I edited to fit the 1300chrs limit. It's worth looking at the discussion in the comments there]

The past: how LTE and 5G became global standards

To understand how we got here, and why we might diverge in future, we need to look at the past. Historically, there were two main competing camps for 2G and 3G networks:

• GSM/UMTS, championed by 3GPP and Europe-centric players such as Ericsson, Nokia and major European operator groups such as Vodafone & Telefonica.
• CDMA, driven by US companies, especially Qualcomm and Verizon, plus also Sprint, Lucent, Nortel and others, organised via 3GPP2

Back around 2006-7, when 4G was being designed and specified, a number of options were proposed:

• LTE was the 3GPP's option
• UMB was the CDMA/3GPP2 approach, leaning heavily on Qualcomm's acquisition of Flarion, which was developing an IEEE 802.20 wireless system.
• WiMAX, which came from vendors with a Wi-Fi background, notably Intel. That was an IEEE technology too - 802.16.

For various reasons, LTE won, and the others disappeared. (I wrote plenty about this at the time, if you want to go through my archived posts, such as here and here). 

IEEE still technologies dominate in local networks such as Wi-Fi and "personal area networks" such as Bluetooth, but for wide-area mobile, the 3GPP dynasty rules supreme.

But there's a back-story to LTE's success, and its rise as the single global standard for 4G.

In the 3G era, it wasn't just UMTS vs. CDMA2000, but also the Chinese TD-SCDMA standard. (& minor proprietary techs, such as Nextel's & Motorola's iDEN)

TD-SCDMA never gained traction outside China's domestic market, but it helped build the local industry to scale and then evolved into TD-LTE for 4G, which was folded in as part of the global LTE story.

The world's mobile-dedicated spectrum comes in two varieties - FDD (frequency-division duplexing) which uses separate 'paired' bands for uplink and downlink, and TDD (time-division duplexing) which uses a single 'unpaired' band, alternating between up/down slices of time. 2G and 3G were dominated by FDD radios. The inclusion of TD-LTE enabled 4G to access both categories. (WiMAX was TDD-only, a major failing).

The Europe+China combination made 3GPP / LTE unstoppable, especially given the extra scale in terms of both market size and spectrum it enabled. It also cemented Huawei's role as a powerhouse, and partly led to Alcatel's acquisition by Nokia and Nortel's cellular business by Ericsson. Qualcomm's conversion to the LTE cause helped too.  

In parallel to the radio, the 4G cellular core network (EPC) also rose in perceived importance compared to 2G/3G eras, as it allowed MNOs much greater control over data flows. It also allowed vendors easier lock-in.

For the last 11 years, the mobile industry has exploded, partly because of LTE's ubiquity and scale economies, and partly because of the simultaneous rise of the iPhone and Android. It's worth noting that 3GPP's original vision for 3G and 4G didn't see access to the "public Internet" as a core part of the service, although it now dominates usage and value.

In recent years, we have seen the 3GPP "global standard" continue to evolve to 5G, with Huawei, Nokia, Ericsson, Qualcomm dominating the landscape again, plus Samsung and a few others following behind them. At the moment, most 5G is "non-standalone", using the existing 4G cores - and thus again locking-in the established vendors, and the existing powerful core and exclusive national-licence philosophy favouring traditional large MNOs.

However, the 5G vision of many of the industry "old guard" is still centres on the them vs. us approach to network control and "native" (ie telco-delivered) services. There's still the almost-bigoted rhetoric and lobbying about so-called "OTTs" (an obsolete and self-damaging term, in my view), and the attempt to dilute - or at least monitor - the user's desire & ability to access open Internet applications and even connect independently via Wi-Fi.

___________________________________________________________

But now, I see clouds gathering - or new rays of sunshine, depending on your perspective.

I think that geopolitics may undermine the "single global standard" for mobile, along with some conveniently-timed technical evolution paths. This is not a forecast, or even the most likely outcome - but I believe it is solidifying into a much more realistic scenario.

For the later stages of 5G (from Release 17 onwards), and then beyond that with the evolution of 6G, I think the US might be about to diverge from the last decade's consensus.

The Sino-US politics were already stark, even before the COVID19 pandemic added more fuel to the fire. We have already seen massive pressure with regard to Huawei, not just in North America but across Europe and other OECD countries such as Japan and Australia. The US has previously taken action against ZTE as well, and more recently has started even discouraging interconnection with Chinese telcos (link). 

Apparently, the US tech industry is now being pushed/advised to avoid working with China, even on standards development (see this Economist article, although it may be behind a paywall for some - link). That potentially weakens US influence at 3GPP, and could prompt it to seek alternative paths forward. We can expect the US Presidential campaign to focus on this theme as well, over the next 6 months - although both major US political parties have been fairly unified on the ongoing trade disputes with China.

There are also some signs of tougher views in Europe. Even though the UK and EU have allowed continued limited engagement with Huawei, the politics is still hardening, especially in the wake of the virus' trajectory (link).

But this is not just about geopolitics. It is also about technology "philosophy". I see something of a divide here, too. In a way, it's a modern-day version of the Bellheads vs. Netheads battle of the past (link):

• Control: On one side is a vision of mobile world with strong vendor / MNO / national control, evolved from today's 3GPP & GSMA vision. This has
• Strong policy control - and eventually network-slicing - delivered from a powerful core network. 
• Deep reach down into devices, from SIMs to connectivity management, and perhaps surveillance options. 
• A big focus on optimised & automated infrastructure, which probably favours single-vendor (or at least big-vendor) approaches. 
• An expectation of exclusive national spectrum licenses, with limited scope for local or enterprise networks which do not also lean on MNOs' services. 
• There's also a lot of work aimed at reinventing TCP/IP in ways that give telcos more control, as well. 
• Edge-computing is integrated into the telco domain as much as possible, and delivered as part of a "slice" or MNO service.
• Openness:The other world vision has a more open / Internet-centric approach. It's more "permissionless" with vendor or even operator lock-ins of any sort being anathema. There's:
• Less core-network control, favouring local breakout & device-led multiple connections, without the MNO (or government) having a panopticon view of traffic. 
• An emerging focus on disaggregated & open RAN models (O-RAN, TIP, OpenRAN etc), favouring multivendor- and IT/cloud -centric architectures. 
• An expectation of Wi-Fi indoors, often owned and controlled by a non-MNO. 
• Growing availability of more-open spectrum with dynamic / local licenses, as well as traditional exclusive bands as a foundation. 
• Edge computing is primarily an enabler of telecom networks, not delivered by them - and the expectation is that most will be neutral or independent, in local 3rd-party datacentres/modules or on enterprise premises.
  

In a way, this is almost a 3GPP vs. IEEE/IETF divide, but just as politics has shifted from a left/right axis to open/closed, perhaps something similar is happening here too.

It's not clear that the wireless world will cleave cleanly along this divide, especially in the near future as 5G is still being deployed. AT&T and Verizon will not be happy relinquishing control-points, either. So today, we have some fairly messy - and maybe unworkable - hybrids. There's lots of talk about opening APIs for enterprises to configure their own 5G slices. We have some grudging approaches to blending cellular and Wi-Fi, and various moves to enable "non-public networks" for enterprise in Release 16 & 17 of the 5G standards. But even that phrasing is awkward and somewhat derisive - as is the term "non-trusted" to describe other access networks.

But the technology forces are clear, even beyond the politics. In the last year or so we have seen:

• CBRS launching, with dynamic spectrum and a focus on new use-cases and business models, especially enterprise/local networks. It is catalysing a new vendor ecosystem of small cell suppliers, cloud EPCs and specialised SPs and integrators.
• Huge interest in local/private spectrum and networks in Germany, UK, Japan and elsewhere
• Rakuten, Dish and other operators validating the vRAN model and working with new US-centric vendors like Altiostar and Mavenir. (Rakuten is, like Softbank, an Internet company diversifying into cellular. Dish isn't "old school" mobile, either, but a satellite TV provider).
• Huge upswing of presence of IT/cloud players in cellular infrastructure, including acquisitions. IBM/RedHat, Dell/VMware, Microsoft/Affirmed, HPE, Oracle - plus AWS and Google taking various roles from RAN to core, as well as Facebook with TIP and its new stake in Reliance Jio
• A massive tranche of 6GHz spectrum being made available on an unlicensed basis in the US, primarily for Wi-Fi6E, but also maybe 5G variants in future as well. This has further killed off the (already implausible) idea that cellular-based LANs might edge out Wi-Fi
• Fragmentation of the EPC / 5G Core marketplace, with low-cost / cloud-based / programmable / "light" variants that look like a normal piece of the IT stack, rather than arcane telco wizardry. (I wonder if we'll see "core-optional" mobile networks - but that's for another post).
• More interest in mmWave in the US and South Korea, including for indoor use.
• FCC and the White House have taken a close interest in 5G and next-gen wireless, and seem keen to foster a local technology ecosystem for mobile (link)
• Innovation in satellite constellations such as SpaceX's Starlink
• Plenty of other big US-centric technology players watching closely, such as Cisco, Juniper and of course Apple.
• (I know there's also various moves around evolving TCP/IP, but I haven't had a chance to get my head around them yet).

We might still see 5.5G and 6G world emerge as an elegant hyper-converged version of these two philosophies. And we'll certainly see firms such as Ericsson and Huawei try to continue the 3GPP/control vision, while also exploring the opportunities and tools from the other side. Neither seems especially happy with the rise of local/private spectrum or pure-play enterprise and neutral-host providers. It's easier to sell direct to 100s of MNOs, than 10000s of enterprises via a myriad of new channels and integrators.
 
I'm also interested to see what happens with ownership of Nokia (which seems a bit more open to the new realities) given its financial woes - and also how the European governments and regulators act. Is Europe a bridge between the two worlds, or does it fall in the gap? 

In many ways, I see the EU model lean more towards MNO control, with governments happier to focus regulation on competition at commercial levels, rather than technical - it tends to push harmonisation heavily, as a consequence of its previous success with GSM which catalysed the whole sector. There is more wiggle-room around enterprise and local spectrum licensing, given the strong lobbies for manufacturing and other industrial sectors., plus more emphasis on privacy.

I can imagine Japan aligning more with the US vision, but South Korea in a similar position to Europe. A year ago, Samsung was the obvious beneficiary of Huawei's problems. Now, it's probably the OpenRAN ecosystem that's the effective #3 choice.

At the moment, I'd rate the chances of a more-serious and clearer split at 30% and rising. It won't happen overnight - I think that Release 17 is probably the trigger-point. By the time we get to 2030 and 6G though, I wouldn't be surprised to see a revival of something that looks like 3GPP2, or perhaps (whisper it, as many will cringe) WiMAX2. At the very least, it will be more Internet-flavoured.

If the "old guard" vendors and their institutional peers within 3GPP, GSMA, ETSI etc. want to avoid this bifurcation, they are going to have to make some difficult decisions, and soon. Otherwise the potential to be disrupted from adjacency will grow. They need to be genuinely open, and start loosening the vision of pure "end-to-end control", and embracing imperfect, inelegant pragmatism about network design, operation and ownership. Exactly how that fits with the worsening geopolitical landscape is a problem I'll leave for the diplomats and spin-doctors.

Note: If you are interested in understanding more about this scenario, or are looking for an analyst or advisor to help formulate strategy in the wireless technology space, please get in touch with me. I can be reached via LinkedIn, @disruptivedean on Twitter, or via information at disruptive-analysis dot com.

From pixabay.com

5G as an enterprise LAN / Wi-Fi replacement is a myth

Introduction

There are at least 10 reasons why 5G will not be a viable WLAN (wireless local area network) technology for mainstream enterprise. Despite recent claims to the contrary, it is not an alternative to Wi-Fi in offices, hospitals, apartment blocks or similar locations. 

Enterprises, investors, policymakers and vendors should be extremely skeptical of assertions 5G will displace mainstream Wi-Fi uses. Indeed, they should question the credibility and honesty of those uttering such claims.

There will certainly more deployments of indoor cellular (including private and neutral host networks) in future, but these will almost all be incremental and not substitutional to Wi-Fi. They may be used for IoT/OT uses, but typically these will be entirely new. 

4G / 5G technologies will not be integrated into most laptops or tablets, despite hype.

This post looks at why 5G cannot replace enterprise Wi-Fi - including numerous obvious reasons - and then examines why the cellular industry (which mostly understands the problems) is pretending otherwise. What's the story behind the unrealistic fantasy?

(It's quite long. Get a coffee first.)


What is wireless used for in enterprises?

Before drilling into the specifics of 5G, it is worth looking at how and why wireless gets used in enterprises at a local area. Local area here means a single office or site - whether that's an office block, a supermarket, a hospital or a factory. Some locations have multiple LANs across several buildings on a campus network, such as a university, corporate HQ site or major new property development.

(By contrast, WANs run over wide areas, such as between a retail chain's stores and warehouse sites in different cities, or linking a multinational bank's offices in several countries. Huge locations like smart cities and airports are somewhere in the middle).

A top-level list of local wireless uses, often with separate infrastructure, includes:

• Local IT / Internet connectivity - this is the main LAN space, dominated by fixed ethernet and Wi-Fi. It connects PCs, laptops, deskphones, tablets, conferencing gear and various other computing products, either to the business's own servers or to the Internet and cloud. It is also good for private use of smartphones.
• Coverage extension of public mobile operator (MNO) services onto private property, where outdoor-to-indoor signals don't reach. This uses various forms of distributed antenna system (DAS), repeaters, small-cells etc, typically installed today only in the largest buildings. Essentially, this enables local smartphone connectivity both to the telco's services (eg telephony) and to the public Internet. In some cases Wi-Fi is used to "offload" data that could normally have gone over the carrier network. Note: genuine offload is a tiny fraction of total smartphone data traffic - see this post for more (link)
• Local IoT connectivity (connecting building automation systems, HVAC, entry control etc. This can be further divided into
• Static IoT - things that don't move around, such as sensors, door controls, CCTV cameras & aircon units
• Mobile IoT, for instance credit card terminals, robots, wearables, asset-tracking tags etc
• Local OT connectivity - operational technology, often business/safety-critical with a need for realtime deterministic control, such as industrial machinery, process controls, medical equipment and so on.
• Local voice connectivity - especially walkie-talkies and private two-way radio, which are now starting to be replaced with cellular alternatives.
• Other local uses - numerous sectors have their own niche wireless requirements, maybe linking to public safety / first-responders, broadcast, audiovisual systems etc

While some of these categories overlap (for example, smartphone connections), others remain pretty well-defined in practice. Yet often, they get conflated, especially in discussions about the future roles of 4G/5G cellular networks, whether run by mobile carriers, or new/specialist indoor operators and the enterprises themselves.

This post is specifically about the IT/LAN/Internet access use-case. I think cellular has a lot to offer IoT (especially mobile IoT) for enterprise, as well as OT in industrial settings. We will also see more indoor / premises neutral-host networks (NHNs) both for coverage and private onsite voice/smartphone access. However, none of those generally gets classed as "LAN" connections.

(SAVE THE DATE: I will be running a private workshop in London on July 9th about NHNs, looking at both indoor and wide-area / metro / rural uses and deployment scenarios)

Why can't 4G/5G be used for wireless LANs instead of Wi-Fi?

At the heart of this debate is whether 3GPP cellular technologies can be used for local-area computing networks, especially for laptops, tablets and private smartphone use. Can it replace fixed ethernet and especially Wi-Fi connections? Will future PCs connect to the Internet via 5G? I'm being asked this by various of my clients, so it's worth going in to some detail here (and obviously, more detail & analysis for paying advisory customers)

This is not a new discussion - the 3GPP vs. IEEE standards war has waged for decades. I've addressed the topic multiple times, whether that's been about in-home usage (link), debunking the "5G will kill WiFi" myth (link) or discussing the important role for private cellular in industry and the need for local spectrum licensing (link). 

I can see at least 10 reasons why cellular (whether provided by MNOs as a service, or owned by the business or an NHN provider) is not a suitable IT LAN technology for enterprise:

• 13bn installed base of actively-used Wi-Fi devices today, of which only smartphones typically have cellular radios. Some have shortish replacement cycles (eg tablets) but others will last for 10+ years. They will need to be supported in-building.
• A tiny fraction of laptops & tablets have in-built 4G radios today. Despite the hype, this will not change significantly with 5G. Customers won't pay more for them, and manufacturers don't want the margin hit. We might see 10-20% penetration, but I'm doubtful (This is a whole other "10 reasons" post in its own right...) Wi-Fi remains primary.
• Plenty of other devices will never have cellular connections (5G printers? Servers?!). The number of Wi-Fi devices is exploding in IoT as well - from smart-speakers to lighting to interactive screens and terminals. Add in new low-power Wi-Fi for things like headsets (and a separate battle between Wi-Fi / BLE / ZigBee which cellular doesn't even have a toe in). Again, Wi-Fi remains primary. High-end/critical IoT devices may actually adopt passive optical LAN connections, rather than any wireless technology.
• Private 4G/5G networks are not just radios. They need core networks, control software, and maybe SIMs/eSIMs. The average IT department does not want to, or have the skills, to deal with all this, compared with installing some ethernet wiring and some Wi-Fi APs.
• Almost no businesses want to deal with the complexities of private / public cellular interconnection, roaming, regulation (lawful intercept?!) and so forth
• Even if some IT departments want to go towards 4G/5G connectivity, they still have BYOD policies, and guests, contractors and tenants who will keep desiring (& often expecting) Wi-Fi
• In-building 5G is going to be hideously complex anyway, especially for mmWave frequencies. Installing small cells also needs fibre backhaul, power etc. in the right places, whch may be different locations to Wi-Fi APs.
• Ironically, in-building 4G small cells usually need wired LAN connections to connect them. In future, it might even be possible to use Wi-Fi6 as backhaul, as it should have good-enough deterministic QoS for the time-sync requirements.
• The world would need, I estimate, 100-300,000 more enterprise cellular specialists for designing, installing, maintaining & operating 5G LANs. And AFAIK there aren't even proper training programmes, or certification schemes. That's a decade or more on its own (and probably a big opportunity for some) 
• Indoor wireless coverage is difficult and variable. Radio is absorbed by interior walls, partitions, furniture, insulation, pipework etc. Giving QoS guarantees is almost impossible. Few design, planning and testing tools are available.
• Device-to-device use cases for Wi-Fi are not easily replicable with cellular. Maybe in the future.
• User perceptions of Wi-Fi and cellular, and behaviour around it, are entrenched and will take years to change, if ever.
• Patent & royalty costs for cellular are higher, as well as the extra chipset costs.
• Unknowable new security / threat surfaces (and the fact that Wi-Fi security is often integrated with the enterprise's identity & threat-management systems today)

I could go on. Some of these will change, some will have rare exceptions, and some industries will have particular local requirements for whatever reasons. But the underlying story is clear: 5G is not a Wi-Fi replacement for the enterprise. 
 
This should not really be a surprise to anyone. I honestly find it hard to believe that most people involved in networks/telecoms don't realise at least 4 or 5 of these points off the top of their heads.

Historical note: I've been skeptical of cellular-enabled laptops since 2006 (link). I wrote a full report in 2008 (link), which was actually far too optimistic (I predicted 30% attach-rate by 2011) despite being criticised as too-negative by the cellular industry. Most of the arguments remain valid for 5G.


So why the hype?

What's a bit baffling is why the 5G/WiFi replacement fantasy is becoming more common. Even AT&T's CEO was quoted at the company's financial results event (link) as saying "It’s serving as a LAN replacement product". Other 5G-centric commentators have said similar things.

To be fair, in some cases it will be genuine ignorance, although frankly anyone that clueless about enterprise networks shouldn't be making pronouncements anyway. Another more important issue is the conflation of all the different use-cases for connectivity (as above), and people conflating the LAN, offload and IoT domains in particular. Through that lens, the AT&T statement could (very generously) be considered applicable to some IoT scenarios.

Yes, 5G has a long-term role in some industrial verticals, especially with time-sensitive networking and private control of core and/or radio & spectrum. Neutral-host cellular will be important indoors too. But controlling robots & process machinery, or doing asset-tracking in a hospital, is not the same as accessing SaaS applications from a laptop or tablet, or local IoT applications from billions of devices with local gateways. Neither is using a new 4G/5G CBRS or local-spectrum network for "reverse roaming" or "MVNO onload" really a LAN business either.

But I think there are a few other more cynical reasons in play too:

• Embarassment over mmWave's poor indoor penetration (despite the rhetoric), meaning Wi-Fi is an essential in-building complement for any 5G FWA deployment. This applies in residential use, but also for businesses too. Pretending that some sort of 5G outdoor - 5G indoor hybrid could fix this might spare a few blushes.
• Cost & complexity of future indoor 5G deployments: Reality is biting. Existing indoor systems are going to be hard to upgrade to even 3-4GHz bands, let alone adding mmWave and massive-MIMO support too. It's not just the radio elements, either - how exactly are carriers going to offer QoS / network-slicing over someone else's indoor wiring and antenna infrastructure? See this eBook I recently wrote for iBwave (link) for more details. Basically, if the telcos are going to help pay for 5G indoor connectivity, then new use-cases/revenues are desperately sought, beyond just MBB coverage. A "managed 5G LAN" line on a spreadsheet likely looks appealing, even if it's an exercise in wishful thinking.
• Bluster & hype aimed at regulators considering the 6GHz or other bands for unlicensed use (& thus mostly more Wi-Fi). The US FCC and various European regulators seem minded to add another large band (500-1200MHz) to the unlicensed systems arsenal. Taking a public stance of saying "Oh, 5G could do all those use-cases as well - how about normal exclusive licenses for that band instead?" fits the political narrative, even if it doesn't fit reality. 
• Some 3GPP fundamentalists' dislike of Wi-Fi and unlicensed spectrum generally, or non-telco controlled networks, explains some of the comments. I've seen posts on LinkedIn saying "I wish Wi-Fi would go away", and similar. They have long fantasised about MNO-managed cellular LANs , in the same way that some Wi-Fi (and satellite) fundamentalists think they can replace mobile networks. They're all wrong. (And so are the 5G FWA folk claiming it's a mainstream alternative that could replace fibre or cable).

Conclusion

So to sum up:

• There's lots of different uses for wireless networks in enterprise, whether in individual buildings or across larger campuses. Ignore anyone who groups them all together.
• IT-centric LAN connections, for normal computing devices connecting to the Internet, cloud or local servers, are dominated by ethernet - either using fixed cabling, Wi-Fi or occasionally optical LAN. Smartphones connect both by Wi-Fi and cellular, where indoor connection is good enough.
• A handful of laptops and tablets can use 4G connections today, although few owners even bother to sign up for data plans. A slightly larger handful will have integral 5G in 5 years time, but most will just stick to Wi-Fi only. They will need to be supported in all the same locations as today, plus many new ones (eg public transport & retail).
• Private 4G and 5G networks come in many varieties, with a huge range of shared/local spectrum options being considered by regulators (link). Most, however, are not aimed at LAN use-cases, but more oriented to IoT/OT/indoor cellular coverage requirements. In those instances, Wi-Fi has limitations, for instance in applicability to robots moving around a large factor or warehouse.
• Some industrial/critical use-cases are not ideally suited to unlicenced spectrum, even with the better performance of new WiFi6 deployments. Given that the WiFi industry doesn't (yet) have a licensed-band version, then cellular is a likely option instead. 
• Neutral host cellular networks are very exciting future developments, both indoors and out. But they're not going to be LAN replacements either.
• Operator 4G and 5G networks are very important to extend in-building, especially if telcos want to offer new network-slicing or QoS products that don't just work outdoors. However, upgrading existing in-building coverage solutions to 5G is hard, expensive and has many unknowns. Many small buildings don't have indoor coverage solutions at all today. The mobile industry is casting around for new revenues, as well as costs. One takeout: end-to-end network slicing is largely mythical, and will need to work over 3rd-party Wi-Fi indoors.
• We will also see various forms of Wi-Fi + cellular bonding, with devices connecting to both networks simultaneously. That's for another post.
• As with all areas of 5G hype, there's an "it'll solve world hunger", "one-size fits all" pitch to politicians, regulators, investors and media. It needs to be called out for its disengenuousness.

Overall, the key takeout: 

Private/enterprise 4G and 5G networks have lots of potential future use-cases & market opportunities. Replacing Wi-Fi for IT/Internet access LANs is not one of them.

Note: if you're interested in deeper analysis, or a private workshop / advisory engagement on this topic, please drop me an email at information at disruptive-analysis DOT com, or contact me via LinkedIn or Twitter.

Also - on July 9th, I'm running a London private workshop on Neutral Host Networks, together with Peter Curnow-Ford of Viatec Associates. Drop me a message if you're interested, and look out for full details & registration coming very soon.

Reinventing Telcos - a preview of my ITU World panel session

Reposted from an article I wrote for the ITU's blog (link)

On the 27^th of September, I’m moderating a panel discussion at the ITU World 2017 conference in Busan, South Korea, on the theme of “The transformation of telecom operators: reinventing telcos.”

This is a topic we’ve heard discussed for at least the last 10 years in various forms, yet we still seem to be at or near the starting point. The panel will look at what can we do differently, to change the dynamics. In particular, it will focus on the internal organisation and processes of the telecom industry, both within and between telcos. Other conference sessions will consider new services, industry verticals, and the customer perspective.

Across the globe, traditional CSPs are trying to adapt their cultures and operational models, in the face of ever-increasing competition and substitution from new players. As well as other rival service providers such as cable operators, telcos now face challenges from Internet-based peers, niche specialist SPs (for example in IoT), and even enterprises and governments building their own networks. On the horizon, new technologies such as AI threaten to change the landscape even more. The nature of what it means to be a “service provider” is changing.

This goes beyond just implementing next-generation networks, whether fixed or wireless. While these are necessary, they are not sufficient for true reinvention – and they also require enormous new investment. The real question is what options exist for operators to best-allocate scarce resources (money, skills and time) to maximize the value from such investments in infrastructure. There is also a risk that emphasis on the “hard challenges” of raising finance, acquiring spectrum or sites, and building networks, means less focus on the “softer” problems of culture change, service design, organisation, customer-centricity and partnership.

This in turn poses problems for regulators, especially at national levels. Usually driven by domestic politics and local economic situations, they somehow need to ensure a strategically-important sector remains healthy, while also recognising the huge global-scale advances from many technologies and services that transcend national or regional boundaries.

It is not realistic for every country to have three or four competing local providers of social networks, IoT management tools or future AI platforms. Citizens and businesses expect similar functions to work internationally and immediately, with rapid incremental improvements. Unlike networks, innovation in services and applications often favours fast-evolving proprietary platforms, rather than committee-led interoperable services like the PSTN.

Telcos – and their regulators – have until recently been poorly-suited to this new world, although some are making interesting attempts to “turn the super-tanker”.

The session will touch on four or five key areas:

• Innovation: What is the best way for telcos to innovate, given regulatory & cultural constraints? Arms-length subsidiaries? Huge retraining programmes? Business units targeted on verticals / technologies? How much freedom should product units have, for example should they be forced to use the company-wide core network & NFV platforms, or should they be able to go “off piste” and act independently? Are “platforms plays” viable in telecoms, or just unrealistic wishful-thinking?
• Regulation: What should regulators be doing, to simultaneously encourage new entrants/innovators, but also allow telcos to make enough returns to take long-term investment views? And how can regulators deal with the overlaps, competition and tensions between very distinct groups, such as traditional infrastructure-oriented telcos and Internet-based “web-scale” platforms? One group has huge capex and strict regulatory constraints, the other huge R&D and greater risk of failure: how can one set of rules span both, where they intersect?
• Industry coordination: How do the current pan-industry structures (eg bodies like ITU & GSMA & 3GPP) need to change? Can they be made faster, more willing to take risks, faster to acknowledge errors, bring in non-traditional stakeholders?
• Technology catalysts: Are 5G & NFV really “transformational” enablers of re-invention? Or will prolonged hybrid/transition phases from older tech mean there can’t be fast shifts? How should telcos deploy technologies such as AI, blockchain or IoT internally, as part of their reinvention?

One other thing should frame the debate: language – how we describe the problems, or wider communications environment. Words, analogies and narrative arcs are psychologically important – they shape the way we perceive problems, and can either enhance or misdirect our responses. We should recognise the unhelpfulness of terms like:

• “Digital”: Morse Code was digital in 1843. Telecom networks have used digital technology for decades, as have most businesses. It’s about steady progress and evolution, not a “digitalisation” step change.
• “OTT”: usually said in a negative tone, I believe this prejudiced description of Internet services has hugely harmed the telecoms industry over the last decade. For example, it obscures the fact that larger Internet companies do more deep technology than telcos: they make network equipment and chips, build infrastructure and conduct billions of dollars of R&D.
• “Level playing field”: telco executives, regulators and lobbyists use this phrase with abandon. Yet the analogy is meaningless, when everyone is playing different sports entirely.

The narrative needs to change substantially. My ITU Telecom World 2017 session aims to reset the debate, and catalyse thoughtful (but rapid!) future action by operators, regulators and industry bodies alike.


If you are seeking a moderator or speaker for a telecoms strategy or policy event, please contact information AT disruptive-analysis DOT com