6G won't wait. Will traditional MNOs still be the main customers when it arrives?

This post originally appeared in September 2023 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 / connect to me on LinkedIn, to receive regular updates (about 1-3 / week)

 One line I heard yesterday at #ConnectedBritain that really struck me came from BT Group Network/Security head Howard Watson during his keynote.

He was hoping #6G arrived later rather than earlier, "For the Brisbane Olympics, not LA", ie 2032.

This is not the first time I've heard an MNO exec expressing a desire to let #5G run longer, before 6G prompts more Capex and infrastructure changes. They want to get payback on existing investments before thinking about the next round.

This is unsurprising. The industry itself now recognises that it overhyped 5G before launch, and completely forgot to mention that it would arrive in phases, with all the "cool stuff" really only arriving in later versions, with the features in 3GPP Releases 16, 17 & 18.

Instead, we started with 4G++ (ie non-standalone 5G, with sometimes higher speeds but not much else) and then the first versions of "proper 5G" with the Release 15 standalone cloud-native core.

5G SA gives somewhat lower latency, and some rudimentary QoS and other features, but it's far from the ubiquitous millisecond / gigabit / slicing nirvana that everyone promised in 2018.

I was skeptical from the beginning - and I'm still a "slice denier". (I think #networkslicing remains a critical strategic error and distraction for the industry). But my view is that the really useful stuff in 5G, such as time-synchronous networking, RedCap and vertical-specific elements such as FRMCS for railways, are still a long way from mainstream.

So I can understand that MNOs look at the proposed 6G timeline of 2030, and think "we're still making heavy work of moving to cloud-native 5G standardalone. How are we going to do successive iterations of R15 SA, R16, R17, R18, R19... and make money, all within 6 years?"

[Note: technically 6G should start with Release 21, but based on past experience we'll see R20, or maybe even R19, marketed as 6G by some MNOs]

There is a possible uncomfortable answer that's starting to get discussed quietly. What if 6G isn't primarily about MNOs, at least at first?

6G will happen in 2030, one way or another. The world's universities and R&D labs aren't going to down tools for two years, while MNOs are still trying to "monetise" 5G. There will be a bunch of technologies and standards that get called IMT2030 / 6G.

There might even be multiple standards, either because of geopolitics leading to regional versions, or because my niggling of IEEE and Wi-Fi Alliance eventually prompts them to submit a candidate 6G technology (#WiFi 9 or 10, I guess).

So the question then becomes - will traditional MNOs be the main buyers of 6G in the 2028-2030 timeframe? Or will it be enterprises, new-entrant and niche MNOs, infracos, neutral-hosts, satcos, governments and others building greenfield wireless networks?

Is the failure of 5G to live up to inflated expectations actually going to be the pivot point for the (slow) demise of the legacy MNO model? Are we watching #pathdependency effects in play?

 

Indoor wireless & the need for unlicensed 6GHz

This post originally appeared on October 2 on my LinkedIn newsletter, 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 subscribe / connect to me on LinkedIn, to receive regular updates (about 1-3 / week)

 

Note: This article has been commissioned by the Dynamic Spectrum Alliance, based on my existing well-known analysis and positions, which I have been discussing for many years both publicly and privately. I believe that in-building wireless - irrespective of technology - receives far too little attention from policymakers and regulators. 6GHz should be indoor-primary spectrum.

---

Abstract & summary: The vast bulk of wireless data traffic today is for indoor applications. In future, in-building wireless will become even more important. It is ideally-suited to 6GHz spectrum, made available on an unlicensed basis. A licensed model for 5G mobile in 6GHz would be unable to deliver coverage consistently for more than a small number of sites.

Indoor wireless is already critical & often overlooked

Industry estimates suggest that 60-80% of cellular data is delivered to indoor users, predominantly on smartphones. Additional statistics shows that smartphones also typically consume another 2-5x the cellular data volume on Wi-Fi, almost all of which is indoors or in vehicles. In other words, 90%+ of total smartphone data is consumed inside buildings.

In addition, residential fixed broadband traffic volumes are roughly 10-20x that of mobile broadband, with final delivery mostly over Wi-Fi, often to non-smartphone devices such as smart TVs, laptops, game consoles and voice assistants.

Outside the consumer market, a great deal of non-residential wireless connectivity is also indoors – healthcare, education, manufacturing, conventions, hospitality and office environments are all increasingly dependent on wireless, especially with the rise of industrial automation systems, IoT, robots, connected cameras and displays. These map to the rise in cloud- and video-based business processes.

Most wireless uses & devices are indoor-centric

This does not imply that outdoor wireless use is either trivial or unimportant. Most obviously, everyone uses their phones for calling, messaging, mapping and various transport and other apps while on-the-move. Vehicle connectivity is becoming essential, as well as wireless use for safety, utilities and smart-city infrastructure. Some sectors such as agriculture, logistics and construction are predominantly outdoor-oriented, albeit often at specific locations and sites.

But to a rough approximation, if 80%+ of wireless use is indoors, then 80%+ of economic and social benefit of wireless will accrue indoors as well. This applies irrespective of the technology involved – Wi-Fi, 4G/5G cellular, or even Bluetooth.

Future growth of indoor wireless

The demands for indoor connectivity are likely to grow in both scale and scope in coming years. There will be huge demand for high-throughput, low-latency access for both consumer and enterprise use-cases.

• Gigabit broadband, especially delivered with fibre, is becoming the default for both residential and business premises. In the medium term, we can expect 10Gig services to become more common as well. In many cases, the bottleneck is now inside the building, and local wireless systems need to keep pace with the access network.
• There is a growing array of demanding devices and applications connected inside homes and enterprises premises. 4K and 8K screens, automation systems, healthcare products, AR/VR systems, cameras for security and industrial purposes, robots and much more.
• Wireless devices will increasingly be located in any room or space inside a building, including bedrooms, garages, basements, meeting rooms, factory-floors and hospital operating theatres.
• The density of devices per-building or per-room will increase exponentially. While some will be low-traffic products such as sensors, ever more appliances and systems will feature screens, cameras and cloud/AI capabilities demanding greater network performance.
• There will be growing emphasis on the efficiency of networks, in terms of both energy and spectrum usage. “Blasting through walls” with wireless signals will be viewed negatively on both counts.

Yet only some policymakers and regulators have explicit focus on indoor wireless in their broadband and spectrum policies. There has been some positive movement recently, with regulators in markets such as the UK, Germany, Canada and Saudi  Arabia addressing the requirements. But it is now time for all governments and regulators to specifically address indoor wireless needs – and acknowledge the need for more spectrum, especially if they eventually want to achieve “gigabit to each room” as a policy goal.

Wi-Fi can satisfy indoor requirements, but needs 6GHz

Almost all indoor devices discussed here have Wi-Fi capabilities. A subset have 5G cellular radios as well. Very few are 5G-only. This situation is unlikely to change much, especially with a 5-10 year view.

Yet Wi-Fi faces a significant limit to its performance, if it just has access to traditional 2.4GHz and 5GHz bands. Not only are these limited in frequency range, but they also have a wide variety of legacy devices, using multiple technologies, that must coexist with any new systems.

While mesh systems have helped extend the reach to all rooms in a home, and Wi-Fi 6 brings new techniques to improve performance and device density in consumer and enterprise settings, much more will be required in future.

Now, Wi-Fi 6E and 7 generations are able to use the 6GHz band. This adds up to 1.2GHz of extra spectrum, with almost no sources of interference indoors, and almost no risk of indoor use creating extra interference to incumbent outdoor users, especially at lower power levels.

6GHz Wi-Fi would be able to address all the future requirements discussed in the previous section, as well as reducing system latency, improving indoor mobility and providing greater guarantees of QoS / reliability.

6GHz 5G is unsuitable for indoor use, and of limited use outdoors

By contrast, 6GHz is a poor fit for indoor 5G. Most buildings will be unable to use outdoor-to-indoor propagation reliably, given huge propagation challenges through walls. This would be hugely wasteful of both energy and spectrum resource anyway. This situation will worsen in future as well, with greater use of insulated construction materials and glass.

That leaves dedicated indoor systems such as small cells or distributed antenna or radio systems. Current DAS systems cannot support 6GHz radios – most struggle even with 3.5GHz. It may be possible to upgrade some of the more advanced systems with new radio heads, but few building owners would be willing to pay, and almost no MNOs would. In any case, only a fraction of buildings have indoor cellular systems, especially beyond the top tier of shopping malls, airports and other large venues.

The industry lacks the human and financial resources to implement new 6GHz-capble indoor systems in more than a tiny proportion of the millions of buildings worldwide, especially residential homes and small businesses.

Enabling public 5G services to work reliably indoors with 6GHz is therefore a decade-long project, at least. It would likely be the mid-2030s before 5G (or 6G) devices could routinely use 6GHz inside buildings. Lobbyist estimations of the notional GDP uplift from IMT use of the band ignore both the timing and the practical challenges for indoor applications. A very heavy discount % should be applied to any such calculations, even if the baseline assumptions are seen as credible.

Private 5G systems in factories or warehouses could theoretically use 6GHz licensed cellular, but most developed countries now have alternative bands being made available on a localised basis, such as CBRS, 3.8-4.2GHz or 4.9GHz. Many countries also have (unused) mmWave options for indoor private 5G networks. In theory, 5G systems could also use an unlicensed 6GHz band for private networks, although previous unlicensed 4G variants in 5GHz never gained much market traction.

It is worth noting that there are also very few obvious use-cases for outdoor, exclusive-licensed 6GHz for 5G either, beyond a generic increment in capacity, which could also be provided by network densification or other alternative bands. Most markets still have significant headroom in midband 3-5GHz spectrum for 5G, especially if small cells are deployed. The most-dense environments in urban areas could also exploit the large amount of mmWave spectrum made available for cellular use, typically in the 24-28GHz range, which is already in some handsets and is still mostly unused.

Conclusions

Regulators and policymakers need to specifically analyse the use and supply/demand for indoor wireless, and consider the best spectrum and technology options for such applications and devices. Analysis will show that in-building wireless accounts for the vast bulk of economic and social benefits from connectivity.

This is best delivered by using Wi-Fi, which is already supported by almost all relevant device types. With the addition of 6GHz, it can address the future expected growth delivered by FTTX broadband, as well as video, cloud and AR/VR applications.

The ultra-demanding uses that specifically require cellular indoors can use existing bands with enhanced small cells and distributed radios, neutral-host networks, or private 5G networks in the 3-5GHz range. There is also the ample mmWave allocations for 5G.

A final fundamental element here is timing. 6 GHz Wi-Fi chipsets and user devices are already shipping in their 100s of millions. Access points are widely available today and becoming more sophisticated with Wi-Fi 7 and future 8+ versions. By contrast, 5G/6G use of the band for indoor use is unlikely until well into the next decade, if at all.

Indoor wireless is critically important, growing, and needs Wi-Fi.

And Wi-Fi needs 6GHz.

 

Spectrum: The shifting tone of the satellite industry

This post originally appeared on June 7 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 / connect to me on LinkedIn, to receive regular updates (about 1-3 / week)

I'm in Brussels this week at the Forum Europe European Spectrum Management Conference.

There's a lot to discuss, especially around #6GHz and 3.8-4.2GHz and the role of unlicensed and local/shared bands, as well as the upcoming World Radio Conference WRC-23.

I'll have more to say, but here I just want to highlight one particular theme that has been evident over the last couple of days: the tone of the satellite sector, which is here in force, especially with GSOA and Intelsat.

In the past at these #spectrum events, the #satellite industry has turned up with a familiar script:

"Hi, we're from the satellite industry. Please don't take our spectrum. We help with defence, aviation & connecting the unconnected. Please don't take our spectrum. We work tightly with the mobile industry, doing backhaul & IoT and timing sync. They're our friends & vice versa. Oh, and did we mention our spectrum? Please don't take any more of it"

But this time, it's different. The message is now closer to:

"We're doing all ths cool new stuff, including for wireless broadband, direct to device and defence. So actually, we want to keep all our spectrum. And maybe give back the old #mmWave spectrum you took years ago, that the mobile industry hasn't even used. Seriously, you want *more* spectrum to be taken from us and pre-allocated to 6G now? Are you having a laugh?"

There was a whole panel on direct-to-device, and satellite has fought its corner on the upper 6GHz (it can coexist with low/medium power WiFi, but not high power 5G) and fixed satellite links in 4GHz band. The future-looking 6G panel started a fierce debate on 7-24GHz, which covers various of the satellite incumbent bands.

There's been a few references to South Korea's regulator reclaiming unused 28GHz licenses from MNOs that haven't used the band. And there's a broad opinion that mobile/IMT is not a friendly partner for spectrum-sharing, at least for national MNO macro networks at full power. (Local private networks are OK-ish, it seems).

"An IMT identification is an eviction notice - the incumbents must leave".

"It's disingenuous to discuss coexistence studies - we've been here before and know how it ends. It's not our first rodeo with the mobile industry"

Now clearly this year, in the last few months before WRC23, is when arguments get more vigorous. But some of the stuff at the #EUspectrum event has been seriously punchy - Intelsat asked whether Europe should be focused on primacy in an amorphous "race to 6G" or a more geopolitically-crucial "space race".

My view is that the #5G industry is seeing some chickens coming home to roost at the moment. It overpromised Release 18 features with Release 15 timelines, got mmWave spectrum years before it could be exploited, and have left politicians and regulators with egg on their faces.

Meanwhile, the satellite sector is positioning itself as super-cool and important. It has a swagger that is being noticed by policymakers, and for good reason.

 

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.

 

Workarounds, hacks & alternatives to network QoS

Originally published Jan 12th 2023 on my LinkedIn Newsletter - see here for comments

Sometimes, upgrading the network isn't the answer to every problem.

For as long as I can remember, the telecom industry has talked about quality-of-service, both on fixed and mobile networks. There has always been discussion around "fast lanes", "bit-rate guarantees" and more recently "network slicing". Videoconferencing and VoIP were touted as needing priority QoS, for instance. 

There have also always been predictions about future needs of innovative applications, which would at a minimum need much higher downlink and uplink speeds (justifying the next generation of access technology), but also often tighter requirements on latency or predictability.

Cloud gaming would need millisecond-level latency, connected cars would send terabytes of data across the network and so on.

We see it again today, with predictions for metaverse applications adding yet more zeroes - we'll have 8K screens in front of our eyes, running at 120 frames per second, with Gbps speeds and sub-millisecond latencies need to avoid nausea or other nasty effects. So we'll need 6G to be designed to cope.

The issue is that many in the network industry often don't realise that not every technical problem needs a network-based solution, with smarter core network policies and controls, or huge extra capacity over the radio-network (and the attendant extra spectrum and sites to go with it).

Often, there are other non-network solutions that achieve (roughly) the same effects and outcomes. There's a mix of approaches, each with different levels of sophistication and practicality. Some are elegant technical designs. Others are best described as "Heath Robinson" or "MacGyver" approaches, depending on which side of the Atlantic you live.

I think they can be classified into four groups:

• Software: Most obviously, a lot of data can be compressed. Buffers can be used to smooth out fluctuations. Clever techniques can correct for dropped or delayed packets. There's a lot more going on here though - some examples are described below.
• Hardware / physical: Some problems have a "real world" workaround. Sending someone a USB memory stick is a (high latency) alternative to sending large volumes of data across a network. Phones with dual SIM-slots (or, now, eSIM profiles) allow coverage gaps or excess costs to be arbitraged.
• Architectural: What's better? One expensive QoS-managed connection, or two cheaper unmanaged ones bonded together or used for diverse routing? The success of SDWAN provides a clue. Another example is the use of onboard compute (and Moore's Law) in vehicles, rather than processing telemetry data in the cloud or network-edge. In-built sound and image recognition in smart speakers or phones is a similar approach to distributed-compute architecture. That may have an extra benefit of privacy, too.
• Behavioural: The other set of workaround exploit human psychology. Setting expectations - or warning of possible glitches - is often preferable to fixing or apologising for problems after they occur. Skype was one of the first communications apps to warn of dodgy connections - and also had the ability to reconnect when the network performance improved. Compare that with a normal PSTN/VoLTE call drop - it might have network QoS, but if you lose signal in an elevator, you won't get a warning, apology or a simplified reconnection.

These aren't cure-alls. Obviously if you're running a factory, you'd prefer not to have the automation system cough politely and quietly tell you to expect some downtime because of a network issue. And we certainly *will* need more bandwidth for some future immersive experiences, especially for uplink video in mixed reality.

But recently I've come across a few examples of clever workarounds or hacks, that people in the network/telecom industry probably wouldn't have anticipated. They potentially reduce the opportunity for "monetised QoS", or reduce future network capacity or coverage requirements, by shifting the burden from traffic to something else.

The first example relates to the bandwidth needs for AR/VR/metaverse connectivity - although I first saw this mentioned in the context of videoconferencing a few years ago. It's called "foveated rendering". (The fovea is the most dense part of the eye's retina). In essence, it uses the in-built eye tracking in headsets or good quality cameras. The system know what part of a screen or virtual environment you are focusing on, and reduces the resolution or frame-rate of the other sections in your peripheral vision. Why waste compute or network capacity on large swathes of an image that you're not actually noticing?

I haven't seen many "metaverse bandwidth requirement" predictions take account of this. They all just count the pixels & frame rate and multiply up to the largest number - usually in the multi-Gbps range. Hey presto, a 6G use-case! But perhaps don't build your business case around it yet...

Network latency and jitter is another area where there are growing numbers of plausible workarounds. In theory, lots of applications such as gaming require low latency connections. But actually, they mostly require consistent and predictable but low-ish latency. A player needs to have a well-defined experience, and especially for multi-player games there needs to be fairness.

The gaming industry - and also other sectors including future metaverse apps - have created a suite of clever approaches to dealing with network issues, as well as more fundamental problems where some players are remote and there are hard speed-of-light constraints. They can monitor latency, and actually adjust and balance the lags experienced by participants, even if it means slowing some participants.

There are also numerous techniques for predicting or anticipating movements and actions, so network-delivered data might not be needed continually. AI software can basically "fill in the gaps", and even compensate for some sorts of errors if needed. Similar concepts are used for "packet loss concealment" in VoIP or video transmissions. Apps can even subtly speed up or slow down streams to allow people to "catch up" with each other, or have the same latency even when distributed across the world.

We can expect much more of this type of software-based mitigation of network flaws in future. We may even get to the point where sending full video/image data is unnecessary - maybe we just store a high-quality 3D image of someone's face and room (with lighting) and just send a few bytes describing what's happening. "Dean turned his head left by 23degrees, adopted a sarcastic expression and said 'who needs QoS and gigabit anyway?' A cloud outside the window cast a dramatic shadow half a second later". It's essentially a more sophisticated version of Siri + Instagram filters + ChatGPT. (Yes, I know I'm massively oversimplyifying, but you get the direction of travel here).

The last example is a bit more left-field. I did some work last year on wireless passenger connectivity on trains. There's a huge amount of complexity and technical effort being done on dedicated trackside wireless networks, improving MNO 5G coverage along railways, on-train repeaters for better signal and passenger Wi-Fi using multi-SIM (or even satellite) gateways. None of these are easy or cheap - the reality is that there will be a mix of dedicated and public network connectivity, with cities and rural areas getting different performance, and each generation of train having different systems. Worse, the coated windows of many new trains, needed for anti-glare and insulation, effectively act as Faraday cages, blocking outdoor/indoor wireless signals.

It's really hard to take existing rolling-stock out of service for complex retrofits, install anything along operational tracks / inside tunnels, and anything electronic like repeaters or new access points need a huge set of certifications and installation procedures.

So I was really surprised when I went to the TrainComms conference last year and heard three big train operators say they were looking at a new way to improve wireless performance for their passengers. Basically, someone very clever realised that it's possible to laser-etch the windows with a fine grid of lines - which makes them more transparent to 4G/5G, without changing the thermal or visual properties very much. And that can be done much more quickly and easily for in-service trains, one window at a time.

I have to say, I wasn't expecting a network QoS vs. Glazing Technology battle, and I suspect few others did either.

The story here is that while network upgrades and QoS are important, there are often highly inventive workarounds - and very motivated software, hardware and materials-science specialists hoping to solve the same problems via a different path.

Do you think a metaverse app developer would rather work on a cool "foveated rendering" approach, or deal with 800 sets of network APIs and telco lawyers to obtain QoS contracts instead? And how many team-building exercises just involve hiring a high-quality boat to go across a lake, rather than working out how to build rafts from barrels and planks?

We'll certainly need faster, more reliable, lower-latency networks. But we need to be aware that they're not the only source of solutions, and that payments and revenue uplift for network performance and QoS are not pre-ordained.

#QoS #Networks #Regulation #NetNeutrality #5G #FTTX #metaverse #videoconferencing #networkslicing #6G

New Report on Enterprise Wi-Fi: No, 5G is not enough

(Initially posted on LinkedIn, here. Probably best to use LI for comments & discussion)

Published this week: my full STL Partners report on Enterprise Wi-Fi. Click here to get the full summary & extract.

Key takeout: Telcos, MNOs & other service providers need to take Wi-Fi6 , 6E & (soon) 7 much more seriously. So do policymakers.

5G is not enough for solving enterprises' connectivity problems on its own. It has important roles, especially in Private 5G guise, but cannot replace Wi-Fi in the majority of situations. They will coexist.

Wi-Fi will remain central to most businesses' on-site connectivity needs, especially indoors, for employees, guests and IoT systems.

Telcos should support Wi-Fi more fully. They need a full toolkit to drive relevance in enterprise, not just a 5G hammer & pretend everything is a nail. CIOs and network purchasers know what they want - and it's not 5G hype or slice-wash.

Newer versions of Wi-Fi solve many of the oft-cited challenges of legacy systems, and are often a better fit with existing IT and networks (and staff skills) than 5G, whether private or public. 

Deterministic latency, greater reliability and higher density of devices make 6/6E/7 more suitable for many demanding industrial and cloud-centric applications, especially in countries where 6GHz spectrum is available. Like 5G it's not a universal solution, but has far greater potential than some mobile industry zealots seem to think.

Some recommendations:

- Study the roadmaps for Wi-Fi versions & enhancements carefully. There's a lot going on over the next couple of years.
- CSP executives should ensure that 5G "purists" do not control efforts on technology strategy, regulatory engagement, standards or marketing.
- Instead, push a vision of "network diversity", not an unrealistic monoculture. (Read my recent skeptical post on slicing, too)
- Don't compare old versions of Wi-Fi with future versions of 5G. It is more reasonable to compare Wi-Fi 6 performance with 5G Release 15, or future Wi-Fi 7 with Rel17 (and note: it will arrive much earlier)
- 5G & Wi-Fi will sometimes be converged... and sometimes kept separate (diverged). Depends on the context, applications & multiple other factors. Don't overemphasise convergence anchored in 3GPP cores.
- Consider new service opportunities from OpenRoaming, motion-sensing and mesh enhancements.
- The Wi-Fi industry itself is getting better at addressing specific vertical sectors, but still needs more focus and communication on individual industries
- There should be far more "Wi-Fi for Vertical X, Y, Z" associations, events and articles.
- Downplay clunky & privacy-invasive Wi-Fi "monetisation" platforms for venues and transport networks.
- Policymakers & regulators should look at "Advanced Connectivity" as a whole, not focus solely on 5G. Issue 6GHz spectrum for unlicenced use, ideally the whole band
- Support Wi-Fi for local licensed spectrum bands (maybe WiFi8). Look at 60GHz opportunities.
- Insist Wi-Fi included as an IMT2030 / 6G candidate.

See link for report extract & Exec Summary

Geopolitics, war & network diversity

This post was originally published on my LinkedIn Newsletter (here). Please sign up, and join the discussion thread there.

Background

I'm increasingly finding myself drawn into discussions of #geopolitics and how it relates to #telecoms. This goes well beyond normal regulatory and policymaking involvement, as it means that rules - and opportunities and risks - are driven by much larger "big picture" strategic global trends, including the war in Ukraine.

As well as predicting strategic shifts, there are also lessons to be learned from events at a local, tactical level which have wider ramifications. Often, there will be trade-offs against normal telecoms preoccupations with revenue growth, theoretical "efficiency" of spectrum or network use, standardisation, competition and consumer welfare.

This is the first of what will probably be a regular set of articles on this broader theme. Here, I'm focusing on the Ukraine war, in the context some of the other geopolitical factors that I think are important. I'm specifically thinking about what they may mean for the types of network technology that are used, deployed and developed in future. This has implications for #5G, #6G, #satellite networks, #WiFi, #FTTX and much more, including the cloud/edge domains that support much of it. 

 

Ukraine and other geopolitical issues

This article especially drills into how the conflict in Ukraine has manifested in terms of telecoms and connectivity, and attempts to extrapolate to some early recommendations for policymakers more broadly.

I'm acutely consicous of the ongoing devastation and hideous war crimes being perpetrated there - I hope this isn't too early to try to analyse the narrow field of networking dispassionately, while conflict still rages.

For context, as well as Ukraine, other geopolitical issues impacting telecoms include:

• US / West vs. China tensions, from trade wars to broader restrictions on the use of Huawei and other vendors' equipment, as well as sanctions on the export of components.
• Impact of the pandemic on supply chains, plus the greater strategic and political importance of resilient telecom networks and devices in the past two years.
• The politics of post-pandemic recovery, industrial strategy and stimulus funds. Does this go to broadband deployment, themes such as Open RAN, national networks, smart cities/infrastructure, satellite networks... or somewhere else?
• Tensions within the US, and between US and Europe over the role and dominance of "Big Tech". Personal data, monopoly behaviour, censorship or regional sovereignty etc. This mostly doesn't touch networks today, but maybe cloud-native will draw attention.
• Semiconductor supply-chain challenges and the geopolitical fragility of Taiwan's chip-fabrication sector.
• How telecoms (and cloud) fits within Net Zero strategies, either as a consumer of energy, or as an enabler of green solutions.
• Cyber threats from nation-state actors, criminal cartels and terrorist-linked groups - especially aimed at critical infrastructure and health/government/finance systems.

In other words, there's a lot going on. It will impact 5G, 6G development, vendor landscapes, cloud - and also other areas such as spectrum policy and Internet governance.

Network diversity as a focus

I've written and spoken before about the importance of "network diversity" and the dangers of technology monocultures, including over-reliance on particular standards (eg 5G) or particular business models (eg national MNOs) as some sort of universal platform. It is now clear that it is more important than ever.

The analogy I made with agriculture, or ecological biodiversity, is proving to be robust.

(Previous work includes this article from 2020 about private enterprise networks, or my 2017 presentation keynote on future disruptions, at Ofcom's spectrum conference. (The blue/yellow image of wheat fields, repeated here in this post, was chosen long before it became so resonant as the Ukrainian flag). I've also covered the shift towards Open RAN and telecoms supplier diversification – including a long report I submitted to the UK Government's Diversification Task Force last year - see this post and download the report).

A key takeout from my Open RAN report was that demand diversity is as important as creating more supply choices in a given product domain. Having many classes of network operator and owner – for instance national MNOs, enterprise private 4G/5G, towercos, industrial MNOs and neutral hosts – tends to pull through multiple options for supply in terms of both vendor diversity and technology diversity. They have different requirements, different investment criteria and different operational models.

In Ukraine, the "demands" for connectivity are arising from an even more broad set of sources, including improvised communications for refugees, drones and military personnel.

The war in Ukraine & telecoms

There have been numerous articles published which highlight the surprising resilience and importance of Ukrainian telecoms during the war so far. Bringing together and synthesising multiple sources, this has highlighted a number of important issues around network connectivity:

• The original “survivability” concept of IP networks seems to have been demonstrated convincingly. Whether used for ISPs’ Internet access, or internal backhaul and transport for public fixed and mobile networks, the ability for diverse and resilient routing paths seems to have mostly been successful.
• Public national mobile networks - mostly 4G in Ukraine's case - have proven essential in many ways, whether that has been for reporting information about enemy combatants' locations and activities, obtaining advice from government authorities, or dealing with the evacuation as refugees. (I'm not sure if subway stations used as shelters have underground cellular coverage, or if there is WiFi). Authorities also seem to have had success in getting citizens to self-censor, to avoid disclosing sensitive details to their enemies.
• Reportedly the Russian forces haven't generally targeted telecoms infrastructure on a widescale basis. This was partly because they have been using commerical mobile networks themselves. However, because roaming was disabled, Russian military use of their encrypted handsets and SIMs on public 3G/4G networks seems to have failed. Two articles here and here give good insight, and also suggests there may be network surveillance backdoors which Russia may have exploited. There have also been reports of stingrays ("fake" base stations used for interception of calls / identity) being deployed. It also appears that some towns and cities - notably the destroyed city of Mariupol - have been mostly knocked offline, partly because the electrical grid was attacked first.
• Ukraine’s competitive telecoms market has probably helped its resilience. There is a highly fragmented fixed ISP landscape, with very inexpensive connections. There are over a dozen public peering-points across the country. There are three main MNOs, with many users having SIMs from 2+ operators. (This is a good overview article - https://ukraineworld.org/articles/ukraine-explained/key-facts-about-ukraines-telecom-industry). It seems they have enabled some form of national roaming to allow subscribers to attach to each others' networks.
• WiFi hotspots (likely with mobile backhaul) have been used by NGOs evacuating refugees by buses.
• Although it is still only being used at a small scale, the LEO satellite terminals from SpaceX’s StarLink seem to be an important contributor to connectivity – not least as a backup option. Realistically, satellite isn’t appropriate for millions of individual homes – and especially not personal vehicles and smartphones – but is an important part of the overall network-diversity landscape. Various commentators have suggested it is useful as a backup for critical infrastructure connectivity, as well as for mobile units such as special forces.
• Another satellite broadband provider, Viasat, apparently suffered a cyberattack at the start of the war (link here), which knocked various modem users offline (or even "bricked" the devies), reportedly including Ukrainian government organisations. Investigations haven't officially named Russia, but a coincidence seems improbable. This attack also impacted users outside Ukraine.
• Various peer-to-peer apps using Bluetooth or WiFi allow direct connections between phones, even if wide area connections are down (see link)
• There have been some concerning reports about the impact of GPS jammers on the operation of cellular networks, which may use it as a source of “timing synchronisation” to operate properly, especially for TDD radio bands. While this has long been a risk for individual cell-sites from low-power transmitters, the use of deliberate electronic warfare tools could potentially point to broader vulnerabilities in future.
• There has been wide use of commercial drones like the DJI Mavic-3 for surveillance (video and thermal imaging), or modified to deliver improvised weaponry. These use WiFi to connect to controllers on the ground, as well as a proprietary video transmission protocols (called O3+) which apparently has range of up to 15km using unlicensed spectrum. Some of the "Aerorozvidka" units reportedly then use StarLink terminals to connect back to command sites to coordinate artillery attacks (link).

In short, it seems that Ukraine has been well served by having lots of connectivity options - probably including some additional military systems that aren't widely discussed. It has benefited from multiple fixed, cellular and satellite networks, with potential for interconnect, plus inventive "quick fixes" after failures and collaboration between providers. It is exploiting licensed and unlicensed spectrum, with cellular, Wi-Fi and other technologies.

In other words, network diversity is working properly. There appears to be no single point of failure, despite deliberate attacks by invading forces and hackers. Connectivity is far from perfect, but it has held up remarkably well. Perhaps the full range of electronic warfare options hasn't been used - but given the geographical size of Ukraine and the inability of Russia forces to maintain supply-lines to distant units, that is also unsurprising.

Another set of issues that I haven't really examined are around connectivity within sanctions-hit Russia. Maybe it will have to develop more local network equipment manufacturers - if they can get the necessary silicon and other components. It probably will not wish to over-rely on Huawei & ZTE any more than some Western countries have been happy with Nokia and Ericsson as primary options. More problematic may be fixed-Internet routers, servers, WiFi APs and other Western-dominated products. I can't say I'm sympathetic, and I certainly don't want to offer suggestions. Let's see what happens.

Recommendations for policymakers, industry bodies and regulators

So what are the implications of all this? Hopefully, few other countries face a similar invasion by a large and hostile army. But preparedness is wise, especially for countries with unfriendly neighbours and territorial disputes. And even for everywhere else, the risks of cyberattacks, terrorism, natural disasters - or even just software bugs or human error - are still significant.

I should stress that I'm not a cybersecurity or critical infrastructure specialist. But I can read across from other trends I'm seeing in telecoms, and in particular I'm doing a lot of work on "path dependency" where small, innocent-seeming actions end up having long-term strategic impacts and can lock-in technology trajectories.

My initial set of considerations and recommendations:

• As a general principle, divergence in technology should be considered at least as positively than convergence. It maintains optionality, fosters innovation and reduces single-point-of-failure risks.
• National networks and telcos (fixed and mobile) are essential - but cannot do everything. They also need to cooperate during emergencies - a spirit of collaboration which seems to have worked well during the pandemic in many countries.
• Normal ideas about cyber-resilience and security may not extend to the impact of full-scale military electronic warfare units, as well as more "typical" online hacking and malware attacks.
• Having separate "air-gapped" networks available makes sense not just for critical communications (military, utilities etc) but for more general use. It isn't inefficient - it's insurance. There may be implications here for network-sharing in some instances.
• Thought needs to be given to emergency fallbacks and improvised work-arounds, for instance in the event of mass power outages or sabotage. This is particularly important for software/cloud-based networks, which may be less "fixable" in the field. Can a 5G network be "bodged"? (that's "MacGyvred" to my US friends)? As a sidenote - how have electric vehicles fared in Ukraine?
• Unlicensed spectrum and "permissionless communications" is hugely important during emergency situations. Yes, it doesn't have control or lawful intercept. But that's entirely acceptable in extreme circumstances.
• Linkages between technologies, access networks and control/identity planes should generally be via gateways that can be closed, controlled or removed if necessary. If one is attacked, the rest should be firewalled off from it. For the same reason "seamless" should be a red-flag word for cross-tech / cross-network roaming. Seams are important. They offer control and the ability to partition if necessary. "Frictionless" is OK, as long as friction can be re-imposed if needed.
• Governments should be extremely cautious of telcos extending 3GPP control mechanisms – especially the core network and slicing – to fixed broadband infrastructure. Fixed broadband is absolutely critical, and complex software dependencies may trade off fine-grained control vs. resilience - and offer additional threat surfaces.
• Democratising and improving satellite communications looks like an ever more wise move, for all sorts of reasons. It's not a panacea, but it's certainly "air-gapped" as above. 3GPP-based "non-terrestrial" networks, eg based on drones or balloons, also has potential - but will ideally be able to work independently of terrestrial networks if needed.
• I haven't heard much about LPWAN and LoRa-type networks, but I can imagine that being useful in emergency situations too.
• Sanctions, trade wars and supply-chain issues are highly unpredictable in terms of intended and unintended consequences. Technology diversity helps mitigate this, alongside supplier diversity in any one network domain.
• Spectrum policy should enable enough scale economies to ensure good supply of products (and viability of providers), but not *so* much scale that any one option drives out alternatives.
• The role and impact of international bodies like ITU, GSMA and 3GPP needs careful scrutiny. We are likely to see them become even more political in future. If necessary, there may have to be separate "non-authoritarian" and "authoritarian" versions of some standards (and spectrum policies). De-coupling and de-layering technologies' interdependency - especially radio and core networks - could isolate "disagreements" in certain layers, without undermining the whole international collaboration.
• There should be a rudimentary basic minimum level of connectivity that uses "old" products and standards. Maybe we need to keep a small slice of 900MHz spectrum alive for generator-powered GSM cells and a box of cheap phones in bunkers - essentially a future variant of Ham Radio.

So to wrap up, I'm ever more convinced that Network Diversity is essential. Not only does it foster innovation, and limit oligopoly risk, but it also enables more options in tragic circumstances. We should also consider the potential risks of too much sophistication and pursuit of effiency and performance at all costs. What happens when things break (or get deliberately broken)?

In the meantime, I'm hoping for a quick resolution to this awful war. Slava Ukraini!

Sidenote: I am currently researching the areas of “technology lock-in” and “path dependence”. In particular, I have been investigating the various mechanisms by which lock-in occurs and strategies for spotting its incipience, or breaking out of it. Please get in touch with me, if this is an area of interest for you.

New Report & Recommendations on Telecoms Supplier Diversification

Copied from my LinkedIn. Please click here for the download page & comments

I'm publishing my full report & recommendations on telecoms supplier diversification, especially for 5G, but more broadly for "advanced connectivity" overall. This follows my "10 Principles" article from 2 months ago.

It covers both near-term RAN diversification and a long-term roadmap for a better telecoms/networking landscape towards 2030, with 6G and other connectivity enabling "biodiversity" rather than monoculture.

Although it has been triggered by UK Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) work via its Diversification Task Force - and will be submitted directly to it - it is applicable more broadly to global policymakers considering 5G, private networks, Open RAN, Wi-Fi, spectrum and vendor policy issues.

My view is that Open RAN is important, but overhyped (like 5G itself). Much of the value from 5G is in settings where there is already good vendor choice (eg indoors, or for private cellular).

Governments should focus more on context for deployment, ownership models and substitutive options like WiFi6. All bring extra supply options.

In short - *Demand* diversification catalyses *Supply* diversification.

(To download from LinkedIn, display in full screen & select download PDF)