Mobile Multi-Connection & SD-WAN is coming

I’ve written before (link) about the impact of SD-WAN on fixed (enterprise) operators, where it is having significant effects on the market for MPLS VPNs, allowing businesses to bond together / arbitrage between normal Internet connection(s), small-capacity MPLS links and perhaps an LTE modem in the same box. Now, similar things are being seen in the mobile world. This is the "multi-network" threat I've discussed before (link).

Sometimes provided through a normal CSP, and sometimes managed independently, SD-WAN has had a profound impact on MPLS pricing in some corporate sectors. It has partly been driven by an increasing % of branch-site data traffic going into the HQ network and straight out again to the web or a cloud service. That “tromboning” is expensive, especially if it is using premium MPLS capacity.

The key enabler has been the software used to combine multiple connections – either to bond them together, send traffic via differential connections based on type or speed, add security and cloud-management functions, or offer arbitrage capabilities of varying sorts. It has also disrupted network operators hoping to offer NFV- and SDN-services alongside access: if only a fraction of the traffic goes through that operator’s core, while the rest breaks-out straight to the Internet, or via a different carrier, it’s difficult to add valuable functionality with network software.

But thus far, the main impact has been on business fixed-data connections, especially MPLS which can be 30-40x the cost of a “vanilla” ISP broadband line, for comparable throughput speeds. Many network providers have now grudgingly launched SD-WAN services of their own – the “if you can’t beat them, then join them” strategy aiming to keep customer relevance, and push their own cloud-connect products. Typically they’ve partnered with SD-WAN providers like VeloCloud, while vendors such as Cisco have made acquisitions.

I’ve been wondering for a while if we’d see the principle extended to mobile devices or users – whether it’s likely to get multiple mobile connections, or a mix of mobile / fixed, to create similar problems for either business or consumer devices. It fits well with my broader belief of “arbitrage everywhere” (link).

Up to a point, WiFi on smartphones and other devices already does this multi-connection vision, but most implementations have been either/or cellular and WiFi, not both together. Either the user, the OS, or one of the various cellular hand-off standards has done the switching.

This is now starting to change. We are seeing early examples of mobile / WiFi / fixed combinations, where connections from multiple SPs and MNOs are being bonded, or where traffic is intelligently switched-between multiple “live” connections. (This is separate from things like eSIM- or multi-IMSI enabled mobile devices or services like Google Fi, which can connect to different networks, but only one at a time).

The early stages of mobile bonding / SD-WAN are mostly appearing in enterprise or IoT scenarios. The onboard WiFi in a growing number of passenger trains is often based on units combining multiple LTE radios. (And perhaps satellite). These can use multiple operators’ SIMs in order to maximise both coverage and throughput along the track. I’ve seen similar devices used for in-vehicle connections for law enforcement, and for some fixed-IoT implementations such as road-tolling or traffic-flow monitors.

At a trade show recently I saw the suitcase-sized unit below. It has 12 LTE radios and SIMs, plus a switch, so it can potentially combine 3 or 4 connections to each network operator. It’s used in locations like construction sites, to create a “virtual fibre” connection for the project office and workers, where normal fixed infrastructure is not available. Usually, the output is via WiFi or fixed-ethernet, but it can also potentially support site-wide LPWAN (or conceivably even a local private unlicensed/shared-band LTE network). 

It apparently costs about $6000 or so, although the vendor prefers to offer it as a service, with the various backhaul SIMs / data plans, rather than on a BYO basis. Apparently other similar systems are made by other firms – and I can certainly imagine less-rugged or fewer-radio versions having a much lower price point.

But what really caught my eye recently is a little-discussed announcement from Apple about the new iOS11. It supports “TCP Multipath”. (this link is a good description & the full Applie slide-deck from WWDC is here). This should enable it to use multiple simultaneous connections – notably cellular and WiFi, although I guess that conceivably a future device could even support two cellular radios (perhaps in an iPad with enough space and battery capacity). 

That on its own could yield some interesting results, especially as iOS already allows applications to distinguish between network connections (“only download video in high quality over WiFi”, etc).It also turns out that Apple has been privately using Multipath TCP for 4 years, for Siri - with, it claims, a 5x drop in network connection failure rates.

The iOS11 APIs offer various options for developers to combine WiFi and cellular (see slide 37 onward here). But I’m also wondering what future generations of developer controls over such multipath connectivity might enable. It could allow novel approaches to security, performance optimisation on a per-application or per-flow basis, offload and on-load, and perhaps integration with other similar devices, or home WiFi multi-AP solutions that are becoming popular. Where multiple devices cooperate, many other possibilities start to emerge.

What we may well see in future is multi-device, multi-access, P2P meshes. Imagine a family at home, with each member having a subscription and data-plan with a different mobile network. Either via some sort of gateway, or perhaps using WiFi or Bluetooth directly between devices, they can effectively share each others’ connections (and the fixed broadband), while simultaneously using their own “native” cellular data. Potentially, they can share phone numbers / identities this way as well. An advanced connection-management tool can optimise for throughput, latency or just simply coverage anywhere in the house or garden. 

This could have a number of profound implications. It would lead to much greater substitution between different networks and plans. It would indirectly improve network coverage, especially indoors. It could either increase or decrease demand for small cells (are they still needed, if phones can act as multi-network relays? Or perhaps operators try to keep people “on net” and give them away for free?). From a regulatory or law-enforcement standpoint it means serious challenges around identifying individual users. It could mean that non-neutral network policies could be “gamed”, as could pricing plans.

Now I’ll fully admit that I’m extrapolating quite a bit from a seemingly simple enhancement of iOS. (I’m also not sure how this would work with Android devices). But to me, this looks analogous to another Apple move last year – adding CallKit to iOS, which allowed other voice applications to become “first-class citizens” on iPhones, with multiple diallers and telephony experiences sharing call-logs and home-screen answerability.

Potentially, multipath in iOS allows other networks to become (effectively) first-class citizens as well as the “native” MNO connection controlled from the SIM.

I’m expecting other examples of mobile connection-bonding and arbitrage to emerge in the coming months and years. The lessons from SD-WAN in the fixed domain should be re-examined by carriers through a wireless lens: expect more arbitrage in future.

Sensors: implications for wireless connectivity & video communications

Quick summary

• Sensor technology is complex, diverse, fascinating & fast-evolving.
• There are dozens of sensor types & technologies.
• Nobody believes the 20-50bn devices forecasts, especially if they are based on assumptions that 1 sensor = 1 device
• Some sensors improve the capabilities of already-connected devices, like phones or (increasingly) cars.
• Some sensors enable creation of new forms of connected device & application.
• Most sensors connect first via one or two tiers of local gateways, sub-systems or controllers, rather than directly connect to the Internet / cloud individually
• While the amount of sensor-generated data is growing hugely, not all of this needs real-time collection and analysis, and so network needs are less-extreme.
• Many industrial sensors use niche or unfamiliar forms of connectivity.
• Genuine real-time controls often need sensors linked to "closed-loop" systems, rather than using Internet connections / cloud.
• WiFi & short-range wireless technologies like Bluetooth & ZigBee are growing in importance. There is limited concern about using unlicensed spectrum
• LoRa radios (sometimes but not always with LoRaWAN protocols) are growing in importance rapidly
• Cellular connectivity is important for certain (especially standalone, remote/mobile & costly) sensor types, or sensor-rich complex objects like vehicles. 
• The US seems more keen on LTE Cat-1 / Cat-M than NB-IoT for sensor-based standalone devices. Europe and Asia seem more oriented towards NB-IoT
• There are no obvious & practical sensor use-cases that need 5G, but it will likely improve the performance / economics / reach of some 4G applications.
• Camera / image sensors are becoming hugely important and diverse. These are increasingly linked to either AI systems (machine vision) or new forms of IoT-linked communication applications
• "Ordinary" video sensors/modules are being supplemented by 3D, depth-sensing, emotion-sensing, 360degs, infra-red, microscopy and other next-gen capabilities.
• AI and analytics will sometimes be performed on the sensor or controller/gateway itself, and sometimes in the cloud. This may reduce the need for realtime data transmission, but increase the need for batch transfer of larger files.
• Conclusion: sensors are central to IoT and evolving fast, but the impact on network connectivity - especially new cellular 4G and 5G variants - is diffuse and non-linear.

Narrative
 
A couple of weeks ago I went to Sensors Expo 2017 in San Jose. This topic is slightly outside my normal beat, but fits with my ongoing interest in "telcofuturism", especially around the intersection of IoT, networks and AI. It also dovetails well with recent writing I've done on edge computing (link & link), a webinar [this week] and paper on IoT+video for client Dialogic (link), and an upcoming report I'll be writing on LPWAN for my Future of the Network research stream at STL Partners (link).

First things first: listening to some of the conference speeches, and then walking around the show floor, made me realise just how little I actually knew about sensors, and how they fit into the rest of the IoT industry. I suspect a lot of people in telecoms - or more broadly in wireless networking and equipment - don't really understand the space that well either.

For a start, there's a bewildering array of sensor types and technologies - from tiny silicon accelerometers that can be built into a chip (based on MEMS - micro-electromechanical systems), right up to sensors woven into large-scale fabrics, that can be used to make tarpaulins or tents which know when someone tries to cut them. There's all manner of detectors for gases, proximity, light, pressure, force, airflow, air quality, humidity, torque, electrical current, vibration, magnetic fields, temperature, distance, and so forth.

Secondly, a lot of sensors have historically been part of "closed-loop" systems, without much in the way of "fully-connected" computing, permanent data collection, networking, cloud platforms or analysis. 

An easy example to think about is an old-fashioned thermostat for a heating system. It senses temperature - and switches a boiler or radiator on or off accordingly - without "compute" or networking resource. This has been reinvented by Nest and others. Plenty of other sensors just interact with "real-time" systems - for example older cars' airbags, or motion-detection alarms which switch on lights.

In industry, a lot of sensors hook into the "real-time control" systems, whether that's for industrial production machinery, quality control, aircraft avionics or whatever. These often use fixed connectivity, with a bewildering array of network and interface types. It's not just TCP/IP or familiar wireless technologies. If you haven't come across things like Modbus or Profibus, or terms like RS485 physical connections, you perhaps don't realise the huge complexity and unfamiliarity of some of these systems. This is not telco territory.

This is important, as it brings in an entire new realm to think about. From a telco perspective, we're comfortable talking about the touch-points of networks and IT. We are don't often talk about OT or "operational technology". A lot of people seem to naively believe that we can hook up a sensor or a robot or a piece of industrial machinery straight to a 4G/5G/WiFi connection, then via Internet or VPN to a cloud application to control it, and that's all there is to it. 

In fact, there may well be one, two or three layers of other technology involved first, notably PLC units (programmable logic controllers) as well as local gateways. A lot of this is the intranet-of-things, not the Internet-of-things - and may well not even be using IP as most people in networking and telecoms normally think about it.

In other words, there's a lot more optionality around ISO layers - there are a broad range of sector-specific or proporietary protocols, that control sensors or IoT devices over a particular "physical layer". That contrasts with most users' (and telco-world observers') day-to-day expectations of "IP everywhere" and using HTTP and TCP/IP and similar protocols over ethernet, WiFi, 4G or whatever. The sensor world is much more fragmented than that.

These are some of the specific themes I noted at the event:

• Despite the protocol zoo I've discussed, WiFi is everywhere nonetheless. Pretty much all the sensor types have WiFi connectivity options somewhere, unless they're ultra-low power. There's quite a bit of Bluetooth and ZigBee / other varieties of IEEE 802.15.4 for short-range access too.
• Almost nobody seems bothered about the vagaries of unlicensed spectrum, apart from a few seriously mission-critical, time-critical applications, in which case they'll probably use fixed connections if they can. Bear in mind that a lot of sensors are actually fairly time-insensitive so temporary interference or congestion doesn't matter much. Temperatures usually only change over seconds / minutes, not milliseconds, for example. Bear in mind though, that this is for sensing (ie gathering data) not actuating (doing stuff, eg controlling machines or robots).
• Most sensors send small bursts of data - either at set intervals, or when something changes. There are exceptions (notably camera / image sensors)
• I saw a fair amount of talk about 5G (and also 4G and NB-IoT) but comparatively little action. Unlike Europe, the US seems more interested in LTE Cat-1 and Cat-M rather than NB-IoT. Cat-M can support VoLTE, which makes it interesting for applications like elder/child-trackers, wearable and building security. NB-IoT seems fairly well-suited to things like parking meters, environmental sensors, energy metering etc. where each unit is comparatively standalone, and needs to link to cloud/external resources like payments.
• There's also lot of interest in LoRa, both as a public network service (Senet was prominently involved), and also as privately-owned infrastructure. I think we're going to see a lot of private LoRa embedded into medium-area sensor networks. Imagine 100 moisture sensors for a farm, connected back to a central gateway on top of the barn, and then on to a wide-area connection (fixed or mobile) and a cloud-based application. The 100 sensors don't need a wireless "service" - they'll be owned by the farmer, or else perhaps the connectivity will be offered as a part of a broader "managed irrigation service" by the software company.
• There's an interest in wireless connectivity to reduce regulatory burdens for some sensors. For example, to connect a temperature sensor in an area of an oil refinery with explosion risks, to a server in another building, requires all manner of paperwork and certification. The trenching, ducting and physical wire between them needs approval, inspection and so on. It's much simpler to do it with wireless transmitters and receivers.
• A lot of the extra sensors getting connected are going to be bundled with existing sensors. Rather than just a vibration sensor, the unit might also include temperature and pressure sensors in integrated form. That probably adds quite a lot to the IoT billions number-count, without needing separate network links.
• A lot of sensors will get built into already-connected objects. Cars and aircraft will continue to add cameras, material stress sensors, chemical analysis probes for exhaust gases, air/fluid flow sensors, battery sensors of numerous types, more accelerometers and so on. This means more data being collected, and perhaps more ways to justify always-on connections because of new use-cases - but it also means a greater need for onboard processing and "bulk" transfers of data in batches.
• Safety considerations often come ahead of security, and a long way ahead of performance. A factory robot needs sensors to avoid killing humans first. Production quality, data for machine learning and efficiency come further down the list. That means that connecting devices and sensors via wider-range networks might make theoretical or economic sense - but it'll need to be seen through a safety lens (and often sector-specific regulation) first. Taking things away from realtime connections and control systems, into a non-deterministic IP or wireless domain, will need careful review.
• Discussion of sensor security issues is multi-layer, and encouragingly pervasive. Plenty of discussions around data integrity, network protection, even device authenticity and counterfeiting.
• Imaging sensors (cameras and variants of them) are rapidly proliferating in terms of both capabilities and reach into new device categories. 3D depth-sensing cameras are expected on phones soon, for example for facial recognition. 360-degree video is rapidly growing, for example with drones. Vehicles will use cameras not just for awareness of surrounding, but also to identify drivers or check for attentiveness and concentration. Rooms or public-spaces will use cameras to count occupancy numbers or footfall data. New video endpoints will link into UC and collaboration systems "Sensed video" will need greater network capacity in many instances. [I am doing a webinar with Dialogic about IoT+video on July 13th - sign up here: link]
• Microphones are sensors too, and are also getting smarter and more capable. Expect future audio devices to be aware of directionality, correct for environmental issues such as wind noise, recognise audio events as triggers - and even do their own voice recognition in the sensor itself.
• Textile and fabric sensors are really cool - anything from smart tarpaulins for trucks to stop theft, through to bandages which can measure moisture and temperature changes, to signal a need for medical attention. 
• There's a lot of modularity being built into sensors - they can work with multiple different network types depending on the use-case, and evolve over time. A vibration sensor module might be configurable to ship with WiFi, BLE, LoRa, NB-IoT, ZigBee and various combinations. I spoke to Advantech and Murata and TE Connectivity, among others, who talked about this.
• Not many people seemed to have thought about SIMs/eSIMs much, at a sensor level. The expectation is that they will be added by solution integrators, eg vehicle manufacturers or energy-meter suppliers, as needed.
• AI will have a range of impacts both positive and negative from a connectivity standpoint. The need for collecting and pooling large volumes of data from sensors will increase the need for network transport... but conversely, smarter endpoints might process the data locally more effectively, with just occasional bulk uploads to help train a central system.

Overall - this has really helped to solidify some of my thinking about IoT, connectivity, the implications for LPWAN and also future 4G/5G coverage and spectrum requirements. I'd recommend readers in the mainstream telecom sector to drop in to any similar events for a day or two - it's a good way to frame your understanding of the broader IoT space and recognise that "sensors" are diverse and have varying impacts on network needs.

Spectrum-Sharing: Europe & Asia need something like CBRS

The more I look at enterprise mobile, especially its focus on verticals and IoT, the I'm more convinced there needs to be a change in industry structure, regulation and network ownership/operation.  And that means new spectrum policy, as well.

In particular, private licensed-band wireless networks will be essential - that is, networks (using cellular, WiFi, LPWAN or other technology) that can be directly managed by organisations that are not traditional MNOs (mobile network operators), to provide high-QoS, reliable wireless connections. I'm thinking large companies running their own networks, industrial network specialists, local cooperatives, perhaps new government-sector initiatives, and various other aggregators, outsourcers and intermediaries. These will mostly be in-building / on-campus, but some may need to be genuinely wide-area, or even national, as well.

This is in addition to enterprise-centric initiatives in the MVNO/E space, vertical activities by fixed telcos and MNOs, unlicensed-band WiFi and LPWAN deployments and so on.

 There are three main models for licensing radio spectrum today:

• Exclusive licenses: Dedicated access to certain bands is very common today, for example for mobile networks, fixed microwave links, broadcasters, satellite access and many government-sector uses, such as military radios and radar. Particular organisations have rights to solo access to particular frequencies, in a given country/region, subject to complying with various rules on power and so forth.
• Unlicensed: (also license-exempt): Beyond some basic rules on power and antenna siting, some bands are essentially "open to all". The 2.4GHz and 5GHz bands used by technologies such as WiFi, Bluetooth and many other technologies are prime examples, as well as bands used for consumer walkie-talkies and various medical and automotive applications.
• Shared spectrum: This covers various models for allowing multiple users for certain frequencies. It could involve temporary usage (eg for event broadcast), bands that haven't been "cleared" fully and still have incumbent users that newcomers need to "work around". It might be spectrum assigned in geographic chunks, or at low power levels and mandating "polite" protocols so that multiple users can co-exist. We've seen TV "white spaces" where under-used bands are opened up to others, and so forth.

The latter approach of sharing is becoming much more important - despite continued clamour for exclusive licenses, especially from the mobile industry. Given that the demand for spectrum is rising from all sides - mobile, WiFi, utilities, broadcast, satellite, Internet and many others - and each has a different demand profile (global / national / regional and subscription / private / amenity etc), a one-size-fits-all model cannot work, given limited spectrum resources. More spectrum-sharing will be essential.

More models are now emerging for sharing spectrum bands. Depending on the details, these open up opportunities for a greater number of stakeholders. The US' innovative CBRS model (see link) for 3.5GHz is worth examining, and perhaps replicating elsewhere, especially Europe. It is much more sophisticated - but more complex to implement - than the Licensed Shared Access (LSA) that Europe has leaned towards historically. In Disruptive Analysis' view this extra complexity is worthwhile, as it allows a much broader group of stakeholders to access spectrum, fostering greater innovation. 
 
The important differentiator for CBRS is that there are three tiers of users:

• Incumbents, primarily the military, which gets the top level of access rights for radar and other uses in the band
• Licensed access providers which can get dedicated slices in specific geographic areas. These are "protected" but subject to pre-emption by the top tier. They will also generate revenue for the government in terms of license fees - although awards will be for shorter periods than normal bands (3 years is being discussed).
• General access - basically this is like unlicensed access, but it has to work around the other tiers, if they are present.
  

To make all this work, the CBRS system needs databases of who is using what spectrum and where, and sensors to detect any changes in the top tier's usage. (The military, as incumbents, isn't keen on spending any money to actually tell the system what it's doing - it needs to be securely automated).

When all this is up and running, there will be many potential user groups for shared spectrum such as this, using either the priority licenses, or general access tiers:

• Incumbent mobile operators needing more capacity in specific areas
• MVNOs wanting to "offload" some traffic from their host MNO networks, onto their own infrastructure, without the expense of full national coverage. This could work either alongside, or as an alternative to, WiFi-based offload or WiFi-primary models.
• Enterprises wanting to deploy private cellular networks indoors or over large campuses (eg across an airport or oil-refinery for IoT usage)
• Potentially, large-scale WiFi deployments in new bands, with less subject to interference than mainstream unlicensed bands - although this would require devices/chipsets supporting new frequencies that are currently outside the proper WiFi standards.
• Various "neutral host" wholesale LTE models, for example run by city authorities for metropolitan users, or cloud-providers for enterprise - or as a way to provide better indoor coverage for existing incumbent "outdoor" operators, without their needing individual infrastructure in each building. This could allow the pooling of back-end / administrative functions and costs across multiple local LTE networks in shared bands. Imagine an Amazon AWS approach to buying cellular capacity, on-demand.
• Various approaches to roaming or "un-roaming" providers - for example, a theme-park operator or hotel owner could offer its foreign guests "free LTE" while on-site.
• Potential new classes of cellular operator, such as an Industrial Mobile Operator (imagine GE or ABB integrating cellular access into machinery & plant equipment), various IoT platform providers, and integration opportunities with Internet, healthcare, transport and other systems.

This approach may not work for enterprise wireless users requiring national (or very broad-area) coverage, such as utility companies or transport providers. There are separate arguments for utility and rail companies getting slices of dedicated spectrum, or some other model of national sharing.

Importantly, CBRS means that LTE-U variants like MuLTEfire can be used to create private cellular networks. Coupled with cheap, virtualised (& probably cloud-based) core networks, this means that mobile networks are much more accessible to new entrants. The scale economies of national licenses will no longer apply to lock out alternative providers.

In other words, we will see consolidation of national MNOs, but fragmentation of localised MNOs or (PNOs as some are calling private networks). 

While some MNOs and their industry bodies may be concerned at more competition, privately many of them acknowledge that a lot of the use-cases above cannot realistically be offered by today's industry. 

Even large MNOs can probably only pick 2 or 3 verticals to really get deep expertise in - maybe smart cities, or rail, or utilities, say. But they cannot get enough expertise to effectively build customised, small networks in all the possible contexts - car factories, ports, hospitals, mines, hotels, shopping malls, airports, public safety agencies, universities, oil refineries, power stations and so on. Each will have its own requirements, its own industry standards to observe, its own systems to integrate with, its own insurance/liability issues and so on. They need wireless for all sorts of reasons from robots to visitors - but today's MNOs will not be able to satisfy all those needs, especially indoors.

For many governments' visions of future factories, cities and public services, good quality wireless will be essential. But it will need to be provided by many new types of providers, with business models we can only guess at.

While CBRS is still at an early stage, and will be tricky to implement, we need something similar to it - with multiple tiers including a "permissionless" one - in Europe and the rest of the world. Enterprise and private cellular networks (and other licensed-band options for WiFi and LPWAN) are critical - and policymakers and regulators need to acknowledge and support this.



If you are interested in discussing this topic further, I will be running a workshop day on private cellular on May 30th in Central London, in a joint effort with Caroline Gabriel of Rethink Research. Details and booking are here: (link) or else email information AT disruptive-analysis DOT com.

No, 5G won't kill WiFi (or absorb it)

I've seen two things today that are trying to suggest that 5G (or even 4G) are going to cause problems for WiFi, or even "kill it".

Ignore them.

Firstly, this piece by Bloomberg (link) suggests that a combination of mobile operators' renewed flat-rate data plans, along with LTE-U, could render WiFi obsolete. It's one of the worst pieces of technology "journalism" I've read in ages.

Secondly a discussion on Twitter led to a 3GPP document about "New Services and Markets" from a year ago, which talks about "Mobile Broadband for Indoor Scenario" in section 5.5  (link). That seems to suggest that 4G/5G could replace office WiFi or even wired LANs.

Needless to say, both are total nonsense. There is a longstanding strain of thought among some "cellular fundamentalists" that WiFi is just a step away from being replaced by mobile operators' services. It is wishful thinking, verging on delusion. (It won't be subsumed as a mere secondary part of 5G, either - although that's a separate post).

While there are some corner-cases that might swing one way or the other, based on pricing and perhaps neutral-host cellular using LTE in unlicensed bands (perhaps in MuLTEfire guise rather than the anti-competitive LTE-U and LAA variants), those are rare exceptions.

In home, offices, and public spaces, there is essentially zero chance that owned WiFi or fixed ethernet are going to be replaced in large quantity, by 5G operators acting as LANaaS providers.

There are many reasons for this, but some of them are:

• Billions of WiFi-only devices, from PCs and tablets, to TVs, printers and a broad array of consumer and industrial products.
• Billions more WiFi-only devices in future (no, not everything will have a cellular module & eSIM - it's way more expensive and limiting - see my report link)
• The ability for WiFi to operate easily in "service", "subscription", "amenity", "owned", "free", "local", "sponsored", "venue-provided", "ad-supported" and many other business models. Cellular connectivity - reliant on SIM or eSIM - generally enshrines "subscription" and a service model as the only option.
• Ability of venue-owners to control and police WiFi network access (eg a cafe-owner or conference organiser can give the codes to their choice of user, under their conditions)
• Use of WiFi Direct for P2P connectivity
• Integration of WiFi in businesses with LAN and security systems
• Preferential use of WiFi in-built to smartphone OS's and connection-management tools
• Large % of people who are not using flat-rate mobile data plans, especially prepay users in most of the world
• A broad view that WiFi is not only "free" but also *different* as it isn't owned / metered / tracked by a service providers. (We all recognise that amended Maslow Hierarchy of Needs picture, with WiFi scrawled as a tier beneath food & shelter)
• Anonymity of most WiFi hotspots
• Huge push of WiFi by cable, fixed-broadband and some WiFi-first MVNO providers, including to outdoor / metropolitan zones and being built-into 500 million or more home gateways around the world
• Use of WiFi in public transport (buses, trains, planes) - even if backhauled by 4G and/or satellite, plus increasing use of WiFi hotspots in cars (again, linked via LTE to the network)
• Poor penetration of cellular for deep-inbuilding use without DAS or small cell coverage, which is often impractical
• Lower costs of infrastructure, especially given the heavy IPR load associated with 4G modems and base stations. 
• Enterprise desire to use multiple connections for cloud/WAN access, eg via SD-WAN

I think the most risible line in the Bloomberg piece is this "Wi-Fi also helps fill in gaps in some office buildings and homes that have spotty cellphone coverage" - in many ways, it's the complete opposite of the way many users view the two technologies.

Every analysis I've seen has suggested that WiFi use is generally growing faster than cellular data consumption, and there is very little reason to expect it to change. In many ways, I'd expect WiFi - and also other unlicensed band technologies for LPWAN and IoT - to outstrip coming cellular use-cases, especially indoors but also for the wide area.

A less-virulent strain of the same bad idea is that 5G will absorb or subsume WiFi, as part of its amazing network-slicing / HetNet / integrated architecture. That's wrong too - although some cellular networks are fairly-well integrated with some WiFi, there is a very large universe that isn't, and for many of the same reasons won't be in the future either. The notion that 5G is some sort of magical wireless umbrella (or Borg) that will assimilate all others is just a "mobile industry establishment" fantasy and lobbying hook. 

One last thing I'd add - I'm seeing an increased amount of interest in the opposite to LTE-U and LAA - the idea of running WiFi in licensed bands, either with new forms of spectrum-sharing, or perhaps even with adventurous regulators looking at getting more usage out of existing spectrum. After all, if the technical work suggests that LTE-U doesn't compromise or interfere with WiFi, then the converse is true as well, especially at lower power in regions with no cellular coverage, or indoors.

Overall: Ignore any reports of WiFi's demise, or the ability of 4G/5G to replace it in the future. It's simply not going to happen, except in a couple of tiny overlaps on the big wireless Venn diagram. WiFi puts downward pricing pressure on cellular data - it's probably part of the reason for the return of flatrate data in the first place. It's also a prime example of "network diversity" which would be worthy of protection against creeping "network monoculture" even if it wasn't already guaranteed a healthy future.


If you're interested in the dynamics of 4G, 5G, WiFi, network diversity & spectrum policy, please get in touch with me. I advise operators, vendors, regulators & investors. I'll also be speaking at the WiFi Now conference in Washington DC in April 2017 (link).

VoLTE & WiFi-Calling are just excuses for telcos to avoid real voice/video innovation

Five years ago, I started talking about the Future of Voice, and then subsequently started running workshops with Martin Geddes on the topic. At the time, I found it quite hard to find the right people at telcos/service providers to talk to. Few were aware of concepts such as embedded voice/video, new user-interaction models, developer platforms, or a “post-telephony” world where we all had many ways to communicate, choosing the best tool for a given job.

There was no “product manager” for telephony, and nobody with responsibility for communications services innovation. There was no "VP, Voice" - it was just assumed to be an inherent background task owned by everyone and nobody. There might have been folk in the enterprise unit looking at UC and conferencing, international dial people scared of Skype, and a couple of people in the labs wondering what to do about voice on LTE, but that was about it. Oh, and of course at a handful of operators, there was sometimes some hapless soul trying to push RCS, either internally or at GSMA.

Then, about 2-3 years ago, there was a shift. Various people with titles like “Head of Advanced Communications” started popping up, roughly as the tidal wave of smartphones, messenger and VoIP apps, developer platforms and so on started to take off. A few people had heard of WebRTC, some operators were tinkering with their own early “telco-OTT” comms apps (remember T-Mobile Bobsled?), developer tools were being pushed, and there were signs that some actual innovative thinking was taking place. (And a few hapless souls were still pushing RCS, of course).

But in recent months, that glimmer of positivity seems to have dimmed again somewhat. The bulk of telco announcements recently concerning “advanced” communications has been anything but "advanced". It’s just been breathless announcements about VoLTE or WiFi-Calling, as if they actually changed anything. (And, yes, a few hapless souls are still pushing RCS. Although rather fewer – quite a lot of them have finally escaped the Joyn event horizon). See this recent post of mine for an example.

Let’s be clear – VoLTE has four benefits:

• Offers a solution for 4G-only operators with no 2G/3G or MVNO deal for fallback
• Allows simultaneous voice & data on 4G, rather than forcing 3G fallback for data during calls
• Gives faster call setup time (nice, but the sort of minor feature upgrade that would have been quietly introduced in v6.3 for any other voice app)
• Might eventually help with spectrum refarming. This is equivalent to fixed operators being able to sell big old exchange offices in cities. It allows eventual asset sales / re-use. Eventually.

Beyond that, there’s no new revenue, no change to the basic vanilla 130yr-old format of “phone calls”, and ironically for a standard, very little working interoperability with other operators’ VoLTE. It’s an expensive “forced purchase” as the industry was too slow/complacent to come up with something better, and painted itself into a corner. It’s not going to stop people using other communications apps or services, it’s not going to halt revenue declines or reverse "peak telephony", and it’s still going to take years to transition the bulk of people from circuit. (And no, HD voice is not special – it’s been around on 3G for years, and is another minor feature upgrade nobody pays extra for).

WiFi-Calling is no better. It’s a slightly better implementation of a 10-year old idea, basically UMA v2.0. It gives better indoor coverage for some users in some areas. It covers for a lack of cell-sites or sub-1GHz frequency bands. In other words, it’s window-dressing, not something substantively different. There’s probably 4-500m+ people doing some sort of voice/video communications over WiFi anyway, using 3^rd-party apps. It can in no way be described as “advanced communications”.

Some (fortunately few) are talking about ViLTE – which is VoLTE’s ugly video-calling sister. It’s pointless. The last thing to do with video is to “call” someone like a phone-call, unexpectedly and interruptively. There isn’t even a legacy user-base to pretend to migrate, and it’s clearly not as functional / cool / integrated / well-designed as the 100 other video-chat apps and APIs available, even without the fact that WebRTC means that all apps can integrate video if they need it. I'll skip over RCS as I'm sure you've got the picture by now - but read this if you're uncertain.

And this is the problem. All of a sudden “advanced communications” means VoLTE and WiFi-calling, with a side-order of irrelevant video/RCS. That’s just a convenient excuse not to do any proper innovation. They both just deliver plain-old phone calls, but on different networks. Yes, it’s nice to have better indoor coverage, but covering up for existing deficiencies is hardly worth a press release. It’s like adding a bagel function to a bread-toaster* and claiming a major step forward in cooking technology. Only at least people still think bagels are cool.

In my view, VoLTE and WiFi-calling are “make-work”. They make telco engineering and core network groups look busy. They give an excuse to vendors to try and finally sell their IMS infrastructure – albeit in NFV-based versions at lower cost. The policy vendors get a look-in too, so they can finally prioritise something with network QoS. And there’s the nice comforting mythology of ViLTE and RCS on the horizon to continue the gravy-train. 

And it gives an equally comforting mythology of “level playing fields” to take to regulators. That's nonsense, too. (See here)

Meanwhile, genuine innovation in voice, video, messaging, contextual comms, APIs, developer platforms, enterprise communications, CEBP, WebRTC, cool mobile comms apps, social voice, personal broadcasting, telemedicine, IoT-integrated comms and 101 other areas is carrying on regardless. But on the Internet, or on mobile, or in enterprise cloud-based comms.

But telcos and vendors, with their nice warm VoLTE/WiFi-Calling comfort blankets, can delude themselves they’re doing something “advanced” because they’re spending money and doing “stuff”. But it’s simply an excuse for failing to make hard choices. It’s “going through the motions”.

CEOs and CFOs should call their bluff. If it's just "phone calls" they might as well outsource the voice infrastructure in entirety. And telecom regulators should ignore the protestations about so-called "OTTs", when telcos are doing nothing to try to compete or meet modern customers' communcations needs and purposes. It's the Internet and app providers that are employing a "design" mindset here and need protection, not vice-versa.

Now this is not true of all telcos, nor all SP business units / teams though. There’s still a lot of interest in doing cool stuff with WebRTC, a number of interesting mobile apps by telcos, some interest in contextual communications and developer APIs. Telefonica TokBox, Orange Libon, Telenor appear.in, WebRTC platforms from AT&T and NTT & SKT, Comcast's Xfinity Share, Swisscom iO and various others. For many of these it's still early days - but that's the type of trial-and-error, agile, customer-centric approach that's so desperately needed.

But usually, those initiatives are done by the telcos' more peripheral units – labs teams, enterprise arm, international opco's, TV/content business, standalone developer-platform units, internal MVNOs, so-called “digital services” groups and assorted other teams of free-thinkers unencumbered by legacy mindsets or GSMA/3PPP/ATIS/ETSI doctrine. Often, they have interal battles with the legacy fiefdoms that don't want to risk cannibalisation - or being made to look over-resourced and slow. Politics wins too often. There's also various MVNOs and smaller MNOs, from Truphone to Google Fi, that are trying to do something different as well.

Something similar is occurring in parts of the vendor space too. GenBand has its Kandy PaaS business which focuses on WebRTC for enterprise apps. Ericsson's Labs team is working on the OpenWebRTC mobile stack, and assorted non-telco uses of voice/video. Metaswitch is repurposing IMS as its cloud-based open-source platform Clearwater, encouraging tinkering and developer innovation. 

But plenty of other vendors keep recycling the tired old marketing lines on their ghost-written "content marketing" blogs or webinars about "How VoLTE and WiFi-calling & RCS will help you beat the OTTs". It's cynical clickbait, and either self-delusional or aimed at deluding their customers. Not one has any case-studies - or even a decent argument - about winning back users from WhatsApp, Snapchat, Talko, Wire, Periscope, Slack, Skype & Skype4Business or the 10001 other cool services.

This needs to change. Yes, VoLTE and WiFi-Calling have some value for some operators, mostly because they're forced into it. If they can reclaim spectrum, great. But they should NOT be excuses for inaction elsewhere. They do not redefine communications. They do not open up new revenue streams, or significantly help loyalty. They are, at best, strengthening the walls of the final core communications fortress, so telcos can defend 10% of their former territory against the invaders. Actually, the analogy is flawed - perhaps "liberators" is better, given the alternative are welcomed by users with open arms. The GSMA's so-called "Network 2020 Green Button Promise" is a pre-eminent example of this woefully narrow vision.

VoLTE and WiFi-calling should represent maybe 20% of operators' activity in future communications, not 80%. ViLTE & RCS should both be zero %. The bulk of effort should be on genuine innovation - or else acquisition / partnerships with those who can do it instead.

Yes, this post is confrontational and will no doubt put a few noses out of joint, including those at some of my own clients. But this is important - there's no value in rearranging the telephony deckchairs, when there's a vast iceberg of contextual communications, design-led apps and WebRTC hoving into view. Making a phone call on WiFi isn't going to help.