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?
A key theme here is the fast-evolving model for #neutralhost mobile for small cells and network capacity in-fill in cities. An NH is a 3rd party wholesale provider which enables multiple tenant 4G/5G mobile providers - generally MNOs, but also potentially including private networks as well.
A few years ago when I was running NH workshops with Peter Curnow-Ford we identified this area of metro infill as one with potential, but limited actual deployments.
There are numerous challenges - MNOs ideally don't want separate deals with each city authority, while cities don't want multiple MNOs independently requesting 100s of sites with associated street clutter, road closures and soon. Authorities also want to both make money from access to assets such as lampposts, and to improve connectivity for citizens and businesses as fast as possible.
One option floated was for authorities to build out their own private 4G/5G networks, then allow MNOs to roam onto them, or use some sort of MOCN network-sharing arrangement. But MNOs each have different coverage / capacity holes, different spectrum bands, different customer groups - and also worry about security, ability to manage radio units, do carrier aggregation and so on. The idea of a single cell network in its own spectrum, with multiple MNO tenants is appealing, but sometimes unworkable. (It might work OK in villages or indoors, though).
What's happening is that another model is evolving. Local authorities like city councils are contracting with several infrastrucure specialists - companies like Cellnex UK , Freshwave, Ontix, BAI Communications and Shared Access to run (essentially) small-cell as a service offers. These act as intermediaries, allowing local authorities to create standard contracts, and for MNOs to have standardised processes for getting access at each site.
It reduces the frictions and costs of the paperwork - and also allows for infrastructure-sharing to evolve over time where it makes sense. Coupled with vRAN or open RAN it can put some of the electronics into central facilities, reducing street-side box numbers. And it means MNOs can get coverage in their preferred locations, with backhaul/fronthaul and power supplies simplified.
The competitive infraco/towerco angle, rather than exclusive area concessions, allows MNOs to choose the provider that is the best fit - and without needing different processes in each city.
It's not quite what I expected NH models to look like - and they may differ in the US or across Europe - but it seems to make good sense here in the UK.