Overlapping private networks - an emerging challenge for spectrum management

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)

File this one under “high quality problems”!
 
We’re starting to see a trend towards multiple enterprise private 5G networks on the same site, or very close to each other. That has a lot of implications.

Various large campus-style environments such as ports, airports and maybe business parks, industrial zones and others in future, will need to deal with the coexistence of several company-specific #5G networks.

For instance, an airport might have different networks deployed at the gates for aircraft turnaround, in the baggage-handling area for machinery, across the ramp area for vehicles, in the terminals for neutral host access, and in maintenance hangars for IoT and AR/VR.

Importantly, these may be deployed, owned and run by *different* companies - the airport authority, airlines, baggage handlers and a contracted indoor service provider, perhaps. In addition there could be other nearby private networks outside the airport fence, for hotels, warehouses and car parks.

This is something I speculated about a few years ago (I dug out the slide below from early 2020), but it is now starting to become a reality.

This is likely to need some clever coordination in terms of #spectrum management, as well as other issues such as roaming/interconnect and perhaps numbering resources such as MNC codes as well. It may need new forms of #neutralhost or multi-tenant setups.
 
Yesterday I attended a workshop run by the UK’s UK Spectrum Policy Forum. While the main focus was on the 3.8-4.2GHz band and was under Chatham House rule (so I can't cover the specifics), one speaker has allowed me to discuss his comments directly.

Koen Mioulet from European private network association EUWENA gave an example of the Port of Rotterdam, which has 5 different terminals, 3000 businesses including large facilities run by 28 different chemical companies. It already has two #PrivateLTE networks, and 5G used on a "container exchange route" for vehickes, plus more possible networks on ships themselves. It is quite possible to imagine 10+ overlapping networks in future.
 
While the UK has 400MHz potentially available in 3.8-4.2GHz, some countries only have 50-100MHz for P5G. That would pose significant coordination challenges and may necessitate an "umbrella" network run by (in this case) the Port Authority or similar organisation. An added complexity is synchronisation, especially if each network is set up for different uplink/downlink splits for specific applications.

MNOs could be involved too, in roles from wholesale provision, down to just spectrum leasing. Whatever happens, regulators and others need to start thinking about this.

In the past I’ve half-jokingly suggested that a new 6G target metric should be to have “1000 networks per sq km” rather than the usual “million devices per sq km” or similar.

Maybe we should start with 10 or 100 nearby networks, but that joke is now looking like a real problem, albeit a healthy one for the private cellular industry.

 

 

Enterprise 5G - evolving bottom-up from small islands, not top-down from national networks

This post originally appeared on September 29 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)

While the broad concept of #privatewireless seems to be getting a lot more awareness in the wider tech industry, some of the implications haven't quite fully landed yet.

I've had a couple of meetings recently where there was still a prevailing view that #5G evolution would continue to be "top-down", with major MNOs setting the agenda, especially for enterprise. The belief is that national "umbrella" networks would address all the various localised applications, such as #industry40 and #smartagriculture, or #v2x networks along roads.

Such a set-up would mean that the network "mothership" would need all sorts of cloud-native elements for orchestration, security and control systems, both at the telcos and their clients, which would be a boon for vendors expecting a direct correlation with the promised $xxx billions of 5G value, coming from URLLC capabilities, slicing and other features.

But what is happening is much more bottom-up. The most cutting-edge uses of 5G are happening at specific locations - whether that is standalone networks at factories, or new #neutralhost deployments in offices and hotels (more on NH's in my next post btw). We can expect Release 16/17/18 features to appear at a micro level, long before they're switched on for the macro domain.

And while these small local networks are sometimes being deployed by MNOs, they are often based on dedicated infrastructure, perhaps using different vendors to the main umbrella national networks. It's often the B2B units running the show, with a variety of partners, rather than the central core network team.

Other small islands are getting their networks built by integrators, towercos & infracos, inhouse teams, industrial solutions suppliers and assorted others. It's very heterogeneous.

And each island can be *small*. A port's 5G network might have huge value for the site's operator, but only have 100 SIMs in cameras and vehicles. There might be redundancy, but it won't need a datacentre full of kit. There's often going to be a lot of customisation, and unique combination of applications and integrations with other systems

So if you're a vendor pitching umbrella-grade solutions, you might need to rethink how to re-orient towards small islands instead.

 

Private 5G: Two different approaches at the Coronation

This post originally appeared on June 9 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)

 A month ago, the UK and much of the world watched King Charles' #Coronation in London.

They were able to watch it partly because of the immense efforts of the various #broadcasters involved. Since then, two separate stories have emerged about the role of dedicated #5G connectivity in the TV coverage:

1) A dedicated private 5G network supplied by Neutral Wireless and BBC R&D, used by several broadcasters
2) A slice of the Vodafone public 5G network, enabled for ITN, based on Ericsson gear

In the comments I've linked to various articles and a great interview on Ericsson's Voice of 5G podcast show. They have details of the other partners involved too. In the BBC blog post they also mention a 3rd network on a separate cell, working alongside Sony, for low-latency (I think) remote-controlled cameras.

The #Private 5G network used 8 radios along The Mall (the tree-lined road between Buckingham Palace to Trafalgar Sq). It used 2x 40MHz channels in the UK's shared-licence band between 3.8-4.2GHz, with 1Gbps capacity (mostly for uplink). It was used by around 60 devices - I guess mostly cameras and test equipment via gateways, plus the BBC's onsite radio studio. They also used LiveU bonding systems to add capacity from public MNO networks. I'm not sure about the vendors of the radios or standalone core.

The 5G SA #networkslicing solution was apparently used for a single sector at a 3.5GHz temporary base station aimed at the Palace balcony. It also worked with LiveU. On the podcast, Andrea Donà (VF's head of network in the UK) talks about "dedicating bandwidth to one sector for the slice" and carving out some of the uplink capacity.

One thing that is unclear to me is how many other users were sharing the VF standalone 5G network hosting the slice - SA hasn't been fully launched commercially in the UK, although in January VF said it had invited selected users to trial it. I also don't know whether the 5G NSA and SA networks were sharing the radio resource, or if they use separate channels.

The public 4G / 5G networks (and also Wi-Fi bands) in the area were pretty overloaded, despite additional mobile towers adding capacity. The Vodafone / Ericsson podcast notes that VF uses "all the bands" at major events (although there's no #mmWave 5G in the UK yet) - so including 4G at 2.1GHz and 2.6GHz, and some lower bands for 2G/3G.

My take from this is that #private5G is considerably more mature than #5Gslicing, but that both are interesting for broadcasters. Both need quite a lot of specialist engineering, but TV is a sector with lots of very clever specialists and great ability to set up temporary networks. Of course, both networks were *outdoors* which meant that the thick stonework of the palace and Westminster Abbey weren't relevant.

One last note - the huge bulk of broadcast audiovisual output at the coronation would have used dedicated #PMSE wireless for cameras and microphones. But the #UHF spectrum debate is for another post.

 

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

Free-to-download report on Creating Enterprise-Friendly 5G Policies (for goverments & regulators)

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

I'm publishing a full report & recommendations on Enterprise & Private 5G, especially aimed at policymakers and regulators.

It explains the complex dynamics linking Enterprises, MNOs and Governments – explaining the motivations of each around connectivity, 5G deployment choices, IoT and the broader impacts and trade-offs around the economy and productivity.

This is not a simple calculus – MNOs want to exploit 5G opportunities for verticals, but businesses have their own priorities and preferences. Governments want to satisfy both groups – and also act as both major network users themselves and “suppliers” of spectrum.

A supporting cast of cloud players, network vendors, other classes of service providers and other stakeholders have important roles as well.

This report is a “Director’s Cut” extended version of a paper originally commissioned for internal use by Microsoft, now made available for general distribution.

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

#5G #policy #telecoms #private5G #cloud #IoT #spectrum #WiFi

The Myth of "Always Best Connected"

 (This was originally posted as a LinkedIn Newsletter article. See this link, read the comment thread, and please subscribe)

It Was the Best of Times, it Was the Worst of Times

One of the most ludicrous phrases in telecoms is "Always Best Connected", or ABC. It is typically used by an operator, network vendor or standards organisation attempting to glue together cellular and Wi-Fi connections. It's a term that pretends that some sort of core network function can automatically and optimally switch a user between wireless models, without them caring - or even knowing - that it's happening.

Often, it's used together with the equally-stupid term "seamless handover", and perhaps claims that applications are "network agnostic" or that it doesn't matter what technology or network is used, as long as the user can "get connected". Often, articles or papers will go on to describe all Wi-Fi usage on devices as "offload" from cellular (it isn't - perhaps 5% of Wi-Fi traffic from phones is genuine offload).

There's been a long succession of proposed technologies and architectures, mostly from the 3GPP and cellular industry, keen to embrace but downplay Wi-Fi as some sort of secondary access mechanism. Acronyms abound - UMA, GAN, IWLAN, ANDSF, ATSSS, HetNets and so on. There have been attempts to allow a core network to switch a device's Wi-Fi radio on/off, and even hide the Wi-Fi logo so the user doesn't realise that's being used. It's all been a transparent and cynical attempt to sideline Wi-Fi - and users' independent choice of connection options - in the name of so-called "convergence". Pretty much all of these have been useless (or worse) except in very narrow circumstances.

To be fair, accurate and genuine descriptions - let's say "Rarely Worst-Connected" or "Usually Good-Enough Connected" or "You'll Take What Connection We Give You & Shut Up" - probably don't have the same marketing appeal.

Who's Better, Who's Best?

The problem is that there is no singular definition of "best". There are numerous possible criteria, many of which are heavily context-dependent.

Which "best" is being determined?

• Highest connection speed (average, or instantaneous?)
• Lowest latency & jitter
• Lowest power consumption (including network, device and cloud)
• Highest security
• Highest visibility and control
• Lowest cost (however defined)
• Greatest privacy
• Best coverage / lowest risk of drops while moving around
• Highest redundancy (which might mean 2+ independent connections)
• Connection to the public Internet vs. an edge server

In most cases involving smartphones, the basic definition of "best" is "enough speed and reliability so I can use my Internet / cloud application with OK performance, without costing me any extra money or inconvenience". Yet people and applications are becoming more discerning, and the network is unaware of important contextual information.

For instance, someone with flatrate data may view "best" very differently to someone with a limited data quota. Someone in a vehicle at traffic lights may have a different connection preference to someone sitting on the sofa at home. Someone playing a fast-paced game has a different best to someone downloading a software update. A user on a network with non-neutral policies, or one which collects and sells data on usage patterns, may want to use alternatives where possible.

In an era of private cellular, IoT, multiple concurrent applications, encryption, cloud/edge computing and rising security and privacy concerns, all this gets even more complex.

In addition to a lack of a single objective "best", there are many stakeholders, each of which may have their own view of what is "best", according to their particular priorities.

• The user
• The application developer
• The network operator(s)
• The user's employer or parents
• The building / venue owner
• The device or OS vendor
• A third-party connection management provider (eg SD-WAN vendor)
• The government

On some occasions, all these different "bests" will align. But on others, there will be stark divergence, especially where the stakeholders have access to different options for connectivity. A mobile phone network won't know that the user has access to an airport lounge's premium Wi-Fi, because of their frequent flyer status. A video-streaming app can't work out whether 5G or Wi-Fi will route to a closer, lower-power edge server.

So who or what oversees these conflicts and makes a final decision on which connection (or, increasingly, connections plural) is chosen? Who's the ultimate arbiter - and what do the other stakeholders do about it?

This problem isn't unique to network connectivity - it's true for transport as well. I live in London, and if I want to get from my home to somewhere else, I have lots of "best" options. Tube, bus, drive, taxi, walk, cycle and so on. Do I want to get there via the fastest route? Cheapest? Least polluting? Easiest for social-distancing? Have a chance to listen to a podcast on the way? If I want to put the best smile on the most people's faces, maybe I should go by camel or unicycle? And what's best for the city's air, Transport for London's finances, other travellers' convenience, or whoever I'm meeting (probably not the unicycle)?

 

There are multiple apps that give me all the options, and define preferences and constraints. The same is true for device operating systems, or connection-management software tools.

Hit Me With Your Best Shot

There are also all sorts of weird possible effects where "application-aware networks" end up in battle with "network-aware applications". Many applications are designed to work differently on different networks - perhaps "only auto-download video on Wi-Fi" or "ask the user before software updates download over metered connections". Some might try to work out the user's preferences intelligently, and compress / cache / adjust the flow when they appear to be on cellular, or uprate video when the user is home - or perhaps casting content to a larger screen. The network has little grasp of true context or user/developer desire and preferences.

Networks might attempt to treat a given application, user or traffic flow differently - perhaps giving it priority, or slowing or blocking it, or assigning it to a particular "slice". The application on the other hand might try to second-guess or game the network - either by spoofing another application's signature, or just using heuristics to reverse-engineer any "policy" or "optimisation" that might get applied.

You're My Best Friend

So what's the answer? How can the connectivity for a device or application be optimised?

There's no simple answer here, given the number of parameters discussed. But some general outlines can be created.

• Firstly, there needs to be multiple connections available, and ways to choose, switch, arbitrage between them - or bond them together.
• The operating system and radios / wired connections of the device should allow the user (or apps) to know what's available, with which characteristics - and any heuristics that can be deduced from current and previous behaviour.
• The user or device-owner needs to know "who or what is in charge of connections" and be able to delegate and switch that decision function when desired. It might be outsourced to their MNO, or their device supplier, or a third party. Or it could be that each application gets to choose its own connection.
• As a default, the user should always be aware of any automated changes - and be given the option to disable them. These should not be "seamless" but "frictionless" or low-friction. (Seams are important. They're there for a reason. Anyone disagreeing with this statement must post a picture of themselves wearing a seamless Lycra all-in-one along with their comment).
• Connectivity providers (whether SPs or privately-owned) should provide rich status information about their services - expected/guaranteed speed & latency, ownership, pricing, congestion, the nature of any data-collection or traffic inspection practices, and so on. This will be useful as input to the decision engines. Over time, it will be good to standardise this information. (Governments and policymakers - take note as well)
• We can expect connectivity decisions to be partly driven by external context - location, movement, awareness of indoor/outdoor situation, environment (eg home, work, travelling, roaming), use of accessories like headphones or displays, and so on.

Going forward, we can expect wireless devices to have some form of SD-WAN type control function. Using technologies such as multipath TCP, it will become easier to use multiple simultaneous connections - perhaps dedicated some to specific applications, or bonding them together. For security and privacy, the software may send packets via diverse routes, stopping any individual network monitoring function from seeing the entire flow.

Growing numbers of devices will have eSIM capability, allowing new network identities / owners to be added. Some may have 2+ cellular radios, as well as Wi-Fi (again, perhaps 2+ independent connections), USB and maybe in future satellite or other options as well.

Add in the potential for Free 5G (link), beamforming, private 5G, local-licensed spectrum WiFi, relaying & assorted other upcoming innovations to add even more layers here.

The bottom line is that "best connected" will become even more mythical in future than it already is. But there will be more options - and more tools - to try to optimise it, based on a dynamic and complex set of variables - especially when going beyond connectivity towards overall "quality of experience" metrics spanning eyeball-to-cloud. There's likely be plenty of opportunities for AI, user-experience designers, standards bodies and numerous others.

But (with apologies to the Tina Turner), users should always be wary of any software or service provider that claims to be "Simply the Best".

If you've enjoyed this article, please sign up for my LinkedIn Newsletter (link). Please also reach out to me for advisory workshops, consulting projects, speaking slots etc.

#5G #WiFi #cellular #mobile #telecoms #satellite #wireless #smartphones #connectionmanagement

Verticals 5G: It's more than just MNOs vs. Private Networks, there's a whole new universe of other service providers too

For the last few years, I've written and spoken extensively about 4G or 5G cellular networks optimised for enterprises, whether that's for a factory, a port, an electricity grid - or even just a medium-sized office building. Recent trends confirm the acceleration of this model.

• CBRS in the US is growing rapidly, including for local and industrial/utility uses
• Localised 4G/5G spectrum is now available in UK, Germany, Netherlands, France, Japan and elsewhere, with many new countries examining the options
• Many campus/dedicated network strategies by traditional mobile operators (MNOs)
• Assorted testbeds and trials sponsored by governments, groups like 5G ACIA etc.
• Growing intersections with Open RAN and neutral host models

An inflection point has now been reached.

Enterprise/local cellular is happening, finally

It's been a long time coming. In fact, I've been following the broad concept of enterprise cellular since about 2001, when I first met with a small cell vendor, called ip.access. Around 2005-2009 there was a lot of excitement about local 2G/3G networks, with the UK and Netherlands releasing thin slices of suitable spectrum. A number of organisations deployed networks, although it never hit the massmarket, for various reasons.

Now, however, private 4G and 5G is becoming "real". There's a critical mass of enterprises that are seriously interested, as this intersects with ongoing trends around IoT deployment, workforce automation, smart factory / city / building / etc concepts, and the availability of localised spectrum and cloud-based elements like network cores. It's still not easy, but the ingredients are much more accessible and easier to "cook".

A binary choice of MNOs vs enterprise?

But throughout this whole story we've had an underlying narrative of a two-way choice:

• Enterprises can obtain private / on-premise cellular networks from major MNOs as a service, perhaps with dedicated coverage plus a "slice" of the main macro network and core functions.
• Enterprises can build their own cellular networks, in the same way they build Wi-Fi or wired ethernet LANs today, or operate their wider private mobile radio (PMR) system.

This is a "false binary". A fallacy that there's only two options. Black & white. Night & day.

In reality, there's a whole host of shades-of-grey - or perhaps a better analogy, multi-coloured dawns and sunsets.

Not just MNOs

There is a lengthening cast-list of other types of service provider that can build, run and sell 4G and 5G networks to enterprises or "verticals" (the quaint & rather parochial term that classical telcos use to describe the other 97% of the economy).

An incomplete list of non-traditional MNOs targeting private mobile networks includes:

• Fixed and cable operators, especially those which have traditionally had large enterprise customer bases for broadband, VPNs, PBXs / UC, managed Wi-Fi etc.
• MVNOs wanting to deploy some of their own radio infrastructure to "offload" traffic from their usual host provider in select locations.
• TowerCo's moving up the value chain into private or neutral networks (for instance, Cellnex and Digital Colony / Freshwave)
• IT services firms affiliated to specific enterprises (for example, HubOne, the IT subsidiary of the company running Paris's airports)
• Industrial automation suppliers acting as "industrial mobile operators" on behalf of customers (maybe a robot or crane supplier running/owning a local 5G network for a manufacturer or port, as an integral part of their systems)
• Utility companies running private 4G/5G and providing critical communications to other utilities and sectors (for instance Southern Linc in the US), or perhaps acting as a neutral host, such as a client in Asia that I've advised.
• Dedicated MNOs for particular industries, such as oil & gas, often in specific regions
• Municipalities and local authorities deploying networks for internal use, citizen services or as public neutral-host networks for MNOs. The Liverpool 5G testbed in the UK is a good example, while Sunderland's authority is looking at becoming an NHN.
• Railway companies either for neutral-host along tracks, or acting as FWA service providers in their own right, to nearby homes and businesses.
• Specialist IoT connectivity providers, perhaps focusing on LPWAN connectivity, such as Puloli in the US.
• FWA / WISP networks shifting to 4G/5G and targetting enterprises (eg for agricultural IoT)
• Overseas MNOs without national spectrum in a market, but which want to service multinational enterprise clients' sites and offices. Verizon is looking at private cellular in the UK, for instance - and it wouldn't surprise me if Rakuten expands its footprint outside Japan.
• Property and construction companies, especially for major regeneration districts or whole new smart-city developments.
• UC/UCaaS and related voice & communications-centric enterprise SPs, such as Tango Networks with CBRS
• Universities creating campus networks for students, or other education/research organisations servicing students, staff and visitors
• Major cloud providers creating 4G / 5G networks for a variety of use-cases and enterprise groups - Amazon and Google are both tightly involved (albeit opaquely, beyond Google's SAS business), while Microsoft's acquisition of Metaswitch points to cloud-delivered private 5G, albeit perhaps not with spectrum and RAN managed itself.
• Tourism and hospitality service providers providing connectivity solutions to hotels or resorts - although that's probably taking a backseat given economic & pandemic woes.
• Broadcasters, event-management and content-production companies deploying private networks on behalf of sports and entertainment venues, festivals
• Dozens more options - I'm aware of numerous additional categories and more will inevitably emerge in coming years. Ask me for details.

Conclusion: beyond the MNO/Enterprise binary fallacy

You get the picture. The future of 4G / 5G isn't just going to split between traditional "public mobile operators" (typically the GSMA membership) vs. individual enterprises creating DIY networks. There will be an entire new universe of SPs of many different types.

You can call them "new telcos", "Specialist Wirelss SPs", "Alternative Mobile Operators" or create assorted other categories. Many will be multi-site operators. Some may be regional or national.

We will see MNOs set up divisions that look like these new SP types, or perhaps acquire them. Some vendors will become quasi-SPs for enterprise, too. This is a hugely dynamic area, and trying to create fixed buckets and segments is a fool's errand.

Understanding this new and heterogeneous landscape is critical for enterprises, policymakers, vendors and investors - as well as traditional MNOs. I've been saying for years that "telecoms is too important to be left to the telcos", and it appears to be becoming true at a rapid pace.

Many in the mobile industry assert that 5G will transform industries. In many cases it will.... but the first industry to get transformed is the mobile industry itself.

This newsletter & my services

Thanks for reading this article. If you haven't subscribed to my LinkedIn Newsletter updates, please look for the "subscribe" button here. If it has resonated, please like this post and share it with others, either on LinkedIn or on other channels.

If you have a relevant interest in this and related topics around the future of telecoms and technology, please connect with me. (But no spammers and "lead generation" people, please).

I do advisory projects, strategy workshops and brainstorms, or real/virtual speaking engagements on the 5G, spectrum, private network and broader "telecom futurism" space. Drop me a message about how I can help you.

The fake battle: 5G vs Wi-Fi

[Reposted from my LinkedIn & slightly extended. See the post here for a full comment thread]

I'm bored of the fake battle being hyped up between #WiFi and #5G, especially for enterprise connectivity in-building.

Let's be absolutely clear. Essentially *every* building, whether residential, enterprise office, public venue or industrial, will need good WiFi coverage, increasingly based on #WiFi6.

Most laptops, TVs, screens, voice assistants, tablets, consumer appliances & other non-smartphone devices will be WiFi-only. Only a handful will have cellular radios too - the economics & manufacturing/distribution complexities don't work for including 5G as a default in most electronic products.

Almost every building will *also* need decent indoor public 4G/5G broadband coverage, especially for employees' and visitors' phones. In most cases this will need to cover all major MNOs' networks, as well as public safety systems such as critical-communications LTE. (Wi-Fi Calling doesn't work ubiquitously on all phones / mobile networks on enterprise Wi-Fi, so there will always need to be a cellular network for reliable basic telephony).

*Some* buildings will also need indoor private 5G for ultra low-latency machines or other connected devices. For industrial sites this will mostly be isolated local networks. For others it may be delivered by MNOs via local coverage or network-slicing, or by some form of neutral-host wholesale model.

The main competition for indoor 5G is actually indoor 4G, not WiFi for which there is only a narrow overlap in use cases. WiFi will almost always be needed as well as cellular, with very rare examples where it's absent - for instance outdoors on campus sites.

Also, future visitor access to WiFi may be made much easier with #OpenRoaming, which can use multiple affiliation-based credentials, not just SIM or passwords. That will change the usability barriers for Wi-Fi, for instance if you can connect via a loyalty app, rather than needing to visit a web-page and enter credentials.

Bottom line: it's not a battle. Wi-Fi6 and 5G will be needed for different purposes. They probably won't be integrated much either, as they'll have different financial models, different usage models (and locations) and deployment/upgrade timelines. Think divergence, not convergence - although some elements such as planning tools and fibre backhaul to the cells/APs will likely be combined.

If you’d like more details on this topic & my deeper analysis on the future of wireless, please contact me via information AT disruptive-analysis DOT com. I offer advisory services to governments, operators, vendors, enterprises & investors.

See also LinkedIn post with long comment thread via this link: here

Industrial 5G networks will mostly be discrete and isolated

A key argument cited for telcos having a central role in industrial / vertical #5G networks is "service continuity". Devices and users can connect both on-premise and in the wide area, because both are enabled by the same operator. An MNO can thus best provide on-premise connectivity as an extension, or slice, of its normal national cellular network.

MNOs and industry groups often assert this to dissuade governments and regulators from assigning local spectrum licences directly to businesses.

This argument doesn't stack up, for several reasons.

On a recent virtual event I moderated for Nigel Yeates Juliet #5grealised the speaker from Three. Business pointed out that its customers' private 4G/5G networks were generally isolated, not part of 3's macro network. They even use different spectrum. They can do roaming, but it's not a priority.

A central point is that most connected IoT and automation systems don't move outside the facility. Industrial robots don't go for a walk to the shops. What does move are vehicles, personal devices and shipped electronic goods.

Yet here, having local & wide area coverage from the same MNO is of minimal use. Guests, contractors and employees have devices on *all* networks, not just that of the on-prem network operator.

So some sort of roaming or neutral-host arrangement would be needed. And those capabilities could be also be offered a new specialised provider, as well as by an incumbent MNO.

In fact, it might be easier (and quicker) for a genuinely neutral wholesale player to offer that capability, rather than one MNO trying to negotiate a site-specific roaming or interconnect deal with all its rivals.

Another reason is eSIM and dual-SIM. Devices can have separate profiles for on-premise and wide-area subscriptions, and just switch from one to the other when they're off-site. This is an increasingly common feature in smartphones and vehicles.

In fact, private cellular networks don't even need SIMs - 5G allows the use of other identifiers such as enterprise security credentials, or even the new Wi-Fi OpenRoaming model.

At a radio level, there are distinct advantages to running private networks in isolated fashion, in separate spectrum. They can use different configurations to the macro environment, perhaps optimised for a different mix of up- and downlink in TDD spectrum.

And lastly, it is much easier to treat a private network as private, rather than some unusual public/private hybrid. The legal situations and liabilities are clearer. SLAs can be described and enforced in contracts. There doesn't have to be alignment in deployment speeds or priorities. Different vendors can be chosen.

This doesn't mean that MNOs don't have a role in such private enterprise networks - but it's likely to be done by a separate business unit that can engineer solutions specifically for verticals, thinking about the customer first. It won't be done by the main "mothership" network group, desperate to find "5G use cases" and crowbar-ing its main network (and also its #networkslicing and #edgecomputing platform) into unsuitable applications.

That MNO enterprise business unit might decide the macro RAN is suitable for a given client. Or it may choose to build its own network locally, with the enterprise owning the spectrum license. Or it might work with 3rd parties - or use WiFi instead. I'm expecting MNOs to acquire lots of vertical-specialist integrators and network installation firms in some industries like manufacturing, ports, mining and healthcare.

Maybe over time they'll add value and revenue to the central 5G network business, or act as channels for its #URLLC and MEC businesses. But that won't be their only offering - just one of a portfolio of options.

More generally, all of this points to private 4G/5G networks - especially in industrial sectors and areas such as ports and mining - being based on discrete, isolated deployments. There may be involvement by a national MNO in its deployment or operation (or spectrum licensing), but the network usually won't be part of an MNO's main infrastructure. There might be service continuity - but there's many ways to offer that, and it usually won't be in the top 10 priorities considered.

I definitely think that the roaming approach and neutral-host model offer many opportunities connected to private cellular too. There's some interesting angles relating to Open RAN here as well. Unfortunately, many of the verticals holding most appeal - hotels, airports, stadiums, office complexes - have obvious problems for the next year or so, given the pandemic and ensuing recesssion.

I'll be exploring these issues at a couple of different upcoming events.

Firstly, on July 7th, I'm running my next private workshop on Neutral Host Networks with Peter Curnow-Ford. It's now switched to a virtual event, over morning and afternoon sessions - plus a networking event (a virtual "pub" with special entertainment) in the evening. The broad outline is the same as first announced (link here) with more detailed updated agenda and format in the next couple of days. It will remain as a private, off-the-record event under the Chatham House Rule.

Also on August 20th, I'm doing another #5GRealised session with Juliet Media, specifically on the role of telcos in private networks. Details are here

As always, this theme and broader area is one I also advise on privately. Please drop me a message if you have specific needs for consulting or insight.

#5G #NeutralHost #Verticals #PrivateLTE #Private5G

Edge computing meets Private Networking: quick thoughts

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mobile standards may fragment again, driven by geopolitics

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

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

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

The past: how LTE and 5G became global standards

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

___________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From pixabay.com