5G data traffic growth - the devil (FWA) is in the detail

This blog combines two separate, linked LinkedIn articles published in June 2023 on consecutive days. The original posts and comment threads are here and here.

Measuring #mobile data traffic is important for operators, vendors, and policymakers.

As I've said before, we should use *good* #metrics to measure the #telecoms industry, rather than just *easy* metrics. This post is an example of what I mean.

Yesterday, Ericsson released its latest Mobility Report. It's always an interesting trove of statistics on mobile subscribers, networks and usage, with extra topical articles, sometimes written by customers or guests.

While obviously it's very oriented to cellular technologies and has an optimistic pro-3GPP stance, it has a long pedigree and a lot of work goes into it. It's partly informed by private stats from Ericsson's real-world, in-service networks run by MNO customers.

This edition includes extra detail, such as breaking out fixed-wireless access & separating video traffic into VoD #streaming (eg Netflix) vs. social media like TikTok and YouTube.

It had plenty of golden "information nuggets". For instance, traffic density can be 500-1000x higher in dense urban locations than sparse rural areas. I'll come back to that another time.

Global mobile data grew 36% from Q1'22 to Q1'23. The full model online predicts 31% growth in CY2023, falling to just 15% in 2028, despite adding in AR/VR applications towards the end of the decade. That's a fairly rapid s-curve flattening.

For Europe, MBB data growth is predicted at 29% in 2023, falling to only 12% in 2028. That's a *really* important one for all sorts of reasons, and is considerably lower than many other forecasts.

But what really caught my eye was this "#FWA data traffic represented 21% of global mobile data traffic at the end of 2022". Further, it is projected to grow much faster than mobile broadband (MBB) and account for *30%* of total traffic in 2028, mostly #5G. When the famous "5G triangle" of use-cases was developed by ITU, it didn't even mention FWA.

However, the report didn't break out this split by region. So I decided to estimate it myself based on the regional split of FWA subscribers, which was shown in a graphic. I also extended the forecasts out to 2030.

I then added an additional segmentation of my own - an indoor vs outdoor split of MBB data. I've pegged this at 75% indoors, aligning with previous comments from Ericsson and others. Some indoor MBB is served by dedicated in-building wireless systems, and some is outdoor-to-indoor from macro RAN or outdoor small cells.

The result is fascinating. By the 2030, it is possible that over 40% of European 5G data traffic will be from FWA. Just 14% of cellular data will be for outdoor mobile broadband. So what's generating the alleged 5G GDP uplift?

That has massive implications for spectrum policy (eg on #6GHz) and proposed #fairshare traffic fees. It also highlights the broad lack of attention paid to indoor cellular and FWA.

Note: This is a quick, rough estimate, but it's the type of data we need for better decisionmaking. I hope to catalyse others to do similar analysis.

 

A separate second post then looked at the policy aspects of this:

Yesterday's post on mobile data traffic - and contribution from 5G FWA and indoor use - seems to have struck a chord. Some online and offline comments have asked about the policy implications.

There are several conclusions for regulators and telecoms/infrastructure ministries:

- Collect more granular data, or make reasoned estimates, of breakdowns of data traffic in your country & trends over time. As well as #FWA vs #MBB & indoor vs outdoor, there should be a split between rural / urban / dense & ideally between macro #RAN vs outdoor #smallcell vs dedicated indoor system. Break out rail / road transport usage.
- Develop a specific policy (or at least gather data and policy drivers) for FWA & indoor #wireless. That feeds through to many areas including spectrum, competition, consumer protection, #wholesale, rights-of-way / access, #cybersecurity, inclusion, industrial policy, R&D, testbeds and trials etc. Don't treat #mobile as mostly about outdoor or in-vehicle connectivity.
- View demand forecasts of mobile #datatraffic and implied costs for MNO investment / capacity-upgrade through the lens of detailed stats, not headline aggregates. FWA is "discretionary"; operators know it creates 10-20x more traffic per user. In areas with poor fixed #broadband (typically rural) that's potentially good news - but those areas may have spare mobile capacity rather than needing upgrades. Remember 4G-to-5G upgrade CAPEX is needed irrespective of traffic levels. FWA in urban areas likely competes with fibre and is a commercial choice, so complaints about traffic growth are self-serving.
- Indoor & FWA wireless can be more "tech neutral" & "business model neutral" than outdoor mobile access. #WiFi, #satellite and other technologies play more important roles - and may be lower-energy too. Shared / #neutralhost infrastructure is very relevant.
- Think through the impact of detailed data on #spectrum requirements and bands. In particular, the FWA/MBB & indoor splits are yet more evidence that the need for #6GHz for #5G has been hugely overstated. In particular, because FWA is "deterministic" (ie it doesn't move around or cluster in crowds) it's much more tolerant of using different bands - or unlicensed spectrum. Meanwhile indoor MBB can be delivered with low-band macro 5G, dedicated in-building systems (perhaps mmWave), or offloaded to WiFi. Using midband 5G and MIMO to "blast through walls" is not ideal use of either spectrum or energy.
- View 5G traffic data/forecasts used in so-called #fairshare or #costrecovery debates with skepticism. Check if discretionary FWA is inflating the figures. Question any GDP impact claims. Consider how much RAN investment is actually serving indoor users, maybe inefficiently. And be aware that home FWA traffic skews towards TVs and VoD #streaming (Netflix, Prime etc) rather than smartphone- or upload-centric social #video like TikTok & FB/IG.

Telecoms regulation needs good input data, not convenient or dramatic headline stats.

 

UK FTTP: Consolidation and driving uptake

This post originally appeared on June 16 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)

Last week I attended the ISPA UK Business Models event, primarily about #FTTP build & adoption.

Two themes dominated:

- Consolidation patterns. The UK has >150 ISPs building #FTTX networks, with a patchwork mix of small/large, urban/rural & vertical/wholesale-only. As interest rates rise & consumer spending is inflation-limited, not all can stay viable.
- How can uptake be accelerated? While many homes are "passed" by fibre, comparatively few are actually signing up for FTTP access services. The lack of revenue for new #AltNets exacerbates the first issue.

Not discussed: data traffic volumes or so-called #fairshare. All the investment is going into initial builds, not capacity upgrades. Streaming and >500GB/mo is actually good news, not a cause for lobbyist handwringing.

The consolidation pathway is complex. There are 3 elements:

- Distress: companies running out of cash, unable to raise fresh capital, and selling assets or the whole business to deeper-pocketed consolidators willing to take a long view of the market.
- Proximity: Mergers or perhaps wholesale/sharing deals between geographic neighbouring ISPs, for scale efficiencies.
- Strategic: larger "mega-mergers" perhaps between wholesalers and integrated telcos, or between B2B and B2C specialists.

There are plenty of challenges. M&A means blending FTTP providers with different vendors, maybe different network engineering qualities, different back-office systems (perhaps proprietary) etc. There may be significant integration costs and practical headaches. Another issue to resolve is competing "overbuilt" fibre grids in urban areas, especially as OpenReach gets to more locations and offers cheap "Equinox2" wholesale.

The uptake question is also thorny. A few speakers pointed out that the UK's FTTC / VDSL broadband mostly proved itself "good enough" during the pandemic, so convincing people they need FTTP or gigabit speeds is a tough sell, especially given cost-of-living issues.

Unless they currently have really terrible connectivity, few people really want to take a day off work to wait for an engineer, risk a day or two without Internet if the switch doesn't work straight away, or pay more and sign up for a new longterm contract.

For some, futureproofing can wait until the future, it seems.

I can think of a number of ways that uptake could be incentivised:

- Trumpet fibre's uses, reliability & maybe impact on property values
- Subsidise an overlap of the old service with the new FTTP, so customers' old connection wouldn't be switched off before it was fully live
- Offer funding to connect homes that are "passed" as long as the connection is fully open-access / wholesale-ready
- Measure, monitor and incentivise B2B use of fibre as well as residential (retail, schools, small offices, home-workers etc)
- Better mapping to find and deal with "exceptions"

All would be enhanced by a consistent view (or scenarios) for the UK #fibre "end state". At the moment that is too amorphous.

Connectivity on trains is hard - but both Wi-Fi and cellular need to be provided for passengers

This post originally appeared on May 24 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)

 There have been recent headlines about the possible ending of on-train passenger #WiFi services in the UK. It is deeply controversial.

Apparently the Department for Transport (DfT), United Kingdom has insisted rail WiFi must be "justified financially". It's unclear if that means by extra ticket sales, higher customer satisfaction, or the use of WiFi for #train operational functions like cameras and wireless payment terminals.

I hope it's not referring to so-called "monetisation" by customers paying for WiFi, or being served adverts. On trains, WiFi is a basic amenity, like toilets or power sockets.

That said, train WiFi in the UK is often problematic. It uses clunky captive portals, and often old access points & slow/patchy 4G backhaul. It often fails to work well, or at all. It sometimes blocks video or VPNs. By contrast, in-station WiFi is run separately - and often much better.

Public cellular coverage on the rail network is also poor. Many rail lines run through cuttings and tunnels with limited room for trackside infrastructure & poor lines-of-sight to cell towers. The recent Department for Science, Innovation and Technology Wireless Infrastructure Strategy highlighted poor #railway #wireless coverage & pushed for regular monitoring and access to trackside fibre.
 
What should DfT, DSIT, Network Rail, Train Operating Companies and the future restructured Great British Railways Transition Team (GBRTT) do?
 
- Recognise both cellular & WiFi are essential for passengers, especially on long-distance trains where laptops are common
- Understand that cellular - especially #5G - has problems with signals reaching inside train carriages
- Don't underestimate forecasts for future data use. Add in uplink as well as downlink, and think about latency. Trains may need 1-5 Gbps in the medium term, via a mix of cellular & WiFi.
- Ensure on-train WiFi is easy to use & easily-upgraded. No captive portals, no “monetisation” with ads/data capture & a clear roadmap for regular upgrades. No blocking of any apps, especially VPNs and video. Apply Net Neutrality rules.
- Federation or roaming between on-train & station WiFi systems, extending to smart cities & metro bus/train/tram WiFi over time
- Easier access for MNOs / #neutralhosts to build trackside or near-track infrastructure & use gantries & fibre assets
- Decouple passenger connectivity needs from future critical #FRMCS deployment. They have different timing/cadence & investment cases
- Look at trackside 5G neutral host networks delivered with “excess” spectrum from any future 4-3 merger of MNOs
- Insist on-train gateways are modular & can use a dynamic mix of public 5G, trackside wireless & eventually satellite in remote areas. Ensure they are easily upgradeable without trains being taken out of service
- Upgrade on-train signal repeaters & look at window-etching for better outdoor-to-indoor performance

Note: I wrote this on WiFi on a train back to London from this week’s Wi-Fi NOW conference.

 

Data traffic growth forecasts - AD Little's new report has a lot better methodology than most

This post originally appeared on June 5 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)

When I saw that Arthur D. Little had published a report on “The evolution of data growth in Europe”, on behalf of ETNO Association & GSMA, I rolled my eyes.
 
Both organisations have previously published terrible studies by consultants, riddled with flawed assumptions and dodgy multiplier "fiddle factors". I’ve loudly criticised Axon and Coleago reports related to the (un)#fairshare and #6GHz #spectrum debates respectively.
 
So I started the ADL report with trepidation, not helped by a strange typo / editing error in the first paragraph.
 
But actually, the report is pretty good, and I broadly agree with both methodology and conclusions, albeit with one major caveat.
 
It estimates usage of home and mobile broadband on the basis of hours-per-day of active use of heavy applications such as video streaming, gaming and possible metaverse-type experiences.
 
I’ve used GB-per-hour myself, to model passenger data-traffic demand on trains. It makes more sense than the usual Gbps, as most applications are “bursty”. It also fits the typical heuristics of human behaviour. How many seconds a day do you spend on social media?
 
The central prediction of 20% growth in fixed traffic and 25% for mobile usage seems reasonable. I could argue for 25/20 rather than 20/25, but it's fine as a rough estimate.

Importantly these rates for the next few years are well within the bounds of both fixed broadband (moving to #FTTP) and mobile (on #5G) without incremental investments in extra capacity, beyond the main "generational" shift & CAPEX. And that is driven by government policy and competition, not traffic load and congestion. The report convincingly shows that nobody really needs/values more than 100Mbps for current apps, so #gigabit networks have plenty of headroom.

My main criticism is there is no analysis of mobile device traffic carried over fixed networks and #WiFi. Smartphones used at home for video, gaming or social media will be c80% on Wi-Fi, and indoor usage is c80% of the total.

The report also talks about AI pre-emptively downloading content for “infinite scrolling”, but doesn't suggest it could be smart enough to do so mostly over cheap / low-energy fixed connections. (IMO, by 2030, governments may *mandate* cellular offload via neutral-host or Wi-Fi for indoor use).

I agree with the report's assertions that VR is in an indoor/fixed application, that most #IoT traffic is a rounding-error and that #Web3 is probably irrelevant. The #metaverse scenarios seem mostly plausible.
 
One area I think ADL underestimates is fixed broadband for video streaming. While Netflix and YouTube are “active” viewing, historically, many people just leave broadcast TV switched on, even if nobody is in the room except the cat.

If TV really goes online-only, then that becomes a genuine “waste” of capacity, unless you can advertise to pets.

Overall - really quite good analysis, which (ironically, given the sponsors) fatally undermines the #InternetTrafficTax rhetoric.

 

Spectrum: The shifting tone of the satellite industry

This post originally appeared on June 7 on my LinkedIn feed, which is now my main platform for both short posts and longer-form articles. It can be found here, along with the comment stream. Please follow / connect to me on LinkedIn, to receive regular updates (about 1-3 / week)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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.

 

CAPEX in telecoms - beware of headline numbers

This post originally appeared on June 12 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)

CAPEX numbers are important in #telecoms. But they're also often collected and analysed in a haphazard fashion, or sometimes twisted and misinterpreted. There are examples that wrongly imply casual links or are carefully selected to drive specific policy choices.

- Telco execs watch CAPEX stats as they're important elements of cashflow & also signify key strategies and technology transitions
- Vendors watch #CAPEX stats to understand demand for new products
- Investors watch CAPEX as inputs to their valuation models, and as a barometer for company/industry health and prospects
- Policymakers watch CAPEX as it gets captured in "investment" statistics, and as an indicator for potential regulatory changes (or as a metric of success of previous policies)

Various ratios are commonplace, for both companies and the industry:
- CAPEX vs. revenues
- CAPEX vs. EBITDA
- CAPEX of telecoms vs. tech/hyperscalers
- CAPEX vs. R&D spending
- Fixed vs. Mobile CAPEX
... and so on

The problem is that "telco CAPEX" is also a very vague and malleable concept. Digging into it reveals many more questions - and problems with the methodologies and conclusions drawn, especially where headline numbers are concerned.

Some of the questions I'm currently looking at include:

- What counts as a "telco"? Are you including towercos, subsea fibre operators, municipalities building networks, MVNOs and many others?
- Are historic CAPEX numbers restated when telcos sell or acquire other businesses, especially tower spin-outs?
- Is it meaningful to compare CAPEX for 10 / 30 / 50 year assets such as #FTTP, which will generate decades of new revenue, with last year's figures?
- How do you separate CAPEX for basic coverage vs. incremental capacity vs. "generational" upgrades to fibre or #5G? A lot of CAPEX occurs even if usage is low
- How do you deal with leasing or other financing models? If CAPEX shifts to OPEX, how is it captured in the stats?
- What happens with "cloudified" networks? Firstly they rely on shared (often 3rd-party) assets, and secondly they are *supposed* to lower costs / investments. But will the lower CAPEX be viewed as a sign of distress, not modernisation?
- Is non-network CAPEX broken out (eg retail sites, central offices, datacentres etc)?
- Is "adjacent capex" included and if so, how?, eg in-building #wireless, #spectrum licenses, software development

I hear many commentators and lobbyists claim "#NetNeutrality led to lower CAPEX!" or "Streaming traffic leads to higher CAPEX!" or "There's an investment gap!". Without detailed data - and an analysis of causality - you have to question the veracity & meaningfulness of such rhetoric.

In summary - CAPEX is indeed important. But in fact it's so important, that headline numbers are often useless or misleading.

Ask for details on segmentation, methodology and definitions - if they aren't available, treat the numbers with deep skepticism.

#FTTX #telcos #regulations #networks #fairshare

A critical enabler for broadband competition - Marketplaces for buying and selling open access FTTP

This post originally appeared on Apr 18 on my LinkedIn feed, which is now my main platform for both short posts and longer-form articles. It can be found here, along with the comment stream. Please follow / subscribe to receive regular updates (about 1-3 / week)

Following yesterday's post on mobile #neutralhost operators as aggregators for wholesale access to municipality-level #smallcells and assets/permits, I think something roughly similar is happening in #FTTP.

An aggregation & marketplace tier for #ISPs, #AltNets and #infracos is emerging, among the UK fixed #broadband market's various groups:

- Incumbents with wholesale & retail units, although in theory separated - BT Retail & OpenReach, and VMO2 (Virgin) with its new wholesale JV Nexfibre (with Liberty Global & Infravia)
- AltNets with their own FTTP infrastructure solely for their own ISP retail services, eg Hyperoptic
- AltNets with FTTP for both inhouse ISP retail and wholesale to others
- Wholesale-only FTTP providers such as CityFibre
- Retail-only ISPs, such as Zen & TalkTalk, which buy wholesale fibre (and historically copper / FTTC)

The wholesale market is expanding rapidly, with infracos still building, Openreach accelerating (and trying to discount with its contentious Equinox 2 plan) and existing AltNets looking to supplement slow conversion of homes-passed to homes-connected by offering access to other ISPs.

But the patchwork quilt of wholesale FTTP is very messy. There is growing overbuild, lots of "passed" homes that need extra work to get to individual buildings (or inside them to flats), a mishmash of vendors and construction practices, variable-quality networks and processes - and ongoing consolidation and possible financial woes.

This brings a need for aggregation & simplification. There is both a "buy" and a "sell" side here.

Retail ISPs want access to well-defined and standardised wholesale fibre access, across multiple FTPP owners - both major players like Openreach and AltNets. They want to sell consistent products to end-customers, with promises on provisioning "live next Tuesday at 11am" or ways to deal with faults. They don't want 50 integration projects - but they do want good pricing.

The AltNets, meanwhile, want to be able to sell to those ISPs, even if they've built IT systems and processes that weren't originally designed for wholesale. They also need to conform to Ofcom's new one-touch-switching rules.

Maybe I'll think of a snappier term, but given that the #ConnectedNorth conference took place in Manchester, the term Open Access Solution as a Service, or #OASaaS, seems rather fitting...

There are already a number of OASaaS contenders. Some AltNets formed the Common Wholesale Platform | CWP in 2020. CityFibre is working on its own ecosystem, with Toob as its first partner. There's also The Fibre Café, Vitrifi & BroadbandHub - as well as TOTSCo which is purely focused on the one-touch switching process. Not all seem to focus equally on buy and sell sides.

I wonder if agreed standards or specs (or even regulation) are needed. Perhaps an equivalent to JOTS (Joint Operator Technical Specification) for shared/mobile infrastructure such as neutral host systems? We don't want OASaaS to look back in anger...

 

A new view on Neutral Host - the role of cities and municipalities

This post originally appeared on Apr 17 on my LinkedIn feed, which is now my main platform for both short posts and longer-form articles. It can be found here, along with the comment stream. Please follow / subscribe to receive regular updates (about 1-3 / week)

I'm at the #ConnectedNorth event in Manchester today and tomorrow. There's a lot about gigabit fibre rollouts and uptake, as well as a big emphasis on connected communities and cities - but this post is about mobile densification and small cells.

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.

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Local networks: when telecoms becomes "pericoms"​

Published via my LinkedIn Newsletter - see here to subscribe / see comment thread

"Telecoms" or "telecommunications" is based on the Greek prefix "tele-".

It means "at a distance, or far-off". It is familiar from its use in other terms such as telegraph, television or teleport. And for telecoms, that makes sense - we generally make phone calls to people across medium or long distances, or send then messages. Even our broadband connections generally tend to link to distant datacentres. The WWW is, by definition, worldwide.

The word "communications" actually comes from a Latin root, meaning to impart or share. Which at the time, would obviously have been done mostly through talking to other people directly, but could also have involved writing or other distance-independent methods.

This means that distant #communications, #telecoms, has some interesting properties:

• The 2+ distant ends are often (but not always) on different #networks. Interconnection is therefore often essential.
• Connecting distant points tends to mean there's a good chunk of infrastructure in between them, owned by someone other than the users. They have to pay for it, somehow.
• Because the communications path is distant, it usually makes sense for the control points (switches and so on) to be distant as well. And because there's typically payment involved, the billing and other business functions also need to be sited "somewhere", probably in a #datacentre, which is also distant.
• There are a whole host of opportunities and risks with distant communications, that mean that governments take a keen interest. There are often licenses, regulations and internal public-sector uses - notably emergency services.
• The infrastructure usually crosses the "public domain" - streets, airwaves, rooftops, dedicated tower sites and so on. That brings additional stakeholders and rule-makers into the system.
• Involving third parties tends to suggest some sort of "service" model of delivery, or perhaps government subsidy / provision.
• Competition authorities need to take into account huge investments and limited capacity/scope for multiple networks. That also tends to reduce the number of suppliers to the market.

That is telecommunications - distant communications.

But now consider the opposite - nearby communications.

Examples could include a private 5G network in a factory, a LAN in an office, a WiFi connection in the home, a USB cable, or a Bluetooth headset with a phone. There are plenty of other examples, especially for IoT.

These nearby examples have very different characteristics to telecoms:

• Endpoints are likely to be on the same network, without interconnection
• There's usually nobody else's infrastructure involved, except perhaps a building owner's ducts and cabinets.
• Any control points will generally be close - or perhaps not needed at all, as the devices work peer-to-peer.
• There's relatively little involvement of the "public domain", unless there are risks like radio interference beyond the network boundaries.
• It's not practical for governments to intervene too much in local communications - especially when it occurs on private property, or inside a building or machine.
• There might be a service provider, but equally the whole system could be owned outright by the user, or embedded into another larger system like a robot or vehicle.
• Competition is less of an issue, as is supplier diversity. You can buy 10 USB cables from different suppliers if you want.
• Low-power, shared or unlicensed spectrum is typical for local #wireless networks.

I've been trying to work out a good word for this. Although "#telecommunications" is itself an awkward Greek / Latin hybrid I think the best prefix might be Greek again - "peri" which means "around", "close" or "surrounding" - think of perimeter, peripheral, or the perigee of an orbit.

So I'm coining the term pericommunications, to mean nearby or local connectivity. (If you want to stick to all-Latin, then proxicommunications would work quite well too).

Just because a company is involved in telecoms does not mean it necessarily can expect a role in pericoms as well. (Or indeed, vice versa). It certainly can participate in that market, but there may be fewer synergies than you might imagine.

Some telcos are also established and successful pericos as well. Many home broadband providers have done an excellent job with providing whole-home #WiFi systems with mesh technology, for example. In-building mobile coverage systems in large venues are often led by one telco, with others onboarding as secondary operators.

But other nearby domains are trickier for telcos to address. You don't expect to get your earbuds as an accessory from your mobile operator - or indeed, pay extra for them. Attempts to add-on wearables as an extra SIM on a smartphone account have had limited success.

And the idea of running on-premise enterprise private networks as a "slice" of the main 4G/5G macro RAN has clearly failed to gain traction, for a variety of reasons. The more successful operators are addressing private wireless in much the same way as other integrators and specialist SPs, although they can lean on their internal spectrum team, test engineers and other groups to help.

Some are now "going the extra mile" (sorry for the pun) for pericoms. Vodafone has just announced its prototype 5G mini base-station, the size of a Wi-Fi access point based on a Raspberry Pi and a Lime Microsystems radio chip. It can support a small #5G standalone core and is even #OpenRAN compliant. Other operators have selected new vendors or partners for campus 4G/5G deployments. The 4 UK MNOs have defined a set of shared in-building design guidelines for neutral-host networks.

It can be hard for regulators and policymakers to grasp the differences, however. The same is true for consultants and lobbyists. An awful lot of the suggested upsides of 5G (or other forms of connectivity) have been driven by a tele-mindset rather than a peri-view.

I could make a very strong argument that countries should really have a separate pericoms regulator, or a dedicated unit within the telecoms regulator and ministry. The stakeholders, national interests and economics are completely different.

A similar set of differences can be seen in #edgecomputing: regional datacentres and telco MEC are still "tele". On-premise servers or on-device CPUs and GPUs are peri-computing, with very different requirements and economics. Trying to blur the boundary doesn't work well at present - most people don't even recognise it exists.

Overall, we need to stop assuming that #pericoms is merely a subset of #telecoms. It isn't - it's almost completely different, even if it uses some of the same underlying components and protocols.

(If this viewpoint is novel or interesting and you would like to explore it further and understand what it means for your organisation - or get a presentation or keynote about it at an event - please get in touch with me)

What does an AI think about Net Neutrality?

Originally published on my LinkedIn Newsletter, 9th Feb 2023. See here for comment thread

Two very important trends are occurring in tech I'm following at the moment, so I thought it might be fun to combine them:

• The emergence of #GenerativeAI, for answering questions, generating images and sounds, and potentially a whole lot more. OpenAI #ChatGPT is the current best-known, but there are dozens of others using language models, transformers & other techniques. Some people are suggesting it will redefine web search - and potentially an awful lot more than that. Some even see it as a pivotal shift in technology, society and "skilled" employment.
• The re-emergence of discussions around #NetNeutrality and associated regulation relating to technology platforms, telcos and networks, like the ridiculous (un)#fairshare & #InternetTrafficTax concept being pitched in Europe by lobbyists. In the UK, Ofcom recently concluded a consultation on whether changes to NN rules should be made (I sent in a reply myself - I'll discuss it another time).

So, I asked ChatGPT what it thought about NN, over a series of questions. I specifically focused on whether it helps or hinders innovation.

The transcript is below, but some thoughts from me first:

• The text is good. Almost alarmingly good. I found myself saying "good point" a few times. This is probably because it gives reasons in fairly long lists, not just "3 bulletpoints for a slide".
• It seems pretty even-handed, with "proponents say this, others say that"
• You can sense that its training base tends to give it "common" responses and frequently-cited arguments. That doesn't mean they're wrong, but it can lack nuance, or repeat some common *fallacies* as well.
• The long-list approach and comments is quite good at highlighting the need for multiple approaches & reconciling them. A single statistical approach isn't enough - there are also qualitative questions to ask, surveys to undertake and multiple angles to absorb. ChatGPT understands the issue is complex, even if it cannot resolve the complexity itself. Simple answers are wrong.
• I was particularly impressed with the response to my question on cross-border effects, and to separating NN vs. funding effects.
• It struggled with the last question, about Internet and non-Internet innovation. EDIT: I just realised that it ignored my typo, and understood that I meant "directly" when I wrote "direct" in my question
• I'd be very worried if I did bog-standard "content generation" for clickbait blogs, "bucketshop" market research, or corporate social posts. This is all perfectly-usable general blurb if you need slabs of text nobody is going to really delve into too deeply.

All that said, I don't think this is (yet) a gamechanger in terms of analysis and argument. It's good for collating a lot of "food for thought", but as others have pointed out, it can also be "confidently wrong", sometimes in amusing ways.

In a separate chat, I asked it for a contrarian's view of #5G use-cases. While it was right on some things ("Some argue that the vast majority of #IoT devices do not require the high speed and low latency that 5G provides and that the hype around IoT is overblown.") others were less convincing: ("Some argue that 5G may not provide the low latency and high reliability that is being promised, and that there are other technologies, such as wired connections, that are better suited for applications such as autonomous vehicles"). If there's one thing less relevant to self-driving cars than 5G, it's fixed broadband!

Anyway - enjoy the debate treanscribed in full, below.

(Note: the image for this article came from Stable Diffusion, when I asked for a picture showing "An advanced AI debating Net Neutrality")

Me: Does net neutrality help innovation?

ChatGPT: Net neutrality has been a topic of much debate, with proponents arguing that it promotes innovation and others arguing that it stifles it.

Proponents of net neutrality argue that it helps to level the playing field for new entrants and small businesses by preventing Internet Service Providers (ISPs) from discriminating against certain types of traffic or services. This, in turn, encourages innovation, as entrepreneurs and startups are free to bring new products and services to market without fear of being blocked or slowed down by ISPs.

On the other hand, opponents of net neutrality argue that it creates a regulatory burden that stifles innovation and investment in the broadband industry. They argue that without the ability to prioritize different types of traffic, ISPs will be unable to effectively manage their networks and may be forced to limit investment in new infrastructure and technologies.

Ultimately, the impact of net neutrality on innovation is a complex and highly debated issue, and there is no clear consensus on whether it helps or hurts innovation. However, proponents of net neutrality generally believe that it promotes a free and open internet that supports innovation and competition, while opponents believe that it imposes unnecessary regulation that stifles growth and investment.

Me: What research is necessary to reach a better conclusion?

ChatGPT: To reach a more definitive conclusion on the impact of net neutrality on innovation, several types of research would be necessary, including:

1. Economic studies: Economic studies could analyze the impact of net neutrality regulations on investment and innovation in the broadband industry, as well as the impact on consumer prices and access to broadband services.
2. Case studies: Case studies of countries or regions with and without net neutrality regulations could provide valuable insights into the real-world effects of these regulations on innovation and investment in the broadband industry.
3. Surveys and interviews: Surveys and interviews with entrepreneurs, startups, and industry experts could provide insights into the impact of net neutrality on the ability of new entrants to bring new products and services to market.
4. Technical studies: Technical studies could examine the impact of net neutrality regulations on network management and traffic prioritization, and assess the potential impact on network performance, reliability, and security.
5. Long-term data analysis: Long-term data analysis could track changes in investment, innovation, and consumer prices over time in regions with and without net neutrality regulations, providing valuable insights into the long-term impact of these regulations.

Overall, a comprehensive and multi-disciplinary approach to research, combining economic, case study, survey, technical, and data analysis methods, would be necessary to reach a more definitive conclusion on the impact of net neutrality on innovation.

Me: How would you measure innovation in this context?

ChatGPT: Measuring the impact of net neutrality on innovation is a complex task, as innovation can take many forms and can be difficult to quantify. However, several metrics could be used to measure innovation in this context, including:

1. Investment in research and development (R&D): This could be measured by tracking the amount of investment in R&D by broadband companies and startups, as well as the number of patents filed in relevant areas.
2. New product and service launches: This could be measured by tracking the number of new products and services introduced by broadband companies and startups, as well as the market adoption and success of these offerings.
3. Entrepreneurial activity: This could be measured by tracking the number of new startups founded in the broadband industry, as well as the success of these startups in attracting investment and bringing new products and services to market.
4. Consumer benefits: This could be measured by tracking changes in consumer prices, access to broadband services, and the availability of new and innovative online services and applications.
5. Network performance and reliability: This could be measured by tracking changes in network speed, latency, and uptime, as well as the ability of networks to handle new and innovative applications and services.

While these metrics are not exhaustive, they provide a good starting point for measuring the impact of net neutrality on innovation in the broadband industry. By tracking changes in these metrics over time in regions with and without net neutrality regulations, researchers could gain valuable insights into the impact of these regulations on innovation.

Me: A lot of those metrics are international. More regions with net neutrality might increase innovation globally, not locally. How do you account for that?

ChatGPT: You are correct, some of the metrics mentioned could be influenced by factors beyond the borders of a single region. To account for this, it would be important to consider both the local and global impact of net neutrality on innovation.

For example, to measure the local impact of net neutrality, researchers could compare the metrics mentioned in regions with and without net neutrality regulations, taking into account factors such as the local economy, cultural and regulatory environment, and the state of the broadband industry in each region. This would provide valuable insights into the specific impact of net neutrality on innovation within those regions.

To measure the global impact of net neutrality, researchers could compare these metrics on a global scale, taking into account factors such as the state of the global economy, the state of the broadband industry globally, and the regulatory environment in different regions. This would provide a broader perspective on the impact of net neutrality on innovation globally, and could help to identify any trends or patterns that may not be apparent from a regional analysis alone.

Overall, it is important to consider both the local and global impact of net neutrality on innovation to gain a complete and accurate understanding of the impact of these regulations on the broadband industry and innovation more broadly.

Me: How would we know if net neutrality had a larger effect on innovation than availability of financing for startups?

ChatGPT: Determining the relative impact of net neutrality versus the availability of financing on innovation can be challenging, as these factors are often interrelated and can have complex and interconnected effects. However, several approaches could be used to isolate the impact of each factor, including:

1. Comparative studies: Researchers could compare regions with and without net neutrality regulations, but with similar levels of financing available for startups. By controlling for the availability of financing, researchers could isolate the impact of net neutrality on innovation.
2. Historical analysis: Researchers could analyze data from periods of time when net neutrality regulations were in place or not in place, and compare this data with changes in the availability of financing for startups. This would help to identify any correlations between net neutrality and innovation, independent of changes in financing.
3. Causal inference methods: Researchers could use causal inference methods, such as regression analysis, to model the relationship between net neutrality, financing, and innovation, while controlling for other factors that could influence these relationships.
4. Survey and interview-based research: Researchers could survey and interview startups, entrepreneurs, and industry experts to gain insights into the relative importance of net neutrality and financing for innovation. This would provide valuable qualitative data to complement the quantitative data obtained from other research methods.

Overall, a multi-disciplinary and multi-method approach, incorporating comparative studies, historical analysis, causal inference methods, and survey and interview-based research, would be necessary to determine the relative impact of net neutrality and financing on innovation in a robust and comprehensive manner.

Me: How do you distinguish innovations that direct relate to Internet access, compared to those which involve non-Internet applications and technologies?

ChatGPT: Distinguishing innovations that directly relate to Internet access versus those that involve non-Internet applications and technologies can be challenging, as many innovations are influenced by both Internet access and non-Internet technologies. However, several approaches could be used to differentiate these types of innovations, including:

1. Technical classification: Innovations could be classified based on their underlying technologies, with innovations that rely primarily on Internet access being classified as Internet-related innovations and innovations that rely primarily on non-Internet technologies being classified as non-Internet-related innovations.
2. Market classification: Innovations could be classified based on the markets they serve, with innovations that serve primarily Internet-based markets, such as online commerce or online communication, being classified as Internet-related innovations and innovations that serve primarily non-Internet-based markets, such as manufacturing or agriculture, being classified as non-Internet-related innovations.
3. End-user classification: Innovations could be classified based on their end-users, with innovations that are primarily designed for use by individuals accessing the Internet being classified as Internet-related innovations and innovations that are primarily designed for use by individuals not accessing the Internet being classified as non-Internet-related innovations.

It is important to note that these classifications are not mutually exclusive, and that many innovations may have elements of both Internet-related and non-Internet-related technologies, markets, and end-users. Nevertheless, using these classifications can provide valuable insights into the extent to which innovations are influenced by Internet access, and can help to distinguish Internet-related innovations from non-Internet-related innovations.