6G – set for failure or success?

stein@opensky

I need to stop commenting on this specific topic mostly, but here is yet another “grumpy old guy” article focusing on 5G and 6G.

Recently I have seen several commentaries about 6G and how it can possibly be a success (or failure). I have taken an interest in 5G for about ten years already and have also for more than five years been commenting in opensky.no on the misconception around 5G and what it is really for (see here from 2020 already). With the telecom “G”-cycle which for many years has been around 10 years, the “real” 5G (for industrial use cases) is still late in most countries – except possibly China (?).

In my two articles “5G or 6G? The story all over again?” (already as a “grumpy old guy” from 2021) and the more recent one “Making 5G a success – or waiting for 6G?” from earlier this year I covered various topics around 5G and 6G. Some highlights from these are:

• Is the telco way of working (defining and launching a new G every 10 years) sustainable?

• What (and who) is the “G” really for?

• Ever-increasing complexity

• Who will make money from it?

• Mass consumer market versus more narrow industrial applications

• Competitive situation versus WiFi

• Satellite integration

• Indoor or outdoor applications?

• Private networks?

• Different business interests of different players

• etc

My recent reading on 6G triggers some additional comments however (and some repeated ones) that are elaborated below.

Ever-increasing complexity

In my article from 2021 already I commented on the ever-increasing complexity in the “G” development. Not only is there an increasing technical complexity for every “G” – since every “G” does not only specify a new radio interface but also a new core network – and since the “G” must accommodate a large set of options due to different requirements from different regions and players – as the ecosystem for every “G” has widened. New players see new opportunities and have differing business interests.

While the early “G”s were for mobile operators only, the business case for implementing and rolling out the “G” was reasonably straightforward. The operator paid license fees for exclusive spectrum and served mostly consumers – and the business case was basically about network costs and counting the number of consumers on it – in competition with one or two other operators doing the same. There may have been a concern about earlier “G”s and maintaining multiple networks, but less than today. In many cases an operator therefore was not ready for another “G” and would have preferred to wait with launching a new “G” in the market. This situation also remains today – at least in Europe. A telco vendor like Ericsson, Nokia, Huawei etc, on the other hand, always needs another ”G” to sell – so they keep on pushing for the next “G” (as can also be seen today around 5G and 6G).

The hesitation among operators, as well as the time it takes to complete the standard for the next “G”, result in an increased time to market – and, as I have been saying a few times already, counting on 6G coming to market around 2030 is too early. If 6G at all shall be a success, market launch needs to be deferred as 1) the 6G standard needs to be sufficiently stable and 2) because operators must want to do it – as it is currently unclear what the business case for an operator is for 6G.

Some regions of the world keep pushing for 6G (as also for 5G) but at least operators in Europe hesitate. In the meantime, alternative technologies like WiFi are developing and with a shorter time to market. WiFi is defined through other standards bodies and is also technically simpler. It could be that the most important use cases for wireless, like communication indoors and for industrial use, could be taken by WiFi – not 5G and most likely also 6G. See also my earlier article on “Private 5G – Why not there yet?”. Pivate 5G/6G networks may also jeopardize the business case for operators.

The problem of the ”G”-cycle

The historical “G”-cycle of 10 years has for some reason been carved in stone. Even the ITU keeps referring to “IMT 2020” and IMT 2030”. It may have been right for the early “G”s (or not? - as 3G did not really deliver). One of my favourite statements that “every odd “G” is not really needed” is therefore worth thinking about. One could have said that 5G (as 3G) was not really needed – but it is already in the market, so we really need to bet on it – as long as the “real” 5G starts coming to market. We should therefore focus on making 5G a success – and delay 6G for five or ten years. May the “G” cycle should be increased to 15 years (or more)?

Whether it is a 10- or 15-year cycle, it is probably so that large and fundamental technology shifts must be driven by technology and technologists – and then the market and marketing people will need to figure out what to sell and how to sell it when it comes (as long as a certain business sense can be seen). For classical “G”s , due to their complexity and time to market, this telco way of working therefore needs to happen this way - and can serve as a platform for innovation. For more short-term product development the “G” can a platform. This means that a new “G” either needs to have obvious business cases – or the “G” must be seen as a strategic investment and supported by Governments.

A ”G” that nobody wants – overtaken by alternative technologies?

The elephant or the mouse: A simple analogy might be in place here. The mouse is small, fast and dynamic. The elephant may take some time to move, but when it moves it is difficult to stop. The same could be said about how the internet is developing and the telco way of working, with 3GPP standards being developed over decades, supported by operators and large global telco vendors – and then operators build and launch national infrastructures for every “G” – and sell communications services for a few decades.

There is therefore a risk in the global picture here, i.e. that 6G could be a failure because it does not provide much new that can be sold to consumers and businesses with scale – or it takes too long. There is therefore a trade-off between time to market and achieving a stable and global standard that provides something new and that someone wants to build. As the internet community / WiFi camp develops faster, there is a risk for the telco camp that they may be overtaken by events. I still believe that a 15-year cycle is more appropriate than 10, however. The point is simply that 6G must be moving on the right track.

Strategic programme or ROI focus

Whatever the “G”-cycle is, it does not fit with other important cycles. In many countries the political cycle is an election every four years, which leads to politicians having only a four-year horizon. The same applies to the ITU’s World Radio Conference, which identifies spectrum across the globe every four years – and people are already now lining up to lobby for the WRC-27. Shall spectrum be given to 5G and 6G – or to WiFi?

Without getting into a political debate around democracy versus autocracy (I obviously support democracy), there are many examples of historical projects and long-term planning which would struggle to happen today. In Europe there are many castles which would never have been built unless directed by a king (e.g. Versailles, Neuschwanstein etc). The Chinese wall would probably also not have been built for similar reasons. This is probably also why there is a difference between China and the rest of the world today around the focus on 5G and 6G – as China normally has a longer-term perspective (because they can). A certain long-term strategic planning is needed – and four-year cycles do not fit with ten- or fifteen-year cycles.

The following article (link) elaborates on the differences between China and Europe in terms of focus on 5G and 6G. China as a nation treats 5G (and 6G) as strategic long-term projects and executes at scale, while Europe’s operators are waiting for a business case without much Government support. As a result, China has today more 5G base stations than the rest of the world combined. In addition, China is executing on what 5G is really for, i.e. industrial applications. If I look back almost 40 years now, Europe did more or less the same, i.e. the European Commission (EC) pushed through a Memorandum of Understanding (ending up with the formation of the GSMA by the way) between national administrations in Europe committing to implement GSM (2G) within a given timeline. This is a long time ago (and the ecosystem was very much simpler) but there was a clear business case and a political push across Europe to roll out 2G. Although the EC is also pushing for 5G and 6G in Europe also today, the ecosystem and its complexity hampers such rollout – and the business case and ROI for operators are more difficult. As a multi-local industry, the mobile industry in Europe lacks scale and a common political support – with associated incentives and funding.

A similar article can also be found here on assessing the emergence of 6G, requesting to get the 6G train on the right track. In my own mind, 6G may not really be needed (at least for an operator) unless services that can be sold to the mass market are found as well as a business case for an operator (so far unclear – refer my earlier “Making 5G a success – or waiting for 6G?” article). For the moment it seems that 6G (like 5G) is about undefined B2B services that have not yet been successful for 5G – and clearly will not be for the mass market. Other players than operators may find it attractive, however, if someone (an operator?) builds the infrastructure for it. Refer also this commentary on why nobody is in the mood for 6G.

Spectrum issues

As commented above, the race for WRC-27 has already begun between the operator lobby and the WiFi camp. The GSMA’s view on 6 GHz allocation in Europe can be found here on the upper 6 GHz band – and various (generally quite anti-operator) commentaries (e.g. here by Dean Bubley ) would like to see as much as possible of the 6GHz band identified for WiFi.

I commented on the 6 GHz issue some years ago already in the article “WiFi6 and 5G – Is 6 better than 5?”. It is quite old now (before WRC-23) but still quite up to date. At WRC-23, “the 6 GHz band (6.425-7.125 GHz) was identified for mobile use in every ITU Region (EMEA, Americas, and Asia-Pacific)” – and “while primarily identified for mobile, the band's use for Wi-Fi was also addressed. In some regions, the lower portion of the 6 GHz band (6.425-6.725 GHz) is allocated for unlicensed use, including Wi-Fi 6E and future Wi-Fi technologies.”

As stated in my above article, China has already opened the whole 6 GHz band for licensed use (i.e. 5G etc) – and Europe has opened only the bottom 500 MHz for unlicensed use. The rest will be for 5G etc. The USA and other countries in the Americas have opened the whole 6 GHz band for unlicensed use. While there was already a battleground around 6 GHz at WRC-23, this will continue at WRC-27. It will probably continue to be a geopolitical battle for the next years.

A wider commentary on the usefulness of spectrum for mobile use by Light Reading is provided here.

Geopolitics and potential Balkanization

In my earlier articles “5G or 6G? The story all over again?” and  “5G? 6G? Hypes, geopolitics and business” I have already commented on geopolitics and countries and regions of the world wanting to have or take the “technology lead” on 5G and 6G – although “technology lead” is really about local business interests and in a larger picture world dominance. Refer also my earlier article from this year “Taking the digital lead” focusing also on AI and the Nordics, however.

From my “digital lead” article above: “The regulatory scene is very different in Europe, China and the US – and there are also clear differences in scale. China (as also India) are big enough to create global scale simply by developing technology domestically – while Europe and the US are quite comparable in scale. Further, with the EU not being one country but many, also prioritizing local (per country) competition over consolidation, it is very difficult to compete on scale. The same applies for innovation – being hampered by regulation and lack of scale. The US is trying its best, however, to overcome their scale disadvantage versus China at political level by boycotting Chinese vendors and technology – and hoping to drag their allies along.”

Looking forward towards 6G, there are risks that the 6G technology and ecosystem will be Balkanized (see also this commentary from Sebastian Barros). A more comprehensive analysis (focused on Europe) can also be found here from the Swedish Institute of International Affairs. Balkanization in mobile telecoms is not new and has been seen before, e.g. for 2G the US tried to develop their own mobile standards but failed due to internal disagreements and more commercial sense in adopting a global standard – and when the Chinese developed their own 3G standards to promote the Chinese industry (like Huawei and ZTE). In both cases, the world converged later on unified global standards.

Summary

First I will repeat a few of my summary points from my “Making 5G a success – or waiting for 6G?” article from earlier this year:

1. At this point in time, leave 6G to the standards guys and make sure 5G is a success! We don’t need another 3G with huge investments, little pay-off and a short lifetime.

2. 6G will come – but 2030 is too early for market launches. 5G was already too complex and launched too early - and 5G SA which has all the promises in it is not even there yet 5 years after. The proper telco cycle should probably be around 15 years these days.

3. The standardization work on 5G is still happening and for 6G it will go on as well – but the main challenges for both are commercial not technical.

4. Much work is still needed on business models for industrial applications in 5G – a main challenge being economy of scale. Large corporate verticals may have specific interests and solutions in mind - and they may either be willing to pay the cost or go for private 5G networks.

5. It is still unclear who 6G is for and what its purpose is – and who will make money from it. It may well be that operators could be unwilling to pay lots of money for licensed 6G spectrum – unless their business case is clear. 6G is still in an early phase of development, so it might become clearer with time, however, it seems to me that there are limited opportunities for economy of scale.

6. For indoor use, also WiFi is a good (and already existing) alternative, however, without going into details on this there are clear benefits for 5G above WiFi – like in-built security, seamless operation with outdoor coverage, stability and more.

7. Regulators need to understand the various business model aspects around 6G and to consider alternative licensing schemes, with licensed, unlicensed or shared spectrum which support a sustainable business for all. It will also be necessary for regulators and politicians to understand that not all of the business case for 6G can be assumed for the mobile operators – which must be reflected in the 6G licensing schemes.

To add some summary points from this article, I would list:

1. Strategy or business sense: Only China is really progressing on industrial applications in 5G, as they can do it in scale and since it has national support and focus. In Europe, there is generally a “wait and see” attitude (with some exceptions) – and in the US the focus of operators is still also a lot on B2C and FWA. For 6G the business case for an operator is even more unclear, so more clarity is needed. Operators need to see a sustainable business case for 6G (if at all realistic) which needs to be understood. Political support and funding for 6G must be available should it be difficult to find. May be some learning from China should be applied?

2. Balkanization: As seen a few times before, Balkanization of 6G is a real threat due to geopolitics – which would result in poorer economies of scale for all but possibly benefit some countries or regions (for a period). Balkanization is already seen in the current spectrum identification from WRC-23, with the Americas going unlicensed and China going licensed – and with Europe in between. Local business interests of course play an important part in this. It is important to keep the 6G standard unified as one global standard to reach economy of scale. Support and push from Governments and everyone in standards development is important to reach this goal.

3. Standards process and timeline: It is critical to take the time needed in 3GPP to make sure the 6G standard is stable before countries and operators push for market launch. Operators may not need it (or want it) early and there should not be any "pre-standards" going to market. It may also be that 3GPP should not be the only important standards body involved in the 6G definition. May be the 3GPP should take some learnings from IETF, IEEE and W2C?

4. Make it simple: The telco way of working with “G”s every decade has made the “G”s more and more complex and with increasing time to market. For 6G it is important that this trend is not continuing. The 3GPP is today dominated by anyone else than operators with their own business interests - and they all want their specifics. The operator business case for 6G is not very much in focus – although the NGMN tries to influence in their own way. It is critical to cut down on options and to make it simple.

5. Operators will need to build it: It is critical to set the right context and framework for the 6G development. 6G should not be Balkanized and it should not be developed as a totally new infrastructure but built on 5G as much as possible. There is a risk that operators will not do it if there is no obvious business case for a totally new infrastructure without much new to sell. To quote my old friend Bill Best: “5G is enough thanks”. 6G should build upon 5G as much as possible and allow for adaptations to cover new use cases. After all, someone has to build the infrastructure everyone can benefit from (if they want to).