El espectro es la savia que alimenta los servicios móviles y el motor de la economía móvil. El panorama en materia de espectro es hoy en día más dinámico que nunca, porque el ecosistema debe enfrentarse a nuevos modelos de asignación y despliegue, a la competencia entre empresas por los recursos y a las nuevas demandas que se imponen a los recursos de espectro 2G y 3G ya existentes.

Tanto en el sector de telefonía móvil como fuera de él, contar con la información adecuada es fundamental para comprender la dinámica que rige el espectro. Por ello, GSMA Intelligence ha lanzado una nueva serie de informes trimestrales en los que saca partido de su herramienta Spectrum Navigator. Dichos informes describen los últimos avances importantes y las tendencias clave a las que deberemos estar atentos en el futuro.

En la edición correspondiente al primer trimestre, GSMA Intelligence examina algunas novedades del mercado en el sector del espectro, así como el impacto que estas han tenido sobre la industria.

Nuevo impulso a las licitaciones de 5G
Tras una ralentización en el segundo trimestre de 2020 debida a los confinamientos provocados por la Covid-19, las asignaciones de espectro han empezado a acelerarse.

Durante el primer trimestre de 2021, cuatro países han asignado nuevo espectro 5G, y Chile ha sido la primera nación de América Latina en hacerlo mediante un proceso de licitación. El progreso en las bandas bajas continúa y el Reino Unido ha adjudicado espectro en la banda de 700 MHz. Conviene tenerlo en cuenta, porque Europa se está quedando atrás en dicha banda. Más de la mitad de los países de la Unión Europea no han cumplido el plazo para asignar espectro 5G en la banda de 700 MHz a finales de 2020.

En 2021 habrá nuevas asignaciones en 28 países distintos, lo que supone un incremento significativo respecto a los 17 de 2020. Otros países podrían anunciar novedades a lo largo del año, a medida que los planes de 5G se desarrollen.

Siempre que aparece una nueva generación de tecnología de redes móviles, surge el problema de la disponibilidad de espectro. Las operadoras necesitan nuevos recursos de espectro que les permitan desplegar la nueva tecnología. Las demoras en la asignación de espectro afectan al despliegue, el alcance y la calidad de servicio de las redes 5G.

La hoja de ruta para asignar espectro a la 6G está en camino
Las recientes declaraciones sobre la 6G van más allá de la mera visión de una nueva tecnología y empiezan a cobrar cuerpo casos de uso reales y hojas de ruta.

El recién creado grupo 6G Vision del UIT-R se encargará de definir la nueva tecnología y sus capacidades a medida que la industria avanza hacia su estandarización. Las perspectivas de comercialización se sitúan en torno al 2030. Por otra parte, el gobierno chino prevé priorizar el desarrollo de la 6G para el 2025 e incorporar dicha tecnología a su estrategia digital más amplia. La Next G Alliance ha puesto en marcha grupos de trabajo en América del Norte a partir de la hoja de ruta de la 6G.

La investigación se centra en aplicaciones y casos de uso que requieren la transmisión y el procesamiento de cantidades masivas de datos, así como el traslado de la inteligencia al Edge.

Desde el punto de vista del espectro, se trataría de establecer comunicaciones en las bandas de GHz y THz. Puede parecer que es demasiado pronto para hablar de la siguiente generación en tecnología, sobre todo porque en muchos mercados ni siquiera se ha asignado espectro para la 5G. Pero, cuando se trata de espectro, las discusiones tienen que empezar con mucha antelación. La actual banda principal de la 5G (la de 3,5 GHz) empezó a debatirse en la Conferencia Mundial de Radiocomunicaciones de la UIT celebrada en 2007, y se licitó por primera vez al cabo de una década.

Los elevados precios de reserva frustran la venta de espectro valioso en India
En la más reciente subasta de espectro de India, algunas frecuencias se han adjudicado al precio de salida, o no se han vendido en absoluto. Se ofrecían 2.308,8 MHz en siete bandas y solo se han vendido 855,6 MHz (el 37%).

Todo el espectro se ha vendido al precio de salida, mientras que las bandas de 700 MHz y 2,5 GHz no han recibido oferta alguna.

La falta de interés por el valioso espectro de 700 MHz se ha debido a los elevados precios de salida. Las operadoras priorizan la continuidad de las licencias de espectro que se van a renovar y la consolidación de la tenencia de bandas ya asignadas.

Desde 2010, India ha convocado varias licitaciones, que han tenido como resultado una asignación limitada de espectro, debido a los elevados precios de reserva. Como consecuencia, la tenencia de espectro de las operadoras de telefonía móvil de India son inferiores a las de economías comparables, así como a las medias mundiales y regionales.
India, con tan solo 320 MHz de espectro asignado, está muy por detrás de economías comparables como China (777 MHz), Rusia (595 MHz) y Brasil (590 MHz). Disponer de un volumen suficiente de espectro asequible es fundamental para ampliar y mejorar los servicios de banda ancha móvil.

– Dennisa Nichiforov-Chuang – Analista principal en espectro, GSMA Intelligence

Las opiniones editoriales expresadas en este artículo son exclusivas de la autora y no reflejan necesariamente los puntos de vista de la GSMA, sus Miembros o Miembros Asociados.

Spectrum is the lifeblood of mobile services and what drives the mobile economy. The current spectrum landscape is more dynamic than ever before as the ecosystem today must contend with new allocation and deployment models, enterprise competition for resources and fresh demands on existing 2G and 3G spectrum resources.

Across the mobile industry and beyond, getting the right intelligence is key to understanding spectrum dynamics, which is why GSMA Intelligence has launched a new quarterly report series, leveraging its Spectrum Navigator [1] tool. These reports outline the latest important developments and key trends to watch going forward.

From the Q1 edition [2], GSMA Intelligence looks at a few market developments in the spectrum space and the impact on the industry.

Fresh momentum for 5G auctions
After a slowdown in Q2 2020 due to Covid-19 (coronavirus) lockdowns, spectrum assignments started to accelerate.

Four countries assigned new 5G spectrum in Q1 2021, with Chile becoming the first nation in Latin America to do so through an auction process. Progress in low bands continues, with the UK awarding spectrum in the 700MHz band. This is noteworthy because Europe is lagging in this particular band: more than half of the European Union countries missed a deadline to assign 5G spectrum in the 700MHz band by the end of 2020.

This year, there will be new assignments across 28 countries, a significant increase on the 17 nations in 2020. Other countries may make announcements throughout the year as 5G plans ramp.

With every launch of a new generation of mobile network technology, the issue of spectrum availability arises. Operators face pressure to secure additional spectrum resources with which to launch the new technology. Delayed spectrum assignments impact rollout, reach and quality of services of 5G networks.

Spectrum roadmap for 6G is on its way
Recent announcements related to 6G move beyond just a vision for a new technology, to actual use cases and roadmaps.

The recently-launched ITU-R 6G Vision Group is tasked with defining the technology and its capabilities as the industry moves towards standardisation. The outlook for commercialisation is in the 2030 timeframe. Meanwhile, China’s government reportedly plans to prioritise development of 6G for 2025, making the technology part of its wider digital strategy. In North America, the Next G Alliance has started working groups on the 6G roadmap.

Research is focusing on applications and use cases requiring the transmission and processing of massive amounts of data and moving intelligence to the edge.

From the spectrum perspective, it is about communicating in GHz and THz bands. It might seem early to start discussing the next generation of technology especially as 5G spectrum is yet to be assigned in many markets. However, when it comes to spectrum, discussions have to start well ahead. The current key band for 5G (3.5 GHz) was initially discussed in ITU’s WRC context in 2007, followed by the first assignment a decade later.

High reserve prices leave valuable spectrum unsold in India
In the latest Indian spectrum auction some frequencies were either sold at reserve price or not sold at all. A total of 2308.8MHz was on offer across seven bands, out of which only 855.6MHz (37 per cent) was sold.

All spectrum sold went at reserve price, while the 700MHz and 2.5GHz bands did not receive any bids.

Lack of appetite for the valuable 700MHz spectrum [3] was due to high reserve prices: for operators, the priority is to first ensure continuity of spectrum licences coming up for renewal or consolidate current holdings in bands already assigned.

Since 2010, India has had several auctions that resulted in limited spectrum being assigned due to high reserve prices. As a result of this, spectrum holdings of mobile operators in India are lower than comparable economies, as well as global and regional averages.

With only 320MHz of spectrum assigned, India is well behind other comparable economies such as China (777MHz), Russia (595MHz) and Brazil (590MHz). Making sufficient amounts of affordable spectrum available is central to expanding and upgrading mobile broadband services.

– Dennisa Nichiforov-Chuang – lead analyst, Spectrum, GSMA Intelligence

The editorial views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and will not necessarily reflect the views of the GSMA, its Members or Associate Members.

[1] https://www.gsmaintelligence.com/spectrum/
[2] https://data.gsmaintelligence.com/research/research/research-2021/spectrum-navigator-q1-2021-new-insights-and-trends-to-watch
[3] https://www.mobileworldlive.com/featured-content/home-banner/indian-operators-shun-5g-in-11b-spectrum-auction

Durante las últimas semanas se han anunciado acuerdos sobre plataformas en nube, las operadoras han desplegado nuevos casos de uso de la 5G, han anunciado novedades en 6G y se ha informado sobre acuerdos y despliegues de redes privadas.

En este contexto, hemos optado por un análisis detallado de la 6G y la sanidad digital.

6G: ¿Es el momento?
¿Sabías que…? En estos últimos tiempos hemos constatado que se habla cada vez más en la industria sobre la 6G, conocida también como “más allá de la 5G”.
Ya sea por el lanzamiento de la Next G Alliance en el cuarto trimestre de 2020, o por el artilugio que según China es el primer satélite compatible, la industria está pendiente de la 6G. Acontecimientos tales como la afirmación de China de que sus empresas nacionales han presentado en torno al 35% de las solicitudes de patentes de dicha tecnología, y la creación de un grupo de estudio en el UIT-R encargado de definir las capacidades clave de la 6G, explican que la industria anuncie nuevos planes.
Tal vez le haya pasado por alto que:

Estados Unidos y Japón se han unido para invertir 4.500 millones de dólares (casi 3.700 millones de euros) en I+D, pruebas y despliegues de redes seguras relacionados con la 6G.
El gobierno alemán ha destinado hasta 700 millones de euros a la investigación en 6G desde el año actual hasta 2025. La inversión inicial de 200 millones de euros se destinará a la creación de centros de investigación que trabajarán en el desarrollo de la 6G mediante la coordinación de actividades y la colaboración con otros organismos internacionales.
Huawei, en su conferencia mundial para analistas, ha anunciado que tiene previsto comercializar equipos 6G en 2030. Según la información disponible, la firma china también prevé lanzar dos satélites de prueba en julio para estudiar dicha tecnología.
La Next G Alliance ha anunciado la creación de grupos de trabajo y el lanzamiento de su programa técnico. El grupo de trabajo que se encarga de la hoja de ruta 6G Nacional es el equipo clave y abordará el ciclo vital completo de comercialización.

¿Y entonces…?
Según nuestras cifras, a finales del primer trimestre de 2021 las conexiones 5G representaban tan solo el 4,21% del total mundial. Por ello, ante los recientes anuncios e iniciativas relacionados con la 6G, son muchos quienes se preguntan si es el momento adecuado para avanzar en esa dirección, o si hay que seguir trabajando en la 5G.

Sabemos que las redes móviles comerciales 5G no vieron la luz hasta 2019 y que deberán recorrer un largo camino para alcanzar todo su potencial, desde el desarrollo de las innovaciones digitales habilitadas en varios sectores hasta la aplicación de los estándares pendientes de la Release 17 del 3GPP.

Pero tampoco ignoramos que pronto habrá que empezar a definir la hoja de ruta de la 6G. Habrá quien argumente que dicha tecnología se halla en una fase incipiente, que carece incluso de definición industrial, y que todo lo que podamos hacer ahora entorpecerá el desarrollo de la 5G. Pero si contamos con que el despliegue comercial de la 6G tenga lugar en 2030, tendremos que iniciar la planificación para apoyar el despliegue comercial dentro de dicho plazo. Así, habrá que debatir los requisitos de espectro, la definición de normas, etc. Y en el aquí y el ahora, habrá que buscar maneras de integrar las eventuales innovaciones de la 6G en las redes 5G.

Sanidad digital: ¿Falta mucho para que se haga realidad? ¿Qué papel tendrán las operadoras?
¿Sabías que…? Según las fuentes consultadas, el mercado mundial de sanidad digital debería crecer a un ritmo del 25% entre 2019 y 2025. La adopción de prácticas digitales en la sanidad (telemedicina, dispositivos de seguimiento a distancia) comenzó hace años, pero la Covid-19 ha acelerado la transformación digital de la sanidad al poner de manifiesto las limitaciones de los sistemas convencionales.

Las operadoras progresan con rapidez en el ámbito de la sanidad digital a través de alianzas, fusiones y adquisiciones. Recientemente se han anunciado algunas de dichas alianzas:

AT&T y Cherish Health se han unico para ayudar en el cuidado de los pacientes de Covid-19. Un dispositivo biosensor portátil de Cherish Health, capaz de controlar los niveles de oxígeno, la temperatura y el ritmo cardíaco de los pacientes, funciona con la red First Net construida por AT&T.
LifeLabs se ha asociado con Telus Health para ofrecer a los abonados de su servicio MyCareCompass asesoramiento virtual a través de la aplicación Babylon de esta segunda firma.
T-Mobile US y Zyter han colaborado para que la atención sanitaria virtual sea accesible a un número mayor de personas. Zyter usará la red de T-Mobile para facilitar la comunicación a distancia entre pacientes y profesionales sanitarios.
Airtel India ha formalizado un acuerdo con Apollo 24/7 para ofrecer servicios sanitarios virtuales a los clientes de su programa de incentivos Airtel Thanks.

¿Y entonces…?
Hace tiempo que las operadoras están atentas a las posibilidades de la sanidad digital. Todo empezó hace años con los dispositivos de control de la glucosa y la presión sanguínea habilitados para M2M, cuyos datos podían ser consultados por los profesionales sanitarios en una plataforma en la nube. A lo largo de 2020, la presión de la pandemia sobre las infraestructuras sanitarias y la necesidad de confinamiento doméstico han impulsado las soluciones sanitarias digitales, como las consultas de telemedicina, las plataformas de atención virtual y las telefarmacias.

[1]

¿Qué se juegan las operadoras móviles?
Una encuesta entre operadoras realizada por GSMA Intelligence en 2020 concluyó que la sanidad se hallaba entre los sectores verticales, aparte de la conectividad, en los que dichas empresas podían obtener mayores ingresos durante la era de la 5G (véase el gráfico, arriba, haga clic para ampliar).

Los casos de uso previstos, como la telecirugía, aún se encuentran en proceso de desarrollo, pero la disponibilidad de la 5G en 59 países ha encaminado las tan esperadas iniciativas de sanidad digital por la vía rápida del éxito. Gracias a alianzas como las mencionadas más arriba, las operadoras podrían desempeñar un papel clave en la transformación digital de la sanidad.

El sector ofrece múltiples oportunidades a las operadoras, como por ejemplo la conectividad, el despliegue de redes privadas, el almacenamiento en la nube, el análisis de datos, el desarrollo de plataformas virtuales, la detección y el diagnóstico a distancia.

No sería prematuro afirmar que la sanidad digital se halla cada vez más cerca de hacerse realidad y que las operadoras están ocupando su espacio en el nuevo sistema. Telus Health es un buen ejemplo, puesto que los servicios sanitarios suponen aproximadamente el 3,5% de sus ingresos totales en el primer trimestre de 2021.

– Radhika Gupta – directora de Adquisición de Datos y de Estrategia, GSMA Intelligence

Las opiniones editoriales expresadas en este artículo son exclusivas de la autora y no reflejan necesariamente los puntos de vista de la GSMA, sus Miembros o Miembros Asociados.</em

[1] https://www.mobileworldlive.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/GSMAi_industry_verticals_forecast.jpg

Last month, we kicked off our new monthly blog series to explore recent announcements and trends in the telecom industry. We look at what is happening in the industry, how it is impacting operators and why it is important, based on curated news from our Industry Feed [1].

Recent weeks have brought announcements on cloud platform deals, operators deploying new 5G use cases, 6G-related announcements and updates on private network deals and deployments.

Against this backdrop, we selected 6G and digital healthcare to take a deeper look at.

6G: Is the clock ticking?
Do you know that…Recently, we have seen an increasing buzz in the industry around 6G, also referred to as beyond 5G.

Be it the launch of Next G Alliance [2] in Q4 2020 or of what China claimed to be the first compatible satellite [3], 6G is clearly on the radar of industry. Developments like China claiming domestic companies account for about 35 per cent of related patent applications and the establishment of vision group within the ITU-R to define key capabilities of 6G, are some of the contributors to propelling the industry to announce plans.

What might you have missed?

The U.S and Japan joined forces to invest $4.5 billion in R&D, testing and deployment of secure networks for the next generation of communications.
Germany’s government earmarked up to €700 million ($855 million) for 6G research by 2025. The initial investment of €200 million will be injected to create research hubs which will work towards preparing the next generation of communications by coordinating activities and working with other international bodies.
Huawei, at its global analyst conference, announced plans to launch 6G equipment in 2030. Reportedly, Huawei is also planning to launch two test satellites in July to explore the technology
The Next G alliance announced the formation of working groups and the launch of its technical program. The National 6G roadmap working group is the key group and will address the full lifecycle of commercialisation.

So what?
Where our figures show 5G connections accounted for only 4.21 per cent of global connections by the end of Q1 2021, the recent announcements and initiatives on 6G leave many people pondering if now is the right time for the clock to start moving or if the focus should remain on 5G.

We know commercial mobile 5G networks only saw the light of the day in 2019 and have a long way to go to reach their full potential, from exploring digital innovations enabled across various sectors to the deployment of pending standards from 3GPP Release 17.

But, what also can’t be ignored is that we must start defining the 6G roadmap in the near-term. Some might argue the technology is still in a nascent stage pending even the industrial definition and any focus right now will disturb the growth of 5G. However, as 6G is expected to be deployed commercially by 2030, planning needs to get underway now to support the commercial deployment within this timeframe. This includes discussions on spectrum requirements, defining standards, et cetera. And, in the here and now, it includes looking for ways to integrate would-be 6G innovations into 5G networks.

Digital healthcare: how far from reality and what is the role of operators?
Do you know that…Sources state the global digital healthcare market is expected to grow at a CAGR of 25 per cent between 2019 and 2025. The adoption of digital practices in healthcare (telehealth, remote monitoring devices) began years ago, but Covid-19 (coronavirus) accelerated the digital transformation of healthcare by exposing the challenges in conventional systems.

Operators are rapidly progressing in the digital healthcare space with partnerships, mergers and acquisitions. In a few such partnership announcements recently:

AT&T and Cherish Health partnered to help monitor Covid-19 patients. A wearable biosensor device from Cherish Health capable of monitoring patient’s oxygen levels, temperature and heart rate is powered by the First Net network built by AT&T.
LifeLabs teamed with Telus Health to offers its MyCareCompass customers virtual counselling through the Babylon app from Telus Health.
T-Mobile US and Zyter collaborated to make virtual healthcare accessible to more people. Zyter will use the network footprint of T-Mobile to bring patients and healthcare professionals closer remotely.
Airtel India joined with Apollo 24/7 to offer customers of its Airtel Thanks rewards programme customers virtual healthcare services.

So what?
Digital healthcare opportunities have been on operators’ radar for quite some time now. Years ago, it began with M2M-enabled glucose and blood pressure monitoring devices where data could then be accessed by healthcare professionals on a cloud platform. Fast forward to 2020, the strain caused by the pandemic on healthcare infrastructure and the need to stay-at-home gave a push to digital healthcare solutions including telehealth consultations, and virtual care platforms and pharmacies.

[4]

 

What’s at play for mobile operators?
A GSMA Intelligence survey of operators in 2020 found healthcare was among the top verticals deemed as an opportunity in the 5G era to boost revenue beyond connectivity (see chart, above, click to enlarge).

Predicted use cases including remote surgery are still a work in progress, but the availability of 5G in 59 countries has put long-awaited digital healthcare initiatives on a fast track to success. Riding on the back of these partnerships, operators are well on their journey to play a key role in the digital transformation of healthcare.

The sector offers multiple opportunities for operators including connectivity, private network deployments, cloud storage, data analytics, developing virtual platforms, remote screening and diagnostics.

It would not be premature to say digital healthcare is moving further in the direction of reality and that operators are busy carving out their space in the new system. Telus Health sets a good example in this regard, as health services accounted for approximately 3.5 per cent of its total revenue in Q1 2021.

All the above analysis is based on news curated by GSMA Intelligence’s team of analysts and taken from their Industry Updates feed, available here [5].

– Radhika Gupta – head of data acquisition, strategy, GSMA Intelligence

The editorial views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and will not necessarily reflect the views of the GSMA, its Members or Associate Members.

[1] https://data.gsmaintelligence.com/industry-updates
[2] https://www.mobileworldlive.com/featured-content/home-banner/att-ericsson-execs-to-lead-us-6g-research-group
[3] https://www.mobileworldlive.com/featured-content/home-banner/china-puts-6g-test-satellite-into-orbit
[4] https://www.mobileworldlive.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/GSMAi_industry_verticals_forecast.jpg
[5] https://data.gsmaintelligence.com/industry-updates

Earlier this month we wrote an analysis [1] looking at network and service automation and why it was an increasingly important topic, especially in a 5G context.

But, while we captured the main automation market drivers, we left out one important consideration: the role of intent-driven networking and the importance of collaboration in making it possible.

The analysis is worth a quick read but, to save you some time, I can recap the main points. They are fairly straightforward.

With operators scaling their 5G networks and services in 2020, it’s fair to say we are now firmly in a period of commercialised 5G. Nearly 150 operators around the world have launched services, and affordable smartphones can put services in the hands of an increasing number of consumers.

But 5G comes with its own challenges (costs) for operators:

Network operations. 5G involves new radio access and core assets deployed in new architectures and places, all alongside legacy networks.
B2B operations. The enterprise sector is a major source of 5G optimism: for most operators, it represents their greatest hope for new revenue. Yet, much like 5G itself, moving into the enterprise comes with new network architectures and assets to be deployed, adding even more complexity into the picture.
Quality demands. Selling consumers or enterprises on the 5G promise will only be possible if services are reliable and deliver as promised. Against the backdrop of new network complexity and operations challenges, that cannot be taken for granted.

Now, recognising opex is the major cost centre for most operators, easily outpacing capex by up to four-times, it’s clear solving these challenges by simply throwing more resources or labour at them isn’t a palatable option. Network and service automation, then, takes on a renewed importance but through the lens of a journey where automated systems and processes can be put in place in a step-wise manner.

What is intent-driven networking?
With the background context out of the way, it’s time to introduce a new concept into the discussion: intent.

Intent Management. Intent-driven networks. Intent-based networking. The concept goes by many names, but the basic idea is a relatively simple one, if often accompanied by lots of technical detail.

Intent-driven networking aims to strip out the complexities associated with network policies (creating them, managing them, enforcing them in line with general business objectives) to limit the need for (and errors caused by) human capital. Of course, AI and ML play a major role in enabling this.

Now, if this seems like a very broad description of automation in general, you’d be correct. But the difference here is all about the term “business objectives.”

The notion of intent is built around network configurations and commands that are driven by business objectives. This means policies need to be user/business friendly and outcome-based. At the same time, it means business intent needs to be translated into specific actions in terms of resource allocation, policy enforcement and network/service monitoring, all with AI/ML tools doing their work in the background. When it’s in place, intent-management promises network administrators the ability to define a business outcome/intent with the networks AI/ML capabilities sorting out how to make it happen and then actually make it happen.

Can you have intent without collaboration?
On paper, then, the concept of intent is straightforward: a focus on business outcomes instead of network configurations aligns completely with the goal of reduced complexity and improved service quality.

But is implementation just as straightforward?

You probably already know the answer. It’s going to be a complex effort because operator networks, themselves, are multi-layered and complex. This may seem obvious, but it is an important reminder. A given operator will maintain many multiple OSS systems, as well as myriad element management (EMS) and network management (NMS) assets. Going forward, these will need to consider many new network infrastructure locations (think edge computing), from which new services will be coordinated and/or delivered. In most cases, the network will be built from a number of different vendors. And this is all taking place against the backdrop of a universe of operators, many of whom may try to drive intent-based automation forward in their own ways.

This comes with a very clear implication: we will need collaboration across many multiple dimensions.

Of course, strategically we will need collaboration across vendors and operators to ensure we can identify (infer) the intent of various applications and that APIs remain open enough to support all of this. More fundamentally, however we will need collaboration across OSS, EMS, and NMS solutions. Without this, the end-to-end view needed to deliver on automated intent management just won’t work. And, remember those new network locations? They obviously need to be a part of this equation, but maybe not in the way you’re thinking. Yes, these assets will need to be managed. But, as automated (intent-driven) service delivery is rolled out, operators will need to consider the best locations from which to have decisions made, closer to the core for cross-domain, global, non real-time decisions versus closer to the user where real-time performance requirements take precedence. This too will need close collaboration.

If the value of intent as a core component of network and service automation is so obvious, you might be asking why we didn’t address it in our analysis.

It’s a good question, with a simple answer.

While we know that operators are prioritising automation, it’s still unclear how they view intent as a part of those strategies. To be fair, vendors claim no shortage of operator collaborations around automation and even note intent as part of that. But, consider your average network slicing conversation. How integral is the concept of intent? It should be central to the very existence of slicing, but they aren’t always mentioned in the same breath.

Now, we can’t necessarily expect two emerging technologies, driven by different sets of interests, to have their terminologies align perfectly. Yet, this does highlight a disconnect and why we need to understand better how operators are thinking about intent.

While we looked at automation extensively in our last Network Transformation survey, we did not dig into the topic of intent. As we launch an update to our survey, look for further insights on the topic in the future.

– Peter Jarich – head of GSMA Intelligence

The editorial views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and will not necessarily reflect the views of the GSMA, its Members or Associate Members.

[1] https://data.gsmaintelligence.com/research/research/research-2021/network-automation-revisited-the-5g-priority

Last month big tech bosses were summoned to a US congressional hearing, held virtually. They were questioned about unrest in Washington DC’s Capitol Hill on 6 January and on the escalating issue of how false information online can fuel extremism.

The term false information has two dimensions: misinformation and disinformation. While the former often refers to misleading or inaccurate content shared innocently, the latter is generally characterised by an intent to cause harm through malicious untruths. False information online presents challenges for all countries, not just the US, and has been exacerbated by the ongoing Covid-19 (coronavirus) pandemic.

With some countermeasures prone to unintended, if not damaging consequences, addressing the issue in the long run is expect to need collaboration across the public and private sectors.

The spread of false information online: why is this a growing concern?
Society has long grappled with the dissemination of false information, however the arrival of the internet has proved an accelerant, with one Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) study indicating so-called fake news is able to permeate the digital world faster than real news. Online channels are efficient instruments to spread false information for a number of reasons:

the scale of online communities and platforms.
convenience and instantaneity, particularly of mobile-based channels.
technological tools and techniques that drive virality including bots, videos and deepfakes.
the proliferation of user-generated content, which is often unregulated and unverified.

While much information online is trustworthy and credible, the growing volume of false information means people can become misinformed, particularly impressionable or less tech-savvy users, with potentially dangerous effects.

Further, the wide range of themes targeted by false information online, including politics; climate change; religion; and health, makes the ramifications all the more significant. Outcomes for affected individuals and communities can include increased stigmatisation and victimisation, outright human rights violations and even violence. Yet arguably the most significant and widespread impact is the growing mistrust of institutions and the disruption of democratic processes, which could have dire consequences for social cohesion and inclusive economic development.

This has been brought into sharp focus by the pandemic, which has been accompanied by an infodemic, an abundance of information, which has in some cases posed risks for measures to control virus transmission.

For the telecoms industry, the erroneous link between Covid-19 (coronavirus) and 5G is particularly relevant, the impacts of which include protests, harassment of engineers and arson attacks on mobile towers.

Far-reaching impacts: how are policymakers and other organisations responding?
Understandably, tackling false information online has become a priority for governments and other stakeholders around the world. This has led to various countermeasures, some with implications for content creators, platforms, internet users and mobile operators. A forthcoming GSMA report analyses the situation in four Asia Pacific markets, where governments are at the forefront of efforts to address false information online (see chart, below, click to enlarge). Typically, the rationale is to maintain social cohesion and protect the integrity of institutions, as well as to protect vulnerable individuals and communities.

[1]

Encouragingly, several major social media platforms, tech companies and mobile operators have also taken action, particularly in Asia Pacific, which is home to some of the biggest and fastest growing online communities globally. In Indonesia, the Google News Initiative has partnered with the Ministry of Communications and Informatics and anti-slander society Mafindo to run a media literacy programme to train the public to spot false information and hoaxes on the internet. As the pandemic developed, Twitter expanded its use of machine learning and automation to detect the spread of potentially abusive and manipulative content (exempli gratia fake cures or treatments) and flag it for removal. Moreover, Pakistani operators have used ringing tones and SMS to disseminate information about Covid-19 (coronavirus), complementing measures to zero-rate access to health agency websites.

Nevertheless, while the dangers associated with the viral distribution of false information are widely recognised, some (usually ex-post), government initiatives are not without consequence and should not be underestimated. One particular intervention to highlight is state-ordered internet shutdowns to control the flow of information, which can undermine users’ trust in the internet, with knock-on effects for the advancement of the digital economy and the reliability of critical online government services. They also come with significant economic and social costs, as well as negative reputation and revenue impacts for mobile operators.

Addressing the problem long-term: what should stakeholders consider?
All of these efforts indicate how successfully tackling false information online will require a multi-stakeholder approach. Governments, internet-based platforms, citizens and citizens groups, and mobile operators all have roles to play in confronting and managing this pressing challenge.

Governments: As false information online can erode confidence in the state and institutions, considerations for governments which are especially relevant given the pandemic, could be to establish dedicated departments focused on this issue and to run mass awareness campaigns that engage with, inform and reassure the public.
Social media platforms: Social networks have been at the centre of efforts to disseminate false information and they will be vital to addressing it. They will likely need to consider how to balance reasonable, open debate with the potential for inaccurate or harmful material to flourish, and be transparent on how and why content is left up or removed.
Mobile operators: There can be misconceptions that wrongly put the blame on operators for the spread of negative content online. Still, operators can contribute positively by having the procedures in place for the timely compliance with notice and takedown orders upon receipt of a judicial order, and can employ their own channels to assist customers in finding verifiable, accurate information.
Citizens and citizen organisations: Citizens are the most harmed group from false information (and disproportionate countermeasures), but can also be responsible its circulation. The public should remain vigilant and consider some fact checking before sharing content with their online communities, while citizen groups can support or drive initiatives to improve digital literacy among their members.

As the amount of false information online grows and delivery mechanisms will no doubt change as technology evolves, considerations such as these signal a collective effort to meeting the problem head-on and cultivate a safer, more enriching digital experience for all internet users.

– James Robinson – lead analyst, GSMA Intelligence

The editorial views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and will not necessarily reflect the views of the GSMA, its Members or Associate Members.

[1] https://www.mobileworldlive.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/GSMAIntelligence_Government_Pandemic_Info.jpg

One of the most visible impacts of Covid-19 (coronavirus) has been the increased usage of digital technologies, making high-speed internet access more important than ever. Building robust infrastructure, maintaining resilient networks, attaining wide 4G coverage and preparing 5G networks have become essential components of fulfilling today’s network requirements.

To execute on these requirements, operators need access to spectrum in new and existing bands. Only if it was this easy. With only about 40 markets opening access to new spectrum bands for 5G by the end of February 2021, operators must explore new ways to find the required bandwidth.

One such way is to trade-off existing spectrum bands from older generations of technology to newer generations: shutting down an older generation network, a network sunset, becomes a way to support a newer generation.

GSMA Intelligence data shows from now to 2025, more than 55 2G and 3G networks will be closed, allowing operators to plan for 4G and 5G.

With network sunsets becoming one of the key ways to support 5G launches and 4G expansions, it is important to understand the benefits operator derive

Mobile broadband coverage. The key frequency bands to provide 2G and 3G services (900MHz, 1800MHz and 2100MHz) are the low- and mid-bands, thereby offering greater coverage and capacity. This makes them ideal candidates for network sunsets as operators can use these bands, combined with mid- and high-bands, for coverage and expansion of their 4G and 5G networks. Some operators, with large 2G/3G footprints, for example, are already refarming these bands to deploy and expand higher technologies
Expenditure efficiencies. Ageing 2G/3G networks eat up a significant portion of an operator’s capex and opex, with investments and expenses not justified by the ARPU. Hence operators around the world have preferred to focus their investments and resources on increasing their 4G coverage on fully digital technologies like VoLTE by sunsetting 2G/3G and using those frequency bands.
Roadmap for vendors and manufacturers. With an increasing number of operators using sunsets to support new launches and the expansion of existing networks, it is imperative for operators to have a well-defined strategy and roadmap around this. Timely announcements by operators also acts as a guide for vendors and manufacturers, driving their strategies, R&D and investment decisions, as well as manufacturing decisions based on regional advancements.

This makes a strong case for networks sunsets across all the markets. But does this mean the trends are consistent across the globe? Not at all. Different regions depict different trends (see chart, below, click to enlarge).

[1]

Europe: 3G eclipse
Europe is experiencing more sunsets in 3G than 2G. A total of 19 operators in 14 nations plan to switch off 3G by 2025, whereas only eight operators in eight countries are planning a 2G switch off by same time. The sunset saga in the region started with Net1 being the first operator to completely shut down its 3G networks in Denmark and Sweden in 2015, followed by VodafoneZiggo in 2020, then Telenor Norway and Swisscom in 2021. Though 3G is newer, it is still retiring in the region because 2G has dished out a notable edge, especially for M2M and IoT services in countries including Germany, Finland, and Belgium.

Americas: Goodbye 2G
The Americas is on a different path from Europe, focussed towards turning 2G off: there has not been a single 3G closure. The region, an early adopter of new technology generations, has seen 13 operators across five countries launching their 5G networks, making it vital to have the required spectrum to foster the services. Here we expect 15 operators in seven countries to switch off their 2G network by the end of 2025. Putting the best foot forward, the operators are re-using their existing spectrum from 2G to fill in the demand for 4G and 5G networks

Asia: 2G departure
Service providers in the region are vying to retain their 3G networks and shutting down 2G instead to employ the infrastructure for 4G, which has high adoption. By the end of 2025, we expect 29 operators to shut down 2G and 16 operators to close 3G with Taiwan currently the only market which has witnessed both 2G and 3G sunsets, in 2017 and 2018 respectively.

Africa: Preserving 2G and 3G
In this region, 2G markets outnumber 3G twofold, basic feature phone still comprise 42 per cent of all devices and end-users are incentivised to remain on them given lower costs. In turn, this drives lower digital uptake, explaining why a negligible number of sunsets have been announced. Of course, as demand rises, we would expect operators would have to plan for them in future.

Oceania: Precedence for 2G
The way to 2G in Oceania was paved when Australia and New Zealand launched the service in 1993, while 3G knocked on the door in 2004. The region has been quick enough to migrate to newer generation networks as 5G services are available in four countries, whereas others are testing the network for commercial deployments. Today, 2G networks account for only 5 per cent of total connections, having very small amount of traffic across the region. As a result of this trend, Australia, the biggest market in the region, completed its 2G network sunset in 2018. Though operators have not announced their network sunset plans, we expect the region to see more 2G than 3G closures, based on representative shares.

While we expect network sunsets to be an important strategy for operators, one approach is not appropriate for all everyone. Europe, for example, is the only region focused on switching 3G off, while others have a preference to shut 2G. The uptake and usage of different generations of technologies in respective countries and regions, in turn, defines sunset plans for operators. For vendors and manufacturers, timely announcements of these sunsets are integral, as they act as a guide to help them make manufacturing decisions and roaming infrastructure deployment.

And, as 5G gains mass adoption, all eyes will be on how operators shut down the older generations and switch to newer generation of technology.

– Akanksha Hira and Saksham Agarwal – research analysts, GSMA Intelligence

The editorial views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and will not necessarily reflect the views of the GSMA, its Members or Associate Members.

[1] https://www.mobileworldlive.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/GSMAi_network_sunsets.jpg

Satellite broadband has been around for a while, though mainly confined to enterprise or military uses. Consumers have largely used it in settings such as extreme adventure sports where connectivity can help save the mission and lives. However, a new cohort of satellite players is betting they can expand the consumer use case to home broadband as well by focusing their efforts on LEO satellite broadband.

Starlink, owned by SpaceX, is building a vast constellation of LEO satellites for the direct-to-consumer (D2C) market.
Amazon through its LEO satellite venture Project Kuiper is poised to join SpaceX in this market.
OneWeb is taking a different approach, deploying its LEO constellation to address market opportunities via the B2B market in partnership with MNOs, which could use the satellites to offer broadband to their subscribers.

Given this building momentum, now is a good time to analyse the prospects for LEO satellite home broadband on both its viability and competitiveness. For this analysis we use Starlink as a guide given its D2C satellite broadband rollout is at the most advanced stage, which also means relatively good information availability.

Viability has improved, but it is still early days
Here we address the question of viability by looking at the three key component areas: service availability; the addressable market; and service performance.

Service availability: All LEO satellite broadband providers whether they are focussed on D2C or B2B have a stated aim of reaching global coverage. For both, the main reason for pursuing this target is the maximisation of their revenue growth opportunity through having access to the full prospective customer base. Starlink, which currently has the greatest number of LEO satellites in orbit will have covered 100 per cent of US and Europe by the end of 2021, followed by the rest of the world in 2022. OneWeb will have achieved its global coverage by 2022.

Addressable market: Fixed broadband penetration in many developed markets around the world has reached 80 per cent to 90 per cent of households. However, that still leaves 10 per cent to 20 per cent without access. The European Commission reports 6 million households across the whole of the European Union remain unserved by any broadband technology. In the US, the figure stood at almost 15 million in 2018. For many of those that do have access, speeds are highly variable, undermining the range of applications that can be used. Both of these problems are concentrated in rural and remote regions and are the impetus for a range of national broadband plans, particularly in Europe. As satellite can reach these areas, it is a viable option for plugging their connectivity gap.

Performance: Video streaming is one of the most popular uses of home broadband. A good quality streaming experience without buffering or other technical glitches is a reliable indicator of a broadband connection which scores well on both speed and latency. Based on the feedback Starlink beta customers have been providing, this service handles Netflix well (of course once out of beta, the actual performance will need to be monitored). With most other household uses of broadband being less demanding than video streaming, it stands to reason that LEO satellite broadband is at least technically ready to make a play for the home broadband market. Starlink, advertises its broadband service as offering speeds between 50Mb/s and 150Mb/s and latency between 20 milliseconds and 40 milliseconds. OneWeb, has demonstrated under lab conditions, and also with BMW, full HD (1080p) streaming video at latency of less than 40 milliseconds with speeds of more than 400Mb/s. Covid-19 (coronavirus) has suddenly brought broadband upload speeds into focus as well due to home working and schooling, and here Starlink received mixed reviews for activities such as video calls. Apart from limited upload performance, some other risk factors to satellite broadband service quality are dishes needing line of sight to the sky, capacity overload at peak hours, and interference due to rain and adverse weather. A combination of constellation build up, more ground stations being installed and improvements in the networking software should see the overall broadband performance including uploads improve further, but to what extent remains to be seen.

Competitiveness
Satellite broadband is pricier but could be the only option for many rural households.

Starlink and Eutelsat’s broadband prices could be a pointer to satellite broadband services being relatively expensive compared with fixed wireless access and wireline broadband options including DSL, cable and FTTP/B (see chart, below, click to enlarge).

[1]

The caveat with this comparison is it applies to mainly urban areas where FWA and wired broadband services are available. For many rural households these services are not available, or they might have a poor-quality DSL connection and for them the quality of connection that LEO satellite broadband can now provide is nothing short of a game changer.

One Starlink beta user based in a rural area of the US described moving to Starlink from DSL as “a spiritual experience”. To improve affordability, satellite broadband providers are likely to introduce cheaper broadband packs in the future offering lower speeds or capped data usage or a combination of the two. In addition, most governments with universal service obligations in place are interested in how LEO satellite broadband could help close the digital divide, which could open the purse strings of various funds and financing packages also helping improve the affordability of LEO satellite broadband. Considering the specific issue of relatively high prices for satellite broadband consumer premise equipment (CPE), these are likely to reduce over time given the importance placed on achieving this result by the satellite broadband providers (Starlink currently charges £439 for its CPE in the UK compared with typical 5G FWA charges of zero to £100 with a contract, though Vodafone UK charges £325 out-of-contract).

Starlink is building a new factory in US to manufacture its CPE which should help bring its unit costs down and lower consumer prices. A good parallel is how Tesla’s plants helped lower the cost of Tesla cars to mass-market levels in a very short period of time.

Economics are uncertain
Given the variety of system architectures and the lack of publicly available information on the costs of LEO satellite broadband from providers, reaching any definite conclusions on the viability of this business is difficult. Building a basic cost-benefit model using sanguine figures for the various parameters (such as satellite build and launch costs, annual opex, CPE costs, satellite capacity and service life) it is apparent cost reduction will be crucial for the economic viability of satellite broadband.

Build and launch are the major costs here. Starlink is able to take advantage of SpaceX’s Falcon rocket to reduce costs. The company’s planned Starship, which could carry multiple the number of satellites that Falcon currently lifts, should help bring launch costs down much further.

OneWeb is now producing satellites which cost a fraction of previous technology. Starlink has also indicated it has been able to bring LEO build costs down from the current market average, but to what extent remains unclear. Technology developments such as very high throughput satellites, improving spectrum use, and network optimisation techniques, improving predictive analysis and advances in active antennas and processing will help bolster the benefits side of the satellite broadband business model as well further improving its viability.

The sweet spot
Given the current prices for satellite broadband, it looks likely consumer uptake will probably be highest amongst rural households in developed countries. As the economics of satellite broadband improve, it will lead to lower prices making this service more accessible to consumers in developing countries, especially if the technology is championed by the International Monetary Fund or the World Bank.

Considering the broadband technology mix, countries where DSL is a high percentage of total broadband connections will be relatively more attractive markets for satellite broadband. Globally, governments are working on bridging the rural-urban connectivity divide through various measures such as financial subsidies and setting speed and coverage targets. The net impact of these policies on satellite broadband’s business prospects remains to be seen.

– Anshu Goel – senior analyst, Fixed Broadband, Video and Convergence, GSMA Intelligence

The editorial views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and will not necessarily reflect the views of the GSMA, its Members or Associate Members.

 

[1] https://www.mobileworldlive.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/GSMAi_UK_home_bb_price_comparison.jpg