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

December 1 2018 is a landmark date in South Korea’s telecom history, the date when it became the first nation to launch 5G services for B2B customers. Four months later, South Korea was also the first to launch mobile 5G services on 3 April 3, 2019, just one hour before Verizon’s 5G launch in the US.

Fast forward to today, let’s look at how 5G is faring in South Korea.

Operators launched B2B first because enterprise clearly was a strategic focus for them. Today, we see how that played out.

Examples of 5G supporting various verticals abound, including SK Telecom’s partnership with Samsung Heavy Industries building a 5G based autonomous navigation system to allow ships to move to a set destination on their own. And KT, for its part, claims 150 B2B use cases with 53 business agreements secured by the end of 2019.

On the consumer front, as of September 2020, 5G connections accounted for around 15 per cent of total mobile connections in the country, crossing the 9 million connections mark. This sets the stage for our estimate of more than 40 million 5G customers by 2025, accounting for 66 per cent of the total connections.

And beyond connections?

Today, 30 per cent of total data traffic is already being routed over 5G networks nearly doubling its stake within one year. LG Uplus reported the average data usage per customer on its 5G network was more than double 4G at 26.8 GB per month at the end of Q1. The 5G launch also helped the market to stabilise declining ARPU at around $25, starting 2019.

South Koreans are known to be early technology adopters. Coupled with handset subsidies and high consumer awareness, we arrived at the following figures for 5G adoption (see chart, below, click to enlarge).

[1]

But this is not whole story. The support from the Korean government to provide tax support to domestic operators if they expand nationwide 5G coverage to 70 per cent by 2025 was also a big contributor to rollouts and uptake: capex increased significantly from less than $3 billion from 2015 to 2018, to more than 2015-2018 to more than $4.8 billion in 2019, with a further $4 billion expected in 2020.

This explains the deployment of 115,000 base stations by operators (76 per cent of the total guidance by the government for a complete roll-out) by March.

This is quite Impressive. But what is the result of this investment and impact on consumers?

OpenSignal data on network performance from October shows:

In Q3, the average 5G download speed was only 5.6-times faster than LTE at 336Mb/s, which is far below the typical rate expected for 5G services.
Users are able to connect to a 5G network only 22.4 per cent of the time. The availability of 5G is largely limited to Seoul capital region and six metropolitan cities.

While initial uptake has been impressive, the above challenges could have a clear, negative impact on South Korea’s 5G roadmap. Even if consumers aren’t directly impacted, the reputational damage could paint 5G in a negative light. But what can be done to remedy it?

Commercialisation of mmWave for enterprise use: There is no dearth of narrative on how the full potential of 5G can be realised with the help of enterprise use cases. The demand for 5G capabilities from vertical industries, in turn, could drive wider adoption of mmWave technologies. Unfortunately, the mmWave spectrum (28GHz) acquired by operators in 2018 has not been put to commercial use yet. There is some progress, with all the South Korean operators ordering 5G base stations on this spectrum from Samsung. KT has also started the testing with ultra-reliable low-latency communication (URLLC) technology for latency-sensitive applications including factory automation, autonomous driving and remote surgery. Expediting the progress on 28GHz would help cater to the requirement in various verticals. At the same time, by highlighting the full potential of 5G, enterprise and consumer users will come to see the technology in a better light.
Launch of standalone: Currently, 5G services are offered on non-standalone networks. The ability of standalone (SA) networks to offer network slicing, or support mission-critical applications with ease will allow operators to work with a wide range of enterprises across verticals. On the consumer side, the use case for SA 5G gets less attention. But if low-latency consumer applications (gaming, AR/VR and so on) are improved, then the result should be a net positive.
Improve indoor coverage: Coverage being one of the pain areas for customers, action in this direction will help retain existing customers and attract new users. The government plans to deploy around 2,000 indoor 5G base stations, which hopefully should help improve customer satisfaction levels.
Offer wide range of handsets: Limited availability of compatible devices and high prices can be a deciding factor for consumers to not opt for 5G. Operators should look to partner with multiple manufacturers to offer a wide array of handsets ranging from affordable to premium. These devices, in addition with attractive tariffs, will help maintain strong 5G uptake and set grounds for future.

To sum it all, while 5G has got off to an incredible start in South Korea, there is still much territory to be explored. The commercialisation of 28GHz and SA 5G networks will unlock a wider range of opportunities in the enterprise sector, while addressing coverage and device demands should help to retain and attract customers on 5G.

It will be interesting to see how it all evolves.

– Ankit Sawhney – research manager, and Mansi Goel – research 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/2020/12/GSMAi_SouthKorea_connectionsbytechnology.jpg

Full confession: I have never been to Qualcomm’s Snapdragon Tech Summit. Sure, I am attending the virtual version this year, but I never made it out to the in-person, real world, on the beach in Hawaii version. I’ve been invited. But something always got in the way.

I’m regretting that, more than ever, this year. In part because any trip beyond my local grocery store now feels like the adventure of a lifetime and, in part because this is the first Snapdragon Summit taking place against the backdrop of full-on 5G commercialisation. While 5G networks were up and running in 2019 and services were being sold, by the end of the year were just shy of 13 million 5G connections, less than 1 per cent the number of 2G connections. (Remember 2G?)

This year, we expect more than 230 million connections [1]. That’s a big number. Combined with the more than 100 operators and in excess of 150 device models supporting the technology, it highlights 5G is now a very real, mass-market technology. So, of course, we were all expecting something big at the 2020 Snapdragon Tech Summit.

And what did we get?

We got the Snapdragon 888 [2], the latest iteration of Qualcomm’s flagship application processor family. The fact there would be a new top-end Snapdragon offer was a given. And, to be completely fair, some of the advancements were (broadly) predictable based on market and technology trends. A new 5nm architecture, for more efficient performance. An upgraded AI processor and capabilities (nearly two-times the operations per second), playing to Qualcomm’s R&D in the space and the importance of AI in an increasing number of everyday applications. Upgraded CPU and GPU components, further boosting performance. A new imaging processor, because all phones are cameras and image quality resonates with consumers. The integration of Qualcomm’s X60 modem, something the vendor has been criticised for not doing in the past.

There’s a lot to dig into here and a whole lot to like. Who doesn’t like faster, better, and more power efficient? But, rather than talk about features (which plenty of other folks will do), I’d like to look at the marketing of the new processor. Why? Because it tells us something about the market, and Qualcomm’s place within it.

Snapdragon 875 versus 888. Snapdragon 845 begat the Snapdragon 855, which begat the Snapdragon 865. You’d be forgiven, then, for expecting a Snapdragon 875 this year. Naturally, the significance of the number 888 in Chinese culture is at play here. Media, analysts and other market pundits have already weighed-in on possible explanations: a geo-political olive branch against the backdrop of painful trade wars, a nod to Qualcomm’s Chinese OEM partners, a hopeful designation. These, largely, ignore one of the biggest 5G dynamics of 2020: Chinese consumers have driven 5G adoption faster than many people expected and lower-cost 5G devices have been a key driver. In 2021, as 5G momentum picks up, Chinese consumers will have access to even more affordable devices, though, all else being equal, Qualcomm and its OEM partners would rather they went premium. How to incentivise that behaviour? Give those premium devices an application processor with massive cultural significance. Make the choice between a 768-powered device and an 888-powered device a truly emotional decision. Qualcomm’s change in Snapdragon naming convention is about more than trade wars or success aspirations. It’s about recognising the role of China in driving global 5G volumes and guarding against the potential erosion in device pricing.
A Careful Balancing Act. Recall the potential erosion in device pricing I mentioned? Like just a few lines ago? Well, Qualcomm knows about it and has enabled it by offering multiple tiers of Snapdragon processors. The flagship 8-series. The 7-series supporting what the vendor calls “in-demand premium features.” The 6-series, “designed for performance efficiency and versatility.”  The 4-series, “designed to support the most popular smartphone and IoT features.” All will support 5G in 2021. Taken as a whole, they allow OEMs and operators to put 5G in the hands of more people, not just those who can afford top-tier devices. That’s a good thing. A very good thing. It also means that Qualcomm and partners need to carefully explain the benefits of going premium, without discounting the value of lower-end chipsets and devices. Every operator and device maker understands this dynamic. And, where the Snapdragon Summit’s opening keynote referenced the importance of “premium experiences” multiple times, this is clearly top of mind for Qualcomm. It might not be a new challenge, but the democratisation of 5G devices combined with operator interests in monetising new 5G use cases makes this a particularly relevant challenge in 2021.

If you are still considering the titular question (whether or not the Snapdragon 888 is a marketing exercise), the answer is yes: it was always going to be. Any new commercial effort (from any company), will be one part marketing and one part product.

The distinction here is we are not talking about any old product. We are talking about a product which will power some of the most powerful 5G smartphones in 2021. It is also a product from one of the market’s most adept marketers: Qualcomm has mastered the art of tying the progress of the mobile industry (and standards) to its own R&D while weaving in a broader context around consumer demand, supply chain, and political evolutions. Think one part pragmatism, one part tight-rope walk, or a game of four-dimensional chess for those of us who perennially lose at checkers/draughts.

What we get, then, with the Snapdragon 888 launch is more than just marketing or product innovation. We get an encapsulation of myriad market drivers, demands and dynamics, a miniature (5nm to be exact) representation of the mobile ecosystem circa 2021 and a reminder of why I need to find the time to get to Hawaii next year.

– 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-2020/global-5g-landscape-q3-2020
[2] https://www.mobileworldlive.com/featured-content/top-three/qualcomm-specs-up-snapdragon

The international community has set several ambitious targets when it comes to internet connectivity. The Broadband Commission for Sustainable Development aims to reach 75 per cent broadband internet user penetration by 2025 (or 65 per cent in developing countries), while the World Bank’s Digital Economy for Africa initiative seeks to ensure that every individual, business and government in Africa will be digitally enabled by 2030.

While such targets are welcome, achieving them remains a significant challenge, particularly in Africa where almost 75 per cent of the population, or 950 million people, do not access internet services. By 2025, almost 60 per cent of the population are still expected to remain offline.

To close this digital gap, it will be necessary to address a number of barriers to adoption, as well as the coverage gap, those living outside of areas covered by mobile broadband networks. Of the 600 million people which do not have broadband coverage, half live in Africa and one of the key barriers to expanding coverage is spectrum policy. The scale of the challenge is highlighted in a new study by GSMA Intelligence, Effective Spectrum Pricing in Africa [1]. This report, which is unprecedented in scope and depth, tracks spectrum assignments across nearly 50 African countries during the 2010 to 2019 period. The key findings are:

Governments in Africa have assigned approximately half the amount of mobile spectrum compared with the global average. This gap in spectrum assignments has emerged and expanded over the last decade, making it difficult for many African operators to offer fast mobile broadband speeds. African governments have also, on average, licensed 3G and 4G spectrum around three years later than other regions.
Countries in western and northern Africa account for a large proportion of the highest spectrum prices globally. Adjusting spectrum prices by income, Africa accounts for about half of all the extremely high spectrum prices worldwide, with most of these concentrated in western and northern Africa. Spectrum prices in the continent are twice as high as the global average and four times higher than in the developed world. Niger, for example, has seen some of the highest spectrum prices in the region during the last decade and some of the lowest levels of mobile broadband coverage, network speeds and mobile adoption.
Licensing more spectrum earlier and at affordable prices can pay dividends for African consumers. Higher amounts of spectrum and lower prices are strongly linked to higher population coverage, download speeds and adoption. Countries which have assigned spectrum earlier have also achieved higher coverage levels. This is consistent with previous research [2] on the topic. For example, Kenya released mobile broadband spectrum earlier than most other countries in Africa and it has assigned one of the highest amounts of coverage spectrum per operator. Partly as a result, mobile broadband has now reached more than 95 per cent population coverage.

These findings have important policy implications. Operators can only invest in networks and deliver high-speed services to businesses and consumers if governments award enough spectrum at affordable prices, especially when the impacts of Covid-19 (coronavirus) are constraining growth in the private sector and the economy more widely. Furthermore, the longer-term economic benefits of doing so far outweigh any short-term public revenue gains. Connecting all of Africa to mobile internet by 2030 would add 5.5 per cent to projected economic growth over the next decade and it also help reduce poverty.

So what should governments do?
First, they should release more spectrum to expand coverage, improve network quality and encourage mobile adoption. This includes any spectrum left over for use in the 900MHz, 1800MHz and 2100MHz bands as well as spectrum to enable coverage (700MHz and 800MHz bands) and capacity requirements (2300MHz and 2600MHz bands). To realise the full potential of mobile services, authorities should licence spectrum in a timely manner, which enables faster and wider network deployments. Going forward, this will include the spectrum required for new 5G services.

It is also important spectrum policy supports affordable pricing, with well-designed auctions which have clear rules and guidelines. Such auctions should avoid creating artificial scarcity, allow price discovery and they should set modest reserve prices and annual fees. Otherwise, operators may have less ability to invest or, at worst, it will result in vital spectrum not being sold (as happened in Ghana and Mozambique).

Lastly, governments should provide long-term licences and give operators the flexibility to manage spectrum with technology–neutral licences, in order for them to optimise the use of each band. Many countries have now issued technology-neutral licences, some in response to Covid-19 (for example in Tunisia). Indeed, there have been a number of examples of regulators taking measures [3] to mitigate the impacts of the pandemic and enabling operators to maintain quality and resilience in existing networks, as well as rolling out new 5G networks [4]. Such measures, which could be made permanent, offer lessons on how regulators and policymakers in Africa can support operators to continue expanding networks in the coming years, especially given the continued economic uncertainty.

– Kalvin Bahia – economist, 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.gsma.com/spectrum/resources/effective-spectrum-pricing-africa/
[2] https://www.gsma.com/spectrum/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Impact-of-spectrum-prices-on-consumers.pdf
[3] https://www.gsma.com/newsroom/blog/keeping-everyone-and-everything-connected-how-temporary-access-to-spectrum-can-ease-congestion-during-the-covid-19-crisis/
[4] https://www.gsma.com/spectrum/new-zealand-leads-the-way-with-direct-approach-to-5g-spectrum-access/

By the end of this week, both Microsoft and Sony will have released their latest gaming machines, the Xbox Series X (or S) and the PlayStation 5 (PS5).

The launch of a new generation of consoles would normally signal the start of a new console war like the one which raged throughout the 2010’s between Sony and Microsoft. But as the gaming world prepares for the arrival of the new consoles, what is most striking about this generation is how unlike it is to the previous generation.

Although Sony has stayed largely in its comfort zone with the PS5, producing a console whose primary appeal will be its library of marquee exclusives, Microsoft has instead embraced an emerging and increasingly popular subscription-based model for its gaming business. This move leverages its extensive institutional expertise in cloud infrastructure, and has the potential to permanently reshape both the console world and the wider gaming market, with immediate and direct consequences for mobile operators and smartphone OEMs.

How to build a Netflix for games
Our recent Consumers in Focus survey suggests that the PS5 will once again outsell the new Xbox, with 14 per cent of consumers intending to buy it compared with 9 per cent for the Series X and S. But from Microsoft’s perspective, raw unit sales will be much less important than they once were, as its strategy is now built around its Game Pass subscription which allows users to pay a monthly fee to access a library of titles to play on any device including Xbox, PC, or smartphone. As Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella put it, the company’s aim is to become the “Netflix for games.” To achieve this, the Xbox maker has not been shy about investing, spending billions to acquire high-profile game developers to bring high quality, premium titles to its platform. So central is the subscription model to Microsoft’s new strategy, it is even offering the new Xbox bundled in with its All Access Game Pass subscription, for about $10 extra per month.

There are several reasons for Microsoft to be optimistic about its odds of success.

While the console gaming market is relatively small (earlier this year we estimated there are about 778 million console gamers globally), the broader gaming ecosystem is massive, with some 2.5 billion people playing on either a smartphone, a PC, a console, or a tablet. Despite being a nascent business model, gaming subscription services already enjoy reasonably high adoption figures in the gaming community, as 28 per cent of console gamers already have one. [1]And, our survey showed, the top feature drawing current users to gaming subscriptions in the first place also happens to be the one that Microsoft is investing the most heavily in: a large library of high quality titles (see chart, right, click to enlarge).

Our survey shows there is certainly latent consumer demand for a “Netflix for games”, but there are other signs out there that gaming subscriptions are poised for growth. Most notably, there has been an enormous influx of new entrants into the subscription gaming market of late. Beyond Microsoft’s manoeuvring in the console space, Apple recently reshuffled Apple Arcade to fit within its combined Apple One subscription, which will bring the service to far more customers, and now Amazon and Facebook have announced new gaming services. This doesn’t, in itself, mean gaming subscriptions are guaranteed to take off (the industry has been wrong before), but the sheer volume of activity in the space makes it hard to ignore.

What is unique about Microsoft’s strategy is it was first big name in gaming to pursue a largely device agnostic approach to gaming subscriptions. That a legacy player should want gamers to be able to access their games no matter what device they are using is genuinely innovative, and is only possible because of Microsoft’s position as a both a gaming company and a cloud infrastructure heavyweight. The reason this strategy signals a shift not just for Microsoft, but for the gaming industry as a whole, is the move brings a radically different style and calibre of game to the mobile gaming ecosystem. And in terms of competitive landscape, Microsoft has gone from competing head-to-head with Sony (and to some extent Nintendo) in the 2010’s to competing with any company with a presence in gaming, on any platform. Deliberately increasing the number of direct competitors you face may not seem wise, but in so doing, Microsoft has more than tripled its addressable market, mostly by tapping into the massive and under-monetised world of smartphone gaming.

New opportunities in a changed gaming landscape
For the smartphone and telecom sectors, the impact of moving large numbers of console gamers onto mobile platforms is likely to be both immediate and profound. Operators, in particular, should be paying attention to the ways Microsoft is redefining its position in the gaming market, as the ability to stream games over operator networks is central to its approach. This move dovetails with the operator push to roll out 5G, as mobile gaming has been one the key use cases for operators to highlight their new network’s capabilities. Our survey showed console gamers are more interested than average in upgrading to 5G (66 per cent intend to, compared with 45 per cent among non-console gamers), so operators should take this opportunity to convert as many of them as possible, whether that be through a partnership with an established cloud gaming provider, cross-promotion, or some other arrangement. Smartphone OEMs can similarly benefit, as Samsung is doing by offering a trial of Microsoft’s new service bundled with its devices.

As Microsoft moves into new competitive terrain, it leaves a reconfigured gaming industry in its wake. What is certain is that the Microsoft/Sony console wars of the 2010’s are over and a new era has begun. The most likely effect of Microsoft’s moves to bring console gaming to new devices is the collapse of the silos that have traditionally separated different segments of the gaming world. Where hardware was once the crucial factor that decided the games you could play, Microsoft’s manoeuvres could signal the start of new paradigm where games are accessible at any time, from anywhere, on any device. Even a few years ago the idea that Microsoft could pivot to become the Netflix of gaming would have been met with scepticism. But it’s often forgotten that before Netflix grew into the streaming giant we know today, it spent years as a mail-order DVD service, struggling to compete against firmly entrenched legacy players in video rental and pay-TV. Only when it embraced nascent digital streaming technology did it succeed, and in the process it ushered in a new paradigm for online video. It’s possible that in the not-too-distant future, we might recall Microsoft’s pivot to subscription gaming as a bit of history playing out again.

Jason Reed – lead analyst, Digital Consumer, 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/2020/11/GSMAI_game_subscription_adoption.jpg