Shaping Future 6G Networks. Группа авторов

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ requirements.

      Given that the ecosystem has grown so dramatically and given that it can be expected to diversify still further, this raises questions. Can such a user‐driven definition proceed at the appropriate pace? Vertical sectors are clearly understood as likely to provide the most compelling requirements for 6G – but one issue that is singled out is the fact that, while actors in an industrial sector may know what they need, they may not understand how to convert that into a wireless technology. In other words, some form of mediation between aspirations and physical reality will be required.

      Moreover, is there room in the standardization process for all such voices? As one respondent noted, 3GPP “is too complex and [it is] difficult to get engaged as an enterprise.” Others disagree, expressing full confidence in the ability of 3GPP to deliver. And yet, the political storm clouds have been noted – external political pressure is now recognized as a significant new influence that may impact standardization, positively or negatively.

      Curiously, for all the support shown for 3GPP (and, indeed, its efforts must be applauded) and for all that respondents recognize the need for new stakeholders to join the process, not all are willing to do so. Only 75% of those surveyed declared an interest in participation. Of course, participation in the activities of an SDO is time consuming and an investment – for many representatives, it seems to be almost a full‐time job. Some stakeholders may simply ignore the process and accept the outcomes that result. Others may find their own path.

      Finally, it should be noted that 3GPP, the ITU, and specific industry associations, spanning both those for mobile operators, such as the GSMA, and those for verticals, such as 5GACIA, are seen as the preferred forums for the development of 6G standards by our respondents. However, this does not preclude the emergence of new forums in the future.

3.10 Conclusion

      Alignment around standards has been key to the success of previous generations of mobile technology. This has delivered definitions of what is required for the delivery of the capabilities demanded by different stakeholders, based on the origination of IMTs by the ITU. While multiple approaches have been followed, convergence toward a single SDO took place for the realization of 5G.

      But 5G itself changes this dynamic, as it is explicitly designed to fulfil multiple services. Consequently, it has given rise to an expanded ecosystem. 6G will accelerate this process, as more stakeholders are drawn to the discussions. 5G created this possibility because it is multiservice and driven by API interaction – which both widens the ecosystem further and opens the gate to further innovation for specific needs that deviate from agreed specifications.

In addition, regional and political pressures have been exposed. These have already proven to be disruptive and are unlikely to ease in the foreseeable future. Because of the lengthy time that it takes to create standards, efforts must start soon after IMT‐2030 has been approved – which means that alternative paths, if they are to emerge, must do so soon.

      As a result, it is by no means certain that there will be a single 6G framework. Indeed, it seems much more likely that, while there will be a uniform set of requirements, there may also be different approaches and initiatives that enable these to be met. That means that as things stand, while there will be a clear, 3GPP‐driven path, there may also be others to meet the same goals.

      To summarize, we have reviewed key factors that will influence standardization of 6G:

      1 The IMT process – there is now no reason why 3GPP should be sole arbiter.

      2 A new, highly fragmented ecosystem – which means there may simply be too many stakeholders for 3GPP to deliver a single set of new standards.

      3 Mounting political pressure to find alternatives to HRVs – which suggests geographic realignment and – just possibly, the revival of 3GPP2 (or something very much like it) as a counterweight to 3GPP, which is seen as being too open to satisfy some governments.

      4 Economic pressure for some economies to move early toward 6G performance, once IMT‐2030 is available, with the result that national standardization efforts could be pursued – faster than the planned 3GPP timeline (see Figure 3.2).

      5 New industry groups promoting open products that may support specific national initiatives and national champions and which could deviate from the current standards path, in order to accelerate 6G deployment.

      6 New open APIs rather than protocols – there isn’t a standard, which suggests future innovation and increasing diversity.

      7 Recognition from within the industry that political pressure is now a major factor and that some industry voices may struggle to be heard, perhaps leading to yet more bodies to help ensure their needs are met, as previously noted.

      There is one additional factor that we have not discussed here: spectrum. The spectrum for 6G will be identified by the ITU. This may be from existing frequencies and may be licensed or unlicensed. Different countries will then allocate spectrum for national and private operators.

      However, it is worth noting that spectrum allocation for 5G has already proven to be disruptive, with new entrants in some countries (e.g. United Kingdom, United States, and Germany) being able to access spectrum for highly localized deployments. It is possible that further disruption to classic spectrum allocation models will also take place, which may change the radio access requirements that are at the heart of any mobile system, and thus lead to further divergence from 3GPP activities.

      In conclusion, by asking questions about future standardization, we are really asking whether we need a single set of standards – as we have today – to fulfil the requirements of the next IMT. The fact is that we do not need such a single standard; we happened to have one for 5G, but the answer must be “not necessarily” for 6G – provided that any standard meets the requirements of IMT‐2030 and provided there is sufficient political and industry support to ensure that alternative approaches gain commercial momentum.

Whether we will see true fragmentation remains moot. That depends on willingness to assume the burden of creating a solution to the challenge of realizing IMT‐2030, but the effort required to do so will be assisted by the new openness of the network and the sheer power of both governments and new industrial players, which have not previously been considered as factors. They are now, which the industry, analysts, and media clearly recognize. 3GPP will provide a solution for 6G, but it is increasingly likely that there will be multiple efforts to achieve the same goals. As a result, all stakeholders must consider this deviation – and whether they want to support existing bodies or to form new coalitions for the realization of 6G.

References

      1 1 GSMA (2019). Annual Review 2019. GSMA.

      2 2 ITU‐R (2020). FAQ on IMT. April ed.

      3 3 ITU (2018). https://www.itu.int/en/ITU‐T/focusgroups/net2030/Pages/default.aspx

      4 4 Wikipedia (2020). IMT Advanced. Wikipedia.

      5 5 3GPP (1998). Third Generation Partnership Project Agreement. Sophia Antipolis: 3GPP.

      6 6 3GPP (2020). Sophia Antipolis: 3GPP. https://www.3gpp.org/about‐3gpp/membership.

      7 7 Kim, C. (2019). 5G and Massive IoT: Legacy Technologies will Bridge the Gap for Now. London: Informa Omdia.

      8 8 СКАЧАТЬ