Category: Point of View

Even to mention Hans Snook, is to reveal one’s age.  But back in what now feels like prehistory, he led Orange in the UK from 4^th entrant MNO to the heights of style and leadership.  One of the many things he is reputed to have said was that SMS revenues were the only example of profits coming from nothing.  And those profits were lovely – more than lovely, they were vast, unanticipated and growing year on year.

“Weren’t we clever?” mused the various CEOs of the MNOs.  But Hans was wiser than that.  SMS functionality was not designed by COOs, or CMOs, or CEOs.  Not even by CTOs.  But by some now forgotten techies who thought a text-based communication channel could be embedded in mobile networks for very little effort and could be useful for some reason at some time by someone.  Maybe.

The thing about SMS was that it really was money from nothing.  It tapped into something people really liked, and it grew like crazy.  And best of all, almost all the revenues earned by the MNOs from SMS dropped straight through to EBITDA as there were virtually no incremental costs to offset against it.  

Of course, a goldmine like that was never going to be left uncontested and so today we have WhatsApp and all the other OTT messaging providers.  Meanwhile the MNOs have the wizzened carcass of SMS revenues that they now give away for free, should anyone want to bother using SMS rather than any of the better, newer options.

Sure there is RCS and the improvements that could have brought to SMS, but that is a story of stable doors and horses.  The race has been run.  The prizes awarded.  The losers vanquished.  The winners victorious.

But this is not a story about SMS per se.  It is a story about “super profits”.  

SMS or “messaging”, to give it a more generic name, was a case of super profits – huge returns for minimal investment.  Entrepreneurs looking to spot the next growth opportunity in communications technology need to be looking for the SPBs – the super profit bubbles.

“Ah”, you say.  “There are none.  It is too late.  They have all been identified”.  What rubbish you speak!

Consider, for example, roaming costs, which have been excessive forever – because the MNO stranglehold was unbreakable – well, almost unbreakable.  eSIMs changed all that.  Now only the rich, the lazy and the uninformed pay exorbitant roaming costs.  The rest of us click a few buttons on our smartphones in a magical sequence and “voila”, we have cheap roaming costs.  This assault on a seam of super-profit gold is creating new companies as we speak, some of which are now growing into giants.

IOT connection revenue is another area being attacked.  The MNOs that want to earn the high per-SIM revenues typical of SIMs used by people are experiencing a very nasty shock.  Horror of horrors, but some hungry MNOs are meeting the demand for lower prices for IOT use.  “Stop!” cry the old guard.  “You’re taking value out of the market!  Keep the prices high.  Exploit our monopoly.  Don’t respond to the demand or we might have to work for our huge salaries!”  But it is too late.  The earthquake is coming, despite the MNOs’ attempted fightback using differential rates and contractual mechanisms.

Other industries are seeing the same thing – often adjacent industries.  How many of you reading this now have a Wise card in your wallet?  Or a Mondo or one of the others.  Those cards target the SPBs (remember that term, the Super Profit Bubbles) that were earned for years by the banks and by the currency exchange providers at airports etc.  Many of us will remember back only a few years ago to the huge fees we used to pay for exchanging or sending currency, coupled with the poor exchange rates we used to get if ever we tried to send money abroad.  But that SPB has now shrunk and Wise and the others have arrived and grown to impressive size.

So the lesson – look for the SPBs.  Don’t assume they are all gone.  There are plenty still about in the communications sector.  And if you want a hint of where one might be lurking, think about the way data is exchanged at no cost in the fixed internet, but at significant cost in the mobile one.

This is the first of two blogs dealing with the topic of signalling evolution of APIs, the second part ‘5G network APIs’ will be published shortly.

As the telecom world transitions into the 5G era, one of the less visible but most significant changes is the shift in signalling protocols. Traditional signalling systems like SS7 (Signalling System 7) and Diameter are being replaced by HTTP/2-based APIs in 5G Standalone (5G SA) networks. But why is this change happening? Let’s unpack the evolution.

A Brief History: SS7 and Diameter

SS7: The Legacy Backbone

SS7 is a signalling protocol suite developed in the 1970s and used in 2G and 3G networks. It enables everything from call setup and routing to SMS and roaming. While it has been incredibly durable, it’s based on circuit-switched architecture—something the modern, data-heavy world is moving away from. When it was defined the only companies that could access the closed SS7 network were trusted fixed and mobile operators, consequently the level of in-built security was minimal. Over time this approach failed as piece by piece less scrupulous players were allowed access to the network and a multitude of scams emerged ranging from phishing to artificial SMS revenue enhancement.

Diameter: The 4G Successor

With the introduction of LTE (4G), SS7’s limitations prompted the use and further development of Diameter, an IP-based protocol designed for authentication, authorization, and accounting (AAA). It supports more advanced use cases but was still deeply tied to telco-centric infrastructure models. At the same time the industry was trying to retro engineer security features into the legacy SS7 network, which proved only partially successful. Interestingly, the MNOs (apparently quite deliberately) did not embed a speech solution into the 4G standards, relying on a difficult to implement solution called VoLTE, which even today several operators have failed to get working for a variety of reasons that were glossed over by the standards community who wrote the 4G standards. 

 Enter 5G Standalone and Service-Based Architecture (SBA)

There are two main variants of 5G, 5G NSA and 5G SA. NSA is basically 4G signalling and control with additional faster 5G bearers added to that architecture. However, 5G SA isn’t just faster LTE—it’s a complete re-architecture of the mobile core, centred on Service-Based Architecture (SBA). In this model, each network function (like session management, policy control, etc.) is exposed as a web service, using RESTful APIs over HTTP/2.

This shift is fundamental, not just in technology but also in policy. Exposing a rich suite of APIs deep inside the network core is a completely new venture for the Mobile Operators, and it’s one of the key reason HTTP is replacing SS7 and Diameter. It remains to be seen whether there is any real demand for this, for instance location information accessed via APIs has been available for years but has stimulated very little revenue.

Why the Shift to HTTP in 5G SA?

1. Cloud-Native Architecture

5G is built to be cloud-native from the ground up. HTTP/2 aligns perfectly with modern microservices and container-based environments like Kubernetes. SS7 and Diameter were never designed for this world.

2. Stateless Communication

HTTP APIs support stateless interactions, which simplifies scaling and resilience. This is critical for services like network slicing, IoT, and URLLC (Ultra-Reliable Low Latency Communication).

3. Flexibility & Extensibility

HTTP/2 and RESTful APIs are widely adopted in IT and web development. This allows for rapid integration with new services, easier innovation, and a broader talent pool for development and maintenance.

4. Improved Performance

HTTP/2 supports multiplexing, header compression, and efficient binary framing—features that reduce latency and improve signalling efficiency compared to Diameter’s AVP (Attribute-Value Pair) model.

5. Security Built-In

HTTP-based communication in 5G leverages TLS (Transport Layer Security) by default, ensuring encrypted and authenticated communication channels. SS7, in contrast, has long been criticized for serious vulnerabilities and lack of inherent security. This is not surprising because when SS7 was specified there was little or no need for the sort of security we see today, because it was a closed network connecting trusted partners, and at the time had a high technology cost to enter the environment. Of course, all of that has changed.

6. Standardized API Interface

The 3GPP standards define well-documented APIs for each 5G core network function. This modularity makes it easier to build, update, and scale networks without needing proprietary implementations or extensive vendor lock-in (in theory at least).

 What Happens to SS7 and Diameter?

• SS7 is already in decline, mostly used for backward compatibility with 2G/3G networks.

• Diameter is still relevant in 4G and will coexist with 5G Non-Standalone (NSA) deployments for some time.

• In 5G SA, HTTP-based service interfaces (like Nnrf, Nsmf, Namf) replace Diameter interfaces (like S6a, Gx, etc.), marking a definitive shift.

 The Road Ahead: HTTP is Just the Beginning

HTTP/2 and REST are just the starting point. The telecom industry is also exploring HTTP/3, gRPC, and event-driven architectures using Kafka or Webhooks for future evolutions of 5G and even early 6G concepts.

This signalling shift isn’t just about protocols—it’s about aligning telco infrastructure with the broader digital transformation, enabling networks to be as agile and programmable as the applications they serve. The lack of agility of mobile and fixed networks has long been a millstone around the operators, and it can be argued has led to them being almost completely frozen out of the service plane, and its associated revenues, and losing more of the voice and messaging revenues they once enjoyed than was necessary.

There is a cautionary note here that needs to be added, a lot of complexity in mobile networks today comes from the need to interwork between 2G, 3G, 4G,5G NSA, and 5GSA, mobile operators are notoriously poor at retiring old systems and protocols, and the use of a completely new core network architecture and protocol set, will mean another geometric expansion in the number of interworking cases to be adequately engineered, and tested.

Final Thoughts

Replacing SS7 and Diameter with HTTP in 5G Standalone is more than a technical upgrade—it’s a strategic move that redefines how networks are built, operated, and scaled. There is a strong prevailing view that as telecom becomes more software-driven, embracing modern web technologies is not only smart but necessary. There are alternatives factions who maintain that embracing the internet to this degree simply opens the telecoms networks to mass security attack, and that whilst it may not be glamourous, there will always be money in a purely bearer based business, and that this rush to embrace the latest internet and technology trend is just another in a long line of somewhat ridiculous technology purists innovations that have never returned anything like the investment they required to bring into service, the classic example being the MNO portals all of which cost millions in development and then sank without trace within two years.

The winners in this transformation will be those who can marry telco-grade reliability and historical security with web-scale agility—and arguably HTTP is the bridge that makes that possible 

At Azenby we are always busy helping our clients in the mobile world with their projects or with their business development but every so often we like to spend some time on our observation deck and cast our eyes further afield and look into the future. Looming on the distant horizon is 6G and last year we took a look at how the Framework for IMT2030 was progressing and you can catch up with this here.

Today we are giving some thought to how the IMT2030 framework may playout with regard to the business prospects for Mobile Network Operators and Service Providers. We acknowledge that there are differences in the way that markets work around the world, but the fundamentals of MNO business plans have many similarities.

We do see opportunities for MNOs in 6G, but we also see some dangers that need to be thought about now, well ahead of deployment in 2030. In part one we look at the potential hazards and dangers to MNO that 6G will bring.

Where’s the data going?

Competition for providing and selling data services to mobile customers with technologies other than cellular is intensifying at an ever-quickening rate and there a range of analyst reports available which suggest 90% of mobile device data is carried over WiFi in western markets but this also is something that is trending worldwide. To some degree this suits MNOs especially for heavy data users and HD video downloaders but there is a downside and that is the need to stay relevant for each new generation of mobile user. We also see that for the first time in some 15 years the compound rate of increase of mobile data has declined.

Who gets the spectrum – who wants the spectrum?

WRC-27 seems a long way off but the lobbying and positioning for spectrum is already well under way. Battle lines are being drawn between those pushing for spectrum to be unlicenced and those that prefer spectrum to be licensed to give exclusive use and to create a barrier to entry for new market entrants. 

It is inevitable that supporters of  unlicensed spectrum will see the amount of wireless data carried over WiFi as the trump card to play when new spectrum is allocated. New spectrum for 6G is challenging in its own right for traditional cellular coverage. Current consensus is that it will have to be in the 7-15GH frequency range as this offers the best possible balance (from what is available) between coverage needs and capacity requirements. Nonetheless its far from ideal for MNOs. After this it is about looking at sub-THz spectrum and that seems light years away from the original deployments of MNO networks at 900Mhz!

The deployment costs for 6G in new spectrum, in the current way that the MNO business model work, look to be challenging when it comes to achieving a rate of return. There might be more than one MNO Chief Strategy Officer that’s thinking it might not be such a  bad idea to miss out on licensed spectrum for 6G!

The MNO business model 

Another point that unlicensed spectrum protagonists will make is that the current MNO business model of invest in deployment with up to ten-year payback timescales will prove to be unsustainable for 6G. The case for WiFi is that the user pays for the base station (access point) and the backhaul. This, they argue, speeds up deployment of new technologies. This assumes that the infrastructure provider provides the connectivity only. We may be reaching an inflexion point between using spectrum more for local coverage than in the macro layer. A key point to note when considering just how much data is being consumed over WiFi is that the predominant use case is indoors. If 6G is about competing against WiFi then the challenge is to somehow obtain more indoor coverage from the macro layer. This is not a new problem for MNOs to solve but the need to do so is becoming more and more critical for them if they continue to see a high degree of indoor coverage as being a competitive priority.

Inability to monetise core features

In each step function change in core technology from 2G onwards, there has been the promise of new revenues beyond bundled tariffs for voice, data, and text (e.g. offering premium services over an assured level of QoS). The reality however has told us that this has never happened in any significant way. That’s not to say the enabling functionality in each standard has not provided new opportunities but by and large the new revenues have been creamed off by OTT players. This has left MNOs making the business case for new generations of technology on better economics for cost per Mbps, lower latency and increased coverage.

We believe that the business case for 6G will be challenging for MNOs based on past deployment practices and 6G rollout will need to be approached very differently.

Is mobility still the killer app for MNOs?

Until now, MNOs have had a valuable USP, mobility. The biggest difference between a Wi-Fi connection and a cellular connection has been mobility, the ability to keep a call or data session whilst on the move. There is a but though. If 90% of mobile data is already going over Wi-Fi, this would suggest that mobility is becoming increasingly less important to users. It is not good news for mobile service provides  if usage is increasingly static. There will always be a need for mobility, for people in cars, trains, and buses and even for those walking the street with their eyes firmly on their social media or map app. These are, however, in the main low data applications and can be adequately delivered over 4G – and if rollout permits, 5G. 6G certainly isn’t needed for mobility and if that is the case then the business case for 6G has just got a whole lot harder to make.

Regulators aren’t helping

This is not new news. The heavy hand of regulation can feel to the MNOs as if they are being beaten with 3 big sticks at the same time.  The first big stick is Treasury’s unwavering determination to “monetise spectrum” at the time licenses are granted to the MNOs.  Although the ludicrous spectrum licensing we saw for 3G is now history, regulators still see spectrum in terms of premium value licensing. Their thinking on spectrum licensing has become outdated and is not serving the industry – or consumers – well. Extracting huge sums of money from one single point in the economic chain  (i.e. the infrastructure providers using the spectrum) is an inhibiter and disincentive to investors in critical infrastructure and furthermore is blind to the application layer where, let’s be honest, all the money is being made.

The second big stick being used on the MNOs is the unhelpful and enduring insistence upon coverage of a very high percentage of land mass and or population under license terms – even though a very large percentage of the land mass is uneconomical and loss making for MNOS. We have pleaded before for regulators to start thinking outside of their comfort zone and furthermore suggest that if they don’t, 6G could be a non-starter.  

The third big stick being used on MNOs is implicit retail price control, primarily being imposed by means of merger control.  It is all very well telling MNOs they have to pay a lot for new spectrum and must pay a lot to roll-out that spectrum quickly to fields full of sheep and cows, but it doesn’t take a modern-day Einstein to point out that something has to give.  Companies can just keep absorbing costs if they cannot recover those investments in their prices.  The market leaders may be able to sustain the pain for longer than the weaker ones, but if those small players find it impossible either to hike prices or exit the market, then the spiral of woe will be continual to an inevitable conclusion.  And that won’t serve anyone’s interests.  Not the consumers’; not the MNOs’; not the Regulators’; and certainly not the Treasury’s.  Something has to give.  If governments want money for spectrum and ubiquity of all spectrum, then prices will have to rise to pay for it.

Competition for coverage

Another of the MNO USP is ubiquitous outdoor coverage but yet another thing that 90% of data going over Wi-Fi tells us is that outdoor coverage, like mobility, is something a lot of users find less important but nonetheless is still  something that has a strong pull for most users. A lot of the outdoor usage, as we mentioned, is low data applications and only some of it is likely to be the high data / low latency of the type that needs or would justify a wide area deployment of 6G”

Satellite mobile (direct to device) coverage is on the up. It’s extremely expensive today but prices may fall before 6G arrives and could be a better option for rural coverage. We shouldn’t ignore the pace at which FTTH is gaining traction and is increasingly proving a reliable and fast back-haul for WiFi Aps that previously may not have been possible. Couple this with the research and standardisation  work on extended Wi-Fi coverage and we see increasing competition and options for mobile users.

Devices galore

A traditional strength of the MNO has been providing devices bundled into tariffs. This has made mobile phones, especially high-end devices, accessible to more MNO  customers. Whereas many people still like to renew their airtime subscription in conjunction with a device upgrade, there are a growing number of customers now sourcing their phones directly from retailers offering discounts and payment terms. These users then tend to look for SIM only deals and are prepared to shop around and change service provider. This is reducing traditional customer loyalty that MNOs had got used to.

The passing of the physical SIM

Following on from a weakening in attracting customers with device deals the disappearance of the physical SIM is the last of things to induce sleepless nights for MNOs. This will certainly make changing service provider much easier and also allow device manufacturers to have a much greater say in how mobile users pick and chose what they do with their devices and what access technology will be chose for them by the device.

Wrap up

The justification for investing in 6G in current MNO business models isn’t apparent (in fact some MNOS are even struggling to justify 5G SA investment). We have little doubt that the way 6G will be deployed by MNOs will follow very different practices than we’ve seen previously. It is not clear to us that 6G will bring anything like the increased revenues that will be needed to provide a return on investment. Neither do we see 6G adding anything significant for the MNO to offer their customers over and above 5G.

This leads us to propose the prospect that the WiFi networks continue to become de facto bearer for the vast majority of high data and static applications, leaving the mobile networks, very much focussed on mobile use cases which by their very nature are lower bandwidth. We believe that mobility is a fundamental requirement, walk around any city and you will see zombie like people of all ages, completely absorbed in their phones as they collide with unsuspecting passers-by and the occasional lamppost. This in turn makes us think, well if that is the case, then surely 5G is enough, isn’t it? 

Providing ubiquitous cellular coverage has, naturally, been constrained by the profitability imperatives of the mobile industry. This has been the case in all countries and through all generations of cellular technology from 2G through to 5G and will not change with the arrival of 6G.

Indeed, providing macro-cellular, wide-area coverage at the higher frequency bands being considered for 6G will be even more expensive than in previous G’s. With 3G decommissioning having started in many countries, the actual cellular footprint, at least, for data, and possibly for voice too, is likely to shrink in the years to come (unless the relevant spectrum is promptly re-farmed for 4G and 5G). This effect will be, particularly, noticeable indoors.

Here, we propose two enablers to compensate for such potential deficit and take a practical step towards ubiquitous wireless coverage. A technology enabler and a regulatory one.

“Core-Centric” 6G as enabler for ubiquitous coverage

We believe that the main purpose of 6G should be the enablement of widest possible access, by all people across the world, to digital services and voice. To that end, a novel Intelligent Core Network should be the key feature of 6G which facilitates access to multiple radio access technologies including existing 2G-5G plus the new 6G radio as well as LEO satellite and WiFi whilst also catering for interworking with private networks.

In effect, with such an overarching Intelligent Core, 6G would be a “Network of Networks”, maximising access to wireless connectivity, leveraging all existing infrastructures, as well as new ones, where users can access any radio coverage supported by their device. We have discussed details of this unconventional approach in our previous blog ( https://azenby.com/archives/3107 ) where ‘sum of the parts’ including LEO Satellite and WiFi along with all cellular networks in the country would go a long way towards near-100% coverage for voice and basic data services (for example, messaging, browsing, photos and video clips) at locations where people live, work and play, whether outdoors or indoors.

This approach would safeguard existing investments as it would prolong the life of current architectures and infrastructures. It is also an important enabler for Net Zero ambitions.

“Light-Touch Regulation” as enabler for ubiquitous coverage

As well as the proposed novel 6G concept from a technology perspective, one needs a commercial framework which encourages multi-operator access for users. International Roaming is a good example where a user typically has access to several networks (if not all) in the visited country even though one of those networks might be the preferred partner of the home network provider. Yet, National Roaming is rare. In their home country, the user is constrained to a single network, sometimes they are even restricted to certain technologies through commercial tariffs/packages or devices (for example, 2G and 3G but not 4G and/or 5G etc).

Whilst we are not proposing draconian regulatory measures which might discourage investment, we think that a more innovative approach with more degrees of freedom in the spectrum licensing conditions could be adopted by Governments and Regulators, encouraging more sharing of spectrum and infrastructure and more in-country (national) roaming; and, yes, some obligations for taking coverage to less profitable geographies and locations, too. With such an approach, one would reduce operators building duplicate coverage focussed on profitable areas/locations whilst leaving other areas/locations with inadequate wireless connectivity. As a result, a given amount of total investment by the operators would go much further towards ubiquitous coverage.

In Conclusion

With this technology approach to 6G and a more purposeful direction from the Regulators, we believe that near-ubiquitous wireless coverage is a realistic proposition, even with a lower cost of production.

There is also a significant side benefit of this concept. The Emergency Services of the country would not be constrained to one network provider (as is the case, normally) but instead they would have automatic access to all the networks in the country and use the best network available at the specific location and time where they need it.

We appreciate that this vision is not without its challenges. We will be discussing some of the challenges and potential solutions (such as Semi-Autonomous Devices in network selection) in future blogs. Similarly, changes to spectrum licensing and other terms governing interworking amongst different wireless access services (cellular, WiFi, satellite) would need to be handled carefully, in order to encourage telcos to adopt the new approach on one hand and not to reduce competition in the market on the other.

Nevertheless, we believe the prize of ubiquitous coverage is worth the effort and 6G is the catalyst for that. Our industry has done a great job in giving mobile communications to the masses over the last 3+ decades. Now, we have an opportunity to excel. Let’s go for it.

If you wish to discuss these proposals with us and help shed light on the art of the possible to get 6G right, then why not get in touch with us here.

With 6G gaining more visibility, naturally, there is a discussion on a new air interface, and, particularly, on the use of millimetre wave frequencies. It’s almost like 6G is synonymous with millimetre waves and the air interface is the starting point. Traditionally, Radio Access has dominated the development of the next G, as we’ve travelled from 2G to 5G.

That should not be the case for 6G.

The purpose of 6G should be the enablement of widest possible access, by all people across the world, to digital services and voice, and that a novel Intelligent Core Network should be the key feature of 6G which facilitates access to multiple radio access technologies including existing 2G-5G plus the new 6G radio as well as LEO satellite and WiFi whilst also catering for interworking with Private Networks.

In effect, with its overarching Intelligent Core, 6G would be a “Network of Networks”, maximising access to wireless connectivity, leveraging all existing infrastructures as well as new ones.

The Intelligent Core should be the starting point in 6G, followed by Semi-Autonomous Devices and finally, the Multiple and Diverse Access Media. In the latter, that the spectrum is no longer exclusively assigned to a given G should be the norm, (rather than the exception, as in re-farming).

If one starts with the purpose of 6G being the enablement of widest possible access, by all people across the world, to digital services including those provided by “things” (such as IOT, robots, drones, autonomous vehicles, virtual reality and similar), and in particular, provided or supported increasingly by AI, voice taken for granted, of course, then one arrives at 6G being a “facility” which:

• Leverages existing 3GPP platforms, 2-5G, making sure coverage of remote areas and people is not compromised 
• Caters for a multiplicity of diverse access media where geographically small but high-spec 6G islands coexist with wide-area 4G-5G common access layers, along with more localised Private Networks 
• Includes extensive use of Private Networks, whether offered as slices by large MNOs or truly private deployments including shared frequencies and different protocols such as CBRS.
• Embraces WiFi, LEO Satellite,
• Embraces Fibre and FWA as intrinsic parts of the concept,
• Exploits new frequency bands through a new air interface but not exclusively, so that 4G and 5G technologies also utilise those frequencies where appropriate,
• Caters for coexistence of mmw frequencies in use for cellular as well as PTP, PTMP backhaul and FWA in shared fashion. 
• Considers Fibre an intrinsic part of the 6G concept and caters for it to be designed in from the outset, for example, when deploying 6G hotspots which could be connected by dedicated mmw or fibre backhaul with super speeds and latency,
• Empowers devices for Authentication and Mobility Management across above diverse landscape of wireless networks,

In this heterogenous environment, the 6G Intelligent Core and the “empowered” Devices perform overall Authentication and Mobility Management. The 6G Intelligent Core enables the Device with the knowledge of specific protocols of the networks the Device is about to access.

Needless to say, one no longer has devices restricted to given operators network(s); instead, they enjoy an extensive use of National Roaming which is administered by the 6G Intelligent Core, most probably, making good use of e-SIM functionality as part of that overall control or mediation.

Given the diversity of protocols (6xGs, WiFi, LEO Satellite, CBRS etc) and the range of frequency bands in use, it will, probably, be necessary to make some sacrifices in seamless mobility and even in the frequency bands/types of networks accessible by a given device type.

As mentioned at the beginning, the 6G Intelligent Core is a critical and central part of this vision. It has overarching reach, has the ability to translate, mediate for the different protocols of the diverse network technologies it enables the devices to access.

In technical media, there is currently, a debate on whether the development of 6G should be through an Evolutionary or a Revolutionary approach. Given above conceptual functionality of 6G, such distinction is not actually appropriate. It is a new concept which has Revolutionary and Evolutionary aspects.

Leveraging existing Gs is obviously evolutionary yet the above idea of 6G Intelligent Core is revolutionary. Extending the life of existing 4/5G networks reduces or delays capital investments, and it can be argued to be better environmentally.

Moving up the frequency bands to millimetrewaves is evolutionary. The new 6G air interface not backwardly compatible with 4/5G would be revolutionary, yet the proposed operation of the 6G Intelligent Core and the Semi-Autonomous Devices might make 6G New Radio look evolutionary. That Security in 6G needs fresh thinking and a revolutionary approach is discussed in another Azenby blog https://azenby.com/archives/3081

That spectrum should not be assigned to 6G exclusively may appear revolutionary but is it really? With Spectrum Aggregation and Dynamic Spectrum Sharing already in use in 4/5G, that is a natural development.

Another aspect of the ITU spectrum strategy and the national Regulators’ policies in the 6G world should be to support network sharing, spectrum sharing/trading, including the availability of more spectrum for shared use, especially given the extremely short re-use distances of millimetre waves and the highly likely small area deployment of 6G New Radios. Some might argue, given the advances in semiconductor technology, that re-use even within a room might be feasible using super-MIMO beam steering. {ref another future Azenby blog} 

Naturally, this vision of 6G has many challenges. Such versatility and intelligence in the 6G Intelligent Core and the enablement of Devices for self-management in the management of authentication and mobility is a tall order, not to mention the range of frequencies those devices would have to cope with; but the prize is worth the effort. Given the never-ending advances in semiconductor technology and AI in the service of telecoms, anything is possible. 

This vision of 6G has a very significant side benefit, too, since the Emergency Services of the country would not be constrained to one network provider (as is the case, normally) but instead they would have automatic access to all the networks in the country and use the best network available at the specific time and location where they need it.

Our industry has done a great job in giving mobile communications to the masses over the last 3+ decades. Now, we have an opportunity to excel. Let’s go for it!

In a blog we posted in April of this year; we bemoaned just how long it is taking to roll out 5GSA to all the population of the UK. Well, to those people lucky enough to be in an MNO coverage area anyway. So, you may wonder, why are we even considering matters relating to what follows 5G, which for now, we’ll call 6G. 

The answer is that there is a lot of thinking to be done and so the sooner we start the better. The ITU-R has already fired its starting gun, in fact it did that in March 2021 and it’s called the Framework (for IMT2030) phase and, as the name implies, the objective is to come up with an outline of what the next generation may look like. It’s inevitable this is being called 6G. That phase finished last month, and we’ll soon learn the details and that’s why we think it is timely to give some time to our thoughts about 6G now. The next phase is, after all, about requirements and evaluation criteria. This is the crucial pre-standardisation work which will set both the business and technical challenges for 6G. The estimated 6G launch is 2030 and you may be wondering if it isn’t too early to be thinking about requirements for a 6G network today, but when we start to consider the challenges in front of this programme, perhaps it isn’t!

We have decided to devote a bit our own thinking time inside Azenby to what comes next and to start thinking about the opportunities and the challenges that lay ahead. In a series of blogs over the coming months we will shine a light on many of the issues that will be testing the brightest telecom brains on the planet, and a plethora of other brains outside the telecom world as well. Whenever there is a catalyst for change, as 5G to 6G undoubtedly is, the first question to be answered is always ‘do we evolve, or do we disrupt?’ Are we looking on this as an evolution from 5G or as a chance for a revolution for 6G?

Like Antonio in The Tempest, we wonder if we are fated to act by all that has gone before us, “Whereof what’s past is prologue;” suggesting we are slaves to previous generations and evolution is the only option. But then again he follows this with “what to come, in yours and my discharge”  and we can interpret this as that everything up until now has merely set the stage for us to make own destinies. OK, we don’t think Shakespeare was thinking about 6G when he wrote this, but it does seem an apt analogy of where we are today. Can we decide that 6G should have a destiny of its own and not be incumbered by backwards compatibility to previous technology generations? Can we decide on revolution? This is important because the paths ahead between evolution and revolution are vastly different roads indeed.

Convention and past practice have a foothold already. IMT2030 and the framework study initiated by ITU-R is thinking about 6G from the radio ‘in’ as we see it and we have a strong view that, really, 6G should be from the core ‘out’. In fact, we think 6G is more about the seamless management of many access technologies, not just about a new 6G radio interface. This begs the question ‘are we even starting from the right place’? We do understand that a new radio interface to support the aspirational targets for 6G on data speeds, ultra-low latency, and mass device support, will be needed and that it will require many years of research and development. This being so, we have no problem with the work happening now. What we would like to see is a parallel approach to produce a complete rounded new 6G technology that thinks much wider than a new radio interface.

We wonder if we might end up in a different place altogether if network security, resilience, and the adaptability to serve the next decade’s needs was the starting point and then work out whatever  access methods will be required, (6G) radio being but just one of them. Alas the starting gun has sounded and it’s a radiocommunication centric programme – at least for now.

In one way it is exciting to start thinking about what 6G needs to be and to whom. Should it be people focussed or industry focussed? Should it seek to connect the unconnected? How do we make it trusted for all users and make sure it is resilient and reliable for a range of new services and use cases that we haven’t seen thus far in 5G? There are many component parts that will make up a successful network of the future and 6G does need some new and different thinking compared to  what has gone on before. Is 6G the ideal opportunity to create opportunities for new entrants in infrastructure, equipment, devices, and service provision? Or should it be driven by the needs of today’s incumbent players? For many of the previous mobile generations, the emphasis has been on the technology, not the business cases or even user requirements. The next generation presents a challenge, as we need to predict the future: What will the effect be of climate change, of Artificial Intelligence, the state of the World economy, and security and the risks from those with malevolent capability?

Over the coming weeks and months, we will be publishing a series of blogs to cover the topics and subjects that we think need to be considered and resolved if we are to end up with a new generation of telecommunications for the next decade and beyond.

We are going to take a look and form a view on the following topics and maybe more.

The Benchmark

What are the aims and goals for 6G? They are many and varied and some are aspirational. What we see currently is a focus on the conventional three performance indications we have become familiar with in 4G and 5G. Speed, latency, and density. It is worth just taking a look on where we are today on these three PIs.

	4G	5G	6G
Data Throughput	1Gpbs*	20Gpbs*	xTpbs
Latency	0.01*	0.001*	0.000x	seconds
MMTC (density)	100k*	1 million*	xxx million	devices/km2
*Not achieved yet

There are of course many other targets for 6G to aim at but the three KPIs will always figure large in most people’s thinking inside the industry.

Intelligent core / network of networks. As mentioned before , we think that this is the better starting point for determining the telecommunications strategy and standard for the next decade.

Geopolitics Probably the single biggest barrier to a successful new global standard. Does it even matter that we may not end up with a single globally adopted standard? Is the need for global roaming now being met outside of the 4G/5G domain? Can a trusted environment be created allowing OEMs from all markets to serve all markets?

Services and Use cases. We have been thinking a lot about this. When 3GPP was formed, the decision was taken to leave services out and focus entirely on bearer technologies. Develop the technology and then worry about the services and use cases. Various possible use cases have always been touted for each new generation by equipment manufacturers and to be honest, very few have ever come to fruition. Is this because we do things the wrong way round? We believe that 6G definition should start with the ‘Purpose’ rather than being a bigger and faster version of 5G. That is a long-standing trait of the telecom’s world, but it does make us wonder if the development of 6G needs to be more user focussed than has happened previously. We also see that needs and requirements will vary greatly and ask, ‘can a single global standard be optimal for the vastly differing needs of markets worldwide?’

The spectrum challenges. Wow, this is a biggy. Where is the spectrum we need for optimal and economic services? We can’t find it; we can only see the best of a lot of worst options. Do some low usage systems taking up valuable spectrum (largely for historical reasons) need to be shifted, moved, or closed? That would be radical, but it needs to be on the table. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Let’s throw in today’s archaic spectrum licenses culture and hope for some new out-of-the-box thinking from regulators for 6G where growth is the driver and not filling Government treasury coffers around the world.

Devices. There are two takes on end user devices. One is the handheld smartphone as we know it today and the other is embedded devices inside of all sorts of machines and equipment. Chips with everything will now be radio in everything. 6G needs to deal with a world of sophisticated automation driven on by AI and everything connected to everything. That’s complimentary with our view on truly intelligent network cores. Certainly, it’s the end of the road for physical SIMs. 

Private Networks in the 6G environment. If we are looking for clues on the take up of the non-consumer-based capabilities of 5G and assume that this will be repeated in 6G, then the abundance of private networks does seem to be a crucial part of what 6G needs to support. Where we see MMTC and low latency capabilities being deployed in industrial applications, (mainly in China and the US) three things stand out, private networks, the need for the fully functioning core (SA) and spectrum to support them.

Componentry. What developments and enhancements will we need to see in processors and memory to fulfil the aspirations of 6G? Maybe the semiconductor industry moves so fast anyway that components will be far ahead of the 6G needs come 2030.

Resilience . Amongst the touted industrial use cases, and even on video game console use, we hear that low latency is crucial. Ultra-low latency throws up its own challenges in any radio environment but in some use cases like health and real time robotic machine needs, ultra-low latency is as a must have. Thinking on a bit from this, if we can achieve ultra-low latency we also need highly resilient networks and availability way above today’s base line. Ultra-low latency is no good if network connections are lost! Similarly, when future Emergency Services Networks include 6G, the importance of resilience increases.

Economic Viability. It goes without saying but we’ll say it anyway. Economic viability for all stakeholders in the next generation of network. This does not just mean the existing players in the market, but we must find a way to encourage a generation of new entrants. We will need fresh players in the market, and this can only happen if revolution is in the air. Evolution will be a barrier to entry. We also need to think about whether we really do need to keep building numerous separate networks to service the same markets. We have to consider that those operating a physical network may not even make a ROI from it, but they may be paying all the costs for equipment and licences. 

Perhaps regulators around the world need to review whether they are too focussed on protecting consumer prices and should also be charged with ensuring that the mobile industry, a critical piece of national infrastructure these days, is also protected.

What we don’t want to see is a return of the PTT. We need to make infrastructure sharing a reality but still have competition at the service level. This will also be particularly important to support Net Zero targets and make 6G environmentally sustainable. 

SDOs and Open Source – who wins? Here’s a thought. We think a 6GPP is needed to deliver 6G. That is no criticism of 3GPP who have done an excellent job and finally achieved a truly global standard with 5G. If 5G is ‘just’ a steppingstone towards 6G then probably 3GPP in its current form will do the job. But what if 6G is a dynamic new ‘standard of standards’ bringing computing, satellite and glass access, WLAN, IPvX, together? Then we need a broader confederation of standards bodies all-round the same table working on 6G. Then there is the thought that more open source is crucial if the economics of 6G are to stack up and to avoid the usual IP and patent wars that always surround a new release of technology.

Security. We published a thought provoking  article last month on security and highlighted that we still use security algorithms devolved 40 years ago for GSM. In a world where cyber protection always seems to be one-step behind hostile actors looking to destabilise infrastructure systems and steal personal data for malevolent ends, 6G has to be the standard that is hack proof. Is AI friend or foe? Is it an enabler for better security or a threat?

Coverage. So far, improvement to geographical and indoor coverage seem to be the two elephants in the room. When there are two elephants in the room, we really do need to take notice. If we continue to count coverage on outdoor population coverage alone then we will have missed a wonderful opportunity to serve the unconnected with 6G. We know macro PLMN networks just cannot provide ubiquitous geographical coverage economically and 6G isn’t going to change this without embracing other access technologies and making them core to 6G. The indoor issues are more solvable and certainly need to be solved. I was recently talking to a distinguished veteran of our mobile industry in the IET building in Savoy Place, London, and he was lamenting that after 40 years he still couldn’t get a signal in the centre of one of the biggest cites in the world. If 6G does anything, it must address better coverage. It isn’t good enough for it to be under consideration. It needs to be a priority.

MVNOs and the smaller MNO. 6G seems at the moment to be the reserve of the big players, whether they be OEMs or current mobile network operators. We wonder what 6G will mean for smaller networks. Some small networks are sophisticated, clever, innovative, and economically successful. Many of them are small because their addressable market is small, not because they are unsuccessful. What does 6G need to be for these important service providers around the world? Will the industrial application focus be damaging for them? We also think about MVNOs. In the UK, nearly one-quarter of the market is now supplied by an MNVO. Is the virtual approach the right way to go. Should 6G be a network of networks open to all forms of service providers to provide tailor made services for different market segments?

Well, this is just a few of things we will be considering and bring answers – or at least our views on in the current weeks. We’d like to hear your comments as well. Please use the comments box below and have your say. If you want to be kept up to date and receive or series of blogs on 6G why not let us know also using comments section.

Charles Brookson OBE CEng FIET FRSA 

I chaired the CEPT Algorithm Expert Group for GSM mobile back in 1986, to design the processes for technical security, part of the Security Expert Group chaired by Thomas Haug. I then worked in Security Standards Groups such as ETSI, SMG and 3GPP. My career was with BT, one2one, UK Government and Consultancy, where I still tinker with mobile standards. For accidental reasons, I’ve been involved in security algorithms and protocols since the late 1970’s.

We took the business model first in GSM:

UK Operators could not sell direct to the public, only through retailers, to encourage retail competition. We had to come up with a secure design that allowed the Operators to sell subscriptions, and the retailers to sell phones. Of course, this model has radically changed since then.

I’ve always designed security with how they are used in the real world, and work out who trusts who, and what parts need to be secured against any possible threats.

I’d had plenty of experience of poor security in the manufacture and design of analogue mobile phones, so we wanted the security under the total control of the Operator, and we came up with the physically secure SIM smart card (we’d already been using tokens and cards in British Telecom BT for security, so it was an obvious answer).

Then we looked at the security threats:

I didn’t want any Operator to have to trust the security of any other Operator, so we came up with the idea of putting your own algorithms on the SIM card, and not sharing it, only passing the means (using triplets) to other Operators. 

By this method we prevented any other Operator from being able to defraud others. I wanted this, as I had seen this happening in BT, with rogue payment requests and funny happenings from other Operators and Countries.

Then we had the practicalities, nobody thought we needed security:

I was told that security was not really that important at all, which I also strongly disagreed with. After all, we had seen all the cloning issues of ESN and MIN on analogue mobile systems such as TACs (1G). The decision makers didn’t want to pay for security back in those days, or even these days, except when forced by regulation! Isn’t it strange how many businesses take security seriously after a hack or fraud has occurred?

I also wanted some level of privacy, to stop eavesdropping (we’d had cases of eavesdropping of our UK Royal family for example), but we were told that this was not very important and should have minimal impact on the silicon. We came up with privacy algorithms that could meet export control requirements (42-bit keys for then COCOM regulations), last about ten years, and be made using 2000 to 3000 transistors.

I was told that we wanted a way of checking the type-approval for regulatory purposes, so only tested devices could be used on networks (this was legal requirement in Denmark for example). We came up with the IMEI, a serial number for each mobile, which could be easily inserted at the factory.

In pursuit of privacy, so we came up with the idea of a temporary identifier used over the air (TMSI), and this sort of worked quite well (it does default to the real one or IMSI on set up).

Finally, we were told all of this was to have no impact on call set up time or complexity, so we were not able to add the third handshake to allow mutual authentication. This was to prove a big mistake. Base stations would always be expensive I was told, and so it was just not required, as who would ever be able to replicate their own base station!  (The complexity fallacy in Security I’ve heard many times: “This will never be broken because it is too expensive and complex …”).

The result of all this?

In the early 1990’s we had a GSM security system that was designed for half a dozen countries, and it worked well for the first ten years. It then grew and was adopted worldwide as GSM became the De Facto global standard.

Then we had a succession of evolutions from GPRS and EDGE, to 3G, 4G and 5G. All the time we just built on what had already been designed, without questioning the rationale. Backward compatibility was king!

I chaired the GSM Association Security Group for the first 25 years of its existence, and after the first ten years I spent the rest of my career putting sticking plaster solutions on the various technical requirements to ensure that they creaked along, as the security gradually fell apart.

For example, we had to get Operators to sign disclaimers that they were adopting insecure algorithms, when they insisted on using the example default authentication algorithm which had already been broken. Then they were surprised that their authentication had been broken and their SIM Cards cloned! I suspect that many just did not care or have enough technical people or knowledge to even understand that they needed to design their own, our original design intention.

We now have electronic SIMs, which are based on hardware provided by mobile device manufacturers, so now the inherent security is no longer controlled by the Operator. It also breaks my rule of not trusting devices, especially mass-produced electronic consumer equipment.

We had to remove support for the older privacy algorithms from handsets, even when we’d seen many open papers from hackers on them being broken, to force Operators to put in newer ones. There was no real will to change the algorithms after 20 years of service, well after their “best-before-end” date of the designed 10 years.

We spent many years in Standards groups looking at how we could put back in mutual authentication (I have the original 1987 papers showing that we had it in, but of course it got rejected by those who did not understand why we needed it). This led to all the false base station attacks and bidding down of algorithms – because with no mutual authentication the mobile must trust the network. Interestingly, one variation of GSM did not use authentication at all (to speed up the process). It made very little difference to the speed at set up and scares me every time I think about it (it still exists).

The IMEI was then used to prevent stolen phones by law enforcement and governments, so there was now a financial incentive by criminals to change it. This led to even more Standards work to try and fix it, which has not really been resolved. A case of using something for a purpose it was not intended for, and therefore criminals would put more resources put into breaking it, and then break the whole rationale of the original design (aided by manufacturers with insecure IMEIs in their hardware).

Finally, of course, the whole business model is now multifarious, not that anyone seems to think about this aspect. Operators now sell mobiles direct and through shops, we have Virtual Operators (MVNO), we have private networks and so on. It seems that nobody designs security against a business models for mobile, it’s just presented as a recipe, and you try and pick and choose ingredients that you might force to fit your needs. 

So, we do need a revolution?

Yes, we most certainly do! 6G and beyond needs radical new thinking!

We have gaily carried on using old principles and business models (even though we have moved on) without much original thinking. I rarely see business models or threat analysis associated with any security thinking for mobile networks. We are still using protocols, signalling systems and concepts that are almost 40 years old, and using them to evolve systems for the next 20 years. 

My cynical thought is that this suits everyone involved, and they just to have tinker with what they have, and then they can tell the world they can throw out the old and buy something shiny and new!

It’s my contention the foundation stones that we are basing the evolution to 6G are broken, or no longer relevant. We need a radical rethink to make something new that is useful for what we now need. We did that with GSM (the first time we really used encryption on a public system, and had open interfaces, and many other things). We need to do that again ….

Postscript:

Like everyone in history who spreads thoughts against conventional wisdom, I expect to be labelled a heretic by reactionary forces who don’t want to change. 

But I’m going to fight for my cause, even though it may end up with being burnt at the stake … to this end I’ve proposed a new ETSI White paper (which has been accepted by TC CYBER Committee) on this subject to help shape thinking for future security. That way it will be free for everyone to read, and not behind a pay wall.

Let’s all work together: I’m sure we can succeed and create a new security system fit for the bright 6G world!

If you would like to discuss 6G and any related topics please feel free to contact us

It seems that 5G is all around us already and Mobile Network Operators (MNOs) and service Providers (SPs) are doing a lot to drum up excitement. Dig a little deeper however, and different picture emerges.

In late 2021, the EE brand and demand generation communications director, Kelly Engstrom, told the world that “5G is about building excitement for future use cases.” So, are we all getting excited? She also confirmed full (but actually only outdoor) UK national 5G coverage will take until 2028 to complete. Perhaps we shouldn’t be getting excited too soon then! It seems EE’s rollout plans are more or less in line with the other MNOs in the UK. Ubiquitous 5G is still a long way off.

Although there was, and still is, a race to make early 5G coverage claims, the actual pace of roll out is a bit more sedate. There are good reasons for this, the technology is not cheap to roll-out, new and re-farmed spectrum needs to be prepared – involving the retirement of 3G technology – technical standards are still only at 60% finalisation, the ‘China core’ problem, availability of handsets, and perhaps most significant of all, the worry over payback. The cost of capital is heading in the wrong direction for expensive infrastructure problems. 

Should we be concerned as customers about the state of 5G? Probably not is our view and here is why.

The three pillars of 5G are enhanced mobile broadband (eMBB), ultra reliable, low-latency communications (URLLC), and massive machine-type communications (mMTC). In simple terms faster, instant and IoT ready. The idea was to be able to develop many more use cases and broaden the horizons for mobile communication business plans. Some observers have noted that many of the new use cases identified for 5G are able to be delivered on 4G, but really 5G is all about doing these things on scale and at lower delivery costs.

Perhaps nearly all current mobile phone usage is in the consumer sector, individuals making calls, sending messages, attending to their social media, web searching and doing a bit of streaming. Yes, businesses and business men use mobile devices too but mainly to do the same things consumers do. 5G is meant to change that. The ability for mobile to integrate deep into business processes and improve productivity makes up two of those three 5G pillars. These are supposedly where the new business cases are to be mined and where new revenues and 5G pay back will come from. All well and good but URLLC and mMTC do little for the consumer and today’s customer base is consumer orientated in its behaviour. What the consumer wants, or so we are told, is faster data speeds to get things done quicker. Even without these new use cases data traffic growth in the UK is something like 40% year-on-year. This puts a drain on available capacity and a choke on data throughput speeds and as we all know, it’s all about speed today. And so, eMBB is what’s needed first from 5G and therefore, step forward 5G Non Standalone.

5G NSA is the method widely adopted to get 5G ‘out there’. The advantage is that it only needs the 5G radio in place and relies on the ‘old’ 4G core for call management and processing. We do need to add a caveat alongside only needing to deploy the radio, as this in itself is no straightforward task. 5G NSA does tick one important box for SPs, the 5G icon can be lit on the device and this means MNOs and SPs can sell 5G plans at premium prices. 5G NSA broadly supports eMBB so users can get faster data speeds where it has been rolled out. Looking at UK MNO published plans, it would seem that they are at about 50% of population coverage today for outdoor. Predictions for indoor coverage are much harder to come across. Improving indoor coverage, something we all badly want, requires (in a large part) the use of lower band spectrum and this is achieved by the use of new 700MHz band spectrum and requiring 3G technology in the low and mid-range bands to be retired to make way for 5G. 5G alone doesn’t improve indoor coverage without the help of the right frequency bands. The dilemma for all MNOs is that this low band spectrum is still limited and the more abundant spectrum is up in the higher 2.6GHz and 3.4/6GHz bands and these are not nearly so effective for wide area macro coverage or for in building penetration. It may be that we have an even longer wait for ubiquitous indoor 5G coverage. 

That is not to say the MNOs are sitting on their hands. As we have said above, new spectrum is being deployed and new sites in urban and particularly dense urban areas are being built because coverage at 2.6GHz and above does require a lot more sites to achieve the equivalent coverage attainable at 700 -900MHz. VirginMedia02 have declared a plan to build 1300 new sites in London alone. This is driven not only by the need to deliver the required coverage but also to deal with the annual data traffic growth. Acquiring and building new sites takes time and money. It isn’t a quick process even with some of the imaginative partnering VM02 are employing to get this done. We all want 5G but we don’t want a new 5G radio site in our street! Deploying new sites has never been so difficult to get done.

Using 5G NSA and deploying 5G in new and re-farmed Spectrum does mean that we consumers will get to experience faster data speeds ahead of what we would call full 5G deployment, that is also using a fit-for-purpose 5G core. 5G NSA is not wart free. During its roll-out phase its coverage is patchy and islands of 5G emerge making the call management difficult as the device clings to 5G even when the signal strength is weak and 4G would be the better option for the device to move to. This can result in a poor user experience and we think may be the reason why some of the predominant device manufacturers are unsure about committing to device sales until 5G SA is rolled out.

For many in the industry 5G doesn’t arrive until 5G SA does. Certainly for the new bold business cases based around new use cases for URLLC  and mMTC the horizon still seems a long way off. And if these new use cases are still largely unproven and under developed today, the pressure for getting 5G SA done diminishes. There is a worry point for MNOs though. Can 5G pay for itself without the diversification from today’s consumer market and the introduction of the brand of services that 5G was always supposed to deliver? Can MNOs on their own deliver these new services or are they dependent on new partnerships and the help of new and different skill sets to deliver? 

Our view is that for those waiting for 5G technology to deliver smart traffic lights, dynamic traffic control, tele controlled autonomous vehicles, AI, industrialised IoT, automated healthcare, robot assisted surgery, more efficient utilities (OK, not even 5G can do that one!), we’ll all have to be a bit more patient, no matter how much excitement service providers drum up today.

Interested in talking to us about 5G and your associated business needs? eel free to contact us here https://azenby.com/contact

Azenby is now 10 years old and how better to celebrate our anniversary than to take a look back at all the events and triumphs of our brief history. This is our very own ‘news at ten.’

In 2012 a few of us got together and explored whether there might be an opportunity for a smallish, specialist, experienced consultancy in the mobile space. Having all worked in mobile telcos for many years, we had our own view on consultants, but we decided to carry on anyway! Some of us had been working on as one-man consultants and others were fresh out of a mobile network operator. A couple of us had had a number of years working in larger global consulting houses and so we thought that we had a good mix of capabilities, knowledge, and real coalface experience to make us stand out. 

We felt good that between us we covered nearly all the bases: engineering, operations, project management, marketing, product management, wholesale, customer services, IT, procurement, and new service integration. We didn’t see any other boutique consulting house of our size and we felt we were a particularly good fit for those clients looking for a mobile consultancy with the breadth, depth, back-up and responsiveness we would be offering; quite apart from the fact that our clients would not have to pay eye-wateringly expensive consulting fees typical of the large firms. To make sure we were always going to provide best value to our clients, we decided early on not to spend money on offices and staff. 

Looking back, we were years ahead of our time! Working from home in a virtual environment and using conferencing to communicate. That said, one of our other beliefs was to carry out assignments sitting in our clients’ offices, being on hand to help them and also to listen intently and learn.

Our first ‘strategy’ session. The line-up has changed a bit over the years. This big question of the day being; what do we call ourselves!

Our first think tank session was held above the Whisky Society in Greville Street, London. At this session we shaped the company and worked on how we would translate our beliefs into an operational company and also how we would brand ourselves. A lot of debate, but honestly no whisky, went into coming up with a strap line that, when all the other fancy options were discarded was simple enough, Mobile is our Thing. No getting away from it, if anyone wanted to know what we do, “mobile is our thing” was the answer. We decided against Mobile is our Thing Consulting Ltd though! Having gone through three complete packets of post-it notes we weren’t getting any closer to producing a company name that we all liked. 

Progress was so slow that at one point we were remarkably close to calling ourselves Greville Associates simply because we were in Greville Street, but we knew we could do better, so we persevered.  We were looking for a name that was clean, elegant, short and memorable. We also favoured names as near to “A” as possible.  Out came the A to Z of London and despite the immediate feeling of trepidation from the sheer number of roads in London, Azenby quickly emerged as the name we had been seeking and the rest is history.  The choice was actually based on some solid thinking from our brand guru, but there were also a couple of nice coincidences that made it clear Azenby was right for us.  It turned out that our chairman knew Azenby Road as he told us: “It’s in Peckham – my son has a flat there.”  “Peckham?” said our newly elected CEO.  “I was born in Peckham”.  We couldn’t ignore these happy coincidences could we? 

This is to simplify things somewhat and doesn’t do justice to the whole process our then brand Guru, Julia put us through. In fact, Julia insisted that the first blog we published should tell the story of our branding (and in a much better way than we just did above). For those interested in branding and marketing of tech companies the blog is here.

2012

10 years is a very, very long time in mobile. Looking back today and thinking  about the landscape in 2012, so much has changed and yet so much looks the same. Mobile World Congress was held at the Fira de Barcelona Montjuïc that year before the move to the Fira de Barcelona Gran Via, (without the much-promised metro link being ready). The move was all about providing more space and the new venue was 50 per cent larger which the GSMA had no problem filling out. Mobile was still booming in 2012 even though the economic backdrop was about downturns, credit crunches and declining mobile revenues. The theme of congress that year was Redefining Mobile. It was left to each of us to decide exactly what mobile was actually being redefined to or as some cynics – and there were many – were heard whispering: “redefining mobile – as a utility!” Although we felt that mobile was continually redefining itself and always will, there was a real feel of a wind-of-change in the air. 

3G had been rolled out but the early, much hyped, optimism of new services and revenues had evaporated. It seemed the one lesson learnt above all else from 3G was the need for better, more thorough and more rigorous business cases behind technology upgrades. The talk in 2012 was then all about LTE, possibly because the mobile world wanted to forget 3G and hope that things would be different with LTE. There were also cold winds blowing into conference from the new exhibition hall called App World. It was the time Apps went mobile and the mobile operators were beginning to realise that if they were not careful, their shiny new LTE networks might turn out to be the ideal platform for those with the aspiration to eat the operators’ lunch. Would the Apps be the catalyst for growing mobile revenues?  Or would they bring new services over-the-top of the carrier and take the lion’s share of the new revenues that LTE promised. Indeed, Eric Schmidt announced at congress that “there will be an Android in every pocket.” The writing was on the wall but not all industry readers could decipher it.

The focus on the device market had now fully moved to smartphones. Apple had only got as far as the iPhone 5, and there was no LTE in that, but this did mean that Nokia’s dominance of the phone market was already waning. In terms of overall global device market share, including feature phones and budget phones, Nokia were still the leaders. To bolster high-end device sales, Nokia launched the 808 PureView, a new phone with an impressive 41-megapixel camera. This was early in the era of a camera with a mobile phone included and at the time the iPhone 4 had a relatively paltry 5-megapixel camara. Where did it all go wrong for Nokia? Well, the Nokia device ran on Symbian if you need a clue.

Meanwhile, although SMS was still the king of messaging, the mobile operators knew a refresh was required and a little late and with limited enthusiasm backed the Rich Communications Suite (version 5!) as the answer. Oh dear! Door left open; WhatsApp jumped in.

To compound matters, the EU Commissioner for the Digital Agenda at the time, Neely Kroes, was certainly the bête noire of the MNOs and told operators in no uncertain terms that reducing roaming charges and termination rates are still the big issue for the industry. Vodafone CEO, Vittorio Colao, made a call for the EU to: “Get on board and help create jobs by supporting mobile in Europe.” 

Kroes was unmoved and issued a robust statement in reply. Specifically called “A message to Vittorio and Vodafone,” she said that she was: “Calling Vodafone’s bluff,” “Takes the side of the Vodafone customer” and “Doesn’t respond well to threats.” We all know who won this battle – roaming rates continued to be driven down to the delight of consumers but leaving the operators scratching their heads and wondering how to make their sums add up.

To summarise the mood of the times, MNOs were concerned about falling revenues and the cost base of networks being too high, putting pressure on margins and EBITDA. Some could see that the business cases for LTE were being threatened by regulation, OTT services and painful spectrum charges. Many operators knew that the time had come for radical measures to reduce operating costs and future capex. Active RAN sharing was gaining momentum and that was exceptionally good news indeed for Azenby because our Chairman, Emin Gürdenli, had been the driving force for the world’s first large-scale active RAN share (between T-Mobile and Three) in the UK. Other operators looked at this experiment and saw not only a massive saving in network costs but also a big uplift in network coverage by picking the best sites from two networks. The world was ready for network sharing and Azenby was ready to help. We cut our early consulting teeth on RAN-share assignments, and this took us all over the world. We were up and running!

Our work over the last ten years

We’ve done a lot of varied work over the last ten years and our assignments have taken us around the world, from Australia to the Middle East, Africa, the USA, India, and Kazakhstan to name just a few countries. We have worked with mobile Service Providers, MVNOs, equipment manufacturers, regulators, transport authorities, law firms, trade associations and even government agencies. We have surprised ourselves sometimes how varied our client base became.

To increase our depth and breadth of capabilities, we have also been proud to assemble a group of Associates who we have been able to call upon when needed to provide additional specialist expertise and capacity when needed. This has allowed us to cover even more bases and to give better language and geographical reach. We are honoured to list our Associates as part of our valued team. 

We have given our passports a good pounding having worked now in thirty different countries, and we have hit the half-century of clients as well. What is it that has kept us so busy? It’s been a mixture of things. We certainly have a rich vein of expertise and experience across the mobile network space, but we wouldn’t ever contemplate telling a client we know more about their business than they do. If we were to put our finger on why our customers came to us and returned to us, we would sum it up along these lines. 

Over the last 20 years the industry has been through some severe right sizing of staffing needs and part of this process has included the outsourcing of many disciplines, particularly in engineering and operations. 

Consolidations have occurred from initiatives such as infrastructure sharing right through to complete mergers. Mobile operators in particular have optimised their in-house resources around their strategic imperatives including dealing with new technology upgrades. What we have found over the years is that some have underestimated  resource requirements needed to deal with the more routine operational and engineering processes and projects. Often these are one-off pieces of work, like a RAN share project, an outsourcing process, a renewal of an outsourcing contract for example. 

Getting these done efficiently, reliably, and affordably, has been a central plank of the value we have brought to the industry. Filling a gap to enable  an urgent piece of work is part of our value proposition.

That’s not to say that all our work has been in this category. Far from it. We are very proud of the work we did with one European based broadband and ISP who wanted to enter the mobile market from scratch. This client had a lot of business expertise and entrepreneurial drive but, not surprisingly, they had no mobile networking expertise. We were trusted to help this client produce a rigorous and robust business plan that had to be approved by a very active and inquisitive board. Having decided to proceed we were central in the engineering design, selection of host MNO and contracting of services. Knowledge transfer was an important part of our remit and as the client started to bring on their own resources we worked very closely with them for a successful hand over. This MVNO is now one of the largest is Europe and growing at an impressive rate. We are very proud to have been an important part of its early development.

As we mentioned earlier, Network sharing agreements around the world have been one of our main specialities over the last 10 years. Two, three and even four-way sharing with a range of technologies and commercial models have produced numerous challenges, but it is always good to see projects mature that we helped direct and set off on the right path. We have also been asked to get involved with sharing arrangements that have already gone wrong, helping to tackle the tricky issues and get things back on track. 

Procurement of technical equipment and services is always fraught with danger for operators. You would have thought that as mobile networks mature around the world, a consistent model for the purchasing of equipment and services would have emerged. That it hasn’t, is testimony to the fact that whilst the ingredients necessary to set up and run a mobile network are well known, the procurement process used by each mobile operator tends to be different for a whole range of reasons that need to be understood on a case-by-case basis. The Azenby approach of working closely with operator teams to enhance and support the decision making and execution has proved highly successful across multiple markets. 

Without a doubt, one aspect of Mobile Operators’ business that has been a constant over the last 10 years has been to outsource various aspects of engineering and operations. These outsourcing arrangements have been another area in which we have been particularly active.  Sometimes it has been an all-new outsourcing initiative where our client has previously performed the function itself using in-house personnel. On other occasions, it has been a 2^nd, 3^rd or even 4^th generation outsourcing arrangement where an existing contract is coming to an end.  In this latter case, the decision to renew or replace is important, but even more important is the need to use that moment to strengthen and improve the fundamental approach taken to the outsourcing.  In our experience, we have found more operators dissatisfied with the outcome of their earlier outsourcings, whether it be performance or costs or both, than satisfied. 

 We all know, mobile networks are complicated beasts, and the various vendors offering services have sales teams that can sometimes seem particularly skilled at telling a good story when they are pitching for work, but a totally different picture emerges  when the legal documentation appears, or the actual outsourced activity starts.  Often our role has been to hold vendors to account so that the pitch and the contract are consistent.  Beauty parades, rigorous site visits, detailed statements of requirements, and careful evaluation of written responses, have all been grist to our mill as we have helped various clients cut a clean path through the outsourcing jungle.  In recent years we have supported large European operators outsource and/or offshore various aspects of their operations activities from drafting tender documents, through vendor selection to transition of services.

We have also recently had some success in supporting government projects to improve rural coverage and helping to negotiate agreements between MNOs on how to deploy and operate shared networks to these areas.

Keeping an eye on the industry

We have posted frequent blogs on our web site over the years. Some of our blogs have been quite radical, others even foresaw the future, although most didn’t. In a very polite way, we disagreed with the way that moving the emergency services from TETRA to a public mobile system was being done. It’s been interesting to see from our original blog on the topic just how things have moved on in various countries in the last five years. I guess it is fair to say the UK is still using TETRA and looks like it will continue to do so until 2026!

We also couldn’t help blowing our own trumpet when one of founders received an OBE or for that matter when he also became a Fellow at ETSI. Then there is the small part we played in the mobile exhibition at the Science Museum in London.

The next 10 years

We have enjoyed our trip down memory lane but looking forward is what we do best. There is a good reason that car windscreens are large and rear-view mirrors are small. The important stuff is in front of us. Expecting the unexpected is something the mobile industry has always had to deal with but in today’s ultra-competitive fight for customers, new revenues and growth, there are often crucial tasks to be handled yet limited in-house resource available to get the jobs done. 

A trusted, independent, high expertise outfit like Azenby can be just what the doctor ordered – or CTO, COO, CFO or CEO come to that. Getting “must do” jobs done reliably and affordably is our trademark so if you have a problem, and you need it fixed quickly, you need the Azenby team. 

We’d love to hear from you so why not get in touch.