Category: Point of View

This year, after catching up with Friend’s Blogs about the Mobile World Congress and the latest security revelations which seem to be coming around frequently these days – apparently Cyber Security is the new “Thing”. Hardly surprising, as it something else for the Snake Oil sellers. More antivirus products I expect! And of course, 5G and now 6G: It’s the case of the Emperor’s new clothes every time. I remember when we were forced to call 2G GSM a new wonderful 2.5G – that was because of EDGE. Very silly!!

I agree that 5G is low latency (Good for cars, remote surgical operations and warehouses, otherwise things and people might get a bit cut up). Network slicing, maybe that might work: We do need a good QoS method. But do we really have good Security? Well, looking at the solutions coming to market, it seems that the present implementations do not really address the real security issues. We are still stuck in a world which for example doesn’t recognise the inherent risks of virtual software-based networks, and still depends on identifying individuals to manage it rather than roles.

My view is that we should start again: The real problem is legacy – every time we bring something new out, the old things still have to work. So, we are tied into repeating all the mistakes, by supporting all the old stuff. Also, the big manufacturers that control the Standards don’t want Revolution, they want Evolution: So that all their old stuff still works.

There is also the Marketing Hype, something new is required every time, remember WAP for browsing the Internet? (I wasted lots of time on WAP security: It never worked. The concept of having an untrusted insecure gateway where everything was readable, and every mobile could be switched to it via an unauthenticated SMS, was (I admit now) a trifle dodgy). It all makes verifying the security of a Telecommunications Network really difficult (and probably impossible), as it is so complex, and it is not possible to prove, or test it for correct operation.

I’d like to start again, with a proper Revolution: We did that with GSM, and it meant even at my myopic interest level we could have much better security, like encryption and SIM cards. I’d start with doing security properly again, and make it fit for purpose, Quantum resistant, not based on something 40 years old, with unfixable things like IMEI.

I’d also like to start the radio interface again, and make a mesh network, and properly work with new antennas and broad-spectrum efficiency. I’d also like to start on the infrastructure again to make it suitable for dynamic flexible functions in software, inherent security between functions, fix Signalling with SS7, SDRs for the RF, and software-based virtual networks etc.

The internet is older than Azenby. That makes us feel fresh and young. In fact, the internet is old enough to be our father and this year marks the 30^thyear of its existence. The Science Museum in London decided to commemorate this milestone by inviting Sir Tim Berners-Lee to give a talk on how his creation is doing as it approaches middle age. Sadly, we were unable to get tickets for this event as they sold out faster than an Ed Sheeran concert. We even tried Viagogo. No luck!

Like most of you, we therefore had to rely on the media coverage of the event to find out what is on Sir Tim’s mind now.

The headline was that Sir Tim said that we all need to fight for the internet we want. We can’t disagree with that, but we would venture that not all users necessarily want the same internet. He also spent time on Net neutrality, which is a favourite subject of his but, not for the first time, we were left worried that Sir Tim may not really understand the different roles that Internet Service Provider, Communication Provider (CP) and Apps Provider all play in the internet eco-system. Sir Tim sees access to the internet as almost a human right and furthermore he said everyone should all pay the same amount for access to the internet and no CP should be allowed to charge more for offering faster access and a higher QoS. This is the point at which we diverge views with Sir Tim. Putting aside the obvious point that CPs proving access to the internet need to be investing heavily in infrastructure and a healthy ROI is a very necessary prerequisite to this, we can’t help but observe that not all user needs for internet access are the same. Far from it.

Some users will rarely or never want anything other than a simple internet connection capable of messaging, a bit of web browsing and updating their social media pages. When we look at the IoT however, we see use cases that demand a very high speed, ultra-low latency, high QoS connection.

At MWC this year, there was a demonstration of open-heart surgery being assisted over an internet connection. Who wants to be lying on the operating table waiting for the next page to stop buffering! Can all the varying needs of access to the internet ever really be all be delivered at the same price? Absolutely not in our view. This would severely curtail development of applications on the internet. Net Neutrality can, and maybe should, prevent CPs from discriminating access to one application provider from another on a charging basis, but it shouldn’t be about a race to the bottom on a basic service offering. If an application on the internet needs a higher quality connection, we firmly believe that a CP should be able to charge accordingly and then let market forces determine the retail price for access to the internet.

Looking at other aspects of the internet of today and tomorrow, we all know that privacy of our personal data held on-line is now the top story. We all need to feel safe using the internet and our confidence in this regard is being shaken almost daily. Sir Tim told us about something called Solid (from his co-founded company Inrupt). Solid is somewhere that you and I can keep all our personal on-line data. The idea being that we then control who has access to what bits of it. An application provider would need to ask our permission before having access. This all boils down to a matter of trust of course and we will all have different feelings about who we trust with our data on line and who is profiling us for profit. With this in mind having our own safety deposit box in the cloud as a single depository of all our data and being able to control access to it on an application basis sounds rather appealing. But can we trust our ‘data bank?’ It seems worth a go, but we would like to see some competition in this space so that we can make our own selection on who we think may be operating the data bank with the highest integrity. This does also begin to gnaw away at the very business model of the Tech Giants, but that is maybe no bad thing.

What else for the future? Well, as bizarre and as counter intuitive as this may seem, it may be time to think about a regulated version of the WWW. No, we haven’t gone mad, but we do wonder if the uncontrolled, no rules and holds-barred approach to how the internet exists today is really sustainable. There are several ways that his might happen, both good and bad. Let’s start with how we would not want to see the internet evolve.

Russia is planning to close down the internet down for a day except for internal communications. The official rationale is that Russia says it wants this ‘switch’ to defend itself against Cyber-attacks from foreign agencies. Roskomnazor (the Russia regulator) says that all traffic must be routed to their ‘eye’ for evaluation. Scary stuff. We do wonder if this would actually work? Yes, you can cut all ties with the outside world (maybe) but web pages are often made up of content that comes from scores of different sources and places and perhaps even from other jurisdictions. Would crucial financial services, aviation systems, defence systems stop working in this scenario? I guess that is what Russia is trying to find out in their test. Good luck with that!

The DR of Congo tried something similar during its elections to prevent external influence. So, the question is, are we moving away from the utopian, altruistic WWW that Sir Tim envisaged and is his fight being lost? And really is that a good thing or a bad thing?

We think state intervention in the WWW is unwelcome but is the web as it exists today sustainable? Have we reached a point where the WWW actually needs to be regulated? Maybe we allow the wild-west version of the WWW to continue but we create a regulated WWW2 where only registered people and organisations can use it? I am thinking somewhere where financial transactions, health care systems, traffic and aviation systems etc. can be safely deployed. Where users are safe from hackers and from manipulation. Where we can feel confident our data is not shared for profit without our consent and we are not profiled in ways which would make 1984 look tame in comparison. Have we gone full circle and the free, uncontrolled, uncensored, open to all, dream of the WWW has failed? It may make Sir Tim and other founders of the internet shout out in horror but is it time for a safe regulated WWW2 to run in parallel with the open access one? Is that the internet we need to fight for?

If you would like to comment or contact us about this blog please feel free to do so.

Azenby joined the swarms and throngs at this year’s MWC just to see what’s new and different but most of all, so that we could share with you the view through the Azenby prism on what may be shaping our industry in 2019 and beyond.

As is the tradition these days, the GSMA had a theme for the show and this year it was ‘Intelligent Connectivity’ – with a large dose of AI in the interpretation of “Intelligent”. Always up for a challenge and being a loyal MWC technologist, our intrepid reporters signed up for Breez, the automated entrance process/facility leveraging intelligent Facial Recognition, only to be told on arrival to go through the turnstiles with manual inspection of passes because it would take less time! An early fail for AI but it did redeem itself later in the week.

It did get us thinking about the mobile industry embrace of AI, VR, IoT and of course Intelligent Connectivity and that perfection in one part of the delivery chain is not enough. The entire ecosystem needs to move in step to create joined-up solutions that work. It’s the overall end to end customer experience that matters, not how clever parts of the technology may be. At Azenby we wonder if this nettle is being grasped.

With Intelligent Connectivity comes the need for new security measures and customer protection of data and the integrity of the services being offered. So, Cybersecurity was a big deal at the Congress for two reasons: Firstly people talk a lot about it, and secondly it was the elephant in the room. At Azenby we like to think we are good at spotting these elephants! Mind you, we’ve had security scares on mobiles over the years: Remember all the antivirus products over the years?

Firstly, the open discussion. Virtualisation and additional forms of sharing (be it slicing or multi-tenancy etc) in 5G was always going to shine a light on the inherently higher security risks of adopting new technologies. This, we are glad to say, is well recognised in the industry even though coherent and easily deployable solutions still seem to be out of reach but at least it is the subject of much debate. Part of the challenge is that in the mobile world we always seem to want to ensure backward compatibility with each new generation and thus we tend to stretch legacy security methods to work with new technologies instead of starting from a clean sheet.

Then the aspect that people didn’t want to talk about and that was the industrial wars being fought between the USA and China, and how Chinese vendors are very much in the cross fire, or more accurately in the cross-hairs of the US administration. There were also rumours that the EU is also pulling together a European position on the use of Chinese manufactured equipment in critical national infrastructure. MNOs face a dilemma: Pressure from regulators is growing and talk of ripping out installed equipment intensifies. This is not cheap and the thought of reduced competition from vendors is not appealing to operators. Make it safe please seems to be the preferred option.

All this remained off the main agenda, perhaps with the GSMA wary of upsetting the main sponsor of the event. That is until Huawei themselves decided to tackle the elephant by the tusks and come out with all guns blazing. It must be said from the outset that this is most un-Huawei like, who much prefer to talk about their leading technology and leave the politics to the after-dinner conversations in the restaurants of Barcelona.

Step up to the microphone the Senior Huawei exec Guo Ping, who gave the first truly memorable key note speech at MWC and made the news pages of the world’s press. “Prism, prism on the wall, who is the must untrustworthy of them all?” Wow, a stinging attack on the US administration followed. Snowden comes back to haunt the US once more and is used in evidence by Huawei. Incredible stuff. Not surprisingly, Huawei said once again that it never has and never will plant back doors in its equipment. So there, now we know. But of course, we are none the wiser and at Azenby we tend to think that Nick Read from Vodafone is on the money when he says we need a fact-based discussion and if intelligence agencies really do have a smoking gun, let’s see it. At Azenby we do wonder if from a US perspective its one set of rules for social media giants who have a footloose and fancy-free approach to people’s privacy and a different set of rules for Telco’s, Service Providers and their suppliers. Protectionism seems to be a bigger driver of the arguments than espionage.

Let’s get back to the show’s theme of Intelligent Connectivity, the show floor was once again home to the motor industry, but it was nice to see some trucks this year. There was plenty to be seen on homes, planes, robots, hospitals, agriculture, transport, and even the odd equipment vendor if you looked hard enough. The GSMA is always keen to broaden the base of the show and this year we had the International Olympic Committee participating for the first time along with Formula 1 racing and even the World Wrestling Entertainment were in the ring. Picking through some of the highlights off-piste we learnt that BMW and Daimler are investing €1bn so that we don’t have to own motor vehicles in the future. We like the sound of that! Only for the brave was a demonstration of 5G assisted surgery as a gastrointestinal consultant in a distant hospital advised a team of surgeons who were carrying out an operation in the Fira, over a 5G link. Whatever one may feel about the need for low latency in driver-less cars, I am now all for ultra-low latency when I am lying on the operating table with a surgeon waiting for the next page to download on his tablet! Our gut feel, excuse the pun, is to wait for the technology to prove itself first!

What about 5G? Surely that’s what we all wanted to know about. The headline grabbing announcements did come from 5G phone vendors and that was reassuring to see at congress. The big splashes were the folding screens from both Huawei and Samsung and Xiaomi unveiled a device at MWC for the first time. At Azenby we have been saying 5G doesn’t arrive until the devices do and maybe, just maybe, they may be in the shops this year. The other thing that is on the critical path is Release 16. Please!

Could 5G be the first generation of technology when the devices are ready before the networks? No operator took the opportunity of MWC to announce a 5G launch date. Lots of trials yes, but commercial launches, no. We had differing opinions on 5G depending on where the speaker sits in the eco system and perhaps a bit of vested interest speaking as well. Chuck Robins at Cisco said that for the first time, a new generation – 5G – was going to live up to its hype. Rich Williams from Groupon was very much on the other side of the fence and he said he didn’t know what it was for and what 5G would bring that 4G didn’t do already, albeit maybe faster. Mike Fries from Liberty said 5G is far too expensive to roll-out (to rapturous applause from the gathered MNOs) and Nokia CTO Henry Tirri said MNOs are fixated on the consumer market and that it is the industrial sectors where 2x and 3x revenues lie (to pay for 5G). So, there you have it, take your pick on 5G! At Azenby we do have some sympathy with the view that MNOs are in their comfort zone with consumer products and have long struggled to find the way to make mobile work in other industry segments. Many say that this is exactly what they have to do with 5G, or it will indeed be no more than a faster, slightly costlier version of 4G.

Our view at Azenby is that 5G must be the catalyst from MNOs to drive a paradigm shift in mobile use cases. It has to be much more than gaming (which we are sure is quite a lucrative sector for some businesses) but new verticals in digital health, remote medicine, smart factories and warehouses in addition to smart cities and cars need to be created. The list could be endless, but someone has to take the driving seat to make sure these new frontiers are conquered, and this means MNOs must step out of the comfort zone. Its not about waiting and hoping for a killer 5G App to come along, its about going where no MNO has gone before.

Other things that stood out for us at MWC this year, apart from inflated hotel costs, and restaurant bills, the absence of Mr Zuckerberg and the banning of UBER:

Security again (not the Huawei issue)

We read and heard quite a bit of concern over security in general in the 5G world of the future. It’s not really a 5G question as such but applies to the whole IOT eco system, and even the inherent security of 5G. We see it something like this: IOT brings new types of devices which are unlike the conventional handsets/terminals we know and love today. IOT devices have many different functions, they are smart but not smart enough. This is partly because they need to be cheap and therefore lack the smartness which requires more computer power typically found in smartphones. Therein lies their vulnerability.

Whose Spectrum?

At Azenby, we know only too well the complexities and the high costs of rolling out a new technology. Consumers do appreciate the better service that new technologies bring but are not so keen to pay more for it. It’s a double whammy for MNOs to grapple with. Really, it’s a triple whammy because with each new technology and with growing customer use of smartphones in particular, comes the need for more spectrum. Spectrum doesn’t come cheap.

Regulators the world over demand MNOs speed up the roll-out of new technology but also want to fill the treasury with spectrum fees.  This allows MNOs to complain loudly about the cost of deploying 5G and to ask governments and local authorities to share the burden or, at least, make life easier for deployment. On the other hand, they also still argue that MNOs should be the only licensed spectrum holders. It does sound like defending roaming rates all over again. In the US, some carriers are trying to resist the unlicensed use of CBRS frequencies.

Perhaps the time is right for lighter regulation and more shared and fragmented/regional use of spectrum. Rather than seeing Spectrum as a barrier to entry for new market entrants, MNOs should do as we have said previously and look for new business models and competition which will outweigh the undeniable inherent efficiency of having large contiguous blocks used by one owner.

Revenue Hunting

Over the years, the GSMA have updated their estimation of the value the mobile business world-wide and increasingly we have heard MNOs saying that not enough of the growth is going to them as opposed to the new boys on the block. At Azenby we are clear about the reasons for lack of real MNO revenue growth as we mention above, it’s the failure to break free from the consumer market. MNOs can’t think beyond ‘price plans.’

Let’s face it, MNOs have historically treated the Business segment as though it was just a few more price plans designed for SOHO, SME, LME etc plus a dedicated sales team. We don’t want to be over critical because the available technologies did not give them enough tools to do much more, especially, for mobile-only players. That is about to change however for those MNOs able to embrace the diversity both in technology enablers and new business models, especially allowing for new-breed players (e.g. regional or vertical specialists) and finding ways to coexist and even cooperate with them.

Can they be brave and allow Private LTE/5G (with unlicensed spectrum or within licensed spectrum but with slicing etc) enabling Enterprise to improve its productivity and efficiency? Can MNOs stop being so being consumer-centric and start thinking that they are an ‘enabler’ for Enterprises in new ways they have not practised before. If MNOs need some help with this transition, maybe they have an ally in Nokia who were very clear that “Private 5G for Enterprise using unlicensed spectrum” is part of their 5G strategy.

And finally

Every year the portion of the floor area occupied by non-conventional exhibitors (i.e. not MNOs and equipment vendors) is increasing. We noticed a step change this year. Space vacated by big Telco’s, who are either reducing their footprint and some even not taking a stand/pavilion anymore but just using meeting rooms, is being taken up by the new breed of exhibitors from a wide range of different industries. How much longer will this be the Mobile World Congress we wonder.

If you would like to comment on the view of MWC through the Azenby prism or tell us about what you felt was new and interesting this year, why not get in touch and leave us your comments in the box below.

 

Hacking – It’s definitely a worry for mobile networks, they need to be so careful about ensuring the security of customer data, both the payload and the signalling, and all the customer identity information. If they lost it, it would hit the headlines for days, and they would have a hefty fine to look forward to. The brand damage would be immense, perhaps even fatal.

They also have to be pretty careful about network availability, we saw this thrown into the limelight when O2 lost their network because of some incorrect software coding and processes in their Ericsson deployment. I am sure other operators were so quiet because they unanimously whispered ‘there but by the grace of god…..’ under their breaths.

Then there is also the suspicion of state sponsored intervention into a foreign country’s telecoms infrastructure, particularly highlighted by the level of mistrust towards Huawei in many western countries, even to the extent of outright bans and the ripping out of seemingly fully functional Huawei equipment well before its end of life.  All very cloak and dagger, but in the modern world something that regrettably needs to be taken seriously.

So, assuming the network is fully protected the next question might be, ‘if state sponsored interference is a big deal, then what else could be used to disrupt the a mobile network or to compromise user’s data or identity security?’

An interesting question and one answer does spring to mind, that is, at the heart of 95% of mobile connections these days is a highly functional piece of extremely complex technology in the form of a smartphone. The supply of these devices tends to be dominated by a limited number of massive corporates, with a lot of also-rans struggling to compete for the left overs. The big players at the time of writing are Apple, Samsung, Huawei in the UK at least, with more than 60% of the market, followed by Lenovo, Xiaomi, LG & ZTE (all stronger in the Asian sphere). There are of course regional variations, for instance Pixel in the US and some Indian vendors that are successful in India but as yet have little international presence.

One can therefore ask, if a vendor was in an intelligence co-operation with a state, presumably the state of its origin, then what could be done to disrupt the security of communications, or the privacy of the population, of another state, where a significant market share of devices was from this vendor?

Assuming that the mobile terminal operating systems are either:

• completely proprietary and owned by the terminal vendor as is the case for iOS and Apple
• or at least capable of having proprietary extensions built into it as is the case for Android

then in those cases there is flexibility for the terminal vendor to integrate malicious functionality of their own choosing into the operating system. Added to this there will also be the possibility for the manufacturer to build ‘malicious’ software into the device baseband and to have this deployed as part of their standard build.

Given this, what could be done?

At this point we should mention that it isn’t really news to say that smartphones can host malicious software, for years we have seen apps that surreptitiously dialled premium rate numbers or sent premium rate SMSs or let the app vendor mine large amounts of user information that could then be sold on, or used to access accounts elsewhere. This is a big risk, however, users in general understand these risks, they accept the risks, and largely those that care attempt to minimise their exposure to these risks by being ‘sensible’ in their behaviours with devices, be they tablets, or phones or PCs.

We would argue there are a few key differences when the malicious code is installed by the terminal vendor, and these are:

• Firstly, the malicious software can be in every terminal that the vendor produces, it is not dependent on any user behaviour, e.g. access a particular website, or download a particular app.
• Secondly, the malicious software can be down almost at the binary level and many times harder to find than anything at the app level.
• Thirdly, most of the controls against malicious code are actually at the app level, be that by user scrutiny, or app store scrutiny.

This means that if for instance a vendor has 20% of the market then it opens up attack options not only aimed at the owner of the terminal but also to some degree at the mobile network as a whole, and to the population as a whole. Two attacks spring to mind for example:

• 20% of mobiles over stressing the network by continually going into and out of flight mode 10 times a minute is probably going to overload the mobility components of most networks and bring effective communication to a halt.
• Gaining access to a random 20% of the population’s address books will allow a near complete network map of communications between the population, and all associated telephone numbers.

To implement these two attacks would require very little, a very simple broadcast instruction invoking a routine in the case of the first attack, and a periodic small upload from participating mobiles in the second, which would be unnoticed given the scale of data usage and the propensity for these devices to ‘phone home’ anyway.

Another aspect to consider is that whilst the integrity of the core network’s software is subject to on-going scrutiny by the customer operators, and by some governments, the same is not true for mobile terminals. These receive little or no external scrutiny, other than from the amateur software community.

You can argue of course that there are other similar risks in for instance the PC domain, where there are really only 2 laptop operating system suppliers, and one of those is also a supplier of tablets, and smartphones, so in terms of potential impact of malicious vendor code perhaps having the full suite of smart devices is the holy grail and we should all be casting a suspicious eye in Apple’s direction. Of course we do not suggest that Apple would be involved in any behaviour of this nature, but merely pointing out that the control of the vital operating systems for many types of devices, is in the hands of an ever decreasing number of private companies.

The conclusion we at Azenby reached is that the industry has taken many decisions over the years in terms of network integrity, customer bill/privacy and integrity, and largely these have been successful. However, the technology and the regulatory regimes have evolved to allow an uncontrolled mass of powerful mobile terminals with unregulated (or at least self-certificated) software on them to populate networks. These represents a potential massive threat to the mobile networks, and to the privacy of the population in general.

Looking forward the situation seems fairly binary, with two options:

Option A: accept the risks and assume that governments will privately take whatever measures are necessary individually to protect the national interests they represent, with for instance segmented networks that are relatively immune to the mass of potentially rogue terminals sponsored by foreign governments. In this case the population as a whole continue to have their privacy invaded and their services disrupted, though often in return they receive some free services which they value.

Option B: address the risks, through:

• customer groups start forming that do not accept the current state of affairs and use their purchasing power to only purchase terminals and services that offer some form of guarantee around the security of their information.
• and networks/governments extend their concerns over supply of network equipment to the supply of terminals as well, and take a view on the maximum percentage of terminals they are prepared to accept on their network from the various major vendor.

We believe that the attraction of free, highly functional services will continue to anaesthetise the population as a whole to the loss of their privacy with all of the attendant risks that brings, and that choice A will continue indefinitely. The loss of privacy and the erosion of network security will continue bit by bit, with a continuous stream of high profile but not disastrous incidents bringing this to the fore periodically but never triggering a major re-think. Coupled with this, as each new yearly cohort of users comes into the market knowing nothing different, an assumption that there is no privacy on-line will become rooted in common culture as the norm.

Lets just keep our fingers crossed that when the chips are down our government has had a closer eye on this than the population as a whole.

Every telco should have a Virtualisation Strategy and a Roadmap whether it’s a fixed telco, MNO or both. This goes for virtual network operators such as MVNOs and CSPs, too.

Conceived some five or six years ago, NFV is poised to revolutionise the industry. It is a truly ‘disruptive’ technology development.

NETWORK FUNCTION VIRTUALISATION (NFV);

• Together with SDN, is a key enabler for the future world of 5G and Internet of Things (IOT)

• Brings the unit cost of production down radically, not by some percentage points, but by an order of magnitude

• Speeds up time-to-market significantly. It is possible for telcos to move at the innovation speeds of OTT players when they adopt NFV with suitable delivery processes.

• Has the potential to trigger new business models both in the vendor and in the operator space. Diversity in suppliers and in CSPs is inevitable in the future 5G world.

NVF enables true IaaS (Infrastructure as a Service). LTE platforms such as EPC and IMS are already available as a service off the Cloud, today.

IaaS opens up business models where networks are delivered as a Managed Service. Telcos don’t have to build and operate all or some of their networks anymore. They can buy it as a service even on a pay-as-you-go basis with no or little capital outlay.

Virtualisation in a Cloud environment generates efficiencies beyond the direct benefits of NFV, particularly where fixed and mobile networks of a telco get optimised together and so do the NT and IT platforms and organisations.

Also, Groups with networks in different countries can leverage IaaS to share core networks and service platforms in a shared centralised or distributed cloud facility. This strategy would bring organisational efficiencies, as well, of course.

Managed Service delivery of network platforms leveraging NFV breaks down the old payment models. Operators can avoid heavy capital investment requirements traditionally necessary to deploy new technologies like 4G and 5G. Instead, they can pay as they grow. They should be demanding such changes of their vendors.

Heavy, up-front capex burden is replaced by ongoing, pay-as-you-grow opex. Licence-based payment is replaced by a consumption-based model. Purchasing whole infrastructures made of ‘nodes’ is replaced by purchasing functions at a fraction of the old prices and deploying on COTS servers and storage. Coupled with SDN and automation, future unit cost of ownership should be radically lower and consumption-based payments so much more affordable.

Virtualisation, finally, breaks down the protective barriers of major network infrastructure vendors. There is a growing diversity of new players in the NFV eco system who present credible alternatives to the traditional vendors.

Whilst the major vendors appear to have embraced NFV, they continue to do it their way, delaying the true promise of NFV where (1) software and hardware are totally independent, and (2) ‘functions’ are sold as products, not ‘nodes’. Therefore, telcos should look at the upcoming vendors seriously.

Vertical IOT services lend themselves particularly well to the use of virtualised networks where telcos can deploy a dedicated separate core network for IOT in a cost-effective manner. Plus, the fact that IOT, like its forerunner M2M, requires a network solution which can achieve the low unit cost compatible with the low per-subscriber revenues gives IOT an ideal fit with virtualisation.

Similarly, virtualisation is an enabler for network slicing which gives mobile operators a new degree of freedom in running different networks, say, for different speeds and latency in an AI manufacturing environment or when extending the home network services and experience to another country for roaming customers, the latter being particularly relevant for MNO Groups.

Small Cells deployment for enterprise or for public wireless service at major venues is another area where a dedicated virtualised core network becomes attractive proposition for an MNO. Furthermore, it opens up the coverage delivery model where third parties can provide an end-to-end small cells service.

NFV is not, of course, constrained to the core network. Virtualisation is already spreading to the edge. Whilst not as advanced as core network platforms such as v-EPC and v-IMS, Cloud-RAN solutions are emerging, already.

After an exciting start with numerous vendor and operator trials a few years ago, NFV appears to have slowed down in the last year or so. Most telcos appear to be re-evaluating their virtualisation road maps, particularly, looking at their NFV infrastructure (NFV-I) such as data centres and IP transmission networks before building functions over them. Despite this relatively slow take-up by telcos, the NFV solutions available in the market have matured over this period and some are quite viable, now.

Relatively slow development of NFV management and organization (MANO), at least against the initial hype and promise, and concerns over 5G-type latency and reliability appear to have dented enthusiasm. The industry needs to support ETSI to move faster in order to avoid point solutions and/or de facto standards.

Nevertheless, there is quite a significant momentum around virtualisation. Some examples below serve to illustrate the importance of virtualisation to the industry.

• AT&T seems to be setting the pace with their comprehensive virtualisation programme
• Vodafone is also bullish having implemented some early SD-VPNs and is looking at deploying a shared IMS for ten of their businesses globally
• DT and SKT lab-trialled intercontinental network slicing for their future 5G roamers
• Although Orange and Telefonica appear more cautious, they are still running virtualisation programmes
• Leading mobile operators are sponsoring an international programme to accelerate Virtualisation
• Vodafone has contracted Nokia Nuage Networks to connect its global data centres
• Softbank has contracted Affirmed Networks for its virtualised IOT and enterprise connectivity services
• TIM is providing a virtualised VOIP solution for the Italian Post company
• TA Belarus subsidiary, Velcom, has announced that it is moving its entire core architecture to cloud
• Three UK has contracted Nokia to develop its cloud-based core network in preparation for 5G.
• Nokia has shown that network slicing isn’t just for mobile networks by launching their solutions for fixed networks
• Telenor has announced a three-country virtualisation programme ahead of 5G using Ericsson’s Cloud Core solutions.

Given its enormous potential, every telco should;

• Have a Virtualisation Strategy and Roadmap
• Be developing their NFV-I plans
• Be conducting trials and/or small-scale deployments – For example, for M2M or Small Cell deployments
• Optimise their data centres for NT and IT
• Ensure security is built in from the start (https://azenby.com/archives/2562)
• If a global telco, be looking at shared NFV platforms
• Consider Network Slicing in their spectrum strategy
• Conduct six-monthly surveys of the market for solutions and vendors
• Be buying network equipment which is NFV upgradable
• If buying NFV solutions, should be demanding consumption-based pricing
• And should be careful to ensure interworking of functions from different vendors, especially where they might be bringing in new-world NFV vendors alongside their incumbent tier-1 vendors who might not automatically cater for that smooth interworking and integration.

Finally, one doesn’t need to wait for 5G before deploying NFV; there are benefits in the short term on earlier generations of equipment, including new paradigms leveraging NFV for traffic quality and cost optimisation, for instance, in local breakout (https://lnkd.in/dy9qwsr)

Azenby is a forward leaning consultancy. Our specialism is helping mobile operators. We have implemented a number of strategic projects for leading MNOs around the world helping them find ways to increase revenues as well as reducing the cost of doing business. NFV is a real catalyst for both. We believe that MNOs can leverage virtualisation for providing new services to their own customers directly, and indeed, for facilitating a new wholesale market for other service providers needing access to the right technology. Why not get in touch with us to learn more?

Who will look back on 2018 as being a landmark year and who will be glad it’s all over and hoping 2019 will be kinder to them? Azenby is having a go at picking the winners and losers in 2018 in the mobile world. Let us know if you agree with our findings.

Apple

Having brought us the $1,000 smartphone, we can assume that Apple have discovered the outer boundaries of our mobile device spend! Overtaken by Huawei in smartphone sales and facing import bans on older iPhone models, Apple have had an unusually mixed year. It was also a year when their halo slipped, and they had to admit to slowing down our iPhones to improve battery performance. Trouble is, they didn’t want us to know they were doing it. Still this didn’t stop them becoming the first ever company with £1tn market capitlisation and the Apple Watch finally started to find some wrists. And then there is Siri of course. Make your own decision on where that sits on the roller coaster ride.

5G

Surely its been a great year for 5G. Not a week goes by when one mobile operator or another isn’t shouting from the mast tops about a 1Gbps 5G trial. At Azenby we can see the difference between a trial and a commercial deployment, devices in the shop being one big clue! The other rather important prerequisite to launching 5G is of course a bit of backward compatibility with 4G (and 3G and 2G). At Azenby we wondered out loud about the wisdom of continuous backward compatibility in developing new technologies, but we lost that argument. We’ll try again when 6G comes along. With this in my mind we couldn’t help but be fascinated by the comments of Balazs Bertenyi, Chairman 3GPP TSG RA, when he said “3GPP RAN has put extreme focus on ensuring the stability and compatibility of these specifications that are to be used for the first 5G deployments. Consequently, work on components for the ‘late drop’ that address additional architecture options to aid migration from LTE to 5G have been slightly delayed.”

The big question is; has 5G arrived in 2018 or not?  Yes and No is the answer, but nearer No than Yes. In the Middle East we have seen commercial fixed wireless services launched using a 5G radio interface and in the USA, two operators have brought 5G data only products to the market. None of these are full-on 5G mobility services with backward compatibility to LTE and at Azenby we are holding back our award for the world’s first true 5G commercial launch until we see this criterion met.

The consequence of this focus on pure 5G first deployments over legacy support is, we understand, a further delay of three months or more (we bet more) on freezing Release 15. We think 3G could well be a big casualty in the 5G race. One less legacy technology to support will be appealing for both operators and vendors alike and at Azenby we think it’s the big chop for 3G. And good riddance to it, complicated, flaky, useless standard that it is. It won’t be lamented.

Lawyers

A great year for lawyers. When is it never a great year for lawyers! Apple and Qualcomm slug out patent law suits in the US, China, Germany and the UK with Qualcomm asking for $1bn in damages in the US alone. Qualcomm says Apple is a mind boggling $7bn behind in its royalty payments (that’s a very big cheque to be stuck in the post) so the £1bn damages may just be the tip of the iceberg. Apple lawyers counter sue, and you can’t help feeling that lawyers will be the only winners out of all this. They should at least be able to afford one of those thousand buck iPhones. At Azenby we wonder what the Qualcomm’s actions do to their sales pitch. One can’t help but feel that a customer would have to think long and hard about the risks of themselves of being on the end of one of these writs. (Note to San Diego, Azenby is not knowingly infringing any of your 17,000 patents). What we really want to see from Qualcomm is the Snapdragon 855 processor, a perquisite for 5G. We’d rather be talking about that than law suits!

Huawei

If ever a company had a mixed year! Forging ahead in sales of mobile infrastructure, announcing over twenty 5G network deals, test casing 5G, selling more devices than Apple. So, a great year for Huawei on the face of it. Except that, well, the western world is ganging up on it. Banning orders and threats of banning orders from the USA, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Germany and now the UK, have put a bit of a downer on 2018 for the Guangdong giant, not to mention the arrest of its CFO Meng Wanzhou, for allegedly breaking sanctions. We don’t sit in judgement here at Azenby but we would humbly suggest to our friends in China that if they took IP Title a little more seriously, then perhaps they would get a better press.

ZTE

One could argue that Huawei had it easy in comparison to ZTE. The US Government banned all sales from ZTE and imposed sanctions on the company which resulted in a complete shutdown of operations. ZTE breached previous conditions on where it sold US technology and paid a heavy price. $1bn dollars to be precise and a commitment to change out its entire board. Its back up and running now but took a heavy blow in 2018.

M&A

2018 was a continuation of the mania around M&A deals. Qualcomm held a central role here as well, firstly having their sale to Broadcom ‘Trumped’ only then to see its own acquisition of NXP crushed again by US regulators. One deal that finally did get the go ahead was the tie up between Sprint and T-Mobile US, bring the number of major competitors from four to three in this huge market. Talking of T-Mobile, their Netherland venture also got the merge with Tele 2 over the EU competition hurdles. Probably the biggest mobile operator merger of the year though, certainly in market size terms, was the formation of Vodafone Idea in India. Like T-Mobile, Vodafone has been busy in 2018 as well as it also tries to get the go ahead for its takeover of Liberty Global in Germany and beyond. At Azenby we are not at all surprised by any of this as we have long been strong advocates of the need for operators to share infrastructure. Merging companies together is the most extreme form of this of course, but even simple RAN sharing has the potential to radically transform MNOs business performance and their balance sheets.

Blockchain

2018 hasn’t been kind to Blockchain and Crypto currencies. Unless of course you are drug baron or money launderer. At Azenby, we indulge in neither practice, so we waited to see the more legitimate benefits unfold. We searched and search and struggled to see the gold shoots its many proponents have promised. We are not alone. The US Agency for International Development has conducted a study of forty projects where blockchain was supposed to make services more efficient found a success rate of zero. Add to that that one of Blockchain’s darling Crypto currencies, the Bitcoin, has shrunk in market value to the tune of $180bn since the beginning of the year, one might think that the Blockchain Emperor has no clothes.

The year of the hack

It was a good year for hackers. It seems hackers don’t need to try so hard these days to steal personal data. At Azenby, we take the need for proper IT and Network security very seriously, but it seems we are in a shrinking camp. Far too many of the reported ‘hacks’, involved very poor husbandry of customer data. Those of us who chose security for a lifetime career, were proved right once again, and the lessons of the past are still not being learnt. As we have seen, data theft often involves the theft of personal information. This is very serious of course because this is the sort of data that could be used to clone identities. In many cases of reported hacks, the security procedures being employed by organisations have been woefully inadequate. Amongst those just being very careless with customer data were Marriott Hotels, British Airway, Eurostar, FIFA, Google+, Butlins, Exactis, Strava (showing the sensitive military sites where there were keen fitness people), amongst what is sadly, a very long list indeed.

Facebook were fined £500,000, the maximum allowed, by the UK Information Commissioner’s Office in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal. This case was worrying because this was not a hack but Facebook allowing access to third parties data without the owners consent. Indeed, the lines of data protection have become blurred for those media companies whose business model is based on selling personal data to advertisers and other bidders. .

Facebook

Talking of Facebook, they have for so long been racing the upside of the rollercoaster and achieving unheralded heights that it seemed rather inevitable that the once over the top of the big riser it might be quite a descent with no brakes. So many of Facebooks much reported and discussed woes in 2018 have been self-inflicted and quite how deep the wounds are only time will tell. Its imaginative accounting practices and its ability to pay less tax then a market stall holder, means it was short of goodwill and credit once the tide turned and 2018 does seem to have been a bit of gamechanger for the hitherto unstoppable monster harvester of data. And what with data being its prime commodity, its big revenue earner and its only real asset, one would have felt that they might have taken better care of it in 2018. Having started the year promising to help us all make more friends, it has ended it being rather friendless.

We don’t have the space, time or the inclination to list all the trials and tribulations that beset Facebook in 2018 but just of the top of our heads we can bring to mind; being clueless on what constituted fake news, providing a platform for Russian meddling in elections, allowing Cambridge Analytica to access data from some 87 million users, the struggles to understand what GDPR actually means, the CEO facing the European Parliament and not facing the UK Parliament, the lawsuit from Six4Three, giving access to personal data to 60 device manufacturers – without our permission of course, the  “security update” that exposed the data of 50 million users , the private photo’s leak that exposed up to 6.8 million people’s private photos…………….. Wow, this is a long short list!

At Azenby we fully expect now to be included in operation Opposition Research but at least we are in good company. At Azenby we won’t be worrying about data leaks from our own Facebook page. We are far too wise for that! We can only conclude that Facebook win the prize for being on the big downer on the 2018 roller coaster.

And the winner is……………..

Let’s finish on a positive note and decide on who we think has had the best of 2018. In terms of news domination, SoftBank were streets ahead. Now a conglomerate with ownership stakes in ARM, Boston Dynamics, Sprint, Alibaba, Yahoo Japan, Brightstar, Uber, Snapdeal, Brain, Fanatics, Nvidia, Slack, WeWork, Compass to name but a few, it has plenty of platforms to work with. Yes, it’s true that SoftBank are much bigger than just mobile but their interest in mobile related companies and their approach to the mobile industry is setting new benchmarks for MNOs to try and follow. SoftBank also runs the Vision Fund of course which is now reputed to be the world’s largest technology fund. SoftBank announced deal after deal in 2018 across geographies and in diverse industries. If what we read is correct, it invested in 35 rounds, totaling over $30 billion. We feel sure at Azenby that it is only a matter of time before Vision Fund knock on our door, but we want to make it clear that that had absolutely nothing to do with our choice of Softbank as the winner in 2018.

The UK ICT industry has loomed large in newspapers this last week, sadly for the wrong reasons. On Thursday 7^th the O2 mobile network suffered a major outage. For most of the day some 32 million subscribers were without service as a major part of the network stopped operating. The outage affected MVNO subsidiaries too including GiffGaff, Sky Mobile, Lyca and Tesco Mobile as well as impacting some emergency services and the train platform information services.

As a network failure it represents one of the most significant loss of service events in UK mobile history. And it reiterated to wider society the strategic importance of the UK’s telephony networks’ for daily life, entertainment and business utility. Small businesses reliant on credit cards mediated over phone apps may have lost a whole days takings and many activities on Thursday 7^th couldn’t elegantly fall back to Wi-Fi, not least in car navigation.

Initial investigation published in the press suggests that the root cause of the failure was the unexpected expiry of hard coded SW certificates in the SGSN-MME. These nodes were legacy SW that was in the process of leaving the network*. O2 and Ericsson both have hardworking, capable, smart and diligent engineers. Both companies have an absolute tradition of engineering quality, always aiming to do the best job for the customers and a great history of service.

In truth it is too easy to point to an expired SW certificate, talk about remedies through contracts and ignore the wider systematic failure mode underlying this event: modern networks are incredibly sophisticated, contain a multitude of networking nodes from a plethora of suppliers. No single network architect can understand the full SW stack in detail. Furthermore all actors in the industry are under commercial constraints, resources are limited. It could have been an outage on any of the UK’s networks’ that Thursday, and any of more than 20 SW and HW suppliers could have expiring SW certificates. And we should not skirt over the fundamental truth that 5G and IOT only make our network more complex, with more nodes, and designed to encourage interwork across an even larger pool of industry actors.

Things aren’t going to get easier!

As industry evolves and becomes ever more important to it’s customers, risk management and risk control and seeking network robustness may well become a defining value differentiator amongst service providers. As Volvo so ably proved, it built safer cars so it created an enduring market amongst it’s customers who ultimately were prepared to pay a premium for that feature. We can also learn from the fashion apparel industry. Not more than 5 years ago there must have been senior executives who thought it was impossible to make a football and prove no child labour had been involved. Industries have cleaned up their supply chains and put clear controls in place. The chemical industry is another case in point where single points of failure are engineered out of processes.

In summary, our mobile networks are increasing in complexity and it is that very complexity that brings risk. However we have a choice. We can manage that risk and take clear proof points of success from other industries. Last weeks outage gives us all a mandate to review our networks and how we manage the risk of the networks. Fore warned is fore armed.  We hope 2019 is the year when we begin to address this matter systematically. After all our customers depend on us.

Azenby is a forward leaning consultancy. Our specialism is helping mobile operators. We have implemented a number of strategic projects for leading MNOs around the world helping them find ways to increase revenues as well as reducing the cost of doing business. Our work has included in depth technical due diligences and risk management. Why not get in touch with us to learn more?

*NOTE 21/12/2018: please be aware  the phrase “These nodes were legacy SW that was in the process of leaving the network” was incorrect. We are subsequently informed that the SW in question was an in-life version, fully within support and maintenance contracts, and was not in the process of leaving the network. Our apologies for the inaccuracy.

At Azenby a lot of our clients have asked us to undertake technical due diligence for them, normally when there is some sort of company acquisition or merger. It’s a standard business process. You want to buy something and not unnaturally you want to know if it is worth buying and therefore call in the due diligence (DD) team to check out the target of the acquisition. This is especially sensible given that it’s so often a unique one off and complex purchase and the value comes as a result of a complement to existing business. Azenby has performed more than 10 major DD activities in recent years across Europe and Asia.

In the mobile industry, our speciality, a technology DD covers at least some of the following issues:

• Current deployments
• Assets end of life
• Plans to evolve
• Failures and incidents
• Staffing levels and competencies
• Project processes
• Accreditations
• Spectrum and spectrum plans if applicable
• Network economics and how the network is supporting the company strategy and the marketing vision.

Often a buyer has considerable expertise to do the technical due diligence themselves, but there are a couple of reasons why general expertise can be augmented with outside help. For instance, the buyer may be expanding into a new market segment and so by definition they don’t know the new domain in sufficient detail.

Another reason that an external resource can beneficially be used for DD is a little more subtle. The result of a DD can be that it results in a decision not to buy the target company. Indeed, a not-to-proceed decision is the norm in due diligences as realities should be continually tested against hard business benefits of an acquisition. In this case the two companies risk parting ways with a feeling of mutual irritation. However, since the target is likely operating in a sector close to the buyer, NDAs with strict confidentiality will have been obtained. In many cases the staff involved in the DD are then sent on gardening leave for a few months. In the event that the sale does not proceed, it’s quite logical to insist this be the case because those staff will have seen future plans, products, planned investments and all manner of commercially sensitive material, in all likelihood from a direct competitor of the buyer.

From the buyer’s perspective a thorough DD process is essential, which means they need to use some of their best people, yet those same people might be forced out of the business for months of gardening leave if the sale does not proceed, not a great result from any perspective! If an external company is used, they probably have more experience in DD, but also if the sale stalls critical staff are not quarantined.

There are some rules we have distilled from our Due Diligence experience, we like to think of it as a survival guide:

Rule 1 : The data room

All relevant data should be put into the data room, some of it potentially redacted for a variety of reasons. So, rule 1 is that the DATA ROOM IS NEVER COMPLETE OR ON TIME so don’t expect it to be! Expect to have  numerous iterations asking for a more complete set of data through asking specific questions.

Rule 2: Beware the sophisticated data room system

Sometimes, the data room itself is set up by a 3^rdparty with a super secure, super access controlled and logged data room system. All well and good you would think until as a data room user you discover you have to download a client to your laptop to get access to it, and your laptop never works again! We have even resorted to using a different device from our normal laptop to work in the data room.

Rule 3 : Don’t believe a word

Never trust the interviews, as you continue work your way through the material in the data room there will come a time where you have friendly discussions with the staff of the target company, those at least who feel they can talk in public. In general, some will be completely honest, some will obscure by omission, and some will have embellished their memory of events (shorthand for they will obscure to your face!). Trust no-one! Just use the written data, and get any verbal statements backed up in writing, or even better have the corroborating documents entered into the data room.

Rule 4 : Carry a helmet

Prepare to be complained about. For the team actually doing the DD and delving into the target company, maybe going places the target would rather you didn’t, and by necessity asking for corroborating evidence, can generate friction. As a result, it is not unknown for the target company to complain about the amount of time that is being sunk into answering questions, or the fact that questions are being asked that are confidential or not relevant. Ignore all of these complaints, if anything they are a sign that the DD is being done effectively and some difficult truths may be surfaced.

Rule 5 : Beware your Instincts

Instincts or suspicions can result in serious trouble. Picture the scene. You have been doing a DD for a week, and you are convinced there is a potential problem with some aspect of the target but you haven’t fully resolved the issue. You are asked for a report on how things are going from the buyer…. You mention your concerns….. and suddenly, after a chat between the two CEOs, you are requested to provide explanation.  The target has refuted all your suspicions and demanded proof, and without details to support suspicions an untimely and potentially difficult withdrawal is necessary.

There are other uses for the expertise and metier of Due Diligence. With very large projects, most especially those of a highly political nature, or involving many levels of subcontract, delays can build to catastrophic levels as unwillingness to declare shortfalls is escalated through the network. DD allows large projects top to bottom sanity checks. This is very difficult for engaged and interested parties, some of whom may be facing damages and costs as a result of declaring over runs. Our experience has been that this process can bring much needed extra clarity to the formal reporting.

At Azenby, we frequently advise clients using DD techniques both during acquisitions, but also at many stages in projects where an independent view can be of use. For more information contact phil@azenby.com.

I have a nasty feeling that more than one red faced CTIO will be asking this question in the not too distant future. It won’t be the house keys or the car keys that will be missing down the back of the sofa. This time it will be far more serious. Here is the scenario I see unfolding and it may be sooner than you think.

5G promises so much unless of course you are in the same camps as Eric Xu, Huawei’s rotating chairman when he said, “The entire industry and governments around the world have regarded 5G too highly, to the extent it will be the digital infrastructure for everything.” – he then added  “It is a just a natural evolution of the technology from 2G to 3G to 4G and now 5G.”

OK, Huawei realised this wasn’t the greatest sales pitch they have ever come up to promote sales of their products, so they have since modified this stance somewhat to say that “5G should have the performance advantages of 100 billion connections, 1ms latency, 10Gbps throughput to meet the requirement of “Fully Connected World”. That sounds like a better sales pitch.

I didn’t intend to explain the merits of 5G here but if this has whetted your appetite, why not go and take a look at our blog on 5G here.

Faster and higher performing radio access is not to be sniffed at but I don’t think that alone is the 5G game changer. Lower latency and faster data speeds are just part of the natural evolution of radio technology as Eric Wu rightly pointed out. These alone won’t underpin new services. The ability to really begin to integrate 5G architectures into other industry segments infrastructure is the real game changer. And here the philosophy of NFV (Network Functions Virtualization) is a big driver for new business models emerging, alongside network slicing and a new approach to customer data management.

It’s the customer data management piece I wanted to explore further here. Sorry for not using the more conventional nomenclature of subscriber data management but really, I do wish our industry would drop subscribers and talk about customers instead. Now that would be a game changer!

Those with a keen interest in these things will have noticed a radically different approach to authentication in the 5G standards. This change is to better support new concepts, new business models, IoT (which is both of the above) and NFV, as well as the vastly increased demand for network authentication that new 5G related services will bring about.

Let’s stop and think about NFV for a moment. Using standardised hardware platforms and deploying only the functions needed is a very attractive prospect for MNOs. It promises to change the cost of doing business quite dramatically. MNOs in smaller markets may even think about using managed services in the Cloud for hosting and operating the core. This is another game changer for the way they can do business in the future and give their customers access to 5G services much faster than was hitherto possible.

Now I move on to my worry point and I am glad to also say that there is a solution to my worries, but I am not yet seeing a groundswell towards adoption of the solution I have in mind. This is my concern. MNOs have traditionally taken great care to safeguard their keys, algorithms and sensitive business logic. The vital network credentials used during both SIM provisioning and then for network authentication have always been subject to strict security policies and processes. This is for a very good reason because the possibility of having network keys or algorithms compromised is probably the highest risk to business continuity that an MNO faces. So why would anyone risk having their crown jewels in a virtualised function which may even be part of a hosted Cloud solution? I know I wouldn’t. This seems like a deadly scenario which ends where I started and the CTIO asking ‘where exactly did I leave my keys?’ Too late to ask that question now!

There are solutions available and the one I favour most is creating a safe for the crown jewels. Yes, I know falling back on a hardware solution bucks the trend of NFV but there are some things I still really want to see kept safe and sound in a protected, tamper proof piece of hardware. The solution – at least in part – is available today and used in many adjacent industries. Using a Hardware Secure Module (HSM) to store Mobile algorithms such as Milenage, COMP-128 and remote SIM OTA custom key derivation algorithms safeguards crucial data. By also deploying Business logic such as HSS eKi decryption for use with Milenage, contained within the HSM, the Ki is never used in an unencrypted form externally. The HSM can also support the generation of SIM provisioning credentials and transport encryption, from Ki to PIN/PUKs generation, all in one request. Include SIM OTA secured payload assembly for both UICCs and eUICCs for example.

Having adopted this principle, MNOs can even consider the outsourcing support of internal systems used for SIM production containing sensitive material. Very many MNOs have already outsourced their SIM provisioning and in this situation, the use of the HSM provides them with a way of reclaiming control of their keys but still have the production facility outsourced. To put this another way, would you hand your keys to someone else to unlock your house or car on your behalf? Of course not, so having an HSM allows you to do it yourself without sharing your secrets!

Together, these are the security methods which are needed in the 5G NFV environment and maybe its just a matter of time before MNOs arrive at this same viewpoint, but for the current rate of adoption is still worryingly low. The need to secure business continuity is the main driver for the adoption of HSMs into the SIM provisioning and authentication processes but once done it also opens new business and revenue opportunities for MNOs. We all see that a lot of the news items about 5G focus on the emergence of new business models whereby MNOs forge new partnerships with players in other industry verticals to really make IoT happen.

Monetising the SIM as an asset is really important for MNOs in the 5G world and offering a heightened level of security over other wireless access technologies will be a major factor for those organisations developing industrialised IoT applications. Many of these new business partnerships will be deeper and more rewarding, as partners – call them external service providers – can have access to sensitive material but are in a position of elevated trust to do their own provisioning. In the world of remote SIM provisioning (RSP), I think this opens up limitless new possibilities for service delivery which allow MNOs to be serious players in the IoT market. Think of it this way: allowing new partners access to key material outsources trust without the MNO losing control. Smaller, specialist RSP partners, inherit this level of trust and the MNO will know that the integrity of the sensitive data is guaranteed by use of the HSM. Some MNOs are worried about the impact RSP may have on their business. More forward-thinking MNOs will see RSP as a major opportunity to expand their business relationships, just so long as they keep the commercially sensitive credentials safe and sound.

Making this happen isn’t simply just a case of buying a standards compliant HSM. It is firstly understanding how to apply the necessary business logic to the HSM and then to integrate this into current support systems that is more of the challenge. The rewards of doing this though are sufficiently high for it to be worth the challenge. At Azenby we would like to help MNOs and MVNOs of all sizes make the transition towards this new level of security for network credentials and to then exploit the new business opportunities this can open up.

If you would like to learn more about how we can help with this journey, why not get in touch with us today. The sooner the journey starts the less chance of those keys being lost!

So 5G is finally here with Verizon launching (as reported on 1^st Oct 2018) in four US cities; Houston, Indianapolis, Los Angeles and Sacramento. They are offering a wireless broadband solution for the home and promising ‘typical speeds’ of 300 Mbps, and peaks of 940 Mbps. AT&T is due to launch at the end of the year. Sprint’s 5G network is planned to be turned on in the first half of 2019 in Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Kansas City, Los Angeles, New York City, Phoenix and Washington D.C

Earlier in 2018 in June, Finnish operator Elisa claimed a global first in launching a commercial 5G network in the Finnish city of Tampere and the Estonian capital Tallinn.

In the UK EE is due to launch the UKs first live 5G trial network in East London in October 2018. A while back O2 was also reported as deploying a 5G system to the Millennium Dome with a view to conducting demos of virtual reality, augmented reality and live streaming in late 2018.

Devices are finally on the horizon with LG claiming it will launch a 5G ready smartphone with Sprint in the first half of 2019. Qualcomm is also reported as expecting to see 5G device launches in early 2019.

The standards groups in 3GPP signed off the new 5G New Radio standalone variant specifications in June after having already signed off the non-standalone variant in December 2017.

So progress is looking good towards 5G finally becoming a reality.

But what will 5G deliver?

On the radio side, there will be a new radio (5G NR) interface. Currently the scenarios or user cases that the design standards are considering to utilise a new radio interface are:

Enhanced Mobile Broadband (eMBB) Including – Indoor Hotspot, Dense urban coverage, Urban Macro, Rural coverage, High speed, Extreme long distance cells

Ultra-reliable and low-latency communications (URLLC) For Indoor Hotspot and Urban Macro coverage

Massive Machine Type Communications (mMTC) Urban coverage for massive connections

Vehicle to X (V2X) Urban Grid for connected car, and highway coverage.

Let’s look at these in a bit more detail:

eMBB

The main thrust appears to be another hike in data speeds with DL targets of 20Gbps compared to LTE-A pro which is targeting in excess of 3Gbps. Allied to this is a target for lower latency of 10ms (current networks are delivering 40 to 50ms in the UK). So high bandwidth low latency services will benefit significantly. For the MNO the question is whether they need such speeds or indeed whether 5G will become another hygiene factor and without it you are simply not keeping up with the competition. How to monetise another step in data rates is another obvious question

URLLC

There appears to be general consensus that the future of many industrial control, traffic safety, medical, and internet services depends on wireless connectivity with guaranteed consistent latencies of 1ms or less.

Some emerging URLLC applications include:

• Tele surgery for remote surgical consultations or indeed surgical procedures.
• Intelligent Transportation – fully automated driving with automatic overtake and cooperative collision avoidance
• Industry Automation – Factory process, and power system automation
• Other possible applications of uRLLC include Tactile Internet, augmented/virtual reality, fault detection, frequency and voltage control in smart grids.

For the MNO the question is do they want to play in any of these potential application spaces, do they want to have niche segments as part of their propositions etc?

Massive Machine Type Communications (mMTC)

mMTC is aiming to provide connectivity with densities of devices of 1 million per sq km allied to battery life targets of in excess of 10 years. This is obviously to serve a mass deployment of IoT type devices.

However, mMTC is as much a challenge for the commercial and pricing models for equipment suppliers as it is a technical one. Typical commercial pricing for HLR/HSS not to mention SIMs is way above what is needed for mass device deployment in often low volume communications with low associated revenues. Whilst technically of course such a solution would work it is probably more complicated than is actually necessary which contributes to the cost/pricing problem.  With mass market deployment of IoT type devices MNOs will have to stop thinking about customer value in terms of $’s per month and instead think in terms of Cents per year. This means the complete mMTC solution needs to be massively optimised for cost.

Again the question is does an MNO want to compete in the IoT space or not, particularly considering the cost optimisation challenges above. There are alternatives in 4G technology such as NB-IOT and with LTE-Advanced Pro targeting further improvements in device power levels and subsequent battery life plus more efficient use of spectrum for IoT devices, it’s clear that 5G is not the be all and end all of competing in the IoT space. However the cost scalability remains a challenge.

V2X

V2X is the framework that will allow vehicles to communicate with each other and beyond. This includes vehicle to infrastructure (e.g. traffic signals) vehicle to network (for real time routing information) vehicle to vehicle (e.g. collision avoidance) and vehicle to pedestrian (for safety alerts etc.)  The functionalities to assist driver safety are numerous.

Who will own the value in this use case is an interesting question. Trials are ongoing with various operators, vehicle manufacturers, telco vendors and engineering companies but ownership of the customer and who extracts what value is still to be understood. Is this a space for MNOs / MVNOs or will vehicle manufacturers dominate the value chain?

5G Implementation

5G NR has two variants being considered architecturally . One based upon using LTE as an anchor network for control plane traffic and the 5G radio only will be deployed. Another is for a complete standalone version with both control and user plane traffic in a new 5G radio base station.

For the first variant one can envisage simple upgrades where the 5G NR is installed into existing 4G base stations (from the same vendor) however if this is the reality delivered by the vendors remains to be seen. This first variant should start emerging as fully standardised equipment in the next year. The first 3GPP Release for 5G – Release 15 had it’s functionally frozen in Sept 18. This release will include eMBB, the other user cases outlined above will be delivered later depending upon how the standards bodies finalise the roadmap.

The second (standalone) variant will no doubt require a whole new base station infrastructure and with some operators already wondering how they can make the 5G business case work this is just further cost headache they can hardly afford.

5G will also introduce other functionalities in the RAN that go hand in hand with the higher bandwidth and speed targets such as Massive MIMO (multiple input, multiple output) which require new antenna arrays to be deployed. Currently MNOs have been using 2×2, 4×4 or 8×8 MIMO systems on 4G networks but 5G trials have included use of 64×64 MIMO systems to deliver the increased radio performance. MNO antenna upgrade plans will be a major factor in 5G deployment if they are to achieve some of the service levels and data rates that 5G has to offer.

5G Spectrum

5G NR will also bring more efficient use of a range of spectrum by introducing more spectrum sharing capabilities and options to use mmWave spectrum over large bandwidths for high speed mobile broadband deployments. The spectrum aspects are interesting, according the Global mobile Suppliers Association (GSA) report “Spectrum for 5G: Plans, Licences and Trials”, 42 countries had allocated 5G spectrum, announced plans to auction spectrum or were determining spectrum to be used for 5G as of the end of 2017. The majority of allocations sit in the 3400 to 3800 MHz range and with recent awards in the UK in the 3400 MHz band it will be interesting to see if these bands are the ones the equipment vendors support first.

However some countries are allocating spectrum in various other bands including 700 MHz, 2300 MHz, 4400 to 4900 MHz and 37 to 43 GHz to name but a few.

In the USA the FCC allocated approximately 11 GHz of spectrum above 24 GHz, in various bands from 27.5 to 86.5 GHz in 2016, with 1.7 GHz in the 24 and 47 GHz bands added for licensed mobile applications in 2017. In the traditional cellular bands below 6 GHz T-Mobile USA plans to deploy 5G on the 600 MHz spectrum it acquired in a 2017 auction, and Sprint will use its 2.5 GHz spectrum. Additional spectrum in 3.7 to 7.125 GHz range is also under consideration.

In a recent auction in Italy Vodafone and Telecom Italia were both awarded 80MHz of 3.7GHz spectrum while the other two operators secured allocations of 20MHz of the same band. Telecom Italia and Vodafone Italia also bought 200MHz of 26GHz (mmWave) and 20MHz in the 700MHz band. Iliad won 200MHz in the 26GHz band, alongside its 20MHz of 3.7GHz and 10MHz in the 700MHz band. Wind Tre acquired 20MHz of 3.7GHz and 200MHz in the 26GHz band.

A we can see the spectrum picture is pretty varied and so radio network equipment availability at different bands is going to be key.

Core Network Considerations

Connectivity to and compatibility with current Core Networks is also subject to a few variants but it appears that 5G NR will be able to connect back to existing LTE EPC deployments (although some upgrades may be required). The standards are considering both existing EPC and a Next Generation Core (NGC) as options for 5G. In addition, network slicing which enables different service types to be carried on separate virtual networks from RAN through to Core is also a feature of 5G. This enables user cases with specific radio and core network end to end requirements to be deployed in virtually separate networks to make most efficient use of network resources.

MNOs will therefore need to make further investments in core network infrastructure going forwards if they want to take advantage of the full range of 5G functionalities.

Conclusion

Overall there are certainly some interesting technical developments coming with 5G, with even more speed and bandwidth, options for mass IoT deployment, more efficient spectrum utilisation, and potential new market segments being serviced with dedicated technology solutions there appears to be some new opportunities for MNOs to explore. However the question is whether the new opportunities can be monetised by the MNOs and can the cost of deploying 5G be fully justified?