The iconic MWC conference is now pretty much history. The big announcements have been made, the attendees have largely exhausted themselves (the exhibitors certainly have!), and it’s time to take stock and decide whether anything important was really said and shown. In terms of point announcements, it’s rare for something huge to come out at an event like MWC—too much crosstalk. The buzz of the show is another matter; we can pick out some important points by looking across all the announcements and demonstrations to detect shifts and non-shifts.
The most important thing that I take away from MWC is that there is an enormous gap between 5G expectation and the current state of the technology. The goal of 5G is service- and infrastructure-shaking, and the reality of 5G at the moment struggles to be a major shift in the RAN. Part of the reason for this shift is the (usual) slow progress of the specifications, but another part is the fact that standards groups have a habit of grabbing the low apples or focusing on the most visible questions.
5G RAN improvements are important, but operators I talk with have consistently said that their biggest priority was to standardize the metro and access models for wireless and wireline, and to support wireless 5G extensions of fiber networks. Without these capabilities, many operators said that it would be difficult to justify 5G versus enhanced 4G. Ironically, the early “5G trials” have all focused on RAN and on modest adjustments to 4G, like supporting 5G frequencies, to “prove out” the technology. Some operators have been public in their rejection of this approach, but that’s what’s been happening.
One public approach to pre-standard 5G even retains the Evolved Packet Core, which most operators told me was something that they wanted (as a number-one or number-two priority) to eliminate. Clearly the focus of many 5G proponents is to move the process ahead even if there’s less utility in what’s produced. That also was a criticism that’s been made in public.
The next point is that we have not yet abandoned our short-sighted and stupid vision of IoT as being all about wireless connections. There were plenty of examples of this, but two were particularly figured in the overall stream of hype. The first is a broadening of the notion that this is all about RF, which makes IoT all about connections. The second is the almost hypnotic attraction to “connected car” as the prototypical IoT application.
I’m almost tired of saying that getting devices connected is the least of our IoT worries, but it is. The majority of IoT applications will almost certainly use devices that not only aren’t directly on the Internet at all, but don’t even use Internet-related technology for connections. Home control today relies on technologies that aren’t related to Ethernet, IP, or the Internet. Only the home controller is an Internet device, and this model of connectivity is likely to dominate for a long time to come. If we insist that all our sensors and controllers be IP devices that are Internet-connected, we’re building a barrier to adoption that will take unnecessary years to jump.
The connected car is another potential trap. Most of what a connected car will do is offer WiFi to consumer mobile devices that passengers and drivers (the latter, hopefully, not while moving) are using in the vehicle. Yes, there are other features, but the value proposition is really more like a moving WiFi hotspot than a real IoT mission. There’s always pressure to pick something that’s actually happening and then broaden your definition of revolutionary technology to envelope it, justifying your hype. That’s not helpful when there are real questions and issues that are not addressed by the billboard-technology example, but will have to be addressed for the market to develop.
The first positive point from the show is that both network operators and equipment vendors realize that mobile broadband personalization is the only relevant demand driver. Wireline broadband for both consumers and businesses is really just a matter of wringing as much as profit as possible out of something that’s already marginal at best. If there is new revenue to be had for operators, that revenue is going to come from the exploitation of mobile broadband in both enterprises and consumer markets.
There’s a sad side even to this happiness, though. For all the fact that the explosion of interest in MWC demonstrates the victory of mobile broadband, or that many who exhibit and probably even more who attend MWC are there for things not directly related to cellular networks, we’re still missing a lot of the key points that justify the mobile focus.
A mobile device is a direct extension of the user, a kind of technological third leg or second head. It brings the knowledge and entertainment base of the Internet and the power of cloud computing right into the hands of everybody. The best way to look at IT evolution since the ‘50s is that each new wave brought processing closer to people. Mobile broadband fuses the two.
Also in my view a positive was the talk from FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, where he said what shouldn’t really have surprised anyone—that the FCC planned a “lighter touch” under the new administration. The FCC had already taken steps that indicated it would retreat from the very activist position taken by the body under the previous Chairman (Wheeler), but Pai voted against the neutrality ruling and his comments at MWC suggest he has specific moves in mind. Reinforcing the “lighter touch” was the comment (referencing neutrality) that “It has become evident that the FCC made a mistake. Our new approach injected tremendous uncertainty into the broadband market. And uncertainty is the enemy of growth.”
Net neutrality is important, insofar as it protects OTT competitors from operators cutting favorable deals with their own subsidiaries. The current rules, though, were not enough to prevent AT&T from offering outside-data-plan video to its TV customers. On the other hand, the extension of the rules that Wheeler promoted has made the relationship between subsidiaries and ISPs confusing to say the least, and it’s probably limited willingness of operators to pursue initiatives that would have promoted broadband infrastructure investment.
I have to agree with Pai here. I think that the FCC in the last term overstepped simple neutrality goals and took a stand on the broadband business that favored one party—the OTTs—over the other, to a degree the FCC had never done before. A dynamic broadband market—the kind that MWC and 5G propose to support—demands a symbiosis and not an artificial financial boundary. Through almost my whole consulting career I’ve supported the notion of Internet settlement, and I still support it. I think it’s time to take some careful, guarded, steps toward trying it out.