For 6G, the fight is about standards, spectrum, and trust architectures — decisions today will shape tomorrow’s economics
Editor’s note: This is the final installment of a three-part series from Analyst Vish Nandlall. Read the first article here and the second one here.
If 3G was the mobile internet, 4G was mobile apps and video, and 5G was eMBB and FWA, then 6G faces a tougher question: How will it be defined? With consumer markets saturated and ARPU under pressure, the defining battles of 6G will not be fought at the physical layer, but in standards, spectrum, and new architectures for value and trust. This article explores how decisions made today in the 3GPP, by regulators, and within vendor boardrooms are shaping the economics of the 6G era.
Standardization roadmap: A pragmatic pivot to software
The transition to 6G is not a singular event but a carefully managed evolution within the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP). Recent landmark decisions confirm that this evolution will be pragmatic, prioritizing economic reality over technological revolution. The most significant development: The 6G air interface will reuse the same OFDM-based waveforms as 5G (CP-OFDM for downlink and DFT-s-OFDM for uplink).
This decision signals that core innovation for 6G will not happen at the physical layer but in the network architecture, AI-native design, and seamless integration of heterogeneous networks. The roadmap unfolds across multiple releases:
- Release 19 (In Progress): Extends 5G-Advanced and introduces early studies on Ambient IoT and AI/ML data collection.
- Release 20 (2024–2025): Dual track — continues 5G-Advanced while launching official 6G Study Items (new radio, AI-native architecture, integrated sensing).
- Release 21 (~2027–2028): First normative 6G specifications, translating studies into concrete Work Items.
The strategic implication is clear: 6G will be defined less by “Gs” than by software-driven capabilities layered onto existing RAN infrastructure.
Vendor alignment and divergence
While consensus exists around AI-native architecture, energy efficiency, and upper mid-band spectrum, vendors are emphasizing different fronts aligned to their strengths:
- Ericsson: AI-native RAN and deterministic networking for industrial/enterprise applications.
- Qualcomm: Integrated Sensing & Communications (ISAC) and high-accuracy positioning via device leadership.
- Huawei: Aggressive bets on sub-THz and ISAC.
- Nokia: Four-pillar framework — value-centric, AI-native, sustainable by design, secure by design; research in Ambient IoT.
- Samsung: Focus on advanced antenna systems, RIS, and cell-free MIMO.
The vendor race is less about a single “killer app” and more about building patent portfolios and positioning for ecosystems where trust, sustainability, and enterprise capabilities dominate.
The global spectrum conflict: A tale of three bands
No matter the technology, spectrum is the lifeblood of 6G. The battles are fierce:
- Upper 6 GHz (6.425–7.125 GHz): The hottest battleground.
– MNO/GSMA Position: Essential for licensed 6G services, needing wide channels (200–400 MHz).
– Wi-Fi Position: The FCC’s 2020 unlicensed allocation generated ~$870B in economic value for Wi-Fi 6E.
– Regulatory Middle Ground: Hybrid models like Ofcom’s and indoor Wi-Fi + future licensed use. - 7–8 GHz (7.125–8.4 GHz): The “Plan B” for licensed 6G.
– 5G Americas: Calls it the “Golden Band of 6G,” balancing coverage and capacity while reusing existing 5G sites.
– Challenges: Heavy incumbency (government, satellite). Clearing or sharing will be complex. - Sub-Terahertz (>90 GHz): Technically rich, commercially uncertain. Severe propagation limits, silicon immaturity, and regulatory hesitation make it a long-term R&D play, not a near-term workhorse.
Spectrum strategy will determine the cost curve of 6G deployment and the competitive positioning of operators.
Reimagining spectrum management for the 6G era
Spectrum is not just scarce. It is the single most important economic lever for 6G. The way it is allocated and managed will define the affordability of deployment and the business cases that can thrive. Several models are emerging:
- Migration tools: Multi-RAT Spectrum Sharing (MRSS) offers a practical way to transition between generations with minimal disruption. Early studies suggest overheads of only a few percent, far better than the inefficiencies of DSS. If validated, MRSS can smooth the 5G–6G migration without forcing costly refarming.
- Mid-band expansion (FR3, 7–24 GHz): The upper mid-band is shaping up as the 6G workhorse. It balances coverage with capacity, and regulators see it as the sweet spot for both consumer broadband and enterprise private networks. AI-driven allocation and uplink/downlink decoupling will be key to maximizing its efficiency.
- Spectrum-as-a-Service: Inspired by CBRS in the U.S. and Ofcom’s local licenses in the U.K., spectrum leasing models could enable enterprises to buy slices on demand. If standardized, this would create a new revenue line for operators while catalyzing enterprise adoption. The risk is cannibalization if MNOs don’t align models with their own enterprise offerings.
- Sensing-based and cooperative sharing: Long-discussed but rarely deployed, sensing-enabled dynamic sharing could allow opportunistic use of spectrum across cellular, satellite, Wi-Fi, and radar. The idea is elegant, but adoption will hinge on regulatory trust and robust AI frameworks for interference management.
Strategic takeaway: Anchor near-term spectrum plans in FR3 and MRSS for economic certainty, while selectively piloting spectrum-as-a-service and cooperative sharing to hedge against future disruption.
The network as an anti-deepfake root of trust
6G has the chance to turn the network into a platform for digital trust. As deepfakes and AI-generated fraud proliferate, enterprises and governments will pay for proof of authenticity. Operators control unique data sources that no device vendor or cloud player can replicate:
- SIM-backed location and time attestations: Networks can cryptographically certify that a SIM was present in a given place and time, enabling fraud-resistant payments and verified transactions.
- Hybrid attestations (device × network): Combining device secure enclaves with network proofs creates provenance tokens that guarantee authenticity across both hardware and infrastructure.
- Behavioral telemetry: Only operators see cross-subscriber anomalies, like SIM swaps or bot-driven traffic, enabling fraud detection at scale.
- RF/channel-state fingerprinting: Each transmitter leaves unique radio fingerprints. Though still in R&D, these can serve as unclonable identifiers in industrial IoT.
The economics are favorable: APIs for attestations and fraud detection can be implemented cheaply on top of existing infrastructure. Banks, e-commerce firms, and governments already express willingness to pay. If operators move quickly, they can commercialize the trust economy as a service. If they fail, hyperscalers will capture the market.
The private network frontier: A new customer or a competitor?
Private RAN is no longer a fringe experiment, it is a structural shift. Enterprises see connectivity as strategic infrastructure, not just a utility. The rise of CBRS in the U.S. has shown how spectrum innovation creates space for micro-operators, neutral hosts, and enterprise-owned networks.
For enterprises like Siemens or Volkswagen, the logic is compelling: a private 5G/6G network offers secure, deterministic, customizable connectivity that public slices cannot match. Some may even spin off connectivity divisions as “Industrial ConnectivityCos,” commercializing their networks beyond their walls.
But private RAN faces unmet needs that 6G must address:
- Simplified lifecycle management: Enterprises need plug-and-play, zero-touch networks. Today, it is telco-grade complexity.
- Deterministic performance guarantees: Industrial automation requires bounded-latency SLAs. 6G must bake in deterministic primitives.
- Integrated security and sovereignty: Enterprises demand on-prem control over data and identity. Standards must codify this.
- Flexible spectrum: Dynamic subleasing and pooling frameworks are essential to make private and public systems coexist.
- Edge-native architectures: Enterprises want RAN scheduling tied directly to local compute.
- Lightweight cores: Today’s private cores are overengineered. 6G must define micro-core standards optimized for small-scale deployments.
Strategic takeaway: 6G must evolve to serve enterprises as first-class customers, not afterthoughts. If not, the value of 6G may accrue to new micro-operators rather than traditional MNOs.
The convergence imperative: Cellular + Wi-Fi for reliability
Peak speed is no longer the selling point, reliability is. Consumers, enterprises, and governments need always-on connectivity. Remote work, mobile payments, telehealth, and cloud gaming have made connection failures costly.
Past efforts at convergence failed due to weak technology and operator resistance. That is changing:
- Mature technology: Multipath QUIC (MP-QUIC) and Wi-Fi 7’s Multi-Link Operation (MLO) now allow packet-level multipath across networks.
- Proven demand: Apple and others have shown proprietary multipath can improve reliability. A standardized version would scale.
- Economic stakes: Dropped calls and failed transactions carry real costs. Enterprises and consumers will pay for reliability.
For 6G, convergence should be a core network feature, not a device trick. Standardizing dynamic packet-level steering and creating commercial settlement frameworks across broadband, Wi-Fi, and cellular providers would redefine reliability as the value proposition of 6G.
Conclusion: The strategic crossroads
6G is not about a new waveform; it is about a new economic identity. Spectrum must be managed more pragmatically, trust must be monetized as a service, private networks must be embraced as structural, and convergence must finally solve reliability. These are not speculative visions, they are strategic imperatives.
The operators that thrive in the 2030s will be those that stop selling “Gs” and start selling reliability, trust, and outcomes. 6G’s battleground is not physics, but strategy.
