IoT network support seen behind push for tighter integration into current LTE work, with 5G integration pushed until Release 16.
DALLAS – “5G” and the “internet of things” are often connected in the same breath, but could actually be moving further apart in terms of their need for each other.
During a panel discussion at this week’s 5G North Americas event, Ken Rehbehn, principal analyst at 451 Research, pointed to recent moves by the Third Generation Partnership Project in moving IoT work in the 5G standards process to Release 16, which is the second bucket of work on 5G, while at the same time moving to include more IoT standards in the current Release 13 work tied to LTE networks.
Rehbehn noted the move to accelerate some work into the 4G space was likely due to competitive pressures being applied from the likes of Sigfox and other low powered wide area network providers intent on pushing into the nascent IoT space.
Stephane Teral, senior research director for mobile infrastructure and carrier economics at IHS Markit, was joined by Rehbehn in noting the likely need for different network technologies to support next-generation IoT services, citing current cellular network topologies being designed for mobility and not for connecting billions of diverse devices.
“Do you need mobility when you connect things? No,” Teral said.
Connectivity challenges were also brought up by Landon Van Dyke, senior advisor for energy, environment and sustainability at the U.S. Department of State, who noted issues with sending potentially sensitive data over networks owned by international operators.
“The more we transmit data through those networks, the more we want to do more,” Van Dyke said. “But, then we hit security challenges. We hit a wall and can’t do it anymore.”
Business model challenges
Rehbehn explained the current drive towards 5G is a way to squeeze greater efficiencies from a network and thus potentially allow mobile carriers to generate increased profits. However, to get those networks deployed, carriers will be tasked with spending billions of dollars on new technology, equipment and potentially spectrum in support of those networks, while at the same time seeing a squeeze on increased revenue generation.
“There is a big challenge in how to make money,” Rehbehn said. “For mobile operators truing to stand up services, it’s not about [average revenue per user” of $10 or $100 per month, they are instead looking at a dollar or two in incremental revenues. It’s hard to justify. … There are options but the business case will keep a lot of financial experts employed.”
Teral noted the need for economy of scale in order to meet the financial and operational challenges in owning and operating networks vast enough to handle IoT use cases will likely leave only large, established companies as being able to meet the demand.
“This does not leave room for other players in this field,” Teral said, adding smaller entrants will need to focus on more localized efforts that the big guys are not interested in addressing.
Larger carriers were also singled out as the most likely to have robust security measures in place, which following recent cybersecurity breaches using nonsecured IoT devices could become more important for the space. However, security challenges could depend on overall network support, as Rehbehn explained some IoT-specific technologies do not provide sufficient throughput or capacity to support a security layer.
Van Dyke noted security was an significant concern for government entities, especially those operating in foreign countries, but added most government communication channels included a “buffer” that hinted at some form of embedded security protocol.
Bored? Why not follow me on Twitter
