4G Someday ...
>> I’m 4G and You’re Not – So There
Peter Jarich
Telephony Online
Mar 23, 2009
tinyurl.com
I had the honor of presiding over a panel on 4G last year. We had representatives from various industry bodies and vendors. The promise was a nice, civil conversation about the wonders of mobile broadband and the glorious future awaiting all of us when high-speed mobile data was ubiquitous. Where conference organizers enjoy conflict, they quickly got their wish. “We’re already deploying 4G,” asserted someone from the WiMAX industry. “Oh no, you’re not,” replied someone from the 3GPP side of the universe. His friend from the vendor community quickly added, “the ITU ultimately gets to decide what is 4G – not any single vendor or technology camp.”
While the back-and-forth bickering was doubtless fun for everyone in the audience, it wasn’t particularly surprising. When 3G was first coming on-line, the same religious wars waged over what could be called 3G and what couldn’t. And today, there’s just as much on the line: The potential right to deploy in certain spectrum bands; the claims to early 4G expertise; the bragging rights.
Unfortunately, there isn’t too much to learn from these claims and battles. Right or wrong, WiMAX is trending towards fixed and portable applications. Right or wrong, it doesn’t look like the current incarnation of either WiMAX or LTE will fit in with ITU expectations of 4G. Right or wrong, operator requirements may have nothing to do with what technologies get branded as 4G. To that end, it’s worthwhile looking at those requirements in a relative vacuum – divorced, as much as can be, from specific standards discussions.
• Air Interface. Since the term first started getting thrown around, 4G has almost always assumed a use of OFDM [orthogonal frequency division multiplexing] on the air interface. It’s not necessarily a function of data rates; HSPA+ and multi-carrier HSPA+ do fine with good old CDMA. It’s not necessarily a function of support for MIMO; again, look at HSPA+. Yet, where OFDM can best deliver flexible channel bandwidths (including better support for wide channels) and the future suggests operators will be scraping for spectrum from multiple sources, the fit is clear…and based on more than just OFDM being the latest air interface innovation.
• Transport. We’ve said it before. We will say it again. Rising 3G data traffic (driven by new technologies and better devices) has driven an interest in new mobile backhaul solutions. As 3G evolves into 4G, the interest will only intensify. More than an interest in fat pipes (optical, copper, microwave), operator demands will turn towards multiservice platforms which can support legacy circuit traffic (2G/3G) alongside 4G’s IP – ideally with integrated service capabilities (bandwidth management, deep packet inspection) and a management platform stretching across an operator’s diverse backhaul assets.
• Applications. You can argue that 4G (whatever the underlying technology, standards or transport network) is simply about the efficient delivery of mobile broadband connectivity – the efficiency necessary for operators to actually make money from the widespread adoption of mobile broadband. Few mobile operators, however, are content to deliver nothing more than broadband connectivity; layering applications on top of that connectivity, after all, promises an entirely different revenue opportunity. Beyond the end-user applications we all know and love (mobile music, mobile video, location based services), relatively transparent network-based applications (subscriber data management, recommendation engines, ad insertion, security) should factor into the equation as well. Luckily, today’s 3G networks provide a platform to test them out.
• Voice. If one application demonstrates the value of being more than a simple “pipe” provider, it’s voice. Simply compare the revenues earned from mobile voice services with the revenues delivered by mobile data. It’s also the application cellcos are best prepared to deliver: they have the switching capacity in place; they can control network quality well enough to support the demands of voice services; it’s what they’re known for. Given this position, it’s natural that voice needs to figure into any 4G technology. Fortunately, there is no shortage of solutions for delivering it, solutions ranging from IMS, to 2G/3G fallback, to the recently launched VoLGA initiative, to other proprietary solutions. Unfortunately, what operators really need is one de facto standard solution with a device and network ecosystem (i.e., scale) behind it.
• Devices. I am not a device analyst. I don’t even play one on TV. Still, it’s fairly obvious that if it took the iPhone to kick 3G usage into gear, it will take compelling 4G devices to make 4G network launches worthwhile. In this case, “compelling” means a broad array of terminals ranging from PC cards and USB dongles to netbooks to desktop modems to 4G iPhones and iPhone-killers. Yet, while the talk of 4G toasters and refrigerators always elicits giggles, the fact remains that operators looking to fully exploit the session and bandwidth scalability of 4G will embrace machine-to-machine opportunities as well.
It is easiest to think of 4G in terms of specific products and standards. Unfortunately, 4G exists beyond the base station. It exists beyond the packet core. It exists beyond air interfaces or any specific standards. Doubtless, we will see a myriad of technologies and products and vendors tied to “4G” over the next few years. It will get annoying. It will also be necessary. Now that the LTE vs. WiMAX vs. UMB (r.i.p.) debates have largely concluded, for 4G to be a success (worthy of the attention it’s been given) operators need to think in terms of solutions. ###
- Eric - |
