Author: Alan Weissberger

Optus and Nokia’s pre-“6G” Trial in Australia: Upper 6 GHz May Be Widely Deployable

Posted on by Alan Weissberger

Executive Summary:

Australia’s Optus and Nokia have delivered one of the more credible pre 6G demonstrations yet: a live-field trial in Sydney that paired multi-gigabit speed with good coverage. The most notable result was  the 3.5 Gbps peak download rate and the indication that upper 6 GHz could support a macrocell footprint comparable to today’s 5G 3.5 GHz network. The trial suggested the upper 6GHz band can cover roughly the same footprint as Optus’ existing 5G 3.5 GHz layer—an encouraging sign for lower-cost 6G upgrades.

TABLE 1. Optus–Nokia 6G Trial: Editorial Comparison of Technical Takeaways
(Adapted from reported trial results.)

Attribute Reported trial result Editorial significance
Location Sydney, Australia. Places the trial in a live urban macro-network environment, not a controlled lab.
Participants Optus and Nokia. Combines operator network context with vendor radio expertise.
Spectrum band Upper 6 GHz. Reinforces the growing view that 6–8 GHz is a strong candidate range for 6G coverage and capacity. ericsson+1
Spectrum width 200 MHz total, split into two 100 MHz channels. Provides enough bandwidth to demonstrate multi-gigabit throughput without relying on mmWave-style densification.
Frequency range 6,890 MHz to 7,090 MHz. Falls squarely in the upper 6 GHz segment being discussed globally for future mobile use.
Peak downlink speed 3.5 Gbps. A smartphone-form-factor speed record for this part of the band, but more important as a proof point for practical mobility.

Why this trial stands out:

In early 6G discussions, spectrum, coverage, and deployment economics are inseparable. Higher-frequency bands can offer more capacity, but they often demand denser networks and new site builds; that is precisely why the Sydney result matters.ericsson+1

Optus and Nokia’s trial suggests upper 6 GHz may offer a useful compromise: enough bandwidth for high throughput, yet enough propagation performance—when paired with advanced antenna techniques—to preserve broad-area coverage on existing infrastructure.telconews.com+1

What was tested:

According to the reported trial details, the teams used 200 MHz of upper 6 GHz spectrum, divided into two 100 MHz channels between 6,890 MHz and 7,090 MHz. Nokia’s proof-of-concept AirScale massive MIMO active antenna unit used 768 antenna elements and 128 transceiver chains at an existing Optus site operating alongside a live 5G network.telconews.com+1

That setup matters because it moves the conversation beyond lab conditions. A field trial on a live site is a better indicator of how upper 6 GHz may behave in real deployments, where interference, propagation, and network integration all shape performance.telconews.com+1

The bigger 6G implication:

The strongest signal from the trial is economic, not just technical. If operators can use upper 6 GHz with existing towers and familiar radio footprints, they may be able to introduce early 6G services without rebuilding their networks from scratch.telconews.com+1

That would be a major shift in how the industry thinks about 6G rollout. Instead of requiring an entirely new layer of dense infrastructure, upper 6 GHz could become a practical evolution path from 5G to 6G, especially for operators seeking capacity gains without a full civil-engineering reset.nokia+1

Spectrum policy:

This trial also lands in the middle of a broader spectrum-policy debate. The upper 6 GHz band is widely viewed as strategically important for future mobile networks, and results like this strengthen the case for allocating at least part of the band to licensed mobile use.ericsson+1

At the same time, the band remains attractive for other services, including unlicensed use cases. The Sydney trial does not settle that debate, but it does provide real-world evidence that upper 6 GHz is not merely theoretical: it can deliver both range and capacity under conditions that resemble operational deployment.

Quotes:

Conclusions:

The Optus-Nokia result is not a commercial 6G launch, but it is a meaningful milestone. A smartphone-form-factor speed record is eye-catching; the more consequential finding is that upper 6 GHz may be deployable on today’s network footprint with far less infrastructure disruption than many expected.  That would significantly improve the business case for upper 6 GHz. If network operators can reuse existing sites and achieve coverage similar to 5G 3.5 GHz, then the transition from trial to deployment could be less capital-intensive than many expected.

For network operators, regulators, and vendors, that is the kind of evidence that can shape both deployment strategy and spectrum decisions. If upper 6 GHz continues to perform this well in additional trials, it could become one of the most important bands in the transition from 5G-Advanced to 6G.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Frequently Asked Questions:

What is massive MIMO and why does the antenna element count matter for upper 6GHz performance?

Massive MIMO (multiple-input multiple-output) is a technology that uses a large array of antennas at a base station to serve multiple users simultaneously in the same frequency resource, using spatial beamforming to direct signal energy precisely toward each device. Higher frequencies like upper 6GHz experience greater signal loss over distance than lower 5G frequencies — so more antenna elements are needed to compensate through more precise beamforming gain. The Nokia antenna in the Optus trial packs 768 elements into a proof-of-concept unit; commercial 5G radios typically use around 192. That difference in element count is the primary reason the Optus trial reached 3.5Gbps while Vodafone’s October 2025 trial with a less advanced antenna reached 2.5Gbps using the same 200MHz bandwidth.

Will upper 6GHz 6G services actually reach consumers without new towers being built?

The Optus trial’s outdoor coverage result suggests it may be possible — but only if the antenna hardware at existing sites is upgraded. The 768-element Nokia antenna compensates for upper 6GHz’s higher path loss through beamforming, matching the coverage footprint of a 3.5GHz 5G cell. Nokia’s CTO has previously confirmed that a 768-element array at 7GHz can fit in approximately the same physical enclosure as a standard 5G unit, because the higher frequency means each element is smaller. If that holds through production hardware, operators could upgrade existing sites rather than build new ones — a critical factor in the cost and timeline of any 6G rollout.

Why does Australia’s spectrum regulator have to decide about upper 6GHz, and what are the options?

The upper 6GHz band (6,425–7,125MHz) is currently under a spectrum embargo from ACMA, meaning no new licenses can be issued while it evaluates how to use the band. The core decision is whether to allocate upper 6GHz to licensed mobile networks (enabling 6G), to unlicensed Wi-Fi (enabling Wi-Fi 6E/7 at higher outdoor power), or to some sharing framework. Mobile operators argue they need the spectrum for future 6G. The Wi-Fi industry argues the same spectrum would dramatically expand outdoor Wi-Fi capacity. There is no technical path that gives both industries full access to the same frequencies simultaneously — ACMA will need to choose, and the Optus-Nokia trial results are now part of the evidence base it will weigh.

What happens globally if countries allocate upper 6GHz differently — mobile in some, Wi-Fi in others?

This is the central risk that the GSMA and mobile standards bodies have identified since WRC-23. If a significant portion of the world’s population — particularly the US, which has already dedicated the full 6GHz band to unlicensed Wi-Fi — does not align on upper 6GHz for mobile, device manufacturers will face a fragmented market: 6G handsets designed for global use cannot rely on upper 6GHz connectivity in all markets. The result would be regional rather than global 6G ecosystems, with separate equipment lines and higher costs. Australia’s decision, while one country among many, will contribute to the critical-mass calculation for whether the WRC-23 mobile identification becomes commercially viable or remains a regulatory aspiration without a unified device ecosystem behind it.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

References:

https://www.optus.com.au/about/media-centre/media-releases/2026/08/optus-advances-australias-6g-future

https://www.techtimes.com/articles/323105/20260805/australias-6g-trial-clears-35gbps-upper-6ghz-using-existing-tower-sites.htm

How NTIA “Call to Action for 6G Leadership and Security” might influence 6G/IMT-2030 standards and 3GPP specifications

3GPP approves timelines for Release 21 which will specify 6G RAN, Core and 5G Advanced

IMT-2030 (“6G”) Minimum Technology Performance Requirements for Radio Interface Technologies

ITU-R M.[IMT-2030.EVAL] & ITU-R M.[IMT-2030.SUBMISSION] reports: Evaluation & Submission Guidelines for 6G RIT/SRITs (6G)

Roles of 3GPP and ITU-R WP 5D in the IMT 2030/6G standards process

Dell’Oro: 6G RAN Capex to reach $500 billion by 2034 + Counterpoint

ABI Research: 6G Radio Installed Base by Region from 2029 to 2034

Analysis: Cohere’s $28M U.S. DoD FutureG ISAC contract; OTFS vs OFDM; 6G-NR/IMT 2030 RIT standards outlook

Analysis: Ericsson’s leading role in French INTENTION 6G project

Analysis: Nvidia’s rumored new 6G AI-RAN – likely features/functions and industry impact

Analysis: Nokia’s new AI-RAN platform and Standalone AI-RAN node with Nvidia GPUs

Ericsson and Intel collaborate to accelerate AI-Native 6G; other AI-Native 6G advancements at MWC 2026

NVIDIA and global telecom leaders to build 6G on open and secure AI-native platforms + Linux Foundation launches OCUDU

Nokia and Rohde & Schwarz collaborate on AI-powered 6G receiver years before IMT 2030 RIT submissions to ITU-R WP5D

AI wireless and fiber optic network technologies; IMT 2030 “native AI” concept

Comparing AI Native mode in 6G (IMT 2030) vs AI Overlay/Add-On status in 5G (IMT 2020)

SKT 6G ATHENA White Paper: a mid-to-long term network evolution strategy for the AI era

Verizon’s 6G Innovation Forum joins a crowded list of 6G efforts that may conflict with 3GPP and ITU-R IMT-2030 work

Highlights of 3GPP Stage 1 Workshop on IMT 2030 (6G) Use Cases

Ericsson and e& (UAE) sign MoU for 6G collaboration vs ITU-R IMT-2030 framework

 

Ookla: U.S. dominates global WiFi 7 while adoption grew 4X to 7.2% by Q1-2026

Posted on by Alan Weissberger

Introduction:

According to Ookla’s new WiFi report, cablecos Spectrum (Charter) is the largest Wi-Fi 7 provider in the world!  WiFi 7 is actually IEEE 802.11be, also known as Extremely High Throughput (EHT).

Following  Ookla’s recent report on The Global State of Wi-Fi , this article focuses on the U.S. and updates last year’s Wi-Fi 7 Speeds Up in the U.S. report.  Key points:

  • Adoption of Wi-Fi 7—the latest Wi-Fi generation currently in market deployment—has only just started to gain meaningful traction in the United States.
  • Prototypes for Wi-Fi 8 are expected soon, and commercial availability could follow in roughly two years. Meanwhile, discussion of Wi-Fi 9 is already beginning among industry observers.
  • Fiber drives penetration, Cable drives scale: National Wi-Fi 7 adoption hit 7.2% in Q1 2026. Non-cable ISPs led in customer base penetration by CenturyLink (14.7%) and Frontier (14.3%). Cable giants owned the total volume, with Spectrum alone commanding 24.9% of all U.S. Wi-Fi 7 Speedtest samples.
  • U.S. dominated global Wi-Fi 7 footprint: U.S. providers accounted for half of the top 10 Wi-Fi 7 networks globally by sample volume, with Spectrum taking the #1 spot in the world, followed by Comcast Xfinity at #2.
  • Cable upstream upgrades paying off: Cable’s spectrum splits combined with Wi-Fi 7 drove large performance gains, particularly for Xfinity’s median Wi-Fi 7 upload speeds, which more than doubled YoY to 108.8 Mbps.
  • 6 GHz band enters the mainstream: Unlicensed 6 GHz spectrum usage jumped 62% YoY to represent 13.8% of total U.S. Wi-Fi sample traffic, reflecting both router upgrades and user device (smartphone/laptop) maturity.
  • FCC security rules won’t stifle next-gen Wi-Fi: While foreign router restrictions initially cast a broad net, the FCC’s conditional approval process established a de facto ban isolated to Chinese entities. Because Chinese vendors hold nearly no share of 6 GHz / Wi-Fi 7 hardware, regulatory actions appear unlikely to impede U.S. Wi-Fi 7 rollout momentum.

Wi-Fi 7 is finally here:

Wi-Fi 7 began commercial rollout in early 2024. At the end of Q1 2024, Speedtest samples showed adoption below 1%. One year later, sample shares remained in the low single digits across providers, reaching only 1.8% overall in Q1 2025.  By Q1 2026, however, Wi-Fi 7 adoption had increased by 300%, reaching a 7.2% share of Wi-Fi router generations across all providers. That average masks substantial variation by operator. Among leading providers, CenturyLink (14.7%) and Frontier Fiber (14.3%) were about twice the national adoption rate, while Ziply Fiber (13.3%) and MetroNet (13.0%) were also close to that level. These customer bases appear to be moving from the early-adopter phase toward the early majority, using the terminology of Crossing the Chasm.

The cable operators Cox, Spectrum, and Xfinity reported lower Wi-Fi 7 shares among their own customer samples—4.5%, 6.6%, and 4.0%, respectively—than the national average. However, because of their large subscriber bases, their relative importance becomes more apparent when Wi-Fi 7 samples are measured as a share of all U.S. Wi-Fi 7 observations. On that basis, Spectrum’s 6.6% share within its customer base translated to 24.9% of all U.S. Wi-Fi 7 samples in Q1 2026.

CableCos: The cable companies Cox, Spectrum, and Xfinity had relatively lower shares of Wi-Fi 7 samples (4.5%, 6.6%, and 4.0%) than the national average. However, with Spectrum’s and Xfinity’s large customer bases, their Wi-Fi 7 leadership is revealed by flipping from Wi-Fi 7 adoption among providers’ customer base to a providers’ share of all Wi-Fi 7 Speedtest samples. In other words, Spectrum’s 6.6% share of Wi-Fi 7 Speedtest users in its customer base (above), instead compared to all Wi-Fi 7 samples in the U.S.  reveals that Spectrum owned a quarter (24.9%) of all Wi-Fi 7 (below) in Q1 2026.

Spectrum’s share of Wi-Fi 7 was 2x larger than Xfinity (12.4%) and Frontier (11.9%). On the other end, the long tail of “Other ISPs” averaged just 0.03% share across the 689 providers measured with Speedtest samples (24.0% all together).

Wi-Fi 7 adoption in the U.S. also leads Wi-Fi 7 globally. Based on its share of Speedtest samples, Spectrum is the world’s largest provider of Wi-Fi 7, heading a pack of five U.S. providers out of the top 10.

Top 10 Rank of Global Wi-Fi 7 Speedtest Samples, Q1 2026

Rank Provider Country
1 Spectrum United States
2 Xfinity United States
3 China Telecom China
4 Frontier Fiber United States
5 WINDTRE Italy
6 AT&T Fiber United States
7 Free France
8 CenturyLink United States
9 China Unicom China
10 HiNet Taiwan

Spectrum will add to its total of Wi-Fi 7 users when parent Charter Communications completes its anticipated Cox Communications merger in mid-to-late August. However, as a share of its own customer base, Cox had just 4.5% of its customers measured on Wi-Fi 7 with Speedtest samples. This will slightly dilute the share of Wi-Fi 7 of the merged entity’s base.

China Telecom and China Unicom make the list because their customer bases are massive (439 million mobile subscribers and 232 million 5G network customers in Q4 2025, respectively). However, the 6 GHz spectrum band in China, that Wi-Fi 7 could take advantage of, is licensed for mobile telecommunications (i.e., 5G and 6G) rather than for public, unlicensed Wi-Fi use.

More spectrum, more capacity, faster Wi-Fi:

Adoption of Wi-Fi 7 (and Wi-Fi 6E) has led to increased use of the 6 GHz spectrum frequency band (1,200 MHz from 5.925 GHz to 7.125 GHz of unlicensed spectrum). The growth in the use of this band not only comes from Wi-Fi routers, but also the end-user device – laptops, tablets, and smartphones. (Both ends of the connection require the newer Wi-Fi technology capability.) 6 GHz usage increased 62% from Q1 2025 to Q1 2026, accounting for 13.8% of Speedtest samples in the U.S.

More spectrum and new equipment, along with operators’ improvements to their networks, resulted in steady year-over-year gains in download and upload speeds. For all fixed providers, the median download speed in Q1 2026 of 316.34 Mbps was 76% faster than it was in Q1 2022. And the median upload speed in Q1 2026 of 68.31 was 3x faster. Since fiber ISPs tend to provide symmetrical speeds for download and upload, the overall gain in the median upload speed is due to cable providers’ network changes in uplink spectrum capacity (thanks to “mid-splits” and “high-splits”).

Overall, speeds by providers across different generations of Wi-Fi have not changed much from the prior year. While headline-grabbing multi-gig speed rate plan announcements draw eyeballs, what really helped overall speeds and latency improve is what happens when customers upgrade their devices and routers. (The latest Wi-Fi 7 doesn’t have to be the solution to a better customer experience. Sometimes an upgrade to Wi-Fi 6E, or even just Wi-Fi 6 is the right fit for the customer’s needs.) In the case of the router upgrade, if it is leased or purchased through their provider, the customer may be optimizing their plan to a faster (or slower, but usually faster) speed tier to better align their needs with the technology’s capabilities. This mix shift to newer technologies lifts speed performance at each step in Wi-Fi generation.

Overall, Xfinity stood out. Its Wi-Fi 6E and Wi-Fi 7 median upload speeds more than doubled year on year from 41.74 Mbps and 41.45 Mbps in Q1 2025 to 99.43 Mbps and 108.76 Mbps in Q1 2026. Not only does this help differentiate performance from fixed wireless access (FWA) providers like AT&T Internet Air and T-Mobile 5G Home Internet, uplink speeds (and latency) are critical metrics in the technology discussion about AI (artificial intelligence) readiness.

References:

Ericsson leads SK Telecom AI RAN vs. NVIDIA’s GPU centric AI RAN Alliance

Posted on by Alan Weissberger

Executive Summary:

Ericsson says it has been selected as the sole global technology partner in SK Telecom’s consortium for Korea’s Hyper-AI Network Infrastructure Demonstration Project, a South Korea government-backed initiative led by the Ministry of Science and ICT and the National Information Society Agency. The program is intended to validate AI-RAN pilot networks as a cornerstone of Korea’s national “AI Highway” strategy and its longer-term 6G roadmap.

Ericsson’s contribution [1.] to this project centers on the RAN and the automation layer that surrounds it. According to Ericsson, its role in the project includes 5G Standalone expertise, AI-in-RAN capabilities, and intelligent network automation through the Ericsson Intelligent Automation Platform (EIAP) and AI-powered rApps, enabling autonomous control, resource orchestration, and real-time optimization for physical AI services.  Ericsson is not being positioned as a general AI infrastructure provider, but as the core network technology partner bringing telco-grade RAN, automation, and orchestration into a live industrial validation environment.  Ericsson will contribute what it calls an “end-to-end network foundation” to the project that is intended to connect and continuously optimize intelligent machines and autonomous industrial operations. In the second phase of the project, Ericsson’s AI-RAN pilot network is expected to be applied to a real-world logistics environment at KG Mobility’s Pyeongtaek plant.

Note 1.  It’s interesting to note that Ericsson is a founding member of the Nvidia GPU centric AI-RAN Alliance, contributing the operator-centric “AI-for-RAN” perspective by embedding telco-grade AI into basebands and radios to improve network performance, automation, and energy efficiency.  The company’s delegates hold leadership roles in the alliance’s working groups and technical committees.

For telecom operators, the significance is not just radio performance but the shift toward a network architecture that can support physical AI use cases with tighter latency, stronger uplink capacity, and higher service assurance. SK Telecom plans to demonstrate AI-RAN pilots through 2027 across scenarios such as autonomous transport, industrial safety monitoring, and humanoid robotics, with a second-phase deployment targeted for KG Mobility’s Pyeongtaek plant.

Sibel Tombaz, Head of Customer Unit Korea, Ericsson, says: “Being selected as a key global technology partner in this government-backed Hyper-AI Network consortium is a significant recognition of Ericsson’s technology leadership and our long-term partnership with SK Telecom. Korea is moving with clear ambition to shape the future of AI-native networks and 6G, and Ericsson is proud to contribute our global expertise in 5G, AI-RAN, orchestration, and intelligent network automation to this important national initiative. We look forward to working closely with SK Telecom and the consortium partners to help turn Korea’s 6G vision into real industrial value.”

Takki Yu, VP and Head of Network R&D at SK Telecom, says: “As a key national project supporting Korea’s Hyper-AI Network strategy, SK Telecom is pleased to collaborate with Ericsson as a key technology partner to advance AI-RAN technology through global cooperation. Together, we aim to build a strategic win-win partnership, demonstrate real industrial value, and help strengthen Korea’s AI-RAN technology capabilities and ecosystem for the future.”

Comparison with NVIDIA GPU centric AI-RAN Alliance:

The SK Telecom–Ericsson initiative and the NVIDIA-led AI-RAN ecosystem share a common thesis: the RAN is evolving into a distributed compute platform that can host or coordinate AI workloads closer to where data is generated. But they emphasize different layers of the stack. SK Telecom’s Ericsson-led project is centered on operator-grade RAN validation, network autonomy, and physical AI service delivery in industrial settings, while NVIDIA’s effort is broader and more compute-centric, tied to AI factories, GPU infrastructure, and open 6G ecosystem development.

  • NVIDIA is a founding member of the AI-RAN Alliance and acts as one of its most visible technical drivers, contributing reference architectures and accelerated-computing platforms for AI-RAN.
  • Ericsson is the operator-focused RAN technology partner proving AI-RAN in live telco and industrial network deployments.
Dimension SK Telecom + Ericsson NVIDIA-led AI-RAN Alliance
Primary focus AI-RAN pilot networks for physical AI and industrial deployment AI-native infrastructure, open 6G ecosystems, and large-scale AI compute
Core value proposition RAN performance, autonomy, orchestration, and telco-grade service assurance Accelerated computing, AI factories, and programmable AI-native network platforms
Typical emphasis 5G Standalone, differentiated connectivity, uplink, mobility, and low-latency industrial use cases Full-stack AI infrastructure and ecosystem alignment for next-generation wireless
Deployment style Operator-led pilots and real-world industrial validation Multi-stakeholder architecture and platform collaboration across telecom and compute
Korea relevance National “AI Highway” and physical AI demonstrations AI cloud and broader AI infrastructure development in Korea

The practical takeaway is that Ericsson’s role is more narrowly telecom-native, while NVIDIA’s consortium is more infrastructure- and compute-oriented. For 6G, the two approaches are complementary rather than contradictory: one is proving how the network behaves as a deterministic industrial platform, the other is building the compute substrate that can feed AI-native services into that platform.ericsson+2

Why it matters:

SKT announced the Hyper-AI Network Infrastructure Development project last month, and at the time Ericsson, Nokia, Samsung and private mobile networking specialist HFR were named as those providing the kit and related network and software solutions.

South Korea has become one of the most advanced and competitive mobile markets, and this makes it a useful proving ground for AI-RAN. If the SK Telecom pilot succeeds, it could strengthen the case that future mobile networks must support not only connectivity, but distributed inference, orchestration, and machine control for robots, vehicles, and industrial systems.

From a standards and market perspective, the more interesting question is how these pilots influence the eventual division of labor between RAN, edge compute, and centralized AI infrastructure in 6G-era networks. That is where the SK Telecom–Ericsson model, with its operator-led network validation, may prove especially influential.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

References:

https://www.ericsson.com/en/press-releases/2026/8/skt-hyper-ai-consortium

https://www.telecoms.com/ai/ericsson-named-sole-global-vendor-for-sk-telecom-s-hyper-ai-consortium

Ericsson goes with custom silicon (rather than Nvidia GPUs) for AI RAN

Dell’Oro: AI RAN revenue forecast: $35B from 2026-to-2030; 3 types of AI RAN explained

Dell’Oro: RAN Market Stabilized in 2025 with 1% CAG forecast over next 5 years; Opinion on AI RAN, 5G Advanced, 6G RAN/Core risks

Dell’Oro: Analysis of the Nokia-NVIDIA-partnership on AI RAN

RAN silicon rethink – from purpose built products & ASICs to general purpose processors or GPUs for vRAN & AI RAN

Dell’Oro: AI RAN to account for 1/3 of RAN market by 2029; AI RAN Alliance membership increases but few telcos have joined

Dell’Oro: RAN revenue growth in 1Q2025; AI RAN is a conundrum

 

How NTIA “Call to Action for 6G Leadership and Security” might influence 6G/IMT-2030 standards and 3GPP specifications

Posted on by Alan Weissberger

Introduction:

The U.S. National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) has launched the “Call to Action for 6G Leadership and Security,” a multilateral initiative uniting more than 20 like-minded governments to coordinate on a shared vision for open, interoperable, secure, and resilient 6G networks. While politically significant, the effort operates alongside—not in place of—the established technical standards ecosystem led by 3GPP and ITU-R, and its impact will hinge on closing critical supply-chain and participation gaps.

“The Call to Action for 6G Leadership and Security reflects an unprecedented level of international coordination on the future of communications technology,” said Arielle Roth, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information and NTIA Administrator. “Today’s action recognizes that 6G will be dramatically different from 5G, and that advancing U.S. and allied leadership requires a dramatically different playbook. By working now with trusted partners, we will ensure that next generation networks reflect our shared security interests, strengthen our competitiveness, and drive innovation. I am proud of the role NTIA has played in building this global partnership, and I look forward to seeing our shared commitments translated into meaningful action.”

NTIA is launching this initiative alongside more than 20 partner governments spanning Europe, the Indo-Pacific, and the Western Hemisphere. Through the Call to Action, participating governments have pledged to strengthen cooperation on 6G over the next 12 months and beyond in support of security, interoperability, and resilience in next generation networks. The initiative also recognizes that trusted artificial intelligence (AI) will be central to the development and operation of secure and innovative 6G networks for the United States and its global partners.

Initiative scope and strategic alignment:

The Call to Action explicitly advances the objectives of President Trump’s December 2025 Presidential Memorandum on “Winning the 6G Race,” which frames 6G as foundational to U.S. national security, foreign policy, and economic prosperity. Participating governments commit to strengthening cooperation over the next 12 months and beyond on security, interoperability, and resilience, with an emphasis on trusted AI as central to 6G operations. The document also stresses avoiding duplication with industry-driven standards bodies while exploring constructive interfaces with private-sector stakeholders.

 

Initial milestones include establishing government points of contact, engaging industry and academia, identifying barriers to leadership, and exploring ways to strengthen secure and resilient supply chains.

Membership composition and notable absences:

The coalition includes the United States and key advanced-economy partners with strong mobile capabilities and intellectual property portfolios—among them Finland, Sweden, Japan, and South Korea—alongside a broader set of allies across Europe, the Indo-Pacific, and the Western Hemisphere. However, several strategically important economies are not signatories, including India, Vietnam, and Taiwan, as well as Thailand, Malaysia, and Mexico.ntia+2

  • India and Taiwan participate in various Huawei-free supply initiatives but are not part of this specific Call to Action.

  • Vietnam maintains a cautious posture toward China and has pursued domestic 5G equipment development, yet it remains outside the current framework.

These absences matter because 6G security is only as strong as its end-to-end supply chain. A credible security posture requires participation from low- to medium-cost manufacturing hubs aspiring to grow their hardware sectors—an endeavor that demands coordinated reshoring and friend-shoring at scale.

Standards reality check – 3GPP and ITU-R WP5D remain responsible:

This NTIA led alliance is a high-level political and policy forum; it does not set 6G standards or specifications. The NTIA will likely shape U.S. positions and coordinate federal input so that U.S. industry contributions to 3GPP and ITU‑R reflect national security, spectrum, and innovation priorities. In practice, NTIA’s role is policy, spectrum, and interagency coordination, while the detailed 6G standards are produced by 3GPP and then submitted to ITU‑R WP5D for IMT‑2030 approval.  Technical standardization will continue to be driven by:

  • 3GPP Release 21, expected to deliver the first set of 3GPP 6G technical specifications and serve as the basis for IMT-2030 submission before 2030.

    • The Release 21 timeline is to be finalized by June 2026, with ASN.1/OpenAPI freeze no earlier than March 2029 (some industry views target end-2028).

  • ITU-R WP5D, which is developing the IMT-2030 framework and evaluation guidelines, and has opened a submission window for candidate Radio Interface Technologies (RIT/SRIT) from February 2027 to February 2029.itu+3

IMT-2030 RIT/SRIT submissions are expected to align closely with 3GPP Release 21 outputs. The Call to Action can help smooth policy disagreements and align security priorities, but it cannot override or replace these processes; at worst, it risks adding another layer of complexity or politicization if not carefully scoped.

How NTIA interfaces with 3GPP:

  • Policy and requirements feed‑in: NTIA gathers input from industry, academia, and other agencies (e.g., via its 6G Request for Comments and the Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee) to inform the U.S. government’s 6G policy and priorities. Those priorities—open, interoperable, secure, and reliable architectures; public‑safety needs; and spectrum alignment—are then reflected in U.S. positions carried into 3GPP by U.S. standards bodies and companies.

  • Standards‑body channel via ATIS: In 3GPP, the U.S. Organizational Partner is ATIS. NTIA does not sit inside 3GPP as a member, but it works with ATIS and U.S. stakeholders to ensure that federal requirements (e.g., for public safety, security, and spectrum harmonization) are represented in 3GPP work items and technical reports. For example, the FirstNet Authority (working under a congressional mandate) actively participates in 3GPP to advance public‑safety requirements into 5G‑Advanced and 6G.

  • Spectrum and R&D alignment: NTIA’s National Spectrum Strategy and federal R&D programs are designed to make sure that the bands and research directions needed for 6G are available and de‑risked before 3GPP locks in key radio and system designs. This indirectly shapes what is feasible in 3GPP Release 21 (the expected first 6G release).

How NTIA interfaces with ITU‑R WP5D (IMT‑2030):

  • U.S. administration role in ITU‑R: NTIA is the U.S. administration for ITU‑R matters. It coordinates U.S. government positions, prepares proposals, and supports U.S. delegations at ITU‑R WP5D meetings, including WP5D’s work on IMT‑2030 (6G) RIT/SRITs.

  • Requirements and evaluation framework: ITU‑R WP5D defines the IMT‑2030 framework, minimum performance requirements, and evaluation guidelines for candidate 6G radio technologies (RIT/SRIT). NTIA helps ensure that U.S. views on security, resilience, spectrum, and public‑safety are reflected in these high‑level requirements and evaluation criteria.

  • From 3GPP specs to IMT approval: 3GPP develops the actual 6G technical specifications (expected to be completed around 2028–2029 for Release 21) and, through ATIS, submits them to ITU‑R WP5D as the primary IMT‑2030 candidate. WP5D then evaluates the candidates against its requirements and, if they pass, incorporates them into ITU Recommendations. NTIA’s role here is to coordinate the U.S. position on those evaluations and the resulting Recommendations, not to write the 3GPP specs themselves.

In summary NTIA influences 6G standards indirectly—through spectrum policy, federal R&D, interagency coordination, and U.S. positions in ITU‑R—while relying on ATIS and U.S. industry to carry those priorities into 3GPP’s technical work and into ITU‑R’s IMT‑2030 process.

Implications for 6G security and supply-chain resilience:

The new NTIA‑led Call to Action is a multilateral policy forum which could:

  • Align partner governments on shared security and interoperability principles that then inform national positions in 3GPP and ITU‑R.

  • Support supply‑chain and trusted‑AI initiatives that underpin secure 6G deployments, complementing the technical standards produced by 3GPP and approved by ITU‑R.

The initiative’s greatest value lies in creating a trusted, action-oriented forum to:

  • Coordinate on security-by-design principles, including open interfaces, interoperability, and resilience requirements that can feed into national procurement and regulatory frameworks.benton+1

  • Accelerate trusted AI integration into 6G network operations and management.ntia+1

  • Map and mitigate supply-chain vulnerabilities, especially for radio access network (RAN) components, semiconductors, and test/measurement ecosystems.

However, without bringing in pivotal manufacturing and assembly locations—particularly in South and Southeast Asia and Latin America—the alliance risks leaving the most exposed links in the 6G supply chain unaddressed.

From political alignment to measurable impact:

Given the proliferation of 6G alliances, the Call to Action must demonstrate tangible progress to remain relevant. Priority actions include:

  • Operationalize working groups within 12 months to produce concrete guidance on secure RAN architectures, AI-enabled operations, and resilience metrics.ntia+1

  • Bridge to standards work by channeling consensus positions into 3GPP and ITU-R via national standards bodies and industry coalitions, without duplicating technical workstreams.benton+1

  • Expand the circle by engaging non-signatory economies through targeted supply-chain and innovation programs, making participation economically attractive to members.

If executed with discipline, the Call to Action can reduce fragmentation, elevate security baselines, and de-risk the path to commercial 6G. If not, it may become another layer of diplomacy with limited effect on the technical and industrial realities that will define 6G.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

References:

https://www.ntia.gov/press-release/2026/ntia-launches-global-call-action-6g-leadership-and-security

https://www.ntia.gov/sites/default/files/2026-07/call-to-action-for-6g-leadership-and-security.pdf

https://www.lightreading.com/6g/new-us-6g-alliance-must-show-it-can-make-a-difference

Roles of 3GPP and ITU-R WP 5D in the IMT 2030/6G standards process

IMT-2030 (“6G”) Minimum Technology Performance Requirements for Radio Interface Technologies

ITU-R M.[IMT-2030.EVAL] & ITU-R M.[IMT-2030.SUBMISSION] reports: Evaluation & Submission Guidelines for 6G RIT/SRITs (6G)

ITU-R WP5D IMT 2030 Submission & Evaluation Guidelines vs 6G specs in 3GPP Release 20 & 21

ITU-R WP 5D Timeline for submission, evaluation process & consensus building for IMT-2030 (6G) RITs/SRITs

Comparing AI Native mode in 6G (IMT 2030) vs AI Overlay/Add-On status in 5G (IMT 2020)

AI wireless and fiber optic network technologies; IMT 2030 “native AI” concept

Verizon’s 6G Innovation Forum joins a crowded list of 6G efforts that may conflict with 3GPP and ITU-R IMT-2030 work

Highlights of 3GPP Stage 1 Workshop on IMT 2030 (6G) Use Cases

Ericsson and e& (UAE) sign MoU for 6G collaboration vs ITU-R IMT-2030 framework

Analysis: Cell Tower Companies (towercos) & market forecast with small cells in the lead

Posted on by Alan Weissberger

Over the last few years, mobile network operators all over the world generated cash to fund their 5G buildouts by selling cell towers [1.]. Private equity has also entered the market in this period, and consolidation is expected to continue. There are hundreds of smaller tower companies that could be aggregated into a company that could rival American Tower, if the private equity firms have a strong desire to invest in them.  They certainly have deep enough pockets.

Tower assets are monetized over multiple decades, in which the value is derived from the sum of its parts, rather than individual locations.  Because of this, the average revenue per tower is surprisingly low on an annual basis.

Note 1.  Cell Towers are telecommunications sites capable of transmitting 4G and 5G “New Radio” signals for wide-area coverage. They are typically 50 to 200 feet tall and designed to blend into the natural environment to limit the aesthetic impact.  5G cell towers use a combination of low, mid, and high-frequency bands for various connectivity use cases. For example, macrocell antennas can be installed on towers to efficiently deliver low-frequency cellular coverage to millions of devices over a large region. Low-band 5G can travel far distances and penetrate walls, windows, and other physical barriers.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

RAN Research expects the number of cell towers to increase, yet the revenue generated per tower is projected to decline.  For the towercos that post public data, the highest results are: ~$7,000 for China Tower, ~$13,000 for Indus Towers, to over $70,000 for American Tower.  However, these headline public figures only scratch the surface. The reality is far more complex: utilization varies dramatically, portfolios are a mix of owned and leased assets, and amortization reshapes how these towers should be valued. A $70,000 annual return, for example, is actually more like $1.4 million over a 20-year lifecycle.

The market research firm expects total annual tower revenue to reach $173.83 billion in 2031, up from roughly $120–$130 billion in 2026. While top-line revenues are climbing due to higher lease rates, the physical asset market (hardware and construction) is growing at a more measured pace—rising from $30.07 billion in 2026 to $34.3 billion by 2031 at a 2.67% Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR). This disparity highlights a major industry shift: the market is transitioning from rapid greenfield building toward maximizing co-location leasing, structural density, and secondary infrastructure monetization.

RAN Research’s analysis is based on determining an average revenue per tower in each of the regions and then applying this to the number of towers. It is focused on the large towers that support the wide area footprint of the macro cell network.  Asia is the biggest market, the firm says.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

The top 10 cell tower companies worldwide operate millions of macro sites combined. Led by state-backed giants and massive independent multinational operators, the largest owners include:

  • China Tower: The world’s largest cellular tower company, managing roughly 2.15 million sites exclusively across China. 
  • Indus Towers: Based in India and majority-owned by Bharti Airtel, operating over 259,000 towers. 
  • Altius (Brookfield-owned): A major Indian infrastructure operator managing around 257,000 sites. 
  • Summit Digitel: A massive digital communications infrastructure provider operating heavily in India with over 150,000 sites. 
  • American Tower Corporation (AMT): Headquartered in Boston, the largest international and independent tower real estate investment trust (REIT), managing nearly 149,000 sites across the U.S., Latin America, Europe, and Africa/APAC. 
  • Cellnex Telecom: Europe’s leading independent wireless telecommunication operator, managing over 100,000 to 138,000 infrastructure sites across 12 European nations. 
  • BSNL Tower Corporation: A state-backed Indian tower operator controlling tens of thousands of communication sites.
  • edotco Group: A pan-Asian regional tower infrastructure company owned by Axiata Group, operating over 50,000 sites across 9 countries. 
  • Vantage Towers: A prominent European tower infrastructure company spun out of Vodafone, managing upwards of 45,000 sites. 
  • Crown Castle: A major U.S.-focused infrastructure provider owning over 40,000 towers alongside an extensive footprint of small cells and fiber routes.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Market Size & Projections (2026–2031) via Google Gemini:

The 2026–2031 forecast window marks the definitive shift of 5G infrastructure from macro tower builds to hyper-dense, street-level, and indoor deployments. Because high-frequency 5G mid-band and millimeter-wave (mmWave) signals struggle to penetrate buildings, the industry is relying heavily on small cells and neutral host operating models to solve the multi-carrier coverage puzzle economically. The global small cell networks market is projected to skyrocket from $37.14 billion in 2026 to $147.56 billion by 2031, expanding at a massive 31.74% CAGR.
Because market value is split between long-term leasing revenue and physical asset value, leading research firms evaluate the forecast through specific industry layers:

Market Layer / Sub-Sector 2026 Valuation 2031 Projected Valuation CAGR Primary Growth Catalyst
Global TowerCo Leases & Revenue ~$135 Billion $173.83 Billion ~5.2% Skyrocketing data consumption and Multi-tenant leasing
Physical Tower Assets & Hardware $30.07 Billion $34.30 Billion 2.67% Urban infill, macro-to-small cell handoffs
U.S. 5G Cell Towers Only $7.80 Billion $13.50 Billion 11.6% Mid-band spectrum densification, C-band rollouts
Tower Power Infrastructure $6.70 Billion $10.55 Billion 9.53% Off-grid expansions, hybrid lithium-ion & solar swaps

Core Growth Drivers:
    • 5G Standalone (SA) and Mid-Band Densification: The 2026–2031 window marks the peak expansion of 5G Standalone networks. Unlike early 5G, mid-band and millimeter-wave frequencies require dense infrastructure setups, compressing typical urban inter-site distances to under 0.5 miles. 
    • The Independent TowerCo Oligopoly Model: Telecom operators are aggressively divesting their physical tower portfolios to free up capital for spectrum licenses and core software upgrades. Independent TowerCos (like American Tower and Cellnex) are absorbing these sites, immediately optimizing them by adding multiple tenants per pole. 
    • Infrastructure Sharing (Co-location): To defend profit margins against heavy capital expenditures, operators are increasingly abandoning proprietary towers in favor of neutral host infrastructure sharing. Increasing the co-location ratio heavily expands TowerCo revenue without the cost of building new physical sites. 

Key Trends Transforming the Market:
💡 Revenue Diversification (Smart Towers)
Tower companies are transitioning from simple “dumb steel” landlords to integrated digital infrastructure providers. Throughout the forecast period, operators are retrofitting existing macro sites to house edge compute racks, EV battery-swap kiosks, and IoT gateways to maximize yield per square foot. 
🔋 The “Green Tower” Power Transition
Operational expenditure risks—primarily energy consumption and highly volatile diesel fuel prices in remote areas—are forcing a massive power overhaul. The telecom tower power system market is expanding quickly, with renewable-only installations projected to grow at a 16.45% CAGR through 2031 to hit carbon neutrality goals. 
🏙️ Rooftop & Stealth Deployments:
Zoning laws, land scarcity, and local municipal friction are making traditional lattice towers difficult to build. Rooftop deployments captured over 54% of new site footprints heading into 2026. Furthermore, aesthetically masked “stealth structures” (like camouflaged trees and flagpoles) are growing at double the rate of conventional monopoles. [1, 2, 3]
⚠️ Macroeconomic and Operational Headwinds:
    • Elevated Capital Costs: Higher long-term interest rates have widened bid-ask spreads for infrastructure transactions, making debt-fueled portfolio acquisitions more expensive and delaying consolidation. 
    • Regulatory Obstacles: Complex permitting timelines and local aesthetic restrictions continue to delay urban site construction, shifting near-term focus toward indoor small cells. 

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

References:

https://www.anscorporate.com/blog/what-is-a-5g-cell-tower

Cell Tower Forecast 2026-2031 – Rethink

RAN-Research-Cell-Tower-Forecast-2026-2031-Executive-Summary-ec806.pdf

https://www.mordorintelligence.com/industry-reports/small-cell-network-market

 

 

Analysis: Huawei”s upgraded Xinghe Intelligent Network Solution for South Africa

Posted on by Alan Weissberger

The Huawei Network Summit 2026 South Africa concluded successfully in Johannesburg, drawing more than 400 industry leaders, technical experts, and ecosystem partners.  At the event, Huawei introduced its upgraded Xinghe Intelligent Network Solution for Southern Africa, now positioned under the “Secure and Intelligent Connectivity” framework.

The announcement underscores Huawei’s continued push to enable intelligent transformation across industries in collaboration with customers and partners.  As AI agents move from experimental deployments to mission-critical production environments, network requirements are shifting accordingly. Industry attention is increasingly moving beyond token consumption metrics to Daily Active Agents (DAA), reflecting the emergence of large-scale agentic AI adoption and the need for next-generation networks with stronger performance, resilience, and security.

Leon Wang, President of Huawei’s Data Communication Product Line, said: “Real-time AI interaction, multidimensional data flow, core business security, and other scenarios are driving networks to embrace an AI-centric paradigm shift. This marks a transition from ubiquitous ultra-broadband into a new journey defined by lossless computing power, integrated communication and sensing, full-scope security, and network autonomy.”

Powered by a next-generation intelligent network foundation, Southern Africa’s digital and intelligent transformation is entering a new phase, according to Huawei.

“Johannesburg is a vibrant city rich in opportunities, connecting talent, industries and cultures across Africa,” said Vincent Chen, Vice President of Enterprise Business, Southern Africa Region, Huawei. “Today, AI is becoming a key driver of global innovation, and its adoption in Africa is transitioning from pilot exploration to real-world deployment, accelerating intelligent transformation across sectors such as finance, education and public services. For the Southern African market, Huawei’s goal is to advance intelligence across industries by collaborating with industry partners to build intelligent, secure and reliable network infrastructure for the AI era.”

The rapid growth of AI agents is creating new use cases and requirements, placing unprecedented technical demands on network infrastructure.

“Today’s enterprise network infrastructure faces four major challenges on its path to digital and intelligent transformation. These include the ever-widening gap between computing supply and demand; traffic pattern shifts driven by AI agents; surging O&M complexity; and new AI-driven attacks compounding the vulnerabilities of new systems,” said Arthur Wang, Vice President of Huawei’s Data Communication Product Line. “To address these challenges, Huawei has upgraded its Xinghe Intelligent Network Solution under a new paradigm of ‘Secure and Intelligent Connectivity.’ The first is an intelligence upgrade, expanding AI beyond O&M into the entire network. The second is a security upgrade, advancing from single-point defence to end-to-end protection that deeply converges network and security. Through these two key upgrades, we aspire to build a solid connectivity foundation for every enterprise in the Agentic AI era.”

During the event, Huawei also unveiled its upgraded Xinghe Intelligent Network product portfolio and the Xinghe AI Cloud Campus SaaS Service Platform for Southern Africa.

Shi Lei, Vice President of the NCE Data Communication Domain of Huawei’s Data Communication Product Line, said:

“In the past, intelligent O&M was a luxury exclusive to large enterprises. Now, we have deeply integrated AI into the cloud management service platform, enabling SMEs to easily access these capabilities as a cloud service. This is more than tech inclusion; it is about making AI network services genuinely accessible, affordable, and actionable.”

Analysis & Opinion:

Huawei’s upgraded Xinghe Intelligent Network Solution for South Africa reflects a clear shift toward AI-native enterprise networking, with Huawei positioning the platform around “secure intelligent connectivity.” In practical terms, the upgrade extends AI beyond operations and management into the broader network fabric, while also tightening the convergence of networking and security across campus, WAN, data center, and security domains. The announcement also ties the solution to the broader “Agentic AI era,” which suggests Huawei is targeting workloads where connectivity, automation, and security need to operate together.

For South African enterprises, the strategic value is clear: AI adoption is pushing networks to support heavier east-west traffic, lower latency, stronger segmentation, and more autonomous operations. Huawei is effectively arguing that traditional, siloed infrastructure is no longer sufficient for production AI environments.  Instead, the network must become a more autonomous, security-aware control layer that can sustain business continuity and scale with intelligent services.

The solution is strategically relevant, but its real value will depend on execution: interoperability in multivendor environments, demonstrable performance gains, and local supportability. If Huawei can substantiate its claims with measurable outcomes and robust deployment references, Xinghe could be a compelling modernization path. Otherwise, it risks being viewed as another vendor-led repositioning exercise.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

References:

Huawei unveils upgraded Xinghe Intelligent Network for Southern Africa

Huawei’s AI-Centric Network Vision: Six Imperatives for the Next Decade; Critical Questions for IEEE Techblog Community

Huawei FY2025: 2.2% YoY revenue increase; strategic pivot to AI and intelligent automotive solutions

Huawei unveils AI Centric Network roadmap, U6 GHz products, 5G Advanced strategy and SuperPoD cluster computing platforms

Huawei, Qualcomm, Samsung, and Ericsson Leading Patent Race in $15 Billion 5G Licensing Market

Huawei Cloud Review and Global Sales Partner Policies for 2026

Omdia on resurgence of Huawei: #1 RAN vendor in 3 out of 5 regions; RAN market has bottomed

Analysis & Opinion: SpaceX to build, lease or buy a hybrid/terrestrial satellite network?

Posted on by Alan Weissberger

Should SpaceX’s Starlink build, lease/rent or buy a hybrid terrestrial/satellite mobile network or perhaps do it through a mix of these alternatives. Several industry watchers see an MVNO deal as the most likely path (we agree- see Analysis & Opinion below). That way SpaceX/Starlink can deliver reliable service indoors and out because it will have access to necessary low band and mid band spectrum, plus access to its own direct-to-device (D2D) service to cover areas out of reach of the terrestrial cellular network.  Some analysts suggest that SpaceX might try to exchange some of its spectrum for an MVNO agreement, or perhaps come up with some other means to achieve that goal.

“Starlink is playing the long game. It will continue to negotiate, cajole, and, if necessary, coerce, in an effort to secure an MVNO agreement with one of the Big Three,” MoffettNathanson analyst Craig Moffett said in a recent report (subscribers only) that sized up SpaceX’s options. “It is clear, however, that the Big Three (AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile) fully understand the clear and present danger that would be posed by Starlink’s market entry as another Cable-like hybrid MNO/MVNO.”

Image Credit: Stephen Searle/Alamy Stock Photos

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

A recent a Semafor report suggests the build and buy options are both being consdiered at SpaceX, kicking it off with a lead proclaiming that “Elon Musk is coming for your cell phone networks.”  The report said SpaceX is seeking spectrum that can deliver service in “cities and dense areas,” and is exploring some options to get there that include acquiring companies that already own spectrum or obtaining spectrum at auction.

“In the most recent sign that Musk’s Starlink plans to compete directly with AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile. Musk’s SpaceX has taken other steps into the conventional telecommunications business. President Gwynne Shotwell demonstrated a prototype mobile handset to some investors earlier this year, the Wall Street Journal reported. The Financial Times also reported that Shotwell had expressed interest in building their own terrestrial networks.”

“SpaceX wants to grow its Starlink mobile business, which analysts expect to hit $15 billion in revenue this year and which SpaceX, in its IPO pitch to investors, pegged at a $740 billion market. SpaceX is working on new technologies to improve Starlink’s coverage in tree-covered areas and inside buildings, and Musk has also said he’s considered building a hybrid satellite-terrestrial network to bolster the service.”

Elon Musk has kept the door open for SpaceX to attempt a takeover of an MNO in the future. Whether any would be willing to sell is a completely different discussion.

  • Roger Entner, analyst and founder at Recon Analytics, suggested that SpaceX’s fight over the upper C-band buildout rules indicates that it’s not shopping to acquire a wireless carrier. He said it shows that SpaceX “is a company that means to win spectrum at auction and build a satellite and terrestrial hybrid network on it from the ground up, the same way it built its own dish and its own router rather than buying either off a shelf.”
  • “The key thing to look at is where SpaceX can exert pressure on the MNOs at minimal cost to itself. I expect we’ll see more rumors of a Starlink phone & cable partnership. Perhaps even a CBRS purchase from EchoStar. But strict buildout timetable now makes upper C-band unappealing,” Tim Farrar, principal at TMF Associates, explained on X.

The Semafor report notes that SpaceX’s plans are fluid, and the company could ultimately choose not to follow through. Building a network is capital intensive, requiring continuous, steady investment in both towers and spectrum —- drawing capital away from businesses that investors more richly reward, chiefly AI.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Analysis and Opinion (aided by Perplexity.ai):

 SpaceX is most likely to buy spectrum and selectively acquire/lease assets, rather then build a lean, satellite‑centric terrestrial layer — not buy a legacy carrier, and not build a Dish‑scale greenfield MNO.

This is a hybrid “buy‑then‑build” playbook: buy the airwaves (and maybe some small operators or tower portfolios) to secure optionality, then build only the terrestrial pieces that are economically justified, letting Starlink Direct‑to‑Device do the heavy lifting for coverage.

Why a pure “build” MNO is unlikely:

  • Capital allocation: SpaceX’s 2025 capex was already dominated by AI (~$18B in AI spend, with total near‑term IG funding needs around $300B before FCF turns positive). A full terrestrial MNO build would compete directly with that priority.

  • Strategic fit: SpaceX’s historical pattern is to design and build its own infrastructure, but only where it unlocks a new market or margin (rockets, satellites, user terminals). A retail MNO with dense tower grids and low ARPU is a different beast.

  • Regulatory reality: FCC rules for the EchoStar spectrum impose strict buildout and performance obligations, but they also allow blending space and ground infrastructure—exactly what a satellite‑first hybrid needs.

Why a pure “buy a carrier” is also unlikely:

  • No willing seller at the right price: Major carriers have rejected MVNO/wholesale overtures, and buying AT&T/T‑Mobile/Verizon is not realistic.

  • Asset mismatch: Legacy carriers come with large, costly tower grids and cost bases that a satellite‑terrestrial hybrid is designed to minimize.

The middle path: buy spectrum, build sparingly:

Evidence points to this as SpaceX’s actual strategy:

  • Spectrum first: The $17B EchoStar deal (AWS‑4, H‑Block, unpaired AWS‑3) gives SpaceX ~65 MHz of nationwide, exclusive, contiguous midband spectrum explicitly for direct‑to‑cell and hybrid services.

  • Auction strategy: SpaceX is expected to bid aggressively in the upcoming upper C‑band auction (3.98–4.14 GHz, 160 MHz) to secure urban capacity for a full‑service mobile offering.

  • Terrestrial as a complement: In dense areas, smartphones would connect to terrestrial base stations SpaceX plans to deploy; outside those zones, devices would switch to Starlink Direct‑to‑Cell. This keeps tower counts and capex manageable.

  • Selective M&A: Rather than buying a Big Three carrier, SpaceX is more likely to acquire spectrum‑rich smaller operators or lease/buy tower capacity where it accelerates coverage without a full build.

Bottom line:

SpaceX will almost certainly enter the U.S. mobile market as a hybrid operator, but the most capital‑efficient and strategically consistent route is:

  • Buy: spectrum (EchoStar + auctions) and possibly small, targeted assets.

  • Build: a lean terrestrial layer only where density and economics justify it, relying on satellites for the rest.

This balances a valid concern about AI’s capital pull with SpaceX’s clear intent to control the customer relationship and avoid being just a wholesale satellite internet operator.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

References:

https://www.lightreading.com/5g/spacex-might-build-and-buy-its-way-to-a-terrestrial-wireless-network-report

https://www.semafor.com/article/07/29/2026/spacex-looks-to-compete-with-the-carriers

FT: SpaceX considering Starlink Direct-to-Consumer mobile service & terrestrial cellular network infrastructure in the U.S.

Elon Musk: Starlink could become a global mobile carrier; 2 year timeframe for new smartphones

US Mobile’s new bundle combines its multi-network mobile service with Starlink residential internet

Direct-to-Device (D2D) satellite network comparison: Starlink V2 (Starlink Mobile) vs “Satellite Connect Europe”

U.S. BEAD overhaul to benefit Starlink/SpaceX at the expense of fiber broadband providers

SNS Telecom & IT: Private 5G for the Defense Sector to hit $2.5 Billion by 2029

Posted on by Alan Weissberger

SNS Telecom & IT’s latest research report indicates that cumulative spending on private 5G networks in the defense sector will reach $2.5 billion between 2026 and 2029.  The military has a longstanding history of leveraging wireless communications, and some of the most significant wireless-related innovations of the 20th century originated in the defense sector. With significant advances in COTS (Commercial Off-the-Shelf) technology over the past two decades, there has been a growing focus on complementing proprietary solutions with 3GPP standards-based networks to deliver both local and wide area coverage for capabilities extending from smart base operations and tactical networking to ISAC (Integrated Sensing & Communications)-enabled sensing for counter-drone protection.

Although public networks running over national mobile operator-owned RAN and core infrastructure are widely utilized for personal connectivity and non-sensitive IoT applications, defense sector stakeholders are increasingly turning their attention to exclusive-use, private 5G networks tailored to specific operational requirements in terms of security, access control, customization and specialized feature support.

Spearheaded by initiatives such as the United States DOW’s (Department of War) FutureG program, South Korean Ministry of National Defense’s private 5G project for unmanned and remote operations, United Kingdom MOD’s (Ministry of Defence) Project Morpheus, German Army’s D-LBO (Digitalization of Land-Based Operations), Spanish Air & Space Force’s BACSI (Connected, Sustainable & Intelligent Air Base), Italian Ministry of Defense’s DII (Defense Information Infrastructure), EU-funded 5G COMPAD 2.0 (5G Communications for Peacekeeping & Defense), NATO’s MN5G (Multinational Collaboration on 5G) and DIANA (Defence Innovation Accelerator for the North Atlantic), armed forces around the globe are actively investing in both permanent and transportable private 5G networks for warfighters at the tactical edge, military bases and training facilities. The U.S. military, for instance, has multiple deployments across the continental United States and overseas, including operational networks for the Indo-Pacific and Africa Commands. Canada, Germany, United Kingdom, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Greece, Türkiye, Ukraine, Russia, China, Australia, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, India, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Jordan, Egypt, Israel and Brazil are among the other countries where experimental and operational networks have been deployed, operating in spectrum ranging from sub-1 GHz frequencies to bands n78 (3.5 GHz), n77 (3.7 GHz) and n79 (4.4-5 GHz), as well as mmWave bands.

The expanding influence of private networks is also evident from the recent use of rapidly deployable cellular systems for enhanced communications in military exercises such as the JIFX (Joint Interagency Field Experimentation) program hosted by the Naval Postgraduate School; Washington Air National Guard’s Exercise Phoenix Dawn; Italian Navy’s OPEX (Operational Experimentation) 2-25 in the Gulf of Taranto; German Army’s urban warfare training drills; Norwegian military’s Joint Viking exercise in the Arctic Circle; SABAK, a joint exercise of the Philippine Army and USARPAC (U.S. Army Pacific) forces; U.S. Marine Corps’ Steel Knight and ITX (Integrated Training Exercise); JGSDF’s (Japan Ground Self-Defense Force) Nankai Rescue disaster response training drill; and REPMUS, an unmanned systems experimentation exercise led by the Portuguese Navy.

SNS Telecom & IT’s “Private 5G/4G Cellular Networks for Defense: 2026 – 2030” report projects that global spending on private 5G and 4G LTE networks in the defense sector will grow at a CAGR of 24% over the next three years, collectively accounting for nearly $2.5 billion in cumulative investments between 2026 and 2029. For more information, please visit: https://www.snstelecom.com/defense.

About SNS Telecom & IT

SNS Telecom & IT is a global market intelligence and consulting firm with a primary focus on the telecommunications and information technology industries. Developed by in-house subject matter experts, our market intelligence and research reports provide unique insights on both established and emerging technologies. Our areas of coverage include but are not limited to 6G, 5G, LTE, Open RAN, vRAN, small cells, mobile core, xHaul transport, network automation, mobile operator services, FWA, neutral host networks, private 4G/5G cellular networks, public safety broadband, critical communications, MCX, IIoT, V2X communications and vertical applications.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

References:

https://www.snstelecom.com/defense

SNS Telecom & IT: Private 5G Market to Reach $6.6 Billion as Physical AI Takes Hold

GSA: Global private mobile networks exceed 2,000 worldwide; Ericsson Private 5G from Verizon Business extends beyond U.S.

Private 5G networks move to include automation, autonomous systems, edge computing & AI operations

SNS Telecom & IT: Private 5G Market Nears Mainstream With $5 Billion Surge

Verizon partners with Nokia to deploy large private 5G network in the UK

SNS Telecom & IT: Private 5G and 4G LTE cellular networks for the global defense sector are a $1.5B opportunity

 

 

Highlights and Analysis of July 30th U.S. Senate hearing on AI and telecommunications

Posted on by Alan Weissberger

Disclaimer:  Perplexity.ai was used for research used to generate this article.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Introduction:

Today, U.S. Senator Deb Fischer (R-Neb), Chairman of the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Media, convened a hearing examining how artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming telecommunications networks and how the technology can enhance services across America.  Titled “Intelligent Networks: Powering Artificial Intelligence and Transforming Communications,” the hearing examined the bidirectional relationship between AI and network infrastructure. In particular, AI demands low-latency, high-bandwidth networks, while also offering tools to make those networks more efficient and secure.

Witnesses:

  • Jonathan Spalter, President and CEO, USTelecom — The Broadband Association

  • Dan Watermeier, Commissioner, Nebraska Public Service Commission

  • Bob Everson, Chief Architect of Provider Mobility, Cisco

  • Asad Ramzanali, Director of AI and Technology, Vanderbilt Policy Accelerator

From Senator Fischer’s opening remarks:

“As AI adoption increases, so will the demand for reliable and resilient communications infrastructure. Networks are the backbone along which the enormous amounts of data associated with AI are transmitted. I look forward to discussing both how networks are adapting to respond to AI and how AI is being used in networks to proactively plan for the future.”

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Permitting Reform Dominates Discussion

The clearest consensus across industry witnesses was that outdated permitting processes are the primary barrier to deploying AI-ready fiber infrastructure. Spalter testified that “the biggest barrier to building the broadband infrastructure our country needs isn’t technology or investment — it’s outdated permitting processes,” and urged Congress to establish consistent permitting timelines while preserving environmental and historic review requirements.

Watermeier emphasized that fiber is the only broadly deployable technology capable of supporting AI-era traffic, noting that “fiber optic networks can greatly exceed” the FCC’s current 100/20 Mbps threshold. Everson echoed the urgency, stating that providers are ready to build if permitting can be accelerated. Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) supported establishing permitting “shot clocks.”

Spalter also identified cybersecurity and sustainable broadband funding as essential priorities, though specific proposals on either topic were not detailed in reported testimony.

Digital Divide and BEAD Funding

Sen. Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE) pressed witnesses on the impact of the Trump administration’s approximately 74% cut to the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program. Ramzanali responded that unconnected households are excluded from AI’s economic benefits, telehealth access, and educational tools, stating: “We shouldn’t accept the state of the country where not every American is connected to high-quality networks”

Grid Reliability and Spectrum: Largely Absent

Despite the hearing’s framing, two critical topics received little direct attention. Grid reliability — a pressing concern given that PJM Interconnection reported data-center-driven supply cost increases exceeding 60%, and Bank of America projected ~125 GW of new U.S. electric load from data centers by 2030 (Legis1) — was not substantively addressed by witnesses.

Spectrum policy was similarly underexplored, despite significant adjacent developments: the FCC’s July 22 vote to auction 160 MHz of upper C-band spectrum, NTIA’s $53 million funding announcement for secure AI-enabled Radio Access Networks, and a detailed spectrum reform brief published by the International Center for Law & Economics timed to the hearing. The ICLE brief recommended five reforms: preserving a balanced mix of licensed, unlicensed, and shared spectrum; streamlining the Spectrum Relocation Fund; strengthening FCC-NTIA coordination; replacing worst-case interference analysis with risk-informed probabilistic methods; and coherent U.S. engagement at the ITU World Radiocommunication Conference to counter Chinese influence in standards bodies.

Cybersecurity: Listed but Undefined

Spalter listed cybersecurity among his three essential priorities but did not elaborate on specific threats or mitigation strategies. The absence is notable given that an adjacent House hearing on July 22 featured testimony from Lindsay Gorman warning that AI is “expanding the cyberattack surface” through prompt-injection attacks, data poisoning, and model exploitation. Gorman urged Congress to mandate AI cybersecurity standards and recommended next-generation networks implement AI-automated defenses and post-quantum cryptography.

Industry vs. Regulatory Divergence

The hearing revealed a clear fault line. The three industry witnesses uniformly advocated for reducing regulatory friction and enabling private investment. Ramzanali, whose broader research at Vanderbilt advocates utility-style regulation of digital infrastructure, structural separation of AI hardware and software, and a dedicated digital regulator, provided the only counterweight — though his reported testimony focused on digital divides rather than his full structural reform agenda.

Sen. Fischer’s opening remarks captured the industry-aligned framing: “Opaque regulations and lack of coordination should not get in the way of network development.” Sen. Blunt Rochester’s questioning represented the regulatory perspective, challenging funding cuts and emphasizing equitable access.

Outlook

The hearing underscored that the U.S. telecommunications policy debate around AI is currently dominated by infrastructure deployment concerns — particularly permitting — while cybersecurity, spectrum management, and grid reliability remain underexamined. With the Senate Commerce Committee delaying broader AI legislation markup until after the summer recess (Washington Times), the substantive policy work on these gaps may not advance until fall.

Full written testimony and a hearing transcript are not yet available on the committee website.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Analysis via Perplexity.ai:

Comparison Matrix: Key Recommendations by Topic

1. Grid Reliability and Energy Demand

Witness Position Key Details
Spalter Not directly addressed in testimony Focused on permitting and broadband funding as primary barriers; did not testify on grid/energy specifically
Watermeier Indirect — framed fiber as the infrastructure solution Argued fiber networks are the only broadly deployable technology capable of supporting AI-era traffic loads, implying grid demands flow through network capacity
Everson Not directly addressed Focused on deployment speed; Cisco’s corporate positions tie AI adoption to network readiness but not grid energy specifically
Ramzanali Indirect — connected to digital divide Warned that unconnected households cannot benefit from AI economy; broader work warns of AI infrastructure financial risks and economic mismatch
Context Hearing framing acknowledged grid strain Legis1 reported that PJM Interconnection saw data-center-driven supply cost increases of 60%+; Bank of America projected ~125 GW of new U.S. electric load from data centers (2026–2030). Sen. Fischer’s opening remarks noted AI demand requires “reliable, high-speed, high-capacity networks”

2. Cybersecurity Vulnerabilities

Witness Position Key Details
Spalter Cybersecurity is one of three essential priorities Told the subcommittee that “permitting reform, cybersecurity, and sustainable broadband funding are all essential to preparing the nation’s communications infrastructure for AI” — but did not detail specific cyber threats or mitigation proposals in reported testimony
Watermeier Not directly addressed in reported testimony Focused on fiber capability and permitting
Everson Implicit via Cisco’s corporate positions Cisco’s government policy blog states “AI is rewriting the rules of cybersecurity, and we have a real opportunity to tip the scales in favor of defenders” and emphasizes modernizing legacy infrastructure as essential for security. Cisco advocates for NIST GenAI program participation and lifecycle governance frameworks
Ramzanali Not directly addressed in reported testimony His broader research at Vanderbilt focuses on financial and structural risks of AI infrastructure rather than network cybersecurity per se
Sen. Fischer Framed as strategic imperative Opening remarks: “AI has real potential to make networks more efficient and secure” and “we cannot fall behind in developing the most resilient and secure networks” (Fischer press release)
Context Adjacent House hearing (July 22) Wiley Rein reported that witness Lindsay Gorman testified AI is “expanding the cyberattack surface,” creating vulnerabilities including prompt-injection attacks, data poisoning, and model theft. She urged Congress to mandate cybersecurity standards for AI and recommended next-gen networks leverage AI for automated defenses and implement post-quantum cryptography

3. Spectrum Policy

Witness Position Key Details
Spalter Not directly addressed in reported testimony USTelecom’s membership is primarily wireline/fiber-focused; spectrum was not a featured topic in his reported remarks
Watermeier Not directly addressed Focused on fiber deployment; as a state PSC commissioner, spectrum falls outside his primary jurisdiction
Everson Implicit via Cisco’s positions Cisco’s title “Chief Architect of Provider Mobility” implies wireless expertise. Cisco’s policy blog advocates unlocking 6 GHz Wi-Fi as “the foundation for the AI Era” and ties spectrum capacity directly to AI adoption
Ramzanali Not directly addressed in reported testimony Focus was on digital divides and BEAD funding
Policy context (ICLE) Five-reform framework published as hearing context The International Center for Law & Economics issued a brief timed to the hearing recommending: (1) preserve balanced mix of licensed/unlicensed/shared spectrum, judged by total economic value not auction revenue; (2) streamline the Spectrum Relocation Fund to move federal spectrum faster; (3) strengthen FCC-NTIA coordination via common technical record; (4) replace worst-case interference analysis with risk-informed probabilistic methods; (5) present coherent U.S. positions at ITU/WRC to counter China’s standards influence
Regulatory context FCC and NTIA actions Legis1 reported the FCC voted July 22 to auction 160 MHz of upper C-band spectrum (60% more than Congress required), creating a potential 440 MHz “super band.” NTIA opened $53M in funding for secure AI-enabled Radio Access Networks. NTIA’s Arielle Roth testified to the House on July 15 about unlocking 30+ GHz of additional spectrum for AI-enabled satellite services

4. Regulatory Reform vs. Government Oversight

Witness Stance Categorization Key Details
Spalter Regulatory reform (deregulation-oriented) Industry self-reliance with streamlined rules Urged Congress to establish “consistent permitting timelines” and “modernize federal, state, Tribal, and local review processes” while preserving environmental/historic review. Framed the problem as bureaucratic delay, not market failure: “The biggest barrier… isn’t technology or investment… It’s outdated permitting processes” (MeriTalk)
Watermeier Regulatory reform (state-level pragmatist) Practical deployment focus Echoed permitting concerns from state regulator perspective. Argued fiber is the only technology meeting AI-era thresholds, implying regulatory frameworks should favor fiber-capable infrastructure. Did not advocate for new oversight mechanisms
Everson Regulatory reform (industry-aligned) Private-sector readiness “The sooner we can speed that permitting process along, the better, because then we can get to the work of deploying those resources.” Positioned industry as ready to build if government gets out of the way. Cisco’s blog advocates modernization as investment, not regulatory expansion
Ramzanali Government oversight (structural reform advocate) Public-interest regulation His Vanderbilt Policy Accelerator report “After the AI Crash” advocates utility-style nondiscrimination rules for foundation models/cloud/chips, a “Glass-Steagall for AI” structural separation, a dedicated digital regulator, publicly funded compute infrastructure, and restrictions on financial engineering in AI infrastructure. His hearing testimony focused on the digital divide as a market failure requiring government action: “we shouldn’t accept the state of the country where not every American is connected to high-quality networks” (Blunt Rochester press release)
Sen. Fischer (R-NE) Regulatory reform “Opaque regulations and lack of coordination should not get in the way of network development”
Sen. Capito (R-WV) Regulatory reform Advocated permitting “shot clocks” to accelerate deployment
Sen. Blunt Rochester (D-DE) Government oversight Challenged BEAD funding cuts (~74%), framing broadband access as a government responsibility essential for AI economy participation

5. AI-Enabled Services: Industry Priorities vs. Regulatory Proposals

Dimension Industry Priority (Spalter, Everson) Regulatory/Public-Interest Proposal (Ramzanali, Blunt Rochester) Divergence
Infrastructure deployment Speed up permitting; let private capital build Ensure equitable deployment via BEAD and universal service; don’t accept unconnected Americans Industry wants fewer procedural hurdles; regulators want equitable outcomes, not just speed
Broadband funding “Sustainable broadband funding” needed (Spalter) but framed as enabling private investment BEAD funding must be restored; 74% cut harms rural AI access (Blunt Rochester) Both want funding, but industry sees it as complement to private investment while advocates see it as essential public obligation
Technology standards Fiber-first; fiber exceeds FCC’s 100/20 threshold (Watermeier) Quality networks for all, not just checkbox milestones Industry favors specific tech mandates; advocates focus on outcome-based universal access
AI infrastructure governance Modernize and build; Cisco frames AI as defense opportunity Structural separation of software/hardware; regulate as digital utilities; restrict circular equity financing Sharpest divergence: industry wants freedom to integrate vertically; Ramzanali’s framework would break those integrations apart
Spectrum Cisco advocates 6 GHz unlicensed for AI-era Wi-Fi ICLE (external brief) recommends balanced licensed/unlicensed/shared mix with risk-informed analysis Partial alignment on unlicensed spectrum value, but ICLE’s framework is more nuanced than industry’s single-band focus
Cybersecurity Spalter lists it as essential but offers no specifics; Cisco positions AI as defensive tool Gorman (House hearing) urges Congress to mandate AI cybersecurity standards and implement post-quantum cryptography Industry prefers voluntary standards and market-driven security; regulatory voices want mandated standards

Key Divergences and Synthesis

Consensus Points

  • Permitting reform is urgent. All three industry witnesses and Republican senators agreed that permitting delays are the single biggest barrier to AI-ready network deployment. Even Sen. Fischer’s opening remarks flagged “opaque regulations.”

  • Fiber is foundational. Spalter, Watermeier, and Everson all positioned fiber as the backbone infrastructure for AI. Fischer encapsulated it: “AI runs on infrastructure, and infrastructure runs on fiber.”

  • AI transforms networks bidirectionally. Fischer’s framing — that AI requires better networks but can also make networks more efficient and secure — was implicitly accepted across witness testimony.

Sharpest Divergences

  • Industry self-regulation vs. structural oversight. The three industry witnesses (Spalter, Watermeier, Everson) uniformly advocated for removing regulatory friction and letting private capital deploy infrastructure. Ramzanali’s framework — developed at Vanderbilt and reflected in his testimony on digital divides — argues for utility-style regulation, structural separation, and a dedicated digital regulator. This is the fundamental fault line.

  • BEAD funding. Industry witnesses mentioned “sustainable broadband funding” as a priority but did not challenge the Trump administration’s 74% cut to BEAD. Sen. Blunt Rochester and Ramzanali directly attacked the cuts as harmful to AI equity. Industry silence on BEAD cuts suggests a pragmatic accommodation with the administration’s budget priorities.

  • Cybersecurity specificity. Spalter listed cybersecurity as essential but offered no concrete proposals in reported testimony. This stands in contrast to the adjacent House hearing where witnesses like Lindsay Gorman called for mandated congressional cybersecurity standards. The gap between listing cybersecurity as a priority and proposing actual security mandates represents a significant industry-regulatory divergence.

  • Spectrum was largely absent. Despite ICLE publishing a detailed five-reform spectrum brief timed to the hearing, and despite the FCC’s July 22 C-band auction vote and NTIA’s $53M AI-RAN funding announcement, none of the witnesses’ reported testimony engaged substantively with spectrum policy. This is a notable omission given that Everson’s title (Chief Architect of Provider Mobility) implies wireless expertise. The ICLE brief’s warning that “the United States cannot lead at digital speed while governing the airwaves at bureaucratic speed” went unaddressed in the hearing room.

Implications for Next-Generation AI-Enabled Services

  • The hearing’s overwhelming focus on permitting reform and fiber deployment — while important — left cybersecurity, spectrum, and grid reliability largely underexplored. The most consequential gap is the absence of detailed cybersecurity testimony, given that AI is simultaneously expanding the attack surface and offering new defensive tools.

  • Ramzanali’s presence provided the only counterweight to the industry consensus, but his reported testimony focused narrowly on digital divides rather than his broader structural reform agenda. Whether his Vanderbilt research on AI infrastructure financial risks and digital utility regulation will influence future Senate action remains to be seen.

  • The ICLE spectrum framework — published as context for this hearing — represents the most detailed policy roadmap for AI-enabled wireless services, but it was not directly debated by the witnesses. The FCC’s C-band auction and NTIA’s AI-RAN funding are proceeding on parallel tracks outside the hearing’s scope.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

References:

Fischer Leads Hearing on AI in Communications Networks

NEWS: Senator Blunt Rochester Highlights How AI Will Impact Digital Divides

 

Dell’Oro: Telecom carriers are on a 5G SA spending spree with more to come

Posted on by Alan Weissberger

Dell’Oro Group, says that telecom wireless carriers have spent 208% more on 5G Standalone (SA) than they had on 4G Core functions at the same point in the technology’s lifecycle. However, 5G Mobile Core Network revenue growth is expected to slow over the next two years, as carriers put off transformation projects due to elevated server costs.

“The way the 3GPP specifications unfolded created an offset between 5G RAN spending and the implementation of 5G SA,” said Siân Morgan, Senior Director at Dell’Oro Group. “However, the complexity of the 5G SA is driving cumulative vendor revenues much higher than they were at the same stage in the LTE Evolved Packet Core (EPC) lifecycle.

“5G SA revenues have not yet peaked,” Morgan added. “The majority of mobile network operators haven’t made 5G SA services available to a broad base of their customers.  Some operators are delaying core transformation projects because memory shortages are driving up server prices, but we expect double-digit 5G Mobile Core Network revenue growth to resume in 2028.”

Additional highlights from Mobile Core Network and Multi-access Edge Computing 5-Year Forecast July 2026 Report include:

  • EMEA (Europe, Middle East and Africa) will drive the most Mobile Core Network revenue over the next five years.
  • Despite being superseded by 5G, 4G core revenue grew in 2025, and Dell’Oro Group raised the forecast for this market.
  • AI will have a variable impact on mobile core networks, with opportunities for efficiency and revenue generation, alongside a risk of escalating costs.

 

About the Report

The Dell’Oro Group Mobile Core Network & Multi-Access Edge Computing Quarterly Report offers complete, in-depth coverage of the market with tables covering manufacturers’ revenue, shipments, and average selling prices for Traditional Packet Core, Evolved Packet Core, 5G Packet Core, Policy, Subscriber Data Management, Signaling, Circuit Switched Core, and IMS Core by geographic regions. To purchase this report, please contact us at [email protected].

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

From Perplexity.ai and Ericsson:

Analysis:

5G SA differs from NSA because it uses a 5G core rather than relying on 4G core (EPC) anchoring, which makes it better suited for advanced capabilities like network slicing and more flexible service control. All 5G features and functions, e.g. 5G security, network slicing, MEC, etc require a 5G SA core network.  5G network operators can package differentiated services instead of treating 5G only as a faster broadband layer.

Adoption is already broadening geographically. Ericsson says more than 60 service providers had deployed or launched public 5G SA networks by the end of September 2024, with early leadership in North America, China, Southeast Asia, and Australia, and with deployments expanding into Latin America, the Gulf Cooperation Council, and South Africa.

Device readiness is also improving quickly. Ericsson notes that the share of announced 5G devices supporting SA was about 70 percent by the end of June 2024, which lowers one of the biggest historical blockers to mass adoption.

From a vendor and operator perspective, the value of SA is shifting from coverage to monetization. Dell’Oro says many operators already use SA for enterprise and fixed wireless access, even if they have not yet opened it broadly to consumers, which suggests the strongest initial revenues may come from business services before mass-market consumer plans.

Market Forecast:

The strongest public forecast in the sources is subscriber growth: Ericsson projects global 5G SA subscriptions will reach about 1.2 billion by the end of 2024 and approximately 3.6 billion by 2030, which would represent nearly 60 percent of all 5G subscriptions by that time.

On the infrastructure side, Dell’Oro expects the 5G mobile core network market to grow at a 6 percent CAGR from 2024 to 2029, largely driven by SA adoption, while MEC is forecast to grow faster at 17 percent CAGR because of network slicing, RedCap, and network APIs tied to Open Gateway.

A reasonable market view is that 2025–2027 will be the period when SA shifts from launch announcements to scale, especially as more operators convert consumer traffic, expand enterprise use cases, and retire older core dependencies. By the late 2020s, growth should be driven less by “first deployment” and more by monetization density: more SA subscribers, more eligible devices, and more services built on top of the SA core.ericsson+1

What to watch:

  • Consumer rollout pace. Operators that keep SA limited to enterprise and FWA will likely monetize more slowly than those that open it to consumers.

  • Device defaults. SA-enabled devices matter less if SA is not the default setting, so default-on support is an important adoption catalyst.

  • Enterprise use cases. Slicing, private wireless integration, and low-latency applications are likely to produce the clearest near-term ROI.

  • Regional timing. China and India are expected to remain major contributors, while Europe and parts of the Americas close the gap later in the decade.

References:

5G Standalone Revenue Triples 4G Core at Same Stage of Tech Cycle, According to Dell’Oro Group

GSA: 5G Non Terrestrial Networks, 5G SA and 5G Advanced gain momentum

Dell’Oro: Mobile Core Networks +15% in 2025; Ookla: Global Reality Check on 5G SA and 5G Advanced in 2026

Dell’Oro: RAN market stable, Mobile Core Network market +14% Y/Y with 72 5G SA core networks deployed

AT&T deploys nationwide 5G SA while Verizon lags and T-Mobile leads

Ericsson CEO’s strong statements on 5G SA, WRC 27, and AI in networks

Page 1 of 252
1 2 3 … 252

Archives

Archives

Recent Posts