Overview - Topics and Articles

 Latest Article:

The Case For Staying With Ethanol 10

Ethanol blending over 10 per cent may be desirable but a full understanding of its environmental and economic impacts is crucial.

Shyam Ponappa  August 3, 2023

Click here or on the chart below to expand - Topics and Articles with hypertext links

Shyam Ponappa on ResearchGate

Comprehensive, Integrated Strategy & Execution

India has been coasting along on a post-feudal-colonial mélange of currents and tides, with the brigandage of opportunistic politics fed by our (the voters’) greed for short-term benefits. The result is grotesque populism and corruption, in lieu of the deferred gratification of pleasing cities and countryside with the appurtenances of proper governance: sidewalks and drains, toilets, transport, administration and order, hospitals and schools.

We have to organize and manage ourselves, “engineer” our way ahead, taking steps to build and develop our solutions, building systems and processes, and not just wait for things to happen. We need a comprehensive and integrated, systemic, silo-busting, problem-solving approach.

This applies across the board in the broadest “spatial planning” sense that integrates housing and land use at all levels with commercial, industrial, cultural, scientific and educational activity, transportation, and all governance and infrastructure: water, sewerage, energy, communications, basic health and education. Infrastructure being the first level of enablement is the essential starting point.

Previously, India’s leaders acknowledged that infrastructure is India’s great need. Yet, they took no steps [exception: NTP-2011 in October, 2011] to marshal forces to draw up a credible strategy and execution plan. This is what needed and needs doing. Only good intentions and/or money won’t do, because delivery systems and processes have to be developed, i.e., planned, and built from scratch.

It looks like the NDA II will seriously address the development of enabling infrastructure.  A beginning on a long way ahead.  The next few months will demonstrate the resolve of the NDA II to really break the mould and get the job done.

- July 2014

And it got worse for Digital India with another spectrum auction [March 2015] and the attendant deprivation of network rollout and service delivery. 

...And worse: another auction with Rs. 109,000 crore (~$17.6 billion). - April 2015

... And yet worse, as another auction reduced investment by over Rs. 65,000  crore  (~$10 billion). - October 2016

... And annual auctions threatened from 2017! - March 2017

Lack of integrated systems and controls led to the worst bank fraud in India - PNB $2 billion - February 2018  And IL&FS - September 2018

The National Digital Communications Policy 2018 is only an aspirational statement - October 4, 2018

Big bang for Wi-Fi!  5 GHz regulations similar to the US FCC. - October 2018

As the sector stalls, government talks 5G spectrum auction, wanting more cash while the industry drowns in debt. - January 2021  

The Supreme Court reverses previous rulings in favour of telecom operators on retroactive charges for spectrum based on an all-inclusive definition of Adjusted Gross Revenues continues...

Another ill-advised auction - March 2021.  And another monumental failure, neither serving the government's cash needs (too much left on the table), nor the consumers (too much spectrum left untouched).

A reversal (FINALLY!) of the retroactive tax amendment affecting Vodafone, Cairn, and others - August 5, 2021.

Spectrum Usage Charge zeroed; past due demands being reconsidered? - October 7, 2021

5G Spectrum Auction July 2022 nets Rs. 1.5 lakh crore (about $19 billion), making that amount of capital unavailable for investment in networks.  Allocation of an even larger amount to reviving BSNL and MTNL increases uncertainty of outcomes.

The 5G Opportunity For A Unitary Paradigm

Adopt high-speed wireless subnetworks of small cells, and a commons approach.

Shyam Ponappa   |   October 6, 2022

An explanatory note on the draft Indian Telecommunication Bill touches on how spectrum is similar to atma, the soul. If this idea is pursued through a unitary approach to regulation, emphasising functionality and avoiding fragmentation, services would proliferate because of lower costs and easier installation. The truth, however, is that the regulatory environment in the last decade has not been coherent and integrated.

With 5G, India has the opportunity — once again — of adopting a resource-sharing approach, as is the case in some other forms of infrastructure. Airlines, for instance, share flight paths and airports, while vehicles and transporters share highways and transport facilities, and ships and shipping companies share routes and ports. In the same way, shared telecom infrastructure and spectrum will maximise efficient use of capital for 5G. The need is for integrated networks with many small cells, which are also effective for 4G. Both users and service providers benefit from capital-intensive infrastructure that permits open access to authorised operators paying for usage. Telecommunications has evolved in a more fragmented way than airlines and transport by land and sea. The latter systems are organised around the principle of a unitary approach to resource-sharing for efficient use.

One reason telecommunications evolved in this way was because of technology limitations, particularly wireless interference. Another was the approach in developed markets, particularly the US, the UK, and Europe. From the 1990s, these markets experienced waves of deregulation, privatisation, and a worshipful attitude to competition.¹  Meanwhile, the dissolution of the Soviet Union encouraged indiscriminate acceptance of free-market ideas. The strongest impetus driving governments, however, may have been the windfall revenues from spectrum auctions. This was amplified by the incongruous phenomenon of people equating government collections with public benefit, paradoxically as capitalism was in the ascendance. Auctions were idolised even after the collapse of telecom in the 2000s. The sector recovered gradually after many years, although services were seen as being deficient globally, resulting in broadband policy interventions even in the US, as in many countries.

However, barring notable exceptions, the concept of property rights continues to dominate spectrum assignment, as does homage to unfettered competition. Consequently, alternative approaches are scarce, although the technological and economic rationale for sharing integrated infrastructure, as in roads, rail, air and waterway routes and facilities, is self-evident, and is unquestioned. Quite simply, it is the logic of sharing high fixed and operating costs to maximise capacity utilisation, whether for communities or for nations. There are similar compelling reasons for sharing wireless technology and equipment, with developments in reduced interference, reuse in smaller areas with wider spectrum bands, and technological innovation far beyond earlier benchmarks. But this is not yet widely accepted, and much less so in India.

Some countries with a propensity for cooperation, as in Scandinavia, have successfully implemented a consortium approach, but this may be restricted to places with a collaborative culture. Others have tried government control of common access networks or spectrum, such as Mexico’s 700 MHz network, Australia’s Next Generation Network, or Africa’s open access network, none with success. The opposite, private control of networks and spectrum, prevails, as espoused by the US and followed by many, including India. The US, however, is moving rapidly to shared secondary use of spectrum as well as more open access, both of which are promising when it comes to effectiveness and efficiency.

Yet another way is the commons approach, with common carrier sectoral access to a public resource, spectrum, for the public good, with a fair sharing of costs for usage, as for airlines and other infrastructure. The example below shows how this could be done.

New Paradigm For Low-Cost Networks 

This outline is for 5G services in cities with fibre optic connections, which is extendable to rural areas without fibre. A recent press report mentions a government plan for Patna as a model for 5G rollout in cities. The city map is apparently divided into grids of 200 square metres to estimate the number of towers required, with the finding that the towers have to be doubled to over 3,000 for quality coverage. Whether this is really under consideration or not, the government surely needs to evaluate a wireless approach that is less expensive and more feasible than towers and fibre.

A conceptual plan by an equipment manufacturer for 5G serving a million users in 400 sq km is shown in the chart. Hexagonal cells with sides of 3 km and area of about 23 sq km cover this service area with 60 radios and 50 node switches. These can be installed on existing towers, buildings, and street furniture.

Source: https://elva-1.com/data/files/docs/ELVA-1_Dual-band_Urban-Scale_Wireless_Networking_Concept.pdf

This calls for a true paradigm shift in India’s policies, applicable for both 4G and 5G networks. The following administrative changes in regulations are required:

1. Permit authorised operators wide bandwidth use of V-band (60 GHz) and E-band (70-80 GHz) for multi-gigabit transport, with operators paying for actual usage. Permit channel width of 2.16 GHz (currently only 250 MHz for E-band) and channel aggregation for multi-gigabit throughput.

2. Permit Wi-Fi in the 6 GHz and 60 GHz bands for end user access.

3. Adapt US regulations for these bands to India’s needs, as has been done for 5 GHz in October 2018.

4. Implement these changes urgently. The need for speedy clearances and action cannot be overemphasised, given the inordinate delays.

To recap, our requirement is regulations for high-speed wireless in V-band and E-band, in wide bandwidths allowing for multi-gigabit transport for authorised operators paying for usage, together with end-user access through Wi-Fi in the 6 and 60 GHz bands. The costs, difficulty in installation, and completion time will reduce considerably, with far less towers and fibre because of the use of buildings and street furniture for wireless equipment. Radios will connect through wireless links in a mesh for coverage. Within cells, towers will connect to sub-cells for user access through Wi-Fi in the existing 2.4 and 5 GHz bands, or faster through 6 and 60 GHz.

This is an opportunity the government must not lose.

---

Shyam (no space) Ponappa at gmail dot com

1: Paul Starr: "The Great Telecom Implosion," The American Prospect (September 9, 2002), 20-24.

Infrastructure Sectors That Boost Growth

 

Apply proven policies in telecom and electricity to rev up the economy.

Shyam Ponappa  |   August 4, 2022 

Does infrastructure spending promote economic growth, or is it the other way around? The arguments go back to questions such as whether building America’s railroads in the 1850s led to growth, or the reverse. While the costs and benefits of building transportation may be contested, partly because of what is measured and what is not, one positive linkage that has emerged is between improvements in information and communications technology and economic growth.

Potentially useful findings are given below.

1. A World Bank study (2021) reviewed the contribution of three categories of infrastructure to growth from 1992-2017: Transport, electricity, and telecommunications. The study covered 87 countries out of 189, because of missing data and to ensure a balanced panel. One finding was that infrastructure, especially electricity generation and telecommunications, significantly affected economic growth. This effect was larger more recently (1992-2017) than before (1970-1991), and developing economies experienced stronger effects than industrialised economies.¹

The researchers considered the contribution of physical capital, human capital, electricity, roads, railways, mobile phones and telephones to gross domestic product (GDP). The first principal component derived from these that explained most of the variation, comprising mainly electricity, mobile phones, and land-line phones, was characterised as the telecommunications and electricity factor. The second principal component, comprising largely roads and railways, was characterised as the transport factor. These factors roughly kept pace with population except mobile phones, which increased very significantly, driving the increase in the first principal component.

The chart of the GDP response to the two principal components demonstrates the effect of the primarily electricity-and-telecommunications principal component PC1, and of the primarily transport principal component PC2. The latter initially reduced output for some years. The implication is a need for policies that prioritise telecommunications, including broadband and internet, and electricity.

2. An Asian Development Bank publication on digitalisation and economic performance in India and China found that the internet and mobile density have a significant impact on economic growth.²

3. A study of factors that drove the surge in India’s service exports by researchers at the Institute of Economic Growth and Symbiosis found that attributes that affect the highest service exports (computers, communication and other services were nearly three times the traditional service exports in 2013), were driven by teledensity, together with financial sector development, human capital, and R&D expenditure (chart 2 ).³

The impact of telecommunications and electricity together with strengths in computers and communications services points to India’s needs: Prioritise enabling policies for telecommunications infrastructure for broadband and internet (integrated with the rest: Electricity and transportation, water and sewerage, logistics/transport, financial support, taxation, and so on). Parallel support is required to develop local ecosystems for equipment, which would have to be imported otherwise.

Effect on Policies 

What matters is how these conclusions affect government’s policies, because policies and regulations permit or constrain what we do and how we live. The solutions required ideally are for overall community needs, and not for what individuals, sectors, or stakeholders might need, as the consideration below indicates.

5G Auction & Prospects

Now that the government has bagged Rs 1.5 trillion from the 5G auction, what are the prospects for growth? If this amount is channelled to support BSNL/MTNL, with more government intervention to make them profitable, consider the probable outcomes.

(a) Things could turn out as planned, resulting in a strong telecommunications sector with four operators propelling growth. BSNL/MTNL certainly need support for their important, widespread services. The issue is whether they can be profitable, given their role. On the one hand are their market position in coverage/saturation and diminished share, while on the other are their responsibilities for essential services for strategic purposes and in difficult, unremunerative locations.

It is unreasonable to expect profitable performance in competition with private operators who can cherry-pick their markets. The very idea that governance through providing essential services must make profits is untenable, as it is for security, defence, or disaster management. Yet, this expectation has led to price cuts that have ended in a race to the bottom. Such pricing is a disservice, because it constrains investment in services, and thereby overall country capacity, to low-quality bottom-feeding. We expect and get low prices, but are saddled with low quality. The sector cannot build high-quality, reliable services, and is falling farther behind global service levels. India cannot possibly compete burdened with such self-imposed handicaps.

(b) Another possible outcome is that there will be unsustainable price cuts as before, with unfair access to spectrum (announced), and unfair competition from corporations. The losses could be perpetual, with the sector and the economy in shambles.

The Alternative for Policymakers 

Instead of continuing with unreasonable and ineffective practices that prevent us from realising our potential, even now, the government can change policies to capitalise on our strengths of being imaginative and resourceful, with the capacity to perform well with good systems and processes.

The success of NTP-99 can be repeated, by converting auction payments to revenue-share, this time for spectrum instead of licence fees. The difference is that operator dues can be financed from actual revenues, and not loans on anticipated revenues. This will not only enable immediate investment in networks and services, but as with NTP-99, is likely to result in substantial growth, with much higher government collections, and as a multiplier across sectors.

Legislation can be framed to convert spectrum auction payments to a reasonable percentage of revenues, as for licences. Instead of destabilising markets to favour BSNL/MTNL or corporations, insights can be applied and best-practice regulations can be adapted for our circumstances. The introduction of shared infrastructure through two or more mandatory consortiums led by corporate entities, with BSNL/MTNL as a strategic stakeholder ensuring national security and public interest, will enable even greater leveraging of network assets.

---

Shyam (no space) Ponappa at gmail dot com

(1): Timilsina G. et al: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org

(2): D Sahoo et al: https://www.adb.org/publications

(3): Pravakar Sahoo & Ranjan Kumar Dash: "What Drives India's Surge in Service Exports?"

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3620313

Improving The Odds For 5G

Fixing the approach for networks and services is necessary for getting to 5G.

Shyam Ponappa   |  July 7, 2022 

Towards the end of 2021, the government acted admirably in the public interest, making difficult and courageous decisions to partially resolve legacy problems in telecom, such as redefining adjusted gross revenues and withdrawing retrospective tax demands. This gave rise to expectations that reforms would be less constraining, and more beneficial for the public interest. The announcement in June of 5G spectrum auctions and limited E-Band backhaul allocation, alas, falls far short. Why the disappointment, and how might the situation be improved?

Two areas need changes: Backhaul, and access spectrum. One aim is to remove self-imposed constraints. Another is to replicate the successful pattern of other sectors, where enterprises build their business, earn revenues, and then pay taxes. For some reason, this does not apply to communications despite it being a critical essential service.

Backhaul – E-Band

A fundamental problem is the limited backhaul spectrum. Two bands of 250 MHz of E-band spectrum (70-80 GHz) are to be assigned to each telco that wins 5G spectrum. This is puzzling, as there are 10 GHz available (20 times 500 MHz). If press reports that this is temporary are correct because these frequencies are to be auctioned— and telcos must agree to pay the auction price at that time — the situation is disastrous, because 5G needs large backhaul capacity.

In other countries such as the US or the EU, policies are framed so as to enable usage of the full 10 GHz at minimal cost. This provides flexible capacity for much higher throughput, whereas we are creating a self-imposed constraint by restricting capacity. This means that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries gain more from increased productivity than a developing country with the same resource. This can be remedied by adopting their regulations as appropriate.

The public interest is well served when policies enable telcos to use available resources to increase productivity and efficiency, instead of being obstructed in delivering services, or having to spend more to achieve comparable service levels. The same goes for the discriminatory allocation of spectrum to non-telcos (private companies), who will apparently be allotted spectrum on preferential terms compared with telcos. India’s networks cannot compare with those of the OECD countries that have such policies, which is why such allocations would be too disruptive here.

Just as we are deprived of network capacity because spectrum is either not permitted for use, or is extortionately priced (both self-imposed conditions), limiting wireless backhaul or pricing it high will hamstring 5G and even 4G, because wireless backhaul will not be deployed extensively if the cost is prohibitive. These circumstances are aggravated by the threat of auctions for backhaul spectrum.

Without extensive wireless backhaul, access spectrum from auctions cannot be fully utilised because of limited direct fibre connectivity. Unlike countries that have good wireless backhaul— business hubs such as Mumbai’s Bandra Kurla Complex or Nariman Point, Gurugram’s DLF Cyber Hub, Connaught Place or the Dhaula Kuan, — the Airport stretch in Delhi, hospital and medical research complexes, engineering and manufacturing clusters, and so on, are denied vastly improved communications and access to data using gigabit wireless mesh networks. Even the spread of 4G small cells is constrained, reducing efficiency and productivity.

It would be useful to base India’s regulations on what others such as the US, the EU, and the UK are doing with E-band. They require non-exclusive nationwide licences, with mandatory coordination and link registration (usually through a geolocation database). Our comparatively less developed networks make it inadvisable to adopt their policies wholesale, because it would disrupt equitable network development in India, accentuating the divide by skewing investment to the most profitable areas.

Our authorities need to focus on setting up and institutionalising processes such as non-exclusive licensing to telcos, and the mechanism of geolocation databases for backhaul spectrum for mandatory coordination and registration. Policies need to be framed so as to help builand grow gigabit wireless links to reinvigorate the sector, to recoup its stellar trajectory and contribution as in the past.

An instructive example is the approach taken by the City of London, or the “Square Mile”, in addressing communications for its 400,000 workers every day, 10 million visitors annually, and 9,000 residents. The mix of historical buildings and modern architecture poses a challenge for mobile network services. In 2017, the City initiated a project for providing free public gigabit Wi-Fi throughout the Square Mile.¹ The design incorporated 4G small cells for better connectivity, and the City offered 3,000 street assets (such as lampposts), stipulating that the system must be a neutral host open to all service providers.

The project was awarded to a joint venture of which one company is active in India. The backhaul uses a self-organising millimetre wave (mmWave) mesh as a “neutral host” that enables use by multiple operators. The mesh gives all service providers gigabit backhaul and access applications at 12Gbps with its 60GHz mmWave access and backhaul.

5G Access Spectrum

Assuming the objective is ubiquitous 5G and other services, India needs a different approach. Spectrum auctions will not get us there. We achieved a level in mobile telephony by adopting a reasonable revenue share on licensing around 2003 after NTP-99. The same needs to be done for spectrum.

One proposed approach² suggests that as there are only three serious telecom operators, spectrum can be allocated equitably to all three without auctions. This seems reasonable, as the funds diverted to auctions could then be invested in networks, and collections from revenue sharing are likely to far exceed collections from auctions, as they did after NTP-99.³ The downside is that it would require the development of three networks, unless the operators share infrastructure. An alternative approach would be mandatory infrastructure sharing with one neutral host network, or two competing networks owned by different consortiums.

If the authorities could take these points into consideration in improving the regulations, we are likely to have better outcomes in terms of networks, services, and the state of the sector.

---

Shyam (no space) Ponappa at gmail dot com

1) The City of London Case Study: https://www.gsma.com/futurenetworks; 

2) Rajat Kathuria and Mansi Kedia: https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns; 

(3) See Chart 2: Telecom Auction Fees Foregone vs Licence Fees + Spectrum Charges at: https://organizing-india.blogspot.com/2020/08/configuring-indias-digital-ecosystem.html

4G, 5G, or 6G - All Need Wireless Backhaul

A rose is a rose - or is there one that is sweeter?

Shyam Ponappa   |   December 2, 2021

Calling our networks 4G, 5G, or 6G makes little difference. What matters is service delivery to users. Once there is connectivity, the criteria for judging a network are speed, capacity, and latency (lag in response time). Our 4G experience is far short on these measures. Improvements are possible if our government proceeds on the basis of (a) objective assessment, and (b) concerted action on systematic, realistic, and phased plans and execution. The starting point is a factual assessment of our networks and service delivery compared with the rest of the world. The next steps are to frame policies and regulations to enable the better use of available resources for service delivery, without irrational hurdles.

An aspect of telecom not obvious to users is the reality of layered technologies that exist even in advanced environments. For instance, a country with excellent mobile services such as Norway has achieved among the fastest average speeds of over 50 Mbps with continued investment in 4G networks. 4G has evolved considerably and provides the core network, except for Standalone 5G networks. 4G has latency down to two-digit milliseconds, and speeds comparable to 5G in the lower user bands (below 6 GHz). High-frequency 5G provides faster user access on 4G platforms.

Realistically, we should plan for a mix of technologies going forward as 4G continues to evolve over the next decade. However, we need policies that result in full 4G coverage of good quality, not merely indulgent talk. Also, while 3G is being phased out because of its less efficient use of spectrum, it will take years to transition fully to 4G and beyond because of the cost and scale. In Europe, for example, even 2G is to continue until 2025 for certain applications.

What are the policies that can give us improved services? A good place to start is the Parliamentary Committee report tabled in February titled, “India’s Preparedness for 5G”.¹ Its main findings are that while 59 countries had deployed 5G, though largely on a limited scale, India had not done so. No 5G trials had been permitted as of January, and sufficient preparatory work had not been done. The challenges highlighted are:

• Inadequate spectrum, with only 50 MHz per operator, half the global average. For 4G, average spectrum per operator was even less, at a quarter of the global average.
• Exorbitant spectrum prices.
• Insufficient development of 5G use cases.
• Low fibre network availability.
• Deficient backhaul capacity.

The report emphasises the need for heavy investment to develop fibre networks, including for backhaul, and then deals with other aspects such as investments and local manufacturing.

Fibre does indeed provide the best connectivity. While highly desirable, it is the gold standard, and often prohibitively expensive. Fibre connections to towers are ordinarily justifiable only when financially viable. Second, small cells have to proliferate for 4G, 5G, and 6G, with wireless or fibre links (backhaul) to networks and Wi-Fi user access. The question is whether aiming for full or even substantial fibre connectivity to towers and small cells is realistic, compared with alternatives and technology trends.

Interestingly, the GSM Association published two reports addressing this in February 2021. The first was a study on backhaul in 40 countries titled, “Wireless Backhaul Evolution: Delivering next generation connectivity”.² The second was on the spectrum required for this titled, “Spectrum for Wireless Backhaul: GSMA Public Policy Position”.³

The first report indicates that 5G’s growing traffic and network capabilities will need massive augmentation of backhaul capacity through evolution. Wireless links are estimated to constitute 65 per cent of global backhaul links between 2021 and 2027, evolving to higher frequencies with wider channels, with regulators’ decisions helping or hindering specific 5G markets. The E-band (70-80 GHz) is expected to dominate wireless backhaul from 2021 to 2027. Many countries are also using V-band (60 GHz) delicensed for Wi-Fi. Even countries with high levels of fibre such as Japan and South Korea are using E and V bands for backhaul. Shouldn’t we do this, too? (See chart)

Chart: Full 4G + Some 5G with V-Band and E-Band

India has many urban and rural sites where fibre is infeasible, because of factors such as congestion, distance, terrain, dispersed users, and limited commercial potential. Wireless backhaul can fill in where fibre is not accessible or affordable, although evolution to higher, wider bands will be necessary. Meanwhile, wireless V and E bands are now reasonable alternatives for distances of about 1 km, and 3-4 km or more, with the disadvantage of rain attenuation. The GSMA report suggests this could be mitigated with carrier aggregation (combining) of E-band with lower bands (such as 15, 18 or 23 GHz) to provide 10 Gbps links for up to 10 km.

Active Network Sharing

Regulators worldwide are considering or pursuing the substantial benefits of active network sharing for enhanced coverage, reduced costs, and faster deployment. A McKinsey report in 2018 cited network sharing becoming a standard model for mobile operators, with a reduction in the total cost of ownership by 30 per cent, while improving network quality.⁴

Steps for Consideration

Formulate policies, laws and regulations for the following, with mandated spectrum/network sharing, paid for by reasonable revenue share (2-3 per cent) after a moratorium of 3-5 years (no auctions). Cap profits, and penalise diversion of revenues/profits.

1. Small cells: For Wi-Fi user access, V-band lower range and 6 GHz (using FCC model, as done for 5 GHz). Consider 12 GHz for Wi-Fi next.

2. Wireless backhaul, small cells/towers: V-band upper range and E-band, with light-licensed sharing among telcos for connecting to networks.

3. Private networks, small cells and backhaul: V-band light-licensed* for private networks, with public network connection through licensed telcos.

* After reconsideration December 4, 2021: "V-band allowed in private spaces for private networks and extensions, with public network connection through licensed telcos."

4. Active network sharing: Consider enabling or mandating active sharing of all elements of networks to speed up deployment, reduce clutter and radiation, and for efficient capital investment.

Orchestration and coordination across government departments and consultation with industry, as for NTP-99, to ensure better outcomes.

---

Shyam (no space) Ponappa @ gmail dot com

1. https://eparlib.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/799780/1/17_Information_Technology_21.pdf

2. https://www.gsma.com/spectrum/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/wireless-backhaul-spectrum.pdf

3. https://www.gsma.com/spectrum/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/wireless-backhaul-spectrum-positions.pdf

4. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/technology-media-and-telecommunications/our-insights/network-sharing-and-5g-a-turning-point-for-lone-riders

Catch Up On 5G Mindset

Our policies need to change by permitting cost-less changes that build network systems and service delivery.

Shyam Ponappa   |   June 3, 2021

The anticipation and excitement about 5G or full-fledged 4G is all about apps and user experience. People focus on user devices such as smartphones and computers, whereas delivery requires end-to-end network systems — for education, skill development, training, software as a service, healthcare, transportation, retail, travel, or entertainment. For these, our foundations are sorely lacking. The most deficient are the long lead-time, slow payback, difficult aspects of “plumbing”, akin to completing the user-side networks of water pipes and sewerage for water supply, or networks for electricity. As with the plumbing, we need the network development of all the links to experience end-to-end, high-speed communications, as explained below.

Indian “unicorns”, tech startups valued at over a billion dollars, have been growing latterly at a dizzying pace (1). Optimists see them as a way out of our primordial mess. For pragmatists, profitability and staying power will prove they are not just examples of irrational exuberance, although there is no doubt many provide value through aggregation and convenience. The caveats are that they disrupt markets, and their spread is largely in services, except for very few in pharmaceuticals/biotechnology and renewable energy.

These services depend on the structured, hierarchical organisation of equipment and systems, what the tech marketplace calls the technology stack. “Tech-stacks” are systems made up of layers that fit in a logical sequence at each functional level of a process to deliver their “products” to users at successive levels, whether the deliveries are considered goods or services.

Now, users engage with apps as front-end interfaces. Some people are aware of the levels beyond, i.e., the operating systems, the technical features of the devices, and the communications service providers/telcos (Chart 1).

Chart 1

Adapted from: https://the-ken.com/the-nutgraf/jio-is-in-the-endgame-now/

Very few look beyond that, to the levels of the telcos’ technology stack or back-end. Yet, this is where our problems begin: In dense commercial or residential areas, for instance, laying new cables is very difficult and expensive, whereas wireless links can be easier and cheaper. This is also true for rural/semi-urban areas, where the profit potential may be more limited. The network stack or system comprises user devices connecting to towers or access points, which can be cellular or Wi-Fi devices, which connect to aggregation points through backhaul across the “middle-mile”, and from there to the core network (Chart 2).

Many in urban India have fibre connections up to their access points, whether those devices are Wi-Fi or cellular base stations. Others may have a coaxial or ethernet cable up to their access points, and a wireless connection to aggregation points, which connect with the fibre core. These links in our networks is where we are deficient.

Early on, India’s policy-makers expected market mechanisms to provide these lower-order layers of the stack. Despite evidence to the contrary, our policy-makers and regulators apparently still continue to expect this, although laying cables to every household is simply not feasible in India.

Self-Constraining Mindsets

It took nine years to enable full use of the 5 GHz Wi-Fi bands in India (in 2018, instead of in 2009/10). Until then, 5 GHz Wi-Fi devices could not be used to their full potential in India because of our self-imposed restrictions. So, they were unusable for Wi-Fi hotspots or for backhaul, one reason there are so few hotspots.

It would have cost nothing apart from the effort for the authorities to develop enabling policies and make them work. There would have been some operating and administrative costs, but no capital investment. It was not the lack of technology, nor the lack of capital, nor material resources, nor of organisation. It was a mental block, a constraining mindset, that prevented successive governments from removing these shackles. It was a wilful restriction of available technology and productivity tools.

Could these policy constraints have been aggravated by the turbulence created by the CAG Report in 2010? Possibly, and the chilling effect on constructive spectrum policies has endured. Think of what it means to constrain ourselves in this way, because more changes are needed to complete and enhance the links in our networks.

So What Do We Need?

We have the right policies for 5 GHz Wi-Fi. We also need user access to high-speed wireless (6 and 60 GHz), and for telcos to have short-distance and intermediate-distance backhaul (60 GHz up to 1.5 km; 70-80 GHz up to 4-5 km), in addition to the 5G bands being considered. Without these, the linkages are incomplete or of insufficient capacity.

The changes required are, to permit licensed operators to use 60 GHz and 70-80 GHz for backhaul/middle-mile for network capacity quickly and at least cost, and 6 GHz and 60 GHz for Wi-Fi user access. A realistic way for a developing country to do this is through shared infrastructure, including spectrum and Radio Access Networks, with consortium ownership and government participation. Until this happens, we are likely to be restricted in our ability to deal with our needs for livelihood and well-being, with the impossibility of enormous expense of multiple networks, the impracticality of laying cables everywhere, and without the financial justification or capacity to do it.

It is like trying to create cities or become a manufacturing or agricultural powerhouse without the infrastructure of water-sewerage-electricity-logistics-communications as the basis not only for all the hardware, but also for the skilled human resources and “wetware” trained and accultured to make the most of all of this.

Enabling rules and executive decisions are the first steps. Organising appropriately to capitalise on and implement the possibilities in the public interest is the next. This will need organising consortiums for sharing infrastructure, spectrum payment based on usage, and so on. Until our policy-makers understand and engage with these self-imposed obstacles, remove them, and force the issue of organised high-speed wireless in a practical, sustainable way, most of our people cannot have the basic appurtenances required to equip themselves to live and work well today.

---

Shyam (no space) Ponappa at gmail dot com

1: Indian Unicorns - https://plus.credit-suisse.com/rpc4/ravDocView?docid=V7qfQq2AN-Wd1W