You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion
How can we make 6G open, inclusive and focussed on the great global challenges?
Former Community Member
Conversations are just starting in various parts of the world about 6G, and these will begin to define what sort of 6G emerges a decade from now. We published a 6G for policy makers guide that discuses the need for a new approach to 6G that connects it to societal and global challenges, fuses the virtual, physical, and non-physical worlds, enables technologies, and reaches our net-zero carbon emission goal. Read our guide and let us know what you think needs to be considered to make 6G open, inclusive and focused on the great global challenges that lay ahead.
The strength of the 3GPP standards and one reason for their more or less universally compatible implementation, is that unlike most ETSI output, and indeed unlike most technical standards, they are "free issue" so every one around the planet gets to see the same copy at the same time. It also makes for a strong security model for the same reason - mass scrutiny finds mistakes very quickly.
While suggesting the 3GPP model is outdated, do not throw the baby out with the bath water and return to closed shop developments or standards that cannot be afforded by any but well funded multi-nationals. (when I last looked the 3 G standards was actually well over a hundered documents, and 4G rather more, and if these sold at even the price of the wiring regs there certainly would not be an up-to date copy of the full set at the fingertips of every design engineer trying to make compatible equipment.)
For reference, a while ago I contributed to the T1 and RAN4 committees efforts in the days when 3G was being finalised and 4G was being built into system demonstrators, so I know the process of 3GPP standards authorship quite well.
These are some really key ideas that need to be driven home to policy makers.
Network security, both security from digital attack ,and from attacks to the RF side needs to be kept at the front of everyone's minds, and considered as part of the testing and development of the infrastructure. it is no good if one GPS jammer can unsynchronise a city wide network of base stations so no calls can be made while a robbery takes place .. This becomes especially important when, as in the UK the authorities wish to piggy-back communications for the Police and other emergency services onto what is otherwise a commercial phone network, suddenly the reliability and robustness needed becomes much higher. Personally I think governments wishing to do this sort of thing should fund someone to put their case into the standards meetings, but in general they do not.
You make some good points. In particular I share your strong support for 3GPP. They have done an outstanding job and will continue to do so. However, the world is changing. That is the point being made in the IET Guide "6G for Policy Maker" (which I edited). In particular there is a convergence going on that is bringing quite different industries with quite different standards traditions into play. So how does 3GPP reach out beyond its traditional boundaries? We also see a sharp rise of geopolitical tensions over 5G technology. How does 3GPP sustain its global coherence in a 6G era? The main purpose of the IET guide is to identify the issues that policy makers need to think about now in order to be ahead of the curve.
Your point about the government funding somebody to present the security issues to the standards bodies is well taken. If we get around to a 2nd edition of "6G for Policy Makers" then the government funding of representation to 3GPP on security issues (but not just security issues) would definitely be something worth including.
