Most 5G infra suppliers and mobile operators have been insistent that 5G would enable new use cases, novel applications and drive higher revenue, to some extent. So far, those proponents have been “wrong,” but only to the extent that they also were wrong about 3G and 4G.
Though some important new use cases have emerged in each digital generation (from 2G on), most of the innovation has not been of the sort mobile operators can directly participate in as equity owners.
In other words, most of the new value and revenue from new use cases has flowed to third-party app developers. And if you think about it, that is what is “supposed” to happen when a layered app architecture is assumed.
By definition, the internet is “permissionless.” App creators do not require a formal business relationship with an internet access provider to reach users and customers.
Eventually, some new 5G use cases will develop. But infra suppliers and mobile operators have routinely “over-promised and under-delivered” in the area of new apps, use cases and value, for every digital mobile generation.
An SKT white paper says 5F failed to achieve its goals, among which were the rapid development of new use cases, apps and services that collectively would fuel mobile operator revenue growth. There was no “killer service.”
SKT also essentially argues that 5G “over-promised and under-delivered.” Customers expected much more than what was delivered.
As was the case for 4G, 6G will enable “services that were difficult to fully implement with 5G.” Anybody who followed 4G will get this. The promises of one mobile generation often are not realized--if at all--until the subsequent generation.
In other words, some use cases hoped for in the 3G era did not develop until 4G. Perhaps some 4G use cases will flourish during 5G. Perhaps some 5G innovations will happen when 6G arrives.
Maybe the industry is simply collectively wishful, without sufficient basis in fact. What a given network can do is not the same as assurance customers will value the innovations, or pay to use them.
Quite to the contrary, the very architecture of internet-based apps and services militates against the ability of access providers to capture the value of app development.
Perhaps a comparison with home broadband will illustrate why the “over-promising” always happens. Over time, home broadband has moved capacity upwards from kilobits per second to megabits to gigabits per second. As with mobile platforms, home broadband networks have used different media to support those advances.
But nobody actually argues that “faster home broadband” will directly lead to new use cases and value supplied by the internet service provider. People understand that virtually all of the development will be fueled by third parties. The faster internet access only enables use of those innovations.
Mobile operators might argue that they have a more-embedded role, as they offer managed services including voice and messaging. True, but some fixed network suppliers also offer voice, as well as internet access.
The point is that a mobile service provider, in its role as an ISP, supplies “internet access” but not apps. And the primary value of 5G is that it supports more capacity than did 4G, as 4G enabled more capacity than 3G.
Such capacity increases are essential. But ISPs are not primarily the producers of application value.
To be sure, ISPs and their infra suppliers have to argue that wonderful new apps will be possible. Otherwise, it is hard to convince regulators to grant use of more spectrum. But everyone also understands that the new apps will mostly be produced by third parties.
5G and 6G are vital, nonetheless. As with home broadband networks, capacity must continually be increased.
But the hard truth is that 5G mostly means “you get to keep your business.” It is a means of supplying needed capacity, primarily. Someday, 6G will be required to enable mobile service providers to stay in business.
But the claimed benefits will extend quite a bit beyond that. They always do.
Prosaic though it might be, the next-generation mobile networks are the functional equivalent of increasing home broadband and fixed network capacity from kilobits per second to megabits to gigabits. “More capacity” is the value.
4G, 5G, 6G and beyond are the means by which mobile operators are able to supply faster speeds and more capacity over time. It means they get to stay in business. But it generally does not mean the mobile operators themselves will be creating new apps and use cases.
So expect 6G to be yet another example of “failure.” Proponents will again over-promise. To get additional spectrum, they almost have to do so.
But do not be fooled. They need more capacity. The way they will get it is partly by adopting 6G. It is important; they need to do so. But most of the hype about new value, apps and use cases--as produced by the mobile operators themselves--will fail.
The architecture ensures it. The whole point of internet access is to enable people and machines to use apps available to internet-connected devices. We need more capacity, over time. New mobile networks are how we get there.
But think of 5G and 6G as a necessary precondition for remaining in business, as faster fixed network access also is a fundamental requirement. Proponents will emphasize bells and whistles. Ignore all that. It is about remaining in business, as that business requires more capacity over time.
No comments:
Post a Comment