A body that represents mobile operators wants the migration to 6G networks to be as smooth as possible, learning lessons from the fractious 5G introduction that has left countries like the UK with a less than satisfactory service. The Next Generation Mobile Networks Alliance (NGMN) says that 6G requires a different standardization approach in order to prevent complexity and market confusion, alongside a smooth and cost-effective migration path for its members. What exactly defines 6G is still being thrashed out, but it is expected to be ready by the end of the decade. According to telecoms supplier Ericsson, 6G networks are likely to offer data rates of several hundred gigabits per second (Gbps) with sub-millisecond (ms) end-to-end latency, and usher in new use cases. But NGMN sees it as an opportunity to simplify network architectures, reduce long‑term costs and operational complexity, and ensure a smooth and scalable migration path. As it points out, deploying a new technology requires significant investment, and this needs to be justified by confidence it will deliver a sustainable return for the operators. The org has pushed out two reports ahead of a plenary meeting of the 3GPP standards consortium in Singapore this month. One looks at 6G architecture and migration options, while the other considers the timing of 6G’s introduction from an operator’s perspective. What the NGMN wants to see is consensus on a primary approach to 6G migration and reduction in complexity across user equipment (UE), the radio access network (RAN) and core networks. It also wants to see the required 6G specifications, including those for RAN and core network, delivered in a single drop of 3GPP Release 21 rather than pushed out piecemeal. This is to enable operators to perform a complete network rollout without multiple phases that result in unnecessary complexity and market confusion, it says. In its first document, the NGMN advocates for the use of Multi-RAT Spectrum sharing (MRSS) as a migration option, where RAT means radio access technology. This enables the simultaneous use of the same frequency band by more than one generation of cellular network, such as 5G and 6G. This will 6G with flexible access to 5G spectrum so that “competitive user throughput and performance” can be achieved, even in locations where a large amount of new spectrum (e.g. spectrum around 7 GHz) is unavailable or too costly to deploy, it claims. However, the 3GPP should give also consideration to alternatives such as Dual Connectivity and Dual Stack, in case MRSS is found to significantly reduce 5G performance or increase network costs. As for the operators’ expectations of 6G, the second document says that a key motivation is to evolve network core technology to deliver greater operational efficiency. This extends to more efficient use of new spectrum bands (6-7 GHz considered possible), network automation, AI as a service, energy efficiency, and delivering ubiquitous coverage. The value to end users and the cost of network deployment are driven for a significant part by the design choices made in standardization, and this is why a single drop of specifications is key. With 5G, the full promise of the technology could not be delivered with initial deployments, and multiple rollouts and device generations have been needed. In the UK, for example, network operators were forced to bolt 5G radios onto the existing infrastructure built for 4G, which meant early users did not perceive much improvement in service, as The Register wrote last year. This led to the impression that it wasn’t worth paying extra for, which sapped the networks of funding needed to invest in upgrades later. However, the ability to decouple investment in software from simultaneous investment in hardware for 6G is a key operator expectation, according to the NGMN. If they can deploy 6G by means of software upgrades in the 5G legacy frequency bands, it will limit the required 6G investment, and will facilitate faster 6G rollouts. Conversely, 6G deployments may be subject to major delays if operators have to face infrastructure renewals and software upgrades at the same time. Another factor is the availability of new spectrum. For 6G, this will be instrumental for new use cases requiring extra capacity. The GSMA said in a report last year that 6G networks will need up to three times the spectrum currently allocated for 5G, and was measuring up various mid-band frequencies, as well as some in the centimeter wave bands. Overall, it seems the NGMN wants the standards bodies to take their time and get it right, before any rollout of 6G technology is even considered. “It is critical to take the time necessary for producing standards ensuring the above requirements, learning the lessons of 5G-SA deployments, and not to rush into decisions having potentially detrimental impact on the industry,” the document states. Extending the completion date of 3GPP Release 21 should even be considered if such a risk is identified, the NGMN adds. “The transition to 6G will present significant opportunities, but only if the industry prioritizes migration paths that build on existing network assets, minimize operational complexity and deliver tangible benefits from the earliest deployment stages,” said NGMN Alliance board chairman and Orange Group CTO Laurent Leboucher. “Dedicating sufficient time to this process is crucial, otherwise risking unnecessary complexity and long-term challenges, limiting the value to operators and end users.” ®