The 5G opportunity for a unitary paradigm

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

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. 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.

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.

shyamponappa@gmail.com