Monday, 22 June 2026

From Voice-Centric to Data-Driven Critical Communications

Back in 2024, I came across an excellent GSMA APAC webinar looking at the evolution of critical communications from predominantly voice-centric systems towards broadband, data-driven solutions. I had intended to write about it at the time but, as often happens, it remained on my ever-growing list of potential blog posts.

Watching it again in 2026, what struck me was not how much of it had become dated, but how relevant its central message remains.

The transition is not a simple replacement of TETRA, P25 and other narrowband systems with 4G and 5G. For many public safety and critical industry users, the more realistic path is a long period of coexistence, convergence and interworking.

Traditional narrowband critical communication systems were built around some very demanding requirements. Coverage and availability must be there 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Different agencies need to communicate during major incidents. Group communications are fundamental. Security, reliability and resilience are essential. Devices must also be fit for purpose, whether they are being used by police officers, firefighters, ambulance crews or workers in other critical industries.

Broadband does not remove any of those requirements. Instead, it adds another layer of expectations.

Public safety and critical industry users increasingly need access to high-resolution video, mapping, live location, sensor information, databases, drones, body-worn cameras and other sources of real-time information. Voice remains essential, but it is no longer sufficient on its own.

This is why 3GPP Mission Critical Services, generally referred to collectively as MCX, are so important. Mission Critical Push-to-Talk, Mission Critical Video and Mission Critical Data provide a standards-based framework for extending critical communications beyond traditional voice services.

The Critical Communications Association, TCCA, highlighted an important reality during the webinar. Narrowband and broadband systems will coexist for many years. Some organisations are augmenting existing systems with commercial mobile networks, others are deploying dedicated broadband networks, and many are adopting hybrid approaches combining dedicated, shared and commercial infrastructure.

There is no single migration model.

One of the most interesting examples came from New Zealand, where the Public Safety Network is being delivered across multiple components rather than as a single replacement network.

The narrowband element uses P25 Phase 2 for mission-critical voice, while the cellular element brings together coverage from the country's major mobile networks. The aim is to allow public safety users to make use of more than one network instead of being limited to the coverage footprint of a single operator.

At the time of the webinar, around 15,000 users were already using the cellular service and more than 430,000 roaming sessions had taken place without major issues. The combined approach was estimated to provide around a 5% improvement in usable coverage.

Interestingly, the improvement was not only in remote rural areas.

Many of the benefits came from small urban coverage gaps where one operator might have poor or no signal because of buildings or local radio conditions, while another operator remained available. For a consumer, this might simply be an inconvenience. For a first responder trying to access operational information during an incident, it can be far more serious.

The webinar gave an example of a firearms incident in a remote area. Only one officer present had migrated to the new public safety SIM, but that user had connectivity from an alternative network and was able to provide access for other personnel. This allowed the team to obtain information about the offender, access intelligence and maintain communications with the command centre.

Another example involved an ambulance crew using improved connectivity to help direct a helicopter to the correct location.

The next step was quality, priority and pre-emption. These capabilities are essential because access to multiple commercial networks is only one part of the problem. During congestion, public safety users need to receive the appropriate treatment ahead of ordinary traffic.

New Zealand was also looking at deployable coverage solutions for situations where cellular coverage does not exist or where infrastructure has been damaged by a natural disaster. Portable systems using satellite backhaul and local cellular coverage can be taken into the field and deployed by first responders without requiring a team of radio engineers.

This is an important part of the changing critical communications architecture.

Coverage is increasingly becoming multi-layered. A user may rely on a terrestrial mobile network under normal conditions, another operator where the primary network is unavailable, a deployable small cell during an emergency, and satellite connectivity when terrestrial infrastructure cannot be reached.

The same principle appeared in a very different example from Australia.

Icon Water provides essential water and wastewater services across the Australian Capital Territory. The organisation had been using an ageing voice-centric narrowband radio system and wanted to move towards broadband critical communications. The challenge was that around 30% of its operational area was not covered by terrestrial mobile networks.

Simply replacing the radio system with an application running over a commercial 4G network would therefore not have been sufficient.

The solution combined a dedicated MCX platform with multiple forms of connectivity. Where terrestrial 4G was available, users could connect through the mobile network. When vehicles moved outside cellular coverage, smart routers could use LEO satellite connectivity as an alternative backhaul path, with Wi-Fi providing local access for users and devices.

This is a good example of why the future of critical communications should not be viewed as a competition between terrestrial mobile and satellite networks. The two can complement one another.

The Icon Water deployment also demonstrated how broadband expands the communications environment beyond push-to-talk voice. The platform could support video, file sharing, emergency alerting, location information, lone-worker protection and integration with external systems such as body-worn cameras, CCTV, drones and IoT sensors.

At some fixed locations, in-building mobile coverage was also poor. Repeaters were used to improve the coverage at surveyed locations from around 12% to approximately 90%.

Again, there was no single technology solving every problem.

The wider webinar also showed how similar changes are taking place across other critical industries. Mining, energy, utilities and ports are increasingly using private 4G and 5G networks for applications ranging from low-data-rate sensors to high-definition video and remote control.

The Port of Port Hedland example included marine sensor connectivity, worker mobility and connectivity for visiting seafarers. The network had to cover operations extending beyond the traditional office or factory environment and out towards maritime areas.

Rail communications are following a similar path. The Future Railway Mobile Communication System, FRMCS, is being developed around 5G and MCX principles, supporting not only critical voice and signalling but also applications such as CCTV, passenger information, staff communications and future automation.

Some of the deployment timelines discussed in the 2024 webinar have naturally moved on since then, but the technical direction remains clear. Critical communications are becoming increasingly software-driven, data-rich and dependent on a combination of communications technologies.

5G-connected UAVs were another example. A presentation from China Mobile International looked at how network-connected drones could support emergency response, policing, firefighting, monitoring and other low-altitude applications. Instead of the drone being simply a remotely controlled flying camera, it becomes part of a wider communications and information system.

This brings us to what I thought was the strongest message from the panel discussion at the end of the webinar.

Dr Jolly Wong, formerly CTO of the Hong Kong Police Force, described the transition using two Cs: convergence and coexistence.

Narrowband critical communication systems remain highly relevant to organisation-centric group communications. They are built around reliable voice, established operational procedures and communication within defined groups.

Broadband, on the other hand, enables more information-centric operations. Users can access video, data, applications, sensors and other sources of information that improve situational awareness and decision-making.

The two approaches have different strengths.

The migration cannot happen overnight, so narrowband and broadband systems need to work together. Interworking between different systems, networks and groups therefore becomes an essential part of the transition.

Dr Wong used the analogy of yin and yang.

On one side are the traditional strengths of mission-critical voice: resilience, security, availability, reliability and consistency.

On the other side are the strengths of broadband and data-driven communications: multimedia, video, applications, IoT, AI, innovation and agility.

The future is not simply one side replacing the other. It is about finding the right balance between them.

This may also explain why the transition to broadband critical communications has taken longer than some originally expected. Replacing a consumer mobile service is relatively easy. Replacing a communications system that people depend on in fires, floods, terrorist incidents, accidents and other emergencies is completely different.

The technology must work, but that is only the start. Coverage, spectrum, security, interoperability, certification, priority, pre-emption, devices, applications, operational processes and user behaviour all have to be considered.

As critical communications become more data-driven, the network itself is also becoming less visible to the user. A first responder should not need to think about whether connectivity is coming from the primary mobile operator, another operator, a private network, a deployable system or a satellite link.

The objective is reliable access to voice, data and applications wherever they are needed.

Nearly two years after the original webinar, the move from voice-centric to data-driven critical communications is still very much a journey rather than a completed transition. Perhaps the most important lesson is that the future will not be defined by one network or one technology.

It will be defined by how well narrowband, broadband, private networks, public mobile networks and satellite connectivity can work together to provide the coverage, resilience and information that critical users need.

The full GSMA APAC webinar is embedded below.


Thursday, 11 June 2026

Release 19 Takes Satellite, NTN and Aerial Connectivity Further

3GPP Release 19 continues the evolution of 5G-Advanced and, among many other areas, brings important enhancements for satellite access, Non-Terrestrial Networks (NTN), Uncrewed Aerial Systems (UAS), Air-to-Ground networks and positioning. While NTN was initially seen by many as a way of extending mobile coverage to remote areas, Release 19 shows that the ambition is now much broader. The aim is to make satellite and aerial connectivity more practical, more resilient and better integrated with the 5G ecosystem.

Release 17 introduced the first major NR NTN framework, largely focused on transparent satellite payloads. Release 18 added further improvements, including mobility and service continuity enhancements. Release 19 now moves the discussion towards more advanced capabilities, including regenerative payloads, Store-and-Forward satellite operation, UE-Satellite-UE communication, improved support for IoT NTN and better support for aircraft and drones.

One of the key areas in Release 19 is NR NTN Phase 3. Satellite links face challenges that are very different from terrestrial mobile networks. The distances are much greater, propagation delays are longer, satellite beams can cover very large geographical areas and satellite payload power is limited. Release 19 addresses these constraints through improved coverage and capacity mechanisms. For example, important control and system information can be repeated to improve the chance that devices can successfully receive and decode it. This is especially important for handset-type terminals and power-limited devices operating in challenging satellite conditions.

This also connects to the wider industry discussion around Direct-to-Device satellite connectivity. 3GPP does not always use the marketing phrase Direct-to-Device, but the work on improved downlink performance for handset-type terminals is clearly relevant to that vision. It is worth being careful with the abbreviation D2D, as in standards discussions it can also mean Device-to-Device. For this reason, Direct-to-Device is probably the clearer term when talking about phones or lightweight devices connecting directly to satellites.

Release 19 also improves uplink capacity in NTN through multiplexing techniques such as Orthogonal Cover Codes. This matters because a satellite beam can cover a large area with many potential users, while the available spectrum and power remain limited. Better multiplexing means more users and devices can be supported with the same satellite resources. This will become increasingly important as NTN expands beyond emergency messaging towards IoT, broadband and more diverse services.

Perhaps the most interesting architectural shift is the support for regenerative payloads and gNB functions on board the satellite. In a traditional transparent payload model, the satellite mainly acts as a relay, with most processing taking place on the ground. With regenerative payloads, more intelligence moves into space. The satellite can process, switch or route signals, making the network more flexible and less dependent on a continuous feeder link to the ground.

This helps enable one of the most distinctive Release 19 capabilities, Store-and-Forward satellite operation. In some non-geostationary satellite scenarios, the satellite may be visible to the UE but may not have a simultaneous active feeder link to the ground network. Store-and-Forward allows the satellite to temporarily store data and forward it later when connectivity to the ground segment becomes available. This is especially useful for delay-tolerant IoT applications such as asset tracking, environmental sensing, remote monitoring and logistics.

Another new area is UE-Satellite-UE communication. Normally, traffic between two users would travel via the satellite, the ground network and then back again. Release 19 starts enabling a more direct path via a regenerative satellite architecture. The initial scope is limited, including IMS voice and video services for users in the same PLMN and in non-roaming scenarios, but it is still an important step. It shows how NTN can evolve from simple coverage extension towards a more capable communication platform.

IoT NTN also receives significant attention in Release 19. Enhancements include Store-and-Forward operation for IoT, improved uplink capacity and support for Public Warning System messages over NB-IoT NTN. Release 19 also introduces IoT NTN TDD mode, which is important because earlier NB-IoT NTN work was focused on FDD operation. TDD support gives satellite operators more flexibility and opens the door to additional deployment scenarios.

Public warning support is another practical and important enhancement. Satellite connectivity can be extremely valuable in areas where terrestrial networks are unavailable, damaged or overloaded. Supporting warning messages over satellite and IoT NTN can help extend emergency alerting capabilities to remote regions, maritime environments and disaster-affected areas.

Release 19 is not only about satellites. It also includes enhancements for Air-to-Ground networks and UAS Phase 3. Air-to-Ground connectivity uses ground-based cellular infrastructure to serve aircraft, rather than relying on satellites. Release 19 work in this area supports improvements such as downlink carrier aggregation and MIMO for better throughput and more efficient spectrum use.

For UAS, Release 19 continues the work needed to make drones better integrated into mobile networks and service platforms. This includes support for pre-mission planning, in-mission monitoring, command and control reliability, network-assisted Detect and Avoid, No-Transmit Zones and interaction with UAS traffic management systems. These capabilities matter because drones are increasingly being used for inspection, logistics, public safety, disaster response, smart cities and future urban air mobility.

Positioning is another important part of the Release 19 satellite and aerial story. Enhancements include on-demand broadcast of GNSS assistance data, support for BeiDou B2b in A-GNSS for LTE and NR, and support for NavIC L1 SPS in NR and LTE. These improvements help make positioning more flexible and globally relevant, especially for NTN, IoT, maritime, aviation and UAS use cases.

Taken together, Release 19 shows how NTN is maturing. The focus is no longer just on whether a device can connect to a satellite. The bigger question is how satellite, aerial and terrestrial networks can work together as part of a wider 5G-Advanced system. With regenerative payloads, Store-and-Forward operation, UE-Satellite-UE communication, IoT NTN enhancements, public warning support, Air-to-Ground improvements and UAS integration, Release 19 takes another important step towards making non-terrestrial connectivity practical, resilient and service-rich.

The video below provides a visual walkthrough of these Release 19 satellite, NTN, UAS and aerial enhancements.

Related Posts

Tuesday, 26 May 2026

Mid-Band Spectrum Still Matters for 5G and Beyond

Mid-band spectrum has become one of the most important parts of the mobile network story. Low-band spectrum is essential for wide-area coverage and better indoor reach, while high-band spectrum, including mmWave, can provide very high capacity in selected locations. Mid-band sits between these two extremes and provides the practical balance of coverage and capacity that mobile operators need for mainstream LTE and 5G deployments.

A recent GSA report, Mid Band Spectrum Summary Report, May 2026, provides a useful global update on the status of spectrum between 1.71 GHz and 7.125 GHz. This includes familiar bands such as 1800 MHz, 2100 MHz, 2300 MHz, 2600 MHz, C-band, n79 and the upper 6 GHz band. Many of these bands have a long history in 2G, 3G and 4G networks, but they continue to remain valuable as operators refarm spectrum for LTE and 5G.

The 1800 MHz band remains one of the most widely used LTE bands globally, while 2100 MHz is a good example of a band originally associated with 3G that is now being reused for LTE and 5G. The 2300 MHz and 2600 MHz bands add further capacity options, with different FDD and TDD arrangements depending on the market.

For 5G, C-band has become the main global capacity layer. It offers more bandwidth than the lower mobile bands, while still being more practical than mmWave for wide-area deployment. This is why 3.5 GHz and related C-band ranges are central to many 5G network rollouts around the world.

Looking ahead, upper 6 GHz is becoming increasingly important for 5G-Advanced and 6G planning. It could provide an additional capacity layer that sits above today’s C-band deployments, while still being more practical than mmWave in many scenarios. Beyond that, future 6G discussions may add new layers such as upper-midband spectrum in the 7 to 15 GHz range and sub-THz spectrum for very high-throughput use cases.

In the short video below, we provide a quick update on mid-band spectrum, using the GSA report as the main data source and adding our own analysis of how these spectrum layers fit into LTE, 5G, 5G-Advanced and future 6G evolution.

Related Posts

Thursday, 14 May 2026

CBRS Comes of Age as a Shared Spectrum Success Story

The Citizens Broadband Radio Service, better known as CBRS, has often been described as an experiment in spectrum sharing. Based on the latest OnGo Alliance webinar on the state of CBRS, that description no longer feels accurate. CBRS is now a sizeable and maturing wireless ecosystem in the United States, supporting mobile operators, cable companies, wireless internet service providers, private network deployments, neutral host systems and a growing range of enterprise use cases.

For those less familiar with CBRS, it operates in the 3.5 GHz band in the United States and uses a shared spectrum framework. Rather than relying only on traditional exclusive licensing or completely unlicensed access, CBRS introduced a three-tier model, coordinated through a Spectrum Access System, or SAS. This software-based coordination layer allows different users to access spectrum while protecting incumbent users, including government and defence systems.

The model has taken more than a decade to develop. The discussion began around 2012, when US policymakers and defence stakeholders started exploring whether mid-band spectrum could be shared more efficiently between government and commercial users. The first FCC rule and order arrived in 2015, followed by the creation of the OnGo Alliance in 2016. The role of the Alliance was to bring together government, industry, technology providers and users to translate the regulatory framework into a workable commercial ecosystem.

A key point from the webinar was that CBRS has not developed as a single-sector technology. It is not just for mobile operators, and it is not just for private wireless. It brings together mobile network operators, cable companies, WISPs, system integrators, RAN vendors, device manufacturers, SAS administrators, enterprises, airports, campuses, healthcare facilities, utilities and many others. This diversity is one of the main reasons CBRS has become interesting from a broader telecoms perspective.

The scale of deployment is now significant. The webinar highlighted more than 437,000 CBRS devices deployed across the United States, more than 1,000 CBRS operators and networks, around 1,100 certified end-user devices supporting Band 48, and more than 1,800 private network deployments. The total ecosystem investment was described as being more than 14 billion US dollars, including spectrum, equipment, standardisation, technology development, SAS infrastructure and sensing networks.

The Priority Access Licence, or PAL, auction also played an important role. Auction 105 raised close to 5 billion US dollars and created around 22,000 PAL licences. Unlike some traditional spectrum auctions, the county-based licence areas allowed smaller and regional players to participate, particularly in rural and suburban markets. This is important because CBRS has become a practical tool not only for national-scale operators but also for smaller service providers addressing local connectivity needs.

One of the most useful ways to understand CBRS is to place it between two familiar models. On one side there is unlicensed spectrum, mainly associated with Wi-Fi, which is easy to access but can suffer from congestion and unpredictability. On the other side there is exclusive licensed spectrum, which provides stronger control but is expensive, complex and usually held by major operators. CBRS sits between these models. General Authorised Access, or GAA, provides licence-by-rule access, while PAL provides a higher-priority licensed layer. The SAS coordinates access and helps manage coexistence.

This software-managed spectrum access model is one of the most important aspects of CBRS. In a traditional licensing model, gaining access to spectrum can be slow and expensive. In CBRS, the SAS can authorise spectrum use in minutes. The network operator interacts with the SAS, while the end user does not need to know that this process is happening. In many deployments, even the radio does not need to communicate directly with the SAS because a domain proxy or network management system can handle that interaction.

The webinar also made clear that CBRS is evolving. CBRS 2.0, introduced in 2024, expanded availability by refining the way incumbent protection is handled. This opened the band to an additional 72 million Americans, mainly through software and regulatory improvements rather than any major change in physical infrastructure. That is a powerful example of how shared spectrum systems can improve over time as data, models and operational experience mature.

Fixed Wireless Access is one of the most visible CBRS use cases. WISPs and FWA providers are using CBRS to serve suburban, rural and ultra-rural communities, often in places where connectivity options are limited. The webinar suggested that CBRS-based WISPs and FWA providers are serving more than 10 million residential customers in the United States, with many of these customers located in areas that have fewer than two viable internet options.

This is a useful reminder that wireless and fibre should not always be seen as competing technologies. In many rural deployments, CBRS is used as part of a hybrid model, with fibre providing backhaul and fixed wireless covering the final stretch. This can be faster and cheaper than extending fibre everywhere, particularly in difficult terrain or sparsely populated areas. It can also be more resilient in emergencies, as wireless networks can often be restored more quickly after fires, floods or other disasters.

The discussion also touched on competition from low Earth orbit satellite systems such as Starlink and future Amazon Kuiper services. The speakers framed satellite and CBRS-based FWA more as complementary technologies than direct competitors. This is a sensible view. Rural broadband is not a single-problem market. Some locations will be better served by terrestrial fixed wireless, some by fibre, some by satellite, and many by a combination of these approaches. The real value comes from having multiple options.

Private networks are another major part of the CBRS story. Enterprises can use CBRS spectrum for their own dedicated cellular networks, with applications tailored to their operational needs. These networks can sit inside the enterprise firewall and support predictable performance, mobility and security. Typical applications include point-of-sale terminals, push-to-talk communications, video surveillance, automated guided vehicles, warehouse systems, robotics, utilities, airports, ports, rail yards and industrial facilities.

The mobility angle is especially important. Wi-Fi is excellent for many indoor and enterprise use cases, but private cellular can provide more predictable mobility, coverage and quality of service in large sites, outdoor environments and industrial locations. As physical AI, robotics and autonomous systems become more widely deployed, reliable wireless connectivity will become more important. CBRS gives enterprises in the United States a practical route to deploy private cellular without needing to own exclusive nationwide spectrum.

Neutral host networks were also highlighted as a major growth area. In this model, an enterprise, venue or building owner deploys CBRS-based infrastructure to improve indoor mobile coverage for users of public mobile networks. This can help solve the common problem of poor indoor mobile signal, dropped calls and dead zones, especially in buildings where a traditional distributed antenna system is too expensive or too difficult to justify.

The safety aspect of neutral host coverage deserves more attention. Buildings often have public safety communications requirements for first responders, but the ability of occupants to call emergency services from inside the building is just as important. A neutral host system integrated with mobile operators can support emergency calling and wireless emergency alerts. This makes indoor cellular coverage not just a convenience issue but a safety and resilience issue.

The webinar suggested that around 80% of buildings in the United States lack adequate mobile coverage. While this figure may vary depending on building type and methodology, the underlying point is easy to recognise. Many offices, schools, hospitals, hotels, warehouses and public buildings still have patchy indoor mobile coverage. CBRS-based neutral host systems could lower the barrier for improving this, especially in mid-sized buildings that would not previously have justified a traditional operator-led solution.

Several verticals were identified as having strong growth potential. Airports are already emerging as a good example, with CBRS supporting operational communications, asset tracking, baggage handling and other behind-the-scenes functions. Ports, shipyards, utilities, factories, schools, campuses, hospitals, tribal communities, hospitality venues, stadiums and public sector facilities were also mentioned as areas where CBRS can support either private networks, neutral host networks or both.

Smart agriculture is another interesting opportunity. Farms often have poor mobile coverage but growing connectivity needs, from precision agriculture and sensors to equipment monitoring and automation. CBRS could provide localised, high-quality coverage where traditional mobile networks are weak or unavailable. Healthcare was also mentioned as a sector with significant potential, particularly as hospitals still rely on a mix of legacy communications tools while demanding more reliable mobile and telemetry connectivity.

One of the more forward-looking points came near the end of the webinar, where CBRS was positioned as a good candidate for AI-enhanced spectrum management. Because CBRS relies heavily on software, propagation models, measurements, databases and SAS-based decision-making, it creates an environment where AI could potentially improve spectrum availability and interference management. This will require careful regulatory support, but the idea is important. Spectrum sharing should not be static. It should improve as better data and better models become available.

The broader lesson from CBRS is that shared spectrum can work when the technical, regulatory and commercial models are aligned. It has created a middle ground between unlicensed and exclusive licensed spectrum. It has enabled smaller operators and enterprises to access mid-band spectrum. It has supported rural broadband, private networks and neutral host systems. It has also shown that incumbent protection and commercial deployment do not have to be mutually exclusive.

There are still challenges. Regulatory uncertainty remains a concern, especially if potential investors or deployers worry that the rules could change. Further refinements will be needed around incumbent protection, antenna heights, fixed satellite protection, indoor systems, distributed antenna systems and future enhancements. However, the direction of travel is positive. CBRS is no longer just a policy experiment or a niche wireless band. It is becoming an important part of the US connectivity landscape.

For markets outside the United States, CBRS is worth watching because it offers a real-world example of dynamic spectrum sharing at scale. Not every country will copy the CBRS model directly, and spectrum availability, incumbent use and regulatory priorities will differ. Even so, the principles are relevant. As demand for mid-band spectrum grows, governments and regulators will need more flexible ways to balance public, private, commercial and national security needs. CBRS shows one way this can be done.

The video of the webinar is embedded below:

Related Posts:

Tuesday, 28 April 2026

7 MHz Brings Much Needed Flexibility to 5G NR

The evolution of channel bandwidths in 5G NR has been relatively conservative compared to earlier generations, but recent developments in 3GPP Release 19 show that this is beginning to change. The introduction of 7 MHz channel bandwidth in FR1 marks an important step towards addressing practical spectrum realities that many operators have faced since the early days of NR.

In the original 5G NR specifications, channel bandwidths were defined in regular steps of 5 MHz, such as 5, 10, 15, 20 MHz and so on. This design choice simplified implementation and aligned well with clean spectrum allocations. However, real world spectrum holdings are rarely so neat. Many operators hold fragmented or irregular chunks of spectrum, particularly in low bands where legacy allocations and refarming have resulted in non standard bandwidths.

This was not a new problem. LTE had already addressed this challenge by supporting a wider range of channel bandwidths including 1.4 MHz and 3 MHz, in addition to the more common 5, 10, 15 and 20 MHz. Combined with carrier aggregation, LTE allowed operators to make efficient use of spectrum even when it was not aligned to neat multiples. When NR was introduced, this flexibility was initially reduced, creating a gap between specification and deployment reality.

Recognising this limitation, 3GPP introduced a 3 MHz channel bandwidth in Release 17 and continued refining spectrum flexibility in Release 18. The addition of 3 MHz was an important step, particularly for narrowband and coverage focused deployments, and it allowed combinations such as 8 MHz or 13 MHz to be better utilised through aggregation.

However, this still did not fully solve the problem. Operators continued to highlight the need to support other irregular bandwidths such as 6, 7, 11 and 12 MHz. These are not edge cases but reflect actual spectrum holdings in several bands. Release 19 addresses this directly by introducing native 7 MHz channel bandwidth.

The standardisation of 7 MHz focuses on FR1 operation, initially targeting bands such as n5 and n26. Rather than relying on workarounds such as overlapping channels or using the next larger bandwidth, this approach defines 7 MHz as a native channel bandwidth within NR. This avoids some of the practical issues associated with earlier approaches, including blocking from adjacent operators and compatibility challenges with legacy devices.

The work also includes a comprehensive set of requirements covering both core and performance aspects. These span RF requirements for user equipment and base stations, spectrum utilisation considerations, and the necessary signalling updates across the protocol stack. The effort is led by RAN4, with coordination from RAN2 and RAN3 to ensure seamless integration into the NR framework.

An interesting aspect of this development is the constraint to 15 kHz subcarrier spacing. This reflects the focus on low band and coverage scenarios where such numerology is most relevant. It also helps to limit complexity while still delivering the intended benefit of improved spectrum utilisation.

From a deployment perspective, the introduction of 7 MHz fills an important gap. While 3 MHz enabled some additional flexibility, it was not sufficient to address all irregular spectrum cases. With 7 MHz, operators gain a more practical option that aligns better with real spectrum allocations, especially in bands where 6 or 7 MHz chunks are common.

It is also worth noting that this is likely not the end of the story. Earlier study work identified several other irregular bandwidths that could be useful. The inclusion of 7 MHz in Release 19 can be seen as a pragmatic step, with the possibility of extending similar support to other bandwidths in future releases once the framework is established.

In many ways, this development reflects a broader trend in 5G and beyond. Early specifications tend to favour simplicity and clean design, but as deployments mature, practical considerations drive the need for greater flexibility. Spectrum is one of the most valuable assets for operators, and the ability to use it efficiently, regardless of how it is fragmented, is critical.

The addition of 3 MHz in earlier releases and the introduction of 7 MHz in Release 19 shows that NR is evolving in that direction. It is a reminder that standardisation is not just about defining ideal systems, but also about adapting to the realities of how networks are deployed and operated.

Ericsson’s blog provides a useful background on the introduction of 3 MHz bandwidth in Release 18, available here. Further technical details on the 7 MHz enhancement can be found in RP-251453, which describes the NR FR1 7 MHz channel bandwidth Work Item.

Related Posts

Thursday, 9 April 2026

3GPP Release 19 Description and Summary of Work Items

As the journey towards 3GPP Release 20 and 6G (3GPP Rel-21) continues to gather pace, the recently concluded Release 19 comes with a clearer view of what the next phase of 5G evolution, often referred to as 5G-Advanced, will look like in practice. One of the most useful artefacts in this process is the recently published technical report 3GPP TR 21.919, which offers a consolidated snapshot of the features and work items currently shaping this release.

Rather than focusing on detailed specifications, this report takes a step back and provides accessible summaries of the agreed work items. Each summary is intended to answer two simple but important questions: what problem is being addressed, and what impact the feature will have on the overall system. This makes the document particularly valuable not only for specialists deeply involved in standardisation work, but also for a broader audience trying to keep track of where the industry is heading.

It is worth noting that this is still very much a work in progress (50% complete). At the time of publication, just over 60 summaries have been included, with many more expected in future updates. Even so, the current version already highlights the sheer breadth of activity in Release 19, spanning everything from energy efficiency and non-terrestrial networks to AI, immersive services, and advanced radio capabilities.

In this post, I will not attempt to reinterpret or condense the summaries themselves. Instead, I am sharing the full list of topics covered in the report below, which provides a useful index into the areas that 3GPP worked on as part of Release 19.

It should be noted that the technical report (TR) presents the "initial state" of the Features introduced in Release 19, i.e. as they are by the time of publication of this document. Each Feature is subject to be later modified or enhanced, over several years, by the means of Change Requests (CRs). To further outline a feature at a given time, it is recommended to retrieve all the CRs which relate to the given Feature, as explained in its Reference section. 

Below is the list of all topics covered in this report. Some of the topics may be missing a summary, which will be added later in the later updates.  

5 Rel-19 Energy Efficiency, Energy Saving
5.1   Enhancements of Network energy savings for NR
5.2   Low-power wake-up signal and receiver for NR (LP-WUS/WUR)
5.3   Energy Efficiency as Service Criteria

6   Rel-19 Satellite (5GSAT), NTN, UAS, Aerial
6.1   Satellite access Phase 3
6.1.1   Security Aspects of 5G Satellite Access Phase 3
6.1.2   Charging aspects of satellite access Phase 3
6.2   Non-Terrestrial Networks (NTN) for NR Phase 3
6.3   Enhancements for Air-to-ground network for NR
6.4   Inter-RAT mode mobility support from E-UTRAN TN to NR NTN
6.5   Non-Terrestrial Networks (NTN) for Internet of Things (IoT) Phase 3 (for LTE)
6.6   Introduction of IoT-NTN TDD mode
6.7   Enhanced requirements and test methodology for NR NTN and IoT NTN
6.8   On-demand broadcast of GNSS assistance data
6.9   Uncrewed Aerial System Phase 3
6.10   Support for PWS in Satellite E-UTRAN and Satellite NG-RAN
6.11   Introduction of BDS (BeiDou Navigation Satellite System) B2b Signal in A-GNSS for LTE and NR
6.12   Introduction of A-GNSS support for NavIC (Navigation with Indian Constellation) L1 SPS (Standard Positioning Service) in NR & LTE
6.13   Management Aspects of Rel-18's NTN Phase 2
6.14   Lower Selection-priority for PLMN Selection
6.15   New LTE band for 5G broadcast for region 3 utilizing a geosynchronous satellite
6.16   Satellite band-related items
6.16.1   Introduction of Ku bands for NR NTN
6.16.2   Introduction of additional operating NR bands for HAPS (High Altitude Platform Station)
6.16.3   Introduction of another NR NTN S-band (MSS band 2000-2020 MHz UL and 2180-2200 MHz DL)
6.16.4   New NR NTN bands to support Extended L-band and combined MSS L-band and Extended L-band ranges
6.16.5   Introduction of another IoT-NTN S-band (MSS band 2000-2020 MHz UL and 2180-2200 MHz DL)

7   Rel-19 Internet of Things (IoT) and Reduced Capability (RedCap) UE
7.1   NR power class 2 RedCap (Reduced Capability) UE in FR1
7.2   NAS layer overhead reduction for data transfer using CP CIoT
7.3   Management Aspects of RedCap features

8   Ambient power-enabled Internet of Things (IoT)
8.1   Ambient power-enabled Internet of Things (IoT) (SA and CT)
8.1.1   Charging for Ambient power-enabled Internet of Things
8.1.2   Security Aspects of Ambient IoT Services in 5G for Isolated Private Networks
8.2   Solutions for Ambient IoT (Internet of Things) in NR

9   Rel-19 Artificial Intelligence (AI)/Machine Learning (ML)
9.1   AI/ML Model Transfer Phase 2
9.2   Core Network Enhanced Support for Artificial Intelligence (AI)/Machine Learning (ML)
9.3   Application enablement for AI/ML services
9.4   Artificial Intelligence (AI)/Machine Learning (ML) for NR air interface
9.5   Artificial Intelligence (AI)/Machine Learning (ML) for NR air interface
9.6   Enhancements for Artificial Intelligence (AI)/Machine Learning (ML) for NG-RAN
9.7   AI/ML Management Phase 2
9.8   Protocol for AI Data Collection from UPF

10   Rel-19 Verticals and Non Public Network
10.1   Rel-19 Enhancements of 3GPP Northbound and Application Layer Interfaces and APIs
10.2   SEAL DD (Data Delivery) Phase 2
10.3   Common Application Programming Interface (API) Framework (CAPIF) Phase 3
10.4   Enhanced OAM for management service exposure to external consumers through CAPIF
10.5   Non-Public Network (NPN) security considerations
10.6   Security for PLMN hosting a NPN
10.7   Interconnect of SNPN
10.8   ProSe support in NPN

11   Rel-19 communications services
11.1   Media Messaging Enhancements
11.2   Terminal Audio quality performance and Test methods for Immersive Audio Services, Phase 2
11.3   EVS Codec Extension for Immersive Voice and Audio Services, Phase 2
11.4   5GMSG Service phase 3
11.5   Video Operating Points - Harmonization and Stereo MV-HEVC
11.6   Advanced Media Delivery
11.7   5G Real-time Transport Protocol Configurations, Phase 2
11.8   Next Generation Real time Communication services Phase 2
11.8.1   System architecture for Next Generation Real time Communication services Phase 2
11.8.2   Security support for the Next Generation Real Time Communication services Phase 2
11.8.3   Application enablement aspects for MMTel

12   Rel-19 XR (eXtended Reality), Augmented Reality (AR), Metaverse, Edge Computing
12.1   Localized Mobile Metaverse Services
12.2   Extended Reality and Media
12.3   XR (eXtended Reality) for NR Phase 3
12.4   Avatar Communications in AR Calls
12.5   Split rendering over IMS
12.6   Enhancement of support for Edge Computing in 5G Core network - Phase 3
12.7   Edge Computing for Industrial Scenarios
12.8   Edge Computing Considering the Operational Needs of Service Hosting Environment
12.9   Architecture for enabling Edge Applications Phase 3

13   Rel-19 High Power UEs (HPUE)
13.1   Rel-19 High power UE (power class 1.5 or 2) for NR intra-band CA or NR inter-band CA/DC band combinations with/without NR Supplementary Uplink (UL)
13.2   Rel-19 High power UE (power class 1.5 and 2) for NR FR1 TDD/FDD single band for handheld/FWA UEs, and high power UE operation (power class 1) for FWVM (fixed-wireless/vehicle-mounted) use cases in a single NR band
13.3   Introduction of Power Class 2 and UE 40MHz Channel Bandwidth in NR band n28
13.4   Rel-19 High power UE (power class 1.5 or 2) for DC combinations of LTE band(s) and NR band(s)
13.5   Rel-19 High power UE (power class 2) and high power operation (power class 1) for fixed-wireless/vehicle-mounted use cases in a single LTE band

14   Rel-19 RAN topology
14.1   5G NR Femto
14.2   Additional topological enhancements for NR
14.3   Vehicle Mounted Relays Phase 2

15   Rel-19 Sidelink, Proximity
15.1   NR sidelink multi-hop relay
15.2   UE-to-UE multi-hop relay
15.3   NR Sidelink: Intra-band Carrier Aggregation in ITS band
15.4   Charging Aspects of Ranging and Sidelink Positioning
15.5   Multi-path relay
15.6   Proximity-based Services in 5GS Phase 3

16   NR and LTE Dual Connectivity (DC)
16.1   UE RF enhancements for NR FR1/FR2 and EN-DC, Phase 4
16.2   Support of intra-band non-collocated EN-DC/NR-CA deployment Phase2: new receiver type(s)
16.3   Rel-19 downlink interruption for NR and EN-DC band combinations at dynamic Tx Switching in Uplink
16.4   Rel-19 DC of x LTE band(s), y NR band(s) (1<=x<6, 1<=y<6, x+y<=6) and single or two NR Supplementary Uplink (SUL) bands
16.5   Simultaneous Rx/Tx band combinations for NR CA/DC, NR SUL and LTE/NR DC in Rel-19
16.6   UE Conformance - Rel-19 NR CA and DC; and NR and LTE DC Configurations

17   Rel-19 Other NR and LTE Radio
17.1   Adding channel bandwidth(s) support to existing NR bands and CA/ENDC combinations in REL-19
17.2   Data collection for SON (Self-Organising Networks)/MDT (Minimization of Drive Tests) in NR standalone and MR-DC (Multi-Radio Dual Connectivity) Phase 4

18   Rel-19 NR Radio
18.1   NR mobility enhancements Phase 4
18.2   Evolution of NR duplex operation: Sub-band full duplex (SBFD)
18.3   NR Radio Resource Management (RRM) Phase 5
18.4   Multi-carrier enhancements for NR Phase 3
18.5   NR demodulation performance Phase 5
18.6   NR MIMO Phase 5
18.7   FR1 TRP, TRS and MIMO OTA testing enhancement Phase 3
18.8   Rel-19 NR CA/DC for x bands DL with y bands UL (x<7, y<3) and SUL/CA band combinations with a single SUL or two SUL cells
18.9   Low band carrier aggregation via switching
18.10  NR channel BW less than 5MHz for FR1 Phase 2
18.11  mmWave in NR: UE spurious emissions and EESS (Earth Exploration Satellite Service) protection
18.12  NR base station (BS) RF requirement evolution for FR1/FR2 and testing
18.13  UE Conformance - New Rel-19 NR licensed bands and extension of existing NR bands
18.14  Other band-related items
18.14.1   7MHz Channel Bandwidth for n26 and n5
18.14.2   Introduction of the NR FDD 1.4 GHz band
18.14.3   Introduction of NR bands n87 and n88
18.14.4   Introduction of NR band n68
18.14.5   Additional NR bands for NR features in Rel-19
18.15  Study on spatial channel model for demodulation performance requirements for NR

19   Rel-19 LTE Radio
19.1   LTE-based 5G Broadcast Phase 2
19.2   Rel-19 LTE-Advanced Carrier Aggregation for x bands (1<=x<= 6) DL with y bands (y=1, 2) UL
19.3   Band-related items
19.3.1   New bands for LTE based 5G terrestrial broadcast for early deployments
19.3.2   Introduction of LTE FDD band in 1800–1830 MHz for Canada

20   Rel-19 Mission Critical, eCall, Emergency
20.1   Enhanced Mission Critical Architecture
20.2   Enhanced Mission Critical Location Management
20.3   Alignment of eCall over IMS with CEN
20.4   UE Conformance - Alignment of eCall over IMS with CEN
20.5   Multiple Location Procedure for Emergency LCS Routing
20.6   Multimedia Priority Service (MPS) for Messaging services
20.7   Mission Critical (MC) services for generic support on Isolated Operation for Public Safety (IOPS) mode of operation
20.8   Sharing of administrative configuration between interconnected MC service systems
20.9   Future Railway Mobile Communication System (FRMCS) Phase 5
20.10   Mission critical security enhancements for release 19
20.11   Protocol enhancements for Mission Critical Services

21   Rel-19 Network Slicing
21.1   Network Controlled Network Slice Selection

22   Rel-19 Service-Based Architecture (SBA)
22.1   UPF enhancement for Exposure And SBA Phase 2
22.2   Automatic Certificate Management Environment (ACME) for the Service Based Architecture (SBA)
22.3   Reducing Information Exposure over SBI
22.4   Service Based Interface Protocol Improvements Release 19

23   Rel-19 QoS and Policy
23.1   Rel-19 Enhancements of UE Policy
23.2   Rel-19 Enhancements of Session Management (SM) Policy
23.3   Minimize the Number of Policy Associations
23.4   Spending Limits for UE Policies in Roaming scenario
23.5   Enhancing Parameter Provisioning with static UE IP address and UP security policy
23.6   Providing per-subscriber VLAN instructions from UDM and DN-AAA
23.7   QoS monitoring enhancement

24   Rel-19 multi-access
24.1   Upper layer traffic steering and switching over dual 3GPP access
24.2   Multi-Access (ATSSS_Ph4)
24.3   ATSSS Rule Provisioning via 3GPP access connected to EPC
24.4   Local traffic routing for multi-access UE

25   Other topics
25.1   Deferred 5GC-MT-LR Procedure for Periodic Location Events based NRPPa Periodic Measurement Reports
25.2   Subscription control for reference time distribution in EPS
25.3   Rel-19 IMS:
25.3.1   PS Data Off for IMS Data Channel Service
25.3.2   IMS Disaster Prevention and Restoration Enhancement
25.3.3   IMS Stage-3 IETF Protocol Alignment
25.4   Identifying non-3GPP Devices Connecting behind a UE or 5G-RG
25.5   Integrated Sensing and Communication
25.6   Rel-19 Application Data Analytics Enablement Service
25.7   Interworking of Non-3GPP Digital Terrestrial Broadcast Networks with 5GS Multicast Broadcast Services
25.8   Minimization of Service Interruption During Core Network Failure Phase 2
25.9   Measurement Data Collection
25.10  Enhanced application layer support for location services
25.11  NF discovery and selection by target PLMN
25.12  MSISDN verification operation support to Nnef_UEId Service
25.13  Rel-19 Enhancements of Network Automation Enablers
25.14  Enhancement of controlling RAT utilization
25.15  CT Aspects for IP Domain usage
25.16  Indirect Network Sharing
25.17  Management of Network Sharing Phase 3
25.18  Roaming Value-Added Services
25.19  Monitoring of signalling traffic in 5G
25.20  Roaming traffic offloading via session breakout in HPLMN
25.21  Stage-3 5GS NAS protocol development 18
25.22  Stage-3 SAE Protocol Development
25.23  Harmonization of test case definitions for cross-RAT usability
25.24  Data management regarding subscriptions and reporting
25.25  PRU Usage Extension supported by Core Network

26   Rel-19 miscellaneous Security
26.1   Security Assurance Specification for maintenance of 5G features
26.2   5G Security Assurance Specification (SCAS) for the Unified Data Repository (UDR)
26.3   5G Security Assurance Specification (SCAS) for the Short Message Service Function (SMSF)
26.4   Addition of 256-bit security Algorithms
26.5   Addition of Milenage-256 algorithm
26.6   Roaming and interconnect authorization aspects in indirect communication
26.7   Public key distribution and Issuer claim verification of the Access Token
26.8   3GPP profiles for cryptographic algorithms and security protocols
26.9   Mobility over non-3GPP access to avoid full primary authentication
26.10  LI Handling of Protected Services
26.11  Lawful Interception Rel-19
26.12  Lawful Interception Guidance Rel-19
26.13  Specification of example algorithm for alternative f5* (f5**) function

27   Rel-19 miscellaneous OAM&charging
27.1   Charging aspects for Multi-Operator Core Network (MOCN) Network Sharing
27.2   Service Based Management Architecture enhancement phase 3
27.3   Management Data Analytics phase 3
27.4   Intent driven management services for mobile network phase 3
27.5   Management of planned configurations
27.6   Management aspects of Network Digital Twins
27.7   Closed Control Loop Management
27.8   Data management phase 2
27.9   5G performance measurements and KPIs phase 4
27.10  5G Advanced NRM features phase 3
27.11  Subscriber and Equipment Trace and QoE collection management
27.12  Management of IAB nodes
27.13  Enhancement of Management Aspects Related of NWDAF Phase 2
27.14  CHF Segmentation
27.15  Subscriber Data Migration

You can download the latest version of the specs from here.

Related Post

Thursday, 26 March 2026

3GPP Study on Modernization of Specification Format and Procedures for 6G (6GSM)

The development of each new mobile generation is not only about new technologies and capabilities. It also requires evolution in the way standards themselves are created, maintained and consumed. As work on 6G gradually begins to take shape, the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) has started examining whether the tools and processes used to write its specifications are still fit for purpose.

One of the first steps in this direction is the study titled Study on Modernization of Specification Format and Procedures for 6G (6GSM), documented in TR 21.802. The study looks at how the current approach to specification development works, the limitations that are becoming more visible as specifications grow larger and more complex, and the possible directions for modernising the process as the industry prepares for the 6G era.

3GPP specifications form the backbone of the mobile industry. They define how networks, devices and services interoperate across the globe. However, the way these specifications are produced has largely remained unchanged for many years. Today, most specifications are created and maintained using document based workflows centred around Microsoft Word and DOCX files. Delegates submit Change Requests that modify the text of these documents, and editors manually merge the approved changes into updated specification versions. This approach has served the industry well for decades because it is familiar, widely supported and easy for participants to understand.

The study recognises that the current workflow has several strengths. The document format provides a consistent structure across thousands of specifications. Contributors can edit content directly using familiar WYSIWYG tools, review tracked changes, include diagrams and tables, and collaborate during meetings by editing documents in real time on shared screens. These capabilities have helped large groups of experts work together efficiently during standardisation meetings.

At the same time, as specifications grow larger and more complex, the limitations of the current approach are becoming more visible. One of the most obvious challenges is the heavy reliance on manual processes. Change Requests must be merged into specifications by editors, which can introduce delays before updated versions are published. When multiple Change Requests modify the same sections of a document, identifying conflicts or inconsistencies can be difficult.

Scale is another factor. Many technical specifications now run into hundreds or even thousands of pages. Opening, searching or editing such large DOCX files can become slow and occasionally unstable. Large tables, embedded diagrams and complex formatting further increase file sizes and processing overhead.

Understanding how a feature evolves across specification versions can also be difficult for readers and implementers. Engineers often need to trace how a particular capability has changed between releases, but linking the final specification text back to the relevant Change Requests or understanding the context behind changes is not always straightforward.

The document format itself also presents challenges for automated processing. Extracting structured information from DOCX files requires significant preprocessing because textual content is mixed with binary elements such as images and embedded objects. This makes it harder for tools to analyse specifications or automate parts of the development workflow.

Navigation across specifications is another area where improvements could help. Many features are defined across multiple technical specifications produced by different working groups. Following references between documents or understanding how procedures interact across specifications can take time and effort, especially for engineers who are new to the standards.

To address these challenges, the study explores a number of alternative specification formats that could be considered for future work. Options such as OpenDocument, AsciiDoc, Markdown and LaTeX are discussed, along with more structured or restricted DOCX based approaches. Some proposals also consider hybrid models where different formats could coexist while maintaining a single authoritative source.

Text based markup formats such as Markdown or AsciiDoc are particularly interesting because they separate content from presentation. This structure can make version control and automated processing easier. These formats are widely used in software development environments and integrate well with modern collaboration tools that track changes and manage contributions from multiple participants.

LaTeX is another potential option, particularly for documents that require complex technical formatting or mathematical expressions. Meanwhile, restricted DOCX approaches attempt to preserve compatibility with existing workflows while enforcing stricter formatting rules to reduce complexity and improve consistency.

Beyond the document format itself, the study also looks at broader improvements to the way specifications are developed and maintained. One important idea is the use of modern version control systems such as Git. These systems are widely used in software development and allow contributors to track changes in detail, manage parallel development branches and merge updates in a more controlled manner. Applying similar workflows to standards development could improve traceability and help identify conflicts earlier.

The study also highlights the potential for automated validation tools that could check Change Requests for formatting errors, missing references or structural inconsistencies before they are submitted. Such tools could reduce the editorial workload while improving the overall quality and consistency of specifications.

Another possible direction is the use of machine readable formats for structured elements within specifications. Interfaces, protocol definitions or data models could be stored separately in structured files and then referenced or generated automatically within the main specification. This approach could reduce duplication and make it easier for implementers to reuse information directly in development environments.

The modernisation study does not recommend a single solution at this stage. Instead, it provides a detailed analysis of the current situation and explores possible directions for future work. Any transition will need to balance the benefits of new tools and formats with the practical realities of the existing ecosystem. The 3GPP community relies on a large set of established workflows, tools and expertise, and maintaining accessibility for all participants will be important.

As the industry moves towards 6G, the scale and complexity of specifications will continue to grow. Ensuring that the processes used to create and manage these specifications evolve alongside the technologies themselves will be essential. In that sense, modernising specification formats and procedures may become an important step in preparing the standards ecosystem for the next generation of mobile innovation.

If you want to learn more about this, check out:

  • 6G Specification Modernization discussions from Nokia & Ericsson here.
  • Ongoing 6GSM Workshop discussions here.
  • 3GPP TR 21.802: Study on modernization of specification format and procedures for 6G here.

Related Posts

Tuesday, 3 March 2026

Strengthening Critical Infrastructure Security with OSINT

Cybersecurity conversations in telecoms often focus on IT systems, cloud platforms and enterprise networks. Yet beyond the data centres and mobile cores lies another domain that is arguably even more critical to society. Industrial Control Systems (ICS) and Operational Technology (OT) environments underpin the power plants, water treatment facilities, railways, petrochemical sites and manufacturing plants that keep daily life running. These environments are increasingly in the crosshairs of cyber attackers.

A comprehensive YouTube course titled OSINT for ICS and OT brings much needed attention to this area. Created by Mike Holcomb, the 10 plus hour course explores how Open Source Intelligence (OSINT) can be used to better understand, assess and protect ICS and OT environments. For anyone working in telecoms infrastructure, utilities, transport or industrial sectors, this is highly relevant material.

Mike focuses on the practical reality that there are still relatively few accessible and high quality resources dedicated to OT and ICS cybersecurity. While IT security has matured with abundant training paths, certifications and community support, the world of control systems security remains comparatively underserved. That gap is particularly concerning given the importance of critical infrastructure to national resilience and economic stability.

In his channel overview, Mike explains that his work is aimed at a broad audience. It includes IT cybersecurity professionals looking to pivot into OT security, engineers already working in industrial environments who want to strengthen their defensive posture, and owners or operators who are building or refining a cybersecurity programme for their facilities. This inclusive approach reflects the multidisciplinary nature of OT security, where engineering, networking and cybersecurity disciplines intersect.

The turning point for many in this field was the discovery of Stuxnet, the first widely known cyber weapon designed to disrupt industrial processes. The malware specifically targeted centrifuges in a uranium enrichment facility, manipulating physical processes while masking its actions from operators. For Mike, learning about Stuxnet sparked a deeper curiosity about how control systems function inside power plants and other facilities, and how they can be secured. That same question remains highly relevant today.

For readers of The 3G4G Blog, there is a natural connection. As telecom networks evolve towards 5G, private networks and future 6G systems, connectivity is extending deeper into industrial domains. Smart grids, connected factories and digitalised transport systems rely on robust communications as well as secure control environments. The boundary between IT and OT continues to blur. Understanding how adversaries might gather intelligence about exposed assets, misconfigurations or vulnerable systems using open sources is therefore a critical skill.

The OSINT for ICS and OT course aims to demystify that process. It looks at how publicly available information can reveal insights about industrial environments and how defenders can use the same techniques proactively. Rather than waiting for an incident, organisations can identify potential weaknesses and exposure before an attacker does. This proactive mindset aligns closely with modern security best practice across both telecom and industrial sectors.

Another important aspect is accessibility. The course is freely available on YouTube, lowering the barrier to entry for those who may be curious about OT security but unsure where to start. In a domain where specialist training can be expensive and difficult to find, open educational content plays a valuable role in building community knowledge and capability.

Critical infrastructure protection is not a niche concern. It affects the electricity that powers base stations, the water that cools data centres and the transport systems that support supply chains. As cyber threats continue to evolve, the need for professionals who understand both networking and industrial control environments will only grow.

For those interested in expanding their horizons beyond traditional telecom security and into the protection of the systems that underpin modern society, this course is well worth exploring. It is encouraging to see experienced practitioners sharing knowledge openly and helping to strengthen resilience across critical infrastructure sectors.

Related Posts