Three Presentations on 5G Security

Here are three presentations from the 5G Huddle in April, looking at 5G security aspects. As I have repeatedly mentioned, 5G is in process of being defined so these presentations are just presenting the view from what we know about 5G today.

Introduction to 5G ATSSS - Access Traffic Steering, Switching and Splitting

Last month we made a short tutorial on 5G and Fixed-Mobile Convergence (FMC). One of the features covered in that was ATSSS. It deserved a bit more detail so we made a short tutorial on this feature.

Access Traffic Steering, Switching and Splitting or ATSSS for short is being standardized as part of 3GPP Rel-16 and allows traffic steering across multiple accesses at a finer granularities than a PDU session.  It is an optional feature both on the UE and the 5GC network. ATSSS introduces the notion of Multi Access PDU session, a PDU session for which the data traffic can be served over one or more concurrent accesses (3GPP access, trusted non-3GPP access and untrusted non-3GPP access). The simplest way to visualize it is as shown below:

The presentation and video is embedded below:

Misc: Introduction to ATSSS - Access Traffic Steering, Switching and Splitting from 3G4G

Related Posts:

• Exploring Network Convergence of Mobile, Broadband and Wi-Fi
• 5G and Fixed-Mobile Convergence (FMC)
• BT's Converged Core to Launch in 2023
• Tutorial: Service Based Architecture (SBA) for 5G Core (5GC)
• Updated 5G Terminology Presentation (Feb 2019)

New Spectrum Usage Paradigms for 5G

Sometime back I wrote a post that talked about Dynamic Spectrum Access (DSA) techniques for Small Cells and WiFi to work together in a fair way. The Small Cells would be using the ISM bands and Wi-Fi AP's would also be contending for the same spectrum. For those who may not know, this is commonly referred to as LTE-U but the correct term that is being used in standards is LA-LTE, see here for details.

IEEE Comsoc has just published a whitepaper that details how the spectrum should be handled in 5G to make sure of efficient utilisation. The whitepaper covers the following:

Chapter 2 – Introduction, the traditional approach of repurposing spectrum and allocating it to Cellular Wireless systems is reaching its limits, at least below the 6GHz threshold. For this reason, novel approaches are required which are detailed in the sequel of this White Paper.

Chapter 3 - Spectrum Scarcity - an Alternate View provides a generic view on the spectrum scarcity issue and discusses key technologies which may help to alleviate the problem, including Dynamic Spectrum Management, Cognitive Radios, Cognitive Networks, Relaying, etc. 

Chapter 4 – mmWave Communications in 5G addresses a first key solution. While spectrum opportunities are running out at below 6 GHz, an abundance of spectrum is available in mmWave bands and the related technology is becoming mature. This chapter addresses in particular the heterogeneous approach in which legacy wireless systems are operated jointly with mmWave systems which allows to combine the advantages of both technologies. 

Chapter 5 – Dynamic Spectrum Access and Cognitive Radio: A Current Snapshot gives a detailed overview on state-of-the-art dynamic spectrum sharing technology and related standards activities. The approach is indeed complementary to the upper mmWave approach, the idea focuses on identifying unused spectrum in time, space and frequency. This technology is expected to substantially improve the usage efficiency of spectrum, in particular below the 6GHz range. 

Chapter 6 – Licensed Shared Access (LSA) enables coordinated sharing of spectrum for a given time period, a given geographic area and a given spectrum band under a license agreement. In contract to sporadic usage of spectrum on a secondary basis, the LSA approach will guarantee Quality-of-Service levels to both Incumbents and Spectrum Licensees. Also, a clear business model is available through a straightforward license transfer from relevant incumbents to licensees operating a Cellular Wireless network in the concerned frequency bands. 

Chapter 7 – Radio Environment Map details a technology which allows to gather the relevant (radio) context information which feed related decision making engines in the Network Infrastructure and/or Mobile Equipment. Indeed, tools for acquiring context information is critical for next generation Wireless Communication systems, since they are expected to be highly versatile and to constantly adapt. 

Chapter 8 – D2DWRAN: A 5G Network Proposal based on IEEE 802.22 and TVWS discusses the efficient exploitation of TV White Space spectrum bands building on the available IEEE 802.22 standard. TV White Spaces are indeed located in highly appealing spectrum bands below 1 GHz with propagation characteristics that are perfectly suited to the need of Wireless Communication systems. 

Chapter 9 – Conclusion presents some final thoughts. 

The paper is embedded as follows:

Novel Spectrum Usage Paradigms for 5G from Zahid Ghadialy

Mobile Network Infrastructure Sharing in Japan over Electric Power Infrastructure

On the 3G4G Small Cells Blog, I have written about the Autralian operator Telstra trialing small cells on Tasmania’s power poles to fix mobile black spots. This looks like a similar initiative in Japan but at a much larger scale.

KDDI have an announcement in Japanese here but Rakuten has one in English:

TEPCO (Tokyo Electric Power COmpany) Power Grid, Incorporated, KDDI CORPORATION, SoftBank Corp. and Rakuten Mobile Network, Inc. announced that the four companies have reached an agreement to collaborate on trials of base station site and equipment sharing utilizing TEPCO PG’s utility poles and other electric power infrastructure, ahead of the introduction of 5th generation mobile communications systems (5G) in Japan. The trials are due to be begin in the first half of FY2019.

5G utilizes high frequency bands in order to enable higher speeds and greater capacity. As a result, the number of base stations required for 5G is expected to be larger than for 4G. The growing number of base stations not only creates difficulties in securing installation locations, but also calls for consideration on the impact too many antennas and other equipment might have on the landscape.

TEPCO PG has been working together with KDDI to explore the shared utilization of utility poles and other electric power infrastructure and base station equipment between mobile network operators, and as preparations are now complete, the companies are set to begin the trials using actual equipment.

The trials, which SoftBank and Rakuten Mobile Network are also set to join, aim to verify the feasibility of location and equipment sharing between mobile network operators. Specifically, the trials will evaluate the equipment, layout, workability, serviceability and the level of radio interference resulting from sharing the antenna for base station installations on utility poles. There are also plans to expand the number of companies participating in the trials to include other organizations planning to utilize 5G in the future.

Sharing utility poles among a number of mobile network operators makes it possible to flexibly build out base stations in urban areas and rapidly launch services in rural areas. It is also expected to address the issue of securing locations for base stations and lowers the impact of base station equipment on the landscape.

Through the trials, TEPCO PG, KDDI, SoftBank and Rakuten Mobile Network aim to reduce the infrastructure construction costs and contribute to the smooth nationwide introduction of 5G.

The picture on the top is from KDDI press release, translated using Google Translate.


Related Posts:

• The 3G4G Blog: Quick tutorial on Mobile Network Sharing Options
• The 3G4G Blog: A practical use of MOCN in ESN

Preparing for Metaverse-Ready Networks

Metaverse means different things for different people. If you explain Metaverse with an example, many people understand but they are generally looking at things from a different point of view. A bit like blind men and an elephant. Similarly when we talk about Metaverse-ready networks, it can mean different things to different people, depending on their background.

Back in Oct 2021, Facebook changed its name to Meta with a vision to bring the metaverse to life and help people connect, find communities and grow businesses. This was followed by a blog post by Dan Rabinovitsj, Vice President, Meta Connectivity, highlighting the high-level requirements for these metaverse-ready networks. 

At Fyuz 2022, the Telecom Infra Project (TIP) announced the launch of Metaverse-Ready Networks Project Group primary whose objective is to accelerate the development of solutions and architectures that enhance network readiness to support metaverse experiences. Meta Platforms, Microsoft, Sparkle, T-Mobile and Telefónica are the initial co-chairs of this Project Group.

A blast from the past - I'm listening to a Nokia CTO, Alessandro Bovone, setting out Nokia's view of the future #CWIC2022 pic.twitter.com/DSN96eK2qh

— David Wood (@dw2) November 2, 2022

Cambridge Wireless' CWIC 2022 discussed 'The Hyperconnected Human'. One of the sessions focussed on 'Living in the Metaverse' which I think was just brilliant. The slides are available from the event page and the video is embedded below:

Coming back to metaverse-ready networks, the final day of Fyuz 2022 conference featured 'The Meta Connectivity Summit' produced by Meta. 

8.3 milliseconds is the magic number to have a seamless experience in the Metaverse#Metaverse #MetaverseConnectivity #Fyuz22 https://t.co/UsqDEgvBEU

— Zahid Ghadialy (@zahidtg) October 27, 2022

The main stage featured a lot of interesting panel sessions looking at metaverse use cases and applications, technology ecosystem, operator perspectives as well as a talk by CIO of Softbank. The sessions are embedded below. The breakout sessions were not shared. 

Metaverse is also being used as a catch-all for use cases and applications in 6G. While many of the requirements of Metaverse will be met by 5G and beyond applications, 6G will bring in even more extreme requirements which would justify the investments in the Metaverse-Ready Networks.

Related Posts: 

• The 3G4G Blog: Demystifying and Defining the Metaverse
• Free 6G Training: What is Metaverse and will it play a big part in 6G?
• The 3G4G Blog: 5G eXtended Reality (5G-XR) in 5G System (5GS)
• The 3G4G Blog: A look at 5G Applications, Application Functions & Application Servers
• Free 6G Training: What is Extended Reality (XR)?
• Free 6G Training: Three Degrees of Freedom (3DoF) vs Six (6DoF) in Extended Reality
• Free 6G Training: One XR Device to Rule Them All!
• Free 6G Training: Nokia Bell Labs eBook and Talks on 6G
• Free 6G Training: Presentations from The 2022 Brooklyn 6G Summit (B6GS) 

3GPP Release 18 Signal level Enhanced Network Selection (SENSE) for Smarter Network Selection in Stationary IoT

As 5G evolves and the number of deployed IoT devices increases globally, efficient and reliable network selection becomes ever more critical. Particularly for stationary devices deployed in remote, deep-indoor or roaming environments, traditional selection mechanisms have struggled to provide robust connectivity. This has led to operational challenges, especially for use cases involving low-power or hard-to-reach sensors. In response, 3GPP Release 18 introduces a new capability under the SA2 architecture work, Signal level Enhanced Network Selection (SENSE), designed to tackle this exact issue.

In today’s cellular systems, when a User Equipment (UE), including IoT modules, switches on or recovers from a loss of coverage, it performs automatic network selection. This typically prioritises networks based on preferences such as PLMN priority lists and broadcast cell selection criteria, while largely ignoring the actual signal strength at the device’s location. This approach works reasonably well for mobile consumer devices that can adapt through user movement or manual intervention. However, for stationary IoT UEs, which are often unmanned and deployed permanently in locations with limited or fluctuating radio conditions, this method can result in persistent suboptimal connectivity.

The issue becomes most evident when a device latches onto a visited PLMN (VPLMN) with higher priority despite poor signal quality. The UE might remain connected to this weak network, struggling to maintain bearer sessions or repeatedly failing data transfers. These failures often go undetected by the operator's monitoring systems and may require expensive manual intervention in the field. The cumulative impact of such maintenance activities adds significantly to operational expenditure, especially in mass-scale IoT deployments.

SENSE aims to fix this problem by making signal level an integral part of the automatic network selection and reselection process. Rather than simply following preconfigured priority rules, UEs enabled with SENSE will now assess the received signal quality during network selection. This allows them to favour networks that offer stronger and more stable radio conditions, even if they have lower priority, when such conditions are essential for reliable connectivity.

The capability is particularly targeted at stationary IoT UEs that support NB-IoT, EC-GSM-IoT, or LTE Cat-M1/M2. These devices are often used in applications such as water level monitoring, power grid sensors, and remote metering, installations where physical access post-deployment may be difficult or even infeasible.

To implement SENSE, the Home PLMN (HPLMN) can configure the UE to apply Operator Controlled Signal Thresholds (OCST) for each supported access technology. These thresholds are stored within the USIM and define the minimum signal quality required for a network to be considered viable. The OCST settings can be provisioned before deployment or updated later via standard NAS signalling mechanisms, including the Steering of Roaming (SoR) feature.

When a SENSE-enabled UE attempts to select a network, it checks whether the signal level from any candidate network meets or exceeds the configured OCST for its supported radio access technologies. If it does, the UE proceeds to register with that PLMN. If no suitable network meets the signal thresholds, the UE falls back to the legacy selection process, which excludes signal strength as a factor. This dual-iteration method ensures backward compatibility while enabling more robust performance where SENSE is supported.

Additionally, SENSE influences periodic network reselection. If the average signal quality from a registered PLMN drops below the OCST threshold over time, the UE will proactively seek alternative PLMNs whose signals meet the configured criteria. This continuous evaluation helps avoid long-term connectivity issues that may otherwise remain unnoticed.

SENSE is not intended to disrupt roaming steering or PLMN preferences altogether. Instead, it introduces a smart, context-aware filter that empowers the UE to make better decisions when radio conditions are poor. By integrating signal level awareness early in the selection logic, operators gain a powerful new tool to reduce failure rates and minimise costly field maintenance.

As the IoT landscape expands across industries and geographies, features like SENSE will play a vital role in supporting dependable, scalable and autonomous deployments. In Release 18, 3GPP has taken a meaningful step towards improving network availability for devices that need to just work, no matter where they are.

Related Posts: 

• The 3G4G Blog: 3GPP Release 18 Description and Summary of Work Items
• The 3G4G Blog - 5G-Advanced Store and Forward (S&F): Enabling Resilient IoT Communications via Satellite
• The 3G4G Blog: Low Latency Power Saving with Low Power-Wake Up Signal/Receiver (LP-WUS/LP-WUR)
• The 3G4G Blog: Small Data Transmission (SDT) in LTE and 5G NR
• The 3G4G Blog: Mobile Initiated Connection Only (MICO) mode in 5G System
• The 3G4G Blog: Introduction to 5G Reduced Capability (RedCap) Devices
• The 3G4G Blog: Are there 50 Billion IoT Devices yet?
• Connectivity Technology Blog: Is LTE Cat 1bis Uniting the Fragmented Cellular IoT Market?
• Connectivity Technology Blog: Would NR-Light (RedCap) succeed LTE Cat-1bis and Cat-4 for Internet of Things Devices? 

NWDAF in 3GPP Release-16 and Release-17

We looked at Network Data Analytics Function, NWDAF, in detail here. While the 3GPP Release-16 work just starting back then, we have now completed Rel-16 and looking at Release 17. 

The 5G Core (5GC) supports the application of analytics to provide Intelligent Automation of the network, In Rel-16 the set of use cases that are proposed for the NWDAF has been widely expanded. 

In an earlier post, we looked at the ATIS webinar discussing Release-16 & forthcoming features in Rel-17. Puneet Jain, Director of Technical Standards at Intel and 3GPP SA2 Chairman talked briefly about NWDAF. The following is from his talk:

Release-16 provides support for Network Automation and Data Analytics.  Network Data Analytics Function (NWDAF) was defined to provide analytics to 5G Core Network Functions (NFs) and to O&M. It consists of several services that were defined in 3GPP Rel-16 and work is now going in Release 17 to further extend them. 

In release 16 Slice load level related network data analytics and observed service experience related network data analytics were defined. NF load analytics as well Network Performance analytics was also specified. NWDAF provides either statistics or prediction on the load communication and mobility performance in the area of interest. 

Other thing was about the UE related analytics which includes UE mobility analytics, UE communication analytics, Expected UE behavior parameter, Related network data analytics and abnormal behavior related network data analytics.

The NWDAF can also provide user data congestion related analytics. This can be done by one time reporting or continuous reporting in the form of statistics or prediction or both to any other network function. 

QoS sustainability analytics, this is where the consumer of QoS sustainability analytics may request NWDAF analytics information regarding the QoS change statistic for a specific period in the past in a certain area or the likelihood of QoS change for a specific period in future, in certain areas. 

In Release 17, studies are ongoing for network automation phase 2. This includes some leftover from Release 16 such as UE driven analytics, how to ensure that slice SLA is guaranteed and then also new functionality is being discussed that includes things like support for multiple NWDAF instance in one PLMN including hierarchies, how to enable real-time or near-real-time NWDAF communications, how to enable NWDAF assisted user pane optimization and last which is very interesting is about interaction between NWDAF and AI model and training service owned by the operator.

This article on TM Forum talks about NWDAF deployment challenges and recommendations:

To deploy NWDAF, CSPs may encounter these challenges:

• Some network function vendors may not be standards compliant or have interfaces to provide data or receive analytics services.
• Integrating NWDAF with existing analytics applications until a 4G network is deployed is crucial as aggregated network data is needed to make decisions for centralized analytics use cases.
• Many CSPs have different analytics nodes deployed for various use cases like revenue assurance, subscriber/marketing analytics and subscriber experience/network management. Making these all integrated into one analytics node also serving NWDAF use cases is key to deriving better insights and value out of network data.
• Ensuring the analytics function deployed is integrated to derive value (e.g., with orchestrator for network automation, BI tools/any UI/email/notification apps for reporting).

Here are some ways you can overcome these challenges and deploy efficient next-generation analytics with NWDAF:

• Mandate a distributed architecture for analytics too, this reduces network bandwidth overhead due to analytics and helps real-time use cases by design.
• Ensure RFPs and your chosen vendors for network functions have, or plan to have, NWDAF support for collecting and receiving analytics services.
• Look for carrier-grade analytics solutions with five nines SLAs.
• Choose modular analytics systems that can accommodate multiple use cases including NWDAF as apps and support quick development.
• Resource-efficient solutions are critical for on-premise or cloud as they can decrease expenses considerably.
• Storage comes with a cost, store more processed smart data and not more raw big data unless mandated by law.
• In designing an analytics use case, get opinions from both telco and analytics experts, or ideally an expert in both, as they are viewed from different worlds and are evolving a lot.

This is such an important topic that you will hear more about it on this blog and elsewhere.

Related Posts:

• The 3G4G Blog: ATIS Webinar on '5G Standards Developments in 3GPP Release 16 and Beyond'
• The 3G4G Blog: Automating the 5G Core using Machine Learning and Data Analytics
• The 3G4G Blog: Artificial Intelligence - Beyond SON for Autonomous Networks
• 3G4G: 5G Service Based Architecture (SBA) 

3GPP Explains TSG CT Work on UAS Connectivity, Identification and Tracking

Drones, technically Unmanned Aerial Vehicles/Systems or UAVs/UASs, have been a subject of interest for a very long time due to the wide variety of use cases they can offer. In the recent issue of 3GPP Highlights newsletter, Lena Chaponniere, 3GPP Working Group CT1 Vice-Chair has written an article about TSG CT work on UAS Connectivity, Identification and Tracking. Interestingly, the 3GPP abbreviation for UAS is slightly different, Uncrewed Aerial Systems.

Quoting from the newsletter: 

One of the defining drivers of 5G is the expansion beyond traditional mobile broadband to provide solutions meeting the needs of vertical industries.

A very good example of 3GPP rising up to this challenge is the work done in Release 17 to use cellular connectivity to support Uncrewed Aerial Systems (UAS), thereby enabling this vertical to benefit from the ubiquitous coverage, high reliability, QoS, robust security, and seamless mobility provided by the 3GPP system.

A key component of this work took place in CT Working Groups, which under the leadership of Sunghoon Kim (CT Work Item rapporteur) and Waqar Zia (rapporteur of new specifications TS 29.255 and TS 29.256) developed the necessary protocols and APIs to meet the service requirements specified in 3GPP SA1 and the architectural enhancements specified in 3GPP SA2, as part of the Release 17 Work Item on ‘ID_UAS’.

The key functions of the 3GPP architecture for ID_UAS are depicted in the following figure:

The work in CT Working Groups focused on specifying support for the following features:

UAV remote identification: The CAA (Civil Aviation Administration)-Level UAV ID was introduced in the 3GPP system. It is a globally unique, electronically and physically readable, and tamper resistant identification which allows the receiving entity to address the correct USS for retrieval of UAV information and can be assigned solely by the USS, via means outside the scope of 3GPP, or assigned by the USS with assistance from 3GPP system, whereby the USS delegates the role of “resolver” of the CAA-Level UAV ID to the UAS NF.

AV USS authentication and authorization (UUAA): The first step for the owner of the UAV is to register the UAV with the USS, via a procedure outside the scope of 3GPP, which can take place offline or using internet connectivity. During this procedure, the CAA-level UAV ID is configured in the UAV and the aviationlevel information (e.g. UAV serial number, pilot information, UAS operator, etc.) is provided to the USS.

The UE at the UAV then registers with the 3GPP system by using existing procedures for 3GPP primary authentication, with the MNO credentials stored in the USIM.

After successful authentication of the UE, the UUAA procedure is performed, to enable the 3GPP Core Network to verify that the UAV has successfully registered with the USS. In 5GS, this procedure can take place during the 3GPP registration, or during the establishment of a PDU session for UAS services.

For the former, CT1 extended the registration procedure in TS 24.501 to enable the UE to indicate its CAA-Level UAV ID into a new container (Service-level-AA container) included in the Registration Request message, which triggers the AMF to initiate UUAA with the USS by invoking the Nnef_Authentication service toward the UAS NF, as specified by CT4 in new specification TS 29.256, and the UAS NF to invoke the Naf_Authentication service toward the USS, as specified by CT3 in new specification TS 29.255.

For the latter, CT1 extended the PDU session establishment procedure in TS 24.501 to enable the UE to indicate its CAA-Level UAV ID via the Service-level-AA container included in the PDU Session Establishment Request message, which triggers the SMF to initiate UUAA with the USS via the UAS NF by invoking the services mentioned above. In order to enable exchanging the authentication messages between the UE and the USS, CT1 specified a new Session Management procedure in TS 24.501, in which the SMF sends a Service-level Authentication Command to the UE in a Downlink NAS Transport message. The UE replies to this command with a Service-level Authentication Complete carried in an Uplink NAS Transport message. In EPS, the UUAA procedure takes place during PDN connection establishment, and the information exchanged to that end between the UAV and the PGW is carried in the Service-level-AA container included in the ePCO

C2 communication over cellular connectivity: C2 communication over cellular connectivity consists of the UAV establishing a user plane connection to receive C2 messages from a UAVC, or to report telemetry data to a UAVC. Authorization for C2 communication by the USS is required and includes authorization for pairing of the UAV with a UAVC, as well as flight authorization for the UAV.

C2 communication authorization may be performed:

• during the UUAA procedure (if UUAA is carried out at PDU session/PDN connection establishment) when the UAV requests establishment of a PDU Session/PDN connection for both UAS services and C2 communication
• during PDU session modification/UE requested bearer resource modification when the UAV requests to use an existing PDU session/PDN connection for C2 communication
• during a new PDU session/PDN connection establishment, if the UAV requests to use a separate PDU Session/PDN connection for C2 communication

To support this, CT1 extended the PDU session establishment and modification procedures in TS 24.501 to enable inclusion of the CAA-level UAV ID and an application layer payload containing information for UAVC pairing and for UAV flight authorization in the Service-level-AA container carried in the PDU Session Establishment Request and PDU Session Modification Request messages. The ePCO Information Element in TS 24.008 was also extended to enable it to include the above-mentioned information.

UAV location reporting and tracking: UAV location reporting and tracking was specified by CT3 and CT4 by re-using the existing Nnef_EventExposure service specified in TS 29.522 with the UAS NF acting as NEF/SCEF and interacting with other network functions (e.g. GMLC and AMF/MME) to support UAV tracking. The following tracking modes were specified:

• UAV location reporting mode: the USS subscribes to the UAS NF UAV to be notified of the location of the UAV, and can indicate the required location accuracy and whether the request is for immediate reporting or deferred reporting (e.g. periodic reporting)
• UAV presence monitoring mode: the USS subscribes for the event report of UAV moving in or out of a given geographic area
• List of Aerial UEs in a geographic area: the USS requests the UAS NF for reporting a list of the UAVs in given geographic area and served by the PLMN.

The PDF of newsletter is available here.

Related Posts: 

• Connectivity Technology Blog: Ericsson Explains Internet of Drones and 3GPP UAV Roadmap
• The 3G4G Blog: ATIS Webinar on '5G Standards Development Update in 3GPP Release 17 and 18'
• The 3G4G Blog: 3GPP Release-17 5G NR Reaches Completion
• Connectivity Technology Blog: GSMA's DIG discusses how 5G Networks will handle UAV Layer
• Connectivity Technology Blog: Vodafone and Deutsche Telekom Briefly Starts Drone War
• The 3G4G Blog: 3GPP's 5G-Advanced Workshop Summary
• Connectivity Technology Blog: 5G Drone Cell Towers
• Connectivity Technology Blog: GSMA IoT WebTalk 'Clear Skies Ahead for Mobile-Enabled Drones'
• Connectivity Technology Blog: Cellular-connected Drones to Form Part of Vodafone’s ‘Telco as a Service’ (‘TaaS’) Model
• Telecoms Infrastructure Blog: Drones, More Drones & Droneway
• Telecoms Infrastructure Blog: Flying Small Cells are here... 

IMT-2020 (5G) Requirements

ITU has just agreed on key 5G performance requirements for IMT-2020. A new draft report ITU-R M.[IMT-2020.TECH PERF REQ] is expected to be finally approved by  ITU-R Study Group 5 at its next meeting in November 2017. The press release says "5G mobile systems to provide lightning speed, ultra-reliable communications for broadband and IoT"

The following is from the ITU draft report:

The key minimum technical performance requirements defined in this document are for the purpose of consistent definition, specification, and evaluation of the candidate IMT-2020 radio interface technologies (RITs)/Set of radio interface technologies (SRIT) in conjunction with the development of ITU-R Recommendations and Reports, such as the detailed specifications of IMT-2020. The intent of these requirements is to ensure that IMT-2020 technologies are able to fulfil the objectives of IMT-2020 and to set a specific level of performance that each proposed RIT/SRIT needs to achieve in order to be considered by ITU-R for IMT-2020.


Peak data rate: Peak data rate is the maximum achievable data rate under ideal conditions (in bit/s), which is the received data bits assuming error-free conditions assignable to a single mobile station, when all assignable radio resources for the corresponding link direction are utilized (i.e., excluding radio resources that are used for physical layer synchronization, reference signals or pilots, guard bands and guard times). 

This requirement is defined for the purpose of evaluation in the eMBB usage scenario. 
The minimum requirements for peak data rate are as follows:
– Downlink peak data rate is 20 Gbit/s.
– Uplink peak data rate is 10 Gbit/s.


Peak spectral efficiency: Peak spectral efficiency is the maximum data rate under ideal conditions normalised by channel bandwidth (in bit/s/Hz), where the maximum data rate is the received data bits assuming error-free conditions assignable to a single mobile station, when all assignable radio resources for the corresponding link direction are utilized (i.e. excluding radio resources that are used for physical layer synchronization, reference signals or pilots, guard bands and guard times).

This requirement is defined for the purpose of evaluation in the eMBB usage scenario.
The minimum requirements for peak spectral efficiencies are as follows: 
– Downlink peak spectral efficiency is 30 bit/s/Hz.
– Uplink peak spectral efficiency is 15 bit/s/Hz.


User experienced data rate: User experienced data rate is the 5% point of the cumulative distribution function (CDF) of the user throughput. User throughput (during active time) is defined as the number of correctly received bits, i.e. the number of bits contained in the service data units (SDUs) delivered to Layer 3, over a certain period of time.

This requirement is defined for the purpose of evaluation in the related eMBB test environment.
The target values for the user experienced data rate are as follows in the Dense Urban – eMBB test environment: 
– Downlink user experienced data rate is 100 Mbit/s. 
– Uplink user experienced data rate is 50 Mbit/s. 


5th percentile user spectral efficiency: The 5th percentile user spectral efficiency is the 5% point of the CDF of the normalized user throughput. The normalized user throughput is defined as the number of correctly received bits, i.e., the number of bits contained in the SDUs delivered to Layer 3, over a certain period of time, divided by the channel bandwidth and is measured in bit/s/Hz. 

This requirement is defined for the purpose of evaluation in the eMBB usage scenario.
– Indoor Hotspot – eMBB - Downlink: 0.3 bit/s/Hz Uplink: 0.21 bit/s/Hz
– Dense Urban – eMBB - Downlink: 0.225 bit/s/Hz Uplink: 0.15 bit/s/Hz
– Rural – eMBB - Downlink: 0.12 bit/s/Hz Uplink: 0.045 bit/s/Hz


Average spectral efficiency: Average spectral efficiency  is the aggregate throughput of all users (the number of correctly received bits, i.e. the number of bits contained in the SDUs delivered to Layer 3, over a certain period of time) divided by the channel bandwidth of a specific band divided by the number of TRxPs and is measured in bit/s/Hz/TRxP.

This requirement is defined for the purpose of evaluation in the eMBB usage scenario.
– Indoor Hotspot – eMBB - Downlink: 9 bit/s/Hz/TRxP Uplink: 6.75 bit/s/Hz/TRxP
– Dense Urban – eMBB - Downlink: 7.8 bit/s/Hz/TRxP Uplink: 5.4 bit/s/Hz/TRxP
– Rural – eMBB - Downlink: 3.3 bit/s/Hz/TRxP Uplink: 1.6 bit/s/Hz/TRxP


Area traffic capacity: Area traffic capacity is the total traffic throughput served per geographic area (in Mbit/s/m2). The throughput is the number of correctly received bits, i.e. the number of bits contained in the SDUs delivered to Layer 3, over a certain period of time.

This requirement is defined for the purpose of evaluation in the related eMBB test environment.
The target value for Area traffic capacity in downlink is 10 Mbit/s/m2 in the Indoor Hotspot – eMBB test environment.


User plane latency: User plane latency is the contribution of the radio network to the time from when the source sends a packet to when the destination receives it (in ms). It is defined as the one-way time it takes to successfully deliver an application layer packet/message from the radio protocol layer 2/3 SDU ingress point to the radio protocol layer 2/3 SDU egress point of the radio interface in either uplink or downlink in the network for a given service in unloaded conditions, assuming the mobile station is in the active state. 
This requirement is defined for the purpose of evaluation in the eMBB and URLLC usage scenarios.
The minimum requirements for user plane latency are
– 4 ms for eMBB
– 1 ms for URLLC 
assuming unloaded conditions (i.e., a single user) for small IP packets (e.g., 0 byte payload + IP header), for both downlink and uplink.


Control plane latency: Control plane latency refers to the transition time from a most “battery efficient” state (e.g. Idle state) to the start of continuous data transfer (e.g. Active state).
This requirement is defined for the purpose of evaluation in the eMBB and URLLC usage scenarios.
The minimum requirement for control plane latency is 20 ms. Proponents are encouraged to consider lower control plane latency, e.g. 10 ms.


Connection density: Connection density is the total number of devices fulfilling a specific quality of service (QoS) per unit area (per km2).

This requirement is defined for the purpose of evaluation in the mMTC usage scenario.
The minimum requirement for connection density is 1 000 000 devices per km2.


Energy efficiency: Network energy efficiency is the capability of a RIT/SRIT to minimize the radio access network energy consumption in relation to the traffic capacity provided. Device energy efficiency is the capability of the RIT/SRIT to minimize the power consumed by the device modem in relation to the traffic characteristics. 
Energy efficiency of the network and the device can relate to the support for the following two aspects:
a) Efficient data transmission in a loaded case;
b) Low energy consumption when there is no data.
Efficient data transmission in a loaded case is demonstrated by the average spectral efficiency 

This requirement is defined for the purpose of evaluation in the eMBB usage scenario.
The RIT/SRIT shall have the capability to support a high sleep ratio and long sleep duration. Proponents are encouraged to describe other mechanisms of the RIT/SRIT that improve the support of energy efficient operation for both network and device.


Reliability: Reliability relates to the capability of transmitting a given amount of traffic within a predetermined time duration with high success probability

This requirement is defined for the purpose of evaluation in the URLLC usage scenario. 
The minimum requirement for the reliability is 1-10-5 success probability of transmitting a layer 2 PDU (protocol data unit) of 32 bytes within 1 ms in channel quality of coverage edge for the Urban Macro-URLLC test environment, assuming small application data (e.g. 20 bytes application data + protocol overhead). 
Proponents are encouraged to consider larger packet sizes, e.g. layer 2 PDU size of up to 100 bytes.


Mobility: Mobility is the maximum mobile station speed at which a defined QoS can be achieved (in km/h).

The following classes of mobility are defined:
– Stationary: 0 km/h
– Pedestrian: 0 km/h to 10 km/h
– Vehicular: 10 km/h to 120 km/h
– High speed vehicular: 120 km/h to 500 km/h

Mobility classes supported:
Indoor Hotspot – eMBB: Stationary, Pedestrian
Dense Urban – eMBB: Stationary, Pedestrian, Vehicular (up to 30 km/h)
Rural – eMBB: Pedestrian, Vehicular, High speed vehicular 


Mobility interruption time: Mobility interruption time is the shortest time duration supported by the system during which a user terminal cannot exchange user plane packets with any base station during transitions.

This requirement is defined for the purpose of evaluation in the eMBB and URLLC usage scenarios.
The minimum requirement for mobility interruption time is 0 ms.


Bandwidth: Bandwidth is the maximum aggregated system bandwidth. The bandwidth may be supported by single or multiple radio frequency (RF) carriers. The bandwidth capability of the RIT/SRIT is defined for the purpose of IMT-2020 evaluation.

The requirement for bandwidth is at least 100 MHz. 
The RIT/SRIT shall support bandwidths up to 1 GHz for operation in higher frequency bands (e.g. above 6 GHz). 

In case you missed, a 5G logo has also been released by 3GPP

Related posts:

• Some more thoughts on 5G
• 5G Network Architecture and Design Update - Jan 2017
• 5G New Radio (NR), Architecture options and migration from LTE
• LTE-Advanced Pro (a.k.a. 4.5G)
• Gigabit LTE?
• 4G / LTE by stealth

2G/3G Shutdown may Cost Lives as 4G/5G Voice Roaming is a Mess

You have probably heard me a complaining about the pace of VoLTE rollout, 2G/3G shutdowns, 4G Voice roaming, etc. This post highlights all these issues coming together in a dangerous way. People often ask me why is it that it's always just me highlighting the issues. The answer is that there are other people but their voice may not reach you. In this post, I am highlighting presentations by Rudolf van der Berg, Project and programme manager at Stratix Consulting.

No more voice roaming in USA! French operator Free warns customers that telephony in USA doesn't work. 2G/#3G shutdown and lack of #VoLTE standardisation and roaming are the cause. Its customers can only use Internet and SMS, but not E.164 number based voice telephony and 911! https://t.co/cbBrNZTskq

— Rudolf van der Berg (@internetthought) April 6, 2022

Let's start with Rudolf's post from LinkedIn:

Stop the shutdown of 2G and 3G networks to save lives. This is the urgent call I make today and I hope you can help me spread it! Please call on people you know in politics, regulators and emergency services to demand a stop! Call on anyone you know in the GSMA, 3GPP, handset makers (Apple, Samsung, Qualcomm, MediaTek), network builders (Ericsson, Nokia, Huawei) to re-engineer VoLTE to an interoperable standard.

Emergency calls (112, 911) should work anywhere in the world on any phone. For GSM and 3G voice calling it did. You could fly anywhere and call emergency services and in the EU we have the roaming regulation that demands calling like at home. Voice over 4G and 5G hasn't been properly standardized and isn't interoperable between networks, devices, chipsets and firmware. People need to be able to make and receive telephone calls around the world, to each other and to emergency services. Unfortunately even according to sector itself emergency services are at risk from VoLTE. A consumer today can't know whether a phone they bought will make VoLTE calls at home or abroad, nor whether it can reach emergency services. That can't be right!

So please help EENA 112 and me share this message! Thank you #eena2022 (Slide 4 contains a mistake, T-Mo USA hasn't decided on 2G shutdown yet. that is good for availability of 911, though fundamental point remains. Apologies.)

Dear foreigner, AT&T regrets you die because you can't dial 911. Try whatsapp and ask a friend in the US to call 911 for you. https://t.co/KqliBXv4ik

— Rudolf van der Berg (@internetthought) April 15, 2022

The video and slides are embedded below:

The slides contain many useful references and links, you can download directly from here.

Back in April, iBASIS hosted a VoLTE and 5G Roaming Roundtable. You can watch the video here and download the presentation and whitepaper as well. It contains talks from Kaleido Intelligence, iBASIS, KPN, Bouygues Telecom and Telus. 

The slide from Dutch MNO KPN above highlights the VoLTE Roaming issues they are observing. Other operators will face this issue sooner or later as well. 

So they are the ones who should be asked to make sure that VoLTE and VoNR is interoperable between vendors and MNOs? Because people will die if we don't fix this. See my presentation from last week https://t.co/Ju3GadO9ie

— Rudolf van der Berg (@internetthought) May 5, 2022

The Regulators, GSMA and 3GPP have to come together to fix this important issue for once and all so no lives are lost because of this. Hopefully someone is listening!

Related Posts: 

• The 3G4G Blog: Transitioning from eCall to NG-eCall and the Legacy Problem
• The 3G4G Blog: GSMA Releases Mobile Economy Report 2022
• The 3G4G Blog: When will 2G & 3G be switched off now that 5G is here?
• The 3G4G Blog: VoLTE Hacking
• The 3G4G Blog: A quick starter on 4G voice (for beginners) 

AI/ML in 3GPP: Progress, Challenges, and the Road to 6G

The ETSI Artificial Intelligence (AI) Conference – Status, Implementation and Way Forward of AI Standardization – took place from 5-7 February 2024 at ETSI, Sophia Antipolis, France. This in-person event provided a valuable platform for experts and peers to exchange insights, explore demos and posters, and discuss AI and Machine Learning (ML) within the Information and Communications Technology (ICT) sector.

The event agenda is available online, and all presentations can be accessed here.

AI/ML Work in 3GPP: Insights from Dr. Juan Montojo

Dr. Juan Montojo, a leading figure in 3GPP TSG Radio Access Networks (RAN) and rapporteur for the work item Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning for NR air interface (NR_AIML_air), delivered an insightful presentation titled "Overview of AI/ML related work in 3GPP." His talk covered the current status of AI/ML in 3GPP and prospects as 6G priorities begin to take shape.

Further details are available in the 3GPP post and presentation.

Focus Areas in 3GPP AI/ML Work

Dr. Montojo outlined the critical focus areas for AI/ML within 3GPP:

• Infrastructure and Operator Control: Ensuring that operators maintain control over AI/ML implementations within their networks.
• Performance Monitoring: Establishing standards for monitoring AI/ML model performance, activation, and deactivation.
• Air Interface Extensions: Developing extensions to support AI/ML-specific use cases.
• Data Standards: Defining standardized processes for data collection, AI/ML model transfer, and delivery.
• Testing and Interoperability: Ensuring consistent device behavior and interoperability in AI/ML deployments.

Principles Guiding AI/ML in 3GPP

The AI/ML work in 3GPP is grounded in principles that echo regulatory frameworks like the European Commission’s AI Act:

• Data Security and Integrity: Safeguarding data confidentiality and ensuring integrity.
• Privacy and User Consent: Respecting data privacy and user anonymity, with explicit consent mechanisms.
• Operator Control: Empowering operators with control over data collection, transfer initiation, termination, and management.
• Future-Proof Design: Ensuring the system design is extendable to accommodate future advancements.

AI/ML Training Models: Current Practices and Future Directions

• Off-line Training: Currently, AI/ML models in 3GPP assume off-line training, where models are fully trained before deployment in commercial networks.
• On-line Training and Federated Learning: Future 6G developments may introduce on-line training. 3GPP WG SA2 is already exploring federated learning to enhance network automation.

Challenges and Opportunities for AI/ML in Cellular Networks

Dr. Montojo emphasized both the strengths and limitations of AI/ML in cellular networks:

• Strengths: AI/ML excels in tackling complex, non-linear problems that traditional methods struggle with. It enhances localized, data-driven decision-making.
• Challenges: High energy consumption remains a concern for both network and device sides. Standardization must balance flexibility with technical consistency.

The Path Forward: AI/ML in 6G

AI/ML is expected to become pervasive in 6G, influencing all aspects of system design and operation. Notable expectations include:

• Rel-21 Specifications: AI/ML will be incorporated from the outset, supporting evolving use cases and dynamic requirements.
• Flexible Standardization: Future specifications may be less rigid, enabling AI/ML to drive optimization through data-driven parameterization.

Conclusion

AI/ML's integration into 3GPP workstreams is advancing steadily, laying the groundwork for significant contributions to 6G networks. While AI/ML models themselves are not being standardized, the supporting frameworks around data collection, model management, and interoperability are set to shape the future of cellular technology.

For anyone invested in AI/ML's role in telecoms, understanding these foundational steps is essential as we move towards a more automated, intelligent, and adaptable network landscape.

Related Posts

• The 3G4G Blog - Lessons from ANRW ’24: AI and Cloud in 5G/6G Systems
• The 3G4G Blog: RAN, AI, AI-RAN and Open RAN
• The 3G4G Blog: 3GPP Release 18 Description and Summary of Work Items
• The 3G4G Blog: AI/ML and Other ICT Industry Trends in the coming decades
• The 3G4G Blog: Presentations from 2nd IEEE Open RAN Summit
• The 3G4G Blog: AI/ML Enhancements in 5G-Advanced for Intelligent Network Automation
• The 3G4G Blog: What Is the Role of AI and ML in the Open RAN and 5G Future?
• The 3G4G Blog: 5G-Advanced Flagship Features
• Free 6G Training: Role of AI/ML in 6G RAN - B6GS 2024
• Free 6G Training: Prof. Emil Björnson Explains The Role of AI in 6G Networks? 

5G: A 2020 Vision

I had the pleasure of speaking at the CW (Cambridge Wireless) event ‘5G: A Practical Approach’. It was a very interesting event with great speakers. Over the next few weeks, I will hopefully add the presentations from some of the other speakers too.

In fact before the presentation (below), I had a few discussions over the twitter to validate if people agree with my assumptions. For those who use twitter, maybe you may want to have a look at some of these below:

5G is coming, maybe much earlier than you expect it to. There is a race to be first. Come... http://t.co/BQUR5p3bpk pic.twitter.com/z3cOD7Xv2O
— eXplanoTech (@eXplanoTech) January 30, 2015

@disruptivedean @ericsson Re 2% only cellular, I was discussing this the other day. Too many competing techs. pic.twitter.com/Z7s6wqxkBM
— Zahid Ghadialy (@zahidtg) January 26, 2015

Spectrum Bands Summary - Can anyone point me to a better picture? (Cc @open_spectrum @StevenJCrowley @elenaneira) pic.twitter.com/IkBhtQubSj
— Zahid Ghadialy (@zahidtg) January 19, 2015

Anyway, here is the presentation.

 

5G: A 2020 Vision from eXplanoTech

2G / 3G Switch Off: A Tale of Two Worlds

Source: Wikipedia

2G/3G switch off is always a topic of discussion in most conferences. While many companies are putting their eggs in 4G & 5G baskets, 2G & 3G is not going away anytime soon.

Based on my observations and many discussions that I have had over the past few months, I see a pattern emerging.

In most developed nations, 2G will be switched off (or some operators may leave a very thin layer) followed by re-farming of 3G. Operators will switch off 3G at earliest possible opportunity as most users would have moved to 4G. Users that would not have moved to 4G would be forced to move operators or upgrade their devices. This scenario is still probably 6 - 10 years out.

As we all know that 5G will need capacity (and coverage) layer in sub-6GHz, the 3G frequencies will either be re-farmed to 4G or 5G as 2G is already being re-farmed to 4G. Some operators may choose to re-balance the usage with some lower frequencies exchanged to be used for 5G (subject to enough bandwidth being available).


On the other hand, in the developing and less-developed nations, 3G will generally be switched off before 2G. The main reason being that there are still a lot of feature phone users that rely on 2G technologies. Most, if not all, 3G phones support 2G so the existing 3G users will be forced onto 2G. Those who can afford, will upgrade to newer smartphones while those who cant will have to grudgingly use 2G or change operators (not all operators in a country will do this at the same time).

Many operators in the developing countries believe that GSM will be around until 2030. While it may be difficult to predict that far in advance, I am inclined to believe this.

For anyone interested, here is a document listing 2G/3G switch off dates that have been publicly announced by the operators.

2G/3G Switch off Dates from 3G4G

Let me know what you think.

Further reading:

• 2G Network Decommissioning, Ready? - Russell Lundberg, Bangkok Beach Telecom

3GPP-VRIF workshop on Virtual Reality Ecosystem & Standards in 5G

Its been a year since I last posted about Augmented / Virtual Reality Requirements for 5G. The topic of Virtual Reality has since made good progress for 5G. There are 2 technical reports that is looking at VR specifically. They are:

• 3GPP TR 26.918: Virtual Reality (VR) media services over 3GPP
• 3GPP TR 26.929: QoE parameters and metrics relevant to the Virtual Reality user experience

The second one is work in progress though. 

Anyway, back in Dec. 3GPP and Virtual Reality Industry Forum (VRIF) held a workshop on VR Ecosystem & Standards. All the materials, including agenda is available here. The final report is not there yet but I assume that there will be a press release when the report is published.

While there are some interesting presentations, here is what I found interesting:

From presentation by Gordon Castle, Head of Strategy Development, Ericsson

From presentation by Martin Renschler, Senior Director Technology, Qualcomm

For anyone wanting to learn more about 6 degrees of freedom (6- DoF), see this Wikipedia entry. According to the Nokia presentation, Facebook’s marketing people call this “6DOF;” the engineers at MPEG call it “3DOF+.”

XR is 'cross reality', which is any hardware that combines aspects of AR, MR and VR; such as Google Tango.

From presentation by Devon Copley, Former Head of Product, Nokia Ozo VR Platform

Some good stuff in the pres.

From presentation by Youngkwon Lim, Samsung Research America; the presentation provided a link to a recent YouTube video on this presentation. I really liked it so I am embedding that here:



Finally, from presentation by Gilles Teniou, SA4 Vice chairman - Video SWG chairman, 3GPP

You can check and download all the presentations here.

Further Reading:

• 3GPP 5G Specifications