The 3G4G Blog

3GPP Release 19 Description and Summary of Work Items

noreply@blogger.com (Zahid Ghadialy) — Thu, 09 Apr 2026 06:35:00 +0000

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:

The 3G4G Blog - Tutorial: A Quick Introduction to 3GPP
Free 6G Training: ATIS Webinar on 'Introduction to 3GPP Release 19 and 6G Planning'
The 3G4G Blog: AIoT and A-IoT
The 3G4G Blog: The Evolution of 3GPP 5G Network Slice and Service Types (SSTs)
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: 3GPP TSG RAN and TSG SA Release-19 Workshop Summary
The 3G4G Blog: 3GPP Release 18 Description and Summary of Work Items
The 3G4G Blog: 3GPP Release 17 Description and Summary of Work Items
The 3G4G Blog: 3GPP Release 16 Description and Summary of Work Items

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

noreply@blogger.com (Zahid Ghadialy) — Thu, 26 Mar 2026 07:35:00 +0000

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:

The 3G4G Blog - Tutorial: A Quick Introduction to 3GPP
The 3G4G Blog: 3GPP Release 18 Description and Summary of Work Items

Strengthening Critical Infrastructure Security with OSINT

noreply@blogger.com (Zahid Ghadialy) — Tue, 03 Mar 2026 07:35:00 +0000

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.

Nice picture explaining the convergence of IT & OT - "While IT focuses on data and business processes, OT is dedicated to the control and monitoring of physical operations... Convergence of IT/OT generally means that the OT network is now accessible from the outside world via..." pic.twitter.com/i9RrWrr1hb
— Private Networks (@PrivNetTech) May 5, 2025

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:

The 3G4G Blog: Telecom Security Realities from 2025 and Lessons for 2026
Private Networks Technology Blog - IT and OT Convergence: Opportunities and Security Risks for Private Networks
The 3G4G Blog: 3GPP Release 18 Signal level Enhanced Network Selection (SENSE) for Smarter Network Selection in Stationary IoT
Private Networks Technology Blog: Understanding the Realities of OT Cybersecurity
The 3G4G Blog: Key enablers for mass IoT adoption

Seven AI Concepts Shaping Network Intelligence

noreply@blogger.com (Zahid Ghadialy) — Tue, 03 Feb 2026 07:35:00 +0000

AI has become so deeply embedded in our everyday working lives that it is no longer limited to data science teams or research labs. In telecoms, AI now plays a central role in network planning, optimisation, assurance and automation. As a result, the industry is rapidly absorbing a growing set of AI-related terms and concepts, many of which are directly relevant to how networks are evolving towards higher levels of autonomy.

I recently came across the video embedded below, which provides clear explanations of seven AI terms that are becoming increasingly important in the context of network intelligence and autonomous networks. Some of these concepts are already being applied in operational networks today, while others point clearly towards the direction of travel for AI-native 5G Advanced and 6G systems.

The video begins with Agentic AI, a concept that aligns closely with the telecom industry’s vision for autonomous networks as defined in 3GPP. Unlike traditional AI models that respond to a single prompt, AI agents can perceive their environment, reason about next steps, take action and observe the outcome in a continuous loop. In practical terms, this maps well to closed-loop automation use cases such as self-healing, energy optimisation, dynamic resource allocation and intent-driven network management.

Closely related are Large Reasoning Models, which are designed to work through problems step by step rather than producing an immediate response. This capability is particularly relevant for telecom networks, where decisions often span multiple domains, layers and vendors. As AI systems take on greater responsibility for operational decisions, reasoning-based models become essential for safe and explainable automation.

The video then moves to more foundational enablers, starting with Vector Databases. Telecom networks generate vast volumes of unstructured data, including logs, alarms, performance metrics, configuration data and documentation. Vector databases allow this information to be searched and correlated based on semantic meaning rather than simple keywords, enabling more context-aware and intelligent AI systems.

This naturally leads to Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), which is already gaining traction in telecom operations. By combining large language models with operator-specific data sources such as standards, network documentation or operational procedures, RAG helps ground AI outputs in trusted information. This is particularly important in network operations, where accuracy and reliability are critical.

Another important concept discussed is the Model Context Protocol (MCP), which addresses how AI models interact with external tools and systems. For telecom operators, standardised mechanisms for AI access to network management systems, data platforms and orchestration tools could significantly simplify integration and accelerate the deployment of AI-driven automation across the network lifecycle.

The video also touches on Mixture of Experts (MoE) models, which provide a more efficient way to scale AI by activating only the parts of a model needed for a specific task. This approach is especially relevant for telecom use cases where compute efficiency, latency and energy consumption are key constraints, particularly as AI capabilities move closer to the edge of the network.

Finally, the video briefly discusses Artificial Superintelligence (ASI). While ASI remains theoretical, it is often referenced in long-term discussions around AI evolution. For the telecom industry, it serves as a reminder of the rapid pace of change and the importance of governance, trust and control as networks become increasingly autonomous and software-driven.

Overall, this video offers a useful technical refresher on AI concepts that are already shaping the development of network intelligence, autonomous operations and AI-native architectures. For anyone working on 5G Advanced, autonomous networks or early 6G thinking, these are terms that are quickly becoming part of the industry’s everyday vocabulary.

Related Posts and Articles:

Cambridge Wireless - Agentic AI Security: Navigating Trust, Autonomy and Resilience
The 3G4G Blog - AI/ML in 3GPP: Progress, Challenges, and the Road to 6G
Operator Watch Blog: Automation and Data Driven Network Optimization in Swisscom’s Mobile Strategy
Operator Watch Blog: Telefonica’s Journey Towards End-to-End Autonomous Networks
Operator Watch Blog: The Power of AI in NTT Docomo’s 5G Journey
Operator Watch Blog: Building and Scaling AI the Cloud Native Way at Singtel
Operator Watch Blog: How AI Is Reshaping Network Operations at Deutsche Telekom
Free 6G Training: Agentic AI and the Path to Hyper-Personalised 6G Networks
Free 6G Training - Pioneering 6G with AI: Reflections on NVIDIA’s Keynote at the Brooklyn 6G Summit 2025
Free 6G Training - AI for Wireless: Evaluating Neural Receivers with Test and Measurement and Digital Twins
The 3G4G Blog: AIoT and A-IoT

Telecom Security Realities from 2025 and Lessons for 2026

noreply@blogger.com (Zahid Ghadialy) — Tue, 20 Jan 2026 07:35:00 +0000

Telecom security rarely stands still. Each year brings new technologies, new attack paths, and new operational realities. Yet 2025 was not defined by dramatic new exploits or spectacular network failures. Instead, it became a year that highlighted how persistent, patient and methodical modern telecom attackers have become.

The recent SecurityGen Year-End Telecom Security Webinar offered a detailed look back at what the industry experienced during 2025. The session pulled together research findings, real world incidents and practical lessons from across multiple domains, including legacy signalling, eSIM ecosystems, VoLTE vulnerabilities and the emerging world of satellite-based mobile connectivity.

For anyone working in mobile networks, the message was clear. The threats are evolving, but many of the core problems remain stubbornly familiar.

A Year of Stealth Rather Than Spectacle

One of the most important themes from the webinar was that 2025 did not bring a wave of highly visible disruptive telecom attacks. Instead, it was characterised by quiet, low profile intrusions that often went undetected for long periods.

Operators around the world reported that attackers increasingly favoured living-off-the-land techniques. Rather than deploying noisy malware, intruders looked for ways to gain legitimate access to core systems and remain hidden. Lawful interception platforms, subscriber databases such as HLR and HSS, and internal management platforms were all targeted.

The primary objective in many cases was intelligence collection. Attackers were interested in call data, subscriber information and network topology rather than immediate disruption. This shift in motivation makes detection far more difficult, as there are often few obvious signs of compromise.

At the same time, automation has become a defining feature on both sides of the security battle. Operators are investing heavily in AI and machine learning to identify abnormal behaviour. Attackers are doing exactly the same, using automation to scale phishing campaigns and to accelerate exploit development.

Despite all this technology, basic security discipline continues to be a major challenge. A significant proportion of incidents still originate from human error, poor operational practices or simple failure to apply patches. The industry continues to invest billions in cybersecurity, but much of that effort is consumed by reporting and compliance activities rather than direct threat mitigation.

eSIM Security Comes into Sharp Focus

The transition from physical SIM cards to eSIM and remote provisioning is one of the most significant structural changes in the mobile industry. It offers clear benefits in terms of flexibility and user experience. However, the webinar highlighted that it also introduces entirely new security concerns.

Traditional SIM security models relied heavily on physical control. Fraudsters needed access to large numbers of real SIM cards to operate at scale. With eSIM, many of those physical constraints disappear. Remote provisioning expands the number of parties involved in the connectivity chain, including resellers and intermediaries who may not always operate under strict regulatory oversight.

During 2025 several major SIM farm operations were dismantled by law enforcement. These infrastructures contained tens of thousands of active SIM cards and were used for large scale fraud, smishing campaigns and automated account creation. While such operations existed long before eSIM, the technology has the potential to make them even easier to deploy and manage.

Research discussed in the session pointed to additional concerns. Analysis of travel eSIM services revealed issues such as cross-border routing of management traffic, excessive levels of control granted to resellers, and lifecycle management weaknesses that could potentially be abused by attackers. In some cases, resellers were found to have capabilities similar to full mobile operators, but without equivalent governance or transparency.

The conclusion was not that eSIM is inherently insecure. The technology itself uses strong encryption and robust mechanisms. The problem lies in the wider ecosystem of trust boundaries, partners and processes that surround it. Securing eSIM therefore requires cooperation between operators, vendors, regulators and service providers.

SS7 Remains a Persistent Weak Point

Few topics in telecom security generate as much ongoing concern as SS7. Despite being a technology from a previous era, it remains deeply embedded in global mobile infrastructure. The webinar dedicated significant attention to why SS7 continues to be exploited in 2025 and why it is likely to remain a problem for many years to come.

Throughout the year, media reports and research papers continued to demonstrate practical abuses of SS7 signalling. Attackers probed networks, attempted to bypass signalling firewalls and looked for new ways to manipulate protocol behaviour. Techniques such as parameter manipulation and protocol parsing tricks were highlighted as methods that can sometimes evade existing protections.

One particularly interesting demonstration showed how SS7 messages could be used as a covert channel for data exfiltration. By embedding information inside otherwise legitimate signalling transactions, attackers can potentially move data across networks without triggering traditional security alarms.

Perhaps the most striking point raised was how little progress has been made in eliminating SS7 dependencies. Analysis of global network deployments showed that only a handful of countries operate mobile networks entirely without SS7. Everywhere else, the protocol remains a foundational element of roaming and interconnect.

As a result, even operators that have invested heavily in 4G and 5G security can still be undermined by weaknesses in this legacy layer. The uncomfortable reality is that SS7 vulnerabilities will continue to be exploited well into 2026 and beyond.

VoLTE and Modern Core Network Risks

While legacy protocols remain a problem, modern technologies are not immune. VoLTE infrastructure in particular was identified as an increasingly attractive target.

VoLTE relies on complex interactions between signalling systems, IP multimedia subsystems and subscriber databases. Weaknesses in configuration or interconnection can open the door to call interception, fraud or denial of service. Several real world incidents during 2025 demonstrated that attackers are actively exploring these paths.

The move toward fully virtualised and cloud-native mobile cores also introduces new operational challenges. Telecom networks now resemble large IT environments, complete with the same risks around misconfiguration, insecure APIs and exposed management interfaces.

The Emerging Security Challenge of 5G Satellites

One of the most forward-looking parts of the webinar focused on non-terrestrial networks and direct-to-device satellite connectivity. What was once a concept for the distant future is rapidly becoming a commercial reality.

Satellite integration promises to extend 5G coverage to remote areas, oceans and disaster zones. However, it also changes the security model in fundamental ways. Satellites can act either as simple relay systems or as active components of the mobile radio access network. In both cases, new threat vectors emerge.

Potential issues discussed included the risk of denial of service against shared satellite resources, difficulties in applying traditional radio security controls in space-based equipment, and the possibility of more precise user tracking due to the way satellite systems handle location information.

Experts from the space cybersecurity community explained how vulnerabilities in mission control software and ground segment infrastructure could be exploited. Much of this software was originally designed for isolated environments and is only now being connected to wider networks and the internet.

As telecom networks expand beyond the boundaries of the Earth, security responsibilities extend with them. Operators will need to think not only about terrestrial threats but also about risks originating from space-based components.

The Human Factor and the Skills Gap

Technology was only part of the story. Another recurring theme was the global shortage of skilled telecom cybersecurity professionals.

Studies referenced in the session suggested that millions of additional specialists are needed worldwide, yet only a fraction of that demand can currently be filled. Many security teams are overwhelmed by the sheer volume of alerts and data they must process.

This shortage has real consequences. When teams are stretched thin, patching is delayed, anomalies are missed and complex investigations become difficult to sustain. The panel emphasised that throwing more tools at the problem is not enough. Organisations must focus on training, automation and smarter operational processes.

Automation and AI-driven analysis were presented as essential enablers. Given the scale of modern mobile networks, it is simply not feasible for human analysts to monitor every signalling protocol, every core interface and every emerging technology manually.

Preparing for 2026

Looking ahead, the experts agreed on several broad trends. Attacks on legacy systems such as SS7 will continue. Fraudsters will increasingly target eSIM provisioning processes. VoLTE and 5G core components will face growing scrutiny. Satellite-based connectivity will introduce new and unfamiliar security questions.

Perhaps most importantly, the line between traditional telecom security and general cybersecurity will continue to blur. Mobile networks are now large, distributed IT platforms, and they inherit all the complexities that come with that transformation.

Operators, regulators and vendors must therefore adopt a holistic view. Investment must go beyond compliance reporting and focus on practical defences, real time monitoring and collaborative intelligence sharing.

Final Reflections

The SecurityGen webinar provided a valuable snapshot of an industry at a crossroads. Telecom networks are becoming more advanced and more capable, but also more complex and interconnected than ever before.

2025 demonstrated that attackers do not always need new vulnerabilities. Often they succeed simply by exploiting old weaknesses in smarter ways. The challenge for 2026 is to close those gaps while also preparing for the technologies that are only just beginning to emerge.

For those involved in telecom security, the full discussion is well worth watching. The complete webinar recording can be viewed below:

Related Posts:

The 3G4G Blog: Evolving Communication Security Towards 6G at the ETSI Security Conference 2025
The 3G4G Blog: Detection of Real-world Fake Base Station (FBS) Attacks in Thailand
The 3G4G Blog: Attack Surfaces for Different Generations of Mobile Technologies
The 3G4G Blog: Presentations from ETSI Security Conference 2023
The 3G4G Blog: Top 10 New (2022) Security Standards That You Need to Know About!
The 3G4G Blog: Authentication and Key Management for Applications (AKMA) based on 3GPP credentials in the 5G System (5GS)
The 3G4G Blog: 5G and Cyber Security
The 3G4G Blog: Everything you need to know about 5G Security
3G4G: Security in 2G, 3G, 4G & 5G Mobile Networks

Transport Networks Holding Modern Mobile Architectures Together

noreply@blogger.com (Zahid Ghadialy) — Thu, 18 Dec 2025 07:35:00 +0000

When people talk about mobile networks, the conversation almost always starts with the air interface. Spectrum, waveforms, MIMO, antennas and radios dominate conference agendas, white papers and training courses. After that comes the RAN, then the core, and occasionally backhaul is given a brief mention. What sits quietly in the middle of all this, often taken for granted, is the transport network. Yet without a well designed transport layer, even the most advanced radio and core architecture struggles to deliver on its promises.

Transport networks are the connective tissue of mobile communications. They carry traffic between radio sites, aggregation layers, edge and regional data centres, and the core network. As highlighted in the accompanying Mpirical video, transport is not a single homogeneous network but an end to end topology made up of multiple architectural domains, each with different performance, scale and resilience requirements.

At the core of the network, transport is typically built using highly resilient designs such as full mesh or spine and leaf architectures. These environments are already operating at hundreds of gigabits per second per link, with clear evolution paths towards terabit scale throughput. This part of the network rarely gets attention from mobile engineers, yet it underpins everything that follows. If the core transport layer cannot scale, the rest of the mobile network inevitably hits a ceiling.

Moving closer to the cell site, the transport network transitions into metro and aggregation domains. Here, spine and leaf or ring based topologies are commonly used, supporting large numbers of high capacity connections while also providing access to edge and regional data centres. This is where transport starts to intersect directly with mobile architecture decisions. The placement of edge computing platforms, local breakout, and centralised RAN functions all depend on the capabilities of this aggregation layer.

Closer still to the access network, transport designs often shift again. Ring, star or chain topologies are frequently used to connect clusters of cell sites, with capacities that reflect both traffic demand and economic constraints. Although fibre is the dominant medium, especially for 5G, it is rarely the only one. Microwave, integrated access and backhaul, and even non terrestrial technologies play an increasingly important role in extending coverage and improving resilience where fibre is impractical or unavailable.

The importance of transport becomes even clearer when viewed through the lens of disaggregated RAN and cloud based architectures. With gNodeB functions split into remote radio units, distributed units and centralised units, transport is no longer just backhaul. It becomes fronthaul and midhaul as well, each with distinct latency, synchronisation and bandwidth requirements. Centralised units may sit deep in the network, served by high capacity backhaul, while distributed units are connected via midhaul rings and radios are attached using star or ring topologies at the very edge.

This architectural shift exposes a common blind spot. Many performance issues blamed on the RAN are in fact rooted in transport limitations. Synchronisation accuracy, latency variation and resilience all depend heavily on transport design and operation. Packet based transport, while flexible and cost effective, places strict demands on timing and quality that cannot be treated as an afterthought.

As networks move towards 5G standalone, private networks and early 6G concepts, transport will become even more tightly coupled with service delivery. Network slicing, deterministic performance and edge driven applications all rely on a transport layer that can offer predictable behaviour rather than best effort connectivity. This pushes transport out of the shadows and into the critical path of mobile network design.

The 5G Transport Network Topology video as follows:

For mobile engineers, the message is clear. Understanding the air interface will always be essential, but it is no longer enough. Transport networks shape where functions can be placed, how services perform, and how networks scale over time. The video embedded alongside this post provides a useful visual reminder that mobile networks are not just radios and cores connected by invisible links. Transport is a network in its own right, and it deserves far more attention than it usually gets.

Related Posts:

The 3G4G Blog - IET Lecture by Prof. Andy Sutton: Point to Point Microwave Radio Systems
Free 6G Training: The Future Role of Transport Networks in 6G
Free 6G Training: The Role of the All-Photonics Network (APN) in IOWN and Future 6G
Connectivity Technology Blog: An Introduction to Different Types of Backhaul
The 3G4G Blog - CWHeritage Talk: The History of Synchronization in Digital Cellular Networks

IET Lecture by Prof. Andy Sutton: Point to Point Microwave Radio Systems

noreply@blogger.com (Zahid Ghadialy) — Tue, 25 Nov 2025 07:35:00 +0000

Point to point microwave radio systems have been with us for more than eighty years, yet they rarely attract much attention in an era where fibre dominates network planning and satellite systems continue to develop at pace. At a recent IET Anglian Coastal Local Network event, Prof. Andy Sutton delivered an excellent lecture that brought these fixed radio links back into the spotlight. His talk explored the history, engineering and future of microwave and millimetre wave links, reminding us why they remain essential for transmission networks in the UK and around the world.

The story begins with the national microwave radio network of the 1970s, with the BT Tower at its centre. These early deployments supported long links across the country and laid the foundation for many of the design principles still used today. While the landscape has changed significantly, the fundamentals of fixed radio communication continue to be shaped by spectrum availability, propagation characteristics and careful engineering.

Microwave links depend on a wide range of bands, from the lower 6 GHz region through to 80 GHz E-band. The choice of frequency affects everything from link length to susceptibility to atmospheric absorption. As Andy explained, a link designer must consider not just free space path loss, but also Fresnel zone clearance, rainfall intensity and antenna characteristics. The slides included a worked example that showed the impact of frequency and distance on the radius of the Fresnel zone and highlighted the need for adequate clearance to maintain availability over time.

The talk moved on to modern access radio systems, where compact rooftop nodes and all-outdoor radios have become common. These systems rely on careful use of vertical and horizontal polarisations, often enabled through XPIC technology. XPIC allows separate data streams to coexist on the same frequency using orthogonal polarisations, effectively doubling link capacity when conditions allow. This is paired with adaptive coding and modulation, which enables the radio to shift modulation schemes according to link quality. The result is a more resilient and efficient link compared to older fixed-modulation systems.

Capacity planning is a balancing act that involves radio channel bandwidth, modulation choice and the number of aggregated carriers. Wider channels and higher order modulation support multi-gigabit throughput, although this introduces penalties in transmit power and receiver sensitivity. The trade-offs are central to radio design and determine the type of equipment used, whether through a separate indoor and outdoor unit or an integrated all-outdoor system.

Andy also covered the practical elements of radio link planning, such as antenna selection, path profiling, waveguide losses and typical link budget calculations. A link planning example using a 32 GHz radio demonstrated the relationship between transmit power, antenna gain, free space loss and fade margin for a target availability of 99.99 percent. The discussion tied together the theoretical foundations with real-world engineering and illustrated how access radios are designed for street-level backhaul scenarios.

The lecture then moved to millimetre wave systems, particularly E-band radios that operate around 70 and 80 GHz. These links offer enormous capacity over shorter distances and are increasingly used for dense urban backhaul and enterprise connectivity. The slides included examples of network topologies showing how microwave and fibre can be combined to meet different deployment objectives.

A substantial part of the presentation focused on trunk or core microwave radio systems. These high-capacity, high-availability links support long distances and historically formed the backbone of national networks. Although demand for trunk links has reduced as fibre has spread, they still exist in challenging environments. In the UK, many trunk links remain operational in Scotland and island regions where terrain and geography limit fibre deployment. The lecture covered branching networks, duplexers, waveguide installations and space diversity techniques, all of which contribute to the reliability of long-haul links.

Looking ahead, research continues into new frequency bands, wider channels, higher modulation schemes and improved radio hardware. These advances will support even greater capacities, with millimetre wave links expected to reach 100 Gbps over short distances. Microwave radio may no longer be the headline technology it once was, but the field continues to push boundaries and remains an essential part of modern communication networks.

Andy’s lecture was a comprehensive tour of the past, present and future of point to point microwave systems. For anyone working in transmission, mobile networks or wireless engineering, it served as a valuable reminder of the depth of innovation in this area and its continued relevance in the broader ecosystem.

If you would like to explore the material in more detail, the slides from the event are available here and the video can be seen here. Both are well worth a look.

Related Posts:

Connectivity Technology Blog - 5G Demystified; the What, When and Where by Prof. Andy Sutton, BT
The 3G4G Blog - Prof. Andy Sutton: Backhauling the 5G Experience - Jan 2020
The 3G4G Blog - Prof. Andy Sutton: 5G Radio Access Network Architecture Evolution - Jan 2019
The 3G4G Blog: 5G Network Architecture, Design and Optimisation - Jan 2018
The 3G4G Blog: 5G Network Architecture and Design Update - Jan 2017
The 3G4G Blog - CWHeritage Talk: The History of Synchronization in Digital Cellular Networks

AIoT and A-IoT

noreply@blogger.com (Zahid Ghadialy) — Tue, 04 Nov 2025 07:35:00 +0000

Our industry loves acronyms. In fact, sometimes it feels as if half our job is simply keeping up with them, while the other half is explaining them to everyone else. A recent example I saw referenced D2D for satellites, but expanded it as Device to Device instead of Direct to Device. Today, two similar acronyms are gaining momentum and are likely to become far more mainstream: AIoT and A-IoT.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the Internet of Things (IoT) are two of the key technological pillars of the modern digital world. IoT connects billions of devices, from sensors and cameras to industrial machinery, all producing vast amounts of useful data. AI enables these devices and systems to learn from this data, recognise patterns, predict outcomes, and act autonomously.

When these technologies come together, we get the Artificial Intelligence of Things, or AIoT. In simple terms, AIoT allows connected devices to analyse the data they generate and make decisions without always relying on central systems.

The intelligence in AIoT can sit in different places. Cloud based AI offers extensive processing power and the ability to leverage wider datasets. Edge AI processes data closer to where it is generated, enabling faster and more context aware decision making while reducing bandwidth use and protecting data privacy. Increasingly, lightweight machine learning models allow intelligence directly on devices themselves, enabling instant reactions without constant network access. This evolution transforms IoT devices from passive data collectors into proactive decision makers.

The benefits are significant. AIoT increases automation, improves efficiency, enhances reliability, and enables predictive maintenance, energy optimisation, autonomous navigation, and smarter logistics. It also supports sustainability initiatives, for instance by improving energy and water use monitoring or enabling more intelligent control of municipal utilities. In short, AIoT forms a key part of the digital transformation strategies emerging across industries.

To get a better sense of how AIoT could shape our everyday lives, I have embedded a couple of older Ericsson videos below that imagine a future where intelligence is seamlessly built into everything.

For anyone interested in going deeper into this topic, Transforma Insights and Supermicro have good explainers. While 3GPP continues to work on AI, ML and IoT, AIoT as a concept is largely implementation driven rather than a standardised feature in itself.

In contrast, 3GPP is actively defining a different acronym: A-IoT, short for Ambient IoT.

Ambient IoT represents a major shift in connected device design. Instead of relying on batteries or frequent charging, Ambient IoT devices operate using energy harvested from their surroundings. This can include radio signals, light, heat, or motion. The technology supports both passive operation, where devices backscatter incoming RF signals, and active operation, where they harvest enough power to generate and transmit signals independently.

Unlike traditional IoT devices, Ambient IoT units are extremely low power, low cost, and very simple in design. They have a shorter range and lower data throughput than conventional wireless technologies, but they excel in scenarios where massive numbers of tiny, battery-free sensors can be deployed and left to operate with minimal maintenance.

This makes Ambient IoT well suited to applications such as environmental sensing, supply chain tracking, inventory monitoring, smart agriculture, and intelligent labelling. It also opens opportunities in consumer environments, from smart packaging to indoor positioning. With the right network support, these devices can operate indefinitely, enabling sustainable, large-scale sensing networks.

Ambient IoT is already included in 5G Advanced Release 19. For those interested in learning more, 3GPP has a detailed overview, Oppo has produced an excellent white paper, and LG Uplus has published a forward looking document exploring Ambient IoT in the context of 6G.

Both AIoT and Ambient IoT represent the next phase of connected intelligence. AIoT pushes computation and decision making closer to where data originates, while Ambient IoT removes power barriers and enables pervasive, maintenance-free connectivity. Together, they will support systems that are scalable, energy efficient and context aware.

As these technologies mature, we can expect a world where devices are not only always connected, but also constantly learning, adapting, and operating independently with minimal energy demands. The future of connectivity lies in this balance between intelligence and efficiency, and both AIoT and Ambient IoT will play a crucial role in shaping it.

Related Posts:

3G4G: Internet of Things (IoT) and Machine-2-Machine (M2M)
The 3G4G Blog: Are there 50 Billion IoT Devices yet?
Free 6G Training: Zero-Energy Devices and Air Interface
Connectivity Technology Blog: InterDigital’s 6G Vision of “Zero-energy” (ZE) air-interface designs
The 3G4G Blog: 3GPP Release 18 Description and Summary of Work Items
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
Connectivity Technology Blog: The Wide Variety of Internet of Things (IoT) Technologies for Different Situations
The 3G4G Blog: Introduction to 5G Reduced Capability (RedCap) Devices
Connectivity Technology Blog: Cellular Connectivity Technology Landscape and Standards for Industrial IoT
The 3G4G Blog: Mobile Initiated Connection Only (MICO) mode in 5G System
The 3G4G Blog: Embedded SIM (eSIM) and Integrated SIM (iSIM)

Evolving Communication Security Towards 6G at the ETSI Security Conference 2025

noreply@blogger.com (Zahid Ghadialy) — Thu, 16 Oct 2025 06:35:00 +0000

The annual ETSI Security Conference returned to the French Riviera from 6 to 9 October, once again bringing together the global cybersecurity community in the beautiful surroundings of ETSI headquarters. Over 250 participants from industry, government agencies, academia, global standards bodies, and open-source communities attended, making it one of the most engaging editions to date. The four-day event featured keynotes, panel discussions, technical sessions, poster presentations and live demonstrations, offering a holistic view of today’s security challenges and tomorrow’s opportunities.

The opening day provided a broad overview of the global cybersecurity landscape, setting the tone for the week ahead. Discussions highlighted emerging trends such as the growing influence of artificial intelligence and the rapid evolution of regulatory frameworks, including the European Commission’s Cyber Resilience Act. The sessions underscored the importance of collaboration between policymakers, researchers, and standards organisations. The afternoon focused on the cyber skills gap, a recurring theme across many sectors, stressing the need for education and training to build a security-aware workforce capable of safeguarding future digital systems. Standards were identified as key enablers in bridging policy and implementation, helping to transform regulatory intent into operational resilience.

The second day examined the paradox between AI as both a risk and a defence mechanism in cybersecurity. Experts discussed how AI-driven systems can expose new vulnerabilities if developed without strong security foundations, while also offering powerful tools for detection and response. Another session addressed fraud reduction and the convergence of security strategies to protect both networks and end users. A major highlight was the discussion on the global uptake of ETSI’s consumer IoT security standard, ETSI EN 303 645. Representatives from Germany, the UK, Singapore and Japan shared national experiences implementing consumer labelling schemes based on this standard, confirming its status as a globally recognised baseline for IoT security.

3GPP SA3 Update from ETSI Security Conference 2025 - https://t.co/COyRhvGcfQ #Free5Gtraining #3G4G5G #3GPP #5G #5GAdvanced #6G #ETSI #TheStandardsPeople #SecurityConference #3GPPSA3 #Release19 #Release20 #Release21 pic.twitter.com/dYWlNm1xWf
— Free 5G Training (@5Gtraining) October 13, 2025

The third day was dedicated to the evolution of communication technologies and the emerging security landscape as the world moves towards 6G. Chaired by Dario Sabella from xFlow Research, the morning session explored how the journey from 5G Advanced to 6G requires a fresh approach to network security. The day began with an update from Alain Sultan of ETSI on the ongoing work within 3GPP SA3, focusing on strengthening frameworks for new architectures and deployment models. Bengt Salin from Ericsson outlined what should be considered in shaping security for 6G, emphasising that the next generation must be secure by design, not by adaptation. Nauman Khan from STC analysed the threat landscape surrounding 5G MEC and private networks, noting that as edge computing becomes more widespread, it introduces new vulnerabilities but also provides insights that can guide 6G security frameworks. Leyi Zhang from ZTE then presented on Secure Space-Air-Ground Integrated Networks, a concept uniting terrestrial, aerial, and satellite systems to provide ubiquitous connectivity. Ensuring trust, authentication, and data protection across such a heterogeneous environment presents one of the greatest challenges for 6G.

A panel discussion moderated by Dario Sabella brought together the morning’s speakers to reflect on security priorities toward 6G. The consensus was clear: while 6G is still in the early stages of standardisation, security must not be an afterthought. Lessons from 5G—particularly regarding openness, complexity, and trust—must inform the architecture and design principles of 6G from the outset. The afternoon sessions continued with broader discussions about digital sovereignty, fragmentation, and whether the internet is moving toward a “splinternet”. The day concluded with a deep dive into post-quantum cryptography, where real-world implementations provided valuable lessons for securing the next era of communication systems.

The final day of the conference shifted attention to geopolitics, cyber resilience, and the role of standards in shaping strategic responses to global challenges. Speakers explored how critical infrastructure security is increasingly influenced by geopolitical dynamics and how coordinated international standards can help mitigate risks. The Cyber Resilience Act remained a focal point, with experts emphasising the urgency of developing the 19 associated ETSI standards to support implementation. Harmonising global labelling schemes based on ETSI EN 303 645 was identified as an immediate priority, while in the longer term, education—both for future generations and C-level executives—was seen as essential to strengthen awareness of how standards underpin sovereignty, innovation, and competitiveness.

The 2025 edition of the ETSI Security Conference reaffirmed ETSI’s position as a central hub for cybersecurity dialogue and collaboration. From 5G and IoT to post-quantum cryptography and 6G, it showcased how security is now integral to every layer of the digital ecosystem. As the journey toward IMT-2030 continues, the message from Sophia Antipolis was clear: proactive, standards-based collaboration is the foundation of a secure connected future.

You can see the detailed agenda here. The presentations from the conference are all available here.

Related Posts:

The 3G4G Blog: Understanding ETSI’s Industry Specification Groups (ISGs) and Why They Matter
The 3G4G Blog: Presentations from ETSI Security Conference 2023

Seamless UE Context Recovery (SUECR) in 3GPP Release 18

noreply@blogger.com (Zahid Ghadialy) — Thu, 09 Oct 2025 06:35:00 +0000

3GPP Release 18 introduces a wide range of enhancements across the 5G system, from energy efficiency and XR optimisation to AI-powered features. Among these developments is a practical but important addition known as Seamless User Equipment Context Recovery (SUECR), designed to handle situations where a device temporarily goes offline.

When a device such as a smartphone or IoT unit undergoes an operating system upgrade, a modem reset or a software update, it may become unavailable for a period of time. If this happens without informing the network, the operator’s core functions and connected application servers may continue to treat the device as available. This can result in wasted signalling, unnecessary retries and disruptions to critical operations that depend on the device’s availability.

SUECR provides a solution by allowing the device to notify the network of an unavailability period, which is a defined window of time during which it cannot communicate. Both the device and the core network retain important session and mobility information so that once the device returns, service can continue smoothly without unnecessary procedures.

The feature works in two ways depending on the device’s ability to store context information. If the device can preserve its mobility and session management contexts in non-volatile memory or on the SIM, it executes a registration procedure before going offline. The unavailability period is included in this request, and the Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF) records the duration and recognises the device as unreachable until it re-registers. If an application function has subscribed to receive updates on device availability, the AMF also forwards this information so that application servers can adapt accordingly. If the device cannot save its context, it instead executes a deregistration procedure to notify the AMF of its unavailability, with similar treatment by the network until the device performs its next registration.

Once the update or reset is complete, the device re-registers with the network and resumes normal service. If the planned downtime is delayed, cancelled or extended, the device repeats the procedure to keep the network and applications accurately informed. This ensures that network functions and application servers no longer waste resources attempting to reach devices that are temporarily offline.

By introducing SUECR, Release 18 strengthens service reliability and efficiency. It prevents unnecessary signalling and enables critical applications to maintain accurate awareness of device availability. The figure above, from NTT Docomo’s Technical Journal, illustrates how the unavailability period is managed depending on whether the registration or deregistration procedure is used.

Seamless User Equipment Context Recovery may appear as a small enhancement in the context of all the new Rel-18 features, but it addresses an important gap in 5G operations. As networks continue to evolve towards automation and support for mission-critical services, this function will play a key role in making device management more predictable and dependable.

Related Posts:

The 3G4G Blog: 3GPP Release 18 Description and Summary of Work Items
The 3G4G Blog: Understanding L1/L2 Triggered Mobility (LTM) Procedure in 3GPP Release 18
The 3G4G Blog: 3GPP Release 18 Signal level Enhanced Network Selection (SENSE) for Smarter Network Selection in Stationary IoT
The 3G4G Blog: Low Latency Power Saving with Low Power-Wake Up Signal/Receiver (LP-WUS/LP-WUR)
The 3G4G Blog: UE Assistance Information in LTE and 5G

5G+ and 5GA Icon (Pictogram) in New Smartphones

noreply@blogger.com (Zahid Ghadialy) — Tue, 23 Sep 2025 06:35:00 +0000

As 5G matures, new icons are appearing on smartphones to distinguish faster or more advanced connections. Some of the latest 5G smartphones around the world have started showing new icons such as 5G+ and 5GA. Interestingly, in Japan these are referred to as pictograms.

A long time ago, we looked at how Swisscom described its 5G rollout as 5G-wide and 5G-fast. Today, Swisscom uses the 5G+ icon to represent what it previously called 5G-fast. In its annual report, Swisscom explained:

5G (and 5G+) is the latest generation of mobile technology. Compared to 3G and 4G, it provides even more capacity, very short response times, and higher bandwidths. 5G technology plays a major role in supporting the digitalisation of the Swiss economy and industry. Swisscom differentiates between 5G-fast (narrower coverage up to 2 Gbit/s and more) and 5G-wide (Switzerland-wide 5G coverage with up to 1 Gbit/s). 5G-fast is also known as 5G+. Both variants are more efficient than their predecessor technologies with respect to energy consumption and use of electromagnetic fields.

Japan has only recently transitioned to using 5G+. A Google-translated page from NTT Docomo explains it as follows:

In areas where 5G communication is possible, the RAT display on standby will be "5G." On the other hand, during communication, the RAT display will be "5G+" for 5G communication using wideband 5G frequencies (3.7 GHz, 4.5 GHz, 28 GHz), "5G" for 5G communication using 4G frequencies, and "4G+" for LTE communication.

There are also footnotes clarifying that the display depends on the device, the bands supported, and the area of use.

お、新しいiPhone
auだと5G+ピクトとHPUE対応か
いいぞ pic.twitter.com/U0J7FWlo1w
— 電波やくざ (@denpa893) September 19, 2025

From this, my understanding is that in newer devices the 5G+ icon is primarily used to indicate speed and capability, regardless of whether the connection is Standalone (SA) or Non-Standalone (NSA) 5G. KDDI is following the same approach, as explained on its own support pages.

A good summary of 5G icons from latest Apple iPhone in Mobile & Wireless Roundup Newsletter from yesterday https://t.co/4yuHzHsRln #Free5Gtraining #3G4G5G #5G #5Gtechnology #5Gdevices #Smartphones #iPhone #iOS18 #5Gicons #USA #ATT #Tmobile #Verizon #VZW pic.twitter.com/YOq7Pv42ZS
— Free 5G Training (@5Gtraining) September 30, 2024

Last year we looked at what iPhone icons meant. In iOS 18, 5G+ indicated that the phone was connected to mmWave. In iOS 19 this hasn’t really changed, although I have been told that it depends on the operator whether they choose to display 5G+ when the device is camped on higher-speed mid-band 5G.

Samsung Galaxy smartphones display two or three types of icons, as shown in the picture at the top. While the meanings are not entirely clear, Samsung’s user guide for Android 15 explains them as:

Filled square: “5G network connected”, which I interpret as being connected to a 5G Standalone network.
Transparent or outlined square: “LTE network connected in LTE network that includes the 5G network.”, which I interpret as 5G NSA.
I did not find a reference to the unboxed 5G icon in this manual.

Finally, the OnePlus 13 in India has started displaying the 5GA icon. Since Jio only operates a 5G Standalone network, it is possible they have upgraded the network and device to use the Release 18 ASN with some new features. This allows them to market it as 5G-Advanced, thereby justifying the 5GA icon.

If you have noticed something different in your country or region, or have another interpretation, I would love to hear more.

Related Posts:

The 3G4G Blog: Displaying 5G Network Status Icon on Smartphones and Other Devices
The 3G4G Blog: When does your 5G NSA Device Show 5G Icon?
Operator Watch Blog: Swisscom launched 5G Fast and 5G Wide

Dummy Loads in RF Testing for Dummies

noreply@blogger.com (Zahid Ghadialy) — Thu, 11 Sep 2025 06:35:00 +0000

I have spent many years working in the Test and Measurement industry and have also worked as a hands on engineer testing solutions, and as a field engineer testing various solution pre and post deployment. Over the years I have used various attenuators and dummy loads. It was nice to finally look at the different types of dummy loads and understand how they work in this R&S video.

So what exactly is a dummy load? At its core, it is a special kind of termination designed to absorb radio frequency energy safely. Instead of letting signals radiate into the air, a dummy load converts the RF power into heat. Think of it as an antenna that never actually transmits anything. This makes it invaluable when testing transmitters because you can run them at full power without interfering with anyone else’s spectrum.

Ordinary terminations are widely used in test setups but they are usually only good for low power. If you need to deal with more than about a watt of power, that is where dummy loads come in. Depending on their design, they can handle anything from a few watts to many kilowatts. To survive this, dummy loads use cooling methods. The most common are dry loads with large heatsinks that shed heat into the air. For higher powers, wet loads use liquids such as water or oil to absorb and move heat away more efficiently. Some combine both air and liquid cooling to push the limits even further.

Good dummy loads are not just about heat management. They also need to provide a stable impedance match, usually 50 ohms, across a wide frequency range. This minimises reflections and ensures accurate testing. Many dummy loads cover frequencies up to several gigahertz with low standing wave ratios. Ultra broadband designs, such as the Rohde & Schwarz UBL100, go up to 18 GHz and can safely absorb power levels in the kilowatt range

Some dummy loads even add extra features. A sampling port allows you to monitor the input signal at a reduced level. Interlock protection can shut down a connected transmitter if the load gets too hot. These touches make dummy loads more versatile and safer in real-world use.

In day-to-day testing, dummy loads help not only to protect transmitters but also to get accurate measurements. By acting as a perfectly matched, non-radiating antenna, they give engineers confidence that they are measuring the true transmitter output. They can also be used to quickly check feedlines and connectors by substituting them in place of an antenna.

Rohde & Schwarz have put together a useful explainer video that covers all of this in a simple, visual way. You can watch it below to get a clear overview of dummy loads and why they matter so much in RF testing.

Related Posts:

The 3G4G Blog: New 5G NTN Spectrum Bands in FR1 and FR2
Free 6G Training: Non-Terrestrial Networks (NTN) & Satellites - Taking 6G to the Stars
The 3G4G Blog: Positioning Techniques for 5G NR in 3GPP Release-16
Free 6G Training: Spectrum for 5G, Beyond 5G and 6G research
The 3G4G Blog: Key Technology Aspects of 5G Security by Rohde & Schwarz
The 3G4G Blog: R&S Webinar on LTE-A Pro and evolution to 5G

Software Efficiency Matters as Much as Hardware for Sustainability

noreply@blogger.com (Zahid Ghadialy) — Mon, 01 Sep 2025 06:35:00 +0000

When we talk about making computing greener, the conversation often turns to hardware. Data centres have become far more efficient over the years. Power supply units that once wasted 40% of energy now operate above 90% efficiency. Cooling systems that once consumed several times the power of the servers themselves have been dramatically improved. The hardware people have delivered.

But as Bert Hubert argues in his talk “Save the world, write more efficient code”, software has been quietly undoing many of those gains. Software bloat has outpaced hardware improvements. What once required careful optimisation is now often solved by throwing more cloud resources at the problem. That keeps systems running, but at a significant energy cost.

The hidden footprint of sluggish software

Sluggish systems are not just an annoyance. Every loading spinner, every second a user waits, often means CPUs are running flat out somewhere in the chain. At scale, those wasted cycles add up to megawatthours of electricity. Studies suggest that servers are responsible for around 4% of global CO₂ emissions, on par with the entire aviation industry. That is not a small share, and it makes efficient software a climate issue.

Hubert points out that the difference between badlly written code, reasonable code, and highly optimised code can easily span a factor of 100 in computing requirements. He demonstrates this with a simple example: generating a histogram of Dutch house numbers from a dataset of 9.9 million addresses.

A naïve Python implementation took 12 seconds and consumed over 500 joules of energy per run.
A straightforward database query reduced this to around 20 joules.
Using DuckDB, a database optimised for analytics, the same task dropped to just 2.5 joules and completed in milliseconds.

The user experience also improved dramatically. What once required a long wait became effectively instantaneous.

From data centres to “data sheds”

The point is not just academic. If everyone aimed for higher software efficiency, Hubert suggests, many data centres could be shrunk to the size of a shed. Unlike hardware, where efficiency can be bought, software efficiency has to be designed and built. It requires time, effort and, crucially, management permission to prioritise performance over simply shipping features.

Netflix provides a striking example. Its custom Open Connect appliances deliver around 45,000 video streams at under 10 milliwatts per user. By investing heavily in efficiency, they proved that optimised software and hardware together can deliver enormous gains.

The cloud and client-side challenge

The shift to the cloud has created perverse incentives. In the past, if your code was inefficient, the servers would crash and force a rewrite. Now, organisations can simply spin up more cloud instances. That makes it too easy to ignore software waste and too tempting to pass the costs into ever-growing cloud bills. Those costs are not only financial, but also environmental.

On the client side, the problem is subtler but still real. While loading sluggish web apps may not burn as much power as a data centre, the sheer number of devices adds up. Hubert measured that opening LinkedIn on a desktop consumed around 45 joules. Scaled to hundreds of millions of users, even modest inefficiencies start to look like power plants.

Sometimes the situation is worse. Hubert found that simply leaving open.spotify.com running in a browser kept his machine burning an additional 45 watts continuously, due to a rogue worker thread. With hundreds of millions of users, that single design choice could represent hundreds of megawatts of wasted power globally.

Building greener software

The lesson is clear. Early sluggishness never goes away. If a system is slow with only a handful of users, it will be catastrophically wasteful at scale. The time to demand efficiency is at the start of a project.

There are also practical steps engineers and organisations can take:

Measure energy use during development, not just performance.
Audit client-side behaviour for long-lived applications.
Incentivise teams to improve efficiency, not just to ship quickly.
Treat large cloud bills as a proxy for emissions as well as costs.

As Hubert says, we may only be able to influence 4% of global energy use through software. But that is the same impact as the aviation industry. Hardware engineers have done their part. Now it is time for software engineers to step up.

You can watch Bert Hubert’s full talk below, where he shares both entertaining stories and sobering measurements that show why greener software is not only possible but urgently needed. The PDF of slides is here and his LinkedIn discussion here.

The 3G4G Blog - ETSI's Summit on Sustainability: ICT Standards for a Greener World
3G4G: TechKnowledge Technology Stories
The 3G4G Blog: Tech Laws we should all know about - #TechLaws

Understanding L1/L2 Triggered Mobility (LTM) Procedure in 3GPP Release 18

noreply@blogger.com (Zahid Ghadialy) — Thu, 21 Aug 2025 06:35:00 +0000

In an earlier post we looked at the 3GPP Release 18 Description and Summary of Work Items. One of the key areas was Further NR mobility enhancements, where a new feature called L1/L2-triggered mobility (LTM) has been introduced. This procedure aims to reduce mobility latency and improve handover performance in 5G-Advanced.

Mobility has always been one of the most important areas in cellular networks. The ability of a user equipment (UE) to move between cells without losing service is essential for reliability and performance. Traditional handover procedures in 4G and 5G rely on Layer 3 (L3) signalling, which is robust but can result in high signalling overhead and connection interruption times of 50 to 90 milliseconds. While most consumer services can tolerate this, advanced use cases with strict latency demands cannot.

3GPP Release 18 takes a significant step forward by introducing the L1/L2 Triggered Mobility (LTM) procedure. Instead of relying only on L3 signalling, LTM shifts much of the handover process down to Layer 1 (physical) and Layer 2 (MAC), making it both faster and more efficient. The goal is to reduce interruption to around 20 to 30 milliseconds, a level that can better support applications in ultra-reliable low latency communication, extended reality and mobility automation.

The principle behind LTM is straightforward. The UE is preconfigured with candidate target cells by the network. These configurations can be provided in two ways: either as a common reference with small delta updates for each candidate or as complete configurations. Keeping the configuration of multiple candidates allows the UE to switch more quickly without requiring another round of reconfiguration after each move.

Measurements are then performed at lower layers. The UE reports reference signal measurements and time and phase information to the network. Medium Access Control (MAC) control elements are used to activate or deactivate target cell states, including transmission configuration indicator (TCI) states. This ensures the UE is already aware of beam directions and reference signals in the target cells before the actual switch.

A particularly important innovation in LTM is the concept of pre-synchronisation. Both downlink and uplink pre-synchronisation can take place while the UE is still connected to the serving cell. For downlink, the network instructs the UE to align with a candidate cell’s beams. For uplink, the UE can transmit a random-access preamble towards a target cell, and the network calculates a timing advance (TA) value. This TA is stored and delivered only at the moment of execution, allowing the UE to avoid a new random access procedure. In cases where TA is already known or equal to the serving cell, the handover becomes RACH-less, eliminating a significant source of delay.

The final step is the LTM cell switch command. This MAC control element carries the chosen target configuration, TA value and TCI state indication. Since synchronisation has already been achieved, the UE can break the old connection and resume data transfer almost immediately in the new cell.

Compared to earlier attempts such as Dual Active Protocol Stack (DAPS) handover, which required maintaining two simultaneous connections and faced practical limitations, LTM offers a more scalable solution. It can be applied across frequency ranges, including higher bands above 7 GHz where beamforming is critical, and it works for both intra-DU and inter-DU mobility within a gNB.

The Release 18 specification restricts LTM to intra-gNB mobility, but work has already begun in Release 19 to expand it further. Future enhancements are expected to cover inter-gNB mobility and to refine measurement reporting for even greater efficiency.

Looking beyond 5G Advanced, new concepts are being explored for 6G. At the Brooklyn 6G Summit 2024, MediaTek introduced the idea of L1/L2 Triggered Predictive Mobility (LTPM), where predictive intelligence could play a role in mobility decisions. While this is still at an early research stage, it points to how mobility management will continue to evolve.

For now, the introduction of LTM marks a practical and important milestone. By reducing handover latency significantly, it brings the network closer to meeting the demanding requirements of next generation services while maintaining efficiency in signalling and resource use.

Related Posts:

The 3G4G Blog: 3GPP Release 18 Description and Summary of Work Items
Free 6G Training: MediaTek’s View on Enabling a Healthy and User-Centric 6G Device Ecosystem
The 3G4G Blog: Understanding the Dual Active Protocol Stack (DAPS) Handover in 5G
The 3G4G Blog: DCCA Features and Enhancements in 5G New Radio

Is 6G Our Last Chance to Make Antennas Great Again?

noreply@blogger.com (Zahid Ghadialy) — Fri, 08 Aug 2025 06:35:00 +0000

At the CW TEC 2025 conference hosted by Cambridge Wireless, veteran wireless engineer Moray Rumney delivered a presentation that challenged the direction the mobile industry has taken. With decades of experience and a sharp eye for what matters, he highlighted a growing and largely ignored problem: the steady decline in the efficiency of antennas in mobile devices.

The evolution of mobile technology has delivered remarkable achievements. From the early days of GSM to the promises of 5G and the ambition of 6G, the industry has continually pushed for higher speeds, more features and greater spectral efficiency. Yet along the way, something essential has been lost. While much of the focus has been on network-side innovation and baseband complexity, the performance of the user device antenna has deteriorated to the point where it is now undermining the potential benefits of these advancements.

According to Moray, antenna performance in smartphones has declined by around 15 decibels since the transition from external antennas in 2G to today’s smartphones. That level of loss has a profound impact. A poor antenna reduces both transmitted and received signal strength. On the uplink side, this means users need to push more power to the network, which drains battery life faster. On the downlink, it forces the network to compensate with stronger transmissions, increasing inter-cell interference and lowering cell-edge throughput. Ultimately, this undermines the overall efficiency and quality of mobile networks. Cell edge performance and indoor coverage is much degraded.

The root of the problem lies in modern smartphone design priorities. Over the years, devices have become slimmer, more stylish and packed with more features. In this pursuit of sleekness, antennas have been compromised. External antennas gave way to internal ones, squeezed into tight spaces surrounded by metal and glass. The visual appeal of the phone has taken precedence over its radio performance. On a technical level, the explosion in the number of supported bands and the increased use of multi-antenna transceivers optimized for high performance in excellent conditions, has reduced the available space for each antenna, reducing the antenna gain accordingly.

This issue was particularly pronounced during the LTE era, where the standards bodies failed to define any radiated performance requirements. Handset performance is based on conducted power, which can appear satisfactory in laboratory conditions. However, once the signal passes through the device's real antenna, the result is often a significant loss. Real-world radiated performance does not match lab conducted measurements.

One of Moray's more memorable illustrations compared the situation to a tube of toothpaste. The conducted performance, which all devices meet, is like a full tube of toothpaste, but with years passing before radiated requirements were finally defined for a few bands in 5G, products with inferior radiated performance were released to the market, which put downward pressure on the radiated requirements that were finally agreed – like squeezing out all the toothpaste. What is left today is a small residue of what used to be. Once compromised, it is extremely difficult to reverse this trend.

He also pointed out a structural problem in how mobile standards are developed. The focus is disproportionately placed on baseband processing and theoretical possibilities, rather than on end-user experience and what actually gets deployed. As new generations arrive, more complexity is added, yet basic aspects like antenna efficiency are overlooked. Testing practices further entrench the problem, as the use of a 50-ohm connector during lab testing limits the scope for real antenna improvements, preventing designers from achieving optimal matching and performance.

Despite all the talk of 6G and beyond, the reality on the ground is less impressive. The UK currently ranks 59th in global mobile speed tests. This is not because of a lack of advanced standards or spectrum, but because of poor deployment decisions and device-related issues like inefficient antennas. It is not a technology gap but a failure to focus on basics that truly matter to users.

Moray argued that significant progress could be made without waiting for 6G. Regulatory bodies could introduce minimum standards for antenna performance, as was once attempted in Denmark. Device certification could include antenna efficiency ratings, encouraging manufacturers to prioritise performance. Networks could enforce stricter indoor coverage targets, and pricing models could be rethought to reduce the strain caused by low-value, high-volume traffic.

He also called attention to battery life, another casualty of inefficient antennas and poor design decisions. Users now routinely carry power banks to get through the day. This is hardly a sign of progress, especially considering the environmental impact of producing and charging these extra devices.

In conclusion, while the industry continues to chase ambitious visions for future generations of mobile technology, there is an urgent need to fix the basics. Antennas are not an exciting topic, but they are fundamental. Without efficient antennas, all the investment in infrastructure, spectrum and software optimisation is wasted. It is time for the industry to refocus, reassess and revalue the importance of the one component every user relies on, but rarely sees.

It really is time to make antennas great again.

Moray’s presentation is embedded below and is available to download from here.

The Rise and Fall of 3GPP – Time for a Sabbatical? from 3G4G

Related Posts:

The 3G4G Blog: What is RF Front-End (RFFE) and why is it so Important?

L4S and the Future of Real-Time Performance in 5G and Beyond

noreply@blogger.com (Zahid Ghadialy) — Thu, 24 Jul 2025 06:35:00 +0000

As mobile networks continue to evolve to support increasingly immersive and responsive services, the importance of consistent low latency has never been greater. Whether it is cloud gaming, extended reality, remote machine operation or real-time collaboration, all these applications rely on the ability to react instantly to user input. The slightest delay can affect the user experience, making the role of the network even more critical.

While 5G has introduced major improvements in radio latency and overall throughput, many time-critical applications are still affected by a factor that is often overlooked - queuing delay. This occurs when packets build up in buffers before they are forwarded, creating spikes in delay and jitter. Traditional methods for congestion control, such as those based on packet loss, are too slow to react, especially in mobile environments where network conditions can change rapidly.

Low Latency, Low Loss and Scalable Throughput (L4S), is a new network innovation designed to tackle this challenge. It is an Internet protocol mechanism developed through the Internet Engineering Task Force, and has recently reached standardisation. L4S focuses on preventing queuing delays by marking packets early when congestion is building, instead of waiting until buffers overflow and packets are dropped. The key idea is to use explicit signals within the network to guide congestion control at the sender side.

Applications that support L4S are able to reduce their sending rate quickly when congestion starts to appear. This is done by using ECN, or Explicit Congestion Notification, which involves marking rather than dropping packets. The result is a smooth and continuous flow of data, where latency remains low and throughput remains high, even in changing network conditions.

One of the significant benefits of L4S is its ability to support a wide range of real-time services at scale. Ericsson highlights how edge-based applications such as cloud gaming, virtual reality and drone control need stable low-latency connections alongside high bitrates. While over-the-top approaches to congestion control may work for general streaming, they struggle in mobile environments. This is due to variability in channel quality and radio access delays, which can cause sudden spikes in latency. L4S provides a faster and more direct way to detect congestion within the radio network, enabling better performance for these time-sensitive applications.

To make this possible, mobile networks need to support L4S in a way that keeps its traffic separate from traditional data flows. This involves using dedicated queues for L4S traffic to ensure it is not delayed behind bulk data transfers. In 5G, this is implemented through dedicated quality-of-service flows, allowing network elements to detect and handle L4S traffic differently. For example, if a mobile user is playing a cloud-based game, the network can identify this traffic and place it on an L4S-optimised flow. This avoids interference from other applications, such as file downloads or video streaming.

Nokia's approach further explains how L4S enables fair sharing of bandwidth between classic and L4S traffic without compromising performance. A dual-queue system allows both types of traffic to coexist while preserving the low-latency characteristics of L4S. This is especially important in scenarios where both legacy and L4S-capable applications are in use. In simulations and trials, the L4S mechanism has shown the ability to maintain very low delay even when the link experiences sudden reductions in capacity, which is common in mobile and Wi-Fi networks.

One of the important aspects of L4S is that it requires support both from the application side and within the network. On the application side, rate adaptation based on L4S can be implemented within the app itself, often using modern transport protocols such as QUIC or TCP extensions. Many companies, including device makers and platform providers, are already trialling support for this approach.

Within the network, L4S depends on the ability of routers and radio access equipment to read and mark ECN bits correctly. In mobile networks, the radio access network is typically the key bottleneck where marking should take place. This ensures that congestion is detected at the right point in the path, allowing for quicker response and improved performance.

Although L4S is distinct from ultra-reliable low-latency communication, it can complement those use cases where guaranteed service is needed in controlled environments. What makes L4S more versatile is its scalability and suitability for open internet and large-scale public network use. It can work across both fixed and mobile access networks, providing a common framework for interactive services regardless of access technology.

With L4S in place, it becomes possible to offer new kinds of applications that were previously limited by latency constraints. This includes lighter and more wearable XR headsets that can offload processing to the cloud, or port automation systems that rely on remote control of heavy equipment. Even everyday experiences, such as video calls or online gaming, stand to benefit from a more responsive and stable network connection.

Ultimately, L4S offers a practical and forward-looking approach to delivering the consistent low latency needed for the next generation of digital experiences. By creating a tighter feedback loop between the network and the application, and by applying congestion signals in a more intelligent way, L4S helps unlock the full potential of 5G and future networks.

This introductory video by CableLabs is a good starting point for anyone willing to dig deeper in the topic. This LinkedIn post by Dean Bubley and the comments are also worth a read.

PS: Just noticed that T-Mobile USA have announced earlier this week that they are the first to unlock L4S in wireless . You can read their blog post here and a promotional video is available in the Tweet below 👇

Your apps need more than speed—they need responsiveness.

L4S is now live on our 5G Advanced network, delivering lower latency, less lag, and smarter performance for things like XR, video calls, and remote driving.

CTO @JohnSaw explains: https://t.co/4VMI3WbZE2 pic.twitter.com/mZ60nvDoM4
— T-Mobile Business (@TMobileBusiness) July 21, 2025

The Evolution of 3GPP 5G Network Slice and Service Types (SSTs)

noreply@blogger.com (Zahid Ghadialy) — Tue, 01 Jul 2025 06:35:00 +0000

The concept of network slicing has been one of the standout features in 5G (no pun intended). It allows operators to offer logically isolated networks over shared infrastructure, each tailored for specific applications or services. These slices are identified using a combination of the Slice/Service Type (SST) and an optional Slice Differentiator (SD), together forming what is called a Single Network Slice Selection Assistance Information (S-NSSAI).

To ensure global interoperability and support for roaming scenarios, 3GPP standardises a set of SST values. These are intended to provide common ground across public land mobile networks for the most prevalent slice types. Over the course of different 3GPP releases, the list of standardised SST values has grown to reflect emerging use cases and evolving requirements.

The foundation was laid in Release 15, where the first three SST values were introduced. SST 1 represents enhanced Mobile Broadband (eMBB), suitable for high throughput services like video streaming, large file downloads and augmented reality. SST 2 refers to Ultra-Reliable and Low-Latency Communications (URLLC), designed for time-sensitive applications such as factory automation, remote surgery and smart grids. SST 3 is for Massive Internet of Things (mIoT - earlier referred to as mMTC), tailored for large-scale deployments of low-power sensors in use cases such as smart metering and logistics.

The first major extension came with Release 16, which introduced SST 4 for Vehicle-to-Everything (V2X) services. This slice type addresses the requirements of connected vehicles, particularly in terms of ultra low latency, high reliability and localised communication. It was the first time a vertical-specific slice type was defined.

With Release 17, the slicing framework was extended further to include SST 5, defined for High-Performance Machine-Type Communications (HMTC). This slice is aimed at industrial automation and use cases that require highly deterministic and reliable communication patterns between machines. It enhances the original URLLC profile by refining it for industrial-grade requirements.

Recognising the growing importance of immersive services, Release 18 added SST 6, defined for High Data Rate and Low Latency Communications (HDLLC). This slice targets extended reality, cloud gaming and other applications that simultaneously demand low delay and high bandwidth. It goes beyond what enhanced Mobile Broadband or URLLC individually offer by addressing the combination of both extremes. The documentation refers to this as being suitable for extended reality and media services, underlining the increasing focus on immersive technologies and their networking needs.

Finally, Release 19 introduced SST 7 for Guaranteed Bit Rate Streaming Services (GBRSS). This new slice supports services where continuous, guaranteed throughput is essential. It is particularly relevant for live broadcasting, high-definition streaming, or virtual presence applications where quality cannot degrade over time.

This gradual and deliberate expansion of standardised SSTs highlights how 5G is not a one-size-fits-all solution. Instead, it is a dynamic platform that adapts to the needs of different industries. As use cases grow more sophisticated and diverse, having standardised slice types helps ensure compatibility, simplify device and network configuration, and promote innovation.

It is also worth noting that these SST values are not mandatory for every operator to implement. A network can choose to support a subset based on its service strategy. For example, a public network may prioritise SSTs 1 and 3, while a private industrial deployment might focus on SST 5 or 7.

With slicing increasingly central to how 5G will be "monetised" and deployed, expect this list to keep growing in future releases. Each new SST tells a story about where the telecoms ecosystem is heading.

Related Posts:

The 3G4G Blog: Is there a compelling Business Case for 5G Network Slicing in Public Networks?
The 3G4G Blog: Network Slicing using User Equipment Route Selection Policy (URSP)
The 3G4G Blog: QoS Flow Establishments in 5G Standalone RAN and Core
The 3G4G Blog: How to Identify Network Slices in NG RAN
The 3G4G Blog: Network Slicing in NG RAN
The 3G4G Blog: Network Slicing Tutorials and Other Resources
The 3G4G Blog: 5G Slicing Templates
The 3G4G Blog: End-to-end Network Slicing in 5G

Cloud Native Telco Transformation Insights from T-Systems

noreply@blogger.com (Zahid Ghadialy) — Tue, 10 Jun 2025 06:35:00 +0000

The journey to becoming a cloud-native telco is not just a buzzword exercise. It requires a full-scale transformation of networks, business models, and operating cultures. At Mobile Europe’s Becoming a Cloud-Native Telco virtual event, Richard Simon, CTO at T-Systems International, outlined how telcos are grappling with this change, sharing insights from both successes and ongoing challenges.

Cloud-native is not just about adopting containers or orchestrating with Kubernetes. Richard Simon described it as a maturity model that demands strategic vision, architectural readiness, and cultural shift. The telco industry, long rooted in proprietary systems, is gradually moving towards software-defined infrastructure. Network Function Virtualisation (NFV) remains foundational, enabling operators to decouple traditional monolithic services and deliver them in a modular, digital-native manner—whether in private data centres or public clouds.

The industry is also seeing the rise of platform engineering. This evolution builds on DevOps and site reliability engineering (SRE) to create standardised internal developer platforms. These platforms reduce cognitive load for developers, increase consistency in toolchains and workflows, and enable a shift-left approach for operations and security. It is a critical step towards making innovation scalable and repeatable within telcos.

The cloud-native ecosystem has exploded in scope, with the CNCF landscape illustrating the diversity and maturity of open source components now in use. Telcos, once cautious about community-led projects, are now not only consuming but also contributing to open source. This openness is pivotal for achieving agility and interoperability in a multivendor environment.

With the increasing complexity of hybrid and multicloud strategies, avoiding vendor lock-in has become essential. Richard highlighted how telcos are optimising costs, improving resilience, and aligning workloads with the most suitable cloud environments. Multicloud is no longer a theoretical construct. It is operational reality. But with it comes the need for new thinking around cloud economics.

Cloud financial operations are no longer limited to cost tracking. They now include strategic frameworks (FinOps), real-time cost management, and a growing focus on application profiling. Profiling looks at how software consumes cloud resources, guiding developers to write more efficient code and enabling cost-effective deployments.

While generative AI dominates headlines, the pace of adoption in telco is deliberate. Richard pointed out that while investment in GenAI is widespread, only a small fraction of deployments have reached production. Most telcos are still in proof-of-concept or pilot phases, reflecting the technical and regulatory complexity involved.

Unlike some sectors, telcos face strict compliance requirements. GenAI inference stages—when customer data is processed—raise concerns around data sovereignty and privacy. As a result, telcos are exploring how to balance innovation with responsibility. Some are experimenting with fine-tuning foundational models internally, while others prefer to consume GenAI as a service, depending on use cases ranging from network automation to document processing.

GenAI is a high-performance computing (HPC) workload. Training large models requires significant infrastructure, making decisions around build versus buy critical. Richard outlined three tiers of AI adoption: infrastructure-as-a-service for DIY approaches, foundation-model-as-a-service for fine-tuning, and software-as-a-service for fully hosted solutions. Each tier comes with trade-offs in control, cost, and complexity.

Looking ahead, three themes stood out in Richard’s conclusions.

First, the era of AI agents is beginning. These autonomous systems, capable of reasoning and acting across complex tasks, will be the next experimentation frontier. Pilots in 2025 and 2026 will pave the way for a broader agentic AI economy.

Second, cloud economics continues to evolve. Operators must invest in cost visibility and governance rather than reactively scaling back cloud usage. The emergence of profiling and observability tooling is helping align cost with performance and business value.

Third, sovereignty is rising in importance. Telcos must ensure control over data and infrastructure, not only to comply with regional regulations but also to maintain intellectual property and operational resilience. Sovereign cloud models, abstracted control planes, and localised inference infrastructure are becoming strategic imperatives.

His complete talk is embedded below:

The cloud-native journey is not linear. It requires operators to architect for modularity, align with open ecosystems, and stay grounded in real-world economics. As Richard Simon’s keynote showed, the transformation is well underway, but its success will depend on how telcos integrate cloud, AI, and sovereignty into a coherent and adaptable strategy.

Related Posts:

The 3G4G Blog: What is Cloud Native and How is it Transforming the Networks?
Operator Watch Blog: Cloud Native Progress and Pain Points According to Orange
The 3G4G Blog - Lessons from ANRW ’24: AI and Cloud in 5G/6G Systems
The 3G4G Blog: Disaggregation of 5G Core (5GC) Network
The 3G4G Blog: Reigniting Growth in the Telecom Industry with AI and Cloud
The 3G4G Blog: Transitioning from Cloud-native to Edge-Native Infrastructure
Free 6G Training: Cloud Native Architecture & Migration Towards 6G from B6GS 2023
Free 6G Training: SK Telecom Claims ‘Bare Metal-Based Cloud-Native 5G Core’ as Foundation for 6G Evolution

A Beginner’s Guide to the 5G Air Interface

noreply@blogger.com (Zahid Ghadialy) — Tue, 20 May 2025 06:35:00 +0000

Some of you may know that I manage quite a few LinkedIn groups, and I often come across advanced presentations and videos on LTE and 5G. From time to time, people reach out asking where they can access a free beginner-level course on the 5G Air Interface. With that in mind, I was pleased to see that Mpirical have shared a recorded webinar on YouTube titled Examining the 5G Air Interface, which seems ideal for anyone looking for a basic introduction.

Philip Nugent, Senior Technical Trainer at Mpirical, explains some of the key terms, concepts and capabilities of 5G New Radio. The webinar provides a high level overview of several important topics including 5G frequency bands and ranges, massive MIMO and beamforming, protocols and resources, and a look at the typical operation of a 5G device. It concludes with a short trainer Q&A session.

The video is embedded below:

Related Posts:

Udemy: 5G for Absolute Beginners
The 3G4G Blog: Explaining Telecoms
The 3G4G Blog: Nokia Lectures in Collaboration with Bangalore University
The 3G4G Blog - Tutorial: A Quick Introduction to 3GPP
3G4G: 3GPP 5G Specifications
The 3G4G Blog: TechKnowledge Technology Stories (Series 1)
The 3G4G Blog: Private Networks Introductory Series
3G4G: 5G (IMT-2020) Wireless

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

noreply@blogger.com (Zahid Ghadialy) — Thu, 08 May 2025 06:35:00 +0000

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?

An Introduction to OSS/BSS in Mobile Networks

noreply@blogger.com (Zahid Ghadialy) — Thu, 24 Apr 2025 06:35:00 +0000

When discussing mobile networks, much of the focus tends to be on radio access technologies, spectrum, or core network evolution. However, two often overlooked yet critical components in the operational backbone of any telecom network are Operations Support Systems (OSS) and Business Support Systems (BSS).

While not typically defined in 3GPP specifications, OSS and BSS play a vital role in keeping the network functional and the business viable.

OSS is responsible for network-facing tasks such as monitoring, configuration, fault management, and performance optimisation, commonly summarised using the FCAPS model: Fault, Configuration, Accounting, Performance, and Security. It ensures the network operates smoothly and supports the delivery of services.

BSS, on the other hand, deals with customer-facing functions like CRM, order handling, billing, and revenue management. It ensures that customers can purchase, use, and be billed accurately for services, forming the foundation for business growth and customer satisfaction.

To help introduce this important topic, we’ve created a short video explainer that outlines:

The basic architecture of OSS and BSS
Their roles within a multi-vendor network
Key interfaces such as EMS, NMS, and TMN
Why OSS/BSS are critical for digital transformation and operational efficiency

The video is embedded below and the slides are available here:

While OSS/BSS may not be headline features in 5G or 6G discussions, they remain the unsung heroes that ensure networks are operational, customers are happy, and services are profitable.

Let us know your thoughts in the comments or on social media. We're always keen to learn from those who work closely with these systems.

Related Posts:

The 3G4G Blog - Tutorial: A Quick Introduction to 3GPP
The 3G4G Blog: Explaining Telecoms
The 3G4G Blog: Private Networks Introductory Series
The 3G4G Blog: TechKnowledge Technology Stories (Series 1)
The 3G4G Blog: Different Types of RAN Architectures - Distributed, Centralized & Cloud

Towers, Masts and Poles: The Backbone of Telecom Infrastructure

noreply@blogger.com (Zahid Ghadialy) — Thu, 17 Apr 2025 06:35:00 +0000

We often walk past them without a second glance—towers, masts, and poles that quietly support the vast web of our modern telecommunications networks. But behind these unassuming structures lies a fascinating history and a critical role in enabling everything from phone calls to television broadcasts.

In a brilliant lecture hosted by the IET, Professor Nigel Linge (with support from Professor Andy Sutton) takes us on a journey through the evolution of telecom infrastructure. Starting from ancient beacons and Napoleonic-era semaphores to the iconic BT Tower and long wave radio transmitters, the talk connects the dots across centuries of innovation.

On Friday 28th March I delivered a lecture to #TheIET at Savoy Place in London on the subject of "Telecom Towers, Masts, and Poles". Celebrating one of the visible faces of the telecoms industry. It was recorded by IETtv and can be viewed here: https://t.co/2MULwtRp5x pic.twitter.com/aD4cK7zyZU
— Nigel Linge (@NigelLinge) April 7, 2025

The lecture touches on early telegraphy using bare copper wires strung on porcelain insulators, the dawn of voice telephony, Marconi’s pioneering wireless transmissions, and the growth of regional radio and TV broadcasting in the UK. It also highlights how microwave relays and horn-reflector antennas became vital to long-distance communication, with the BT Tower serving as a key hub in the national network.

Whether it’s the humble telegraph pole or the towering masts on hilltops, each structure plays a part in delivering connectivity. This presentation offers a timely reminder of the physical foundations of our digital world—often overlooked, yet essential to our everyday lives.

Watch the full lecture below:

You can also read an article by them detailing many things covered in the lecture here.

The 3G4G Blog: Explaining Telecoms
The 3G4G Blog - Tutorial: A Quick Introduction to 3GPP
The 3G4G Blog: The History of Camera Phones
The 3G4G Blog - Prof. Andy Sutton: Backhauling the 5G Experience
The 3G4G Blog: A Primer on Pagers
The 3G4G Blog - CWHeritage Talk: The History of Synchronization in Digital Cellular Networks
The 3G4G Blog: The Iconic British Red Phone Boxes
The 3G4G Blog: 30 years of the mobile phone in the UK

Understanding ETSI’s Industry Specification Groups (ISGs) and Why They Matter

noreply@blogger.com (Zahid Ghadialy) — Fri, 11 Apr 2025 06:35:00 +0000

The European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) is a leading standards development organisation (SDO) recognised for producing globally applicable standards for ICT, including fixed, mobile, radio, converged, broadcast, and internet technologies. Based in Europe but with worldwide influence, ETSI provides an open and inclusive environment for industry players to collaborate on the development of future technologies.

A recent overview presentation of ETSI by Jan Ellsberger, ETSI's Director General, is available on the 3GPP website here.

ETSI's Industry Specification Groups (ISGs) are collaborative groups formed within ETSI to address emerging and often pre-standardisation topics in a flexible, fast, and open manner. They provide a platform for industry players, including companies, research organisations, and other stakeholders, to work together on technical specifications outside the constraints of formal standardisation processes.

Key Features of ISGs include:

Focus on innovation: ISGs often tackle new or rapidly evolving technologies, such as Network Functions Virtualisation (NFV), Quantum Key Distribution (QKD), and AI.
Open participation: Participation is open to ETSI members and non-members, although non-members pay a fee.
Faster timelines: ISGs are designed to deliver results quickly, often within 12–24 months, making them well-suited for fast-moving domains.
Flexible structure: They are less formal than ETSI Technical Committees, which allows more agile collaboration.

ISGs produce documents such as:

Group Specifications (GS) – technical specifications that can later be taken up by formal standardisation bodies.
Group Reports (GR) – informative reports including use cases, frameworks, or recommendations.

ISGs help shape the direction of future standards and industry practices by offering an open, collaborative environment for technical consensus. They often bridge the gap between research and standardisation.

Dr Howard Benn, a mobile industry veteran with contributions spanning from GSM to 5G, has created a short video on ETSI’s ISGs, embedded below:

Related Posts:

The 3G4G Blog - AI/ML in 3GPP: Progress, Challenges, and the Road to 6G
The 3G4G Blog: Presentations from ETSI Security Conference 2023
The 3G4G Blog - ETSI's Summit on Sustainability: ICT Standards for a Greener World
3G4G: An Quick Introduction to 3GPP

5G-Advanced Store and Forward (S&F): Enabling Resilient IoT Communications via Satellite

noreply@blogger.com (Zahid Ghadialy) — Tue, 01 Apr 2025 06:35:00 +0000

Introduction

As the deployment of 5G networks continues to expand globally, the industry is already looking ahead to enhance capabilities through 5G-Advanced features. Among these innovations is the "Store and Forward" (S&F) functionality for Non-Terrestrial Networks (NTN), which represents a significant advancement for IoT applications utilizing satellite connectivity. This feature, specified in 3GPP Release 19, addresses one of the key challenges in satellite communications: maintaining service continuity during intermittent feeder link connectivity.

What is Store and Forward?

Store and Forward (S&F) satellite operation is designed to provide communication services for User Equipment (UE) under satellite coverage without requiring a simultaneous active feeder link connection to the ground segment. This capability is particularly relevant for delay-tolerant IoT services utilizing Non-Geostationary Orbit (NGSO) satellites.

In simple terms, S&F enables satellites to:

Collect data from IoT devices when they're in range
Store this data onboard the satellite
Forward the data to ground stations only when a connection becomes available

This approach fundamentally differs from traditional satellite operations, which require end-to-end connectivity at the moment of transmission.

Source: 3GPP TR 22.865: Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; Study on satellite access Phase 3;

Normal Operation vs. Store and Forward

To understand the significance of S&F, it's important to contrast it with the "normal/default satellite operation" mode:

Normal/Default Satellite Operation

In the traditional model, signalling and data traffic exchange between a UE with satellite access and the ground network requires both service and feeder links to be active simultaneously. This creates a continuous end-to-end connectivity path between the UE, satellite, and ground network.

Store and Forward Operation

Under S&F operation, the end-to-end exchange of signalling/data traffic is handled as a two-step process that doesn't need to occur concurrently:

Step A: Signalling/data exchange between the UE and satellite takes place even without the satellite being connected to the ground network. The satellite operates the service link without an active feeder link connection, collecting and storing data from IoT devices.
Step B: Later, when connectivity between the satellite and ground network is established, the stored communications are transmitted to the ground network.

This approach bears similarities to existing store-and-forward services like SMS, where end-to-end connectivity between endpoints isn't required simultaneously.

Source: Ericsson Blog

Technical Requirements for Store and Forward

The implementation of S&F relies heavily on regenerative satellite payloads, as opposed to transparent payloads. Here's why this distinction matters:

Regenerative Payload Advantages

A regenerative payload with an onboard gNB (next-generation NodeB) offers several critical capabilities:

Onboard Processing: The ability to process and store data directly on the satellite
Reduced Dependency: Less reliance on continuous ground segment connectivity
Enhanced Resilience: The NTN can function even if the feeder link is temporarily severed
Performance Improvements: Significant reductions in roundtrip time for all procedures between the gNB and UE

For S&F functionality, all or part of the core network functions must be placed on the satellite together with the gNB. This architectural change enables a new level of autonomous operation for satellite networks.

Applications for IoT

The Store and Forward capability is especially suited for delay-tolerant or non-real-time IoT applications. Examples include:

Environmental Monitoring: Collecting sensor data from remote locations
Asset Tracking: Monitoring the status of assets in transit through areas with limited ground infrastructure
Agricultural Sensing: Gathering data from widely distributed sensors in rural areas
Maritime and Offshore IoT: Supporting connected devices at sea where direct connectivity to ground networks is inconsistent

These use cases benefit from S&F's ability to ensure data is eventually delivered without requiring constant connectivity, which is particularly valuable for battery-powered IoT devices that need to conserve energy.

Relationship to Delay-Tolerant Networking

The concept of Store and Forward is well-established in delay-tolerant networking (DTN) and disruption-tolerant networking domains. These networking paradigms are designed to work in challenged environments where conventional protocols may fail due to long delays or frequent disruptions.

In the 3GPP context, S&F can be compared to SMS service, which doesn't require end-to-end connectivity between endpoints but only between the endpoints and the Short Message Service Centre (SMSC), which acts as an intermediate node handling storage and forwarding.

Future Implications

The introduction of S&F functionality represents an important step toward what Ericsson has called "data centers in the sky." By placing not just radio access network functions but also core network capabilities in space, we're moving toward satellite networks that can operate with greater autonomy and resilience.

This development also aligns with broader industry efforts to create truly global coverage through integrated ground and space networks. Combined with inter-satellite links (ISL), S&F enables more flexible and resilient network architectures that can maintain service even when individual links are unavailable.

Conclusion

Store and Forward represents a significant advancement in 5G-Advanced satellite communications, particularly for IoT applications. By decoupling the timing requirements between service link and feeder link communications, S&F enables more resilient, energy-efficient, and cost-effective deployment of IoT devices in remote or challenging environments.

As 3GPP Release 19 specifications continue to develop, we can expect to see this capability integrated into commercial satellite IoT offerings, expanding the reach of 5G networks to truly global coverage. While initially targeted at IoT applications, the architectural principles of S&F could eventually extend to other services, bringing us closer to ubiquitous connectivity across terrestrial and non-terrestrial networks.

The 3G4G Blog: Tutorial Session on Non-Terrestrial Networks (NTNs) and 3GPP Standards from 5G to 6G
Connectivity Technology Blog: Tutorial Session on Current Trends and Key Challenges of Satellite communications
Free 6G Training: ATIS Webinar on 'Introduction to 3GPP Release 19 and 6G Planning'
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: 3GPP TSG RAN and TSG SA Release-19 Workshop Summary
The 3G4G Blog: Are there 50 Billion IoT Devices yet?
3G4G: An Quick Introduction to 3GPP

The 3G4G Blog

3GPP Release 19 Description and Summary of Work Items

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

Strengthening Critical Infrastructure Security with OSINT

Seven AI Concepts Shaping Network Intelligence

Telecom Security Realities from 2025 and Lessons for 2026

Top 10 Posts for 2025

Transport Networks Holding Modern Mobile Architectures Together

IET Lecture by Prof. Andy Sutton: Point to Point Microwave Radio Systems

AIoT and A-IoT

Evolving Communication Security Towards 6G at the ETSI Security Conference 2025

Seamless UE Context Recovery (SUECR) in 3GPP Release 18

5G+ and 5GA Icon (Pictogram) in New Smartphones

Dummy Loads in RF Testing for Dummies

Software Efficiency Matters as Much as Hardware for Sustainability

The hidden footprint of sluggish software

From data centres to “data sheds”

The cloud and client-side challenge

Building greener software

Related Posts:

Understanding L1/L2 Triggered Mobility (LTM) Procedure in 3GPP Release 18

Is 6G Our Last Chance to Make Antennas Great Again?

L4S and the Future of Real-Time Performance in 5G and Beyond

The Evolution of 3GPP 5G Network Slice and Service Types (SSTs)

Cloud Native Telco Transformation Insights from T-Systems

A Beginner’s Guide to the 5G Air Interface

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

An Introduction to OSS/BSS in Mobile Networks

Towers, Masts and Poles: The Backbone of Telecom Infrastructure

Related Posts:

Understanding ETSI’s Industry Specification Groups (ISGs) and Why They Matter

5G-Advanced Store and Forward (S&F): Enabling Resilient IoT Communications via Satellite

Introduction

What is Store and Forward?

Normal Operation vs. Store and Forward

Normal/Default Satellite Operation

Store and Forward Operation

Technical Requirements for Store and Forward

Regenerative Payload Advantages

Applications for IoT

Relationship to Delay-Tolerant Networking

Future Implications

Conclusion

Related Posts