China Telecom and China Unicom jointly build and share 5G RAN

China Telecom and China Unicom, two of China’s three leading telecom operators, and two of its four 5G licensees, will jointly cover parts of the country with one shared 5G radio access network.

The two companies, both listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, signed the “Framework Agreement on Co-building and Co-sharing 5G Networks” on Monday. According to the Agreement, the two operators, by sharing the radio spectrums to their names, will “build together” and “share together” one 5G radio access network in 15 major cities, including Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzhen, Guangzhou, etc. The 5G core networks will be built separately.

The Agreement also laid out the plan on how to divide the work between the two in the cities they will share the network. Territories each will cover is divided roughly based on the number of 4G base stations. For example, in Beijing, China Telecom will build 40% of the 5G base stations, while in Shanghai it will build 60%. Each company will be responsible for investing in, maintaining, and operating the base stations it builds. The Agreement also commits “non-aggression” between the partners, for example, collaboration with third parties by one partner should not harm the interest of the other partner. Details of revenue settlement in the shared networks will be worked out later.

On top of that, the two companies will build their own separate 5G networks in other parts of the country. China Telecom’s own network will extend to 19 provinces, while China Unicom’s will cover 10.

The two operators, together with China Mobile, the world’s largest mobile operator by subscriber numbers, and China Broadcasting Network Corporation Ltd, were all awarded 5G licences in June, well ahead of what the industry had expected.

Mobileum grows assurance profile with WeDo acquisition

Mobileum has announced it will acquire risk and business management solutions provider WeDo Technologies, bringing together two of the bigger names in this niche segment.

Following the purchase of Evolved Intelligence in October 2018, Mobileum is seemingly on the move to dominant the market. The acquisition of WeDo adds additional weight to its analytics armoury, aiding telcos to detect and prevent fraud on their networks, as well as increasing the physical presence of the firm around the world.

“We are excited to partner with WeDo and support them in the next phase of their growth,” said Bobby Srinivasan, CEO of Mobileum. “As we continue to grow Mobileum, organically and inorganically, the addition of WeDo’s strong product engineering, customer footprint, consulting and services teams to our existing talented workforce around the world will allow us to expand the depth and breadth of our offerings.”

“The combined business offers our customers a richer and more diverse portfolio of solutions in the domains of Revenue Assurance, Fraud Management, Network Security, Roaming and Interconnect. As the mobile industry continues to evolve, this transaction will allow us to continue to invest in the future architecture, assuring the success of our customers along a journey of continuous transformation.”

The newly combined business will have 1,100 employees in 30 offices, serving 700 customers in 180 different countries. The existing WeDo platform and architecture will be maintained, though it will also be integrated with the Mobileum Active Intelligence platform.

Pinning down how big the revenue assurance and risk management software market actually is, however, is not the easiest of tasks.

The Communications Fraud Control Association suggests fraud costs the telecoms industry more than $38 billion a year, with roaming fraud accounting for $10.8 billion of that figure. Estimates from Credence Research suggests the global revenue assurance software market was worth $2.5 billion in 2017, with growth projected at 11% CAGR through to 2026. This sounds promising, however Heavy Reading Analyst James Crawshaw has some doubts.

If we are to assume WeDo is the leading player in the revenue assurance software market, it will have a notable market share. Looking at WeDo’s financials, the team increased orders to more than €60 million for 2018. The numbers aren’t quite adding up here.

Either this is an incredibly fragmented market with thousands of suppliers making up the $2.5 billion, WeDo is not a leading name in the revenue assurance software market or the market is worth considerably less than $2.5 billion.

It is not necessarily the end of the world if the addressable market is smaller than analysts are currently estimating, as long as there is growth potential. There is of course opportunity to grow, though as Crawshaw points out, WeDo’s orders have not really increased significantly over the last few years, suggesting this is somewhat of a stagnant market.

Pai gobbles up Sprint and T-Mobile US merger

After months of headaches and sleepless nights, the tides of favour seem to be turning for Sprint and T-Mobile US as the FCC chief gives his blessing for the union.

254 days into the 180 days the FCC gives itself to approve mergers, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has officially confirmed his position. It is still not quite 100% guaranteed for the two telcos, however with Pai’s recommendation, the future is looking very rosier.

“After one of the most exhaustive merger reviews in Commission history, the evidence conclusively demonstrates that this transaction will bring fast 5G wireless service to many more Americans and help close the digital divide in rural areas,” Pai said in a statement.

“Moreover, with the conditions included in this draft Order, the merger will promote robust competition in mobile broadband, put critical mid-band spectrum to use, and bring new competition to the fixed broadband market.”

Suggesting this was a protracted and painful process might be one of the biggest understatements of the year. However, it might have been necessary considering the significant impact a merger of this scale could potential have on competition, diversification and network deployment across the US.

Above all else, the US is a monstrous market with an incredibly small number of nationwide telcos. This does of course offer economy of scale to improve investment capabilities, though there is a risk of regional monopolies due to the sheer size and geographical variance across the country. Proposed mergers which would take the number of national telcos from four to three has been extinguished in the past, though this one has passed almost every test.

The greenlight from the FCC Chairman is an important step, adding momentum to positive news from the Department of Justice in the last few weeks. At the end of July, the DoJ’s antitrust division gave the thumbs up, assuming Sprint’s prepaid brand Boost is divested, and Pai has made the same demands.

This is one concession which many expected, but we have major issue with. Dish will acquire the Boost brand, allowing it to make use of its horde of valuable spectrum, satisfying the demands, though will this be enough to maintain the current levels of competition, the objective of both the FCC and DoJ? We do not believe so.

Firstly, instead of having four established telcos in the US, consumers will now have to choose from three telcos and a newbie with zero experience of effectively running a mobile business and network. Dish does not have the competence, experience, infrastructure, processes, billing systems or supply chain to run a mobile business, and it will take years to build these elements to the degree expected.

Secondly, Dish is now an MVNO. It will be able to make use of the T-Mobile network, but the FCC and DoJ has replaced a functional MNO with an MVNO and expects no-one to notice the difference. Both of these agencies expect Dish to have its own network up-and-running in a few years, but this is another ridiculous ambition.

As mentioned in the first point, this is a company which is not practiced in the dark arts of mobile. The three remaining traditional players took decades to rollout their own networks, and they are still not genuine nationwide telcos (there are still network gaps across the country). How is Dish expected to create a nationwide, 4G and 5G, network across a country of 9.8 million km2, with an incredibly variety of different urban densities, geographical landscapes and economic societies.

If anyone thinks Dish is going to be a replacement which can maintain the current status quo, they are quite frankly fooling themselves.

What is worth noting is that this is not the end of the road for Sprint and T-Mobile. It might have secured the relevant regulatory approval, but now it will have to combat the various legal challenges.

Led by New York Attorney General Letitia James, a coalition of State Attorney Generals have filed a lawsuit to block the proposed merger. The lawyers are arguing the merger would harm competition, and it should be blocked to maintain the status quo. As it stands, with four separate MNOs challenging each other, prices and mobile experience is improving for the consumer; the lawyers are arguing that the situation is not broken, it is in fact improving, so why should the FCC and DoJ try to fix an imaginary problem?

Although the approval process from the DoJ and FCC might have been considered a significant problem, the telcos will not have to face legal heavyweights from more than a dozen States. Lawyers have a way of being very difficult when they want to be, so there might well be a few more twists and turns in this saga.

Verizon sues City of Rochester over 5G fees

US telco Verizon has filed a lawsuit against the City of Rochester, suggesting a newly created telecommunications code violates federal law and the maximum fees telcos can be charged.

Filed in the District Court for Western New York, Verizon’s lawyers will be attempting to argue that the implementation of the new telecommunications code by the city will prohibit the rollout of 5G technologies in the area. This is of course early days, though it could go some way in creating legal precedent throughout the US.

Using FCC rules which were passed last September, Verizon will argue the newly adopted telecommunications code in the City of Rochester violates the maximum fee of $270 a year which can be charged by the local governments. Although we were unable to figure out how much each site could cost Verizon annually, it does appear to run into the thousands.

“To better serve its customers and the City and to begin to serve new customers and provide new services, Verizon Wireless seeks to extend, densify, and upgrade its wireless network infrastructure, including to install additional Small Wireless Facilities to support the provision of current and next-generation telecommunications services such as 5G and to deploy fiber to connect these facilities,” the filing states.

“To successfully do this, Verizon Wireless requires new approvals from Defendant to access City property.

“As a result of Defendant’s actions, Verizon Wireless has been, and will continue to be, damaged and irreparably harmed absent the relief requested herein. The harm caused by Defendant’s unlawful actions includes, but is not limited to, an effective prohibition on Verizon Wireless’s ability to provide telecommunications services in the affected area of the City.”

Similar to regulatory changes in the UK with the new Electronic Communications Code, the FCC is attempting to protect the interests of the telcos. As real-estate owners know the telcos have no choice but to increase the number of cell sites to provide the promised 5G experience to consumers, they are in a position of power. The new rules from the FCC, and the creation of the $270 annual limit, is supposed to create a responsible transaction which benefits both parties.

However, it does not appear the City of Rochester agrees with the position of the FCC. In creating its own telecommunications code, it does appear higher fees can be charged for cell sites, while some officials state they are attempting to reduce potential clutter and eyesores created by the additional mobile infrastructure.

Looking at the timeline, Verizon wrote to city officials to ask for revisions to the code on January 10 and February 7, before the code was enacted on February 20 without any amendments, taking effect on April 1. Another letter was sent on April 15 questioning whether the code was compliant with federal law, with city officials finally responding on April 30 suggesting they were happy with the set-up. On July 30, the city officials demanded payment from the telco.

In short, Verizon is claiming the fees are acting as a prohibitor to the delivery of connectivity in the city, therefore federal law is being violated.

What is worth noting, that due to the focus on mmWave for the delivery of 5G services in the US, more cell sites will have to be deployed. This is unavoidable, as to deliver the higher speed promised by 5G, higher-frequency airwaves will have to be utilised. This does not appear to be a problem, however coverage distance will have to be sacrificed leading to the densification plans set-forward by the telcos.

Although this is the first lawsuit of this nature which has been brought to our attention, we suspect there are numerous other local governments attempting to sweat public assets to secure more funding. This is one of the first, but this might become quite a common lawsuit to read about over the coming months and years, as densification strategies gather momentum.

Nokia gets 5G gig from new-look Vodafone New Zealand

Just days after Vodafone flogged its New Zealand business, Nokia has been unveiled as its 5G network partner.

Even though it has been sold, the company still has permission to keep the Vodafone brand and even has favourable roaming rates on other global Vodafone networks. So to all intents and purposes it’s the same setup, just with the returns ending up in someone else’s pockets.

The decision to go with Nokia for the 5G network was presumably months in the making and represents the continuation of a longstanding partnership, so the involvement of the new ownership was presumably minimal.

“We are excited to be joining forces with Vodafone New Zealand, our partner of over 20 years, to bring 5G to New Zealand,” said Tommi Uitto, Nokia’s President of Mobile Networks. “With this agreement, we will enable Vodafone New Zealand to deliver 5G services to their customers and create an even more connected society.”

“We are excited to be working with Nokia to deliver a commercial 5G network for Vodafone and New Zealand, building on our proud heritage of being first to deliver to Kiwis, the best mobile technology available at the time, including 2G, 3G, 4G and now 5G,” said Tony Baird, Technology Director, Vodafone New Zealand.

Vodafone New Zealand will launch 5G in Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch and Queenstown later this year, which will be the first 5G network in the country. It looks like it’s buying the full monty of 5G stuff from Nokia, including RAN, core and design services, so this will serve as a decent shop window for Nokia.

China reportedly warns India not to ban Huawei from 5G

China has told India not to exclude Huawei from its upcoming 5G trials, or Indian businesses will face retaliations, Reuters reports.

Quoting its “sources privy to internal discussions in New Delhi”, the news agency Reuters reported that the warning shots of “reverse sanctions”, should India ban Huawei from its 5G business under pressure from the US, were fired when the Indian Ambassador was summoned to the Foreign Ministry.

India will start trialling 5G in the coming months but has not selected the vendors yet. Ravi Shankar Prasad, the telecom minister, told the parliament earlier that Huawei was one of the vendors that have submitted proposals, though he did not name the others.

“On the issue of Chinese enterprises participating in the construction of India’s 5G, we hope the Indian side makes an independent and objective decision, and provides a fair, just and non-discriminatory commercial environment for Chinese enterprises’ investment and operations, to realize mutual benefit,” said the spokesperson of China’s foreign ministry in a statement sent to Reuters. “Huawei has carried out operations in India for a long time and has made contributions to the development of Indian society and the economy that is clear to all.”

Like all obscure diplomatic parlance, the statement said less than what is left unsaid. However, the stress on “independent” is a clear message that India should calculate its own gains and losses when making the decision, independent of US pressure.

When it comes to security, the parliamentary committee tasked to evaluate the vendors has not found evidence to suggest that Huawei has comprised the security in its current business in India, according to Reuters’ sources.

Similar to the difficult choice the post-Brexit UK has to make, siding with the US or siding with China, when it comes to how to deal with Huawei, India is also caught in the cross fire of the trade war, and its situation is arguably trickier. The US is India’s most important trade partner and the country the Modi government (which has just won the general election with an enlarged majority) desperately would love to be on good terms with.

China, on the other hand, closer to home but is a much smaller trading partner, though a few of India’s leading companies (Tata, Infosys, etc.) do have a limited presence. Meanwhile, the world’s two most populous countries share a long border and do not always see eye to eye. In 2017 there was a two-month long army standoff in a disputed area between the two countries.

While our expert suggested that a way out for the UK could be a government mandated multi-vendor policy, a similar idea was devised by the Indian National Security Advisory Board (NSAB). But instead of asking the telcos to deploy equipment from more than one vendor, the NSAB experts suggested that, if the telcos choose to use Huawei hardware, then the software “to drive equipment” should be Indian-made. This may look reasonable on paper, but since 5G is so heavily software reliant, it is hard to predict how the demarcation will be drawn.

Unlimited data is inevitable with 5G, but try telling operators that

We’re quickly moving into the 5G era and many assume the concept of unlimited data bundles will be commonplace, but how will the telcos fare in this new world?

As it stands, the telcos are under pressure. This is not to say they are not profitable, but many shareholders will question whether they are profitable enough. Tight margins and a squeeze on core revenue streams are common enough phrases when describing telco balance sheets, but this could get a lot worse when you factor in unlimited data packages.

As Paolo Pescatore of PP Foresight pointed out, when you offer unlimited data you are effectively killing off any prospect of revenue growth per subscriber in the future. In some markets, there are still fortunes to be made, but in some, such as the UK where 4G subscription penetration is north of 100%, where are you going to make the growth revenues from when consumers are demanding more for less?

More consumers are seeking unlimited or higher data allocations but are not willing to pay for the experience. Some MNOs might be able to resist, but the more rivals who offer such tariffs the more the rest will be forced into line. It’s the race to the bottom which is profitable in the short-term, but growth will end quickly. The price per GB is only heading one direction and unlimited data allocations will end the prospect of upgrading customers.

O2 fighting for air

This is the conundrum which the telcos are facing in the UK right now. All four have announced their 5G intentions and all four are promising big gains when it comes to the next era of connectivity.

Starting with O2, the only one of the four MNOs not to have released 5G pricing to date, this is a telco which looks to be in the most uncomfortable position. Over the last few quarters, the management team has boasted of increased subscriber numbers, but this can only go on for so long in the consumer world. Soon enough, a glass ceiling will be met and then the team will have to search for new revenues elsewhere.

This is of course assuming it plans to go down the route of unlimited data, it might want to stick with the status quo. That said, if everyone else does, it will not be able to fight against the tide for fear of entering the realm of irrelevance.

The issue here is one of differentiation. The idea of attracting new customers by offering ‘bigger, meaner, faster’ data packages will soon end and telcos will have to talk about something else. O2 does have its Priority loyalty programme, but with rivals launching their own version this USP will fade into the noise.

Differentiation and convergence are two words which have been thrown around a lot over the last few years, though O2 has thus far resisted. Last year, CEO Mark Evans suggested he was not bought into the convergence trend and would continue as a mobile-only telco, though this opinion does seem to be softening.

If O2 is going to be competitive in the almost inevitable era of unlimited data, it will have to source growth revenues from somewhere. It is making a push into the enterprise connectivity world, which will bring new profits to the spreadsheets, though does it want its consumer mobile business to stand still?

Bundles of fun

This is where the other telcos in the UK have perhaps got more of a running start in the 5G era. EE has its connectivity assets in broadband and wifi to add value, as well as a content business of some description. Three is already known as the data-intensive brand, while its FWA push will take it into some interesting connectivity bundling options. Vodafone also has FWA, a fibre partnership with CityFibre and is arguably the leader in the enterprise connectivity market. The rivals are offering more than mobile connectivity as a stand-alone product.

Looking at Vodafone to begin with, the recent announcement is certainly an interesting one. The innovative approach to pricing, tiering tariffs on speeds not data allocation, will attract some headlines, while it is also super-charging its own loyalty programme, VeryMe. It has secured content partnerships with the likes of Sky, Amazon, Spotify and gaming company Hatch, while its FWA offering also includes a free Amazon Alexa for those who sign-up early enough.

Combining the FWA product or its fibre broadband service, courtesy of CityFibre, also gives them the ‘connectivity everywhere’ tag, a strength of BTs in recent years, to allow them to communicate and sell to customers in a different way. Perhaps it is missing a content play to complete the convergence bundle, but it is in a strong position to tackle the 5G world and seek additional revenues should the unlimited craze catch.

The same story could be said of Three. With the acquisition of UK Broadband, it has forced itself into the convergence game and kicked off the ‘race to the bottom’ with an unlimited 5G data offer. As long as you have a Three 4G contract, you can get 5G for no additional cost, assuming you have a 5G compatible phone of course.

Three’s strength and weakness lies in its reputation. It is known for being the best telco if you have an insatiable data appetite, this works very well for the 5G era, though it is also known for having a poor network. Three regularly features at the bottom of the network performance rankings, especially outside of the big cities where it has not done nearly enough to satisfy demands.

This will of course change over the next couple of months. Three is working to improve its network with additional sites and a new Nokia 5G core, however it will have to do a lot to shake off the reputation is has acquired over the last few years.

EE is perhaps the most interesting of the four. It has lost its position as the market share leader when it comes to 4G subscriptions, but it does have the reputation for being the best in terms of performance throughout the country. It is regularly the fastest for download speeds, but its 5G pricing is by far the most expensive to be released so far.

That said, with the BT assets it has for wifi and broadband, as well as the content options, there is plenty for the consumer to be interested in. Should BT be forced to readdress the pricing conundrum, it might not have the fear regarding a glass ceiling on revenues as there are plenty of other products to engage the consumer. It will be able to find additional revenues elsewhere.

MVNO no you didn’t

Outside of the MNOs, you might also start to see some competition. MVNOs are nothing more than ‘also rans’ today, but Sky has officially entered the 5G race. This is an interesting competitor, one who could cause chaos to the status quo.

Firstly, understand mobile is not the primary business for Sky. This is an add-on, where it is seeking to drive additional revenues and attract more customers through bundled services. It is the leader in the UK when it comes to premium content and has a thriving broadband unit also. Sky can add services on top of connectivity to make itself seem more attractive than the traditional mobile service providers.

Then again, there are only a couple of MVNOs who can pose this challenge. Sky is one, while there are persistent rumours Amazon wants to get involved with the connectivity game and Google has its own Fi service. These are also companies who are at the mercy of the MNOs in terms of the commercial agreement with the MVNOs, so damage is likely to be limited unless one network owner decides to go down the wholesale infrastructure route.

But you cannot ignore these companies. They are cash-rich, constantly searching for new ways to make money and have incredible relationships with the consumer. They are also the owners of platforms and/or services which are very attractive to the mass market; bundling could be taken into a new context with these firms.

Diversity is our strength

This is of course only looking at the services which are common throughout telco diversification plans today, there are other options. Orange has launched a bank, has experimented in energy services and is making a move towards the smart home in partnership with Deutsche Telekom. Over in Asia, gaming is an important element of many telcos relationships with consumers and this trend is becoming much more prominent in the European markets also.

Elsewhere, the smart home could certainly offer more opportunities for telcos to add-value to an emerging ecosystem, while the autonomous vehicles offers another opportunity and so does IOT. The issue which many of these telcos are facing is competition from the OTTs. Arguably, the battle for control of the smart home might already have been won by the OTTs, though the same could be said for autonomous vehicles and IOT.

In many of the emerging segments, telcos will remain a connectivity partner though they certainly need more than that. This will remain a consistent stream of revenue, though it will also sleepwalk telcos to utilitisation. In IOT, as an example, the major cloud players are crafting business units to engage enterprise businesses for edge and IOT services; this is a market which the telcos would love to capitalise on for both enterprise and consumer services.

Security is another which is increasingly becoming a possibility. The concept of cybersecurity is generating more headlines and consumers are becoming more aware to the dangers of the digital world. Arguably, the telcos are in the strongest position to generate revenue from this segment; there is trust in the brand and they have largely avoided all the scandals which are driving the introduction of new regulation.

Unlimited data is certainly not commonplace today, but with the services of tomorrow promising to gobble up data at an unfathomable pace, it would surprise few to see more people migrating to these tariffs. The question is how you make money once you have migrated everyone.

Diversification and the acquisition of new products is not a simple task, but then again, it is becoming increasingly difficult to imagine how single revenue stream telcos will be able to survive in the world of tomorrow.

 

Do you have some clear ideas about how the edge computing sector is developing? Then please complete the short survey being run by our colleagues at the Edge Computing Congress and Telecoms.com Intelligence. Click here to see the questions.

O2 and Vodafone double down on network sharing deal for 5G

Network sharing deals are not new in the UK, but with O2 and Vodafone evolving their existing relationship to active infrastructure, the partnership certainly has a new mission.

Announced today, O2 and Vodafone have agreed to share 5G active equipment, such as radio antennas, on joint network sites across the UK. The approach should accelerate 5G deployments in the areas where infrastructure investments are not as commercially attractive, though the 23 largest cities have been excluded from the deal.

“Today is an important step in demonstrating our commitment to invest for the future, with mobile connectivity one of the UK’s most powerful opportunities to strengthen the economy and improve the lives of British people,” said O2 CEO Mark Evans. “This agreement will enable us to roll-out 5G faster and more efficiently, benefiting customers while delivering value for our business.  It also importantly allows us to utilise the spectrum we acquired in the last auction very effectively.”

“We’re driving our 5G roll-out forward with this agreement, and taking our customers, our business and the whole of the UK with us,” said Vodafone CEO Nick Jeffrey. “Greater autonomy in major cities will allow us to accelerate deployment, and together with active network sharing, ensures that our customers will get super-fast 5G in even more places more quickly, using fewer masts. We can boost capacity where our customers need it most so they can take full advantage of our new unlimited plans.”

Prior to this announcement, the duo were already in partnership through the Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure (CTIL) joint-venture. This company effectively acquires and manages passive infrastructure across the country, enabling the pair to share costs on some of the most expensive aspects of network deployment; site acquisition, local government bureaucracy and civil engineering.

This new agreement takes the relationship one step further. Although many telcos around the world believe active equipment is a means to differentiate experience, the pair are putting aside their squabbles to grow the network across all regions in the UK. For those areas where ROI is more difficult to realise, spectrum assets will be the only differentiating factor.

In the larger, more densely populated environments, the duo will remain competitive. In 23 large cities, covering 16% of combined cell sites, all assets will be separate. In cities such as London, Manchester or Liverpool, profitability has not been difficult to demonstrate through network expansion, such is the number of subscribers in such a small geographical zone.

Although we are slightly surprised by the concept of sharing active equipment, it is a logical path for the two telcos to take. Spectrum assets should be enough to deliver some sort of differentiated experience, and if the telcos want to move up the value chain, they will need to reconsider their thoughts on the delivery of data.

Connectivity revenues will remain the core business, but 5G presents an opportunity to create a new role in the ecosystem and deliver more value-added services. To enable this, a new mindset to network infrastructure has to be acquired to free up revenues for other areas. This is not the only advantage of network sharing deals, but the intelligent reallocation of funds could allow MNOs to transform from ‘Communications Service Providers’ to ‘Digital Service Providers’.

Breaking down the Supply Chain Review Statement

Although there was very little said during the Supply Chain Review statement yesterday, there are some interesting developments worth keeping an eye on.

Speaking to the House of Commons, Secretary of State for the Department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Jeremy Wright did as most expected he would and dodged the Huawei decision. Although we were promised a decision by March, the slippery politician has managed to create enough breathing room to get him through to September.

Despite some being disappointed by a lack of clarity on the competitive landscape for UK communications infrastructure, there were a few takeaways.

There’s no avoiding interference from Transatlantic geo-politics

Every politician will tell you decisions are made dependent on what is best for the British people alone, but it is impossible to avoid the US here. The White House and its aggressive policies are causing havoc around the world, including here in the UK.

Fundamentally, without a decision on Huawei there is no clarity for investment and progress into the digital economy will falter.

Wright said a decision on Huawei would be made irrespective of the political influences of the US, but US interference is unavoidable.

“The hon. Gentleman has said that he is concerned to ensure that this should be a decision about the interests of the UK and not the priorities of the US Administration, and I understand that,” Wright said in response to the suggestion the US has too much influence from Tom Watson, Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.

“I can give him the assurance that decisions we take will be decisions in the best interests of the United Kingdom, but he knows that this is a hugely interconnected sector and it simply is not possible to make sensible judgments about telecommunications without recognising those interconnections.”

With Huawei being placed on the Entity List the performance, resilience and security of its products might be impacted in the future. Wright has said he will not make a decision on Huawei until he has all the facts, and the relationship between China and the US is a huge factor in this.

Kicking the can to avoid irritating the new boss

Despite there being pressure from influential Parliamentary groups and the telco industry to make a decision, it was always highly unlikely Wright was going to say anything until his new boss has taken residence in No.10 Downing Street.

Boris Johnson is the new Prime Minister and he will want to put his own mark on proceedings. The Huawei decision is an important one, not only for UK 5G infrastructure, but because it will impact the relationship with the US. BoJo has already shown himself as somewhat of a pet of the President and will most likely want to nurture this relationship as only he knows how.

Wright does not want to jump the gun on making a decision and potentially irritating the new boss, especially when there is a potential promotion around the corner.

David Guake, the Justice Secretary, has resigned. Education Minister Anne Milton has gone. Chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond has publicly stated he would quit if BoJo won. Rory Stewart, the Secretary of State for International Development, formally announced his resignation over Twitter at 11.18am. And finally, it is highly likely Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt, BoJo’s opponent for PM, will be shifted elsewhere.

“The reality is that this statement is just a lot of words to confirm further delay. Why are the decisions now being left in the gift of the new Prime Minister? Is this just another case of putting the Tory party before the country?” SNP MP Alan Brown questioned.

As one of the few politicians who managed to remain neutral during the proceedings, Wright could find himself heading up a new department before too long.

Security framework will make UK more secure

This is perhaps the most encouraging snippet to emerge from a relatively shallow statement overall; security requirements will be heightened for everyone.

“Fundamentally, we must make a decision on the basis of what is in our security interests, but he is also right that if we were to focus solely on one company or country, we would miss the broader important point that our telecoms supply chain must be resilient and secure, regardless of where equipment comes from, because risk may transfer from place to place and our population is entitled to expect that the approach we take puts security at its heart, wherever the equipment comes from,” Wright stated.

Although there are few details available regarding the new security requirements, Wright has suggested there will be a more stringent framework set in place and on-going assessments to ensure standards are being maintained. This will be applicable to every supplier, irrelevant of where they have come from.

To start with, this will be a voluntary scheme for the telcos, but soon enough it will be cemented in place through legislation. This takes time, but it is encouraging that the Government recognises threats can come from anywhere, everyone has a globalised supply chain and cybercriminals are becoming much more capable.

If policies have the position of 100% secure is impossible and everyone is a potential threat, risk mitigation levels should be set higher. This is the best possible means to achieve a resilient and secure network, capable of dealing with threats irrelevant as to their origin or intention.

Vendor diversification is nothing but a smokescreen

It might sound like a wonderful plug, but suggesting the UK is going to encourage diversification in the supply chain is nothing but a distraction to attract PR points for DCMS.

“In addition, we must have a competitive, sustainable and diverse supply chain if we are to drive innovation and reduce the risk of dependency on individual suppliers,” Wright said.

“The Government will therefore pursue a targeted diversification strategy, supporting the growth of new players in the parts of the network that pose security and resilience risks. We will promote policies that support new entrants and the growth of smaller firms.”

During the statement, Wright promised work will be done to enable smaller and more innovative players to contribute to the 5G euphoria. This sounds good and, in theory, addresses a long-standing problem in the telco world, but let’s not get ahead of ourselves.

The telco industry has been attempting to create a more diverse supply chain for years, as well as adapting procurement models to ensure smaller companies can weave through the red-tape maze. There has been little progress to date and intervention from DCMS is unlikely to reap any material changes.

You also have to wonder whether Wright is tackling the challenge head-on. Wright pointed to funding which has been directed towards the West Midlands and other innovation hubs, however this is not the problem which the telco industry has been facing. The limited supply chain is most harmful in places like the access network or core. This is where there are so few suppliers and competition has been impacting the cost of deployment.

Wright might be encouraging diversification and growth for start-ups, but don’t be fooled by this statement; he is not directly tackling the biggest competition challenge the industry faces.

Long-overdue legislative overhaul and Ofcom empowerment

The legislative and regulatory landscape has needed an update for years and Wright is promising one. Not only would this put the security framework into law, it will also ensure Ofcom has the right powers to be effective in the digital economy.

“We will pursue legislation at the earliest opportunity to provide Ofcom with stronger powers to allow for the effective enforcement of the telecoms security requirements and to establish stronger national security backstop powers for Government,” Wright said.

Until the new legislation is put in place, Government and Ofcom will work with all telecoms operators to secure adherence to the new requirements on a voluntary basis.”

Many of the rules which govern the telecoms and technology industry have been written for a bygone era. This is an outcome which is largely unavoidable when you consider the speed at which progress develops nowadays. However, rules need to be brought into the 21st century.

Legislation will offer the Government more influence over commercial communications infrastructure while Ofcom will have its teeth sharpened. It’s a long-overdue update.

Not much said, but potential to progress

Overall, there was little said by Wright in terms of material progress, but there is enough evidence the UK is creeping forward toward contextual relevance. We saw hints of progress yesterday, but realistically, the new Prime Minister and his administration will dictate evolution over the coming months and years.

Most EU countries complete 5G national risk assessments

24 out of the 28 EU member states have completed 5G risk assessments at national level, laying the groundwork for an EU-wide assessment by October.

The project was launched in March, when the Commission (the administrative branch) responded to the Council’s (the heads of state or government) expectations to see a “recommendation on a concerted approach to the security of 5G networks”. According to the Commission’s statement, the assessment should be conducted on three main areas:

  • the main threats and actors affecting 5G networks;
  • the degree of sensitivity of 5G network components and functions as well as other assets; and
  • various types of vulnerabilities, including both technical ones and other types of vulnerabilities, such as those potentially arising from the 5G supply chain.

All member states were requested to complete the national assessment by the end of June. The Commission does not publish the names of the countries that have missed the deadline.

“The completion of the risk assessments underlines the commitment of Member States not only to set high standards for security but also to make full use of this groundbreaking technology,” Julian King, Commissioner for the Security Union, and Mariya Gabriel, Commissioner for the Digital Economy and Society, said in a joint statement.

“We hope that the outcomes will be taken into account in the process of 5G spectrum auctions and network deployment, which is taking place across the EU now and in the coming months. Several Member States have already taken steps to reinforce applicable security requirements while others are considering introducing new measures in the near future.”

The national assessments will feed into the pan-EU 5G risk assessment, led by the EU Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA), tasked to be completed by 1 October 2019. By the end of the year, a toolbox to mitigate the risks identified at national and EU levels will be developed by the NIS Cooperation Group, the EU’s cross-agency identity responsible for cybersecurity. By 1 October 2020, member states are requested to undertake an evaluation of the effectiveness of the measures taken and determine whether further actions should be taken.

Meanwhile, ENISA will also take the lead to develop an EU-wide certification framework to cover 5G networks and equipment, which member states are encouraged to adopt.