[HN Gopher] Europe's telcos want 'open' 5G networks ___________________________________________________________________ Europe's telcos want 'open' 5G networks Author : DyslexicAtheist Score : 213 points Date : 2021-01-25 13:56 UTC (9 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.politico.eu) (TXT) w3m dump (www.politico.eu) | naringas wrote: | when they don't stand to make a profit because they own the "IP" | then they want openess | shimonabi wrote: | It's a protectionist scheme against foreign competition. | | Don't fall for the talk of "openness". Remember that the EU | itself was established as a German-French cartel. | ClumsyPilot wrote: | Banning Huawei is legitimate US security, but OpenStandards are | EU protectionism. Got it. | burtness wrote: | *German-French-British | acta_non_verba wrote: | The UK was not a founding member of the European community. | Charles de Gaulle saw to that. | kitd wrote: | They were however one of the main driving forces behind the | Single Market, of which this is an expression. | gostsamo wrote: | The UK never bought the EU project, came late, left promptly. | Know before talking. | Lio wrote: | The UK started efforts to join the EEC just 4 years after | the Treaty of Rome. | | Its entry was personally blocked 3 times by Charles De | Gaulle before finally being allowed to join in 1973. | | When the UK finally left in 2020 it had been a member for | 47 years. | | I wouldn't describe that as coming late and leaving | promptly. | | As for never buying the EU project, a 1975 referendum on | EEC membership was won by a comfortable 34.4% majority. | | Where as the 2016 vote leave campaigns won with just a 3.7% | majority, having broken the rules on spending. | | I would say that many of us in the UK buy the EU project | and are unhappy about the leave result still. | | To this day the reports on foreign interference have not | been compiled or fully published by the current | Conservative government. | gostsamo wrote: | I was present on a talk about the EU given by an UK | official back in 2014. At that time the person didn't | even knew how many members the EU had (Croatia was just | admitted) and they were pretty open that they are not | really interested to know. When I've been to the UK, two | years earlier, a bus driver that I talked to was afraid | that eastern europeans will come and take his job. I | perfectly well know the UK relationship with the EU, but | trust me when I tell you that giving some numbers does | not reflect reality. Maybe because the UK considered | itself a winner in WWII and wasn't ruined from it like | France and Germany, or maybe because of Soros and black | Wednesday, or for whatever reason,but Brittan was never a | cornerstone of the EU the way France and Germany are, | which is the thing the GP was trying to imply and I | definitely disagree. | ClumsyPilot wrote: | Alternatively: Came late, when realised they were missing | out, got special treatment,stayed for 30 years, made a | mess, threatened to divorse, it's been 5 years and they | still can't shut the door. | shimonabi wrote: | The Brits joined later because they were broke and had lost | their empire. | e2le wrote: | And the Germans joined to cleanse themselves of genocide | and apply for readmission to the human race. While the | French only joined because they wanted to protect their | inefficient farmers from commercial competition. | | The British joined to screw the French by splitting them | off from the Germans that and of course their foreign | policy objective for at least the last five hundred years | which has being to create a disunited Europe. | jpfr wrote: | Fabrice Bellard, who is quite famous on HN for his open source | work, has founded a company for his own 5G implementation. And | they are EU-based. [1] | | I'm under the impression his work is closer to the "radio | protocol" than the infrastructure management behind. Not sure if | they are related to Open-RAN though... | | [1] https://www.amarisoft.com/about-us/ | technofiend wrote: | From reading HN it seems like there needs to be open source | radio hardware as well to break the dependency on qualcomm, | broadcom and whomever else is supplying chips. At least if the | idea is to have something auditable. | user3939382 wrote: | From what I understand (someone correct me if I'm wrong) part | of the problem is that baseband hardware and firmware | requires expensive FCC approvals that's more compatible with | the profitability of closed-source intellectual property. | vaduz wrote: | It's not so much that it is more aligned with profitability | per se, but the fact that _each modification_ you put in | the part of the device controlling the radio _also needs | said approval before being used to transmit_ - and FCC has | been tightening the enforcement of that. It has been on HN | before [0]... | | Usual caveats about Part 15 vs Part 97 use apply. | | [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11267443 | fit2rule wrote: | We all need to be making RONJA a thing: | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RONJA | frequent wrote: | Amarisoft and Nexedi also launched a joint company called | Rapid.Space last year. It combines cloud and 4G/5G | infrastructure operation and is "HyperOpen" = using open-source | software, open hardware and open service. | | Press release: https://handbook.rapid.space/RS- | Hyper.Open.Converged.Cloud.D... | | More info on 5G technology: | https://handbook.rapid.space/evangelist/RS-Presentation.For.... | | (disclaimer: I work for Nexedi and help out on Rapid.Space) | steeve wrote: | I came exactly to promote this. Thank you. | amelius wrote: | Do we really need control over the radio hardware? Or can we | treat them as dumb pipes, and use something like Tor to shield | us from whoever can track who is using a radio channel? | xorcist wrote: | Tor can not prevent a denial of service. | wyldfire wrote: | > Amarisoft LTE and NR network software suit is a unique full | software LTE and NR solution ... Our binary licenses can be | fixed and bounded to a single hardware, floating on a USB | dongle, or floating using a license server. | | I suppose it's possible that their product includes some Open | Source Software, while still using node-locked licenses. But it | doesn't sound like it. | | This press release [1] from 2020 makes it sound like Amarisoft | is working on OpenRAN. | | [1] https://apnews.com/press-release/pr- | businesswire/56f3c23c33a... | ferdek wrote: | Recently Nokia strongly communicates its commitment to Open- | RAN. They want to be like Tesla or Toyota (in case of hybrid- | drives): so good that competition is unable to keep up even | after opening their patents. Once telcos grasp the benfits of | open-interfaces infrastructure (eCPRI and stuff), there is no | coming back to closed ecosystems. | | The "radio protocol" is "open" since GSM, anyone can download | standards from 3GPP and implement it accordingly. But the mere | amount of knowledge and specialized hardware required to do | this, even for single layer like L1, is tremendous. I think | this is the real reason why we don't already have open-source | implementation of the full stack. | | EDIT: an afterthought - maybe the O-RAN is really a chance for | open-source here. In the future, once O-RAN is accepted and | widely deployed, we could work on implementing the stack piece- | by-piece, layer-by-layer, filling the gaps with commercial | software/hardware as we go, instead of doing everything at | once... | [deleted] | Railsify wrote: | Came here to mention Nokia, I bought NOK last week, the stock | is starting to move. Between existing revenue from 5G and | future growth I have a price target of 15USD by Jan 2023. New | leadership is in place as well and a mandate for each | business unit to become profitable. | mytailorisrich wrote: | The 3GPP standard leaves a lot of implementation freedom in | many areas and there is a huge number of patents on | everything. So in practice licensing is a big issue and keeps | new entrants at bay. | | Nokia thinks it is in good shape because without Huawei there | is indeed not many threats. Starting from scratch is hugely | costly and takes many years. In any case Nokia has no choice | but to be "committed" to Open RAN since that's what telcos | want. | | IMHO, Open RAN is a push by telcos to commoditize the | infrastructure and to avoid being locked in because key | interfaces are proprietary. | pcdoodle wrote: | WSB on reddit is pumping it now too. Makes sense. | abledon wrote: | this alongside WSB's recent interest in NOK... lets see what | happens. | crispycrafter2 wrote: | Hahaha.. Force the hand of those who feed and we'll force the | hand of the fed. | | The West has blocked Huawei from being used now they force the | populis to demand open networks. | u678u wrote: | Telephone networks are a dead business. You look at European | telecom stocks and they just keep going down year after year. | Wont be long before they're all bankrupts and will get | nationalized again. | monopoledance wrote: | Fingers crossed. | fulafel wrote: | Mature businesses tend to have lower margins. Doesn't follow | that he businesses would fail, just that the owners extract | lower rents from the public. | KaiserPro wrote: | and yet they have reliable, cheap, high speed, highly available | networks. | ClumsyPilot wrote: | Providing affordabke reliable service is bad for business? | joejerryronnie wrote: | Yes, if there is no future growth in the market. Companies | need to figure out how to expand their total addressable | market or enter new lines of business. | diegoholiveira wrote: | > and will get nationalized again | | IMO, this would be a bad move. Let them die. Voice and text | over the internet is here to stay. In the last two years I | didn't a single phone call thanks to WhatsApp, Signal and | Instagram. | tpmx wrote: | Sort of like the airlines. The high level of competition is | good for the consumers, of course. | zoobab wrote: | $ apt install 5g $ echo "Done" | maeln wrote: | Note: This is being pushed by the major telecom company in the EU | | > The Continent's "big four" telcos Deutsche Telekom, Telefonica, | Vodafone and Orange on Wednesday published a joint "memorandum of | understanding" pledging to prioritize the development of "Open | RAN" technology | | They want to have more interoperabilities between equipment and | more supplier basically : | | > Open RAN encompasses the idea of chopping up the 5G supply | chain into smaller pieces and imposing standards on equipment and | software firms so their products can work together | | This makes a lot of sense for telco since it would drastically | lower the cost of their deployment and the maintenance of the 5G | network. | | Right now, if you take your equipments from one supplier, you are | basically locked-in with this supplier since they are not | compatible with each-other. So if one equipment fail, you need to | buy a replacement from the same supplier. | tguvot wrote: | >This makes a lot of sense for telco since it would drastically | lower the cost of their deployment and the maintenance of the | 5G network. | | Actually no. Integrated solutions are cheaper to make at scale | (for how much it's sold it's a different question) Also | integration of multiple vendors into one working solutions has | additional costs both for deployment and maintenance/support | later (instead of 1 piece of equipment you have 5 boxes with 5 | vendors pointing fingers at each other when something fails). | Also more points of failure | eivarv wrote: | It'll probably never happen, but we should look into solving the | technical debt in our communications infrastructure - even if | breaking backward-compatibility . Huge issues and vulnerabilities | wrt security and privacy that are probably solvable, but were | never considered in the first place. | g_p wrote: | I think there's a growing acceptance that SS7 is a protocol | from the past. It's based on a set of assumptions (around | telecoms operators being trustworthy) that just never held | true. | | The problem is that it continues to be the lowest common | denominator for a lot of the world to stay connected from a | telecoms perspective. | | Moving to newer protocols makes a lot of sense, but for much of | the developing world I imagine they'll continue to rely on | legacy technologies like SS7 for some time to come, as they | have that hardware in place etc. | | The driver away from legacy equipment in the West will likely | be the skills shortage as engineers retire and there's a need | to move to newer equipment that can be maintained and | understood. There's enough of a shortage of new talent, let | alone new talent that understands the old telecoms world way of | thinking. | KaiserPro wrote: | > Moving to newer protocols makes a lot of sense, but for | much of the developing world I imagine they'll continue to | rely on legacy technologies like SS7 for some time to come, | as they have that hardware in place etc. | | SS7 is going to be here for a loooong time yet, just like | email hasn't died. | | > The driver away from legacy equipment in the West | | Most of the cell towers that are install in the EU are | Software defined. Its far cheaper and future proof to have | them programmable. | | Most other legacy stuff has been ripped out years ago, its | far cheaper to maintain one fibre link than 15 ATM lines. | | Older kit eats power, which means for remote cell cites, more | fuel. This costs money, so its cheaper to rip out and put | newer power efficient kit in. | mschuster91 wrote: | > The problem is that it continues to be the lowest common | denominator for a lot of the world to stay connected from a | telecoms perspective. | | Not just the developing world. The amount of money needed to | rebuild our current telco grids with modern, designed from | scratch infrastructure is in the hundreds of billions of | euros range - in a time where money is short in supply. | | Personally, I believe that even in 2030 there will still be | widespread 2G networks as "last fallback" for generations-old | IoT devices that simply can't do anything else... | Rexxar wrote: | Can we really say that money is in short supply when there | are negative interest rates in lots of countries ? | varispeed wrote: | Do you think that bandwidth heavy apps and sites should | chip in? If we didn't use so much bandwidth we could easily | stay with 3G? So it seems like because companies built | these video sites and now everyone wants to have access to | them in their pocket, why should telecom companies invest | in it? | [deleted] | jaywalk wrote: | Telecom companies should invest in it because it's what | their customers want. Your thinking is completely | backwards. | legulere wrote: | Switzerland already phased out 2G and so did others: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2G#Phase-out | | Some countries have the strategy of phasing out 3G instead. | MrRadar wrote: | In the US by 2030 both 2G and 3G will be a distant memory. | | AT&T shut down its 2G GSM network at the end of 2016 and | intends to shut down its 3G network early next year. | | Verizon intended to shut down its 2G and 3G CDMA networks | at the end of last year but delayed to the end of next | year. | | T-Mobile US is operating its 2G GSM network entirely within | the guard bands of its 3G UMTS service (which means the | bandwidth available is extremely limited) and while they | haven't specified a set date for shutting down their 2G and | 3G service they are no longer investing in expanding it | (see the difference between their 3G[1] and 4G[2] coverage | maps) and I don't see it lasting significantly longer than | AT&T's or Verizon's 2G/3G networks. | | Following the T-Mobile acquisition, the entire Sprint | legacy network (2G, 3G, and 4G LTE) is going to be shut | down by the end of this year with all customers being | transferred to the T-Mobile network. | | Dish Wireless's new cellular network (which is being built | out as part of the legal settlement that permitted the | T-Mobile/Sprint merger) will be entirely 5G from the start | with no 2G, 3G, or 4G service offered. | | [1] https://maps.t-mobile.com/pcc.html?map=mvno-noroam-34 | | [2] https://maps.t-mobile.com/pcc.html?map=mvno-noroam-34l | monadic3 wrote: | Money is never in short supply. That's the entire point of | fiat currency. | waheoo wrote: | Is this a follow on from the Belgian 5g deal with Nokia? [1] | | Pretty huge shift in the wholesale market dynamics if this is | whats happening here. | | [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/orange-nokia- | security-5g/hua... | est wrote: | Yes! Make 5g v2x mesh happen, make devices cheap enough then we | can have uncensorable Internet. | zoobab wrote: | Governments do not understand the economics behind internet | connectivity, they are just treating it as a way to make money, | for example selling spectrum licenses to the highest bidder. | throw7 wrote: | "U.S. Congress in November passed a bill approving $750 billion | in public funding to develop Open RAN technologies." | | My jaw dropped here when reading... but it's million, not | billion. | giancarlostoro wrote: | I see, I was wondering why you said that, indeed the linked | article[0] says million, this article typod. Yeah nearly a | trillion dollars for any technology invested on in one swoop | would be quite jaw dropping (this comment may not age well if | inflation makes trillion the new billion). | | [0]: https://www.rcrwireless.com/20201118/policy/house- | unanimousl... | OldHand2018 wrote: | Good catch. | | FYI, if anyone is wondering how the US Government spending fits | in this puzzle, remember that when Motorola broke itself up, | they sold their mobile infrastructure business to a | Nokia/Siemens joint venture, which still has thousands of | engineers working in the Chicago suburbs. | | Most, if not all, of this money is going to be spent in the USA | within the American tech sector, even if the company name is | European. | ferdek wrote: | In addition this article is also strongly opinionated, charged | with emotions, feels like stitched together without second | reading IMHO. Like: | | > It would allow operators to procure [...] with different | players to piece together a 5G network, _breaking the market | power of "end-to-end" vendors like Ericsson and Nokia_. | | And later: > the O-RAN Alliance. It's a standard-setting body | that includes [...] leading vendors Ericsson and Nokia. | | First, it doesn't work like that. They will still offer end-to- | end deals, even with ORAN, it's just that winning conditions | change. Second, why would companies support standardization | effort that is supposedly intended to "harm" them? :D | | > The operators, now barred by governments from using Huawei in | several European markets, see Open RAN as a fix to what they | consider a duopoly in the vendor market that allows Ericsson | and Nokia to charge higher prices for 5G equipment. | | I LOL'ed. From what I know, Ericsson and Nokia does not charge | higher prices for 5G equipment due to duopoly, because that | would be called price collusion and the journalists don't have | proof to back it up. Also, Ericsson and Nokia are fighting each | other for every piece of market share, I don't see how pumping | up the prices would help here. | LatteLazy wrote: | No one ever actually found any technical issues with Huawei kit | did they? | joejerryronnie wrote: | Does it matter if they did? At this point, everyone has to | assume the CCP has the ability to take complete control of any | Chinese company it wants to (see Ant Group). I'm not sure why | they even bother with the "monopoly" or "corruption" pretenses | at this point. | LatteLazy wrote: | That's fine, but then you have to assume the same of the CIA | and 101 other countries/agencies. So you have to design and | build every part of all your systems nationally down to the | copper wire pretty much and only after you've vetted all the | people involved. | | Just so your 5G system can't be turned off? | joejerryronnie wrote: | While it's true that various US and foreign agencies can | (and already are) tap into communication networks, that is | a very different scenario than what you see in China, i.e. | the state essentially taking control of private companies | whenever they want. | LatteLazy wrote: | I don't see why? | | We know the US used the NSA to gain an economic edge in | negotiations with the EU. It even shared the information | commercially didn't it? | | I don't think the US would hesitate to interfere for a | moment if it wanted. The EU is already under US sanctions | for building a gas pipeline with Russia. There is the | Iran situation and the wider Middle East and North Africa | messes and Turkey. Plenty of places for a disagreement to | form... | | The EU has no major beef with China (I would prefer if | they did, there is a lot to oppose about the PRC). China | also has a much more isolationist/localist foreign policy | so they're less likely to act and less likely to come | into conflict with the EU. | | Edit: | | Source on spying: | | https://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/30/world/europe/eu- | nsa/index... | | https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/21/business/us-snooping- | on-c... | | On sanctions: | | https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-countries-protest-us- | sanc... | baskire wrote: | Doesn't matter. See Australia. The CCP would gladly withhold | teleco infra gear or back door in an update to suit their | needs. | | Sure USA might do the same. But the USA is aligned closer | culturally and values wise to the rest of the west | knorker wrote: | So I'll finally be able to run OpenGGSN in production?! | afrojack123 wrote: | doofus | nickdothutton wrote: | For those of you interested in a little of the history leading up | to this point, particularly from a European perspective, you | might find this of interest from me, written in 2019. A number of | events lead up to our present dilemma. | https://blog.eutopian.io/huawei-5g/ | bhaavan wrote: | Reliance Jio, a major player in India, is working on a OpenRAN | based solution too [1]. Airtel, one of it's rivals is considering | a similar approach , potentially joining in the efforts. | | [1] https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/info-tech/for-home- | grow... ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-01-25 23:00 UTC)