When Huawei leaves, the UK doesn't lead in 5G, says new report commissioned by... er... Huawei
- Reference: 1599678913
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/09/09/huawei_report/
- Source link:
In a [2]report commissioned by the Chinese vendor itself, Assembly argued that the main economic costs come from the delayed rollout, which the government has admitted will add three years to the previous timetable.
These delays will, in turn, cause the UK to miss out on around £10bn of productivity benefits, Assembly claimed. It also estimated the mobile sector would lose out on £4.7bn in potential revenues, with adjacent industries missing out on a further £2bn. In addition, they argued, the wider economy will lose out on £1.5bn of growth.
Huawei's supply chain squeeze tightens, as SK Hynix and Samsung set to stop selling chips to the Chinese bogeyman as of next week [3]READ MORE
These estimates are fundamentally based on UK carriers having a [4]deadline of 2027 to strip existing Huawei equipment from their 5G networks . Assembly notes that should that deadline become tighter, the impact to carriers and the wider economy would increase.
Of course, the report casting aspersions on the decision to ban Huawei was commissioned by Huawei.
Assembly insisted Huawei has “not had any input with regards to the economic impact assessment.” It also noted that the study was based on a previous exercises performed “on behalf of the UK mobile operators.”
World leading 5G in the UK
The analyst also reckoned the UK could temporarily cease to be a world-leader in the 5G sector, losing competitiveness due to the aforementioned three-year delay. In its model, Assembly said the UK will reap the benefits of 5G until mid-2021, followed by a three-year milieu where it becomes less competitive, only to regain footing by 2024.
This inevitably raises the question: was the UK actually a “leader?”. We don’t discount the rapid growth of 5G technology, bolstered by capex spending by telcos, but the UK doesn’t stand out in any major milestones.
Britain wasn’t the first country to get 5G: South Korea pipped it by several months. Nor did Britain break any European milestones. The first European nation to get 5G was Switzerland. Other nations have surpassed the UK in overall coverage, and it is dependent on foreign-made tech for its core and RAN networks.
So, where does the UK lead? [5]In [6]the [7]number [8]of [9]vandalized [10]antennas ?
Paolo Pescatore, telecoms analyst at PP Foresight, isn’t nearly as cynical. “The telcos have done a superb job of launching 5G, resulting in the UK being of the first countries to have all carriers offering services within a short period of time,” he said.
This is even more remarkable when you consider the relatively fractured rollout of 4G, Pescatore added.
Is the demand even there?
There’s also a parallel story to Huawei’s woes. Right now, demand for 5G is relatively weak. The vaunted enterprise elements, like network slicing, are still a faint dot on the horizon. Many consumers are deferring device upgrades due to the economic uncertainty caused by the global Coronavirus pandemic.
“Ultimately, a 5G reality check is needed. While numerous players including Huawei and Qualcomm have done a superb job of driving the ecosystem and overcoming numerous challenges, demand for 5G is still limited,” Pescatore said.
“Telcos are wary given the need to balance investment; more so at a time when margins are already squeezed and all players are seeing the negative economic impact from the pandemic.”
This economic malaise could be another factor that delays the 5G rollout, thus impacting on growth and productivity.
Economic arguments aside, there’s something to be said for a slow-and-steady approach – or, at the very least, a perspective that regards 5G as still at its infancy. “Being first grabs all the headlines, but that doesn’t mean the best,” Pescatore said, hinting towards mmWave and 5G Standalone (SA). ®
Get our [11]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2020/07/14/huawei_ban_uk/
[2] https://static1.squarespace.com/static/59ca375d80bd5e1a6eaed324/t/5f579b8a5ff56448e9c883b6/1599576974278/Macroeconomic+impact+of+a+delayed+5G+roll-out+in+the+UK.pdf
[3] https://www.theregister.com/2020/09/09/huaweis_supply_chain/
[4] https://www.theregister.com/2020/07/14/huawei_ban_uk/
[5] https://www.theregister.com/2020/04/06/5g_coronavirus_theory_debunked/
[6] https://www.theregister.com/2020/05/27/5g_mast_arson_liverpool/
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2020/04/15/vodafone_chief_speaks_out_birmingham_phone_mast_torched/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2020/04/06/5g/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2020/04/14/5g_misinformation/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2020/06/09/arsonist_sentencing/
[11] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
The Ford Edsel was described as being "Ugly, overpriced, overhyped, poorly made and poorly timed". Most of the same things can be said of 5G!
5G - proper 5G - is a serious rethink of how data works across wireless transmission. When I speak of 5G here, I mean in it's correct form, not 5G LTE or some crap that's not really fully implemented. It's practically the same jump as when mobile was voice only to when we had 3G - yet at the same time, much more than that. 5G redesigns and restructures how wireless transmission works, in as much as WiFi has diverted from the original infrared wireless systems, so is 5G (REAL 5G I mean) different from 4G. Beam-forming (a part of the real 5G spec for most companies) is a significant technology that is literally at it's infancy, with very few serious engineers actually capable of developing in the arena.
4G as we have it today isn't even really to spec, hence it being called LTE in most marketing documents. 5G, on the other hand, is capable of beating wired connection for latency and capacity.
"followed by a three-year milieu where it becomes less competitive, only to regain footing by 2024."
I don't know what you think the word 'milieu' means, but it isn't that.
Huawei is right, if they are going to use inferior US gear instead of Huawei, they may as well stay with the existing spyware/backdoor laden 4G US gear they already have.
Huawei not only give them the opportunity to get superior technology, it also gets rid of the NSA/FBI/CIA backdoors and ECHELON support for the US spy agencies.
I don't know about getting rid of the three letter agencies, they tend to slurp off backbones, but the unfortuante fact of life is that when it comes to standards compliant 5G you've got to involve Huawei. You might be able to limp along with a sort of "5G Evolution" until one of the other manufacturers catches up but the result is that you'll end up dumping a lot of really expensive but only partially functional gear on the customer base (who aren't going to be at all pleased when they find out they've been conned).
Currently the US doesn't have that much of a play in this technology. Qualcomm is a major chip supplier and they've cross licenced technology with Huawei but they're building chips for phones, not infrastructure. We (the US) seem to be pinning our hopes on OpenRAN which sounds rather like what is known here as a "Hail Mary" play -- there's not the investment to really get this moving and there's no easy way to ramp it up (the government might provide money but that won't make a suitably trained workforce appear as if by magic).
Samsung? massive contract just awarded for Verizon 5G rollout.
Yes, I agree though; everyone I talk to rates the Huawei gear way above the followers.
Australia had 5G before Korea.
3G was important, 4G meh, ok, 5G really not seeing a compelling reason or any real usage outside of major cities as it's still difficult to get 4G in rural areas where 5G (assume reasonable data costs) could fill the gap for broadband, but more likely to get FTTP from BT before Vodafone erect 5G out this way.
So really could not care at all as it more case of the mobile phone industry's equivilent of the Ford Edsel.