5G is different, because API exposure has become fundamental to both internal and external systems. Third‐party access will be enabled by RESTful APIs, but this now also extends to internal communications. This is due to the adoption of the new service‐based architecture (SBA). Functions that are internal to the 5G core – network functions (NFs) – will connect to others via service‐based interfaces (SBIs), which will also present RESTful APIs [25]. “It is this change that enables the network programmability, thereby opening up new opportunities for growth and innovation beyond simply accelerating connectivity” [26].
This is an important shift – not only for how 5G networks will be built and for how innovation from operators and third parties will be enabled but also because it points to the likely growth in openness of all subsequent generations of mobile technology. With APIs available internally and externally, there may be less need for the standardization of such interfaces and, instead, more emphasis on a functional definition, not a specified definition.
As such, it can be seen that 5G networks are inherently more open than any previous generation and that 6G is likely to adapt and build on the same principles. Vendors and solution providers will be able to create their own APIs – for internal and external consumption. As such, other interest groups will, in all likelihood, align around the needs of vertical industries (as has already happened) and hence drive APIs and SBIs defined according to their needs, in addition to any defined by a globally focused standards organization – or any others that emerge, for that matter. They may derive their own interpretations of IMT‐2030 in order to accelerate time to market and alongside efforts from 3GPP.
3.8 Research – What Is the Industry Saying?
Stakeholders believe that 6G can be standardized by 2030 and that 3GPP will play a leading role. However, it is increasingly difficult to be heard, with the result that independent voices could lead to new approaches, while growing political pressure is also recognized – and could be disruptive.
Thus far, we have considered factors that are shaping 5G and are likely to influence the ways in which 6G is likely to take shape. We have explored how standardization happens, based on high‐level definition of performance goals in the shape of ITU‐T IMTs; the increasingly diverse stakeholder ecosystem; political influences; emerging models for open solutions; and changes inherent to 5G architecture that are likely to have significant and lasting impact on all subsequent generations of mobile technology. We also conducted interviews with a number of industry stakeholders to solicit external opinions.
The interviews were conducted in July 2020. Representatives from academia, standards bodies, and the wider industry were presented with the same set of questions. Key findings are discussed next.
3.9 Can We Define and Deliver a New Generation of Standards by 2030?
Respondents believe that we can, presumably based on the success of moves toward 5G. However, when asked if the definition of 6G should be led by traditional stakeholders – in other words, operators and vendors – the answer is also clear: users should be driving requirements.
Given that the ecosystem has grown so dramatically and given that it can be expected to diversify still further, this raises questions. Can such a user‐driven definition proceed at the appropriate pace? Vertical sectors are clearly understood as likely to provide the most compelling requirements for 6G – but one issue that is singled out is the fact that, while actors in an industrial sector may know what they need, they may not understand how to convert that into a wireless technology. In other words, some form of mediation between aspirations and physical reality will be required.
Moreover, is there room in the standardization process for all such voices? As one respondent noted, 3GPP “is too complex and [it is] difficult to get engaged as an enterprise.” Others disagree, expressing full confidence in the ability of 3GPP to deliver. And yet, the political storm clouds have been noted – external political pressure is now recognized as a significant new influence that may impact standardization, positively or negatively.
Curiously, for all the support shown for 3GPP (and, indeed, its efforts must be applauded) and for all that respondents recognize the need for new stakeholders to join the process, not all are willing to do so. Only 75% of those surveyed declared an interest in participation. Of course, participation in the activities of an SDO is time consuming and an investment – for many representatives, it seems to be almost a full‐time job. Some stakeholders may simply ignore the process and accept the outcomes that result. Others may find their own path.
Finally, it should be noted that 3GPP, the ITU, and specific industry associations, spanning both those for mobile operators, such as the GSMA, and those for verticals, such as 5GACIA, are seen as the preferred forums for the development of 6G standards by our respondents. However, this does not preclude the emergence of new forums in the future.
3.10 Conclusion
Alignment around standards has been key to the success of previous generations of mobile technology. This has delivered definitions of what is required for the delivery of the capabilities demanded by different stakeholders, based on the origination of IMTs by the ITU. While multiple approaches have been followed, convergence toward a single SDO took place for the realization of 5G.
But 5G itself changes this dynamic, as it is explicitly designed to fulfil multiple services. Consequently, it has given rise to an expanded ecosystem. 6G will accelerate this process, as more stakeholders are drawn to the discussions. 5G created this possibility because it is multiservice and driven by API interaction – which both widens the ecosystem further and opens the gate to further innovation for specific needs that deviate from agreed specifications.
In addition, regional and political pressures have been exposed. These have already proven to be disruptive and are unlikely to ease in the foreseeable future. Because of the lengthy time that it takes to create standards, efforts must start soon after IMT‐2030 has been approved – which means that alternative paths, if they are to emerge, must do so soon.
As a result, it is by no means certain that there will be a single 6G framework. Indeed, it seems much more likely that, while there will be a uniform set of requirements, there may also be different approaches and initiatives that enable these to be met. That means that as things stand, while there will be a clear, 3GPP‐driven path, there may also be others to meet the same goals.
To summarize, we have reviewed key factors that will influence standardization of 6G:
1 The IMT process – there is now no reason why 3GPP should be sole arbiter.
2 A new, highly fragmented ecosystem – which means there may simply be too many stakeholders for 3GPP to deliver a single set of new standards.
3 Mounting political pressure to find alternatives to HRVs – which suggests geographic realignment and – just possibly, the revival of 3GPP2 (or something very much like it) as a counterweight to 3GPP, which is seen as being too open to satisfy some governments.
4 Economic pressure for some economies to move early toward 6G performance, once IMT‐2030 is available, with the result that national standardization efforts could be pursued – faster than the planned 3GPP timeline (see Figure 3.2).
5 New industry groups promoting open products that may support specific national initiatives and national champions and which could deviate from the current standards path, in order to accelerate 6G deployment.
6 New open APIs rather than protocols – there isn’t a standard, which suggests future innovation and increasing diversity.
7 Recognition from within the industry that political pressure is now a major factor and that some industry voices may struggle to be heard, perhaps leading to yet more bodies to help ensure their needs are met, as previously