news


BT and Vodafone happy with Huawei removal timetable

Speaking to the House of Commons Defence Sub-Committee, both BT and Vodafone have suggested the 2027-end deadline to remove all Huawei 5G equipment is satisfactory.

Removing Huawei from the network is similar to asking an IT technician to run a marathon. If the race is tomorrow, it will be an absolute disaster, but if enough time has been afforded to prepare, it is much more likely to be successful.

This is effectively what the 2027-end deadline is for the telecoms operators. It is an opportunity to consider the engineering complexities of reimagining the network, a timeline which gives the best chance at minimising disruption. Let’s not forget, network deployment is not only incredibly expensive, but it is a bureaucratic nightmare and very time consuming.

Ericsson seems to be the winner in the short- and mid-term, though the OpenRAN ecosystem should certainly be getting more investment in the UK.

“We are happy on the decision for 2027 because it gives us time to do that swap without major disruption to our networks and enables us to have time to develop the OpenRAN ecosystem as an alternative supplier,” said Petty. “Any time shorter than that it would be difficult to complete the engineering task without disrupting the network.”

“We welcome the clarity, and we welcome the fact 2027 has been discussed,” said Watson. “We had a lot of conversations with Government about the possibility of doing that more quickly, and in all case concluded this would create significant network outages for customers, effectively blackouts across 2G and 3G as well as the 5G network.”

But what politicians and rule makers will have to understand is that this is not only a question about 5G networks. 5G cannot be isolated from 4G in UK networks in the way some would imagine; any material changes to 5G would force some very big alterations to the 4G network.

“We have been deploying 5G radio access network on top of our 4G network,” said Petty. “5G today is called non-standalone mode and depends on the underlying 4G network to be deployed.”

“We have been rolling out using the non-standalone solution, which means the 5G equipment is inextricably linked to the underlying 4G network,” said Watson. “Because I [BT] initially launched in the more urban areas of the UK, and that is coincidentally where I have most of my Huawei 4G kit, we do have quite a bit of work to do now to start swapping out 5G/4G kit from Huawei to alternative vendors.”

Both are working with Nokia, and Ericsson makes up the remaining 65% of Vodafone’s network, while Watson said BT is working through trials with the Swedes. The current supplier ecosystem should be sufficient to meet the 35% limitation on ‘high risk vendors’ by 2023, but there will need to be more diversity in the supplier ecosystem should these telecoms operators want a healthy equation in 2027.

“We would like to see further diversification of the supply chain, and we began trialling OpenRAN technology in the UK in a number of rural sites, and we are working with the Government and a number of other operators to drive scale in the OpenRAN environment to make an opportunity to create further diversification,” said Petty.

Huawei and ZTE are out of the question, while Samsung has already ruled itself out by not supporting 2G and 3G technologies. For healthy competition in the UK supply chain, the OpenRAN ecosystem becomes very important. A lot of eggs are being placed in a disproportionately hyped basket for the moment.

  • Private Networks in a 5G World

  • 5G Networking Digital Symposium

  • Telecoms.com LIVE: Getting the Best out of 5G

  • 5G Ecosystem Digital Symposium

  • 2020 Vision Executive Summit

  • TechXLR8

  • BIG 5G Event

  • 5G World

  • 5G Latin America


3 comments

  1. Avatar Jerome 30/07/2020 @ 4:53 pm

    Telecoms more and more becoming a platform spreading the fake news. I believe under this horrible changes, vendors would rather stay quiet to see what’s next instead of telling a vision as above, especially for Vodafone, a long time advocator for British’s leading role for 5G. Apparently, it’s the author itself telling a story from his own imagination trying to set a tone to fool general public and the industry. Certainly the author try to use tactics making the story sounds reasonable but it is just a twisted story.

  2. Avatar Jerome 31/07/2020 @ 12:52 am

    The examples I can give yo you is 1. Telecoms was echoing WSJ faked report that if EU follow suit on British decision then China will retaliate on Erricsson and Nokia on parts they rely on China. That was totally false which was trying to angry EU countries. 2. Similar report on French comments which was false too , which was trying to create a chilly and ripple effect on hwawei situation of being sabotage from trump administration.

  3. Avatar Jerome 02/08/2020 @ 9:07 am

    Even though I am pro China, I do not agree hwahwei dominant too much on world 5G market. However pompal’s hyporcryct behaviour to quell hwahwei makes me angry.

    As matter of fact, Open ran is a good idea but the trade off is the security. However open ran is related to outer of 5g not related to the core system to the base station.

    Why do you say hwahwei and ZTE is out of the consideration, which is totally untrue. In either 2 ways hwahwei is the front runner. 1. If telecom vendor do not want open ran, hwahwei is all ready, since hwahwei has its typical IoT ready. In their non-official but employees to friends conversation, they have completed testing in some cities. Good about their IoT is that every commercial equipment to be fit to the application only follow their simple protocol to use and that only requires simple hardware plugins. And every equipments function can be different by settings for security and competition. 2. In case vendor want to use open ran, fine, vendor can use open source to have third parties to program those open code. I bet 9 of 10 software developer or vendor want to use hwahwei hardware and infurstrutrue as a front end control. If you you want to use open ran methodology, those front end piece of telecom hardware got to be opened too.

    Hwahwei hardware is much cheaper and have the highest quality in terms of stability and efficiency, and their engineers are 24 hours ready to solve problems for a local customers site.

    From above, I do not know why do you say hwahwei and GTE is out of consideration. If a country want to use open ran, actually it give more chance for hwahwei to compete in the outer equipments. Once you decide to use open ran, with open source, the vendor and the customer is free to choose their front end equipments.

    However, open ran can only open to some extent, or cities will be in a chose, since it will attract 100 time more hacking and virus attack any place from the globe, just like computer virus. The other shortcoming is building time and speed, open ran definitely will take another five years to catch up and any one use it, the speed, efficiency and stability will be down graded too.

    The perfect solution is to build a complete 5g central system in 1 to 3 years which includes a fast smart phone environment, then utilizes their open ran system provided to cope with future needs for small businesses, but I worry it will be removed eventually for security reason.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Polls

What would be the future role of satellite communications?

Loading ... Loading ...