Apple joins industry group working on 6G in North America

Posted:
in General Discussion edited November 2020
Apple and other prominent technology and networking companies have joined an industry group that's working to advance cellular technology in North America to 6G and beyond.

Credit: Andrew O'Hara, AppleInsider
Credit: Andrew O'Hara, AppleInsider


The Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS) on Thursday announced the addition of 11 Founding Members, including Apple, Charter, Google, VMWare, HP, and Cisco, among others.

"Designed to set the foundation for a vibrant marketplace for North American innovation in future generations of mobile technology, the Next G Alliance is named after its primary goal: to establish North American preeminence in the 5G evolutionary path and 6G development," ATIS said in a statement.

According to the group, its work "will encompass the full lifecycle of research and development, manufacturing, standardization and market readiness."

The new group added that it would be holding its first meeting on Monday, Nov. 16. In that meeting, members will set the group's overall direction and strategy.

Apple, for its part, has only just released its first batch of 5G-compatible iPhone models in October. All models of the iPhone 12 and iPhone 12 Pro lineup support mmWave 5G in the U.S., and sub-6GHz 5G elsewhere.

In September, AT&T CEO Jeff McElfresh revealed that the carrier is already working on 6G technology, though it's likely that the new generation of wireless connectivity won't be available for years to come.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 34
    How about focusing on brining a stable 5G network to the country with consistent speeds before starting on something that we won’t see for 6-10 years. 
    GeorgeBMac
  • Reply 2 of 34
    Wait until David Icke hears about this. 
  • Reply 3 of 34
    jimh2jimh2 Posts: 642member
    Considering 5G is really unnecessary what is the point of working on 6G. if the primary goal is to improve range so that it will provide broadband access to rural areas and an alternate solution for those of us in single provider areas. I have two to pick from: Charter Cable -> 200/5 faster speed, but major reliability and outage issues*, CenturyLink: 40/3 and ultra-reliable (rarely goes out)

    *Advertised speed is never met and due to my coastal environment there are reliability and outage issues. There is a truck on my 1/4 mile dead end road multiple times per week and there are only 40 houses. I thought about switching because it was cheaper, but I'll take reliability over speed every time.

    Hoping sometime of cellular internet access will make it our way.
  • Reply 4 of 34
    M68000M68000 Posts: 783member
    So,  5G was no good?  (Sorry for the sarcasm but meant for fun)
  • Reply 5 of 34
    JapheyJaphey Posts: 1,770member
    jimh2 said:
    Considering 5G is really unnecessary what is the point of working on 6G. if the primary goal is to improve range so that it will provide broadband access to rural areas and an alternate solution for those of us in single provider areas. I have two to pick from: Charter Cable -> 200/5 faster speed, but major reliability and outage issues*, CenturyLink: 40/3 and ultra-reliable (rarely goes out)
    6g is will be important for holographic television and teleportation (think Star Trek). Oh, and 1 second movie downloads  :|
    DAalseth
  • Reply 6 of 34
    Japhey said:
    jimh2 said:
    Considering 5G is really unnecessary what is the point of working on 6G. if the primary goal is to improve range so that it will provide broadband access to rural areas and an alternate solution for those of us in single provider areas. I have two to pick from: Charter Cable -> 200/5 faster speed, but major reliability and outage issues*, CenturyLink: 40/3 and ultra-reliable (rarely goes out)
    6g is will be important for holographic television and teleportation (think Star Trek). Oh, and 1 second movie downloads  :|
    Excuse me ... this is a global standard, not an American one. 5G adoption has been much better in (developed) Asia and western Europe than in North America. Also, these standards take years to create the technology and protocols for. So yes, they were in fact working on 5G before the iPhone supported 4G. Indeed, the first large company to put a position paper out on 6G was Samsung about 6 months ago when they estimated that it should be ready by 2028.
    GeorgeBMac
  • Reply 7 of 34
    tmaytmay Posts: 6,437member
    cloudguy said:
    Japhey said:
    jimh2 said:
    Considering 5G is really unnecessary what is the point of working on 6G. if the primary goal is to improve range so that it will provide broadband access to rural areas and an alternate solution for those of us in single provider areas. I have two to pick from: Charter Cable -> 200/5 faster speed, but major reliability and outage issues*, CenturyLink: 40/3 and ultra-reliable (rarely goes out)
    6g is will be important for holographic television and teleportation (think Star Trek). Oh, and 1 second movie downloads  :|
    Excuse me ... this will be a global standard, not an American one.
    Fixed that for you.
  • Reply 8 of 34
    JapheyJaphey Posts: 1,770member
    cloudguy said:
    Japhey said:
    jimh2 said:
    Considering 5G is really unnecessary what is the point of working on 6G. if the primary goal is to improve range so that it will provide broadband access to rural areas and an alternate solution for those of us in single provider areas. I have two to pick from: Charter Cable -> 200/5 faster speed, but major reliability and outage issues*, CenturyLink: 40/3 and ultra-reliable (rarely goes out)
    6g is will be important for holographic television and teleportation (think Star Trek). Oh, and 1 second movie downloads  :|
    Excuse me ... this is a global standard, not an American one. 5G adoption has been much better in (developed) Asia and western Europe than in North America. Also, these standards take years to create the technology and protocols for. So yes, they were in fact working on 5G before the iPhone supported 4G. Indeed, the first large company to put a position paper out on 6G was Samsung about 6 months ago when they estimated that it should be ready by 2028.
    Excuse Me... everything you’re saying is obviously true, but did I suggest otherwise? 
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 9 of 34
    dewmedewme Posts: 5,534member
    How about focusing on brining a stable 5G network to the country with consistent speeds before starting on something that we won’t see for 6-10 years. 
    Companies like Apple have to get out ahead of these emerging standards that are still several years away from being widely adopted for several reasons. Here’s a few.

    1. If Apple (or name your favorite company) wants to be able to influence the new technology standard they need to get involved early, while the details are still being worked out. Oftentimes companies will participate in an attempt to steer the development of a standard in a direction that is better for their own self interests. 

    2. Other companies will participate in a defensive capacity, making sure they don’t get blocked out or put at a disadvantage. 

    3. Then there are the smaller players who are looking for something to help them provide a service to the larger players by taking on the small piece of the solution, perhaps providing compliance or certification testing, toolkits, prototyping equipment, etc. I’ve seen universities get involved early on at this level, to the point of having professors and grad students learning about the technology and getting the academic community involved. 

    4. These standards take a long time to develop.

    5. The up-front investment in people and money is affordable compared to the large investment that will come later on, when the technology is rolled into products. Think of the things Apple is doing now as an advanced scouting team. 
    tmay
  • Reply 10 of 34
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 3,426member
    7G is what I’m waiting for. That’s when all human brains will be linked via subspace radio to the Zuckerborg collective.
    GeorgeBMacJaphey
  • Reply 11 of 34
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    ...

    "Designed to set the foundation for a vibrant marketplace for North American innovation in future generations of mobile technology, the Next G Alliance is named after its primary goal: to establish North American preeminence in the 5G evolutionary path and 6G development," ATIS said in a statement.

    ...

    So this is about geopolitical issues -- politics on a global scale?

    Sorry tech guys -- but that's not how innovation works.
    Globally it's all survival of the fittest -- you don't get to bully your way to prosperity.

    Ultimately, the guy with the better mouse trap will win -- and the fools will lose.   Ultimately they always do.
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 12 of 34
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,884member
    A move in the right direction for sure.

    The US got caught with its pants around its ankles on 5G and flayed around in trying to stop competitors advancing. 

    The Chinese have already launched a 6G satellite for testing of some elements. The likes of Huawei are already working on 6G advances, as well as what it calls 5.5G.

    The only way you can have a say in the future is by sitting on standards boards. This is Huawei got polar codes approved. 

    The results of this move will take years to come to fruition and Apple has traditionally had zero expertise in the field but they started hiring a lot of Qualcomm engineers and they will no doubt play an important role. 
    GeorgeBMac
  • Reply 13 of 34
    dewmedewme Posts: 5,534member
    Ultimately, the guy with the better mouse trap will win -- and the fools will lose.   Ultimately they always do.
    I wish this was true with standards, but when it comes to technical standards it’s often more about adoption. The standards that have higher rates of adoption, for whatever reasons, are the ones that tend to prevail. Trying to move a large installed base away from one standard to another standard is very difficult. One common mitigation strategy to help move the herd is to provide backward compatibility with the entrenched standard. 
    edited November 2020 tmay
  • Reply 14 of 34
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    dewme said:
    Ultimately, the guy with the better mouse trap will win -- and the fools will lose.   Ultimately they always do.
    I wish this was true with standards, but when it comes to technical standards it’s often more about adoption. The standards that have higher rates of adoption, for whatever reasons, are the ones that tend to prevail. Trying to move a large installed base away from one standard to another standard is very difficult. One common mitigation strategy to help move the herd is to provide backward compatibility with the entrenched standard. 

    True!
    But if the development and implementation of the standard is based on geopolitic nationalism (as this article suggests when it says:  "its primary goal: to establish North American preeminence") rather than being rooted in science, technology and common benefit, the standard won't be a standard.   It will be just another proprietary flash in the pan that soon fades into non-existance.   There is little chance of others committing to something because the U.S. told them to.

  • Reply 15 of 34
    dewmedewme Posts: 5,534member
    dewme said:
    Ultimately, the guy with the better mouse trap will win -- and the fools will lose.   Ultimately they always do.
    I wish this was true with standards, but when it comes to technical standards it’s often more about adoption. The standards that have higher rates of adoption, for whatever reasons, are the ones that tend to prevail. Trying to move a large installed base away from one standard to another standard is very difficult. One common mitigation strategy to help move the herd is to provide backward compatibility with the entrenched standard. 

    True!
    But if the development and implementation of the standard is based on geopolitic nationalism (as this article suggests when it says:  "its primary goal: to establish North American preeminence") rather than being rooted in science, technology and common benefit, the standard won't be a standard.   It will be just another proprietary flash in the pan that soon fades into non-existance.   There is little chance of others committing to something because the U.S. told them to.

    In my opinion. if the goal of a "standard" is exclusionary in any way then it is, by definition, not a standard. I've contributed to 4 international standards getting through the standardization process and each one was backed and ratified by an international standards organization, either ISO, IEC, or IEEE, but usually more than one of these organizations. I know that some promotors of standards, e.g., Microsoft, have pushed standards through organizations that were less than international in scope, like ECMA, but even then it wasn't driven by any sort on nationalism campaign. 

    That's my perspective, which is biased towards international standards. I guess if you want to be very precise you can say that the scope and validity of a standard only extends to the scope defined by the standards organization that sanctions the standard. If you can get your "standard" sanctioned by Joe's Barber Shop and feel that this buys you some level of credibility, I'm not going to argue the point. Your standard is only as good as the standards organization that backs it.

    I recently threw away an expanded memory board that was backed by the Lotus-Intel-Microsoft (LIM) standard. Take that standard to the bank and see what it's worth.
    edited November 2020
  • Reply 16 of 34
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    dewme said:
    dewme said:
    Ultimately, the guy with the better mouse trap will win -- and the fools will lose.   Ultimately they always do.
    I wish this was true with standards, but when it comes to technical standards it’s often more about adoption. The standards that have higher rates of adoption, for whatever reasons, are the ones that tend to prevail. Trying to move a large installed base away from one standard to another standard is very difficult. One common mitigation strategy to help move the herd is to provide backward compatibility with the entrenched standard. 

    True!
    But if the development and implementation of the standard is based on geopolitic nationalism (as this article suggests when it says:  "its primary goal: to establish North American preeminence") rather than being rooted in science, technology and common benefit, the standard won't be a standard.   It will be just another proprietary flash in the pan that soon fades into non-existance.   There is little chance of others committing to something because the U.S. told them to.

    In my opinion. if the goal of a "standard" is exclusionary in any way then it is, by definition, not a standard. I've contributed to 4 international standards getting through the standardization process and each one was backed and ratified by an international standards organization, either ISO, IEC, or IEEE, but usually more than one of these organizations. I know that some promotors of standards, e.g., Microsoft, have pushed standards through organizations that were less than international in scope, like ECMA, but even then it wasn't driven by any sort on nationalism campaign. 

    That's my perspective, which is biased towards international standards. I guess if you want to be very precise you can say that the scope and validity of a standard only extends to the scope defined by the standards organization that sanctions the standard. If you can get your "standard" sanctioned by Joe's Barber Shop and feel that this buys you some level of credibility, I'm not going to argue the point. Your standard is only as good as the standards organization that backs it.

    I recently threw away an expanded memory board that was backed by the Lotus-Intel-Microsoft (LIM) standard. Take that standard to the bank and see what it's worth.

    That's interesting! 
    But I was merely responding to the excerpt in the article which I quoted above.  To me it made it appear that this supposedly international standard was being driven by the U.S. for the benefit of the U.S. -- which told me that it was international in name only. 

    Recently the U.S. has begun to believe that it can dictate what the rest of the world does and how they do it.  It may get some head nods at first but it doesn't work well over the long term.
  • Reply 17 of 34
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,884member
    By pure coincidence...

    I mentioned the importance of standards board participation in the case of polar codes.

    Wired has just put up a fascinating read on the subject :

    https://www.wired.com/story/huawei-5g-polar-codes-data-breakthrough/
  • Reply 18 of 34
    tmaytmay Posts: 6,437member
    avon b7 said:
    By pure coincidence...

    I mentioned the importance of standards board participation in the case of polar codes.

    Wired has just put up a fascinating read on the subject :

    https://www.wired.com/story/huawei-5g-polar-codes-data-breakthrough/
    I really agree with this part of the story;


    "The rise of Huawei is painstakingly rendered in a small library of self-aggrandizing literature that the company publishes, including several volumes of quotes from its founder. The theme of this opus is hard to miss, expressed in a variety of fighting analogies. In one such description, Tian Tao, the company's authorized Boswell, quotes Ren on how the company competed against the powerful international “elephants” that once dominated the field. “Of course, Huawei is no match for an elephant, so it has to adopt the qualities of wolves: a keen sense of smell, a strong competitive nature, a pack mentality, and a spirit of sacrifice.”

    The hagiographies omit some key details about how the wolf got along. For one, they dramatically underplay the role of the Chinese government, which in the 1990s offered loans and other financial support, in addition to policies that favored Chinese telecom companies over foreign ones. (In a rare moment of candor on this issue, Ren himself admitted in an interview that Huawei would not exist if not for government support.) With the government behind them, Chinese companies like Huawei and its domestic rival ZTE came to dominate the national telecom equipment market. Huawei had become the elephant.

    Another subject one does not encounter in the company's library is the alleged use of stolen intellectual property, a charge the company denies. “If you read the Western media about Huawei, you will find plenty of people who say that everything from Huawei was begged, borrowed, or stolen. And there is absolutely no truth in that,” says Brian Chamberlin, an executive adviser for Huawei's carrier group. But in one notorious 2003 case, Huawei admitted using router software copied from Cisco, though it insisted the use was very limited, and the sides negotiated a settlement that was “mutually beneficial.” More recently, in February, the US Department of Justice filed a suit against the company charging it with “grow[ing] the worldwide business of Huawei … through the deliberate and repeated misappropriation of intellectual property.” The indictment alleges Huawei has been engaging in these practices since at least 2000.

    The Chinese government also provided support to help Huawei gain a foothold overseas, offering loans to customers that made Huawei's products more appealing. One of Huawei's biggest foreign competitors was Nortel, the dominant North American telecom company based in Canada. But Nortel's business was struggling just at a time when competition from Chinese products was intensifying. Then, in 2004, a Nortel security specialist named Brian Shields discovered that computers based in China, using passwords of Nortel executives, had been downloading hundreds of documents from the company. “There's nothing they couldn't have gotten at,” Shields says. Though no one ever publicly identified the hackers, and Ren denied any Huawei involvement, the episode added to the suspicion in the West that Huawei's success was not always achieved on the up and up."

    Not exactly a self made company.

  • Reply 19 of 34
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,884member
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    By pure coincidence...

    I mentioned the importance of standards board participation in the case of polar codes.

    Wired has just put up a fascinating read on the subject :

    https://www.wired.com/story/huawei-5g-polar-codes-data-breakthrough/
    I really agree with this part of the story;


    "The rise of Huawei is painstakingly rendered in a small library of self-aggrandizing literature that the company publishes, including several volumes of quotes from its founder. The theme of this opus is hard to miss, expressed in a variety of fighting analogies. In one such description, Tian Tao, the company's authorized Boswell, quotes Ren on how the company competed against the powerful international “elephants” that once dominated the field. “Of course, Huawei is no match for an elephant, so it has to adopt the qualities of wolves: a keen sense of smell, a strong competitive nature, a pack mentality, and a spirit of sacrifice.”

    The hagiographies omit some key details about how the wolf got along. For one, they dramatically underplay the role of the Chinese government, which in the 1990s offered loans and other financial support, in addition to policies that favored Chinese telecom companies over foreign ones. (In a rare moment of candor on this issue, Ren himself admitted in an interview that Huawei would not exist if not for government support.) With the government behind them, Chinese companies like Huawei and its domestic rival ZTE came to dominate the national telecom equipment market. Huawei had become the elephant.

    Another subject one does not encounter in the company's library is the alleged use of stolen intellectual property, a charge the company denies. “If you read the Western media about Huawei, you will find plenty of people who say that everything from Huawei was begged, borrowed, or stolen. And there is absolutely no truth in that,” says Brian Chamberlin, an executive adviser for Huawei's carrier group. But in one notorious 2003 case, Huawei admitted using router software copied from Cisco, though it insisted the use was very limited, and the sides negotiated a settlement that was “mutually beneficial.” More recently, in February, the US Department of Justice filed a suit against the company charging it with “grow[ing] the worldwide business of Huawei … through the deliberate and repeated misappropriation of intellectual property.” The indictment alleges Huawei has been engaging in these practices since at least 2000.

    The Chinese government also provided support to help Huawei gain a foothold overseas, offering loans to customers that made Huawei's products more appealing. One of Huawei's biggest foreign competitors was Nortel, the dominant North American telecom company based in Canada. But Nortel's business was struggling just at a time when competition from Chinese products was intensifying. Then, in 2004, a Nortel security specialist named Brian Shields discovered that computers based in China, using passwords of Nortel executives, had been downloading hundreds of documents from the company. “There's nothing they couldn't have gotten at,” Shields says. Though no one ever publicly identified the hackers, and Ren denied any Huawei involvement, the episode added to the suspicion in the West that Huawei's success was not always achieved on the up and up."

    Not exactly a self made company.

    Erm, the point was to highlight why it was a good move for Apple to have a role on standards boards and the influence of having a hand in shaping the technology of the future. That and because the story is fascinating in itself. 

    I mentioned polar codes but could have mentioned anything where standards are important. It was pure coincidence that this article came out now. 

    You made it something else entirely by focusing on something completely different.

    That's a bit sad but I'm sure most people will find the read interesting and informative all the same. 
    edited November 2020
  • Reply 20 of 34
    razorpitrazorpit Posts: 1,796member
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    By pure coincidence...

    I mentioned the importance of standards board participation in the case of polar codes.

    Wired has just put up a fascinating read on the subject :

    https://www.wired.com/story/huawei-5g-polar-codes-data-breakthrough/
    I really agree with this part of the story;


    "The rise of Huawei is painstakingly rendered in a small library of self-aggrandizing literature that the company publishes, including several volumes of quotes from its founder. The theme of this opus is hard to miss, expressed in a variety of fighting analogies. In one such description, Tian Tao, the company's authorized Boswell, quotes Ren on how the company competed against the powerful international “elephants” that once dominated the field. “Of course, Huawei is no match for an elephant, so it has to adopt the qualities of wolves: a keen sense of smell, a strong competitive nature, a pack mentality, and a spirit of sacrifice.”

    The hagiographies omit some key details about how the wolf got along. For one, they dramatically underplay the role of the Chinese government, which in the 1990s offered loans and other financial support, in addition to policies that favored Chinese telecom companies over foreign ones. (In a rare moment of candor on this issue, Ren himself admitted in an interview that Huawei would not exist if not for government support.) With the government behind them, Chinese companies like Huawei and its domestic rival ZTE came to dominate the national telecom equipment market. Huawei had become the elephant.

    Another subject one does not encounter in the company's library is the alleged use of stolen intellectual property, a charge the company denies. “If you read the Western media about Huawei, you will find plenty of people who say that everything from Huawei was begged, borrowed, or stolen. And there is absolutely no truth in that,” says Brian Chamberlin, an executive adviser for Huawei's carrier group. But in one notorious 2003 case, Huawei admitted using router software copied from Cisco, though it insisted the use was very limited, and the sides negotiated a settlement that was “mutually beneficial.” More recently, in February, the US Department of Justice filed a suit against the company charging it with “grow[ing] the worldwide business of Huawei … through the deliberate and repeated misappropriation of intellectual property.” The indictment alleges Huawei has been engaging in these practices since at least 2000.

    The Chinese government also provided support to help Huawei gain a foothold overseas, offering loans to customers that made Huawei's products more appealing. One of Huawei's biggest foreign competitors was Nortel, the dominant North American telecom company based in Canada. But Nortel's business was struggling just at a time when competition from Chinese products was intensifying. Then, in 2004, a Nortel security specialist named Brian Shields discovered that computers based in China, using passwords of Nortel executives, had been downloading hundreds of documents from the company. “There's nothing they couldn't have gotten at,” Shields says. Though no one ever publicly identified the hackers, and Ren denied any Huawei involvement, the episode added to the suspicion in the West that Huawei's success was not always achieved on the up and up."

    Not exactly a self made company.

    That's a bit sad but I'm sure most people will find the read interesting and informative all the same. 
    Agreed. It is sad Huamei’s success was not always achieved on the up and up. Hopefully Apple will ensure this does not happen on 6G.
    tmay
Sign In or Register to comment.