Although both mobile operators and the Wi-Fi industry declared victories following the World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC-23) in Dubai last December, the agreement allows for both licensed and unlicensed operations in the 6GHz band. This differs from the two most prominent schools of spectrum, American and Chinese, where the 6GHz spectrum is predominantly allocated to Wi-Fi services or 5G. However, it aligns with the European strategy of facilitating coexistence between International Mobile Telecommunications (IMT) and Wi-Fi technologies.

Among the countries that have delicensed both the upper and lower 6GHz bands are the United States, Canada, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, and South Korea. The other group, which includes the European Union, the United Kingdom, and many others has delicenced only the lower 6GHz band. Conversely, China allocated a significant portion of its 6GHz spectrum to 5G in 2023, positioning itself at the forefront of enabling 5G (and, eventually, 6G) technology.

The EU considers the allocation of the 6GHz band crucial for boosting 5G deployment and aims for a hybrid solution where Wi-Fi and International Mobile Telecommunications (IMT) can coexist. Final decisions are expected by 2026, with Europe likely providing early insights into the technical feasibility of this coexistence.

Proponents of delicensing the 6GHz band argue that it enables the use of spectrum bands more flexibly, without the constraints of specific services. They emphasize the preference for Wi-Fi over 5G in home internet settings and suggest that delicensing Wi-Fi could lower internet costs in remote areas, as Wi-Fi 6 and Wi-Fi 6E use existing, therefore less expensive technology. Additionally, they point to Wi-Fi 6E’s capacity for speeds up to 9.6 Gbps, three times faster than current standards, and its superior performance in crowded settings. Moreover, Wi-Fi 6E is noted for its energy efficiency (attributed to built-in power-saving features) and adaptability to challenging geographical landscapes.

Proponents of allocating the 6GHz spectrum to International Mobile Telecommunications (IMT) and specifically to 5G highlight different benefits. They stress that such an allocation would significantly increase bandwidth and capacity, leading to improved quality of service. 5G, designed to deliver speeds up to 10 Gbps, would benefit from the 6GHz with reduced latency, which is crucial for applications that require real-time responsiveness, such as autonomous driving and telemedicine. Additionally, 5G supports up to a million connected devices per square kilometer, an essential feature for the Internet of Things (IoT) ecosystem.

Both technologies have specific uses: Wi-Fi 6 E is ideal for smart homes, virtual reality, and large-scale events, while 5G excels in autonomous vehicles, telemedicine, and industrial Internet of Things applications. Each has its competitive advantages. 5G typically covers a more comprehensive geographical range than Wi-Fi 6E and can be used both indoors and outdoors. 5G offers slightly faster speeds, whereas Wi-Fi 6E requires less investment in infrastructure.

As governments worldwide ponder the future of the 6GHz spectrum and experts question the benefits versus the costs, many political questions need to be addressed.

Providing affordable connectivity in remote areas is a complex challenge, and there are no clear answers to the best solution. In the past, smaller and geographically flatter countries have found straightforward solutions for mobile connectivity, such as state investment in backbone infrastructure and facilitating last-mile access for commercial use. Larger countries with complex topography face challenges on an entirely different scale, especially in developing markets.

Originally published here

The Consumer Choice Center are wondering if the EU’s recent AI Act will actually encourage innovation, or put the brakes on it. Given the crossover in compliance between the UK FCA regs and EU legislation this stuff matters, as it’s hard for start-ups to effectively go it alone on AI compliance. Here’s the word;

On February 2, the European Union’s ambassadors green lit the Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act). Next week, the Internal Market and Civil Liberties committees will decide its fate, while the European Parliament is expected to cast their vote in plenary session either in March or April.

The European Commission addressed a plethora of criticism on the AI Act’s potential to stifle innovation in the EU by presenting an AI Innovation package for startups and SMEs. It includes EU’s investment in supercomputers, statements on Horizon Europe and Digital Europe programs investing up to €4 billion until 2027, establishment of a new coordination body – AI Office – within the European Commission.

Egle Markeviciute, Head of Digital and Innovation Policies at the Consumer Choice Center, responds:

“Innovation requires not only good science, business and science cooperation, talent, regulatory predictability, access to finance, but one of the most motivating and special elements – room and tolerance for experimentation and risk. The AI Act is likely to stifle the private sector’s ability to innovate by moving their focus to extensive compliance lists and allowing only ‘controlled innovation’ via regulatory sandboxes which allow experimentation in a vacuum for up to 6 months,” said Markeviciute.

“Controlled innovation produces controlled results – or lack thereof. It seems that instead of leaving regulatory space for innovation, the EU once again focuses on compensating this loss in monetary form. There will never be enough money to compensate for freedom to act and freedom to innovate,” she added.

Read the full text here

The United Kingdom’s Minister for Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Intellectual Property Jonathan Berry, 5^th Viscount Camrose, has thankfully reaffirmed Britain’s rational approach to AI regulation. The UK was already 3rd in global AI research and home to a third of Europe’s AI businesses. It is now well-positioned to become a global innovation hub and a world example of how to regulate this emergent field.

While the current European Union’s approach to AI rules often breeds frustration and distrust among industry leads, the UK’s model, introduced earlier this year, creates an atmosphere conducive to discovery and experimentation while remaining aware of the risks AI may bring.

Britain is refreshingly open about the fact that rushed attempts to regulate would not bring the desired result and run the risk of stifling innovation. Secretary of State at the Department for Science, Innovation & Technology Michelle Donelan describes the UK’s innovation-focused approach as “common sense and outcomes-oriented”. In her words, AI is one of five key technologies of the future oriented toward promoting the public good.

Much like Singapore, the UK favors partnering with innovators over introducing hasty regulations and governs AI through various existing laws and standards. While unified AI regulation could eventually be beneficial, it requires careful consideration and testing before implementation.

The UK’s framework focuses on three key objectives to kickstart the engine of discovery: facilitating responsible innovation and reducing regulatory uncertainty to boost growth; enhancing public trust in AI through clear principles; and reinforcing the UK’s position as a global AI leader.

One of the ways the UK strives to collaborate with innovators is the AI regulatory sandbox. Regulatory sandboxes are one of the best catalysts of invention and business development. They support innovators in helping them access the market, test the regulatory framework’s operation in access, eliminate unnecessary barriers, and identify emerging technology and market trends where legislation needs to adapt.

The UK’s current framework-oriented approach does not necessarily mean they will refrain from regulating AI in the future. Instead, Britain pledges to invest more time and effort in understanding both the technology and the risks it brings before moving on to more specific regulation while providing time and space for innovators to scale.

The UK’s aim to be a global AI leader is a goal shared by countries like the US, Canada, China, Israel, and the UAE. Achieving this requires strong R&D, data access, talent, infrastructure, financing, collaboration with major market players, a dynamic innovation ecosystem, a strong local market, and supportive regulatory and political environments.

Occupying 3rd place in AI research & and development and 4th in the Global Innovation Index, Britain has good prospects of becoming one of the leaders in the AI realm. With four of the top 10 global universities and a large number of STEM graduates, the UK’s academic sector excels in innovation and commercialization. The UK houses a third of Europe’s AI businesses and has invested £2.5 billion in AI since 2014, with over £1.1 billion earmarked for future AI initiatives. The UK’s AI sector currently employs 50,000 people and ranks 10th in the Global Talent Competitiveness Index. Initiatives like the Global Talent Visa, championed by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, aim to further boost the UK’s tech talent pool.

The UK Government’s regulatory approach is receiving a good market response so far – Google DeepMind, OpenAI, and Anthropic will grant early or priority access to their AI models for the UK government to assess their capabilities and safety risks, whereas Microsoft has recently announced a £2.5 billion investment in AI infrastructure and skills over the next 3 years.

It is important that the UK continues its pro-innovation approach and does not repeat the EU’s mistakes – where the scope of regulation became broader once it was handed to regulators who have never experienced the realities of this market for themselves.

The CEO and co-founder of French AI startup Mistral Arthur Mensch recently tweeted that the European Union’s AI Act in its early form was meant to be about product safety, and application regulation, yet currently proposes to regulate “foundational models”, the core technology of AI. What was once about cultivating exciting new prospects is now a significant obstacle to further innovation.

The UK, alongside Singapore, demonstrates progressive innovation policies, recognizing that AI and similar sectors are highly influenced by regulatory environments. These environments can either attract or repel tech companies, sometimes leading to regulatory circumvention, creating distrust and potential societal harm.

Nobel Prize laureate Milton Friedman once said that one of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.

Although it is logically easy to understand why some countries adopt stringent laws to deter potential negative outcomes, the practice has shown that the public sector’s humility in acknowledging its limited understanding of new technologies, combined with supportive actions rather than strict regulation, often yields more openness and better results – both for business and society.

Originally published here

The EU’s ‘Digital Decade’ faces challenges, including public sector delays, market overheating, and an additional price tag of at least €250 billion, which may hinder reform success across Europe. A more realistic and critical approach is needed, writes Eglė Markevičiūtė.

Eglė Markevičiūtė is the head of Digital & Innovation Policy for the Consumer Choice Center and the former Vice-Minister of Economy and Innovation of Lithuania.

The European Union is setting its sights on the future, one “five-year plan” at a time. Adopted in 2022, the EU’s “2030 Digital Compass: the European Way for the Digital Decade” has ignited discourse about Europe’s digital future and how to plan while not smothering technological innovation in the short term.

The European Commission has pledged a substantial commitment of over €165 billion toward these goals, but the European experience shows that money can’t buy a well-coordinated plan. The success of the Digital Decade hinges on unprecedented levels of coordination and reform at all levels between EU institutions and the Member States. Getting this right will prove to be anything but simple.

Member states had until October 2023 to craft businesses’ use of artificial intelligence strategic roadmaps for implementing the Commission’s plan, but most were already late. Hopes of a ten-year plan will likely be compressed into nearly half that, if not less.

The Commission states that the success of the Digital Decade relies on relevant political reforms, improvements in business environments, new financial incentives, and increased investments in digital technologies and infrastructure. From all estimates, that means at least an additional €250 billion to come close to these goals.

Key to all of this will be political reforms, which are far from easy. The Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) is a good illustration, with nearly twenty per cent of the €723 million allocated to digital reforms. Some countries, particularly smaller ones, are grappling with an overheated market response, where IT vendors are struggling to keep pace with the change. The current state of the EU’s single market regarding public procurement and complex procurement processes within member states prevents smooth cross-border business participation. This is all putting reform efforts at risk.

In the realm of compliance and public sector capacity, the Commission is aiming to implement a complicated set of regulations, including the Digital Services Act, Digital Markets Act, e-Privacy regulation, Artificial Intelligence Act, Data Governance Act, Data Act, Cybersecurity Act, the updated E-identity regulation (eIDAS 2), the updated Network and Information Security Directive (NIS2) and more. As exhaustive as this list may be for innovators and entrepreneurs, it also requires a significant expansion of public sector capacity, which some countries, especially the ones with smaller bureaucracies, have already been silently criticising.

One crucial point set in these plans is the EU’s digital sovereignty principle, including the need to foster EU-based business and apply digital sovereignty measures to high-risk suppliers for critical assets. The exclusion of technology from countries that pose a national security threat to the EU is long overdue. The experience of similar reforms in some member states demonstrates, however, that the exclusion process is problematic, given the global makeup of the ICT market. European alternatives like cloud computing are still minimal, and transitioning from existing solutions would impose financial, regulatory, and architectural burdens on EU countries.

As the plan suggests, doubling the number of European unicorns is daunting. The EU trails other economic areas significantly with just 249 unicorns in early 2023, while the US boasts 1,444 and China has 330. Baltic startups, in particular, face hurdles in complying with new EU regulations. Coupled with varying regulations across member states, this conspires to deter Eastern European and Baltic startups from pursuing opportunities and scaling within the bloc. Scaling tech startups relies heavily on access to talent, and while the European Commission wants to compete with Silicon Valley for talent, attracting digital talent from the Global South and other regions remains important and should be essential in addressing the continuous European brain drain to the United States.

The Digital Decade sets a high bar for innovation in quantum computing, AI, semiconductors, blockchain, and more. However, achieving technological breakthroughs means not just political support and financial incentives but also a profound shift in the mindset of European science institutions. Translating European academic excellence into commercialised, marketable products and services remains challenging. The European innovation ecosystem, designed to support the entire innovation lifecycle, is often characterised by fragmentation, politicisation, and a lack of accountability. Therefore, a heightened focus on education and science reforms is crucial for the Digital Decade’s ultimate success.

The EU’s Digital Decade is an ambitious vision for Europe’s future, with important targets in digital skills, business, infrastructure, and public e-services. Planning big and being ambitious has benefits, but given Europe’s grim experience in designing big, allocating substantial finances, yet overestimating bureaucratic and technological capacity and not reaching the desired goals should teach Europe to be more realistic and critical. Only critical, practical and transparent evaluation of member states’ capacity and individual aspirations would help avoid the usual outcomes.

Originally published here