As we look ahead to the dawn of 6G technology, the focus is often on futuristic innovations, such as higher performance, implantable technology, and even closer integration with AI. Yet, a fundamental issue remains unsolved despite generations of advancements: reliable indoor connectivity.
This challenge is neither new nor insignificant. It persists largely due to the existing economic and organizational frameworks that dictate network development and management. Samian Kaur, Vice President of Wireless Network Engineering at Comcast, emphasizes that users value reliability and coverage over mere speed improvements, especially indoors where most data consumption occurs and failures are most noticeable.
Historically, networks have been optimized for what’s easily quantifiable, like peak speeds, which can be measured, marketed, and compared. However, the need for reliable indoor connectivity—which is more context-dependent and harder to assess—often gets sidelined. The limitations of metrics focusing solely on speed become apparent, particularly indoors where users spend significant amounts of time.
Indoor environments present a complex scenario involving multiple stakeholders, including mobile operators, enterprises, and landlords. Such environments do not fit neatly into a single accountability structure. Solutions from previous generations, like distributed antenna systems (DAS), have become obsolete alongside outdated assumptions. These systems are often left to decline as investment drops, despite continued need, because the responsibility for maintenance is unclear and misaligned with economic drivers.
As a result, indoor connectivity can be considered a structural orphan. It is essential for user experience and safety but remains misaligned with current capital expenditure priorities. While improved indoor coverage benefits everyone, it rarely attracts full investment from any single party. Partial solutions like Wi-Fi offload are common, but they fail to fully resolve the reliability issue. Wi-Fi offload, however, could play a significant role by aligning real-world use cases with a federated layer of indoor connectivity—sharing economic responsibilities and measurable performances among stakeholders.
Deferred costs extend beyond user inconvenience. Regulatory requirements for reliable indoor positioning are increasing. Moreover, applications and services expecting always-on connectivity are evolving. Buildings outlast network generations, leading to compounded technical issues with each reset.
Here’s where the idea of “federated” approaches becomes useful. Federation has successfully enabled participation without requiring singular ownership in cellular and Wi-Fi networks. Indoor connectivity, however, belongs nowhere cleanly. It exists where multiple systems overlap, and where ownership and accountability are unclear. This overlap is where current federated models falter, even within a single organization.
This is arguably an issue of alignment rather than technology. The telecommunications industry’s innovation in radio performance is evident. What’s lacking is a sustainable economic and organizational model for situations needing shared responsibility. As 6G ambitions continue to form, the challenge of indoor connectivity remains unsolved. The industry must determine whether it can effectively align technology, organization, and economics to bridge the indoor connectivity gap that generations have left unresolved.
