6G radio drops complex signal shaping after gains proved too small to matter

6G migration: 5G-anchored dual connectivity is widely opposed, decision on 6G-anchored option deferred to 2026

The discussion centers on how 6G networks will be introduced while existing 5G (NR) networks are still operational. The goal is to define migration options that allow a smooth transition and good performance from day one, avoiding the complexity seen with 5G's many deployment options (SA, NSA, EN-DC). The moderator's summary shows a clear split in company positions.

A large coalition of companies, including NTT DOCOMO, Qualcomm, Verizon, Deutsche Telekom, Samsung, Lenovo, Apple, Vivo, Ericsson, Xiaomi, MediaTek, Nokia, Oppo, and ZTE, proposed that '5G-anchored dual connectivity (Option 2) should be precluded from further consideration.' They cite concerns over complexity, cost, and limited long-term benefits. A few companies, including Huawei, Orange, and Vodafone, expressed a preference to retain Option 2 for further study.

There is significant support for '6G-anchored dual connectivity (Option 1)' as a key performance enabler, particularly for combining low and high-frequency bands to meet day-one throughput targets. However, another group of companies, including Xiaomi, Ericsson, and CMCC, proposed excluding both Option 1 and Option 2, advocating for simplified migration without any new dual connectivity in 6G.

The moderator notes that 'the RAN plenary starts this study in March 2026 and will make a decision by September 2026 whether to expand WG SI scope to cover additional migration option(s).' No final decision was made at this meeting.

6G coverage targets align with 5G values, but data rates remain under discussion

The discussion focuses on defining the 'overall coverage' target for 6G, measured by Maximum Coupling Loss (MaxCL). MaxCL is the greatest signal loss a connection can endure while still delivering a service, defining the cell edge. A higher MaxCL means a device can be farther from the base station or in a deeper building. The group is debating two coverage levels: 'basic' for standard mobile broadband and 'extended' for IoT devices. Multiple companies submitted proposals for the specific MaxCL values and the associated minimum data rates at those cell-edge conditions.

Xiaomi proposed a basic coverage MaxCL of 143 dB with a downlink data rate of 1 Mbps (for a 2-antenna device) and an uplink of 30 kbps. For extended IoT coverage, they proposed 153 dB with 100 kbps downlink and 3 kbps uplink. CMCC, NTT DOCOMO, and Ericsson submitted similar proposals for these 143 dB and 153 dB targets, with slight variations in the associated data rates for devices with one or two receive antennas.

Qualcomm proposed keeping the basic coverage identical to 5G: 143 dB MaxCL, 1 Mbps downlink, but suggested doubling the 5G uplink rate to 60 kbps. For extended coverage, they proposed 153 dB with data rates one-tenth of the basic ones: 100 kbps downlink and 6 kbps uplink.

Huawei proposed a basic coverage target of 143 dB but with higher data rates: 2 Mbps downlink and 60 kbps uplink. For extended coverage, they suggested a range of 5 to 10 dB improvement (148 to 153 dB MaxCL), with data rates scaling down accordingly.

Vivo argued for more ambitious 'normal' coverage data rates, proposing options like 4 Mbps downlink / 100 kbps uplink at 140 dB MaxCL, or 40 Mbps / 1 Mbps at 130 dB. CATT suggested a very modest coverage improvement of 0 to 0.5 dB over 5G. MediaTek proposed that extended coverage functionality should apply to all 6G devices but be limited to frequency bands below 7 GHz (FR1).