For more than a decade, the global telecommunications industry has relied on a familiar narrative: each new generation of mobile technology will unlock new revenue streams, justify massive capital expenditure, and restore growth. That story is now wearing thin. As I have mentioned on many occasions, revenue growth across the sector has flattened, 5G has failed to deliver the transformative uplift promised by its proponents, and the looming discussion about 6G risks becoming an exercise in technological momentum rather than economic necessity.
The uncomfortable reality is that most consumers are perfectly satisfied with 4G. For everyday applications — messaging, video streaming, navigation, social media — performance differences between 4G and 5G are marginal at best. Many users have not even noticed when their devices switched to 5G. While there are legitimate efficiency gains within networks and some niche applications where low latency and higher capacity matter, these have not translated into broad-based revenue growth for operators.
This raises an unavoidable question: was the investment in 5G actually worthwhile?
5G: efficiency without monetisation
From an engineering perspective, 5G has delivered improvements. Spectrum efficiency is higher, networks are more flexible, and operators can manage traffic more intelligently. But efficiency gains do not automatically translate into higher revenues. In many cases, they simply reduce the cost per bit in a market where prices are already under intense competitive pressure.
The long-promised enterprise and industrial use cases — smart factories, autonomous vehicles, remote surgery — remain limited in scale. Private networks and fixed fibre connections often provide more reliable and cost-effective solutions for these environments. As a result, 5G’s commercial impact has been incremental rather than transformational.
Meanwhile, fixed broadband networks in many developed markets are nearing practical completion. Fibre-to-the-premises has reached a point where additional investment yields diminishing returns. Capacity constraints are no longer a pressing issue for most users, and these networks are likely to meet demand for decades to come.
Declining traffic growth changes the equation
One of the strongest justifications for generational upgrades has always been traffic growth. That logic is now breaking down. Mobile data growth peaked several years ago and is steadily declining. Even the rapid rise of artificial intelligence applications has not reversed this trend in public mobile networks. Outside of data-centre interconnect, traffic growth is no longer forcing operators into urgent capacity expansions.
This fundamentally challenges the assumption that a new mobile generation is required every ten years. If traffic growth is modest, coverage is largely complete, and customers are unwilling to pay more, the economic rationale for 6G becomes deeply questionable.
Capital is flowing elsewhere — and not to telecoms
At the same time, global investment in digital infrastructure is accelerating — but telecoms operators are capturing a shrinking share of it. Capital is pouring into hyperscalers, cloud platforms, and AI-driven data centres. These investments dwarf traditional telecoms capex and are reshaping the digital value chain.
Telecoms operators increasingly find themselves relegated to the role of connectivity providers for infrastructure owned and controlled by others. Even when they invest in AI-enabled data centres or edge facilities, their spending is modest compared to that of the hyperscalers. The centre of gravity has shifted decisively from networks to compute, software, and data.
This shift is not just financial; it is strategic. Control over platforms, applications, and AI models confers pricing power and influence. Connectivity, by contrast, has become commoditised.
Localised opportunity, structural decline
There are still areas where telecoms can play a meaningful role. High-density environments such as stadiums, campuses, ports, and industrial precincts may require localised, high-performance wireless connectivity. These hotspots can support specialised services and partnerships with enterprises and cloud providers.
However, these opportunities are selective and localised. They do not justify ubiquitous national rollouts of ever-more expensive mobile technologies. The future points towards targeted investment, sophisticated demand forecasting, and selective partnerships — not blanket generational upgrades.
Is 6G a solution in search of a problem?
Against this backdrop, 6G risks becoming a casualty of structural industry decline rather than a catalyst for renewal. Without a compelling, mass-market use case or a credible revenue model, 6G may struggle to attract investor support. Governments may fund research programs and standards bodies may push ahead, but operators will increasingly ask a hard question: who is going to pay for this?
If the answer is “no one”, then 6G may remain confined to laboratories, pilot projects, and marketing presentations.
A crossroads for the telecoms industry
The telecoms industry is approaching a strategic crossroads. One path leads to continued heavy investment in infrastructure with declining returns, justified by technological tradition rather than economic reality. The other requires a fundamental rethink of the industry’s role — shifting from owning ubiquitous networks to monetising specific assets, services, and partnerships.
The rise of AI has not revitalised telecoms; it has exposed their marginal position in the modern digital economy. Unless operators confront this reality, 6G will not rescue the industry. It may instead highlight just how far the centre of value creation has moved away from traditional telecommunications.
In that sense, the most important question is no longer when 6G will arrive — but whether the telecoms industry still has a clear reason to build it.
Paul Budde