I’m thrilled to sit down with Vladislav Zaimov, a seasoned telecommunications specialist whose deep expertise in enterprise telecommunications and risk management of vulnerable networks offers invaluable insights into the future of wireless technology. With the race for 6G already underway, Vladislav brings a unique perspective on why the U.S. must lead this charge, the critical role of spectrum policy, the lessons learned from 5G, and the global competition shaping this next frontier. In our conversation, we explore the intersection of innovation and national security, the challenges of setting global standards, and how past missteps can inform a stronger path forward for 6G.
How does leading in 6G technology impact the United States beyond just innovation?
Leading in 6G isn’t just about being at the forefront of tech—it’s a cornerstone for economic strength and national security. If the U.S. takes the helm, it means we control the infrastructure that powers everything from military communications to critical civilian systems. Being No. 1 ensures we’re not reliant on foreign tech, which could be a vulnerability in times of geopolitical tension. Plus, it positions American companies to drive global markets, creating jobs and fostering innovation right here at home.
What are the national security implications if the U.S. doesn’t take the lead in 6G development?
Falling behind in 6G could be a disaster for national security. If another country dominates, they could set standards that prioritize their own systems, potentially embedding backdoors or limiting interoperability with U.S. networks. That’s a direct risk to military and government operations. Moreover, losing the edge means our critical infrastructure—think power grids or emergency services—might depend on foreign-controlled tech, leaving us exposed to espionage or disruption during conflicts.
Why is spectrum policy such a pivotal factor in the push for 6G dominance?
Spectrum is the lifeblood of wireless tech. Without enough of it, especially in the mid-band range, you can’t deploy networks that deliver the speed and capacity 6G promises. Right now, the U.S. is lagging—projections show other nations could have far more spectrum allocated by the end of the decade. If we don’t prioritize spectrum policy, we’re essentially handicapping our operators before the race even starts. It’s about giving our industry the raw materials to build the future.
What can the U.S. government do to address the spectrum allocation gap compared to other countries?
The government needs to act fast by identifying and auctioning off more spectrum, particularly in the mid-band, which is ideal for 6G’s balance of coverage and speed. Legislation like recent bills that free up spectrum for commercial use is a start, but we need a long-term strategy. That includes working with federal agencies to repurpose underused frequencies and incentivizing innovation in spectrum-sharing tech to maximize what’s available. Collaboration between policymakers and industry is key to closing that gap.
How do you see global competition playing out in the lead-up to 6G, especially with regions like Asia moving aggressively?
Asia’s push for 6G is intense because many countries there see it as a way to cement their global tech leadership. They’re investing heavily in R&D and spectrum early on, driven by government support and a cultural emphasis on rapid tech adoption. Meanwhile, the U.S. has the talent and innovation but often gets bogged down by regulatory hurdles and fragmented policies. We need a unified national effort to match that aggression, or we risk being outpaced.
Why is it so crucial for American companies to play a bigger role in setting 6G standards?
Standards are the blueprint for how 6G will work globally. If American companies aren’t at the table, those standards could be shaped to favor foreign tech or exclude U.S. innovations, putting our industry at a disadvantage. Having a strong voice ensures the technology aligns with our capabilities and security needs. It’s not just about influence—it’s about protecting our interests and ensuring our networks aren’t built on someone else’s terms.
Reflecting on 5G, what do you think were the biggest missed opportunities, particularly with applications?
With 5G, we nailed the network rollout and device compatibility, but the killer apps never materialized as expected. The industry anticipated a wave of transformative use cases—like immersive AR or real-time IoT—but developers struggled with the cost and complexity of adapting to edge computing. We overestimated how quickly the ecosystem would catch up. It’s a reminder that tech alone isn’t enough; you need a robust app environment to drive adoption.
How can the U.S. avoid repeating the same mistakes with 6G that we saw with 5G?
For 6G, we need to focus on the ecosystem from day one. That means working with developers early to create applications that leverage 6G’s potential, like ultra-low latency or AI integration. We also need to avoid over-investing in unproven concepts before the market is ready, as we did with some 5G edge computing initiatives. A balanced approach—pairing infrastructure with practical use cases—will be critical to making 6G a success.
What is your forecast for the future of 6G and its impact on society?
I’m optimistic about 6G, but it’s going to be a long road. By the 2030s, I expect 6G to redefine how we interact with technology, enabling seamless integration of AI, holographic communication, and smart environments on a scale we can’t fully grasp yet. It could revolutionize industries like healthcare with remote surgeries or transportation with fully autonomous systems. But the societal impact hinges on whether we address equity in access and privacy concerns upfront. If done right, 6G could be the backbone of a truly connected world.
