In close collaboration with:
Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management
5G in Mobility
Dutch market consultation results
Table of Contents
1 Introduction 3
2 Use cases 4
3 Network technology 5
4 Business case 7
5 Deployment 8
6 Main policy findings 9
1 Introduction
In December 2018, the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management, in cooperation with the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy, and the Radiocommunications Agency Netherlands, published a market consultation “5G in Mobility”. That document encompassed a set of questions regarding how 5G
technology could be made successful in the domain of mobility, traffic and transport (urban and inter-urban). In total, 19 different responses were received from individual organisations as well as member organisations representing a substantial number of
parties. The combined responses provided a representative insight into the opinions of stakeholders from the automotive, telecom, ITS (Intelligent Transport Systems) and public sectors. No responses were received from (representatives of) individual users and/or
consumers, although this type of respondents was one of the target
groups of the consultation.
4 | 5G in Mobility Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management
2 Use cases
The presented draft roadmap1 listed and described the following use cases: emergency brake light, intersection safety, vulnerable road user protection, enhanced asset management (smart lighting, monitoring of bridges and rail crossings), remote vehicle control, see-through behind truck / bus, and swarm intelligence to optimize traffic flow.
The fundamental message we abstracted from the responses received and corresponding follow-up discussions is that most of these use cases do not necessarily need 5G for their realisation from a latency and/or bandwidth perspec- tive. This could change if aspects such as flexibility, customization and resilience are weighed in, or if the increased load on the network when scaling up the initial deployment is considered. But from aforementioned latency and/or bandwidth perspective and according to the received responses it is basically possible for each listed use case to either find already existing implementations based on 4G and/or ITS-G5, or at least to design one. This is driven by the fact that each use case can be defined at different requirement levels and from different aspects, and
henceforth can be realised in different ways with 4G, 5G or ITS-G5 based technologies. Another fundamental message is that a broad majority of responses stressed the importance of more detailed specifications of the use cases. In that respect, 5G is seen as a network technology generation which allows improvements in use cases over time (in terms of quality, usability, reliability under all circumstances, etc.) rather than as a critical or sole enabler for the start. A distinction between 5G and non-5G use cases is therefore considered artificial at this point in time for lack of detailed specifications.
With respect to the list of use cases presented in the draft roadmap, a variety of use cases were acknowledged and welcomed by various respondents as well as a range of opinions and suggestions about specific new use cases that could or should be added to the roadmap by the Ministries. The impact indications per use case as indicated in the consultation were generally acknowledged, but here also a detailed analysis on the level of impact in combina- tion with a thorough further specification per use case was recommended by the respondents.
Both Ministries, Radiocommunications Agency and Rijkswaterstaat (which was included in the analysis of the consultation responses as an important public stakeholder) also wish to express their gratitude to all respondents for the time and effort they have invested in participating in this consultation. With several of these respondents follow up interviews have been held or will be held in the next weeks or months.
Next steps will include an update and revision of the initial Roadmap, using all received input and insights.
An update is planned during the summer of 2019. And careful consideration and decision making on further actions regarding possible trials, deployment and investment strategies (regarding future road infrastruc- ture for traffic and mobility) as well as policy making.
This will be an ongoing process in the coming years with regular updates. Parties that wish to be kept informed about those further steps taken are kindly invited to
communicate this request to wim.vandenberghe@
minienw.nl.
The remainder of this executive summary presents the prevalent themes in the received answers. It discloses consensus or a lack thereof on various topics (not on the individual responses). These topics have been clustered in the following four categories to improve readability: use cases, network technology, business case and deployment.
The main policy findings are bundled in the last section of this executive summary. Please note that there is a more detailed analyses available that includes the results of every individual analysis in the consultation. As mentioned in the consultation document, that document will only be distributed to the respondents of this consultation. This executive summary is however distributed more widely.
Also note that all (parts of ) responses classified as confidential have been excluded from disclosure; we sincerely appreciate the trust that respondents accorded us.
1 5G in Mobility – Draft Roadmap; Dutch implementation roadmap v0.9 (draft); Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management (DG Mobility), in close collaboration with the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy (DG for Enterprise & Innovation); 21 December 2018, available on https://www.tenderned.nl/papi/tenderned-rs-tns/publicaties/156438/documenten/4078011/content
Respondents did not identify a real “winner application”
(defined as an application that is so necessary or desirable that it by itself proves the core value of some larger technology). The consensus among the respondents is that the initial focus should be on safety related use cases as they can prove their societal value first. See also paragraph 4 below with regards to business cases and revenue streams.
Several technical challenges (but outside 5G scope) and non-technical challenges that could prevent use cases becoming a reality, have been mentioned. Particular challenges are the use of spectrum in the 5.9 GHz band, insight in the exact role of the government as financial aggregator in the business case (stimulating adoption through legislation, tax regulation or public investments), how to enlarge the involvement of the automotive industry in the Netherlands, how to reach a high penetration of adopted services, and so forth. We value these thoughts and opinions very much as essential building blocks for future policy and deployment strategies.
3 Network technology
With respect to the collection of 5G techniques listed in the consultation, various respondents in the telecom domain indicated that most of them do not exclusively
belong to 5G. In general, the responses made clear that the distinction between advanced 4G and 5G is not as sharp as often is suggested in the media. The only exception is New Radio (NR), which is a part of the suite of 5G techniques that focuses on improvements in the radio access part of the mobile network and that is seen as a clear 5G technology. But the larger suite of 5G techniques are steps on a road towards full 5G deployment at the most advanced level. Overall, 5G is seen more as an evolution from today’s technologies than as a revolu- tion. With each evolutionary step geared towards its own particular use and benefits. Other specific networking technqiues were also suggested that could be added to the list of 5G techniques.
The expectiation and/or industry strategy of a gradual deployment of 5G technology is confirmed by the received responses. Sequence and timing is mainly driven by market demand (business case), application require- ments, 3GPP (3rd Generation Partnership Project) standardization progress, and local circumstances (availability of spectrum and devices, complexity of site construction permit procedures, possibilities for usage of public real estate, etc.). Geographically speaking, it is expected that New Radio deployment will focus on cities in a first phase, and on highways in a second phase (the combination of both was not explicitely mentioned, but seems reasonable also taking the Dutch road infrastructure into account). Rural rollout was rarely mentioned.
6 | 5G in Mobility Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management From a technical perspective no dependencies were
mentioned that need to be solved before a 5G roll out could be started. However, from a non-technical perspective several dependencies were mentioned mainly related to deployment and business case challenges. A non-exhaus- tive list of such mentioned dependencies is:
• availability of 5G technology in user equipment (vehicles and personal devices);
• availability of spectrum;
• availability of a slice dedicated to mobility applications and crossing multiple mobile network operators;
• availability of sufficient connected roadside infrastructure such as intelligent traffic lights and connected variable message signs;
• more clarity on the business case for all stakeholders.
Availability of use cases and clarity on prefered communi- cation technology and deployment timelines of vehicle and roadside stakeholders would help mobile network operators. Better insights in business models and service responsibilities regarding short range V2V (Vehicle to Vehicle) solutions would help the ITS sector;
• public-private collaboration models to lower the capital expenditure (CAPEX) cost for 5G deployment (e.g. by providing mobile network operators access to public fibre, power and constructions), improved regulation for site construction (relaxation of limits on antenna heights, optimized process for handling building permit
requests).
The technology clustering proposed in the consultation was kindly criticised by multiple respondents. The clustering proposal of 3GPP (Enhanced Mobile Broadband, Ultra Reliable Low Latency Communications, Massive Machine Type Communications) was suggested as more appropriate. As stated above, it is recognised that a majority of the use cases, generic and/or abstract as they are defined today, is at the moment considered to not require 5G and New Radio in particular for their initial deployment. But New Radio in combination with sufficient spectrum is mentioned as possibly valuable to guarantee network performance (available throughput, maximum latency, reliability, etc.) when scaling up these first deployments, and hence increasing its corresponding load on the network
over time. However, no references were made regarding the expected tipping point where the increased burden on the 4G network could become too high and 5G and New Radio in particular would be needed for further upscaling (if at all). It also became clear during several follow-up discussions that the different 5G techniques can also positively influence other network quality aspects besides latency and throughput, such as flexibility, customization possibilities and resilience. These were not mentioned as attributes in the consultation document, and were consequently only sparesely mentioned in the received responses. But it became clear that it is important to also start taking these network characteristics into account when determining the added value that 5G technology could bring to use cases in the mobility domain.
The value of short range communication is recognized in many responses, including responses from the telecom sector. Short-range and long-range are seen in the respons- es as complimentary technologies, each with their own pros and cons. Having them both also provides redundancy. Next to ITS-G5, the cellular short-range flavours (LTE-V2X and NR-V2X) are often presented as valuable short-range technology. Although not explicitely questioned in the cosultation, the responses confirmed that there is still no consensus among the respondents on the most pre- ferred short-range technology, neither in terms of technical performance nor costs. These diverging views also resulted in conflicting opinions that were shared regarding the proposed C-ITS delegated regulation of the European Commission. Some parties indicated great concerns, while others stated that compliance is important. Co-existence between the two different short range technologies (ITS-G5 and cellular flavours) in the 5.9 GHz band is recognized as a challenge, causing fragmentation of the market and reduction of spectrum efficiency. It is recognized that at this point in time there is more experience gained with ITS-G5 through various pilots and trials. Some respondents use this fact as a motivitation to categorize ITS-G5 in a higher technology-readiness level than the cellular short-range flavours, while others use this fact to illustrate the speed in which this new cellular short-range technology is catching up by making use of earlier results of the C-ITS domain, and the potential they see in this cellular technology. Regarding LTE-V2X and NR-V2X most value is seen in the mode 4 approach, there is a lot of scepticism regarding mode 3. In mode 3 scheduling and interference management of V2V traffic is assisted by base stations. In other words, the 5G base station coordinates when each vehicle is allowed to
transmit its data on which subchannel. This means that V2V communication can only take place when the vehicles are in coverage of the same base station performing this coordina- tion function. In mode 4, scheduling and interference management of V2V traffic is supported based on distributed algorithms implemented between the vehicles. In other words, the vehicles jointly coordinate when each vehicle is allowed to transmit its data on which subchannel, without support from a base station. This means that V2V communi- cation can take place anywhere, even outside of mobile network coverage. Multiple respondents also mentioned that the 5.9 GHz band is not large enough to accommodate certain high-througput use cases (e.g. sharing of raw sensor data between vehicles). In general, a properly and more thoroughly defined ‘hybrid-connectivity’ playing field (both technical and non-technical) was considered valuable, as this could resolve some of the uncertainties that lead to the sort of pseudo-competition and clashing parties and opinions that respondents observe today.
Some questions in the consultation were intended to improve the understanding of the involved public bodies in certain detailed technical capabilities of 5G technology. The received responses provided the desired missing insights, e.g. regarding the difference between QoS (Quality of Service) and slicing, added value of Mobile Edge Computing (MEC), MEC service orchestration, mode 3 practical challenges, 5G positioning, etc. That better understanding will be usefull while drafting an update of the roadmap.
4 Business case
Respondents stated that by 2022 100% of new cars will likely be “connected” in US/EU/China (meaning these vehicles will be equipped with long-range Internet connectivity capabilities). However, some individual concerns were mentioned, but divergent opinions and estimations were observed, and none of these individual concerns contradicted their primary statement that 100% of new cars will be likely connected by 2022, as was estimated in earlier reports of the European Commission and others.
On a generic level a number of important cost items and cost drivers are identified but mostly not quantified (both capital expenditure (CAPEX) and operating expenses (OPEX) because the applicability of technologies
for the different use cases is considered too unclear at this moment and many network parameters are (therefor) involved and as yet unclear. Mentioned examples of CAPEX cost drivers are spectrum license costs, radio sites build costs, transmission costs, Mobile Edge Computing site build costs, etc.
It was mentioned that the CAPEX related to the radio access part in a 5G mobile network is strongly related to the frequency band used. In city areas where 3.5 GHz and 26 GHz will be used, base station densities are considerably higher than in rural areas where 700 MHz is more likely to be used.
Mentioned examples of OPEX cost drivers are maintenance, license costs and operational costs. Mobile Edge
Computing, New Radio and Network Slicing are considered to have a major impact on OPEX.
The responses received regarding potential revenue streams provided little detail, especially when it comes to quantification of revenues. The source of the revenue stream depends heavily on the specific use case. There is no single expected 5G revenue, but there are several revenue streams related to different 5G capabilities and use cases (for instance infotainment). In the context of mobility applica- tions, often a primary source of revenue is expected to be car owners, who will only be willing to pay if the additional benefit is high enough, or if there are legal requirements to do so. Some respondents perceive that safety benefits are often not valued high by consumers (at least not reflected in their willingness to pay additionally), these respondents believe that it is the government that should provide the funding to cover the consumer cost as they consider improving road safety as a task of the government. Some responses also referred to legislation and tax regulation as two alternatives to public investments for the government to stimulate the adoption of mobility use cases relying on 5G connectivity, and hence to improve the consumer revenue stream (see role of the government in the next section). When it comes to the government as a potential revenue stream for 5G solutions, Asset
Management as a Service was also mentioned as a business model where public cost savings might be realized while creating revenue in the 5G domain.
5 Deployment
The ecosystem as presented in the consultation docu- ment is perceived as a good starting point (none of the included stakeholders were considered inappropriate in the responses), but it is by some considered not complete as of yet.
Suggestions to include (more intensively) were e-bike and motorcycle OEMs, the logistics sector, the public transporta- tion sector, cyclists and pedestrians, the IT sector, member organisations, political parties and academia.
All respondents agreed with the vision of a gradual deployment. However, the actual timing in the presented draft roadmap was not broadly recognized. Especially nationwide deployment in 2023 was often considered to be too optimistic (especially for the nationwide deployment of all technologies and related functionality), or even not considered appropriate for inclusion in the roadmap due to the high level of uncertainty. The multi-track, multi-step approach was seen as an appropriate methodology though. It was also recognized as valuable to distinguish
between different (types of ) 5G techniques in the roadmap, and to build further on the fact that these will have different deployment timelines. It was also men- tioned several times that the actual timing of a nationwide deployment is mainly determined by the mobile network operatorss, automotive manufacturers and roadside infrastructure operators, based on their use case prefer- rences and policy goals. In fact, non of the received responses provided a firm expected timeline for the deployment of any of the different 5G techniques such as Mobile Edge Computing, slicing, New Radio, etc.
The consultation document mentioned two government roles; initiator and market regulator. Except one, all respondents agreed with the proposed roles and henceforth there is clear consensus on these roles. However, multiple respondents indicated that in their opinion these are not the only roles that the government should take. The following additional roles were suggested: financial aggregator (stimulating adoption through legislation, tax regulation or through public investments), facilitating road operator and influencing fleet owners.
Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management 8 | 5G in Mobility
There were many positive remarks regarding the possible field trial as presented in the consultation. There was a clear consensus that field trials are useful or even needed, but there was no consensus on the appropriate scale. Some respondents were in favour of the proposed scale, indicat- ing that field trials should focus on cross-operator, cross-manufacturer and cross-country scenarios. Some respondents were neutral, and some found it too ambi- tious, mentioning that the corresponding network pre-deployment costs at the presented scale (both CAPEX and OPEX) would be very high and that this approach would create expectations that may not be fulfilled.
Little response was received on the purpose of field trials which can be explained from the structure of the consulta- tion text. Regarding scope, focus and conditions, multiple respondents mentioned that the scope should be use case driven. Only limited input was received on thoughts and possibilities for additional trials and in the written answers received, there was a wide variety in the responses. The same divergence applied to the topic on the need for radio frequencies.
6 Main policy findings
In the previous sections the common themes were presented which were objectively identified in the received responses. However, to be able to use this factual knowl- edge for the improvement of the draft roadmap, it is important to more subjectively derive the most important policy findings from those observations. These findings are presented in this section.
One important insight gathered from the responses is that a distinction between 5G and non-5G use cases is considered artificial. Each use case can be defined at different require- ment levels, and therefore can be realised in different ways with different networking technologies. Furthermore, 5G is not a singular solution, it consists of a collection of different networking techniques that will be deployed gradually. The sequence and timing of that gradual
deployment depends on multiple factors. The generic use of the 5G label in marketing, industry and public sector as a new and single solution to all existing and future challenges in society, is not effective in understanding different options, needs and evolutionary steps to be made by all
parties concerned. The multi-track, multi-step approach of the presented draft roadmap was considered appropriate.
The actual presented timing was not broadly recognized, and especially the step “nationwide deployment” was often questioned. None of the received responses provided a concrete expected timeline for the deployment of any of the different techniques under the 5G umbrella. Based on these insights, it seems appropriate to:
• Change the scope of the roadmap from “5G in Mobility”
to a more appropriate title that no longer explicitly refers to the generic 5G label. The roadmap should instead focus on the applications that should be realized, and the tools that are needed to realize them. The new title should capture this appropriately;
• Keep the multi-track, multi-step form of the roadmap, but no longer differentiate the tracks and steps based on network technology, but instead based on use case functionality. The validation of those requirements and the exploration of the different technological options for meeting them, should in this case clearly be added as one of the objectives for the corresponding steps of the roadmap;
• Carefully consider for which tracks in the roadmap the step “nationwide deployment” should be kept. The timing of remaining steps in the roadmap should be adapted to reflect what is expected to be feasible in terms of use case development and deployment combined with revenue streams, instead of the expected network technology timeline.
The set of seven use cases included in the draft roadmap was not questioned in terms of functional usefulness. No clear preference to prioritize one of them was observed, neither was there a clear consensus on additional use cases that should be added to the roadmap. There was a consensus that the main stakeholders determining the availability of the technical components needed to implement the use cases are the mobile network operators, automotive manufacturers and roadside infrastructure operators. But when considering the entire ecosystem, some stakeholders were considered missing in the draft roadmap. In reaction to the possible field trial as presented in the consultation, there was a clear consensus that field trials are useful or even needed, and that their scope should be use case driven.
But there are different thoughts on the appropriate scale.
Some respondents indicated that field trials should focus on
10 | 5G in Mobility Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management cross-operator, cross-manufacturer and cross-country
scenarios. Some respondents were neutral, and some found it too ambitious, mentioning that the corresponding network pre-deployment costs at the presented scale would be very high and that this approach would create expecta- tions that cannot be fulfilled. Based on these insights, it seems appropriate to:
• Leave the set of use cases that determines the scope of the roadmap unchanged;
• Organize a dialogue between mobile operators, automotive manufacturers, road operators and policy makers in order to prioritize these use cases;
• When realising these use cases, include the entire involved ecosystem. Extend the draft definition of that ecosystem with: e-bike and motorcycle manufacturers;
the logistics & transport sector; the public transportation sector; cyclists and pedestrians; the IT sector; member organisations (such as 5G Automotive Association (5GAA), Automotive Edge Computing Consortium (AECC), Confederation of the European Bicycle Industry (CONEBI), European Automotive and Telecom Alliance (EATA), political parties and academia (Universiteit Twente, TU Eindhoven, TU Delft, TNO);
• Also, when realising these use cases pay attention to the empirical quantification of the imposed network requirements. This includes at least the following performance metrics: latency, throughput, flexibility and resilience. This information will enable the mobile network operators to define or refine their business cases for the deployment of the different technologies of the 5G toolbox;
• When formulating new use cases, make sure to organize the corresponding (pre-) deployment on an appropri- ate scale. Use cases that do not require the presence of novel radio equipment such as New Radio, short-range technology or Radio Access Network (RAN) slices should be targeting national coverage. But when certain use cases turn out to require such novel radio equipment, then only very small areas should be covered (testbeds).
In that case a strategy should be defined on how to make optimal use of existing networking testbeds, since many suitable testbeds have been created the last years in The Netherlands but also in other regions in Europe. The inception of these testbeds was driven both by invest- ments of the European Commission in the Horizon 2020
(H2020) and Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) programs, and by private investments of mobile network operators and their suppliers of telecom equipment.
The value of short range communication was broadly recognized, short-range and long-range communication technologies were seen as complimentary. Regarding long-range deployment, it was expected that by 2022 100%
of new cars will likely be equiped with long-range connec- tivity solutions. Next to ITS-G5, the cellular short-range communication flavours (LTE-V2X and C-V2X) were often presented as suitable short-range technology. There was no apparent consensus on the most preferred short-range technology, neither in terms of technical performance nor cost. Co-existence between these different short range technologies in the 5.9 GHz band was recognized as a challenge. Regarding PC5 most value was seen in the mode 4 approach (where vehicles coordinate their transmissions themselves), there was a lot of scepticism regarding mode 3 (where the basestation coordinates which vehicle can transmit when). Besides these technical unknowns, beter insights in short-range V2V business models and service responsibilities were seen as important dependencies and/
or actions to be prioritized. In terms of other novel communication techniques, cross-MNO slicing was considered to be challenging in terms of interoperability.
Based on these insights, it seems appropriate to:
• Explore (through hands-on experience) the added value of cellular short-range mode 4 V2X communica- tion compared to long-range V2X communication using geo-messaging services. Facilitate research of the values and technical hurdles of mode 3 V2X;
• Translate these insights into short-range V2X business models and service responsibilities;
• Identify strategies to cope with the short-range co-existence challenge, with attention for existing activities in this domain (e.g. ETSI), and validate them in real life;
• Explore (through hands-on experience) the feasibility and added value of a cross-operator (and perhaps cross- country) slice dedicated to mobility applications.
Regarding the role of the government, the two roles mentioned in the draft roadmap (initiator and market regulator) were seen as appropriate, but not exhaustive.
The following additional roles were suggested: financial aggregator, facilitating road operator and influencing fleet owner. Based on these insights, it seems appropriate to:
• Define how the government intends to contribute to reaching a high penetration of adopted use cases (existing or future):
- One aspect is enlarging the involvement of the automotive industry in The Netherlands;
- Another element is leveraging on the market influence of the government from its position as a large fleet owner and investor and operator in existing and new (physical) road infrastructure and management. This could be done by defining appropriate additions to the standard fleet procure- ment and infrastructure design requirements clauses;
- A third component is assessing and detailing per use case how the government should and will take up its role as financial aggregator. In this role the govern- ment has the possibility to stimulate market demand of the use case through legislation, tax regulation and/or public (co-)investments. This could be key for the success of the envisaged use cases, since in the responses the car owners were expected to be the primary source of revenue for the envisaged use cases, while the car owners’ willingness-to-pay was consid- ered low for safety applications.
• In the context of public investments, it is important that the roadmap stays consistent with the Dutch public investment strategy for I2V (Infrastructure to Vehicle) communication infrastructure for the next years as clearly described in the letter of minister Van Nieuwenhuizen to the House of Representatives of October 4th 2018 (can be found in appendix of the draft roadmap1);
• Similarly, it should also include clear insights in the public investment strategy to the needs for and required availability of sufficient road mangement connectivity such as intelligent traffic lights and diverse traffic-, incident- and asset management functions and capabilities and requirements;
• Explore (through analysis and/or hands-on experi- ence) the feasibility and possible positive impact on CAPEX and OPEX of public-private collaboration models that not solely rely on public co-investment.
Instead, these explored models should aim to facilitate roll-out by optimising local circumstances such as site construction permit procedures, relaxation of limits on antenna heights, usage of public infrastructure by mobile network operators where possible and valuable (optical fibre, power, land, real-estate and constructions such as lighting poles, traffic lights, road gantries), etc. Note that this topic spans broader than the mobility vertical. Also, the availability of spectrum is considered a generic aspect. These topics are therefore not included in scope here but handled in a more generic manner by the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy, as part of their Action plan for digital connectivity. Except for the usage of public infrastructure managed by Rijkswaterstaat of course (optical fibre and power). That topic is specific for the mobility vertical, and is in scope of this roadmap. To avoid the creation of improper expectations, it is important to emphasize that the corresponding exploration would focus on analysis and not hands-on experience. The intention would therefore be to provide more clarity on the unknown aspects of such collaboration models, such as require- ments, practical challenges, and benefits. The intention for this exploration would therefore not to be seen as a commitment to adopt these collaboration models in a next phase, but merely as an endeavour to get more clarity for all stakeholders on these concepts.
Policy departments
Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management (DG Mobility)
In close collaboration with the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy (DG for Enterprise & Innovation), the Radiocommunications Agency Netherlands, and Rijkswaterstaat
Contact W. Vandenberghe Senior ITS Advisor
wim.vandenberghe@minienw.nl Date
May 8th 2019
Go to www.dutchmobilityinnovations.com for more information.
