Indoor multi operator solutions - Network sharing and Outsourcing

A m i r h o s s e i n G h a n b a r i

Under supervision of: J a n I M a r k e n d a h l

S P R I N G 2 0 1 3

W I R E L E S S @ K T H

Indoor multi-operator solutions, Network sharing and Outsourcing

network management and operation

Outline

•  Background

• Methodology

• Deployment of indoor mobile NWs

•  Sharing in IMNs

• Outsourcing in IMNs

•  Analysis

•  Conclusion

•  Looking forward

Introduction

�  Raise of mobile data consumption �  Revenues from endusers

A European MNO expenditure

How to bring maximum benefit?

Co-opetition

1.  Outsource Network operation and maintenance

2.  Share Networks

3.  Share and Outsource

What has happened to Cooperation

in Smallcell networks?

Goal

We wanted to see:

Why Network Sharing plus Outsourcing Operation and Management has not been applied and/or promoted in

indoor mobile networks?

Problem Definition

�  The missing ring ¡  Proper technology, ¡  Suitable business models, ¡  Or someone who

understands both.

�  Multi-operator Shared Network vs. Roaming

�  Different Actors

�  3rd parties’ Qualifications

�  Technical Considerations

Current situation How it should be

indoor solu*ons & Deployment

Outsourcing

Sharing Network

Contribution


Outsourcing Sharing Network

MOSN or Roaming?

Outline

•  Background

• Methodology




•  Analysis

•  Conclusion


Methodology

�  Data collection ¡  Secondary Data

¡  Individual interviews ¡  Group Discussions

NEC Scandinavia AB

Cloudberry Mobile

3GNS R&D Solutions

KarNET AB

Ericsson AB

Data Secoi

Market Reports

Scholarly Journals

Business Articles

Tech reviews

�  Literature study

¡  Business model concepts

¡  State of the art contributions

¡  Technology acceptance theories

Methodology

�  Recommendation formulation

¡  Mediate between technology & economic values

�  Data analysis

¡  Main frameworks: ÷  Value analysis ÷  Empirical data analysis

¡  Analysis of

Actors-Resources-Activities

(ARA model)

Outline

•  Background

• Methodology




•  Analysis

•  Conclusion


Existing solutions

�  Repeaters

�  DAS

�  Picocells

�  Femtocells

Indoor mobile networks

Core Network

IP/Ethernet Router

Femto Gateway

Modem

FAPISP (Internet)

“We Live and Work in

Clusters” BTS

BSC

Enterprise Femto NW

FAP

FAP

FAP

FAP

Hand O

ver

Outline

•  Background

• Methodology




•  Analysis

•  Conclusion


Drivers of Sharing

�  OpEx prevention and saving

�  CapEx prevention

�  Improved Spectral Efficiency

�  Enhanced Capacity

�  Better network (coverage and quality)

�  Regulations

�  Less entry barriers

�  Data crunch

�  Spectrum allocation

Multi-Operator Radio Access Network

Operator Green’s Core NW

Operator Red’s Core NW

Operator Blue’s Core NW

Femtocell

Local cellular networkWith femtocell

Femto GW

Internet

Multi-Operator Core Network




Femtocell

Local cellular networkWith femtocell

Femto GW

Internet

Roaming




Agreements

LocalOperatorCore NW

Femto/Pico

Local cellular networkWith pico/femtocell

Mutual Roaming Non-Mutual Roaming

Roaming (cont'd)

Operator Green’s Covered area

Operator Red’s covered premises

Enterprise Femto

BTS

BSC

Roaming

Operator Green’s Covered area

Operator Red’s covered premises

Enterprise Femto

BTS

BSC

Roaming

Outline

•  Background

• Methodology




•  Analysis

•  Conclusion


Outsourcing

�  Roots in the manufacturing industry late 1970s ¡  Cut costs

�  Late 1990s ¡  IT & ICT

�  Telecom Industry ¡  IT and/or Network O&M

�  Different business perspective ¡  Focus on core business

÷  CRM and

Operational Expenditure of an indoor network Authoritative third party

�  Network OpEx

�  Customer Relations

�  Interconnect

�  IT

�  Other

Network O&M Outsourcees

33%

21% 10%

7%

3%

21%

5% Ericsson

Nokia Siemens

Alcatel-Lucent

ZTE

Motorola

Huawei

Others

Network O&M Outsourcees

�  Small Cell as a Service

÷ Cloudberry Mobile: a case study




Agreements

LocalOperatorCore NW

Femto/Pico

Local cellular networkWith pico/femtocell

Premises Owner, a 3rd party

Outline

•  Background

• Methodology




•  Analysis

•  Conclusion


Actors and their roles

�  MNO/JV

�  Network Vendors

�  Regulator

�  Premises Owners

�  Managed service partner (MSP)

Detailed shared indoor mobile ecosystem

MNO / JV

End-‐to-‐End System providers

Network Element producers

Smallcell Access-‐point producers

Component & Software providers

Regulator

Premises

Premises Owners

Subscribers

Do you remember how it should be !


Outsourcing Sharing Network

Basic indoor mobile network deployment

MNO/JV

NW Vendor

Premises Owner

Outsourcing only O&M

MNO/JV

NW Vendor

Premises Owner

MSP

Small Cell as a Service

MNO/JV

NW Vendor

Premises Owner

MSP

Stand alone third party

MNO/JV

NW Vendor MSP

Premises Owner

Wholesale Sharing

MNO/JV

MSP/NW Vendor

Premises Owner

Outline

•  Background

• Methodology




•  Analysis

•  Conclusion


Research Questions

�  The missing ring ¡  A proper win-win model

÷ Wholesalehsaring

�  Exposed and Hidden actors ¡  MNO/JV ¡  Network Vendor ¡  Regulator ¡  Premises Owner ¡  MSP

�  3rd party qualifications ¡  O&M outsourcee

�  MOSN vs. Romiang ¡  Both

�  Technical considerations ¡  Spectrum

÷ Licensed vs. unlicensed

Challenges

�  Big brother dilemma

�  Coverage dilemma

�  ISP dilemma

�  Regulator

Outline

•  Background

• Methodology


•  Sharing

• Outsourcing

•  Analysis

•  Conclusion


Technology domain Business domain

�  Smallcells in Heterogeneous

Networks

�  Unlicensed spectrum; ¡  Femtocells

¡  Integrated Femto/Wi-Fi

�  Integrated Femto/Wi-Fi access points

�  SWOT analysis of proposed models

�  Role of Regulatory Authorities

Future work

Questions J

Additional Slides

Outline

•  Background

• Methodology


•  Sharing

• Outsourcing

•  Analysis

•  Conclusion

•  Future work

Cost vs. Traffic vs. Revenue

�  End User (Premises)

�  Spectrum

�  Backhaul

�  Femtocell devices

�  Installation

�  Operation & Maintenance Scissors Effect

Traffic volume vs. Costs vs. Revenues

Smallcell NW from subscribers' point of view

Core Network

Modem

FAPINTERNET

BTS

BSC

Hand

Over

Outline

•  Background

• Methodology


•  Sharing

• Outsourcing

•  Analysis

•  Conclusion

•  Future work

Capacity sharing at FeGW

Sharing - Important factors

�  Differentiation ¡  Traditionally: Better coverage, higher data rates and better

quality of services ¡  Untraditionally: Putting telecommunications on top of the

contents/services, business processes and consumers �  Spectrum vs. Capacity vs. Coverage

Outline

•  Background

• Methodology


•  Sharing

• Outsourcing

•  Analysis

•  Conclusion

•  Future work

Typical OPEX Breakdown for a European Mobile Operator

23%

27% 23%

8%

7%

12%

Network OPEX

Subscriber Acquisition and Retention

Interconnect

Customer Service

IT

Other

Typical Network OpEx break down based on Macrocell Networks

27%

24% 21%

19%

9%

Site Rental and Electricity

Leased Line Costs

O&M + Planning System

Employee Costs

Support Syst. & General

Outline

•  Background

• Methodology


•  Sharing

• Outsourcing

•  Analysis

•  Conclusion

•  Future work

Indoor network

Most viable options taking Sharing and Outsourcing into account

1)  A JV between MNOs deploys and operates the indoor networks.

2)  A MNO/JV deploys the network and a third party only handles the network’s O&M regardless of

network deployment.

3)  A MSP deploys the network and handles its O&M as well, for either one MNO/JV or more.

4)  A MSP deploys its own Smallcell network and makes roaming agreements with MNOs/JVs for

outdoor coverage.

5)  An enterprise deploys an indoor network and manages it itself making roaming agreements for

outdoor coverage.

6)  The MSP (that is also a NW vendor) deploys the network and also takes care of its O&M offering a

comprehensive system based on Service Layer agreements while making roaming agreements for

outdoor coverage.

Cross comparison of Operators and third parties points of view on Smallcell networks

From Operators’ point of view From third parties’ point of view

Type of partnership Main actor Outcome

Valid option Main actor Outcome

Valid option

Share JV Save CapEx 1 JV Added value 2

Outsource Authoritative third party Save OpEx 2 MSP Added value 2

Share & Outsource

MSP-JV Save CapEx & OpEx 2 or 3

MSP Added value 3

Enterprise Special services 5

Comprehensive System

MSP Great Flexibility 6 MSP New revenue stream 6

Premises Owner acting as an outsourcee

MNO/JV

NW Vendor

Premises Owner

ICOMERA case2

MNO/JV

NW Vendor

Premises Owner

MSP-‐MNO/JV

Outline

•  Background

• Methodology


•  Sharing

• Outsourcing

•  Analysis

•  Conclusion

•  Future work

Recommendation

Operators

Traditional operators

MNO

incumbent greenfield

JV MVNO

Third party

MSP Premises Owner Auth. 3rd party

Recommendation (Cntd.)

Traditional operators

Type of partnership MNO

JV MVNO Incumbent Greenfield

Rationale Reducing OpEx

mainly by outsourcing

Reducing CapEx mainly by sharing

Reducing CapEx & OpEx

Reducing CapEx & OpEx

Recommended option 2 or 3 3 6 6

Justification

They already have SMP and are not

willing to risk their position by sharing

They have enough financial

credibility to implement their

solo network

Sharing is the origin of JVs so, reducing costs is

a quite convincing

factor

SMP deficit is their reason to

be a virtual operator so,

lowered costs is a KPI

Further recommendation Act as a CS provider

Benefit from CSs and focus more on

core business activities

Outsource as much as possible

Focus on CR and stay flexible

Recommendation (Cntd.)

Third party

Type of partnership MSP Premises

Owner Auth. 3rd party

Rationale Generate new revenue stream

To offer specific services

To obtain added value

Recommended option 6 5 2

Justification

Their philosophy is to partner-up

with other actors and offer CSs

They try to cover a niche market

They are believed to be specialists in O&M that do the

job in an optimized manner

Further recommendation ---

Create a new format of model 6 and benefit from

CSs

---

Smallcell Repeater

�  Adds both coverage and capacity, with ability to

improve data rates

�  Generates its own signal

�  Reduces uplink interference by removing handsets

from outdoor network

�  Provides full control of handover

�  Fault and performance monitoring and full O&M

support

�  Generates operator-specific signal

�  Requires broadband IP connection to connect back

into network

�  Can feed a DAS system

�  Only extends coverage, no additional capacity (feeds

off macro network)

�  Requires donor antenna which can be expensive to

install on roof

�  The repeater itself can cause uplink interference

creating radio planning problems

�  Handover neighbors same as the macrocell

�  Most repeaters are unmanaged with no automated

fault reporting

�  Cheap repeaters amplify competitors’ signals

�  Works in isolation, but needs nearby macro site

�  Can feed a DAS system

Smallcell vs. Repeater

Documents

Indoor multi operator solutions - Network sharing and Outsourcing