Indoor multi operator solutions - Network sharing and Outsourcing
•
1 gefällt mir•2,306 views
Indoor solutions as a part of cellular mobile networks’ planning have been used for years in a way to fulfill the lack of an admissible coverage while subscribers experienced using cellular phones indoors. On the other hand, network sharing is a commonly used solution for mobile operators in order to lower their network capital and operational expenditures; that has also commonly been used for Distributed Antenna System (DAS) solutions in indoor deployments. Besides sharing, outsourcing network operation and maintenance has also been widely accepted by wireless carriers all around the world after that IT outsourcing flow, which started in late 90s, seemed to be quite promising for lowering operational costs. The raise of new technologies in this domain that always promise higher, better and more to subscribers, little by little started to become worrisome since operators began to experience lower revenues from voice services during last couple of years as well as higher demand of capacity. As a result, operators started considering deploying indoor networks as a part of their planned network, with regard to the fact that during recent years the femtocell technology became the hot topic for smallcell deployments. This way, MNOs could exploit benefits of covering customers indoors efficiently as well as offloading mobile data traffic from macro cellular networks. But a question rose afterwards; why sharing and outsourcing in smallcell networks have not taken off yet? as they have been commonly used in macro cellular networks and DAS solutions? In this MSc thesis, cooperation between different actors of the shared indoor mobile network ecosystem is studied by investigating both possible sharing models and the concept of outsourcing network operation and management for smallcell networks. This investigation has been done based on femtocells as the most suitable technology both for better coverage and higher capacity. During this process, different roles of actors in the ecosystems, the business relations between them and the main drivers of sharing were studied as well as discussing the main beneficiary of sharing, in order to find different types of cooperation and correlation in the ecosystem. The main research questions in the thesis revolve around absence of sharing either active or passively in indoor mobile networks as well as outsourcing network operation and management. Eventually, a series of possible deployment models for shared and outsourced indoor mobile networks are presented where they have been tried to be verified by a number of use cases. As a result, this study proposes a set of recommendations for different possible operators in the ecosystem in order to formulate a profitable business model for them. These recommendations are believed to enable taking off sharing and outsourcing in smallcell networks.
Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Was ist angesagt?
Was ist angesagt? (20)
Andere mochten auch
Andere mochten auch (8)
Ähnlich wie Indoor multi operator solutions - Network sharing and Outsourcing
Ähnlich wie Indoor multi operator solutions - Network sharing and Outsourcing (20)
Indoor multi operator solutions - Network sharing and Outsourcing
- 1. Indoor multi-operator solutions, Network sharing and Outsourcing network management and operation Amirhossein Ghanbari Under supervision of: Jan I Markendahl SPRING 2013 WIRELESS@KTH
- 2. Outline • Background • Methodology • Deployment of indoor mobile NWs • Sharing in IMNs • Outsourcing in IMNs • Analysis • Conclusion • Looking forward
- 3. Introduction — Raise of mobile data consumption — Revenues from endusers A European MNO expenditure
- 4. 1. Outsource Network operation and maintenance 2. Share Networks 3. Share and Outsource How to bring maximum benefit? Co-opetition
- 5. What has happened to Cooperation in Smallcell networks?
- 6. Goal We wanted to see: Why Network Sharing plus Outsourcing Operation and Management has not been applied and/or promoted in indoor mobile networks?
- 7. Problem Definition — The missing ring — Different Actors ¡ Proper technology, ¡ Suitable business models, ¡ Or someone who — 3rd parties’ Qualifications understands both. — Multi-operator Shared — Technical Considerations Network vs. Roaming
- 8. Contribution Current situation How it should be MOSN or indoor solu*ons & Roaming? Deployment indoor solu*ons & Deployment Sharing Outsourcing Sharing Network Network Outsourcing
- 9. Outline • Background • Methodology • Deployment of indoor mobile NWs • Sharing in IMNs • Outsourcing in IMNs • Analysis • Conclusion • Looking forward
- 10. Methodology — Literature study — Data collection ¡ Secondary Data ¡ Business model concepts Market Reports Scholarly Journals ¡ State of the art contributions Business Articles Tech reviews ¡ Technology acceptance theories ¡ Individual interviews ¡ Group Discussions NEC Scandinavia AB Cloudberry Mobile 3GNS R&D Solutions KarNET AB Ericsson AB Data Secoi
- 11. Methodology — Data analysis — Recommendation formulation ¡ Main frameworks: ÷ Value analysis ¡ Mediate between ÷ Empirical data analysis technology & economic values ¡ Analysis of Actors-Resources-Activities (ARA model)
- 12. Outline • Background • Methodology • Deployment of indoor mobile NWs • Sharing in IMNs • Outsourcing in IMNs • Analysis • Conclusion • Looking forward
- 13. Indoor mobile networks Existing solutions Core Network — Repeaters IP/Ethernet Router ISP (Internet) FAP Modem — DAS Femto Gateway “We Live and Work in Clusters” — Picocells Ha nd Ov er BTS BSC FAP Enterprise Femto NW — Femtocells FAP FAP FAP
- 14. Outline • Background • Methodology • Deployment of indoor mobile NWs • Sharing in IMNs • Outsourcing in IMNs • Analysis • Conclusion • Looking forward
- 15. 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
- 16. Multi-Operator Radio Access Network Operator Green’s Core NW Femto GW Operator Red’s Core NW Femtocell Internet Local cellular network Operator Blue’s Core NW With femtocell
- 17. Multi-Operator Core Network Internet Operator Green’s Core NW Operator Red’s Core NW Femtocell Femto GW Operator Blue’s Core NW Local cellular network With femtocell
- 18. Roaming Operator Green’s Core NW Agreements Local Operator Red’s Core NW Operator Core NW Femto/Pico Local cellular network Operator Blue’s Core NW With pico/femtocell
- 19. Roaming (cont'd) Mutual Roaming Non-Mutual Roaming Roaming Roaming Enterprise Femto Enterprise Femto BSC BSC BTS BTS Operator Green’s Covered area Operator Green’s Covered area Operator Red’s covered premises Operator Red’s covered premises
- 20. Outline • Background • Methodology • Deployment of indoor mobile NWs • Sharing in IMNs • Outsourcing in IMNs • Analysis • Conclusion • Looking forward
- 21. 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
- 22. Network O&M Outsourcees Operational Expenditure Authoritative third party of an indoor network — Network OpEx — Customer Relations 5% Ericsson 21% Nokia Siemens 33% Alcatel-Lucent — Interconnect 3% ZTE Motorola 7% Huawei 10% Others 21% — IT — Other
- 23. Network O&M Outsourcees — Small Cell as a Service ÷ Cloudberry Mobile: a case study Operator Green’s Core NW Premises Owner, Agreements a 3rd party Local Operator Red’s Core NW Operator Core NW Femto/Pico Local cellular network Operator Blue’s Core NW With pico/femtocell
- 24. Outline • Background • Methodology • Deployment of indoor mobile NWs • Sharing in IMNs • Outsourcing in IMNs • Analysis • Conclusion • Looking forward
- 25. Actors and their roles — MNO/JV — Network Vendors — Regulator — Premises Owners — Managed service partner (MSP)
- 26. Detailed shared indoor mobile ecosystem MNO / JV Premises End-‐to-‐End System providers Regulator Network Element producers Premises Owners Smallcell Access-‐point producers Component & Software providers Subscribers
- 27. Do you remember how it should be ! indoor solu*ons & Deployment Sharing Outsourcing Network
- 28. Basic indoor mobile network deployment MNO/JV NW Vendor Premises Owner
- 29. Outsourcing only O&M MNO/JV MSP NW Vendor Premises Owner
- 30. Small Cell as a Service MNO/JV MSP NW Vendor Premises Owner
- 31. Stand alone third party MNO/JV MSP NW Vendor Premises Owner
- 32. Wholesale Sharing MNO/JV MSP/NW Vendor Premises Owner
- 33. Outline • Background • Methodology • Deployment of indoor mobile NWs • Sharing in IMNs • Outsourcing in IMNs • Analysis • Conclusion • Looking forward
- 34. Research Questions — The missing ring — 3rd party qualifications ¡ A proper win-win model ¡ O&M outsourcee ÷ Wholesalehsaring — MOSN vs. Romiang — Exposed and Hidden ¡ Both actors ¡ MNO/JV — Technical considerations ¡ Network Vendor ¡ Spectrum ¡ Regulator ÷ Licensed vs. unlicensed ¡ Premises Owner ¡ MSP
- 35. Challenges — Big brother dilemma — Coverage dilemma — ISP dilemma — Regulator
- 36. Outline • Background • Methodology • Deployment of indoor mobile NWs • Sharing • Outsourcing • Analysis • Conclusion • Looking forward
- 37. Future work Technology domain Business domain — Smallcells in Heterogeneous — Integrated Femto/Wi-Fi access Networks points — SWOT analysis of proposed — Unlicensed spectrum; models ¡ Femtocells ¡ Integrated Femto/Wi-Fi — Role of Regulatory Authorities
- 38. Questions J
- 40. Outline • Background • Methodology • Deployment of indoor mobile NWs • Sharing • Outsourcing • Analysis • Conclusion • Future work
- 41. Cost vs. Traffic vs. Revenue — End User (Premises) — Spectrum — Backhaul Traffic volume vs. Costs vs. Revenues — Femtocell devices — Installation — Operation & Maintenance Scissors Effect
- 42. Smallcell NW from subscribers' point of view BSC Over H an d BTS Core Network INTERNET FAP Modem
- 43. Outline • Background • Methodology • Deployment of indoor mobile NWs • Sharing • Outsourcing • Analysis • Conclusion • Future work
- 44. Capacity sharing at FeGW
- 45. 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
- 46. Outline • Background • Methodology • Deployment of indoor mobile NWs • Sharing • Outsourcing • Analysis • Conclusion • Future work
- 47. Typical OPEX Breakdown for a European Mobile Operator Network OPEX 12% 23% Subscriber Acquisition and Retention 7% 8% Interconnect Customer Service 23% 27% IT Other
- 48. Typical Network OpEx break down based on Macrocell Networks 9% 27% 19% Site Rental and Electricity Leased Line Costs O&M + Planning System Employee Costs Support Syst. & General 21% 24%
- 49. Outline • Background • Methodology • Deployment of indoor mobile NWs • Sharing • Outsourcing • Analysis • Conclusion • Future work
- 50. Indoor network
- 51. 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.
- 52. 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 Valid Valid Main actor Outcome Main actor Outcome partnership option option Share JV Save CapEx 1 JV Added value 2 Authoritative Outsource Save OpEx 2 MSP Added value 2 third party MSP Added value 3 Share & Save CapEx & MSP-JV 2 or 3 Outsource OpEx Enterprise Special services 5 Comprehensive Great MSP 6 MSP New revenue stream 6 System Flexibility
- 53. Premises Owner acting as an outsourcee MNO/JV NW Vendor Premises Owner
- 54. ICOMERA case2 MNO/JV MSP-‐MNO/ JV NW Vendor Premises Owner
- 55. Outline • Background • Methodology • Deployment of indoor mobile NWs • Sharing • Outsourcing • Analysis • Conclusion • Future work
- 56. Recommendation Operators Traditional Third operators party Auth. 3rd MNO JV MVNO MSP Premises Owner party incumbent greenfield
- 57. Recommendation (Cntd.) Traditional operators MNO Type of partnership JV MVNO Incumbent Greenfield Reducing OpEx Reducing CapEx Reducing CapEx Reducing Rationale mainly by mainly by sharing & OpEx CapEx & OpEx outsourcing Recommended 2 or 3 3 6 6 option Sharing is the SMP deficit is They have enough They already have origin of JVs so, their reason to financial SMP and are not reducing costs is be a virtual Justification willing to risk their credibility to a quite operator so, implement their position by sharing convincing lowered costs is solo network factor a KPI Benefit from CSs Outsource as Focus on CR Further and focus more on Act as a CS provider much as and stay recommendation core business possible flexible activities
- 58. Recommendation (Cntd.) Third party Premises Type of partnership MSP Auth. 3rd party Owner Generate new To offer specific To obtain added Rationale revenue stream services value Recommended option 6 5 2 They are believed Their philosophy They try to cover a to be specialists in is to partner-up Justification with other actors niche market O&M that do the job in an and offer CSs optimized manner Create a new Further format of model 6 --- --- recommendation and benefit from CSs
- 59. Smallcell vs. Repeater Smallcell Repeater — Adds both coverage and capacity, with ability to — Only extends coverage, no additional capacity (feeds improve data rates off macro network) — Generates its own signal — Requires donor antenna which can be expensive to — Reduces uplink interference by removing handsets install on roof from outdoor network — The repeater itself can cause uplink interference — Provides full control of handover creating radio planning problems — Fault and performance monitoring and full O&M — Handover neighbors same as the macrocell support — Most repeaters are unmanaged with no automated — Generates operator-specific signal fault reporting — Requires broadband IP connection to connect back — Cheap repeaters amplify competitors’ signals into network — Works in isolation, but needs nearby macro site — Can feed a DAS system — Can feed a DAS system