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.
Security, Privacy and Dependability in Mobile Networks
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
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
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
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
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%
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
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