Small cell deployment – is this an opportunity for MSOs?

Commissioned by Amdocs

Issued to: Amdocs Issue date: 20 February 2014 Version: 1.02
Real Wireless Ltd PO Box 2218 Pulborough West Sussex RH20 4XB United Kingdom t +44 207 117 8514 f +44 808 280 0142 e info@realwireless.biz www.realwireless.biz

Real Wireless Ltd PO Box 2218 Pulborough West Sussex RH20 4XB United Kingdom

t +44 207 117 8514 f +44 808 280 0142 e info@realwireless.biz www.realwireless.biz

Version Control
Item Source Client Report title Sub title Issue date Description Real Wireless Amdocs Small cell deployment € is this an opportunity for MSOs? Commissioned by Amdocs 20 February 2014

Version 1.0 1.01 1.02

Date 19/02/2014 19/02/2014 20/02/2014

Comment Issued to Amdocs Edits Minor amendments to Sections 3.1 and 4.1

Note

This report was commissioned by Amdocs. However, the report has been prepared by Real Wireless independently of Amdocs and represents our own views and those of the survey respondents.

Small cell deployment € is this an opportunity for MSOs?
Issue date: 20 February 2014 Version: 1.02

We have experience working at senior levels in vendors. DAB. implementation plan and management process. Wi-Fi. We seek to demystify wireless and help our customers get the best from it. wireless infrastructures. All rights reserved. GSM. For details contact us at: info@realwireless. and working internationally for enterprises.biz/blog Stay in touch via our tweets at twitter.K. operators and regulators € indeed any organization which is serious about getting the best from wireless to the benefit of their business. regulators and academia. operators. Registered in England & Wales No. 6016945 . DTT. We have specific experience in LTE. international spectrum regulation. by understanding their business needs and using our deep knowledge of wireless to create an effective wireless strategy. TETRA € and many more.About Real Wireless Real Wireless is a leading independent wireless consultancy. based in the U. and much more besides. WiMAX.com/real_wireless Copyright •2014 Real Wireless Limited. HSPA. We are experts in radio propagation. vendors. UMTS.biz Tap into our news and views at: realwireless.

MSOs can secure access to sites. we have sought input from 40 national and large regional mobile network operators (MNOs). Europe and APAC. These findings are therefore likely to reflect the views of players in the industry who are more advanced in their plans for small cells rather than being representative of the industry as a whole. It is possible that some of the skills needed may be more akin to the challenges of deploying cable or fiber networks than traditional mobile networks.02 . € € Whilst MSOs are likely to be able to offer useful services. The focus was on developed mobile markets and large emerging markets in North America.g. Based on the survey. multiple system operators (MSOs) and converged wireless/wireline operators to ascertain their understanding of the challenges involved in deploying and managing small cell networks. Cisco predict that global mobile data traffic will increase 11-fold from 2013-18. The principle challenges identified by MNOs in small cell rollout are project management (65%).Executive summary Mobile data demand is projected to grow vigorously in the coming years. 55% of both MNOs and MSOs see a need to upgrade their automation tools. Small cell deployment is likely to contrast with traditional macrocell deployment € requiring installation of a large number of relatively inexpensive small cells rather than a small number of bespoke macrocell sites. The views of the industry have been considered to allow Real Wireless to form an independent view on the challenges and opportunities for small cell deployment. 30% believe better tools will become available this year. and provide backhaul and power at a rate much faster than MNOs currently do. 80% of MNOs believe existing tools are inadequate and of those. negotiation with partners (45%) and technical aspects (40%). In this independent study conducted by Real Wireless on behalf of Amdocs. and can match or exceed the lead times targeted by MNOs. while 50% think there will be a longer wait to secure the complete toolkit. This could require different network design and deployment processes. € Small cell deployment € is this an opportunity for MSOs? Issue date: 20 February 2014 Version: 1. € € 70% of MNOs are prepared to use small cell networks rolled out by or owned by a third-party partner. Small cells (using both licensed and unlicensed spectrum) are likely to provide an important method of being able to support traffic in areas of high demand density. reducing the total cost of ownership (TCO) (95%) and project management (85%). There is potential synergy with the existing skills from the MSOs for deploying backhaul to small cells compared to existing deployments where a high level of commonality in skills to deliver the task was cited. it is clear that there is an opportunity both for MSOs and MNOs in working together to deploy small cells. skills and experience to help small cell deployment there are some challenges: € 85% of both MNOs and MSOs believe that automation will be critical or important for small cell deployment to be successful. e. including field force expertise (95%).

Survey responses indicated that there will be a rapid uptake in deployment of both carrier grade Wi-Fi and combined small cell and Wi-Fi solutions towards 2016. without the complexities of licensed spectrum or the same level of QoS expectation. Small cell deployment € is this an opportunity for MSOs? Issue date: 20 February 2014 Version: 1.€ Detailed technical aspects relating to small cell deployment are seen as a major issue by both MNOs and MSOs. Many of the skills required to facilitate a licenced small cell deployment are common to small cell Wi-Fi deployment and are seen by MNOs as key issues to address. 55% of the MSOs surveyed have already started deploying Wi-Fi for offload and only 30% are either undecided or have no plans for Wi-Fi offload. Wi-Fi build-out is cited by some operators as a ‚rehearsal• for small cell deployment services € the same processes of securing sites and backhaul. but have little commonality with MSOs• previous experience.02 .

...................... excluding time and cost) 13 Figure 9: Chief issues in deploying backhaul to small cells.1 MSOs' small cell plans .............................. and how far they are shared with existing MSO deployments (MSO base....7 Figure 4: Expected ownership (%) of MNOs• commercial small cell networks (excluding WiFi) based on all MNOs ............................8 3.....................3 3...................................................................................................12 Figure 8: Key MNO challenges in deploying backhaul to small cells (MNO base............... without partnerships...........................4 New relationships ..................................................2 Deployment challenges ....... Small cell deployment expectations ..........................11 Figure 7: MSO•s typical timescales for key aspects of small cell deployment................. compared with those of MNOs (current and targeted)...........................................1 2................................5 3..... America and W.... in 2014-2018 ...........10 4.................................5 3.....................19 4.........1 Meeting traffic demand ...............................3 Tools ..................................... and the targeted number of days for massscale deployment to be viable...................22 5........................................................................................20 4...........................................................................................1 The changing patterns of MNO small cell and backhaul deployment ..............................................5 Issues emerging and implications for the industry......8 Figure 5: Percentage of all MNOs considering partnerships for various aspects of small cell strategy 9 Figure 6: MNO views on the average business days currently needed for key aspects of small cell deployment..................16 4.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... including Wi-Fi....................14 Small cell deployment € is this an opportunity for MSOs? Issue date: 20 February 2014 Version: 1.. excluding time and capex/opex)... Small cell deployment ............................................2 2...27 Figures Figure 1: Projected timescales for MNOs• commercial trials/deployments of small cells.....................................16 4.............................................25 References ...................................................... Scope and description of this report ........3 How MSOs can improve small cell economics ..2 Challenges..2 2................................................ Europe .............................................. The response from MSOs ...............................5 Figure 2: Percentage of small cell sites which will be backhauled by different technologies by 2018 based on all MNOs surveyed ....................................... Summary and Conclusions...............21 4..............Contents 1.7 Figure 3: Percentage of small cell sites which will be backhauled by different technologies by 2018 according to MNOs from N.....................02 ..........................................................2 MNOs• increased interest in small cell services..................................................................... ....................

.....18 Figure 15: Issues in deploying small cell backhaul.............................................................................................19 Figure 16: Comparison of MNO and MSO assessments of the need for specific small cell planning tools 20 Figure 17: Comparison of MNO and MSO ratings of the importance of automation in the small cell backhaul model...............................................................................................................................18 Figure 14: Percentage of MSOs placing each customer group in its top three targets for small cell services...............15 Figure 11: Percentage of MSOs planning to support various small cell services within the next five years 16 Figure 12: Projected timescales for MNOs• commercial trials/deployments of small cells..............................................................................22 Small cell deployment € is this an opportunity for MSOs? Issue date: 20 February 2014 Version: 1........................................................... and in the top three........................ by MSOs ..17 Figure 13: Projected timescales for MNO carrier Wi-Fi and MSO deployment for Wi-Fi offload and small cells (2014-2018) .........21 Figure 18: Comparison of preferred arrangements for MSOs and MNOs for providing small cell backhaul services ................................................................................................................................................ contrasted with small cell MSO backhaul timescales (2014-2018) .........................02 ...............................Figure 10: Percentage of MNOs which would consider various providers as partners in small cell deployment .... as placed in number one position..........................................

Scope and description of this report Mobile data demand is projected to grow vigorously in the coming years. In chapters 3 and 4 we present results of the survey to identify the opportunity for MSOs and the readiness of the MSO community to provide services to assist with small cell deployment. we have sought input from 40 national and large regional MNOs (Mobile Network Operators). In this independent study conducted by Real Wireless on behalf of Amdocs. e.g. in chapter 6 we summarise the report and conclude. It is possible that some of the skills needed may be more akin to the challenges of deploying cable or fiber networks than traditional mobile networks.02 1 . Cisco [1] anticipate global mobile traffic to grow by a factor of 11 between 2013 and 2018 equivalent to an annual growth rate of 61%. This report is organised as follows: € € In chapter 2 we review the need for small cells and present an overview of the case for small cells and likely challenges in deployment. € € Small cell deployment € is this an opportunity for MSOs? Issue date: 20 February 2014 Version: 1. Small cells (using licensed spectrum and unlicensed spectrum) are likely to provide an important method of being able to support traffic in areas of high demand density. The views of the industry have been considered to allow Real Wireless to form an independent view on the challenges and opportunities for small cell deployment. In chapter 5 we draw out the key implications for the industry based on an analysis of the survey responses and. This could require different network design and deployment processes. MSOs (MultiService Operators (such as large cable companies)) and converged wireless/wireline operators to ascertain their understanding of the challenges involved in deploying and managing small cell networks. Small cell deployment is likely to contrast with traditional macro cell deployment € requiring installation of a large number of relatively inexpensive small cells rather than a small number of bespoke macro sites. A key challenge is likely to be supporting backhaul to each of these small cells.1. Lastly.

improved indoor coverage and improved user experience. such as Verizon. Changes in the standards allow licensed small cells to move from residential environments to being part of a public access RAN architecture. accounting for 67% of public access small cells in 2013 according to Maravedis-Rethink Research [3] with SK Telecom (10. though not yet committed to the same scale of development as AT&T. configure. have also planned deployments. as reported by Informa Telecoms & Media in its small-cell market status report for the Small Cell Forum [2]. manage and optimize networks automatically based on real-time demands. There is now a near universal recognition amongst cellular carriers that small cells will be an essential part of their future RAN strategy.02 2 . Other developments such as SON (Self-Optimizing Networks) software have also reduced installation and operating costs by enabling carriers to plan. However. Small cell deployment 2. Worldwide. However.000 mainly indoor public access units as of June 2013). The use of small cells has been growing rapidly and was estimated to have overtaken the global number of macrocells deployed. Developments in residential small cell technology have spilled over to the public access market and this has transformed the efficiency and cost of public access small cell deployments. the Asia Pacific region should still be the leader in public access small cells over the next five years. Asia Pacific countries have led the way. 11 million small cells were active in February 2013 (including units supplied commercially and free to end-users).000 unit public access small cell deployment by the end of 2015 as part of Project Velocity IP overhaul of its wireless and wired networks. with an estimated market value of USD22 billion.2.1 Meeting traffic demand Small cells are likely to be essential element to expand mobile network capacity. For example Sprint and AT&T in the US have all reached the million residential femtocell deployment mark. Korea Telecom and Softbank among the first movers. MNOs will benefit as the traffic load on existing macrocells is reduced. Many analysts believe that public access small cells are set to become a key driver in small cell deployments over the next five years. early in 2013. Other operators in the US. with China Mobile expected to roll out a major small cell deployment in the next few years and developments in India and Indonesia. Public access small cell deployments will accelerate as the early adopters scale up their deployments and new operators make significant commitments. Small cells offer high capacity density. Residential and enterprise small cells have made the early running and comprise a high proportion of the total market. many analysts expect these networks to converge into heterogeneous networks (HetNets) which would provide a seamless capacity layer. For example AT&T announced a 40. although significant enhancement of current network software is still required to achieve this aim. Small cells operating in licensed spectrum (as opposed to Wi-Fi which operates in unlicensed non-exclusive spectrum) can offer advantages in terms of security and the ability to manage service quality. They predicted an 8-fold increase in the number of small cells to 92 million to 2016. Small cell deployment € is this an opportunity for MSOs? Issue date: 20 February 2014 Version: 1.

be located where it is required. positioned in a suitable legally contracted location and provided with adequate power. € € However. these cells need to be planned. They have delicate interactions with the macrocell layer and raise fears of interference and dead-zones if planning and deployment are not executed correctly. In summary. currently a few. As such. Synergies in deploying such a HetNet will reduce costs of multiple network deployment. They have been deployed extensively in residential environments and are increasingly likely to be deployed in multitechnology variants for public access. Each cell must be connected back to the core. It is perhaps worth emphasising that licensed small cells are intrinsically part of a cellular operator•s network.2 Deployment challenges The small cell network must be deployed and managed efficiently so that the capacity delivered can: € be provided at a low cost per gigabyte. while there are a variety of business models possible for cellular operators considering small cells. As will be seen later in this report. Be able to be deployed at scale € since a large number of small cells will be required to meet traffic demand. integrated within the overall network. deploying a large number of outdoor small cells and connecting these cells back to the core network can be a challenge. And. it is important to stress that the initiative and the strategic direction Small cell deployment € is this an opportunity for MSOs? Issue date: 20 February 2014 Version: 1. reliable backhaul connectivity. managed and maintained as part of the overall network.Cisco•s 2014 VNI data traffic forecast [1] noted that 45% of mobile data traffic was carried by Wi-Fi or licensed small cells in 2013 and anticipates this rising to more than 50% by 2018. while these drivers are well known. of course. there is far less consensus amongst carriers about when they need to plan for small cells or about how they will manage the deployment of a large number of small cells. these demand hot-spots must be identified and monitored to match capacity to demand at the same time as ensuring adequate. they must integrate with the core functionality and with sophisticated protocol interaction. However. Similarly. small cells offer the potential of providing a high performance capability that can support the mobile traffic growth € particularly in the high traffic density environments that can be difficult to support on macrocell networks. Finally there is still a substantial segment of operators who are only just starting their analysis of what is required and how they will use small cells within their overall RAN architecture. each with a relatively small capacity compared to traditional macrocells. The cost of these individual elements must be spread over a smaller number of subscribers than with a macrocell. Many carriers are just coming to terms with the requirements but are still wrestling with the complexities of deployment and provisioning required to deploy small cell solutions. User data volume is increasing much faster than ARPU and all additional capacity capability must be accompanied with a low total cost of ownership. 2.02 3 . more advanced mobile operators have already decided that they need small cells and are now well advanced in plans on how they will use them with businesses cases and processes established. Small cells that combine multi-mode licensed spectrum technologies and unlicensed spectrum Wi-Fi are anticipated to become more prevalent in future.

backhaul and supporting resources now.02 4 . the cellular operator. particularly Small Cell as a Service (SCaaS). Virgin Media in the UK has completed extensive trials and announced plans to offer a Small Cell as a Service (SCaaS) [4] as have others such as Cloudberry in Norway. MSOs may be well placed to offer these services where they have extensive fibre assets for backhaul and expertise in the installation and maintenance of dense networks in the field.realwireless. originated by the cellular operator whose spectrum will be used. Conversely. For example. deployed and integrated. cellular operators should be considering their small cell strategies as a matter of urgency to avoid being left behind by competitors.must come from them. of improving the efficiency of their network and of increasing capacity. A trend of note is the emergence of wholesale services. which would provide MNOs with full or partial alternatives to self-provision. about how they will be used. But these benefits can only be delivered as the result of a coherent plan. of reducing or eliminating dead-spots.biz/2013/06/25/join-our-small-cell-webinar-the-hunt-forthe-golden-lamppost-23-july-2013/ Small cell deployment € is this an opportunity for MSOs? Issue date: 20 February 2014 Version: 1. As such. operators must be aware that this is a fiercely competitive environment and that other MNOs are at various stages of conducting similar analyses: in many cases this is a land-grab1 and there is significant competitive advantage to be had from securing the right sites. Small cells have the potential to deliver better ways of reaching their customers. even in advance of mass deployments. deployment and provisioning do need to be addressed € but there are some very interesting options including automation. The very real complexities around planning. out-sourcing or partnering with others that could help enable them. 1 Or indeed a lamp grab: see http://www. simplifying the deployment of small cells for the cellular operators.

15-20 times above current deployed numbers. 3.000 small cells deployed per country. Figure 1 shows the timescales of anticipated commercial trials and small cell deployment. what aspects of deployment are shared with MSOs• normal deployments. albeit usually on a small scale. Based on our understanding of the likely challenges posed by MNOs and the potential opportunity of partner organisations. We later examine the skills required to deploy small cells.1 The changing patterns of MNO small cell and backhaul deployment For the MNOs surveyed (who had a commitment to deploy small cells in the next four years). in 2014-2018 Small cell deployment € is this an opportunity for MSOs? Issue date: 20 February 2014 Version: 1. 20% of MNOs expect to have deployed networks of over 100. Small cell deployment expectations A survey was conducted in January 2014 of 40 national and large regional MNOs. This will represent an increase of. 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 % of respondents Cellular small cells Carrier WIFi Combined cellular/WiFi Figure 1: Projected timescales for MNOs‚ commercial trials/deployments of small cells. this survey was designed to test our views of the challenges and opportunities to deploy small cells. trial or evaluation of small cell services during the period 2013-2018.000 and 100. though most networks will expand rapidly after 2014. MSOs and converged wireless/wireline operators. In the first part of this section we present the expectations of MNOs to understand what they plan to do and when. By 2018.000 small cells (excluding Wi-Fi-only) and 70% will have between 25. the likely suitability of MSOs to offer useful services and the willingness of MNOs to partner with third parties.3. on average. The focus was on developed mobile markets and large emerging markets in North America. Europe and APAC. 55% of the sample are already operating or trialling the technology.02 5 . For 3G/4G small cells. All respondents had been preselected as having an active deployment. including Wi-Fi. and the willingness of MNOs to partner with third parties to help with their small cell network deployment.

compared to similar studies conducted two years ago. The ability to plan and deploy very large numbers of cells quickly and at low cost The ability to plan and modify very complex networks from end-to-end for peak efficiency and performance. notably: € The ability to identify and secure optimal small cell sites and backhaul connections. The ability to backhaul as many cells in high-traffic urban areas as possible with fibre. to allow for maximum capacity and upgradeability. backhaul and RF planning and provisioning Low cost availability of cell site equipment and of backhaul especially fiber Increased confidence in the added value business case Maturity of key standard and non-standard technologies e. Flexible provisioning and SON-type techniques must apply to the backhaul as well as the RF.02 6 . they will need to embark on far bigger and highly complex roll-outs than previously expected. to trying to secure backhaul for optimal locations. LTE-A and cellular/Wi-Fi cells Another cited reason for some delay in large-scale deployments is that.g. provided this can be done affordably. though that is expected by most respondents to be weighted towards 2016 and later as they wait for several key factors to fall into place to make the business case workable. This is because the scale of capacity they will require to support competitive services will be even higher than previously anticipated. They are looking beyond simple coverage and capacity.This indicates a rapid uptake in deployment. To achieve such aims they need: € € € Large numbers of cells (hyper-densification of some parts of the urban network) Guaranteed quality of service Very flexible provisioning of capacity in order to provide optimal quality of experience without equipping every cell for peak loads There are several areas of technology and process which will help meet these objectives. in order to achieve the full benefits they are seeking from small cells. € € € Small cell deployment € is this an opportunity for MSOs? Issue date: 20 February 2014 Version: 1. There is a notable shift in thinking from MNOs placing cells where backhaul is available. aiming to build new revenue streams which harness small cells' capabilities. SON and eICIC Wide availability of LTE. there is a marked recognition by MNOs that. Notably those are: € € € € € Automated tools and processes for site. such as personalised services and M2M.

1% 6% 30% 63% Fiber Wireless DSL Cable Figure 2: Percentage of small cell sites which will be backhauled by different technologies by 2018 based on all MNOs surveyed Figure 2 shows the focus of the MNOs surveyed on securing last mile fiber if they can do so affordably because of the future-proofing it offers. The relatively small percentage of DSL backhaul remains the same across all regions. Japan and Korea. at least outside China. Wireless solutions optimized for small cells will remain important throughout the period especially in suburban or rural areas with lower capacity requirements and density. America and W. It is interesting to note that the anticipated use of cable by 2018 increases primarily at the expense of fiber backhaul. cable and even DSL have frequently been used. 31% 35% 1% 33% Fiber Wireless DSL Cable Figure 3: Percentage of small cell sites which will be backhauled by different technologies by 2018 according to MNOs from N. America. Europe and N. The use of fiber is also very regionalized and is far greater in eastern APAC while high quality cable is most commonly used in North America and wireless in Europe. Figure 3. In early stage roll-outs. Europe Small cell deployment € is this an opportunity for MSOs? Issue date: 20 February 2014 Version: 1.02 7 . Separating out these MNOs from W. shows rather more balanced proportions of small cell sites backhauled by different technologies.

Within those networks there may still be considerable reliance on third party infrastructure and services to fill gaps. accelerate deployment and make costs for capex and opex more predictable. and this in turn is creating notable interest in outsourcing some or all elements of their small cell projects in order to reduce their own risk. There are three broad levels of small cell services in which MNOs have significant interest and which MSOs could provide: Small cell deployment € is this an opportunity for MSOs? Issue date: 20 February 2014 Version: 1. MNOs expect just under two-thirds of urban small cells to be backhauled by last mile fiber especially in the dense urban centers (which will require the largest number of cells) and almost one-third with wireless In N. 30% 30% 40% Owned and rolled out ourselves Belonging to a partner Owned but rolled out by third party Figure 4: Expected ownership (%) of MNOs‚ commercial small cell networks (excluding Wi-Fi) based on all MNOs Figure 4 indicates a strong leaning towards outsourcing elements of small cell networks. Although MNOs with access to their own fiber (as part of a converged telecoms group) are often early movers for that reason. 3. globally.America and W.early large-scale deployers have been concentrated among large APAC MNOs with exceptional access to their own infrastructure including fiber.By 2018. wireless and cable solutions. compared to just 12% in EU and one-quarter in North America. Regionally. 50% of APAC respondents expect to own and manage the bulk of their networks including backhaul.2 MNOs‚ increased interest in small cell services The increasing complexity and business-critical nature of small cell deployments are driving many MNOs to expand the scale of their original projects. This percentage will be higher in fiber since wireless will be more commonly deployed by the MNO itself.Europe it is expected that backhaul is fairly evenly split by fibre. about 47% of small cell backhaul links will still be provided by an unrelated partner once networks achieve scale.02 8 . though this trend may well dilute in future . APAC operators are far more inclined to keep full ownership and control. 70% of MNOs expect their primary networks to be managed or fully owned by a third party.

providing the whole infrastructure for small cells and Wi-Fi including sites. As seen in Figure 1 (above).€ € € 'Simple' backhaul .is also of rising interest. In addition. MNOs will often own some backhaul and Wi-Fi cells themselves and rely on some from one or more partners. management. Wi-Fi small cells .02 9 .which is carrier-class but not fully integrated with small cells . single-mode Wi-Fi . one-quarter will start multimode cellular/Wi-Fi small cell roll-outs by the end of this year and 60% by the end of 2016. backhaul. there will not be a simple divide. any partnership that provides an appropriate Wi-Fi service (more hotspots of higher quality and in good locations) will become more strategic. Every MNO expects Wi-Fi to form some part of its network by the end of 2016. the region where MNOs are most keen to keep ownership and control of their networks. One or both of these will form at least an element of the small cell strategy for no fewer than 85% of MNOs in urban areas (often MNOs will choose to own some of their own Wi-Fi cells and backhaul links and outsource others). most commonly Wi-Fi. SCaaS . 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 % of respondents 85 85 55 35 35 30 Figure 5: Percentage of all MNOs considering partnerships for various aspects of small cell strategy As providing carrier grade Wi-Fi becomes fully integrated into the MNO's network. by far the most common choices will be leasing of small cell backhaul and offloading data to a partner's network. though there will be the need to modify procurement and planning processes to accommodate unlicensed technologies. A simpler version of this managed service approach is to offer Wi-Fi-only SCaaS. with 60% of MNOs trialling or using it for offload. Small cell deployment € is this an opportunity for MSOs? Issue date: 20 February 2014 Version: 1. The model will be enhanced if these can be built on a neutral host basis though this will not be a feature of standard equipment until 2015. Increasingly this will include sophisticated planning and 'Backhaul SON' techniques to provide the optimal connections. As Figure 5 shows.providing fiber or cable last mile connections to operators' small cell and/or Wi-Fi sites.many MSOs are deploying large Wi-Fi hotspot networks for their own customers but also see MNO offload as a revenue stream. often via third party hotspots. Even in APAC. Most commonly they will retain ownership and roll-out of cellular small cells while relying on partners for backhaul and Wi-Fi.

to understand the challenges and how they would interwork with the macro networks and also because outsourced services were not available or suitable.3 How MSOs can improve small cell economics The last point above is critical to the opportunity for MSOs to take advantage of the trend towards small cell outsourcing by mobile carriers. This MSO experience includes relationships with infrastructure owners such as councils. and on flexible planning and provisioning in the backhaul not just the RAN. leading to concerns about unpredictable costs and diversion of resources. the more they recognized that many of the processes involved were not among their key competencies (outside of RF planning). Small cell deployment € is this an opportunity for MSOs? Issue date: 20 February 2014 Version: 1. Respondents mentioned planning timescales ranging from one month to almost one year (after spectrum had been secured). The survey shows that planning is the biggest challenge because of the many technical and logistical elements involved. Planning and deploying a large-scale small cell network involves entirely different approaches to those with which MNOs are familiar from their macrocell deployments. not just large numbers of random sites. € € € 3. but one with strong planning/optimization tools also in place. However. Securing all that backhaul would often require not only a partner with existing fiber. MNOs generally said they were far more inclined towards outsourcing than they had been 1-2 years ago. deployment of many thousands of endpoints at low cost etc. When interviewed. They realised that maximising the benefits of small cells would depend on securing optimal sites. all of which make timescales and costs very unpredictable. they would look to feed that knowledge into the KPIs for outsourcing partners. Many of the key challenges associated with mass-scale urban roll-out are within the experience of other types of operator such as MSOs. This was because: € They had wanted to deploy initial trial or small-scale networks themselves. Figure 6 shows the number of business days needed for what MNOs consider to be the key aspects of small cell deployment. Professional services providers will also be important for more than half of MNOs in deploying small cells.02 10 . having fully understood the workings of a small cell network. cable or even wireless. The more they understood small cell roll-outs and increased the scale. Their network plans had become more complex and business critical. Both are included in about one-third of MNOs' plans.For cellular small cells there will be two main ways to work with partners for cellular small cells: € € offloading to a network owned by a third party or opting for full SCaaS. with European operators being most enthusiastic.

notably identifying optimal sites. according to three-quarters of those companies interviewed in depth. as many interviewees pointed out. leasing negotiations etc. Outside of fullscale SCaaS the latter will generally remain the domain of the MNO and they are looking for new tools dedicated to RF planning for complex small cell and HetNet roll-outs. gaining permissions. negotiating leases and securing backhaul and power. There is significant variation in the time spent securing a site. while securing appropriate sites is close behind on 50%). but a delay of 150 days is common when a carrier has to go through site permissions. without partnerships.02 11 . These site and backhaul issues loom high on the list of the challenges to the MNO small cell model € almost as high as the biggest challenge in large-scale small cell networks. Most of the large variations in timescales relate to site issues. and the targeted number of days for massscale deployment to be viable There are. managing and continually reconfiguring a huge network (that is a top three challenge for 60% of MNOs. RF planning averages 25 days and without new optimised tools and more advanced SON operators say this would increase as networks get more complex. Securing backhaul € either from a wireline carrier or by building wireless links in-house € typically takes 90 business days and again. These targets become more critical when there is already less access to sites and fiber for MNOs via sister companies or existing partnerships. However. of course. is eased by deploying first in the right sites with the right backhaul. Installation is relatively quick on a per-cell basis and small cell vendors are constantly improving their products to ease installation once sites and backhaul are in place. many MNOs acknowledge that they lack the field processes or workflow to acquire and Small cell deployment € is this an opportunity for MSOs? Issue date: 20 February 2014 Version: 1. two main elements of planning € the sites and the RF. there may be multiple sources involved. with a number of site owners.160 140 120 100 days 80 60 40 20 0 Securing site Securing backhaul and power current RF planning Installation 30 30 25 6 2 0. MNOs have clear targets for reducing time and cost of deployment which will be essential to achieve for most to begin large-scale roll-out. Even the management task. to improve their ROI (see later section).5 90 150 target Figure 6: MNO views on the average business days currently needed for key aspects of small cell deployment. Partnering with a company which can provide pre-approved sites with backhaul is the single biggest positive contributor to improving time-to-market as well as upfront cost.

of course.5 Installation 90 150 Securing backhaul and power current target Figure 7: MSO‚s typical timescales for key aspects of small cell deployment. Traditionally. However.install large numbers of cells and will need a more scalable approach to reduce upfront time and cost. outsourcing does not reduce the MNOs• time-to-deploy to zero. Of course. These times may be optimistic. the more they will be subject to the same planning and service delivery requirements as cellular. It is clear that a rising number of MNOs are looking to partners for an optimised network and ongoing business relationship rather than a simple line leasing deal.02 12 .5 0. Small cell deployment € is this an opportunity for MSOs? Issue date: 20 February 2014 Version: 1. MSOs that can provide any combination of existing site provision. 160 140 120 business days 100 80 60 40 20 0 Securing site 30 30 30 15 25 6 RF planning MSO 2 0. they will sometimes have a connection already in place for a suitable location though more commonly MNOs will want dedicated bandwidth and optimal site planning. compared with those of MNOs (current and targeted). For the best results time will be spent managing the relationship and working closely with the MSO to optimize the backhaul planning. MSOs• deployment timescales for large-scale connectivity are far closer to those which MNOs are targeting to make their small cell cases viable. However. it is part of the MSO•s process to pull last mile cable or fiber to new sites and this can be achieved far more quickly. Figure 7 shows the timescales for the MNO (from Figure 6) and contrasts these to the timescales for MSOs to perform the same range of tasks. with those who are not part of a telco group. backhaul provision and installation will see an opportunity with MNOs € especially. sites and often backhauled by DSL. MSOs believe their average time to secure sites is close to the MNO target because they already have alliances in place with many infrastructure owners such as local authorities. the more they become an integral part of the MNOs• networks. For backhaul. rather than optimal. since they refer to MSOs• day-to-day operations that would not involve some of the complexities of scale and sophistication anticipated for licensed small cells € but they do demonstrate the potential benefit. Wi-Fi small cells have been less burdensome since they have often been ‚best effort• networks built on readily available.

which have been accustomed to securing sites and backhaul on a relatively small number of towers and buildings. MNOs believe that the most difficult issues in deploying backhaul to small cells (apart from time and cost) will be last mile connections to the right cells and project management (see Figure 8). are already part of MSOs• established processes. internal or with partners in the deployment chain. the MSO•s opportunity does not lie only in reducing time to market for MNOs. many of them related to communications. project management and TCO elements. Figure 9 indicates that several of the obstacles cited by MNOs are considered by MSOs to be generic challenges. Other issues include the process of securing and deploying backhaul to many hundreds of cells. shared with their more traditional roll-outs € in particular.In that context. field force expertise and training. but also in shielding them from many other complex processes. which are seen as obstacles by MNOs. MSOs roll out cable and fiber connectivity to thousands of nodes and sometimes millions of homes. 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 % of respondents 65 45 25 30 20 35 15 15 10 40 10 20 5 10 5 10 Top issue Top 3 issue Figure 8: Key MNO challenges in deploying backhaul to small cells (MNO base. excluding time and cost) Many of these issues. a process which is far closer to that of deploying small cells near street level.02 13 . Small cell deployment € is this an opportunity for MSOs? Issue date: 20 February 2014 Version: 1. Unlike mobile operators.

Other important partners are telcos. the MSO is considered the primary partner by more operators in North America and Europe than in APAC. MSOs are the group to which the largest number would turn . with the equipment providers increasingly running MNOs• networks for them on an outsourced basis. as in the case of Virgin Media in the UK. neutral host roll-outs. excluding time and capex/opex) These factors (see Figure 10) help to explain why MSOs are commonly cited as likely small cell providers by mobile carriers. For MNOs which would consider using a partner. Small cell deployment € is this an opportunity for MSOs? Issue date: 20 February 2014 Version: 1. technology permitting. backhaul and potentially WiFi). which might also be MSOs. they are likely themselves to become customers for backhaul services as they expand into small cells hosting and.100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 95 95 85 55 45 55 45 60 40 65 35 15 85 % of MSOs 5 5 15 Specific to small cells/WiFi Shared with MSO roll-outs Figure 9: Chief issues in deploying backhaul to small cells.02 14 . Regionally. and how far they are shared with existing MSO deployments (MSO base. 30% of MNOs would partner with network equipment providers (NEPs) for their small cell deployment. A further 15% expect to work with full SCaaS providers. Indeed.45% name them as the most likely partner for small cell backhaul and 20% for full services (sites. especially for wireline backhaul and equipment providers and integrators for broader services.

02 15 .60 50 % of respondents 50 40 30 30 20 20 10 0 MSO Telco NEP Integrator Backhaul only SCaaS provider None 15 20 15 5 45 Full service Figure 10: Percentage of MNOs which would consider various providers as partners in small cell deployment Small cell deployment € is this an opportunity for MSOs? Issue date: 20 February 2014 Version: 1.

primarily because of uncertainty about the business model but also about practical issues such as the precise division of labour and ownership between the provider and the MNO. in most cases serving a mixture of their own subscribers and wholesale partners.cellular sites for MNOs and MVNOs and Wi-Fi sites for a range of providers/users. This section examines the MSO community's readiness to provide these services and the challenges they will face to grasp the opportunity. Amongst the MSOs surveyed. One is to harness their fiber and cable networks to backhaul small cells . especially in the RF/spectrum area. The response from MSOs The preceding section highlighted the areas in which MSOs could enhance the small cell business case for MNOs. The other is to take advantage of that backhaul infrastructure to build out their own Wi-Fi hotspots which can be used to provide wireless access services to their own subscribers and data offload/wholesale to MNOs and others.the effort of deploying Wi-Fi can provide a footprint for small cell sites and backhaul for instance.02 16 . small cell activities fall into two related categories.4. Small cell deployment € is this an opportunity for MSOs? Issue date: 20 February 2014 Version: 1. creating new revenues from their own wireline deployments in the process. Only 15% currently envisage offering full SCaaS services. a few € mainly in the US and Western Europe € believe SCaaS will allow them to harness their infrastructure assets in a far more strategic and profitable way than simply offering backhaul alone. 70 60 % of MSOs surveyed 50 40 30 20 20 10 0 Small cell Add public Encourage backhaul to WiFi onload third parties Provide SCaaS Add mobile Undecided services for subscribers 15 10 10 65 55 Figure 11: Percentage of MSOs planning to support various small cell services within the next five years Two-thirds of MSOs believe small cell backhaul will become an important element of their business within the next 4-5 years. 80% plan to offer small cell services and/or Wi-Fi offload by 2017. However.1 MSOs' small cell plans As outlined above. There are clear advantages to doing both . while 55% expect to deploy public Wi-Fi. 4. for most MSOs.

contrasted with small cell MSO backhaul timescales (2014-2018) Small cell deployment € is this an opportunity for MSOs? Issue date: 20 February 2014 Version: 1. in most cases. Figure 13 shows the anticipated timescales for MNO deployment of carrier Wi-Fi. of course. two-thirds of MSOs expect to be offering these services and no MSO has ruled out the option entirely. The progress is far slower in small cell backhaul although this. as indicated by the uptick in 2015 € by the end of that year.02 17 .and far larger deployments € by 2017. carrier Wi-Fi and combined small cells versus the anticipated timescales for MSO to provide backhaul to small cells. than those of MNOs (at least outside the US and a few large European markets). As their need for backhaul services rises. 100 90 80 70 % of Respondents 60 50 MNO small cells 40 30 20 10 0 Trial phase Already By the end In 2015 started of this year In 2016 MNO Carrier WiFi MNO cellular/WiFi MSO small cell backhaul Stage of Deployment At a later Undecided No plans date Figure 12: Projected timescales for MNOs‚ commercial trials/deployments of small cells. contrasted with the timescales for MSOs to support Wi-Fi offload and small cells. many MSOs plan to rise to the challenge. Over half the MSOs surveyed have already started to deploy Wi-Fi hotspots and that figure will rise to 70% . MSOs are clearly more advanced in the role of deploying small cells for Wi-Fi offload and relatively immature at deployment of licenced small cells. is partly down to the small scale of MNOs• requirements so far. Figure 12 shows anticipated timescales for MNO deployment of small cells.Although it is clear that there is very high interest in providing small cell services the conversations with MSOs indicate that their plans are at a less concrete stage. indicating a potential delay of one to two years. We can consider these different levels of expectation for MSOs providing backhaul services and to providing small cells.

whose MSOs are the pioneers in harnessing their wireline networks to support small cell backhaul and in building large-scale Wi-Fi networks. 9% 30% 20% 23% 18% MNOs Enterprise WiFi operators Government M2M Figure 14: Percentage of MSOs placing each customer group in its top three targets for small cell services For MSOs that do move into small cell services MNOs are not the only target customer for their last mile connections and hotspot sites. which has been pioneered by a few Asia-Pacific operators. While MNOs are the largest potential source Small cell deployment € is this an opportunity for MSOs? Issue date: 20 February 2014 Version: 1. usually those which have access to significant amounts of backhaul. to support their own data services and those of partners. This is the opposite situation from that in the early small cell market.% of Respondents 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 MNO carrier WiFi MSO WiFi offload MSO small cells Stage of Deployment Figure 13: Projected timescales for MNO carrier Wi-Fi and MSO deployment for Wi-Fi offload and small cells (2014-2018) The exception to the general caution about small cells is seen in the US.02 18 .

Many MNOs are targeting backhaul operating costs of under US$250/month. and in the top three.notably the monitoring of SLA elements like Ethernet loss and jitter at the demarcation line. which will place the emphasis on cable or wireless last mile. outside of the densest urban environment.02 19 . by MSOs Small cell deployment € is this an opportunity for MSOs? Issue date: 20 February 2014 Version: 1. and are cited as a top three target by 85% of MSOs.of revenue here. or other suitable points of presence (PoPs). There are also aspects of their established wholesale backhaul relationships which MNOs will want to import to the small cell arena and which will be unfamiliar to MSOs that do not provide macrocell services . Most of these. will revolve around specific technical and integration aspects of backhauling cellular base stations and provisioning optimally for very unpredictable levels of traffic compared to the residential and business locations usually served by MSOs. enterprises and government/public safety agencies are also considered important and there is some emerging interest from the M2M community. MSOs will need to add new skills and tools to offer the strategic and high value services for which MNOs will pay the highest sums. as placed in number one position. 4. The cost of provisioning huge numbers of small cells can be the biggest single item and a major deterrent to the widespread use of fiber (except where an MNO has low cost access to fiber resources within its business group).2 Challenges Despite some clear advantages which MSOs can bring to the small cell map they also face challenges if they are to work strategically with mobile providers. 80 70 60 % of MSOs 50 40 30 20 10 0 25 25 20 20 5 50 35 10 15 70 65 65 Top issue Top 3 issue Figure 15: Issues in deploying small cell backhaul. rather than merely offering line leasing. The biggest challenge will be to drive down the costs of backhaul connections. in the MSO's opinion. Wi-Fi pure-play operators. Apart from cost.

30% believe better tools will become available this year while 50% think there will be a longer wait to secure the complete toolkit. This suggests that tools to address small cell backhaul provisioning. 80% of MNOs believe existing tools are inadequate and of those. or end-to-end views of the network.3 Tools Although MSOs have many tools and skills for supporting large scale roll-outs of small cells for consumer use their main need for new tools will focus on planning for public and unpredictable traffic. over time. especially for those which have not experimented with public Wi-Fi. specialized software will be necessary to provide the optimized performance that MNOs will increasingly demand. and to use wireline resources efficiently in large and complex networks. are behind those for the access side (see Figure 16). higher than the proportion for MNOs.There are other areas where close MNO relationships will involve changes in the typical MSO's skills and processes including: € € € The approach to planning the cable or fiber links The mechanisms for leasing backhaul connections to MNOs Additional relationships within an expanded deployment chain 4. About 30% think there is a shortage of suitable tools for small cell planning. As deployments and trials are at an early stage in most cases there is low current usage of specific small cell planning tools for backhaul.02 20 . Therefore 30% of MSOs think their existing conventional approaches are adequate but two-thirds of those respondents believe that. There is a potential dilemma in determining how long to wait for the ‚perfect• set of tools as opposed to moving more quickly with some trade-offs in planning time and efficiency. 35 30 % of respondetns 25 20 15 10 5 0 Tools are adequate Expect specific Shortage of Mainly use tools to be appropriate tools manual methods available this year MNO MSO 20 15 25 30 25 25 30 25 Figure 16: Comparison of MNO and MSO assessments of the need for specific small cell planning tools As can be seen above. Small cell deployment € is this an opportunity for MSOs? Issue date: 20 February 2014 Version: 1.

4.4 New relationships Although many MSOs provide wholesale and leased services on their lines the complexity of the mobile small cell model will often involve them in new partnerships and processes involving many agencies. Small cell deployment € is this an opportunity for MSOs? Issue date: 20 February 2014 Version: 1. whether MNOs or MSOs. and in all kinds of tools. Though in many ways disruptive to their norms. MNOs and MSOs have a slightly different emphasis on their preferred partnering arrangements (see Figure 18).02 21 . however. see the traditional bilateral deals remaining powerful and there are strong regional variations € US players are most favourable to the marketplace and APAC providers to integrators. Automation will apply to planning and provisioning backhaul as well as RF and to the workflow and processes for project management of huge numbers of deployments. 25% of MSOs think the marketplace will become the dominant model allowing them to trade more flexibly. believe automation will be critical to small cell success and a further 40% of MSOs and 45% of MNOs believe it will be important. MSOs have greater belief than MNOs in the marketplace model taking over from bilateral deals for securing small cell backhaul over time. whether these are being used by the MNO itself or a third party provider. As Figure 17 shows that almost half of providers. for instance. Both groups. compared to 20% of MNOs. being an ‚on-demand• system based on a marketplace model. One trend may be more flexible approaches to selling and provisioning backhaul with the endpoint. for some players.50 45 40 % of respondents 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Critical Very important MSO MNO Fairly important 15 10 45 45 40 45 Figure 17: Comparison of MNO and MSO ratings of the importance of automation in the small cell backhaul model Among both MNOs and MSOs it is clear that the model for small cells will rely heavily on automation and this will have to be supported at every level of the process.

Considering deployment timescales and new business models there appears to be a ƒdeployment gap„ with MNOs expecting to move earlier than MSOs. Only 40% of MSOs believe they will be supporting small cell deployment or commercial trial by the end of this year. Deployment timescales € € 55% of MNOs surveyed are in the trial phase or have already launched small cell networks (and 60% carrier Wi-Fi). Small cell deployment € is this an opportunity for MSOs? Issue date: 20 February 2014 Version: 1. Mobile operators working with MSOs can accelerate small cell deployments but both MSOs and MNOs need appropriate workflow and planning tools to manage the process efficiently and gradually build up the trust needed to evolve to a long term partnership.02 22 .5 Issues emerging and implications for the industry It is clear from the above that MSOs have valuable skills and experience that can be applied to small cell deployment.50 45 40 % of respondents 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Marketplace Integrators MSO MNO Brokers Bilateral deals 25 20 15 15 20 20 40 45 Figure 18: Comparison of preferred arrangements for MSOs and MNOs for providing small cell backhaul services 4. For backhaul services many MSOs are able to move more quickly should they see the right signs from the market. MSOs• caution on deployment timescales is possibly because of an uncertainty on how quickly MNOs will deploy at scale. Key themes that emerge from the consultation with industry players are: New business models € 70% of MNOs are prepared to use small cell networks rolled out by or owned by a 3rd party partner.

The project management and existing relationships that MSOs already have in place can reduce the deployment time for MNOs.g. € The role of Wi-Fi (across MNO & MSO) € There will be a rapid uptake in deployment of both carrier grade Wi-Fi and combined small cell and Wi-Fi solutions towards 2016. TCO (95%) and project management (85%). € There is a potential dilemma in determining how long to wait for the ‚perfect• set of tools as opposed to moving more quickly with some trade-offs in the early adopters of deployments with planning time and efficiency. while 50% think there will be a longer wait to secure the complete toolkit. These networks can also be harnessed for revenue from MNOs via mobile data offload deals. Wi-Fi is a separate. Many MSOs. field force expertise (95%). negotiation with partners (45%) and technical aspects (40%) MSOs can secure access to sites and provide backhaul and power at a rate much faster than MNOs currently do. Tools and automation € 85% of both MNOs and MSOs believe that automation will be critical or important for small cell deployment to be successful. especially in the US and Europe.02 23 . 80% of MNOs believe existing tools are inadequate and of those. are rolling out large networks of Wi-Fi hotspots in order to provide wireless services for their cable/fiber customers. Wi-Fi build-out is cited by some operators as a ‚rehearsal• for small cell deployment services € the same processes of securing sites and backhaul but without the complexities of licensed spectrum or the same level of QoS expectation. The majority of MNOs and MSOs see a need to upgrade their tools in the near future. This is despite the fact that many of the skills required to facilitate a licenced small cell deployment are common to small cell Wi-Fi deployment and are seen by MNOs as key issues to address. though related. This contrasts starkly with MSOs preparations for licenced small cell deployment where 65% of MSO have not decided or have no plans. opportunity for MSOs to work with MNOs. Small cell deployment € is this an opportunity for MSOs? Issue date: 20 February 2014 Version: 1. 30% believe better tools will become available this year. 55% of the MSOs surveyed have already started deploying Wi-Fi for offload and only 30% are either undecided or have no plans for Wi-Fi offload.MSOs have skills that can help small cell rollout € € The principle challenges identified by MNOs in small cell rollout are project management (65%). They can also match or exceed the lead times targeted by MNOs Although 85% of MSOs believe that technical aspects of small cell rollout are different to their normal deployment a number of issues cited as obstacles by MNOs for small cell deployment are part of the everyday business of MSO rollout e.

Europe. Regional variations There are regional variations reflecting the infrastructure and business environments in different regions: € € Fiber backhaul is more likely to be used in APAC than in N. Small cell deployment € is this an opportunity for MSOs? Issue date: 20 February 2014 Version: 1.02 24 . US players are most favourable to marketplace solutions for backhaul ‚ondemand• services whereas APAC countries currently favour integrators. 47% of small cell backhaul links will be provided by an unrelated partner once networks achieve scale.Backhaul: € € 65% of MSOs believe they will be providing backhaul to small cells in the next 5 years and 55% believe they will be supporting public Wi-Fi in the next 5 years. America or W.

MSOs can secure access to sites. € € 70% of MNOs are prepared to use small cell networks rolled out by or owned by a third-party partner. Small cell deployment is likely to contrast with traditional macrocell deployment € requiring installation of a large number of relatively inexpensive small cells rather than a small number of bespoke macrocell sites. and can match or exceed the lead times targeted by MNOs. while 50% think there will be a longer wait to secure the complete toolkit. we have surveyed 40 national and large regional MNOs. Europe and APAC. 30% believe better tools will become available this year. negotiation with partners (45%) and technical aspects (40%). including field force expertise (95%). There is potential synergy with the existing skills from the MSOs for deploying backhaul to small cells compared to existing deployments where a high level of commonality in skills to deliver the task was cited. but have little commonality with MSOs• previous experience. Many of the skills required to facilitate a licenced small cell deployment are common to small cell Wi-Fi deployment and are seen by MNOs as key issues to address. MSOs and converged wireless/wireline operators to test views on the challenges and opportunities to deploy small cells.5. 80% of MNOs believe existing tools are inadequate and of those. The key issue was to determine if the different deployment challenges are an opportunity for MSOs. skills and experience to help small cell deployment.02 25 . These findings are therefore likely to reflect the views of players in the industry who are more advanced in their plans for small cells rather than being representative of the industry as a whole. and provide backhaul and power at a rate much faster than MNOs currently do. Summary and Conclusions Based on our understanding of the likely challenges posed by MNOs and the potential opportunity of partner organisations. € € There will be a rapid uptake in deployment of both carrier grade Wi-Fi and combined small cell and Wi-Fi solutions towards 2016. Based on the survey it is clear that there is an opportunity both for MSOs and MNOs in working together to deploy small cells. Wi- Small cell deployment € is this an opportunity for MSOs? Issue date: 20 February 2014 Version: 1. 55% of both MNOs and MSOs see a need to upgrade their automation tools. The focus was on developed mobile markets and large emerging markets in North America. the likely suitability of MSOs to offer useful services and the willingness of MNOs to partner with 3rd parties. The principle challenges identified by MNOs in small cell rollout are project management (65%). there are some challenges: € 85% of both MNOs and MSOs believe that automation will be critical or important for small cell deployment to be successful. € € Whilst MSOs are likely to be able to offer useful services. 55% of the MSOs surveyed have already started deploying Wi-Fi for offload and only 30% are either undecided or have no plans for Wi-Fi offload. reducing the total cost of ownership (TCO) (95%) and project management (85%). Detailed technical aspects relating to small cell deployment are seen as a major issue by both MNOs and MSOs.

without the complexities of licensed spectrum or the same level of QoS expectation.Fi build-out is cited by some operators as a ‚rehearsal• for small cell deployment services € the same processes of securing sites and backhaul. Small cell deployment € is this an opportunity for MSOs? Issue date: 20 February 2014 Version: 1.02 26 .

October 2012. 4 ƒAn assessment of the value of small cell services to operators„. Informa.02 27 . Real Wireless for Virgin Media. July 2013. February 2014.pdf 3 ƒThink SmallCell Interview with Kim Chang-young„.realwireless.html. Cisco. Think Small Cell. http://www.php?file=050SCF_2013Q1-market-status%20report.References 1 ƒCisco VNI: Global mobile data traffic forecast update (2013-2018)„.biz/small-cells-as-a-service-trials-report/ Small cell deployment € is this an opportunity for MSOs? Issue date: 20 February 2014 Version: 1. February 2013. ƒSmall Cell market Status„.cisco.thinksmallcell.html. http://www.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/service-provider/visual-networkingindex-vni/white_paper_c11-520862. http://www. 2.org/smallcellforum_resources/pdfsend01. http://www.smallcellforum.com/Femtocell-Interview/thinksmallcell-interview-with-kimchang-young-senior-manager-of-access-network-lab-sk-telecom.

Copyright •2014 Real Wireless Limited. Real Wireless Ltd PO Box 2218 Pulborough West Sussex RH20 4XB United Kingdom t +44 207 117 8514 f +44 808 280 0142 e info@realwireless.biz www. All rights reserved.biz .realwireless.