Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Future Networks
Back
Network Economics
1. Introduction to Infrastructure
Sharing
1.1 What is Infrastructure?
Mobile network operators provide connectivity and communications service over deployed
network infrastructure (whether owned or leased). The definition of network infrastructure is
not only limited to electronic components but also includes passive elements such as physical
sites and towers that are required to operate the network.
This arises mainly from two factors. Firstly, the space within buildings are usually confined and
reasons of aesthetics/civil works limit the choice even further. This means that there is only so
much space where indoor base stations can be installed, where only a few choices will be
available considering the coverage demand to be satisfied.
Secondly, having more than one mobile operators further complicate the problem because
the mobile operators will have to compete for a few sites. Even if the operators are successful
in securing and deploying base stations in proximity of an optimal site, each operator will
have to invest in the civil works of antenna and transmission lines.
In this context, it would be more rational for operators to share in-building infrastructure or at
least the transmission lines to share the burden while achieving reasonable coverage.
It is true that deployment of 5G sites may be different from sites of legacy cellular networks
(e.g., 5G sites may be in the form of indoor small cells rather than grand towers/masts) and
that not as much cost may be required to deploy 5G sites than to deploy legacy sites.
However, the following can provide an illustrative example of the potential cost increase in
the 5G era. A cell using 20GHz is expected to have only a third of the radius of coverage
compared to a cell using 3.5Ghz
[1]
. This means that roughly 9 cells of 20GHz will be needed to replace a cell of 3.5GHz if same
coverage is to be provided. The civil works for cell site construction and the rent for the cell
site would more than likely increase (not necessarily by the factor of 9, but still a significant
increment), which will significantly increase both deployment and operation costs of radio
access network already consuming significant investment.
While it is possible to overcome the limitations in coverage with Massive MIMO (Multiple-Input
Multiple-Output) and Beamforming (the two technologies together allow extension of
coverage area by a factor of up to 10), they come with a significant cost. Having multiple
antennas means more expensive radio access equipment and more careful planning of radio
elements. Furthermore, beamforming leads to directional transmission and will have to track
the mobile user it is allocated to. This means that the transmission is no longer based on
stationary configuration but dynamic users which greatly increases the complexity of
operation on top of beamforming being an advanced feature requiring more money to
implement.
To meet the requirement of ultra-low latency, considerations to place the contents in the
edge network (to the extent of base stations if possible) are on-going. The costs of upgrading
the edge network to store and process contents in a timely and effective manner will be
significant, but such fundamental change in network architecture will incur costs that are not
easily captured by accounting cost (e.g., different paradigm of operation leading to more
errors).
However, completely closing the legacy networks are very challenging, if not impossible, as
there are many devices that are not tracked by the operator device management system (e.g.,
bring your own devices within enterprise customers) or are located in inaccessible locations
(e.g., subway tunnels).
To accommodate these devices while minimising the capacity, mobile operators can consider
infrastructure sharing of the legacy networks. This will mean that there will be only one
national legacy network shared by all operators and the operators will be able to divert
resources (e.g., manpower and spectrum) to next-generation networks.
Infrastructure sharing enables operators to focus on the competition in the service layer
regardless of the extent of the sharing. Operators can share whole or strategically
unimportant parts of its infrastructure to share infrastructure costs while providing acceptable
performance. Furthermore, these savings can facilitate mobile operators’ migration to next-
generation technologies and provide its customers with the latest technology available.
In this context, mobile operators need to employ cost-effective methods such that
accommodation of the increased traffic does not require similar magnitude of growth in
infrastructure cost. Traditional infrastructure deployment scheme can only bring limited cost
reduction even under tight cost reduction pressure, but infrastructure sharing enable
significant cost reduction for mobile network infrastructure deployment.
1.2.7 Social benefits
Some regulators are encouraging infrastructure sharing of mobile operators because they
believe that there are regulatory/social benefits that society can reap. Major social benefits
come directly from the economic benefit, where mobile operators can direct saved cost to the
customer in pricing. In addition, infrastructure sharing can help reduce energy consumption
and radio emissions of networks.
Existing reports and researches on mobile network sharing confirm that infrastructure sharing
can bring in significant cost reduction. Ericsson
[2]
(2012) predicted that asset savings from infrastructure sharing can reach up to 40% and cash-
flow improvement up to 31% depending on the type of sharing. Booz & Company
[3]
(2012) stated that infrastructure sharing can enable operators to save as much as 30 to 40
percent of the network costs. Coleago
[4]
(2010) calculated that savings in roll-out CAPEX and savings in network operations and
maintenance can reach up to 65% each with network sharing.
The breakdown of CAPEX and OPEX by Analysys Mason provides a hint on why infrastructure
sharing can potentially reduce costs so extensively. For CAPEX, building, rigging, materials
and power (i.e. building access to electrical networks to connect base stations to power)
consists of more than 50% of CAPEX for both developed and emerging markets. Sharing
these costs can significantly reduce required costs and some operators have experienced
35~40% reduction of TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) from sharing passive infrastructure. For
OPEX, Land rent, power and backhaul consist of more than half of OPEX in developed
markets and almost half of OPEX in emerging markets. Again, sharing these components can
significantly reduce the cost.
As raised by previous literature, the benefits and costs of infrastructure sharing depend on the
types of infrastructure sharing agreement. The sharing deals can be classified depending on
the technological entity shared, business/ownership assumed and geographical distribution.
1.4.1 Technology
Most prevalent classification criterion for network sharing is technology. The following figure
provides an overview of infrastructure sharing types depending on entities that can be shared.
here
). Passive infrastructure sharing is the simplest and can be implemented per sites, which
enables operators to easily share sites and maintain their strategic competitiveness
depending on the sites shared. Operation is also easier with this form of sharing because
network equipment remains separated. However, the cost-saving potential of sharing is
limited relative to other forms of sharing.
As in the case of site sharing, MORAN and MOCN can be implemented per sites and enables
strategic differentiation. However, operation of network equipment needs to be shared (or at
least issues must be shared with participants) and therefore increases the complexity of
sharing relative to site sharing. The cost-saving potential is greater than site sharing. Core
network enables greater cost-saving potential but is complicated to operate and to maintain
strategic differentiation. It is important to note that core network sharing has not been
popular and only a few cases have been suspected to be so. In this document, core network
sharing is considered to present the full theoretical picture of infrastructure sharing.
Finally, although not indicated in the figure, national roaming is a method of infrastructure
sharing. National roaming refers to roaming agreements in the national context. For example,
a subscriber from Vodafone Spain may roam into Telefonica’s network when entering into
non-overlapping coverage provided by Telefonica and vice versa. This type of sharing enables
cost saving comparable to or greater than core network sharing. However, national roaming
comes with complexity (e.g., when to choose home network over visited network has given
signal strength) and there can be regulatory issues where regulators may be concerned with
reduced competition.
NOTE 2: This document does not cover spectrum sharing or use of unlicensed spectrum as
the regulatory landscape is diverse depending on the regional/national context.
1.4.2 Business/ownership
A different perspective of business/ownership can also classify infrastructure sharing
agreements to four types. The first type of infrastructure sharing agreement is unilateral
service provisioning, where ownership of infrastructure remains separate (each company
owns its own network) and only one of the participating companies provides its infrastructure
to be shared. Therefore, as indicated in Figure 4, communications service (e.g., voice, SMS and
data) of participating operators A and B is provided on the infrastructure of operator A.
Mutual service provisioning is similar to unilateral service provisioning except that two or
more of the participating companies provide their infrastructure to be shared.
A joint venture is where companies in the agreement form a joint venture to own and operate
the networks, which means that the shared infrastructure is consolidated, owned and
operated by the joint venture (but the companies do not directly own the infrastructure).
Note that joint venture can also operate as tower companies that own towers and lease them
to mobile operators for use.
Finally, a 3rd party service provider is where a company, not necessarily affiliated with a
mobile operator, leases infrastructure to mobile operators for use. This type is also called
neutral host, with successful examples in the market already. There are tower companies
(comprising 31.8% of disclosed 154 infrastructure sharing deals as indicated in Coleago’s
network sharing database) that own towers and lease them to mobile operators for use. The
potential strategic implication of neutral host is that the control power over the sites shifts
from the mobile operators to the neutral host. That is, the value of the site is transferred and
additional consideration is necessary for mobile operators.
1.4.2.1 Public-private partnership
As in the case of building owners, the municipalities or the government can become the 3rd
party provider of infrastructure under a public-private partnership. Public-private partnership
is where municipalities act as a 3rd party service provider and the private sector (mobile
operators) partially finances the investment while leasing the infrastructure. Taking an
example of autonomous driving, it would be burdensome for owners of road infrastructure
(e.g., lamp posts, traffic lights and lane control) to provide hubs for two to four operators to
connect to and coordinate connection. Rather, it would be simpler and more cost-effective for
operators to share the infrastructure in deployment and operations processes.
1.4.3 Geographic
Geographically, infrastructure sharing can be viewed in two different perspectives. Firstly, it
can be divided into whether the infrastructure is shared in rural areas or urban areas. Some
operators would want to address coverage issues in rural areas where ROI is significantly
lower than that of urban areas. Some would want to relieve cost burdens in urban areas
(especially in the case of public coverage to resolve high costs of site acquisition, physical
space limitations and aesthetic/emissions concerns of having multiple antenna structures)
while maintaining coverage to ensure user experience. Others would want to focus on
relieving cost burdens overall in both rural and urban areas.
1.4.4 Process
Although not analysed and described in the case studies within this document, another
perspective that infrastructure sharing can be analysed is in the perspective of the process.
The processes can be divided into three distinct phases:
Whilst this perspective has not been explored in depth, trends of network densification
(applicable especially to 5G network deployments leveraging mmWave bands) will compel
operators to consider infrastructure sharing in the perspective of last two processes:
deployment and rollout, and maintenance and operations.
1.5 Scope
As can be seen from the taxonomy of infrastructure sharing described above, infrastructure
sharing agreements can take many different forms. This means that the benefits and
disadvantages of infrastructure sharing can vary and general implications and/or predictions
may not be precise.
Network Economics attempts to analyse cases of passive infrastructure sharing and active
infrastructure sharing that are actually implemented commercially (or at least pre-commercial
test) and deduce lessons learned from these cases for effective infrastructure sharing. The
rationale behind covering only these types is that, as discussed in section 1.2, the largest cost
element of a network is the radio network (70% according to Gemalto) and therefore where
most savings can be realised (for innovations that optimise backhaul cost specifically, see
here
). Besides the two forms of sharing enables differentiation of infrastructure competitiveness,
which is still an important determinant of customer satisfaction in most mobile markets.
Furthermore, both forms of sharing are less complicated to implement than other types of
sharing.
Please sign in above to make comments or edits to this document. To sign up for our
newsletter, please click
here
.
[1]
[2]
Ericsson, 2012, “Successful Network Sharing: a structured approach to network sharing – how
to benefit while maintaining competitive advantage”
[3]
Booz & Company, 2012, “Sharing Mobile Networks: Why the Pros Outweigh the Cons”
[4]
Zehle S. and Friend G., 2010, “Network Sharing business planning”, Coleago
What We Do
Industry Programmes Advocacy Initiatives Services Convening the Industry
Future Networks External Affairs & Industry Purpose Device Information Services MWC Barcelona
Identity Mobile for Development eSIM Services MWC Shanghai
Internet of Things Public Policy Fraud & Security Services MWC Los Angeles
Spectrum Network & Interconnect Services GSMA Thrive
GSMA Documents The Mobile Economy Roaming Services Mobile 360 Series
GSMA Capacity Building GSMA Advance 4YFN
GSMA Intelligence
Join us! Click here for current vacancies within the GSMA
Legal
© Copyright 2021 GSM Association.
The GSM logo is registered and owned by the GSM Association.