Operators can densify their networks more cheaply, and save energy, by using a neutral host architecture. Saying so is probably about as revelatory as saying”sun comes up in morning”, but new modelling from ABI Research (backed by neutral host company Boldyn Networks) aims to put some actual numbers to the claim.
ABI’s modelling found that neutral host deployments with an average of 2.4 participating operators could bring cumulative cost savings of between 40-47%, compared to the combined costs of those operators deploying individually. It also found that the neutral host sites would require between 20-38% less energy to operate. Savings vary according to the deployment environment – dense urban, urban, or suburban.
It stands to reason that a neutral host deployment which requires just one of everything involved in a site build – planning authorisation, site lease, installation team, small cell, backhaul and power connection – and then splits that cost across two, three or four operators should cost less, in the aggregate, than if those operators all deployed individually. That’s even after adding back in a nice margin for the neutral host company.
ABI Research modelled real world locations in New York and Rome. It assumed a MOCN (Multi Operator Core Network) model, where each operator’s core is connected to shared multi-operator radios via a MOCN gateway which sits in the neutral host operator’s data centre. It further assumed that on average, 2.4 operators would be connected at each site.
It accounted for the existing availability of underground or overhead fibre backhaul, including the expense of trenching new fibre in urban and suburban New York to green field sites. It found, for example, that backhaul capex per site in Manhattan could run to $46,000, while a suburban site could cost $78,000, due to the lack of available fibre.
To calculate energy usage savings it used publically available power consumption data – typically 120 W – for a commonly used Nokia 4T4R CBRS-capable small cell.
It also calculated the difference in the number of small cells that would need to be deployed by using a neutral host where operators share small cells, versus individual deployments. For its study in Manhattan (dense urban) it found that a neutral host would require 726 small cells instead of 1,209.
Overall it found TCO savings of 40% in its modelling for Manhattan, and 47% in its other studied locations – urban and suburban Rome, urban New York and suburban New York.
So if operators can densify their networks and save themselves a combined 40% of the build cost (split amongst an average of 2.4 operators) should we expect to see a growth in the numbers of operators signing on for neutral host deployments? Even id the economics appears to stack up, neutral host models have been slow to progress as operators have not liked the idea of ceding control of the network that is responsible for their customers’ experience. Some also worried about suffering a lack of competitive advantage if they shared infrastructure with rivals.
Brendan O’Reilly, Group Chief Operating Officer, Boldyn Networks, said, “Ultimately it always comes back to control. But we have seen operators willing to give that up over the last 10-15 years. The key element is to have a trusted partner. From Boldyn’s point of view we have always said it is about how we maintain the relationship with MNOs, so they are willing to see control to go.
“We’ve also seen with network sharing deals that operators have also given control up to each other – so we are beginning to see it. With all these things trust is the most important element.”
Comments
0