PDA

View Full Version : INFRASTRUCTURE SHARING IN PRACTICE: SHARING MOBILE NETWORKS (MORAN)



Ummi
2011-05-05, 04:04 AM
INFRASTRUCTURE SHARING IN PRACTICE: SHARING MOBILE NETWORKS (MORAN)
1. Market trends and operator challenges
2. Network sharing solution Significant network CAPEX & OPEX savings for operators
3. Outsourcing & Network Sharing are complementary ways to reduce costs and improve efficiency
4. Comprehensive solution for network sharing
5. Increasing levels of sharing in mobile networks are supported by different technical solutions
6. Site Sharing
7. Active RAN Sharing Scenario: Multi-Operator RAN/BSS (MORAN/MOBSS)
8. MORAN; Independent Core, Flexibly Shared Radio
9. Given the financial benefits, why has Network Sharing not taken off more extensively until now ?
10. Summary - why Network Sharing !

Ummi
2011-05-05, 04:10 AM
MBNL Selects NSN for Network Integration Task

Mobile Broadband Network Ltd. (MBNL), the network collaboration joint-venture between T-Mobile UK and 3 UK has selected Nokia Siemens Networks (NSN) as technology partner for 3G network integration. Nokia Siemens Networks will provide a network consolidation solution, bringing environmental benefits and cost savings to the operators and improvements for customers.
NSN has been selected as the 3G radio network infrastructure supplier for the consolidation of the two operators 3G radio access network infrastructure under MBNL, in the process creating the UKs most extensive 3G network, providing near complete population coverage by the end of 2009.
The contract has been awarded by MBNL, the 50:50 joint venture formed at the beginning of 2008 between 3 and T-Mobile UK to supervise the creation and operation of the joint network on behalf of both companies. The network consolidation agreement will significantly increase both operators 3G network quality and coverage, accelerate the provision of new high-speed mobile broadband services, and deliver cost savings and environmental benefits.
The first integrated cell site was commissioned in early February. Since then, MBNL has concluded a pilot in the Leeds and Bradford area which successfully validated that the network consolidation technology will deliver the desired benefits, focused on achieving nationwide 3G coverage.
We are now moving ahead with the large scale consolidation of cell sites, says T-Mobile UK Technology Director, Emin Gurdenli. A key objective was to ensure that we achieve scale and integrate quickly and smoothly, minimizing costs whilst quickly expanding coverage so as to enable a much improved service experience for our growing number of mobile internet and broadband customers. We believe that with Nokia Siemens Networks as our principal technology partner, MBNL will deliver on its objective of creating what will be Europes largest HSDPA network in record timescales.
Graham Baxter, Chief Technology Officer for 3 UK, says the network collaboration agreement with T-Mobile will help to accelerate the adoption of new services in a timescale neither network could not have achieved on its own.
It also enables us to cost effectively meet customer demand for wider coverage, faster speeds and greater capacity that is starting to arise as mobile devices become the most cost-effective and convenient route to access the Internet, says Baxter.
Although masts and the 3G access networks are being combined, each companys core network and T-Mobiles 2G network will not be shared. Both parties will retain responsibility for the delivery of services to their respective customers and use their own frequency spectrum. NSNs radio access solution will replace most of the two operators communications stations across the UK, with equipment at the remaining sites being upgraded and reconfigured for higher quality and capacity. The solution, featuring energy-efficient NSN Flexi base stations, will allow a reduction the number of sites in the network of around 30%.
Synergies in network operations will be achieved thanks to NSNs Multi-operator Radio Access Network (MORAN) solution, which will enable each network to function independently, re-using existing infrastructure and reducing the number of sites.
As well as network infrastructure, NSN will deliver project management, network deployment and managed spare parts capability, as well as care services to maintain network performance and increase its efficiency.

koepret
2011-06-26, 02:54 AM
RAN Sharing - New Paradigm for LTE

Network sharing or Radio Access Network sharing between two or more operators will become a necessity in near future as ARPU trend decreases, CAPEX(Capital Expenditure)and spectrum costs become speculative. The time is coming when operators have to decide to either evolve or go out of business being swallowed by bigger rivals. The days when a voice centric network paid for itself in time are gone, as the data-centric networks evolve it has to be supplemented with value added services like apps, faster download speeds, etc. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we could do multiple things with our phones – monitor our home, watch Football, control home appliances, monitor kids, be on top of work email, control our work computers, GPS, do video chat on- demand and all of the above at one flat rate! This is going to be the reality in the next 5-7 years as vendors are looking to provide these services in collaboration with the operators and smart phones.
What does this mean for an operator? More fatter pipes, new investments on hardware infrastructure upgrades, more space, more power and above all more capacity in terms of bandwidth and spectrum. So the path now for an operator would be to either chose the upgrade path or become obsolete. Is there a third way a middle ground that mitigates spending so much for infrastructure investments, well it comes in the form of a sharing agreement, where Operator A shares the network or other resources with Operator B, as pooled resources mean greater reach in terms of capacity and coverage.
Why do we need RAN sharing or for that matter any network-sharing models?
Capacity

Ironically, there is much talk of an impending spectrum crisis, an alleged shortage of spectrum for cellular networks. A survey commissioned by NSF in 2005 concluded that radio spectrum is underutilized; they found only 5.2% of the spectrum occupied in the range from 30 MHz to 3000MHz. And how can there be a spectrum shortage?
There is a contradiction that the problem at hand is not the lack of spectrum but because it is so inefficiently used. Pockets of spectrum are quite heavily used - for example, the cell phone and specialized mobile radio (SMR) band (a narrow band from 806 MHz to 902 MHz) is 46.3% utilized in New York City; while other bands are barely used at all. Cognitive radios seem like one approach to provide more efficient usage of the spectrum. It might be argued that there is, in fact, not really a shortage of capacity. It's simply off limits to most users, most of the time. Switch on a cell-phone in most locations in the world and you can see 5-10 different cellular networks, and several Wi-Fi networks. However, most users can only use one of the visible cellular networks, constrained by the contract they are locked into. Nearby Wi-Fi networks are usually off-limits too, because they are secured by their owners.
If we really want to give users access to the abundant wire-less capacity around them, why don't we make it easier by design and by policy for a mobile client to move freely between the spectrum, and networks, owned by different cellular and Wi-Fi providers? While this approach is clearly counter to current business practices and would require cellular providers to exchange access to their networks more freely than they do today. I believe it is worth exploring because of the much greater efficiencies it would bring; and the much greater capacity that could be made available to end users. Interestingly, a several-fold increase in capacity could be made available for little or no additional infrastructure cost.
Here are some thought provoking ways to increase capacity –
Capacity through more efficient statistical sharing - MNOs tend to heavily over-provision their network in order to handle times of peak load and congestion. Most of the time, the network is lightly loaded. If instead they were able to hand interaction with each other or from cellular to Wi-Fi networks, then their traffic load would be smoother, and their network more efficient. For example, what if AT&T could re-route traffic from their iPhone users to T-Mobile during an overload? Or T-Mobile could reroute their customers' flows to a nearby Wi-Fi hotspot?
Exploit differences in technologies and frequency bands - Mobile technologies such as EVDO and HSPA provide wide area coverage with consistent bandwidth guarantees; while technologies like Wi-Fi provide high bandwidth and low latency. Lower frequencies provide better coverage and penetration; while higher frequencies provide better spatial reuse. Being able to use the most appropriate technology for the application at hand would make best use of capacity available. For example, a backup where intermittent connectivity is tolerable can be done via Wi-Fi where higher throughput is possible.
Open up new sources of capacity - The ability to move between networks also opens up new sources of capacity. For example, one can now use a network such as that of fon.com to supplement their main network, without having to deploy an extensive Wi-Fi network.
Such crowd-sourcing can be a powerful tool to cover dead spots and relieve congestion. Through mobility across networks, we create a network with heterogeneous wireless technologies by “stitching together" the multitude of wireless networks available today. But the biggest and most significant way to impact networks real-time would be to pool the network resources and use them as needed.
Cost Savings
Significant cost savings is the main driver for RAN sharing models. The graphs below illustrate a typical CAPEX/OPEX for developed markets.

Source: Analsys Mason
Analysis of a typical CAPEX model reveals that a majority of the upfront costs are related to establishing coverage (i.e. access related CAPEX). Approximately 70% of the CAPEX involves acquiring the sites, access equipment, civil works (i.e. construction of the site, installation of the equipment) and laying the transmission network. With 4G, these fundamental implementation issues will be further complicated by the lack of sites, tighter environmental regulations, and health concerns regarding the hazards of radiation. In view of these challenges faced by the license holders, shared network infrastructure solutions need to be explored in order to reduce the financial risks facing the industry, establish faster universal coverage and thus improve time-to-revenue.
Sharing of the network infrastructure will have a significant impact on time-to-revenue because acquisition of sites and deployment resources are scarce and are always on the critical launch path. But more importantly, sharing network infrastructure has long-term CAPEX and Operational Expenditure (OPEX) savings, thus enabling MNOs to focus on developing the applications and services demanded by the marketplace, which will ultimately drive usage, generate revenue, and sustain the overall business case for wireless broadband.
RAN sharing models
For operators there are three different types of decisions to make – go Greenfield, Buy-in or consolidate.
A Greenfield deployment would be the easiest to realize. In this case, two operators jointly agree to build out a new technology (typically 4G). At the outset, the new shared network infrastructure and operations can be based on the capacity and coverage requirements of both operators. The operators would fund the build-out on a 50/50 basis or according to their expected capacity needs.
A buy-in situation arises when one of the sharing operators has already built out a 4G network and is now looking for another operator to share this network. In this case, the second operator would either pay a capacity usage fee or an up-front fee to acquire a share in the network. One challenge in this situation is determining how to agree on potential adjustments and build-outs that would reflect the needs and requirements of the operator who is buying into the existing network.
A consolidation situation arises when either 2G, 3G or 4G networks, which have already been built out by each of the sharing operators, need to be consolidated into one jointly shared network. This type of network sharing usually holds significant cost advantages, but it also presents substantial design challenges.

Passive Site Sharing
Type I
Sharing between two or more Operators including
§ Antenna systems, masts, rooftops, cabinets, shelters etc
§ Physical space such as compound, security alarms and passive technical facilities such as power supply, battery backup etc.
§ Savings of 25-50% on site rental and upto 50% site build and cabinet costs
Type II
Sharing between Operators includes
§ Antenna systems, masts, rooftops, cabinets, shelters etc
§ Antenna and feeder systems technically feasible along with BBU/RRU sharing
§ Backhaul sharing in the form of T1, Microwave or DS3 feasible
§ Savings are higher than type 1 in the form of NodeB basestations Infrastructure
MORAN (Multi Operator Radio Access Network)
MORAN is the mainstream industry approach to active sharing
§ Sharing is device-independent, and does not require any device support to display the correct operator logo
§ In the Node B, the radio and power amplifiers remain physically independent in order to allow the operators to use their assigned frequencies.
§ The RNC and parts of the Node B are logically partitioned between the sharing parties: logical partition of carriers.
§ There are common site-level parameters, but the operators can independently control cell-level parameters: this allows service differentiation. This may be a regulatory prerequisite for network sharing.
MOCN (Multi Operator Core Network)
MOCN is another industry approach for sharing the network.
§ specified in 3GPP Release 6
§ operators share both the RNC and Node B and pool their frequencies
§ spectrum sharing is a major limitation of this solution
§ device-dependent, requiring 3GPP Release 6
GWCN (Gateway Core Network)


3GPP TS 23.251 Release 9
A Multi-Operator Core Network (MOCN) in which multiple CN nodes are connected to the same RNC and the CN nodes are operated by different operators.
§ operators share parts of the core network, in addition to the RAN GMSC, SGSN and VLR
§ operators either pool spectrum, or use the spectrum of one of the sharing parties
§ GWCN is a historical type of network-sharing solution, which has been superseded by MOCN and MORAN
LTE RAN Sharing


LTE network Configurations are similar to those used for 2G/3G.
§ The S1 interface allows it to connect to multiple core networks.
§ Spectrum can either be pooled, as in MOCN, or assigned spectrum can be used, as in MORAN.
§ A GWCN configuration is also possible where the operators share the MME in addition to the eNodeB.
§ the user device informs the eNodeB of the selected core network operator, and the
§ eNodeB relays this information to the MME, to ensure the correct operator name is displayed.
§ All of these arrangements are supported in the LTE standards (3GPP Release 8 onwards).
What synergy does LTE bring in for RAN sharing? It is the true convergence for 3GPP and 3GPP2 family of networks, as a logical evolution for both families of technologies. It is the first time where technology evolves with both the RAN and CN an all-IP core and OFDM-based modulation for the RF network, ushering in an end-to-end evolution for wireless broadband.
Evolving ecosystems to support Network sharing
SDR (Software Defined Radio)
Software defined radio has several names from the vendors like One RAN solutions or single Radio solutions, and has been around in the R&D phase for probably the longest time. It has been relegated to commercial launch only with the advent of LTE, which specifies among other things SRVCC (Single radio Voiche overall business case for wireless broadband.
RAN sharing models
For operators there are three different types of decisions to make – go Greenfield, Buy-in or consolidate.
A Greenfield deployment would be the easiest to realize. In this case, two operators jointly agree to build out a new technology (typically 4G). At the outset, the new shared network infrastructure and operations can be based on the capacity and coverage requirements of both operators. The operators would fund the build-out on a 50/50 basis or according to their expected capacity needs.
A buy-in situation arises when one of the sharing operators has already built out a 4G network and is now looking for another operator to share this network. In this case, the second operator would either pay a capacity usage fee or an up-front fee to acquire a share in the network. One challenge in this situation is determining how to agree on potential adjustments and build-outs that would reflect the needs and requirements of the operator who is buying into the existing network.
A consolidation situation arises when either 2G, 3G or 4G networks, which have already been built out by each of the sharing operators, need to be consolidated into one jointly shared network. This type of network sharing usually holds significant cost advantages, but it also presents substantial design challenges.

Passive Site Sharing
Type I
Sharing between two or more Operators including
§ Antenna systems, masts, rooftops, cabinets, shelters etc
§ Physical space such as compound, security alarms and passive technical facilities such as power supply, battery backup etc.
§ Savings of 25-50% on site rental and upto 50% site build and cabinet costs
Type II
Sharing between Operators includes
§ Antenna systems, masts, rooftops, cabinets, shelters etc
§ Antenna and feeder systems technically feasible along with BBU/RRU sharing
§ Backhaul sharing in the form of T1, Microwave or DS3 feasible
§ Savings are higher than type 1 in the form of NodeB basestations Infrastructure
MORAN (Multi Operator Radio Access Network)
MORAN is the mainstream industry approach to active sharing
§ Sharing is device-independent, and does not require any device support to display the correct operator logo
§ In the Node B, the radio and power amplifiers remain physically independent in order to allow the operators to use their assigned frequencies.
§ The RNC and parts of the Node B are logically partitioned between the sharing parties: logical partition of carriers.
§ There are common site-level parameters, but the operators can independently control cell-level parameters: this allows service differentiation. This may be a regulatory prerequisite for network sharing.
MOCN (Multi Operator Core Network)
MOCN is another industry approach for sharing the network.
§ specified in 3GPP Release 6
§ operators share both the RNC and Node B and pool their frequencies
§ spectrum sharing is a major limitation of this solution
§ device-dependent, requiring 3GPP Release 6
GWCN (Gateway Core Network)


RAN Sharing - New Paradigm for LTE - Convergence Conversation (http://www.convergenceconversation.com/posts/harish.vadada/ran-sharing---new-paradigm-for-lte/6586)

adewijaya
2011-07-01, 10:24 AM
is there any detail document?