1 bonnin orange final


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

1 bonnin orange final

  1. 1. Mobile networks infrastructureand spectrum sharingOrange’s viewsFrédéric Bonnin, Orange Group Spectrum OfficeTelecom Networks 2.0. Sharing & Engineering ForumMoscow October 4th, 2012
  2. 2. Agenda 1 Network sharing at Orange 2 Spectrum sharing 3 Conclusion2
  3. 3. Orange Conquest 2015 strategic plan  leverage more efficient, shared operating models  - the Chrysalid programme aims to improve sharing of operational best practices and innovative business models to accelerate their deployment throughout the Group. This will help contain the increase in expenses (limited to 3.5 billion euros by 2015 compared with 6 billion euros at present, without any action by the Group)3 Network sharing was clearly identified as a key driver at Orange
  4. 4. Mobile Network sharing rationales  Financial Rationales – MNOs’ margins are slipping downward – Economical climate is not favourable – Investors want their dividend anyway  Technical rationales – Sharing make site densification cheaper and enable high throughput mobile data on average. – Faster network deployment – MNO differentiation out of radio access always possible  Regulatory/environmental rationales – Social pressure leads operators to minimize environmental impacts – Regulators impose network deployment in low density area. The future of mobile telecom business lies in network sharing4
  5. 5. Network Sharing at Orange EoY 2011, Ratio Total sites shared/Total sites represented circa 26% at Orange5
  6. 6. Network sharing:from 20% to ~ 50% savings on cost per site cost per site (CAPEX and OPEX) 100 % 80 % more than 35% of total 50 % group sites shared in 2015 site stand alone infrastructure active RAN merged RAN solution (passive) sharing sharing level of sharing >20% sites shared in Spain 3G: ~4,000 sites shared in UK: Three – Everything Europe Orange rural areas end of 2010 Everywhere RAN joint footprint end of 2010 France 3G:~2,500 “white zones” venture from 2010 to 20136
  7. 7. Agenda 1 Network sharing at Orange 2 Spectrum sharing 3Conclusion7
  8. 8. Strong growth of mobile data traffic Source: ITU-R Number of independent reports have been published.8 The only question is how fast will be the data traffic growth
  9. 9. Capacity on the radio access derives from three main factors Radio Capacity = Amount of spectrum X Spectrum Efficiency X Radio Cells density Licensed or not licensed Licensed or not licensed Technology and standards Technology and standards increases with increases with spectrum spectrum densification/sectorisation densification/sectorisation SE improves with new SE improves with new (i.e. deploying new sites) (i.e. deploying new sites) releases or device releases or device performance performanceAdditional spectrum from can significantly4G spectrum auction increase with smartUsing spectrum from ~1.5 Mbps/carrier in sectorisation indooraggregation will give 2010 to ~6.5 in 2020 emission points (wifi,more efficiency. thanks LTE performance femto, indoor solutions) There is still plenty of radio capacity coming with LTE launch, new9 spectrum band and engineering solutions (small cells, WiFi offload)
  10. 10. Tiers of regulation to identify spectrum for mobile  ITU (part of the UN) establishes international radio regulations whichInternational Level include: – allocation of the radio spectrum (International Frequency Allocation Table)  Holds WRC ever 4 years to define/amend what services / technologies bands can be used for.  3 ITU regions: Europe-Africa, Americas & Asia – so different bands  European region is governed by CEPT. CEPT’s main committee isRegional Level ECC (electronic communications committee) is most relevant. – The ECC’s role is to: Harmonise spectrum allocations across Europe/ harmonise licensing regimes/ coordinate European input to ITU WRCs/ CEPT member states can decide, but are not required to commit to the implementation of ECC decisions.  EU sets policy framework but detailed technical work done in CEPTNational Level  National governments implement CEPT decision, but can influence the distribution of spectrum between operators and define which bands are in use (some bands have more than one classification) 10
  11. 11. Individual licensed spectrum vs. Other licensing regimes. Current spectrum management methods based on individual authorisationPROS CONS It proved to be a very successful and  It is a lengthy regulatory process mobile industry growth was built on this.  Identifying new mobile dedicated process is individual authorisation makes sense since a fierce political battle mobile industry is using spectrum very  There is not so much spectrum available efficiently (always on and everywhere) below 6 GHz. Alternative spectrum management methods: shared used of radio spectrumPROS CONS Unlicensed spectrum is a good  As far as network QoS is concerned, complement: 2.4 GHz band usage is very nothing better than individual authorisation successful (WiFi).  Multiplying general authorisation regimes Under twofold mobile data traffic and opportunistic accesses schemes could assumption, we will need more and more result in a radio-electric chaos. spectrum, so sharing will be needed.  Who would want to share? 11
  12. 12. European Commission communication on shared used of radio spectrum Rationale: Radio Spectrum Policy Program’s goal to indentify 1200 MHz will impose to manage radio spectrum much faster to achieve this by 2015 Beneficial Sharing opportunities Spectrum Sharing Access Rights (BSO) (SSAR) BSO are based on collective use of BSO are based on collective use of This is a new procedure to allow This is a new procedure to allow spectrum and licensed shared spectrum and licensed shared mobile operators to negotiate mobile operators to negotiate access access shared use of spectrum bands shared use of spectrum bands already occupied by other users already occupied by other usersSource: EC communication on ‘Promoting the shared use of radio such as Radar, PPDR. such as Radar, PPDR.spectrum resources in the internal market’ September 3, 2012 Orange comments: This process is still at an early stage and Orange will monitor very carefully the coming development. Individual authorisation regime is by far our prefered option. 12
  13. 13. Licensed Shared Access LSA is a complementary authorisation model for spectrum rights of use, which allows for a shared use of spectrum What is • On a non interference basis to On a Licensed incumbent user Shared Access • Using cognitive radio technologies (database) • Based on an individual authorisation on an individual authorisation model of spectrum rights, in bands allocated by ITU to mobile services •It gives timely access to new spectrum resource spectrum resource •The use of harmonised band make the device the device ecosystem favourable. Main pros •Incumbent spectrum users can monetise their under- used spectrum, creating an incentive to share. •Well suited for small cells (low power, indoor) power, indoor)13
  14. 14. Sharing licensed spectrum It is the possibility for a licensee to share its spectrum with a third party. It could be, for instance, in region where another operator as more traffic than you and you don’t use your spectrum Multi Operator Core Network (MOCN) is standardised at 3GPP and enables 2 operators to share their radio access network and spectrum holdings. It will mainly enable operators to aggregate their channels to get wider carriers and later on to aggregate their spectrum holdings in different bands as possible with LTE evolution. Regulatory barriers remains to authorise spectrum sharing, although this is a good solution to optimize spectrum use.14
  15. 15. Non licensed spectrum sharing techniques White spaces Collective use of spectrum Originally developped for the US Originally developped for the US WiFi using ISM 2.4 GHz band is a WiFi using ISM 2.4 GHz band is a where TV spectrum is under used where TV spectrum is under used good example in favour of this type good example in favour of this type (space/time). TVWS model is (space/time). TVWS model is of sharing. of sharing. proposed by EC in lower UHF band proposed by EC in lower UHF band The 5 GHz band remains unused The 5 GHz band remains unused 470-698 MHz. 470-698 MHz. and is a good candidate for WiFi and is a good candidate for WiFi It remains a technical challenge with It remains a technical challenge with evolution. WiFi offload is part of evolution. WiFi offload is part of a risk of interfering primary users. a risk of interfering primary users. operators’toolkit to alleviate macro operators’toolkit to alleviate macro layer. layer. The unlicensed aspect is The unlicensed aspect is problematic since anybody can problematic since anybody can Identifying more bands is Identifying more bands is transmit, interfer and jump to transmit, interfer and jump to challenging and the tradeoff challenging and the tradeoff antother frequency without any body antother frequency without any body between quick access to new between quick access to new being held responsible for this. being held responsible for this. bands without guarrantee on bands without guarrantee on quality and cleaner licensed bands quality and cleaner licensed bands as to be considered carefully. as to be considered carefully. In general we are skeptical on extending unlicensed type of access since QoS remains a key factor for mobile operators.15
  16. 16. Agenda 1 Network sharing at Orange 2 Spectrum sharing 3 Conclusion16
  17. 17. Conclusion  Mobile network sharing is no more an option  Exclusive spectrum rights are still preferred, but spectrum sharing schemes could be considered as a complementary solution.  Both network and licensed spectrum sharing should be authorised by governments within the limit of anticompetitive behaviour.  Regulatory framework should remove restrictions on operators negotiating and concluding agreements governed by private law on sharing bands dedicated to Mobile Broadband.  Only harmonised mobile spectrum must be favoured when closing spectrum sharing agreement (risk of de- harmonisation)17
  18. 18. Спасибо