01.2 Small-Cell Report - Full Report

Small-cell opportunities,strategies and forecasts to 2016

Dimitris Mavrakis, Julian Bright

www.informatm.com

www.informatm.com © 2012 Informa Telecoms & Media

Copyright

© 2012 Informa UK Ltd.

All rights reserved.The contents of this publication are protected by international copyright laws, database rights and other intellectualproperty rights. The owner of these rights is Informa UK Ltd, our affiliates or other third party licensors. All product andcompany names and logos contained within or appearing on this publication are the trade marks, service marks or tradingnames of their respective owners, including Informa UK Ltd. This publication may not be:-

(a) copied or reproduced; or(b) lent, resold, hired out or otherwise circulated in any way or form without the prior permission of Informa UK Ltd.

Whilst reasonable efforts have been made to ensure that the information and content of this publication was correct asat the date of first publication, neither Informa UK Ltd nor any person engaged or employed by Informa UK Ltd acceptsany liability for any errors, omissions or other inaccuracies. Readers should independently verify any facts and figures asno liability can be accepted in this regard - readers assume full responsibility and risk accordingly for their use of suchinformation and content. Any views and/or opinions expressed in this publication by individual authors or contributors aretheir personal


ContentsContributing analysts........................................................................................................1

Small cells: Shrinking the radio network to meet growing demand............................. 2

Fig. 1: Global femtocell deployments by type..................................................................................................................................3

Fig. 2: Macrocell data throughput in small-cell deployments..................................................................................................4

Fig. 3: Examples of major vendors' small-cell offerings.............................................................................................................. 4

Fig. 4: Number of outdoor small cells required per macro........................................................................................................ 5

Small cells are promising but create some backhaul challenges................................... 9

Fig. 1: Small-cell-backhaul technologies and selected vendors............................................................................................. 10

Fig. 2: Comparison of small-cell-backhaul technologies.......................................................................................................... 10

Fig. 3: Evolution of small-cell backhaul to fronthaul................................................................................................................ 12

Small-cell deployments to be dominated by consumer-driven femtocells................. 13

Fig. 1: Global, small-cell deployment forecasts, by category, 2011-2016......................................................................... 14

Fig. 2: Global, picocell deployment forecasts, by region, 2011-2016.................................................................................. 15

Fig. 3: Global, femtocell deployment forecasts, by region, 2011-2016.............................................................................. 15

Fig. 4: Global, microcell deployment forecasts, by region, 2011-2016...............................................................................16

Fig. 5: Global, metrocell deployment forecasts, by region, 2012-2016.............................................................................. 16

Fig. 6: Global, small-cell deployment forecasts, by region, 2011-2016..............................................................................17

Fig. 7: Informa’s methodology for microcell, picocell and metrocell forecasts...............................................................18

Small Cell Survey 2012................................................................................................... 20

Fig. 1: Survey respondents’ location and company type..........................................................................................................20

Fig. 2: In your opinion, what THREE features best define a small cell?.............................................................................21

Fig. 3: Which technology do you expect to be the biggest driver of small-cell shipments in a five-year period(2012-2017)?..................................................................................................................................................................................................22

Fig. 4: What do you believe are the THREE most important reasons for deploying small cells?............................22

Fig. 5: What areas do you expect to be the most important for small cells?..................................................................23

Fig. 6: In your opinion, which will be the most important market for small cells in the next two years?.......... 23

Fig. 7: What is the time-frame for mass-market deployment of small cells?.................................................................24

Fig. 8: What do you expect to be the biggest advantage of different small cells to end users?.............................. 24

Fig. 9: What has held back broader deployment of consumer small cells?..................................................................... 25

Fig. 10: What are the biggest challenges for consumer small cells (femtocells)?..........................................................25

Fig. 11: What are the biggest challenges for outdoor small cells?.......................................................................................26

Fig. 12: What factor is most likely to affect a small cell deployment?.............................................................................. 26

Fig. 13: How do you expect Wi-Fi to affect small-cell deployments?................................................................................. 27

www.informatm.com © 2012 Informa Telecoms & Media 1

Contributing analysts26 June 2012Informa Telecoms & Media

Alejandro Moreno, Market forecaster

Rupert Reid, Informa associate

http://blogs.informatandm.com/authors/alejandro-moreno/


Small cells: Shrinking the radionetwork to meet growing demand11 June 2012Julian Bright

Executive summary

• Even with the introduction of LTE, the growth in data traffic on mobile networks can beexpected to reach saturation soon in areas of high demand. Enhancements to today’s3G/HSPA networks can go some way to meeting the needs of dense urban areas, butthe options for growing capacity in the macro network are finite, and a new solutionto the problem is required.

• Small cells represent a fundamental change in radio network architecturethat promises greater spectral efficiency and capacity gains above and beyondthose achievable with MIMO, high-order modulation, or other macro-networkenhancements such as cell splitting or spectrum re-farming.

• Small-cell products are now a de-facto part of all the major OEMs’ radio-networkofferings, and vendors are attempting to create differentiation around their small-cellstrategies. All are agreed that support for Wi-Fi will be an essential element in anysmall-cell strategy.

• Among the keys to success for small cells will be low total cost of ownership, capacityand performance gains, ease of installation, and effective self-organizing and self-healing capabilities.

Market status

As well as being a key weapon in the mobile industry’s response to the explosion in datatraffic, small cells are increasingly regarded as the logical next step in the evolution of theradio-network architecture.

Macro networks have served the industry well by building out coverage and meeting earlydemand for data services, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. However, smallcells not only provide additional, targeted capacity, but also bring numerous other benefitssuch as improved spectral efficiency and cell-edge performance, more flexible cell-loading andoverall traffic management, and reduced network capex and opex.

As traditional macrocell networks struggle to keep pace with data traffic growth in areas ofhigh demand, mobile operators are already pushing the performance limits of today’s 3.5Gtechnology by using a combination of techniques to boost throughput and expand capacity.These include moving to higher-order modulation such as 64QAM with MIMO, implementingdual-carrier HSDPA (DC-HSPA) and densification of existing macrocell sites through the useof cell splitting.

The introduction of small cells, either individually to provide targeted capacity for traffichot spots, or in clusters to provide a new capacity layer in larger areas, has the benefit ofusing existing spectrum rather than requiring an operator to acquire new, costly spectrumresources. The additional capacity can also be concentrated where it is most urgently required,making better use of the available spectrum and relieving the load on the macrocell.

Until now, small-cell deployments have focused primarily on consumer femtocells. Thesecompact, low-power units have been rolled out by a number of operators in North America,Europe and Asia Pacific, mainly in order to improve coverage and to offload data traffic fromthe macro network, providing a better customer experience while also freeing up networkcapacity (see fig. 1).


Fig. 1: Global femtocell deployments by type

In the public network, small-cell deployments have so far been primarily aimed at extendingcoverage in underserved areas, such as rural communities, or in challenging indoorenvironments, such as shopping malls or transport hubs, where picocell or distributedantenna system (DAS) deployments can provide single-operator or shared-operator access.

In anticipation of traffic demand exceeding the available network capacity at hot spots,mobile operators are now studying their options for densification of coverage, and consideringat what point dedicated hot-spot coverage through the use of small cells becomes economic.Their key concerns as to the viability of small cells are in regard to cost, performance andbackhauling, as well as minimizing potential disruption to the existing macro network.

The current focus in most markets is on using small cells to extend capacity in 3G networks,although in advanced LTE markets such as the US they will appear first in 4G networks.

Market dynamics

Driver and inhibitorsThe upsurge of interest in small cells is not solely down to vendor push, although all ofthe major OEMs have incorporated some form of small-cell offering as part of their productroadmap. Even among those mobile operators that have not already committed to theadoption of small cells, the level of interest is high and commitments to further trials of thetechnology are growing apace.

Many operators that have become familiar and comfortable with the working of small-celltechnology – for example, through their deployment of femtocells – are already planning toextend their use of small cells into urban, rural or enterprise applications. For example, AT&T,which already has several hundred thousand consumer femtocells in its network, plans to testpublic small cells in its macro network later this year.

The Small Cell Forum (formerly the Femto Forum) notes that the operator community hasbeen quick to endorse small cells. It cites the examples of NTT DoCoMo, which has arguedstrongly for early availability of LTE public femtocells, and Vodafone Group, which has beentrialing small cells in public outdoor areas. Other operators to have publicly stated theirintention to adopt small cells include Verizon, Sprint, Telefonica and China Mobile.

The case for small-cell deployment is most commonly founded on capacity gains. The SmallCell Forum estimates that, in a 3G network, the introduction of a single small cell per macrocan offload 21% of user traffic, while 10 small cells can achieve a 75% offload. However, italso points out that the addition of four small cells within a macro can triple the median datathroughput across both the small cells and the macro, and believes that these gains could alsobe a driver for small-cell adoption (see fig. 2).


Fig. 2: Macrocell data throughput in small-cell deployments

Whatever the gains, operators are entering a new learning cycle in their adoption of publicsmall cells. Until now, the deployment of macrocells and smaller cell types, such as microcells,picocells and DAS, has depended to a large degree on the efforts of engineering teamsto design, locate, set up and commission individual sites, with aspects such as antennaplacement and the distribution of radio heads being optimized to provide coverage andflexibility.

Small cells such as metro cells, on the other hand, are designed to function almost from theoutset with virtually no human intervention except for the process of physically attachingthe unit to a building, lamppost or other item of street furniture. This level of automationis a key factor in achieving the promised opex savings, and these cells will be dependent onthe automated set up and maintenance processes provided by their self-organizing network(SON) features.

Key playersWhile mobile operators are evaluating the cost and performance implications of small cellsand trying to decide when best to start introducing the technology into their networks,differentiation among small-cell vendors is building around their various product offeringsand recommendations as to when, where and how their benefits can best be realized. Thisincludes key issues such as how to manage and co-ordinate small cells within the macro-network environment (see fig. 3).

Fig. 3: Examples of major vendors' small-cell offerings

The small-cell market is not yet the sole preserve of the larger OEMs, and opportunitiesstill exist for smaller providers, from small-cell developers to integrated software, networkoptimization and backhaul suppliers, to make their mark. Nevertheless, the larger vendors areattempting to allay any concerns operators may have with the promise of small-cell solutionsthat can deliver maximum cost savings and performance gains, while integrating seamlesslywith the macro environment.


Alcatel-LucentAlcatel-Lucent is basing its small-cell offering around its lightRadio architecture, developedby Bell Labs. The vendor is keen to point out that lightRadio comprises more than just themodular antenna “cube” seized upon by the media at its launch in 2011, it encompasses otherelements such as core network integration and baseband pooling.

The company claims that lightRadio can offer over a 50% reduction in total cost of ownership(TCO) compared with legacy converged radio access network (RAN) platforms, mainly throughreduced site costs, opex costs and power consumption.

Alcatel-Lucent has taken a somewhat different stance from its competitors with its approachto small-cell deployments, recommending their use initially as an overlay for LTE networksand only incorporating 3G at a later stage – a strategy that the vendor is already implementingfor US CDMA operator Verizon, but one which it says is equally applicable for GSM operators.The vendor says that this approach gives operators greater freedom to “play” with LTE than isafforded by the single-RAN model widely-touted by other large vendors, and which sees smallcells initially targeting capacity in 3G networks, and only later in LTE.

Alcatel-Lucent also favors the seamless integration of a data-only, small-cell metro layer overthe deployment of more isolated small cells. Its Wi-Fi strategy is to create an open ecosystem,providing an interface to Wi-Fi networks while working with a variety of Wi-Fi providers.

EricssonRather than creating a distinct small-cell product line, Ericsson has chosen to add micro andpico base-station products to its existing BTS family, the RBS 6000. The picocell RBS productfeatures integrated Wi-Fi, a technology that has become a key focus for the vendor followingits acquisition of Wi-Fi provider, Belair.

Ericsson believes that small cells should be added to complement the macro layer only afterupgrading and densification of the macrocell network has been fully explored, arguing thatit is more cost-efficient to exhaust the potential for increased capacity in the macro networkbefore moving on to deploy small cells. Partly for this reason, the vendor’s expectations for thespeed of small-cell take-up are more conservative than many of its competitors.

Ericsson stresses the need for coordination between a small-cell deployment and themacrocell, and maintains that the greatest efficiencies can be achieved when small cellsoperate in the same frequency as the macro, and with the maximum degree of coordination.For this reason, it says it is important that operators select the same vendor for small cells andfor the macro network.

Using a separate frequency results in a 50% peak-data-rate loss because of the need to separatethe frequencies between the small cell and the macro, says Ericsson. Using the same frequencyand applying techniques such as macrodiversity and joint RX/TX, which coordinate the radiobase stations by using the same baseband for the existing macro network and the small cells,means that the full peak rate becomes available.

Under these conditions, the number of small cells required to achieve a given capacityimprovement within a single macrocell is reduced by 30-50% compared with when separatefrequencies are used, says the vendor (see fig. 4).

Fig. 4: Number of outdoor small cells required per macro


HuaweiHuawei announced AtomCell, a 3G/LTE picocell designed for infill of macro sites in urbanand high-density traffic areas, at this year’s Mobile World Congress. The vendor has employeda modular design comprised of a basic four-transceiver module that builds to a maximum16-transceiver unit incorporating higher-order MIMO and beamforming, with an option forbaseband pooling. The modules can be incorporated into a pole-mounted spherical unit fordeployment in urban environments. The vendor says it will be incorporating Wi-Fi intoAtomCell at a later date.

At the same time as promoting its small-cell offering, Huawei is supporting efforts to increasecapacity in the macro network by using features such as cell splitting and beamforming, withits Adaptive Radio Unit (ARU) technology. The vendor says that, while macro sites will sufficefor most areas in a network, pockets of dense traffic or poor coverage will require additionallayers of micro coverage.

Huawei is also keen to emphasize its capabilities in SON technology, claiming that itsSingleSON simplified network configuration, which employs adaptive Inter-Cell InterferenceCoordination (aICIC) and Automatic Neighbor Relations (ANR) techniques, improves networkmanagement efficiency and performance.

Nokia Siemens NetworksNSN’s Liquid Radio is built on the vendor’s Flexi-multiradio active antenna system platform,and supports integrated Wi-Fi offload with connection to the mobile core network. The vendorhas recently introduced its FlexiZone concept, which features a large number of small cellsdeployed as an underlay grid at a street level or in an indoor area and coordinated to providecapacity improvements.

All access points in the zone are connected to one another using wireless, and backhauled toa controller that is deployed in the hot zone close to an Internet POP location such as a DSLAMor fibre-to-the-node cabinet. The controller also carries out scheduling coordination betweenthe access points and controls all the levels of interference at zone level, so that new smallcells can be added with no interference.

FlexiZone supports up to 100 access points, and looks to the network like a single eNodeB,says NSN. The vendor believes that this zoning approach will provide significantly betterperformance than individual picos or microcells, and allows for an initial deployment of asmall number of small cells to provide capacity and offload in hot zones, with the possibilityof scaling to provide more densification in the zone area as and when needed.

By building a virtual map of the cluster, the controller can apply interference managementusing SON capabilities, says NSN. It can also control mobility management within the clusterand between the small cells and the macro, to ensure that a stationary or slow-movingsubscriber is retained on the pico-cluster while a subscriber moving at high speed, perhapsdriving in a car, can be handed back to the macro.

Market development

Small cell trials and SONsOperators’ interest in public small cells is currently focusing on metro cells, which areprimarily designed to target high-traffic-density areas, and trials of which are commencingthis year. Among a number of areas that operators will want to address during these trials aresmall-cell performance, ease of installation, set-up and optimization, and cost.

Above all, any concerns operators may have about interference issues between small cells andthe macro network will need to be allayed. One area on which small-cell trials will focus is theimplementation of SON capabilities. These have been a feature of femtocells, but will now bea critical feature in other small-cell architectures such as metro cells. Because small cells arebeing deployed for capacity rather than coverage, it is important to resolve the co-existenceissues of small cells and the macro in the same layer.

AT&T, which plans to introduce metro cells during 2012, is implementing SON features acrossits LTE network in the US, currently covering the macrocell level and clusters of femtocells. Theoperator plans to extend SON capabilities to the management of metro cells when they areintroduced on its network later this year, including support for interference management andautomatic neighbor relations.


Nevertheless, many operators believe SONs have some way to go before they are fully ableto support small-cell deployments. Areas of concern include the ability of the small cell toautomatically set up and register with neighboring small cells and with the macro, wheresome operators report a continuing need for manual intervention. Vendors are also workingto make networks adapt in real time to resolve issues such as cell interference, which currentlydepend on KPIs gathered over a period of time and which can take some time to process.

Practical concernsWith regard to cost, operators are looking for as much as a ten-fold reduction in equipment,installation and site costs for a small-cell deployment when compared with a macrocell. Inorder to achieve this, vendors will not only need to keep equipment costs low, but also reducetouch time to a minimum throughout the installation and set-up process.

Experience with microwave systems has shown that site installation costs for a single linkoften exceed the cost of the equipment itself, suggesting that this may prove the greaterchallenge for small-cell deployments as well. One leading vendor cautions that the savingsthat can be achieved in respect of installation are not in the same ratio as the savings inequipment costs, so, although the equipment may be considerably cheaper, the site costs andinstallation may be higher than for a macrocell in relative terms.

As operators move towards the deployment phase, site acquisition also becomes critical. Witha limited number of available sites, there is a concern that urban centers could become subjectto the equivalent of a “land grab” as operators try to secure valuable access to lampposts andother items of street furniture.

This in turn could have implications from an RF planning perspective, as the optimum siterequired to realize the maximum benefits from the small cell may not be available. Coupledwith the need for accessible backhaul and power, this may necessitate an operator having toadapt its radio coverage according to the available sites, rather than to the optimum networkconditions.

With regard to health and safety issues, according to one vendor, operators are already seeingpower constraints applied to macrocells due to local RF power requirements, so small cellswith their lower power profile could serve to redress some of the coverage loss that ensues. Onthe other hand, operators are conscious that positioning equipment in public thoroughfaresas opposed to secure and less-accessible cell sites raises certain safety and security concerns,and these will have to be carefully considered.

Conclusions and recommendations

ConclusionsThe case for small-cell deployments is largely uncontested, with widespread operator supportand universal commitment from the major network vendors. However, the speed of adoptionand degree to which small cells will be deployed in the network is still open to debate.

The rationale for small cells as a means of targeting traffic hot spots in dense urban areas isstrong and will drive initial deployments. However, the case for greater densification and thesignificance of the challenges involved with regard to issues such as inter-cell interference ina more complex, multi-layered hetnet environment are still unclear.

Mobile operators still have a number of concerns about small cells that will need to beaddressed, particularly regarding aspects such as small-cell performance, the integration ofsmall cells into the macro environment, SON capabilities, capex and opex, and interoperabilitybetween different vendors’ products. These issues will need to be effectively addressed duringthe trial phases if deployments are to go ahead.

Vendors are creating differentiation around their small-cell product offerings and deploymentstrategies. These are sufficiently distinct as to constitute a set of very different expectationsas to how small-cell architectures will evolve.

During the rollout phase, operators are likely to encounter a number of practical hurdles, suchas securing appropriate small cell sites, and access to backhaul and power, that may causethem to adapt their plans.


RecommendationsMobile operators need to embark on their small-cell deployments with a clear strategy. As wellas the feedback from trials, they can look to those operators that have already committed tosmall-cell deployments for evidence as to how well the technology performs.

Vendor selection will be a key factor given the diversity of solutions available in the market.To some degree, it can be argued that, with their small-cell choices, operators are buying intoa vision of how the network will evolve, just as much as they are a technology.

Key decision points will focus on questions such as whether to adopt a single- or multi-vendor approach, and which vendor has the capabilities to meet the challenges of scaleand complexity involved in managing an evolving heterogeneous network environment.Proven SON capabilities will be a critical element due to the need to keep installation andcommissioning costs, as well as ongoing opex, to a minimum. The integration of Wi-Fi willalso be important for those operators with existing Wi-Fi networks.

The benefits of quality, performance and flexibility offered by small cells will only be realizedif TCO relative to providing macro-network coverage can be reduced to a minimum. As well asdriving down unit costs, the efficiency gains promised by technical innovations such as SONswill need to be fully realized if small cells are to seriously take off.

Further reading

• Small-cell deployments to be dominated by consumer-driven femtocells

• Small cells are promising but create some backhaul challenges

http://ic.informatm.com/ic2/articles/show/122154

http://ic.informatm.com/ic2/articles/show/121292


Small cells are promising but createsome backhaul challenges18 April 2012Dimitris Mavrakis

Executive summary

• The small-cell backhaul market is expected to be significantly more diverse andfragmented than the macro backhaul market, because of the heterogeneous anddistributed nature of urban small cells.

• Several startups and smaller vendors are attempting to attract operator attention fortheir small-cell backhaul products, which include non-line-of-sight microwave andhigher-frequency mm-wave.

• As with the point-to-point microwave landscape for macro cells, a unique wirelesstechnology is not likely for small-cell backhaul, because each country has its ownguidelines for regulating microwave and mm-wave spectrum.

• An exception is the millimetric 60GHz band, which is unlicensed but exhibitsextremely high oxygen absorption, making this band suitable for localized small-cellbackhaul. But its unlicensed nature might limit wide operator acceptance in favor oflicensed bands.

• Vendors that offer a multitude of technologies are likely to be dominant, since small-cell backhaul is not likely to rely on a specific technology, topology or frequency.

Market overview

Early LTE-network deployments are focusing on coverage rather than capacity in order toattract a critical mass of subscribers and provide an early revenue stream and some levelof return on investment and profitability for the costly new radio access network (RAN).Nevertheless, it is clear that in the next stage, deployments will focus on capacity to satisfytraffic challenges operators are facing in urban areas. Driven by smartphones and portabledevices (primarily USB modems and Mi-Fi devices), LTE networks are expected to reachcongestion much sooner than their 3G predecessors, especially since smartphone penetrationis 100% on LTE and there are no feature phones, which consume much less traffic. The launchof Apple’s iPad with LTE connectivity is only expected to accelerate this trend, while Verizon’sexecutive director of network strategy claimed in March 2012 that Verizon might face capacitybottlenecks on its LTE network as early as 2013 if it is not assigned additional spectrum.

Nevertheless, operators are now armed with a variety of tools to combat capacity constraints,including traffic management, tiered pricing to limit traffic growth, and, more recently, smallcells. LTE small cells are expected to be a deployment standard in a few years, when LTEnetworks will be mainstream and subscribers will be familiar with the higher-speed, lower-latency nature of 4G networks. Small cells move the base station closer to the subscriber –which makes sense from a technology perspective – but create new challenges because oftheir more-distributed nature. These new challenges include finding real estate for the smallcells (which might be lampposts, phone booths, building walls or rooftops), placement and,most important, backhaul.

By transforming a macro cell to a small cell, the base station will move from the rooftopto locations most likely closer to the subscriber. This will create “last mile” conditions forthe subscriber but a challenge to connect the small cell with the core network, which mightdegrade the user experience if not planned and deployed carefully. A variety of backhaultechnologies are most likely to be used, but several current technologies might not beapplicable to small cells because of their distributed and smaller nature.

The vast majority of LTE macro cells are connected via fiber to the core network – and thesuccess of US LTE networks is primarily driven by the wide availability of fiber – but it will notbe economically viable to connect all small cells via fiber because of the high cost of layingfiber. Because small cells will primarily be deployed as an overlay on top of macro cells, thelowest-cost option for fiber backhaul is to extend an existing link from the macro cell to thesmall cell. But in most cases, extending fiber from the macro site to the small cell will notbe an option, since it might require trenching (which could cost more than US$100,000 perkilometer), thus breaking the business case of small cells.


Because of these backhaul challenges brought to life by small cells, several new technologiesand vendors have emerged.

Technologies and vendorsSeveral new vendors have entered the small-cell-backhaul value chain, while backhaulincumbents have extended their product lines to cater to small cells, and tier-1 infrastructurevendors have either adapted or provided completely new ways of backhauling small-celltraffic. Carrier Ethernet and IP are now standard for mobile backhaul, especially with LTEand subsequent RAN technologies, which are all-IP. Vendors include Ethernet connectivity intheir equipment, or specialist vendors provide demarcation devices at the end points of thebackhaul links to enable Ethernet connectivity.

Vendor activity is highest in microwave and mm-wave technologies (see fig. 1), becauseproviding wireless backhaul for small cells is the most cost-efficient option and is somewhatfamiliar to operators’ network-planning departments.

Fig. 1: Small-cell-backhaul technologies and selected vendors

The range and supported speeds of these technologies varies, and a universal framework forsmall-cell backhaul is likely to employ several of these, since the terrain, deployment targetand legacy network topologies will vary greatly (see fig. 2).

Fig. 2: Comparison of small-cell-backhaul technologies

Contrary to macro cells, which are most likely to have three – or more – sectors, small cellsin most cases will have a single sector, which translates to lower backhaul requirements.However, a minimum speed is likely to be around 100Mbps for LTE backhaul in order to satisfycurrent and short-term demands. Mobile operators are not likely to invest in a small-cellbackhaul technology with a limited life span. Instead, they will expect small-cell backhaulto remain for LTE at least and even for the early stages of LTE-Advanced – assuming thatcell locations, backhaul and in some cases the small-cell access points will be reusable.Therefore, backhaul technologies that are widely used (including copper and hybrid DSL) arenot applicable for small cells, which require higher speeds and are more distributed in nature.

Some vendors have diverged even further from traditional backhaul in order to cater to smallcells. For example, NSN’s Flexi Zone small-cell framework includes “street-haul,” a backhaultechnology that is purpose-built and connects small cells in the vicinity of a central small-cellnode through unlicensed Wi-Fi spectrum.

Market development

Early small-cell deployments are likely to happen by mid-2013, since equipment is expectedto be market-ready in early 2013. Mobile operators that deploy small cells in 2013 are likelyto be in advanced LTE markets, including the US, Japan, South Korea and the Nordic countries.These operators – and especially ones operating LTE networks at 2.6GHz – are likely to be earlyadopters of new backhaul technologies.


Smaller vendors and backhaul-technology startups are illustrating technology leadership andare spearheading the evolution of backhaul technologies. However, mobile operators arefamiliar with large vendors and in many cases consider teaming up with small vendors arisk. In many cases, small vendors’ technology might be significantly more advanced andtheir costs lower, but operators might not prefer to join forces with them. New entrants arelikely to team up with large vendors or system integrators as a go-to-market strategy oreven be acquired by larger vendors, as Ericsson’s acquisition of Belair illustrated in February2012. Some backhaul startups might go to market directly and participate in operator trials,but deployment life-cycles of typical tier-1 mobile operators might provide an economicallyhostile environment for small companies with limited capital.

The plethora of vendors and technologies for small-cell backhaul is likely to complicatechoice for several operators. However, technology trials are expected to take place in 2012and early 2013, after which operators will choose their preferred partner for small-celldeployments. Small-cell-backhaul vendors are focusing on a variety of technologies andfrequencies to be able to provide a holistic offering to operators. Because of the fragmentedand heterogeneous nature of small-cell deployments, a single technology will not be able tosatisfy all operator demands. Therefore, vendors are reacting by introducing several aspectsof wireless technologies in their backhaul product lines, including NLOS, e-band, mm-waveand PMP.

Frequency aspects and licensingMicrowave and mm-wave frequencies are generally licensed, with a few exceptions:

• 59-64GHz are designated for unlicensed use in the US and UK.

• E-band: 71-76GHz, 81-86GHz, 91-94GHz and 94.1-95GHz are “light-licensed”frequencies, meaning a quick process for assigning frequencies and low costs forindividual links, as low as US$100-200 per link.

Such high frequencies (above 10GHz) are subject to increased atmospheric attenuationand very directive antennas (leading to very concentrated transmission links, referred toas “pencil-beam”), thus not requiring frequency planning. Unlike traditional point-to-pointmicrowave links, mm-wave is a natural fit for small cells, where small areas need to be coveredwith high-data-rate links in a cost-effective way.

Vendors now offer backhaul systems that offer hundreds of megabits per second in shortdistances (less than 1km) in a cost-effective way (typical link cost is less than US$5,000).However, vendors might face cultural and traditional issues when attempting to sellequipment operating at unlicensed or light-licensed frequencies. Moreover, the FCC mandatesthat – although unlicensed – operation at 60GHz requires an antenna that is a minimum of30-40cm, which cannot be integrated in unobtrusive enclosures in a cost-efficient way. Inreality, operators are likely to face different small-cell-deployment environments, and vendorsthat support a variety of frequencies and topologies will be the most successful. Severalvendors that have been traditionally offering LOS PTP systems are now introducing NLOSproducts to satisfy primarily urban canyon areas, which are most likely niche cases – albeitnecessary to gain operator acceptance.

Finally, a unique property of the 60GHz band is that oxygen absorption is extremely high,leading to high attenuation and excellent spatial reuse. Although well suited for small-cellbackhaul, the band’s unlicensed nature might provide a significant barrier to large-scaleoperator adoption.

In general, the higher the frequency at which the link operates, the more bandwidthand higher spatial reuse is available, but link distance is sacrificed – which might notbe a significant challenge in small-cell deployments. Moreover, sub-6GHz frequencies arebecoming more interesting for NLOS backhaul because of their characteristics that enable thesignal to be reflected by a building to overcome obstacles.

Baseband pooling and CPRISmall cells are miniature base stations that include both baseband processing and the radiohead. Several vendors are now actively developing baseband pooling technologies (alsoreferred to as cloud RAN), in which baseband processing is centrally located in order to assignresources dynamically and adapt to traffic demand fluidly. However, a key challenge forbaseband-pooling base stations is backhaul, which needs to be fiber in most cases.

Small-cell deployments are likely to include both current types, but operators might wish toevolve these to baseband pooling, pending the evolution of backhaul to fronthaul (see fig.


3). However, fronthaul currently operates in CPRI, which can be supported only by opticalconnections. Several vendors, including Alcatel-Lucent, are attempting to optimize CPRI formore-efficient connection of baseband and radio units, but it’s not likely that this will ever beable to operate wirelessly.

Fig. 3: Evolution of small-cell backhaul to fronthaul

As of March 2012, only Ericsson and E-Blink had announced products that achieve wirelessfronthaul. Ericsson has succeeded in connecting baseband and radio units over its E-bandwireless link in lab tests and expects to include this capability in future products.

Recommendations

Although the small-cell market holds significant potential for both infrastructure andbackhaul vendors, it is significantly more fragmented and complicated, because there are avariety of technologies and frequencies for small-cell deployments. Informa expects tier-1vendors to either expand product lines or acquire smaller specialist vendors to strengthentheir competitiveness. The following section represents Informa’s recommendations formobile operators and vendors:

• Smaller vendors or those with expertise in a specific product line should team up withsystems integrators or large vendors that don’t offer competing products of their own.This will enable a broader reach and fewer cultural barriers in operator discussions.

• Tier-1 infrastructure vendors should either partner with or acquire smaller vendors forexpertise they do not have in-house, including NLOS microwave and high-bandwidthmm-wave.

• Offering a complete product line that offers a variety of technologies and frequenciesis most likely to win operator attention.

• Operators should perform technology trials with smaller vendors that might offerbetter technology and specific expertise compared with tier-1 and establishedbackhaul vendors.

• Operators should be willing to test alternative technologies, including NLOSmicrowave and unlicensed mm-wave frequencies.


Small-cell deployments to bedominated by consumer-drivenfemtocells17 May 2012Dimitris Mavrakis

Executive summary

• Consumer femtocells will drive small-cell volumes. The consumer femtocellsaccounted for 74% of total units deployed by the end of 2011 and this proportion isforecast to increase to 89% by the end of 2016.

• Microcells and picocells are already widely deployed in market but on a lower scalecompared with femtocells. Metrocells are expected to enter the market during 2012through operator trials or pilots and expand significantly during 2014 and 2015primarily for 3G networks in developed markets and LTE in the US market.

• Although volumes are driven by consumer femtocells, vendor revenues are expectedto be bigger with operator-deployed and managed small cells; profit margins areexpected to increase in proportion to cell size. Metrocells and microcells are expectedto be the most profitable small-cell market segment, although contracts may vary.

• Even though the femtocell market has not grown as aggressively as predicted,several operators now have gateways in place which may allow them to grow theirdeployments incrementally. However, Informa Telecoms & Media expects operatorsto focus on improving the customer experience for individual subscribers and churnreduction – particularly in the enterprise segment.

Definitions and overview

Although femtocells have traditionally been targeting the consumer market, “small cells” isnow an umbrella term covering a much wider focus, which includes femtocells, picocells,microcells and metrocells. In order to perform a market-sizing and forecasting exercise,Informa Telecoms & Media has segmented small cells according to their usage. The followingdefinitions have been used throughout the modeling exercise.

FemtocellsFemtocells typically refer to the smallest of small cells, which are primarily targeting theconsumer and enterprise markets. These units are typically single-sector with an omni-directional antenna which is used to improve coverage in indoor locations for 4-32 users,although there is no strict guideline for the number of users. Moreover, consumer femtocellstypically transmit less than 50-100mW while enterprise-grade femtocells may transmit up to300mW due to wider coverage requirements.

Femtocells came to market with Sprint’s Airave during 2008 and several operators havefollowed with both consumer and enterprise offerings. Some operators are even usingfemtocells for indoor public areas (coverage improvement), rural areas or in emergencysituations.

PicocellsPicocells are small cells that are already established in the market and widely deployed.Picocells usually refer to cells that are deployed in indoor public areas for coverageimprovement, including shopping malls, train stations and airports, as well as also enterpriselocations. Picocells are widely deployed, although not on the scale of consumer femtocells, dueto their larger coverage area and smaller target market. Picocells typically transmit less than4W, may cater for more than 32 users and are also single-sector.

Picocells have also traditionally been a less-intelligent version of femtocells and have acted astypical base stations, although vendors are now including femtocell-developed technologiesin these larger units in order to adopt several benefits, including auto-configuration, radioenvironment awareness and remote support.

MicrocellsMicrocells can be regarded as small macrocells and are usually deployed in urban areas thatare capacity-constrained. There are also many cases where microcells are deployed in rural


areas, where the coverage area of a macrocell may not make sense due to concentratedpopulation in a limited area.

Microcells are also widely deployed and have been in the market for several years. Typicaltransmit power can be as high as 40W – but not more – and these units are typically three-sector, unless deployed in light poles or building walls when they are typically single-sector.

Microcells are typically used when an operator is forced into cell splitting – splitting a largemacrocell into many smaller microcells in order to increase the overall system capacity. Inother words, microcells are typically the only cell present in an urban location and this is animportant distinction between microcells and metrocells.

MetrocellsInforma Telecoms & Media considers metrocells as a special type of a single-sector microcellwhich is deployed primarily in capacity-constrained areas. Metrocells are also deployed as anoverlay rather than acting as the primary cellular network, meaning that advanced featuresare necessary, including self-optimizing (SON) features and auto-configuration.

Other categoriesApart from the categories presented above, there are some additional small-cell types thattarget specific segments appearing in the market. An example of this is the meadowcell,which has been developed for rural areas; in these forecasts, meadowcells have been includedin the femtocell category. Informa Telecoms & Media expects more categories to appear forspecific use cases but these are likely to fall within one of the four categories outlined above.

Market growth

The overall market for small cells is expected to continue growing throughout the forecastperiod (2011-2016). Although the lion’s share of unit shipments is dominated by the consumermarket, revenue growth for infrastructure vendors is expected to be bigger with operator-deployed small cells: microcells, picocells and metrocells. The total number of small-celldeployments is forecast to experience an overall compound annual growth rate (CAGR) ofaround 137% throughout the forecast period (see fig. 1):

• Femtocell deployments will increase from 2.1 million units at end-2011 to 87.3 millionunits at end-2016, largely driven by consumer and, to a lesser extent, enterprisedeployments.

• Microcells will continue to be deployed throughout the forecast period, growing from602,000 units deployed at end-2011 to 2.8 million at end-2016. This growth is primarilydriven by additional 3G cells in urban locations and rural coverage expansion indeveloping areas.

• Metrocells are expected to enter the market during 2012 with 31,240 cells deployed bythe end of the year, increasing to 681,000 by end-2016.

• Finally, Informa estimates that 194,000 picocells were deployed in the market byend-2011, a number which will increase to 1.1 million by end-2016.

Fig. 1: Global, small-cell deployment forecasts, by category, 2011-2016


Picocells will remain particularly popular in the developed markets, particularly NorthAmerica and Europe, throughout the forecast period (see fig. 2). The Asian market is alsoexperiencing the biggest growth due to the size of the Chinese, Indian, South Korean andJapanese markets which are dominant in picocell deployments, primarily for indoor coverageof public areas.

Fig. 2: Global, picocell deployment forecasts, by region, 2011-2016

Femtocell growth is largely driven by the North American, European and Asia Pacific markets(see fig. 3). In North America, all Tier-1 carriers have already deployed consumer femtocellsto address the nationwide coverage problems and Informa Telecoms & Media expects thisto continue throughout the forecast period. A similar situation is reported in Europe whereseveral mobile operators have deployed femtocells to maintain a good user experience,particularly for enterprise customers. In Asia Pacific, the market for femtocells (which aredeployed by the subscribers) is growing more slowly than the other small-cell markets (whichare deployed by the operators).

Fig. 3: Global, femtocell deployment forecasts, by region, 2011-2016

Asia Pacific dominates the microcell market due to its wide footprint and populationconcentration – similar trends are also reported in macrocells. The region will remainthe largest market and also experience the strongest growth in microcell deploymentsthroughout the forecast period (see fig. 4). North America and Europe follow but are muchsmaller compared with Asia Pacific. The low growth rates in Africa, Middle East and LatinAmerica are due to the fact that 3G coverage is still the main concern in these markets and it ismacrocells that are primarily deployed; these markets are only expected to experience growthafter North America, Asia Pacific and Europe.


Fig. 4: Global, microcell deployment forecasts, by region, 2011-2016

Finally, metrocells will start to be deployed during 2012 in low volumes and primarily in theform of trials and extended pilots. Informa Telecoms & Media expects 2013 to be the year thatthe metrocell market experiences the highest growth (see fig. 5). Although the annual growthrate will start to diminish from then on, it will continue to be high throughout the rest of theforecast period due to the lack of spectrum and further capacity constraints for 3G and LTEnetworks.

Fig. 5: Global, metrocell deployment forecasts, by region, 2012-2016

Regional trends

The regional segmentation is driven by femtocell deployments and the North American andAsia Pacific markets dominate throughout the forecast period as expected (see fig. 6). Europefollows due to its developed market status, while Latin America, Middle East and Africa lagin terms of units deployed as they are largely still developing markets which are focused onmacrocells.


Fig. 6: Global, small-cell deployment forecasts, by region, 2011-2016

Methodology

The small-cell forecasts are derived from a demand model, which takes into account severalInforma Telecoms & Media forecasts, including:

• Mobile content and applications forecasts, including popular traffic categories.

• Fixed broadband subscriptions by link speed.

• Mobile subscriber forecasts segmented by air interface, including WCDMA, HSPA andLTE.

• Macro-cellular base station forecasts segmented by air interface and geotype,including Dense Urban, Urban, Suburban and Rural.

The microcell, picocell and metrocell forecasts are derived using the methodology below (seefig. 7), while the femtocell forecasts also take into account enterprise demand and fixed-broadband subscriptions.


Fig. 7: Informa’s methodology for microcell, picocell and metrocell forecasts


Informa expects the small-cell market to experience healthy growth through the forecastperiod, with a CAGR of 137% overall in terms of deployments. Asia Pacific, North Americaand Western Europe are the primary drivers for small-cell shipments, and their volumesare primarily driven by consumer and enterprise femtocell deployments. Even thoughmobile operators have not been bullish about consumer femtocells, integration and gatewaysthat connect the Femtocell Access Point (FAP) to the network are now in place for manyTier-1 operators and, given that Iu-h (the protocol that connects the FAPs to the gateway)is standardized, Informa expects operators to continue deploying femtocells to improvecoverage.

The revenues and profits for infrastructure vendors are expected to increase in proportion tothe cell size, meaning that microcells and metrocells may hold the largest potential, even for3G markets where operators are experiencing congestion. Picocell and distributed antenna(DAS) vendors are expected to experience healthy financial growth due to the need for indoorcoverage and also new frequencies being deployed for LTE.

Informa expects the US market to be the first to experience metrocells due to the lowspectrum used for LTE and, as a consequence, large macrocells. As subscribers continue to


adopt LTE smartphones and portable devices, operators will find out during 2013 that capacityconstraints will start to appear and small cells will be deployed to address these bottlenecks.


Small Cell Survey 201211 June 2012Dimitris Mavrakis

Executive summary

• Cost, physical size and range are the three dominant factors that define a small cell.

• LTE is expected to be the biggest driver for small cells. In terms of deployment, thethree most important reasons for deploying small cells will be to increase capacity andcoverage and to cover high-traffic public areas.

• The US, developed markets in Asia Pacific and the emerging markets are expected to bethe biggest drivers for the deployment of small cells in the next two years, with 2014representing the peak of deployments.

• A lack of operator commitment, the high prices of femtocell access points and a lackof a clear benefit to end users have been the biggest factors hindering the consumerfemtocell market.

• For public small cells, deployment issues – including placement, power, environmentalimpact and backhaul – are perceived as the biggest challenges.

• Backhaul is also perceived as the most critical factor for a small-cell platform, followedby the ability to self-optimize and cooperate with the macrocell network.

• Wi-Fi and small cells are expected to evolve in parallel rather than compete with eachother. Several vendors are integrating Wi-Fi into their cellular offerings and there areseveral new entrants targeting the carrier Wi-Fi market.

The survey respondents

Informa Telecoms & Media’s Small Cell Survey polled key industry executives from aroundthe globe about managed services and outsourcing trends. The survey was conducted onlineduring 1Q12. Over 300 responses were received of which almost 100 were from fixed ormobile operators and 123 from vendors (see fig. 1). Although survey results usually includeoperator answers only, this survey included questions about the definition of the small-cellecosystem; therefore all the respondents are included in the following analysis, apart from afew exceptions where operator responses are singled out.

Fig. 1: Survey respondents’ location and company type

Although the survey respondents were distributed throughout the globe, Western Europe,North America and Asia Pacific were strong regions due to the popularity of small cells thereand the need for additional coverage in both the developing and developed markets of theseregions. In Africa, Middle East, CES and Latin America, interest in small cells may be less thanin some of the developed markets.

In terms of company types, the vendor respondents represented the largest percentage,illustrating the interest in the small-cell value chain. Mobile and fixed operators followed,showing that there is increasing interest in this group in small cells. There was a varietyof non-categorized respondents, which included consultants, system integrators, component


suppliers and tower companies. The small-cell ecosystem is well represented in thissegmentation, particularly the number of vendors who are active in this value chain.

Small-cell definitions

A vital part of any technology market is defining the terms. This is an ongoing process in thesmall-cell market after the focus shifted from femtocells to a greater set of cells, including pico,micro and metro cells. The survey respondents gave their definitions of a small cell (see fig. 2).Cost is perceived as the most important factor defining a small cell, followed by size, range andcapacity. Femtocell-specific options (including whether it is operator or user deployed) werefar less prominent in the answers to this particular question, illustrating that the mindsetof the market is shifting from consumer femtocells to operator-deployed small cells whichwill tackle a variety of coverage or capacity problems. If only mobile operator responses areselected, the overall results do not deviate from the chart above, but the most important aspectbecomes “Physical size and level of integration”, followed by “Range”, illustrating the networkplanning and dimensioning culture of mobile operators.

Fig. 2: In your opinion, what THREE features best define a small cell?

Market development

DriversIn terms of technology, it is expected that LTE will be perceived as the driver for small cells, dueto its strong data nature. Nevertheless, the focus on 3G is still strong and these networks arethe ones actually being congested currently. Several vendors report that there is significantinterest in 3G small cells, but market perception – as illustrated by the survey results – is thatthe small-cell market will be driven by LTE deployments (see fig. 3).


Fig. 3: Which technology do you expect to be the biggest driver of small-cell shipments in afive-year period (2012-2017)?

In terms of deployment, the three most important reasons for deploying small cells willbe to increase capacity and coverage and to cover high-traffic public areas (see fig. 4).The established consumer femtocell market is expected to have a strong impact and smallcells are expected to be used primarily in capacity-constrained areas, mainly metro, as LTEdeployments start to mature. Coverage is perceived as a major issue in the developed anddeveloping markets alike.

Fig. 4: What do you believe are the THREE most important reasons for deploying small cells?

In terms of geographical areas, most respondents agreed that dense urban, high-traffic publicareas (airports, train stations) and enterprise locations will be the most important for small-cell deployments. The public area environment is not new to small cells, in areas wherepicocells and microcells have been widely deployed – and the dense-urban areas – have longbeen subject to cell splitting, where an operator splits a cell to many smaller ones to increasecapacity. Nevertheless, the survey responses highlighted the importance of high-traffic areas(see fig. 5).


Fig. 5: What areas do you expect to be the most important for small cells?

In terms of regional and country importance, the US emerged as the most important marketin our survey (see fig. 6), primarily due to the aggressive deployment of LTE networks in lowfrequency bands which means large cells with an overall low system capacity. Developedmarkets in Asia (Japan, South Korea) were closely followed by developing markets wheresmall cells may be used for coverage rather than capacity. On the other hand, Western Europereceived far fewer mentions, perhaps due to the wide and dense deployment of 3G networksin the region.

Fig. 6: In your opinion, which will be the most important market for small cells in the next twoyears?

Small-cell deployments are expected to peak during 2014 (see fig. 7), when LTE networkswill have been widely deployed and traffic bottlenecks will be appearing. Vendors andtechnologies may also be mature by 2014 which will create a better environment for operatorsto adopt small cells. Informa Telecoms & Media’s LTE Survey illustrated that the peak for LTEdeployments will also be in 2014, which agrees with the small-cell survey results. However,it is expected that small cells – particularly for LTE – will initially be deployed in developedmarkets and will later expand to developing markets or operators that are late LTE adopters.


Fig. 7: What is the time-frame for mass-market deployment of small cells?

From the end-user perspective, the advantages of using small cells are somewhat uniform,with some exceptions. Femtocell advantages are primarily coverage, new services and datapricing, whereas metro, pico and microcell advantages are primarily coverage, capacity andlower latency (see fig. 8). This is perhaps an outcome of the nature of each small-cell category:femtocells are user-deployed and may be tied to new services, but all the rest are perceived asnetwork-enhancing cells which will selectively be added as an overlay or underlay to problemareas.

Fig. 8: What do you expect to be the biggest advantage of different small cells to end users?

In other parts of the survey, 60% of respondents replied that there is a possibility that in thefuture the end users (whether in the consumer or enterprise market) will pay for some of thecost of the small-cell access point, although this is a primary reason for consumer femtocellsnot being as widely deployed as originally expected. In terms of usage, 46.7% of respondentsclaimed that small cells will be deployed for coverage or capacity and a similar percentage forlocation-driven services – when subscribers connect to these small cells. In terms of the factorsdriving small-cell market growth, the most critical aspect is operators driving wide small-celldeployments in order to establish economies of scale, enhance early technology problems andestablish a critical mass of small cells that operate on their networks.

Small-cell challengesThe consumer femtocell market has been significantly small, as was expected, due to anumber of reasons. In our survey results, the largest challenge for consumer femtocells wasperceived to be a lack of operator commitment, followed by the lack of a clear benefit to endusers and price of femtocell access points. These three issues are related to the way that,while consumer femtocells are an extension of the network, the deployment decision lieswith the user. Also, marketing femtocells is tricky at best and few operators have managed tosuccessfully convey the message to their subscribers. Finally, the price for each access pointhas been higher than operators would wish meaning that they had – and still have – tosubsidize the femtocell access points. Given that handset subsidies and its impact on operatorprofitability is a major point of discussion currently for mobile operators, femtocell subsidiesmay be considered as a barrier for market entry. On the other hand, the vendors claim that


operators generally do not commit in large volumes and are not creating the environment foreconomies of scale.

To summarize, the challenges that are hindering small-cell deployment are: the consumervalue proposition is difficult to communicate; consumer femtocells have been far moreexpensive than expected; and operators haven’t committed enough to drive economies ofscale (see figs. 9 and 10).

Fig. 9: What has held back broader deployment of consumer small cells?

Fig. 10: What are the biggest challenges for consumer small cells (femtocells)?

The challenges for outdoor small cells are very different from their consumer counterparts.Practical issues including placement, power, environmental impact and backhaul are thebiggest challenges that dominate all other responses (see fig. 11). This is to be expectedas outdoor small cells are radically different from what operators have traditionally beenaccustomed to and require new skill sets that will have to be developed in cooperation withinfrastructure vendors. Small-cell backhaul is also perceived as a major challenge, vendoractivity is rapidly increasing as Tier-1, Tier-2 and startup vendors attempt to enter the market.


Fig. 11: What are the biggest challenges for outdoor small cells?

TechnologiesSmall-cell product lines are currently being developed, with an array of new technologiesnow entering the market, including baseband pooling, self-optimizing networks (SON),interference management, multivendor interoperability and many more new networkaspects that are new to operators’ network planning departments. When asked whichtechnical aspect of a small cell is most important, the survey respondents chose backhaul,followed by ability to co-exist with macro cells (see fig. 12). Both of these directly relate tooperators’ network-planning and dimensioning departments which perceive these as newchallenges – and perhaps uncharted territory.

Fig. 12: What factor is most likely to affect a small cell deployment?

Wi-Fi is also considered a very important topic for mobile operators currently and its natureputs it adjacent to small cells. When asked how Wi-Fi may affect small-cell deployments,respondents largely replied that the two will evolve in parallel rather than compete (see fig.13). Indeed, most vendors are now integrating Wi-Fi into their existing portfolios and thereis a flurry of activity in startups and small specialist Wi-Fi vendors that are addressing theCarrier Wi-Fi market.


Fig. 13: How do you expect Wi-Fi to affect small-cell deployments?

When asked why small cells are better than Wi-Fi, 47.6% of respondents selected that smallcells are managed and deployed by operators, 38.7% selected that small cells operate inmanaged spectrum and 13.7% selected that small cells are more secure. The unlicensed natureof Wi-Fi and its “best-effort” operation is the complete opposite of cellular networks, andmobile operators are very skeptical of operating their own hot spots in interference-prone,busy areas.


The survey results are in line with Informa Telecoms & Media’s opinion and marketprojections for the small-cell market. Although consumer femtocells were the only small cellinitially in the market, several new “flavors” are now entering the market and are somewhatcloser to the established deployment mentality of the mobile operators’ network-planningdepartments.

Practical challenges dominate public small-cell deployments with environmental, placementand backhaul issues being major factors. The general consensus for public small-celldeployment is that they will be deployed for enhancing the network rather than for newservices as expected. However, consumer femtocells are also expected to drive new services,which may be location-driven.

Operators are expected to continue deploying consumer femtocells for enhancing coverage atthe home environment and increasing customer experience and reducing churn. In contrast,public small cells are expected to be deployed either as an overlay or underlay to existingmacrocell networks to satisfy specific coverage or capacity problems in key areas.


Contact us:Informa Telecoms & MediaMortimer House37-41 Mortimer HouseLondon, W1T 3JHUK

Phone: +44 (0) 207 017 4994Fax: +44 (0) 207 017 4783Email: [email protected]

Documents

01.2 Small-Cell Report - Full Report