Telecom Infrastructure Sharing (Active & Passive)

Telecom Infrastructure Sharing
Chapter I
Research Overview

MITSOT Page 1


GENESIS
With India emerging as the largest mobile player and as many as eighteen
service providers jostling for space and higher share of revenue, one query that keeps
on popping-up is that despite the tremendous growth the high costs of rolling out
services is still a major pain for the service providers.
In such a scenario, sharing of telecom infrastructure among service providers is

becoming the order of business in the telecom industry where rivals are becoming
partners in order to lower the increasing investments.
The growth in wireless mobile subscribers in last few years has been
phenomenal and over 10 million new mobile customers are being added every month.
Due to intensive growth, intra-site distance of base units are reducing drastically and the
formation of such cluster of base units opens a new opportunity of sharing the
infrastructure which could be passive as well as active.
The country would require about 3.3 lakh towers by 2010 in order to meet this
target and even if the target is achieved, it will only be about 50per cent of the tele-
density with major gaps in the rural areas. Telecom companies, which rushed to set up
towers to cope with the explosion in the number of subscribers, have now realized that
it’s better to share the infrastructure. For large players who have a pan-India footprint, it
means a new source of revenue, while for those expanding nationwide, it means lower
capex and opex, as well as faster rollout of services.
In view of stated importance of passive infrastructure, Reliance Communications,

which is the country’s second largest mobile telecom company, became the first to
demerge its tower operations, christening it Reliance Telecom Infrastructure Ltd (RTIL).
Bharti Airtel, Tata Teleservices and Idea Cellular followed suit.
MITSOT Page 2


BACKGROUND
After several years of successful growth, wireless networks have covered large
territories where the revenue generated from population densities and the wealth of the
relevant populations is sufficient to support the cost of acquiring and operating such
networks. However, as much as two-thirds of the world's population does not have
service from wireless networks due to the difficulty in recovering the costs of acquiring
and operating the networks through charging for services. This is especially true in
areas where low population density or low income limit the revenue potential of a
proposed network site. While telecommunications manufacturers have made significant
progress over the years in reducing the prices of acquiring and operating wireless
networks, these costs still limit the deployment of wireless networks.
The liberalization of a country’s telecom industry can enable economic growth

across various sectors, but its success depends on regulatory policies that are
conducive to the development of competition. One element of such a policy would be
the creation of regulatory and economic incentives that encourage the sharing of
infrastructure among telecom companies as a key lever to foster competition and
optimize investments. Operators may perceive the economic benefits and adopt a
collaborative approach autonomously; however, a clear policy, a commercially friendly
price-regulation mechanism, and tailored regulatory safeguards may be necessary to
successful infrastructure sharing.
Infrastructure sharing may be new to India, but it’s a standard practice, globally.
Though tower sharing has not been very successful in most European and Asian
countries, experts believe India will do a US, because no other country in the world has
12 operators. Currently, there are 3.1 lakh towers in the country. To meet the
government’s target of providing 500 million telephones by 2010, nearly 3.3 lakh towers
will be required in the next three years. Moreover, 3G will also require denser coverage.
MITSOT Page 3


Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) also supported infrastructure
sharing. According to TRAI, Mobile operators will require a large number of towers to
sustain this growth pattern, which will need huge expenditure and time to roll out
services. It is likely to further deteriorate the skyline by erecting more towers. Passive
infrastructure sharing will help reduce the growth of towers.
In another major recommendation, TRAI has sought amendment in the license

condition to allow active infrastructure sharing limited to antenna, feeder cable, Node B,
Radio Access Network and transmission systems. However, the Authority has not
favored sharing of spectrum at this stage. Another major initiative is backhaul sharing.
According to Cellular Operators’ Association of India, erecting one cell site costs
about Rs 30 lakh. “To set up 2.2 lakh more towers in the next three years, an
investment of Rs 66,000 crore will be required,” and therefore, hiving off tower
infrastructure is an Indian innovation. While telecom companies are hiving off their tower
infrastructure to cut capex and opex in the wake of declining average revenues per
user, third-party companies like GTL Infrastructure, Quipo, and Essar Telecom are
setting up independent tower companies.
These measures are especially necessary now. While liberalized markets with
effective regulatory structures have traditionally observed several forms of infrastructure
sharing, including co-location and national roaming, more advanced forms are
emerging. They involve various passive and active network components, provide
significant revenue-generation opportunities for incumbent operators, and facilitate the
development of virtual operators and next-generation service providers. International
experience suggests that favorable regulation and economic incentives have enabled
such developments in infrastructure sharing.
MITSOT Page 4


OBJECTIVE
To explore the technological, financial and marketing aspects of telecom

infrastructure sharing.
SCOPE
Telecom policymakers and regulators must strike a balance between their hope
to offer better services at affordable prices through increased competition and their
desire to create favorable conditions for attracting investments. While some may
perceive strong competition as an inhibitor of investment, others tend to link competition
to investments insofar as without the right investments, service offerings will not develop
as they otherwise would in a competitive state.
Telecom operators’ spending has traditionally been dominated by considerable
investments in technology and network deployment. Given that such investments are
fixed, sunk, and irreversible, they represent a high risk factor. The risk is compounded
by the need, for both fixed and mobile operators, to continuously adopt new
technologies and upgrade infrastructure. While fixed network operators are now
migrating to next-generation networks, most mobile network operators have already
deployed third-generation (3G) infrastructures. Therefore, infrastructure sharing can
reduce this risk for operators by spreading it among several players.
In the long term, competition will rely on infrastructure sharing as a critical tool, or
even a prerequisite, for growth. In response to this reality and the investment risk
associated with infrastructure deployment, policymakers and regulators resort to
different models of infrastructure sharing to meet the following set of imperatives:
• Reduce investment requirements
• Offer a new source of revenues
• Release capital for strategic investments
• Expand investments to less dense areas and meet universal service targets
MITSOT Page 5


• Shift the focus to service innovation instead of network deployment
The currently Indian telecom infrastructure market has only 25% shared towers as
compared to total number of towers hence many new operators are also having huge
scope to expand their network by opting for infrastructure sharing with incumbent
operators and to get benefit of reduced capital expenditure.
3G operators are taking the opportunity to reduce capital and operational

expenditure by sharing infrastructure from the start of the build-out. This is technically
more attractive than joining existing 2G networks since operators, in many markets, are
seeking to use 3G to differentiate their products and services, rather than networks.
Sharing a new network removes the complexity and cost associated with re-planning
existing networks but requires commercial agreement on operations and upgrade costs.

MITSOT Page 6


Chapter II

Technological Aspects‐I

MITSOT Page 7


Types of network sharing
For the purpose of this paper we have classified sharing broadly into five categories:
• Site sharing.
• Mast (tower) sharing.
• RAN sharing.
• Network roaming.
• Core network sharing.
Passive sharing is usually defined as the sharing of space or physical supporting
infrastructure which does not require active operational co-ordination between network
operators. Site and mast sharing are considered to be forms of passive sharing.
The remaining categories, listed above, are considered forms of active sharing
as they require operators to share elements of the active network layer including, for
example, radio access nodes and transmission. For RAN sharing, MNOs continue to
keep separate logical networks and the degree of operational co-ordination is less than
for other types of active sharing.
Network sharing across these categories may include a number of parties. Whilst
there may be significant commercial and practical hurdles to overcome, there are no
fundamental reasons why multiple operators cannot share networks. For example, up to
six operators share a single site in India. Agreements may concern individual sites, a
number of sites or particular regions. Passive sharing and RAN sharing do not require a
fully merged network architecture and there are examples of unilateral, bilateral (mutual
access) or multilateral agreements.
Site sharing
Site sharing, involving co-location of sites, is perhaps the easiest and most
commonly implemented form of sharing. Operators share the same physical compound
but install separate site masts, antennas, cabinets and backhaul.
MITSOT Page 8


Figure 1 : Site sharing
In the figure above, the solid line around the equipment and masts represents the
fenced-off compound that the operators will either own or lease. Within this compound
each operator usually installs their own infrastructure separately from that of other
operators. However, they may decide to share support equipment, including shelters,
power supply and air conditioning. This form of sharing is often favored in urban and
suburban areas where there is a shortage of available sites or complex planning
requirements.
Site sharing is the simplest form of infrastructure sharing and is most likely to be
accepted by competing operators. The key challenges are for incumbent operators to
accept the opening of the infrastructure to other players and for new operators to trust
that incumbents will provide them with the appropriate access to sites without deliberate
tactical delays to prevent them from rolling out their networks effectively. Enforcing such
cooperation is a major challenge to regulatory authorities.
Mast sharing
Mast, or tower, sharing is a step up from operators simply co-locating their sites
and involves sharing the same mast, antenna frame or rooftop.
MITSOT Page 9


Figure 2 : Mast sharing
Figure shows a single fenced-off compound within which operators will install
their own access infrastructure, ranging from antennas to base transceiver station (BTS)
cabinets. However, each operator will install their own antennas onto a shared physical
mast or other structure. The mast may need to be strengthened or made taller to
support several sets of antenna. As for site sharing, operators may share support
equipment. Operator coverage remains completely separate. There are alternative
options available to operators when considering mast sharing. For example, third party
structures such as chimneys and steel power pylons perform comparably to operator
masts in terms of providing the required height and load-bearing capacity. In built-up
areas, rooftops may be shared by several operators. Third party infrastructure
providers, such as Arqiva and Crown Castle, may also enter the market specifically to
provide shared antenna sites to telecoms operators and broadcasters.
RAN sharing
RAN sharing is the most comprehensive form of access network sharing. It
involves the sharing of all access network equipment, including the antenna, mast and
backhaul equipment. Each of the RAN access networks is incorporated into a single
network, which is then split into separate networks at the point of connection to the core.
MITSOT Page 10


MNOs continue to keep separate logical networks and spectrum and the degree of
operational coordination is less than for other types of active sharing.
Figure 3: RAN sharing
The above figure illustrates how RAN sharing might work between two partner
networks. In this scenario both operators share all the access network elements to the
point of connection with the core network. At this interconnect point each operator then
splits out the traffic from its respective customers on its own core network ring for
processing by its own core network elements and infrastructure. The exact
implementation may vary between different operators depending on the local
implementation.
Included in the access network are:

• Radio equipment.
• Masts.
• Site compounds.
• Backhaul equipment
MITSOT Page 11


Operators may face challenges in implementing a shared RAN network formed
from existing networks, as their architectures have evolved independently to date. For
example, there may be complications around inter-working of equipment purchased
from different vendors and operational procedures and control mechanisms.
Core network sharing

At a basic level, the core network consists of:
• Core transmission ring.
• Switching centre (with the home location register (HLR)).
• Billing platform.
• Value Added Systems (VAS) that represent logical entities and may also form part of
the core network.
The core network may be shared at one of two basic levels, namely the:
• Transmission ring.
• Core network logical entities.
a) Transmission ring sharing

Where an operator has spare capacity on its core ring network, it may be feasible
to share this with another operator. The situation may be particularly attractive to new
entrants who are lacking in time or resources (or desire) to build their own ring.
They may therefore purchase capacity, often in the form of leased lines, from
established operators.
Fixed network operators, such as British Telecom and Cable & Wireless, which
sell capacity on their network on a wholesale basis often provide operators with an
interim mechanism to roll out a network quickly while they make arrangements to
implement their own architecture. However, if both companies use the same joint
transmission and switching core then their services will become more aligned as they
will have the same infrastructure capabilities. Any service, function or process that one
operator implements can be replicated by the other as they have the same
infrastructure capability.
MITSOT Page 12


Figure 4: Core transmission ring sharing
b) Core network logical entity sharing

Core network logical entity sharing represents a much deeper form of sharing
infrastructure and refers to permitting a partner operator access to certain or all parts of
the core network. This could be implemented to varying levels depending on which
platforms operators wish to share. A simple example may be sharing the equipment
identity register (EIR) function, which on its own may be expensive but as a pooled
resource between operators becomes more attractive.
Figure 5: core network elements sharing
The benefits for sharing core network elements are not as clearly defined as
those for sharing the access network. It is conceivable that there may be some cost
MITSOT Page 13


reductions in operations and maintenance but the scale and practicality of these
remains uncertain.
Operators’ focus for network sharing to date has concentrated on elements in the
access network since the cost savings in this area are typically more significant and
better understood.
Network roaming
Network roaming can be considered a form of infrastructure sharing although
traffic from one operator’s subscriber is actually being carried and routed on another
operator’s network. However, there are no requirements for any common network
elements for this type of sharing to occur. As long as a roaming agreement between the
two operators exists then roaming can take place. For this reason operators may not
classify roaming as a form of sharing as it does not require any shared investment
in infrastructure. When roaming agreements come to an end they can be renegotiated
either with the existing host network or another operator with minimal effort and
transitional impact.
Roaming can be further divided into the following
categories:
• National roaming.
• International roaming.
• Inter-system roaming.
a) National roaming
National roaming occurs between operators (that are usually direct competitors)
within the same country code as they provide service within the same geographic region
or within different geographic regions. Agreements permitting, users are allowed to
roam onto a host network if the home network is not present in a particular location.
In the early days of network deployment this meant that operators could compensate for
lack of presence and offer users contiguous coverage and service using the same
handset and SIM. This is particularly useful in areas of low subscriber density where the
payback period for a dedicated site by each operator may not be justified.
MITSOT Page 14


Figure 6: Roaming
b) International roaming
This has similar characteristics to national roaming, but occurs between
operators within different country codes. Users can continue to use their handsets
abroad and receive the same basic voice service and any VAS they subscribe to
(provided that the host network is capable of supporting this).
On an international basis, roaming is complicated by the fact that regulators
dedicated different frequency bands to the same technology in different jurisdictions.
Handsets need to be (and typically are) capable of operating at different bands.
c) Inter-system roaming
Inter-system roaming occurs between networks operating to different standards
and architecture as in the case of 3G and GSM roaming. Inter-system roaming
generally facilitates the introduction of new standards and technologies as it provides a
mechanism for the new platform to offer coverage from launch at a level associated with
a mature network. It helps build revenue quickly and mitigates against any user
perception that the service will not be available to the same level as with established
networks and technologies. Inter-system roaming imposes more challenging
requirements on user terminals and networks as they have to be able to support calls
on both standards and maintain calls when changing between standards
MITSOT Page 15


Chapter III

Technological Aspects‐II

MITSOT Page 16


Virtualization in telecom network
A virtualized network provides each operator with full independent control of their
own virtual Base Transceiver Subsystem (vBTS), and connectivity to their own Base
Station Controller (BSC) and core network.
Figure 7: Virtualization concept
Wireless operators today are finding that the economics of wireless service can
no longer justify the ownership and operation of ubiquitous networks. There are parts of
the network that must be deployed, due to regulatory build-out requirements or
competitive coverage pressure, where the level of service revenue is insufficient to
support the operation of those network sites. Increasingly, operators are turning to
infrastructure sharing to reduce the cost of network operation at such sites. Passive
infrastructure sharing, where operators share basic site components such as towers,
shelters and electrical power supplies is already commonplace in the wireless industry.
In the last few years various operators have investigated shared active infrastructure the
sharing of active electronic components, e.g., base stations and backhaul transmission
equipment.
Today's traditional shared deployments have necessitated that participating
operators agree upon the same technology, roadmap, and features. The result is
significant loss of competitive differentiation among the operators, discouraging
operators from embracing the technology and leading to fewer service offerings for
MITSOT Page 17


customers. A new solution to this challenge is virtualization of the radio access network
(RAN), rather than traditional sharing.
Introduction to Virtualization
Virtualization is not a new technology — it was invented by IBM in the 1970's for
use in its System/370 mainframes, and has experienced a massive resurgence in the
past decade as a means of logically partitioning a single (hardware) machine into
multiple virtual machines. Companies such as VMware have led the way in developing
commercial virtualization technology, while various open source efforts, e.g., Xen, have
created extremely capable virtualization systems. Both Intel and AMD have extended
the basic IA-32 and IA-64 CPU architectures with specific instructions and operating
modes to increase the efficiency of virtualized systems. Figure 7 shows the basic
structure of a virtualized system. The key observation to make is that the role of the
hypervisor in a virtualized system is analogous to the role of the operating system (OS)
in a standard computer system. The hypervisor manages various hardware interfaces,
and provides essential services — protection, translation, multiplexing, resource
management, etc. — to a number of clients. The essential difference between the
hypervisor and the OS is that the OS's clients are application programs, while the
hypervisor's clients are virtual machines. Each virtual machine runs its own OS, the
guest OS, which in turn manages a set of standard applications.
Another difference is the interface structure: whereas the OS provides
application programming interfaces (APIs) to its applications, the hypervisor provides
each virtual machine with a set of virtual devices: network interface, disk, graphics
adapter, etc. Some hypervisors support the use of a standard, unmodified OS as the
guest OS, with virtual devices emulating standard physical devices. Others provide a
guest OS environment replicated from the hypervisor's host OS, but incur much lower
overhead to do so. The hypervisor may also provide a hypercall API that allows the OS
running in a virtual machine to more efficiently invoke certain services of the hypervisor;
such a facility is called para-virtualization.
Virtualization is used extensively in enterprise computing environments to
MITSOT Page 18


support the use of virtual machines for various purposes. Data center hosting providers
use virtualization to create a large number of hosted systems on a smaller number of
physical machines, while retaining the ability to manage each hosted system as if it was
a physical machine, i.e., separate disk quotas, network access and traffic management
policies, independent upgrades of OS and applications. Enterprises may use
virtualization to separate logical services — web, email, firewall, etc. — without requiring
a separate physical server for each one. This enables greater security than running all
services within a single OS environment. Finally, virtualization is used by engineers to
boot many different guest OS on a single hardware platform for development purposes,
e.g., testing of new OS-level software, such as device drivers, or investigation of OS
security issues.
Applying Virtualization to Shared Radio Access Networks
Operators who wish to share active infrastructure, particularly the base station
subsystem (BSS), do so in order to reduce the cost of deploying and operating certain
parts of the network. The challenge they are faced with is the ability to retain
independent management and configuration control, and be able to apply software
technology upgrades that differentiate them from their competitors.
Traditional hardware radio approaches to shared infrastructure require that

operators share a single traditional base station, thus eliminating the ability of each
operator to provide independent feature sets or levels of technology. Furthermore,
traditional base stations were not designed to be shared, and cannot provide fully
independent management and configuration.
A virtualized RAN leverages software radio technology, which implements the

complete base station subsystem (BSS) in software, rather than the traditional hardware
based approach. The key element of the BSS that must be shared is the base
transceiver subsystem (BTS), the radio system that is located at each cell site and
supports radio communications with mobile terminals. A software radio BTS implements
all radio functionality, from physical layer through MAC layer and network layer, in
MITSOT Page 19


software that runs on a standard operating system, e.g., Linux, on commodity off-the-
shelf (COTS) processing platforms. This allows a software radio system to take
advantage of investment in new technologies and open systems, rather than being
limited to a particular radio vendor's own proprietary technologies. In turn, this breaks
the vertical integration business model that operators have been forced into in the past
and instead creates an ecosystem of horizontally-focused component suppliers that can
be integrated into a more flexible and cost-effective solution.
A software radio BTS is much more readily virtualized than a hardware radio,
since the BTS is just a software application. It is possible to construct a virtualized base
station by using standard virtualization technology to create a virtual machine (VM) per
operator, and running an independent BTS application for each operator within that VM.
This ensures that each operator has complete control over their BTS, while
guaranteeing that one operator's traffic, signaling and configuration data are isolated
from other operators.
Figure 8 shows the architecture for a virtualized GSM network supporting three
different operators. In this scenario one of the operators deploys the network and acts
as an anchor tenant, using excess capacity to provide a managed service to the other
two operators in order to reduce the cost of operating the network. Although superficially
similar to a traditional roaming network arrangement, the virtualized network provides
each operator with full independent control of their own virtual BTS (vBTS), and
connectivity to their own BSC and core network.
An alternative model for use of virtualized RAN technology is the neutral host
model. In this case the sites are owned and operated by a company that is not itself a
mobile network operator, thus eliminating any conflict of interest concerns that arise
when the anchor tenant is a competitor of one of the other site operators. Existing tower
companies are natural candidates for neutral host management, and this approach fits
in very well with the current trend towards provision of managed network services on a
charging by traffic basis.
MITSOT Page 20


Shared active infrastructure is an essential technology in the mobile network
operator's ongoing efforts to reduce the cost of providing service, particularly in sparsely
populated areas where revenues are too low to make service in those areas
economically attractive. MultiRAN product is a solution that combines software radio
solutions with virtualization technology to provide mobile network operators the cost
savings of shared active infrastructure while allowing them to retain independent
management control and technology evolution.
MultiRAN Virtual Base Station (vBTS)

Introduction
Software Defined Radio (SDR) is a concept that has excited mobile operators for
many years, offering benefits such as support for new waveforms through software
upgrades, faster time to market for new network services, and reduced maintenance
costs due to remote upgrades and management. With MultiRAN, has taken its software
RAN solutions to a new level. The flexibility of a software RAN allows virtualization of
the BTS platform. Virtualization enables a single BTS platform to be shared by multiple
mobile operators, reserving hardware resources for each mobile operator using the
system and isolating each virtual BTS (vBTS) from the others running on the platform.
Software RAN – Flexibility for Mobile Operators

Software RAN technology brings tremendous flexibility to the radio access
network (RAN), providing many advantages to mobile operators. Upgrades to the RAN
can be rolled out via software only, rather than through hardware refreshes. As a result,
new features can be pushed to hundreds of sites overnight, rather than over a period of
several weeks or longer. Mobile operators can deploy network features much more
quickly, improving network coverage, speeding time to market and increasing network
capacity, thus resulting in an enhanced mobile user experience.
For example, if a network operator measures a sudden increase in network traffic
at some sites, they can remotely upgrade the RAN to support higher capacities through
a software upgrade that same day, rather than scheduling a technician to visit each site
MITSOT Page 21


requiring the capacity upgrade. This is a tremendous benefit for operators with either a
large number of cell sites, or cell sites in remote and hard-to-reach areas.
The use of virtualization adds another layer of sophistication to the MultiRAN
Solution. Just as enterprise virtualization has made it easier to manage datacenter
assets, reduce the consumption of datacenter resources (floor space, power, etc.), and
simplify software releases through standardization, a vBTS enables operators to share
network infrastructure. Applied to the RAN, virtualization allows a single BTS platform to
be split into multiple virtual BTSs (vBTS), each vBTS supporting a single mobile
operator. Virtualization enables a new form of active infrastructure sharing, with many
benefits to mobile operators and the infrastructure host who maintains the BTS
equipment.

Mobile Operator Network Architecture
Figure 8: MultiRAN architecture
MITSOT Page 22


Advantages for Mobile Operators

Virtual BTS
Using virtual BTSs (vBTS) allows multiple mobile operators to share a single BTS
platform, reducing the amount of equipment required to support multiple mobile
networks at a single site and enabling mobile operators to share the costs of a network
build out. Virtual BTSs also maintain differentiation between operators, since each
operator directly controls their own network configuration.
Each network of vBTSs connects back to a logically separate BSC for each
operator, permitting the operator to make use of infrastructure sharing with traditional
2G MSCs that are already deployed in their network using standard BSC interfaces.
There is no need for the mobile operator to change existing switching or core
infrastructure.
Infrastructure Sharing
Sharing MultiRAN between multiple mobile operators leads not only to sharing
the BTS platform, but also sharing antennas and backhaul connections. Reducing the
number of antennas per operator at a site leads to lower site lease costs, and reducing
backhaul requirements minimizes the amount of microwave equipment required, or
minimizes monthly costs when leasing bandwidth.
Independent Management
Each virtual network in a MultiRAN system provides the mobile operator with
independent management and configuration systems. Each mobile operator can directly
control their virtual network configuration, changing items such as broadcast parameters
and handover lists, without needing to work through another mobile operator or the
infrastructure provider. Operators also have direct access to key performance indicators
for the virtual network, allowing the operator to instantly identify and respond to network
issues.
MITSOT Page 23


Virtualization
Finally, the virtualization layer provides a layer of protection between all of the
mobile operators. The virtualization layer allocates physical resources to each of the
mobile operators, and prevents the BTS software from exceeding that limit. Not only
does this keep each operator’s data secure, it ensures that any network issue pertaining
to one operator is kept separate from the others.
Advantages for Infrastructure Providers
Figure 9: Infrastructure provider hostel model
MITSOT Page 24


Flexible Deployment Architecture
Many of the benefits that MultiRAN provides to mobile operators are also
applicable to infrastructure providers. The deployment flexibility of MultiRAN means that
infrastructure providers can pursue two models for hosting shared radio access
networks. The first model entails hosting the BTS equipment only, while still giving the
mobile operators direct network access to the virtual RAN. The second model allows the
infrastructure host to provide a fully managed virtual RAN where they ensure the
network meets the service level agreement provided by the mobile operator and
manage the virtual RAN themselves. These models can even be mixed on a single
shared radio access network to best fit the desires of each mobile operator on the
network. Both models provide significant power consumption savings versus running
multiple non-shared networks.
Independent Management Systems
When deployed in the vBTS hosting model, MultiRAN’s support of direct mobile
operator configuration and monitoring of the virtual network helps reduce the
administrative burden for the infrastructure host. The infrastructure host is no longer
required to coordinate multiple configuration changes between all of the mobile
operators hosted on the system, nor does the infrastructure host need to coordinate
software upgrades between mobile operators. Mobile operators can upgrade waveform
software independently and ensure interoperability with the unique core network
equipment deployed by each operator. The infrastructure EMS provides the
infrastructure host with the ability to monitor all of the BTS equipment for all mobile
operators, and also control the resource allocations to each individual operator.
MITSOT Page 25


Technical and environmental Considerations

There are a number of technical considerations and environmental benefits that
accompany infrastructure sharing agreements.
Technical limitations to infrastructure sharing
a) Passive infrastructure sharing

Passive infrastructure sharing requires the consideration of many technical,
practical and logistical factors although the principle is simple in theory. Any potential
impact must be assessed and fully understood before sharing commences to ensure
that there are no adverse effects on the operation of the site and the supporting network
equipment and systems. Operators must consider items such as load bearing capacity
of towers, azimuth angle of different service providers, tilt of the antenna, height of the
antenna, before executing the agreement.
b) Sites and Masts

While new masts can be built taking into consideration the ultimate load-bearing
capacity required, existing masts may not have been designed to cater for the additional
load requirements of service providers who decide to share. Existing masts will have to
be assessed on an individual basis as a mast may be capable of sustaining the
additional load there may physically not be enough space left on the mast to
accommodate extra equipment. If the site is optimally located in the shared network
architecture then it may be viable for the site to be redesigned.
This would be more applicable to masts located in urban city centre sites where
the revenue the site generates justifies the additional investment required. There is also
the consideration of whether an alternative site location can be found and how this
would impact on network performance, in which case it may make more business sense
to keep the existing location and re-build despite the additional cost.
In urban areas and city centres rooftop sites tend to be the dominant form where
the load- bearing capacity of the building and foundation becomes significant. Rooftop
sites offer a limited amount of space to house additional equipment, which again may
MITSOT Page 26


require an expensive re-design if sharing is to proceed. Urban sites also impose stricter
requirements on the number of antennas that can be placed due to their aesthetic
impact. This may require operators to choose combined equipment which results in
poorer performance and additional limitations on modifications and network
enhancements.
MNOs who share sites and utilize their own microwave backhaul network will
have to ensure that they can accommodate the necessary microwave equipment on the
tower or mast and still maintain line of site to the next site in the chain or to the hub
point. This is largely a function of height (if the antenna is high enough then it will have a
line of sight over and above the surrounding clutter and terrain) which may restrict the
number of suitable sites for sharing. The operator may of course circumvent this
through the use of fixed line backhaul where this is available. In developing nations or
those with more relaxed planning regulations operators have tended to install much
higher and heavier load-bearing masts than the minimum specification they require.
This provides them with some flexibility in the future for the own evolving network
architecture but also means that the mast is more likely to be of a suitable construction for
sharing.
c) RAN Sharing
RAN sharing may have an adverse effect on quality of service (QoS) levels due
to the reduction of signal strength when antennas are combined, although this does not
apply to leading 3G RAN sharing techniques . For example, in India operators felt that
the use of common antenna could pose problems as the strength of the signal may be
reduced by 3dBs by combining the signals. This represents a reduction in output power
and impacts the coverage footprint of the network, which means it may not fulfill the
QoS parameters in some areas. The drop in signal strength not only reduces the overall
coverage footprint but also has a negative impact on the in-building penetration of the
carrier.
This may be of less significance in rural areas where subscribers accept lower in-
building coverage levels, but may have a major impact in suburban and urban areas
where users are more likely to use their handsets indoors. Any significant decay in the
MITSOT Page 27


in-building signal strength as a result of RAN sharing may act to counter the reduction in
sites due to the requirement to maintain sufficient inbuilding coverage. This effectively
means that the operator has to compensate for the loss in signal strength either through
the introduction of new sites or leaving sites in the network that might have been
removed if antenna equipment were not combined. The full impact of this will of course
vary from operator to operator and according to factors such as frequency of operation.
Other factors such as antenna developments will come into play that may mitigate the
negative aspects in the medium and long term.
d) Core Network Sharing

Core network sharing poses technical limitations with regards to the technology
platform of the operator and the standards employed by the equipment vendor.
Traditionally 2G networks have been specified and designed on a circuit switched
architecture. GPRS technology was implemented as a mechanism to introduce some of
the advantages of packet switched networks. The more recent 3G networks have been
specified with a more modern IP-based architecture in mind. IP-based technology is
considered a more flexible platform and provides the mechanism for 3G operators to
interwork with other IP-based systems as these develop and become available. Given
the general trend towards IP based technology, the likelihood is that, looking ahead, 3G
networks should be able to benefit most from core network sharing as they already
employ the standards and architectural components required for sharing.
e) Roaming
Roaming agreements have been in place almost as long as GSM technology has
been in the marketplace. Roaming does not require any shared infrastructure as such,
but an agreement that allows for an exchange of customer data. There are some
technical requirements to ensure that the information is exchanged in the correct and
timely manner but these are now well understood and easily implemented. The lack of
any serious technical hurdle to roaming is demonstrated by the sheer number of
agreements in place across the globe.
MITSOT Page 28


Environmental impact
The main environmental impact of networks relate to:
• Proliferation of masts.
• Power consumption.
• Handsets.
In this section we look at the impact that infrastructure sharing can have on these
environmental issues.
a) Proliferation of masts
One of the most visible environment impacts of networks is the proliferation of
masts. This is the public face of the network and one that is most likely to attract
attention. Paradoxically while the public demand the services provided by networks they
oppose the infrastructure required to deliver the service, due to aesthetic and broader
environmental concerns. The situation is more pronounced in the developed world
where environmental issues receive much higher media and public attention. This
provides operators with the challenging task of providing service while at the same time
addressing the environmental concerns of the public who are ultimately their customers.
# For example, RAN sharing with dedicated carrier or MOCN (Multiple Operator Core
Network) for UMTS900:-
In the situation where two networks with similar coverage characteristics decide
to enter into a RAN sharing agreement, this allows for a reduction in the total site
portfolio of the combined network. The reduction in sites will have a positive impact in
that it will reduce the number of towers and masts in the environment. However the
reduction is on the premise that the networks have significant areas of overlap. If the
operators should have networks such that the coverage is complementary then this will
not produce the saving in sites and the impact on mast proliferation would be minimal.
Operators who share masts whilst maintaining separate networks are restricted
to the number of masts they can share due to minimum vertical and horizontal
separation requirements for antennas. Even if the mast has the required load bearing
capacity it may not provide sufficient spacing to accommodate the antennas. This
MITSOT Page 29


situation is likely to improve as antenna technology advances and new technologies that
better facilitate mast sharing become available. The military forces (which are often
ahead of civilian technology) already have technology available to fit multiple antennas
in close proximity on vessels such as battle ships. These systems are being adapted to
allow commercial companies to benefit from the same technology, helping them reduce
the number of masts they require by being able to share smaller and more restrictive
towers.
b) Power consumption
Like any other form of infrastructure in the modern world, mobile networks
require power to operate. National operators often have to cover large geographic
regions and install thousands of sites to provide the services required of them both from
a commercial and a legal point of view. Operators have to keep their networks running
on a continuous basis 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, regardless of utilization.
Demand for service may drop to zero during night time hours on certain sites but
operators have no option to switch the site off during these hours as they cannot predict
subscriber movements. As a function of their size and operating requirements,
networks consume large quantities of power with all the associated carbon footprints.
One report from Actix, a company specializing in software solutions for mobile
operators, suggests that networks consume 61 billion kWH of energy per year with an
average site responsible for 10 tonnes of carbon emissions per year.
Although this might appear to paint an environmentally hostile profile we should
put this into a global perspective before drawing any adverse conclusions. Mobile
networks account for a mere 0.12% of primary energy use as compared to 23% used
for travel and transport. Advances in chip technology and the processing power of
servers and electronic systems in general mean that the amount of equipment required
to crunch the same amount of data continues to reduce, with the associated reduction in
energy consumption. Equipment such as Mobile Switching Centres and Base Station
Controllers which used to fill several equipment cabinets and take up large amounts of
floor space, have now reduced to one or two cabinets depending on the manufacturer.
MITSOT Page 30


This not only results in a direct power saving in the amount the actual network
element consumes but may also reduce the peripheral power consumption, such as air
conditioning.
Operators typically ensure that critical systems have a back up mechanism to
ensure continuity of service and business operations. In some cases this means having
a duplicate system available for activation if the primary system fails. However, for time-
critical systems or those with high financial impacts the backup system may need to be
on hot standby or parallel running. As network technology continues to improve this may
be a potential area where power saving could be realized, if systems become inherently
more reliable and reduce the need for back-up or standby systems. While technology
may help reduce the power consumption of individual elements of a network, this will be
offset by increases in the number of network elements as the network continues to grow
capacity and expand into new areas.
There is a growing industry in green technology that specializes in producing
energy from renewable sources or with zero or reduced carbon impact. Such
technologies include solar power, wind power, wave power and bio fuels. Operators
should be in a position to benefit from these technologies as the amount of power they
can generate continues to improve. Motorola has already successfully trialled a
combined solar and wind powered base station in Namibia, which not only reduces the
environmental impact of the site but also makes it more feasible for operators to deploy
sites in remote regions by negating the need for traditional power supplies or
maintaining a fuel generator.
c) Handsets
There are an estimated 3 billion mobile phone subscribers worldwide, all of
whom require handsets to make and receive calls. This number is likely to grow
significantly in the coming years as markets such as China, Indian and Africa continue
to develop. Manufacturers working together with operators constantly develop new
phone models that they use to acquire new customers, as well as to entice existing
customers to upgrade.
MITSOT Page 31


According to reports from Gartner, global mobile phone sales reached 251
million units in the third quarter of 2006. This produces a significant impact on the
environment both in terms of the manufacturing process and the effects of disposal at
the end of the product life cycle. Although network operators are not responsible for the
manufacturing process they do have a part to play in the disposal of products. In 2006,
a group called ESPOO was created as part of a European Commission pilot project
comprising mobile manufacturers, network operators, suppliers, recyclers, consumer
and environmental organizations. The group was led by Nokia with the aim of reducing
the environmental impact of phones through improvements in performance and raising
consumer awareness and participation in take-backs (reverse logistics) and recycling.
Handsets that are discarded carry valuable metals in addition to toxic elements.
Belgian company Umicore specializes in reclaiming precious metals such as silver,
copper, platinum and gold from handsets and other electronics using a environmentally-
sensitive process. However, according to Umicore’s estimates, the company and its
competitors received only 1 % of all handsets discarded globally in 2006. In the
developed world many mobile phones are disposed of when the user upgrades to a new
model even though the phone is fully functional. Operators, together with other
stakeholders, can set up schemes to encourage users to recycle their phones as and
when they decide to upgrade, thus reducing the impact of network services on the
environment.
MITSOT Page 32


Chapter IV

Financial Aspects (costing)

MITSOT Page 33


Sharing of telecom infrastructure
Among telecom service providers is becoming the requirement and process of

business in the telecom industry where competitors are becoming partners in order to
lower their increasing investments. The degree and method of infrastructure sharing can
vary in each country depending on regulatory and competitive climate.

Figure 10: Development approach
Telecom Infrastructure
Basically a cell site consists of electronic (active) and non-electronic infrastructure.

• Electronic infrastructure includes base tower station, microwave radio
equipment, switches, antennas, transceivers for signal processing and
transmission.
• Non-electronic infrastructure includes tower, shelter, air-conditioning
equipments, diesel electric generator, battery, electrical supply, technical
premises and easements & pylons that account for nearly 60 percent of network
rollout costs..
MITSOT Page 34


Infrastructure Sharing
There are multiple possible options of sharing amongst telecom service

providers. However this sharing also depends on telecom regulatory and legislation.
• Passive Infrastructure sharing is nothing but sharing non-electronic

infrastructure at cell site. Passive Infrastructure is becoming popular in telecom
industry world wide.
• Active sharing is nothing but sharing electronic infrastructure.
• Spectrum-sharing concept is based on a lease model and is often termed

‘spectrum trading’. An operator can lease a part of its spectrum to another
operator on commercial terms. Though this mechanism, along with that of
MVNOs, exists in the US, Europe, Singapore and Australia.
• Base station sharing is prospective while each operator: maintains control over
logical Node B so that it will be able to operate the frequencies assigned to the
carrier, fully independent from the partner operator and retains control over active
base station equipment such as the TRXs that control reception/transmission
over radio channels. Radio network controller and core network are not shared
here.
• Site sharing includes antennas and mast; this may also hold Base transceiver
station (BTS), Node B in UMTS context and common equipments such as
Antenna system, masts, cables, filters and shelter.
• Antenna sharing shares an antenna and all related connections (coupler,

feeder cable), in addition to passive radio site elements.
• RNC (Radio Network Controller) sharing represents maintaining logical

control over the RNC of each operator independently.
MITSOT Page 35


• MSC and Routers sharing or backbone sharing includes sharing switches
(MSC) and routers (SGSN) on the operator's fixed network.
Benefits for all
With passive infrastructure sharing, operators are expected to save close to 30

percent on capex and opex when it comes to passive infrastructure management
(mainly towers). Right now, sharing among operators is limited to two in most cases,
whereby tower companies are aiming at an average of 2.5 to 2.7 carriers per tower.
Furthermore, only 30 percent of sites are being shared–tower companies expect it to
take this number higher with a focused approach.
Gandhi insists, “The sharing of passive infrastructure will allow service providers
to focus on their own core sales/marketing areas. This will also free up management
time at the carriers. Passive infrastructure sharing will allow operators to defer their
tower-related capex investments into opex lease rental payments over an extended
period of time. Existing towers can also be sold and leased back, thereby creating new
sources of cash, which can be invested in radio network expansion and distribution.” He
feels that operators outsourcing passive infrastructure will benefit from a quicker
network rollout.
With multiple operators and dense coverage needs, acquisition of sites, with all
necessary governmental approvals, is getting tougher. Furthermore, ascertaining legal
ownership of sites in towns is a stumbling block to faster rollouts. In India, one of the
additional incentives to owning passive telecom infrastructure is the subsidy being
provided under the Universal Service Obligation (USO) fund for developing telecom
infrastructure in rural areas. The USO fund has around Rs.7,500 crores and companies
building network infrastructure in rural areas are subsidized through this fund.
As operators expand their networks into semi-urban and rural areas, there will be
an increase in capex. This is due to higher costs of land development, security and
insurance costs, power shortages and increased use of diesel generator backups,
MITSOT Page 36


unclear land ownership and expensive backhaul connectivity costs. Hence passive
infrastructure sharing will significantly lower the capex .
Financial effects & benefits
• Lower Cost
• Cost split up amongst multiple Operators

• Built-in Operational efficiency due to focus on passive infrastructure
• No revenue sharing fees for infra-sharing revenue
• More Free Cash Flow
• As the Infrastructure is funded by Essar, thus optimum use of
Funds for other expansion needs of Telecom Operators
• Faster Time to Market
• Guarantees faster time to market as the sites are already deployed
• For new sites, Operator can have better focus on passive
infrastructure creation leading to speedy rollout
• Hassle-free Management

• The Operator can concentrate on Active Network & need not Focus
on the Maintenance & deployment of Passive Infrastructure.
• Manpower saving
• Free up Management bandwidth for core activities.

Financial risk

Financial risk is normally any risk associated with any form of financing. Risk is
probability of unfavorable condition; in financial sector it is the probability of actual return
being less than expected return. There will be uncertainty in every business; the level of
uncertainty present is called risk.

MITSOT Page 37


Investment related
Depending on the nature of the investment, the type of 'investment' risk will vary.
High risk investments have greater potential rewards, but also have greater potential
consequences.
A common concern with any investment is that the initial amount invested may
be lost (also known as "the capital"). This risk is therefore often referred to as capital
risk.
If the invested assets are being held in another currency, there is a risk that
currency movements alone may affect the value. This is referred to as currency risk.
Many forms of investment may not be readily salable on the open market (e.g.
commercial property) or the market has a small capacity and may therefore take time to
sell. Assets that are easily sold are termed liquid: therefore this type of risk is termed
liquidity risk.
Business related
The risk that a company or project will not have adequate cash flow to meet
financial obligations; thus causing the business to file for bankruptcy.
Financial risk is the additional risk a shareholder bears when a company uses
debt in addition to equity financing. Companies that issue more debt instruments would
have higher financial risk than companies financed mostly or entirely by equity.
Bilateral barter can depend upon a mutual coincidence of wants. Before any
transaction can be undertaken, each party must be able to supply something the other
party demands. To overcome this mutual coincidence problem, some communities had
developed a system of intermediaries who can warehouse and trade goods. However,
intermediaries often suffered from financial risk.
MITSOT Page 38


Whilst higher risk normally implies higher overall rewards, this is not always the
case. For example a high risk mortgage client may be required to pay a higher interest
rate on their mortgage repayments in order to be accepted as a bank's customer.
However, this higher mortgage rate will in itself increase the risk to the bank that the
customer cannot meet their interest payments, further increasing the risk.
This circular risk problem can lead to markets not existing for high risk borrowers. The
2007/8 sub-prime crisis may have some links to this argument. Higher interest rates for
high risk borrowers make the borrowers even less likely to be able to pay back the loan,
further increasing the default risk.

Market risk
It is the risk that the value of a portfolio, either an investment portfolio or a trading
portfolio, will decrease due to the change in value of the market risk factors. The four
standard market risk factors are stock prices, interest rates, foreign exchange rates, and
commodity prices. The associated market risk are:
• Equity risk, the risk that stock prices and/or the implied volatility will
change.
• Interest rate risk, the risk that interest rates and/or the implied volatility
will change.
• Currency risk, the risk that foreign exchange rates and/or the implied
volatility will change.
• Commodity risk, the risk that commodity prices (e.g. corn, copper, crude
oil) and/or implied volatility will change.

MITSOT Page 39


Cost Structure

Figure 11: Cost structure

Capital expenditures

(CAPEX or capex) are expenditures creating future benefits. A capital

expenditure is incurred when a business spends money either to buy fixed assets or to
add to the value of an existing fixed asset with a useful life that extends beyond the
taxable year. Capex are used by a company to acquire or upgrade physical assets such
as equipment, property, or industrial buildings. In accounting, a capital expenditure is
added to an asset account ("capitalized"), thus increasing the asset's basis (the cost or
value of an asset as adjusted for tax purposes). Capex is commonly found on the Cash
Flow Statement as "Investment in Plant Property and Equipment" or something similar
in the Investing subsection.
MITSOT Page 40


For tax purposes, capital expenditures are costs that cannot be deducted in the
year in which they are paid or incurred, and must be capitalized. The general rule is that
if the property acquired has a useful life longer than the taxable year, the cost must be
capitalized. The capital expenditure costs are then amortized or depreciated over the
life of the asset in question. As stated above, capital expenditures create or add basis to
the asset or property, which once adjusted, will determine tax liability in the event of
sale or transfer. In the US, Internal Revenue Code §§263 and 263A deal extensively
with capitalization requirements and exceptions.[1]
Included in capital expenditures are amounts spent on:
1. acquiring fixed assets

2. fixing problems with an asset that existed prior to acquisition
3. preparing an asset to be used in business
4. legal costs of establishing or maintaining one's right of ownership in a
piece of property
5. restoring property or adapting it to a new or different use
6. starting a new business

Graph 1: CAPEX worldwide
MITSOT Page 41


CAPEX investment represents 20%—30% of total cost of ownership for mobile
operators, yet this crucial cost function directly affects 70%—80% of the OPEX. This
highlights how important it is for operators to understand the state-of-the-art of the next
generation network, so as to make intelligent infrastructure investment decisions.
Meanwhile, network infrastructure vendors need to understand the spending behavior of
their customers (operators) if they are to produce solutions that add value. This study
highlights the critical market drivers and the latest trends influencing capital expenditure
investments by mobile operators worldwide. It examines the key elements of a mobile
network that require CAPEX investment, and analyzes the differences in priorities
based on the mobile industry’s development in different regions. The report also
assesses the technological aspects of each mobile network component by examining
vendors’ state-of-the-art innovations, so as to offer the reader a clear picture of the
steps required to make the transition from one evolution to the next. ABI Research has
examined the historical trends in mobile operators’ CAPEX investments, and breaks
down the long-term forecasts for mobile CAPEX by geographical region, as well as by
technologies based on services, mobile technologies and components.

The problem with the telecom industry is (as another poster pointed out) their cost
accountants have gotten so used to cooking the books to fool the government, they do
not know what the truth is anymore, and they certainly are not going to speak it if they
ever do figure it out. The truth is: a cost of long haul DWDM fiber optic transport today is
so low on a voice channel-basis it may as well be zero. But revenue is not zero, so logic
would say money can be made. Note I said logic, not some accountant.
Excess competition was the problem, and was due mainly to equity fueled
companies (public and private) all chasing a finite market segment. Every one of them
had to garner market share from the entrenched competition. Excess competition forced
the rates to go to below what most had assumed in their worst case business plans.
Today CAPEX is zero, because those same companies are going bankrupt
and/or are selling their networks to the few survivors at 10 cents or less on the dollar.
MITSOT Page 42


Who needs new equipment? In truth, it is easy to sell components at low prices, but
very hard to make quality components at low cost.
Price - cost = margin. It's a killer for service providers and component companies too.
Graph 2: CAPEX-OPEX status
OPEX

An operating expense, operating expenditure, operational expense,
operational expenditure or OPEX is an ongoing cost for running a product, business,
or system. Its counterpart, a capital expenditure (CAPEX), is the cost of developing or
providing non-consumable parts for the product or system. For example, the purchase
of a photocopier is the CAPEX, and the annual paper, toner, power and maintenance
cost is the OPEX. For larger systems like businesses, OPEX may also include the cost
of workers and facility expenses such as rent and utilities.
In business, an operating expense is a day-to-day expense such as sales and

administration, or research & development, as opposed to Production, costs, and
pricing. In short, this is the money the business spends in order to turn inventory into
throughput. Operating expenses also include depreciation of plants and machinery
which are used in the production process.
MITSOT Page 43


In throughput accounting, the cost accounting aspect of Theory of Constraints
(TOC), operating expense is the money spent turning inventory into throughput. In TOC,
operating expense is limited to costs that vary strictly with the quantity produced, like
raw materials and purchased components. Everything else is a fixed cost, including
labor unless there is a regular and significant chance that workers will not work a full-
time week when they report on its first day.
In a real estate context, operating expenses are costs associated with the
operation and maintenance of an income producing property. Operating expenses
include
• accounting expenses
• license fees
• maintenance and repairs, such as snow removal, trash removal,
janitorial service, pest control, and lawn care
• advertising
• office expenses
• supplies
• attorney fees and legal fees
• utilities, such as telephone
• insurance
• property management, including a resident manager
• property taxes
• travel and vehicle expenses
MITSOT Page 44


OPEX for Airtel & Idea

Graph 3: Airtel Opex

Graph 4: Idea Opex
MITSOT Page 45


CAPEX Vs OPEX

Improvement measures in current OPEX

Table 1: Opex Analysis
Expected costing consideration
MITSOT Page 46


Reducing costs through sharing
As Indian companies fan out into the smaller towns and villages they must steel
themselves for lower average revenue per user figures. Reducing their costs would the
only alternative to ensure that they preserve their margins.
The Essar group itself has an independent tower company called Essar Telecom
and Tower Infrastructure Ltd. Currently, this company has 600 towers leased out to
operators and plans to achieve 3,000 towers by December 2007, said officials.
MITSOT Page 47


SREI Infrastructure, another independent tower company, plans 5,000 towers
through its group company Quipo Telecom Infrastructure Ltd. Another independent
tower company is GTL. Reliance Communications and Bharti Airtel are in the process of
spinning off their infrastructure activity into separate businesses.
We feel that even 25-30% success in active infrastructure sharing has the
potential to reduce tenancies by 12-15%. This would have a negative impact on the
business case of passive infrastructure providers and the future valuations. To
compensate for the drop in revenue, passive infrastructure players would need to
leverage on their skilled manpower and look at alternate offerings beyond tenancy like
active infrastructure management, RF and transmission planning, etc.

Clearly, it is time for passive infrastructure players to be prepared for newer
business models. Firms not prepared for models beyond tenancy could see their
revenues not meeting projections, leaving the investors a worried lot.
MITSOT Page 48


Chapter V

Marketing Aspects ‐I

MITSOT Page 49


Abstract
Network infrastructure sharing and outsourcing is finding strong acceptance with
mobile operators around the world. While operators in the developed markets of
Western Europe have already moved on to advanced active infrastructure sharing and
outsourcing, operators in developing markets are beginning to realize the potential of
passive infrastructure sharing and outsourcing. Consequently tower sharing and
outsourcing are gaining increasing acceptance across these markets as an effective
way to cut down coverage costs, while reducing the time-to-market.
These initiatives have already seen significant traction in India, and are poised to
make their impact felt in the Middle East and Africa (MEA). Tower sharing offers
significant potential for cost savings for both incumbents and new entrants. At the same
time, sharing/outsourcing is accompanied by risks such as reduction in strategic control
and potential for information leaks. Regulators face the challenge of ensuring a level
playing ground for all operators with no threat of cartels. Our analysis presents specific
approaches to tower sharing/outsourcing for incumbents and new entrants. Incumbent
operators need to focus on direct sharing of towers with other operators in urban areas.
However, in rural areas, they could look at divesting their tower assets into a joint
venture company with other incumbents and unlocking value in the process. New
entrants need to lease towers directly from incumbent operators in urban areas, and
partner with independent tower companies in rural areas. Regulators need to ensure
that a broad and transparent framework is built for fair pricing, identification of priority
areas, and resolution of disputes arising from tower sharing/outsourcing.
Introduction
Operators across the world, and particularly so in developing markets, face
challenges in sustaining margins with declining ARPU. Population distribution patterns
in developing markets complicate the situation since access to telecom services vary
significantly between urban and rural areas. Operators in these countries need to
balance the cost of operations in congested and saturated urban setups with the costs
MITSOT Page 50


of new network rollouts in other areas. In this context, tower sharing offers a compelling
proposition for savings costs and reducing time-to market.
Estimates indicate that towers constitute almost 50% of the total capital
expenditure (CAPEX) for an operator2. Figure 1 shows the evolution cycle of network
assets ownership, depicting the scope for tower sharing and outsourcing in developing
markets.
Many operators in developed markets have moved on to phase IV in the

evolution cycle, where they share both active and passive network elements to save
costs, in some cases bypassing the intermediate phase of sharing only tower
infrastructure. On the other hand, in emerging markets with low penetration levels,
operators are faced with the dual challenge of maintaining margins, while ensuring rapid
rollout to keep pace with the growth in subscriber numbers. In such locations, cost
savings from tower sharing and outsourcing offer a compelling proposition for operators.
Estimates indicate that tower sharing could help operators in India and the Middle East
achieve total savings of US$4 billion and US$8 billion3 respectively in the next five
years. Such savings result from the benefits of having reduced capital expenditure
(CAPEX) and operating expenditure (OPEX).
In this paper, we focus on the benefits and challenges faced by operators in

developing markets in the areas of passive network sharing, particularly the sharing and
divesting of tower assets. We also offer a set of actionable recommendations for
operators in these high-growth markets
MITSOT Page 51


Figure 12: Evolution Cycle of Network Asset Ownership

Market Developments, Benefits and Challenges
Market Developments in Tower Sharing
The mobile industry has seen significant activity in the recent past in the tower
sharing/outsourcing space. Multiple mobile operators, across both developing and
developed markets, have entered into tower sharing agreements, and more appear
likely to follow suit. Mobile operators have typically followed a phased approach when it
comes to the adoption of tower infrastructure sharing/outsourcing initiatives. Figure 2
illustrates these approaches along with examples of operators in developing markets
who have implemented them.
MITSOT Page 52


Overview of Approaches to Sharing Passive Infrastructure

Figure 13: Sharing approaches
Benefits of Tower Sharing/Outsourcing
Tower sharing and outsourcing agreements between mobile operators and tower
companies offer both OPEX and CAPEX benefits for incumbents and new entrants
depending on the sharing model.
Benefits of Tower Sharing and Outsourcing under Different Models

MITSOT Page 53


Key trends in telecom infrastructure sharing and management

The single biggest reason to adopt sharing is to lower the cost of deploying
broadband networks to achieve widespread and affordable access to ICTs. Developing
countries can leverage the technological, market and regulatory developments that
have led to an unprecedented uptake in mobile voice services to promote widespread
and affordable access to wireless broadband services and IP-based national fiber
backbones, as well. All sharing practices and infrastructure sharing, in particular – are
integral parts of a competitive regulatory framework. Infrastructure-sharing regulations,
whether mandatory or optional, are usually included in a country’s interconnection
framework, although they are occasionally contained in operators’ licensing
agreements.
Passive and active infrastructure sharing
Infrastructure sharing takes two main forms: passive and active. Passive
infrastructure sharing allows operators to share the non-electrical, civil engineering
elements of telecommunication networks. This might include rights of way or
easements, ducts, pylons, masts, trenches, towers, poles, equipment rooms and related
power supplies, air conditioning, and security systems.
These facilities and systems all vary, of course, depending on the kind of
network. Mobile networks require tower sites, while fibre backhaul and backbone
networks require rights of way for deploying cables, either on poles or in trenches.
International gateway facilities, such as submarine cable landing stations, can be
opened for collocation and connection services, allowing operators to directly compete
with each other in the international services market.
Access to physical ducts, masts/poles (in the case of power transmission lines),
and rights of way are key potential passive network elements for encouraging the rollout
of national fibre infrastructure through sharing. This has two aspects, one relating to
cost and the other affecting speed of action. National governments, municipalities and
state-owned enterprises frequently charge considerable sums of money for rights of
way that allow operators to carry out physical trenching of ducts
MITSOT Page 54


Active infrastructure sharing involves sharing the active electronic
Network elements – the intelligence in the network – embodied in base stations

and other equipment for mobile networks and access node switches and management
systems for fibre networks. Sharing active infrastructure is a much more contested
issue, as it goes to the heart of the value-producing elements of a business. Many
countries have restricted active infrastructure sharing out of concern that it could enable
anti-competitive conduct, such as collusion on prices or service offerings.
Infrastructure-sharing regulation and policy must address two broad issues
that are often viewed as the stumbling blocks to speedy roll-out of national
telecommunication infrastructure:
• Opening up access to “bottleneck” or “essential” facilities, where a single
dominant infrastructure operator provides or leases facilities.
• Promoting market investment in deploying high-capacity infrastructure to
unserved or underserved areas.
The role of government
Government has a key role to play in facilitating the most effective use of
infrastructure assets, identifying parts of the country where there are gaps, and getting
coverage extended to them. Moreover, governments, together with regulators, can
establish effective regulatory frameworks and regimes that promote effective use and
sharing of networks. Designing a regulatory framework may depend on whether the
national backbone provider competes with other service providers for end users (and
therefore has every incentive to block competitors) or whether the backbone provider
does not serve end users (and therefore has every incentive to sell as much capacity as
possible to those who do). In the former case, the regulatory response could be to treat
the backbone network as an essential facility, including regulating prices for access as
MITSOT Page 55


well as establishing uniform collocation and connection terms for all market players
seeking access to the backbone.
Entry of new players and the launch of 3G and Wi-Max services

impact the sector

Indian Telecom Companies Create World Record

As per statistics made available on April 22, 2009, Indian telecom industry
clocked the highest subscriber addition in a month by adding 15.87 million subscribers
in March, 2009. The authorities said that the entry of new players in the telecom sector
along with Reliance Communications (R Com) starting its GSM services, pushed India
to create record for subscriber addition in a month. It is worth mentioning in this regard
that India set a world record in January 2009 by adding 15 million subscribers, the
highest ever monthly addition in any country.
The latest data released by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI)
showed that while the wireless (GSM, CDMA and fixed WLL) segment witnessed the
addition of 15.64 million users, the wireline segment saw an increase for the first time in
two years with addition of 2,30,000 to its subscribers base. The fixed wireline segment
subscriber base has been on the decline for the past few years, especially in the rural
sector, where consumers are opting more for the wireless system.
The wireless subscriber base stood at 500 million at the end of Nov 2009 as compared
to 456.74 million in the august 2009. With its foray into the GSM space, R Com led
subscriber growth in the wireless segment with the addition of 3.02 million subscribers
in Dec 2009 to take its wireless subscriber base to 92.66 million. Bharti Airtel and
Vodafone Essar added 2.8 million subscribers each during the month to take their
subscriber base to 110 million and 97.76 million respectively.
Scope of 3G Infrastructure Sharing
MITSOT Page 56


While our 3G licensees are unlikely to look to infrastructure sharing as a means
to alleviate financial burdens, infrastructure sharing could be a means to ensure faster
rollout of 3G networks and services. Given the current economic downturn, 3G
operators in Singapore may wish to consider some form of infrastructure sharing now to
manage costs while rolling out their own full networks later. There may however be
competition concerns arising if infrastructure sharing were to limit consumer choice
should infrastructure sharing result in one single network. It is unclear if sharing
amongst competitors could result in operators losing their ability to differentiate their
services; for example, the larger the extent of sharing, it may be that each licensee
could have less control over quality of service (QoS).
For example:
a) How is telecom making business more competitive?

The telecom sector represents one of the fastest growing sectors in the Indian
economy. Launch of 3G services by leading operators will boost collaborative
computing, IPTV, video and voice multi-casting, which will enhance co-ordination
between distributors, dealers, service centers and consumers to a greater extent.
Currently, we are using multi-point videoconferencing across all our regional locations
and branches using MPLS connectivity with a central hub at corporate office. The use of
3G will help and optimize bandwidth costs and quality of video/voice transmission.
Another example on the application side, we at LGEIL developed CSNET (web based
application) which provides platform to integrate communication and co-ordination
between dealers, authorized service centers (ASC), call centers and consumers. 3G
infrastructure will strengthen mobility of applications ensuring greater collaboration and
exchange of information on real-time basis.
b) What are the key trends in enterprises communications?

The key trends in enterprises communications include cloud computing and
cloud based services, which will be an important part of any large enterprise's IT
infrastructure strategy moving forward. The top five technologies that are going to make
MITSOT Page 57


a mark in the future are-cloud computing, virtualization, communication enabled
business processes, mobility, and software as a service (SaaS).
c) Wireless has grown rapidly in the past few years. What issues and challenges
have cropped up, especially in terms of network security and management?
Proliferation of wireless has been phenomenal in the last few years, creating new
business opportunities, but it has posed increasing security risks as well. Wireless
networks are insecure; they are prone to attacks from outsiders. Bluetooth enabled
devices are a threat to wireless networks.
Status of infrastructure development in the rural areas

Telecom for rural areas in India
Over 750 Million people live in the ~ 600,000 villages of India, where the tele-
density is < 2%, while the urban privileged contribute to >30% tele-density. If the
objective of achieving 250 Million subscribers by 2010 has to be realized, it is imperative
that rural India is adequately and effectively covered. The challenge however is a more
aggressive cost-effective approach than urban India to lower CAPEX and OPEX.
As a first step the country has moved into a passive infrastructure sharing
regime. However this still calls for multiple base stations and radiating elements. If the
processes of a conventional Base Station could be emulated in software, we could
achieve disruptive cost advantages with a technology that is:
• Cost-effective to justify RoI in a rural segment where ARPU is expected to be ~

INR 100 - 120 per sub
• Less capital intensive than a traditional BTS solution but still robust for harsh
environments
• Flexible enough to facilitate easy deployment & management
MITSOT Page 58


• Lending itself to sharing of active infrastructure
Take a wide swath of 450 MHz spectrum and sell it off in multiple chucks of at least 10
MHz each, under special license terms for rural areas, to anyone who is interested the
special license terms to include:
• No telecom taxes for at least 15 years — after all the government is trying to
promote rural communications.
• No restrictions on foreign investment — welcome anyone who wants to invest in
rural India.
• No restriction on the technology employed — GSM, CDMA, OFDM, WiMAX,
proprietary or something that hasn’t been invented yet. Let operators mix and
match in any way that makes sense for them and let them evolve what they are
doing as technology and circumstances evolve.
Market Drivers
• Triple Play
• Next Generation Networks (NGN)
• Convergence
• Consolidation
• Internationalization
• Outsourcing
Triple Play
The Telecom market is a dynamic market, currently driven by getting end-user

(consumer) market share with attractive Triple-Play offerings (combination of Voice,
Video and Data/Internet). All traditional players from the Voice, TV/Video or Internet
world, are adopting this Triple-Play model to protect their revenues, thereby creating a
highly competitive playing field. The end user’s demand for more bandwidth (speed),
increasing reliance on mobility services, and the end users’ assessment of cost versus
performance, are the drivers in this dynamic market.
MITSOT Page 59


NGN
NGN’s will allow networks to cost effectively support a new suite of sophisticated
services by building on core competences related to traditional transport services. In
addition, a unified and consistent NGN approach will help reduce costs by eliminating
the inefficiencies of current service-specific, proprietary, and non-reusable solutions.
NGN will also reduce the time to market and life-cycle costs of offering new services.
NGN’s will enable operators to deploy advanced services, allowing them to remain
competitive as well as expand their capabilities to enter new markets. The bottom line is
that, in addition to their wholesale transport business, public network operators should
(and must) pursue Next Generation Service Architectures to offer added-value services.
Figure 14: NGN concept
Convergence
The trend in countries with a developed Telecom market is clear. Traditional

Telecom operators have started to offer audio-visual programming and internet access.
Cable TV operators are rolling out a variety of Telecom services, including voice
(telephony). Cable modems are deployed to provide high-speed Internet access.
Broadcasters are switching over to program bundles, pay per view and experiment with
digital transmission.
MITSOT Page 60


Business support systems and customer relationship management (CRM)
architecture are at the threshold of major change. Vertical integration by Operators
allows for Service bundling, whereby tracking of customer usage and profiles is aimed
at rewarding customer loyalty.
In the not too distant future customers would settle for nothing less than an
economic and efficient single-point of contact for all communication needs. These
include various technologies of communication (such as the land line, wireless access
(incl. Wireless in the local loop, WLL) and Internet) and a `single-window' where all
information pertaining to these services could be obtained instantly. Services include:
POTS (Plane Old Telephone Service); 2G and 3G Mobile services; Internet; IP/Data
services; Broadband and Backbone services. For this reason Technology providers,
Media and Telecom service providers all need to move to the multimedia arena.

Figure 15: Convergence scenario
Consolidation
Driven by internationalisation, focus on growth and costs efficiencies,
consolidation takes place. Operators that are aiming for the business market, where
outsourcing of CT (Communication Technology) is a growing trend, will need to offer
more managed CT services and therefore need System Integration skills. Operators
MITSOT Page 61


without a triple-play offering need to develop this soon in order to keep their position in
the market and prevent churn. Operators will focus more on the international market as
international communication is perceived as attractive business. The national market
will consolidate to only a few service providers per country (volume). The number of
virtual operators will increase (special interests user groups).
Internationalisation
Most key players are positioning themselves to play in the International Market.
The convergence of Telecom services to IP (Internet Protocol) and the adoption of
International standards, have removed the National boundaries of technologies. The
open borders of the European Union are fuelling international traffic. End-users, either
residential or business, are crossing borders more and more frequently. In this highly
competitive market cost optimisation, volume, differentiation of offerings and selling
value to the business market is key. The Telecom market used to have a decentralised
structure and local players where able to make their own strategy-, technology-, market-
and purchasing decisions. This has changed to a centralised model, where strategic
market and technology decisions are made at corporate or competence centres.
The future demand-supply outlook
The biggest challenge for operators in striking sharing and outsourcing deals is to
find the right balance between competition and cooperation. Sharing a network could
likely lead to significant losses in opportunity to compete on the basis of network quality
and coverage for incumbents whereas a standalone approach may prove detrimental to
the cost structure in the long run. Operator fear of erosion of competitive advantage due
to tower sharing recently came to the fore in Canada. Despite the regulator mandating
tower sharing under reasonable circumstances, the incumbents have been extremely
reluctant to share their towers with a new entrant in the market.
MITSOT Page 62


Loss of Strategic & Operational Flexibility
Alignment on a mechanism for identification of potential cell sites, cost-sharing

mechanisms and the creation of a governance model will prove challenging in a joint
venture between multiple operators. Furthermore, agreement on operational priorities,
co-ordination between operations teams and overcoming technological implementation
issues will also act as hurdles given the differing operational models and targets
involved.
Long lock in tenures
The long-term nature of sharing agreements holds the possibility of a substantial

loss in operational and financial flexibility. For instance, the typical tenure for
agreements in India is fifteen years as in the case of Swan Telecom (Etisalat) and
Reliance Communications owned RTIL20 and in some cases as long as twenty years
as with that of Telenor with Quippo and Tata Teleservices21. Such long locking periods
may heighten tenant risks in terms of restricting the ability to adapt to changing market
and regulatory conditions.
MITSOT Page 63


Risk of information sharing
For new entrants, entering into agreements with incumbent-owned tower

companies is fraught with the risk of possible leakage of critical business information to
the parent company. With sharing of staff as well as operational templates, company
specific information which may be proprietary to the tenant may end up with the parent
operator potentially compromising the efficacy of business decision making.
Regulatory Challenges
The primary challenge for regulators lies in the prevention of cartels and
anticompetitive behavior. Incumbent operators may get into agreements which in effect
could create duopoly environments that keep out new entrants. Regulators also need to
ensure that the high demand in developing markets does not lead to unrealistic pricing
of tower services. Regulators would need to ensure presence of an effective costing
mechanism that would encourage uptake while simultaneously allowing existing
operators to recoup investments.
Furthermore, regulators need to strike a balance to ensure that regulatory levies

and taxes do not disincentivize the industry. Regulators would need to set up arbitration
mechanisms to resolve compliance related issues and disputes among operators that
flow from setting up complex tower sharing agreements

MITSOT Page 64


Chapter VI

Marketing Aspects ‐II

MITSOT Page 65


Business Model for Passive Telecom Infrastructure sharing
Business operate owned (BOO) model:- The annuity driven business model will
have long-term contracts with primary anchor operator co-locating other telecom
operators. The duration of these contracts would range from 5-20 years. It would ensure
fixed income growth over the period of years. The third party infrastructure sharing
would be more effective as telecom operator's competition will not hamper co-operation
and high leverage of assets would ensure early revenue streams and consequently the
ability to finance rapid roll-out. An operator would have to pay approximate Rs 45,000
per month as rent for the tower and would be allowed to fix his own antennae and radio
network depending on the Radio frequency requirement in that particular area. The first
tenant on the shared site would get 35% discount and the second tenant would get
around 65%. Maximum five operators would be able to share a single site. If five
operators share a single site, it would almost become free for them. Depending on
number of operators sharing the same cell site infrastructure for housing their
electronics, effective cost of cell site for each operator reduces by 30-40%
Figure 16: Telecom infrastructure
MITSOT Page 66


Provide shared infrastructure services to telecom and BPO players on a BOO
model
Annuity driven business model
Long term contracts with primary anchor operator co-locating other telecom
operators
5-20 years contracts
Stable and growing revenue
Predictable and growing free cash flow
Low level of maintenance capex
Significant operating leverage and consistent EBITDA growth
New Trends In the Market for infrastructure sharing:
• Passive Sharing
• Active Sharing
Passive Infrastructure Sharing:
Passive sharing is usually defined as the sharing of space or physical supporting

infrastructure which does not require active operational co-ordination between network
operators. Site and mast sharing are considered to be forms of passive sharing.
For the purpose of this paper we have classified sharing broadly into four categories:
• Site sharing.
• Mast (tower) sharing.
MITSOT Page 67


1. Site Sharing:
Site sharing, involving co-location of sites, is perhaps the easiest and most
commonly implemented form of sharing. Operators share the same physical
compound but install separate site masts, antennas, cabinets and backhaul.
2. Mast (tower) sharing:
Mast, or tower, sharing is a step up from operators simply co-locating their sites
and involves sharing the same mast, antenna frame or rooftop.
ACTIVE INFRASTRUCTURE SHARING:
Active Infrastructure Sharing is the sharing of electronic infrastructure & facility. It

includes sharing of Base Transceiver Station (BTS) / Node B, spectrum, antenna,
feeder cable, Radio Access Network (RAN), microwave radio equipment, billing
platform, switching centers, router, Base Station Controller (BSC) / Radio Network
Controller (RNC), optical fiber / wired access and backbone transmission network,
database etc.
• RAN sharing.
• National Roaming.
1. RAN SHARING
RAN sharing is the most comprehensive form of access network sharing.

It involves the sharing of all access network equipment, including the antenna,
mast and backhaul equipment. Each of the RAN access networks is incorporated
into a single network, which is then split into separate networks at the point of
connection to the core. MNOs continue to keep separate logical networks and
spectrum and the degree of operational coordination is less than for other types
of active sharing.
MITSOT Page 68


2. National Roaming :
RAN sharing is the most comprehensive form of access network sharing.
It involves the sharing of all access network equipment, including the antenna,
mast and backhaul equipment. Each of the RAN access networks is incorporated
into a single network, which is then split into separate networks at the point of
connection to the core. MNOs continue to keep separate logical networks and
spectrum and the degree of operational coordination is less than for other types
of active sharing.
Benefits Of MVNO:
MVNO market models, its characteristics, advantages of MVNO culture and the
reasons for its success in other countries and examines the likely impact of this trend on
the Indian Telecom industry. the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) has given
the nod to MVNO business in India with some ground rules such as no MVNO operator
can do business with more than one incumbent operator i.e. Airtel, Vodafone etc. There
is no clear reason why the government is taking all the telecom-related decisions in
such a hurry. Already the Indian telecom industry is experiencing competitive pressures
due to the introduction of Mobile Number Portability (MNP) the implementation of which
is coming up in this year, and the government will distribute new licenses in all circles.
• Having a good market recognition or branding in place e.g. Virgin group

• Have a good sales and distribution network e.g. Virgin Airlines
• Capability to offer bundling with existing services e.g. Tesco UK
• Incumbent operators in the telecom market e.g. Bharti India, Reliance GSM (not
yet started)
An example of MVNO in India is Virgin Mobile (although it is not legally MVNO as

DoT has stated). After researching the India market and stating that ‘Current Indian
MITSOT Page 69


operators do not have plans for youth and they are not targeting them’, Virgin Mobile
launched its services, targeting a specific demographic—the youth.
Success and failure
Can the MVNO model be successful in India? There is no clear ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer for
this but let us examine the factors which are driving MVNO success stories globally:
• Maturity of the telecom market in respective country (based on teledensity)

• Existence of Mobile Number Portability (MNP)
• Existence of 3G services
• Incumbent working as partner with MVNO rather than as a wholesale supplier
• Consolidation of the telecom market
• Current charges of services for the end-user
Maturity of the market in a country gives the direction whether the incumbent
operator will build the partnership with a MVNO or just complete the obligation written
by the regulator. As the incumbent operator knows, the cost of acquiring a customer is
still low in comparison to what it is in a saturated market, so the operator will surely try
to acquire the customers on its own by targeting that segment.
Benefits of active Sharing:
Changes in data demand growth and availability of new technologies like LTE is
having implications on the telecom industry’s structure, competition and sources of
competitive advantage. In addition, due to increasing competition, network operators
are witnessing faltering profit margins. Service revenue growth is expected to be less
than 1.2% up until 2014. In such harsh economic conditions, operators are now
increasingly looking for innovative ways to increase operating profits, reduce their total
cost of ownership and create shareholder value. In order to achieve the above
objectives, many in the industry believe that operators should master the value
discipline of "operational excellence" by embarking on a network sharing strategy. The
prime objectives of network sharing must not only be to realize Capex and OpEx
MITSOT Page 70


savings but also to offer highest level of network quality to the customers of all sharing
partners. round 70% of operators have used sharing to their advantage in forms such as
site sharing, co-location and national roaming in the liberalized and emerging markets.
Our Research suggests that:
For the majority of operators, network sharing will become a critical strategy to
survive in the market. This will help them to expand 3G coverage and make utilisation of
the OpEx savings in number of other areas such as LTE and IMS. By 2015, as many as
90% of operators across the globe will implement network sharing of some form.
Benefits of Passive Sharing:
Passive telecom infrastructure, towers has taken an altogether different role in

the last one-and-a-half years. Telecom companies, which rushed to set up towers to
cope with the explosion in the number of subscribers, have now realised that it’s better
to share the infrastructure. For large players who have a pan-India footprint, it means a
new source of revenue, while for those expanding nationwide, it means lower capex and
opex, as well as faster rollout of services.
Example:
In view of stated importance of passive infrastructure, Reliance Communications,

which is the country’s second largest mobile telecom company, became the first to
demerge its tower operations, christening it Reliance Telecom Infrastructure Ltd (RTIL).
Bharti Airtel, Tata Teleservices and Idea Cellular followed suit.
Active RAN Sharing:
The global savings due to the combination of OPEX (OPerational EXpenditure)

and CAPEX (CAPital EXpenditure) from active infrastructure sharing can reach $60
billion in a period of five years. The study also indicates that operators can save a
minimum of 40 percent. Additionally, the operators can also save from passive site
sharing.
MITSOT Page 71


It is significant to note the difference between active and passive sharing. Active
sharing comprises of antennas, antenna systems, backhaul transmission system along
with the base station equipment, whereas passive sharing includes tower mast or
pylons, cables, physical site or rooftop, shelter cabinets, power supply, air conditioning
and alarm systems. In comparison, passive sharing tends to be safer, in spite of the
greater cost-saving potential of active sharing. Europe-wide sharing agreement between
Vodafone and O2, “O2 and Vodafone are not sharing base stations. The agreement
mostly concerns other elements of base station sites: it is largely passive sharing,” Kaul
added.
Reduction of CAPEX and OPEX:

The growth in wireless mobile subscribers in last one year has been phenomenal
and over 7 million new mobile customers are being added every month. Due to
intensive growth, intra-site distance of base units are reducing drastically and the
infrastructure which could be passive as well as active. The benefits or pay off are listed
as under-
• To reduce the capital expenditure.
• Quick rollout of the network and thereby inflow of revenue.
• To reduce the operating cost.
• To improve the city skyline.
• Optimum utilization of national resources and hence improved economic efficiency.
Reduction in Time and Rollout in Cost Reduction:
Apart from huge investments needed to build fresh infrastructure the time taken
to roll out could be a major bottleneck in the achievement of 500 million subscribers by
2010.The country would require about 3.3 lakh towers by 2010 against the present one
MITSOT Page 72


lakh towers in order to meet this target and even if the target is achieved, it will only be
about 50 per cent of the tele-density with major gaps in the rural areas. Passive
infrastructure sharing means sharing of physical sites, buildings, shelters, towers, power
supply and battery backup and is permitted under the licenses.
Competition set to intensify further with market Liberalization:
The Indian mobile sector is an intensely competitive industry, featuring 10 mobile

operators, of which four, namely Bharti Airtel Limited, Reliance Communications
Limited, Vodafone Essar Limited and BSNL, together account for almost three-fourths of
the entire mobile market share. This is also partly on account of the fact that these four
operators have their presence in a larger number of circles as compared with other
players. With licenses being granted to some of the existing operators for new circles
and also to new entrants, competition is expected to intensify further.
Graph 5: Market share (Operators)
MITSOT Page 73


Graph 6: Market share (infra providers)
Market shares of public and Private Players :

Both fixed line and mobile segments serve the basic needs of local calls, long
distance calls and the international calls, with the provision of broadband services in the
fixed line segment and GPRS in the mobile arena. Traditional telephones have been
replaced by the codeless and the wireless instruments. Mobile phone providers have
also come up with GPRS-enabled multimedia messaging, Internet surfing, and mobile-
commerce. The much-awaited 3G mobile technology is soon going to enter the Indian
telecom market. The GSM, CDMA, WLL service providers are all upgrading themselves
to provide 3G mobile services.
Along with improvement in telecom services, there is also an improvement in

manufacturing. In the beginning, there were only the Siemens handsets in India but now
a whole series of new handsets, such as Nokia's latest N-series, Sony Ericsson's W-
series, Motorola's PDA phones, etc. have come up. Touch screen and advanced
technological handsets are gaining popularity. Radio services have also been
incorporated in the mobile handsets, along with other applications like high storage
memory, multimedia applications, multimedia games, MP3 Players, video generators,
MITSOT Page 74


Camera's, etc. The value added services provided by the mobile service operators
contribute more than 10% of the total revenue.
Competition Safeguards
Incumbents and new entrants may reach certain market-share thresholds that
would present them with substantial market power or even dominance, which in turn
would allow them to squeeze out smaller players; competition safeguards protect the
interests of smaller players and new entrants.
The marketing strategies for capacity sharing & service sharing

Telecom operators’ spending has traditionally been dominated by considerable
investments in technology and network deployment. Given that such investments are
fixed, sunk, and irreversible, they represent a high risk factor. The risk is compounded
by the need, for both fixed and mobile operators, to continuously adopt new
technologies and upgrade infrastructure. While fixed network operators are now
migrating to next-generation networks, most mobile network operators have already
deployed third-generation (3G) infrastructures. Therefore, infrastructure sharing can
reduce this risk for operators by spreading it among several players.
Reduce investment requirements
Investment is spread over the operators sharing their infrastructures rather than
being sustained by only one operator. Optimized investment will contribute to better
sustainability of telecom operators and will justify higher investments in the long term,
given the lower risk. Telecom equipment vendors estimate that sharing may reduce
infrastructure costs for operators by as much as 40 percent.
Offer a new source of revenues.
In liberalizing markets, incumbent operators could generate significant revenues
from infrastructure sharing, which in certain cases can exceed 15 percent of operators’
total revenues.
Release capital for strategic investments
Spinning off the network into an independent company allows incumbents to
focus on customer facing activities while releasing cash for new strategic investments.
MITSOT Page 75


Decrease the barriers to market entry for new players
When infrastructure sharing is enforced, markets become significantly more
attractive to new players. Such players can enrich competition while investing
effectively.
Shift the focus to service innovation instead of network deployment
By alleviating the pressure of network deployment from a financial and an
operational perspective, infrastructure sharing allows operators to turn their attention to
improved innovation, better customer service, and eventually better commercial
offerings and healthier competition.
Expand investments to less dense areas and meet universal service targets.
Infrastructure sharing helps operators undertake network expansion in rural
areas, using the savings generated by investing less in denser areas. This also has an
important policy dimension, given its significant contribution to meeting preset universal
service targets.
Optimize the use of scarce national resources, namely rights of way
Infrastructure sharing in its simpler forms will lead to better use of scarce national
resources, such as rights of way, and in its more complex forms will allow a better use
of spectrum.
Reduce negative environmental impact
Although environmentalists show limited support for telecom network
deployment, infrastructure sharing typically receives the backing of many conservation
groups because less network buildup means fewer negative environmental impacts.
Estimating the Savings
Telecom operators generally appreciate infrastructure sharing due to the cost
savings it generates. Case studies illustrate the potential savings in different markets: In
India, for example, an estimated 240,000 towers are needed over the next three years.
Analysis indicates that capital expenditure savings could reach US$4 billion if operators
achieve double tenancy on deployed sites by 2010. Finally, in one fixed-network sharing
case, multiple cost components would be affected and optimized if two or more
operators share their network. Set-up costs could be reduced by as much as 40
percent, and utilization costs could be reduced by 20 percent.
MITSOT Page 76


Conclusion
The growth in wireless mobile subscribers in last one year has been phenomenal
and over 7 million new mobile customers are being added every month. Due to
intensive growth, intra-site distance of base units are reducing drastically and the
infrastructure which could be passive as well as active.
The benefits or pay off are listed as under-
• To reduce the capital expenditure.

• Quick rollout of the network and thereby inflow of revenue.
• To reduce the operating cost.
• To improve the city skyline.
• Optimum utilization of national resources and hence improved economic efficiency.
Infrastructure-sharing regulation has proven to be a critical lever contributing to the

growth of the telecom sector. Operators should closely examine the economic benefits
and develop their internal positions on the subject. Regulators, on the other hand, should
encourage infrastructure sharing and issue necessary policies to ensure effective
adoption and alignment by competing operators.
Both fixed and mobile operators should consider infrastructure sharing as a

medium to save costs and focus more attention on customer-facing activities, in which
innovation and differentiation are the main competitive advantages. In the longer term,
traditional operators could leverage infrastructure sharing as a new vehicle for growth.
This could be achieved by structurally separating all or part of their network assets or
spinning out network provider companies.
Telecom operators and traditional operators will be faced with a strategic choice:
Concentrate on high-value retail business or focus on wholesaling facilities services.
Regulators should carefully consider what infrastructure-sharing forms to mandate.
MITSOT Page 77


Passive network components are more commonly shared and are considered a good
starting point for infrastructure sharing obligations. Many obstacles prevent operators from
growing the number of passive components in their networks—such as high property
prices and continuously increasing construction costs—and it is becoming increasing
difficult to obtain permits to erect towers and masts. This approach can be facilitated by
encouraging the use of professional tower- and site-management companies as trusted
independent entities to manage such infrastructure on behalf of operators in the market.
Regulators should introduce necessary safeguards and enforcement tools. To

ensure compliance and successful adoption of infrastructure-sharing obligations,
regulators should access and communicate the overall benefit of infrastructure sharing
and ready themselves to resolve eventual disputes
Sharing of active infrastructure elements poses numerous challenges to telecom

operators.
• It needs to be tested and commercially deployed to make sure that the traffic of
players is properly managed.
• Whether it is possible for active infrastructure sharing solutions to share
equipments with frequencies ranging from 800 MHz to 2100 MHz seamlessly.
• Going forward, active infrastructure sharing between multiple operators can also
lead to concerns related to asynchronous network expansion.
MITSOT Page 78


BIBILIOGRAPHY

• www.trai.com
• www.dot.org
• www.telecomwatch.com
• www.telecomtiger.com
• www.ictregulations.com
• www.ictregulationtoolkit.org

• www.voicendata.com

• www.economictimes.indiatimes.com

• www.communicationstoday.co.in

• www.vanu.com

• www.gtllimited.com

• www.quippoworld.com/quipo‐telecom.html

• www.industowers.com

• www.americantower.com

• www.tower‐vision.com

• www.nokiasiemensnetworks.com

• www.ericsson.com
MITSOT Page 79


• www.huawei.com

• www.alcatel‐lucent.com

MITSOT Page 80

Telecom Infrastructure Sharing (Active &amp; Passive)

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Telecom Infrastructure Sharing (Active &amp; Passive)

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Telecom Infrastructure Sharing

In such a scenario, sharing of telecom infrastructure among service providers is

In view of stated importance of passive infrastructure, Reliance Communications,

The liberalization of a country’s telecom industry can enable economic growth

In another major recommendation, TRAI has sought amendment in the license

To explore the technological, financial and marketing aspects of telecom

• Offer a new source of revenues

• Release capital for strategic investments

• Shift the focus to service innovation instead of network deployment

3G operators are taking the opportunity to reduce capital and operational

Figure 1 : Site sharing

Figure 2 : Mast sharing

Figure 3: RAN sharing

Included in the access network are:

Core network sharing

a) Transmission ring sharing

Figure 4: Core transmission ring sharing

b) Core network logical entity sharing

Figure 5: core network elements sharing

Virtualization in telecom network

Figure 7: Virtualization concept

Virtualization is used extensively in enterprise computing environments to

Applying Virtualization to Shared Radio Access Networks

Traditional hardware radio approaches to shared infrastructure require that

A virtualized RAN leverages software radio technology, which implements the

MultiRAN Virtual Base Station (vBTS)

Software RAN – Flexibility for Mobile Operators

Figure 8: MultiRAN architecture

Advantages for Mobile Operators

Advantages for Infrastructure Providers

Figure 9: Infrastructure provider hostel model

Independent Management Systems

Technical and environmental Considerations

Technical limitations to infrastructure sharing

a) Passive infrastructure sharing

b) Sites and Masts

d) Core Network Sharing

Sharing of telecom infrastructure

Among telecom service providers is becoming the requirement and process of

Basically a cell site consists of electronic (active) and non-electronic infrastructure.

There are multiple possible options of sharing amongst telecom service

• Passive Infrastructure sharing is nothing but sharing non-electronic

• Active sharing is nothing but sharing electronic infrastructure.

• Spectrum-sharing concept is based on a lease model and is often termed

• Antenna sharing shares an antenna and all related connections (coupler,

• RNC (Radio Network Controller) sharing represents maintaining logical

Benefits for all

With passive infrastructure sharing, operators are expected to save close to 30

Financial effects & benefits

• Lower Cost

• Cost split up amongst multiple Operators

(CAPEX or capex) are expenditures creating future benefits. A capital

Included in capital expenditures are amounts spent on:

1. acquiring fixed assets

Graph 2: CAPEX-OPEX status

In business, an operating expense is a day-to-day expense such as sales and

OPEX for Airtel & Idea

Graph 3: Airtel Opex

Graph 4: Idea Opex

Many operators in developed markets have moved on to phase IV in the

In this paper, we focus on the benefits and challenges faced by operators in

Market Developments in Tower Sharing

Benefits of Tower Sharing/Outsourcing

Benefits of Tower Sharing and Outsourcing under Different Models

Telecom Infrastructure Sharing (Active & Passive)

Telecom Infrastructure Sharing (Active & Passive)