A key argument cited
for telcos having a central role in industrial / vertical #5G networks
is "service continuity". Devices and users can connect both on-premise
and in the wide area, because both are enabled by the same operator. An
MNO can thus best provide on-premise connectivity as an extension, or
slice, of its normal national cellular network.
MNOs and industry
groups often assert this to dissuade governments and regulators from
assigning local spectrum licences directly to businesses.
This argument doesn't stack up, for several reasons.
On a recent virtual event I moderated for Nigel Yeates Juliet #5grealised the speaker from Three.
Business pointed out that its customers' private 4G/5G networks were
generally isolated, not part of 3's macro network. They even use
different spectrum. They can do roaming, but it's not a priority.
A
central point is that most connected IoT and automation systems don't
move outside the facility. Industrial robots don't go for a walk to the
shops. What does move are vehicles, personal devices and shipped
electronic goods.
Yet here, having local & wide area coverage
from the same MNO is of minimal use. Guests, contractors and employees
have devices on *all* networks, not just that of the on-prem network
operator.
So some sort of roaming or neutral-host arrangement
would be needed. And those capabilities could be also be offered a new
specialised provider, as well as by an incumbent MNO.
In fact, it
might be easier (and quicker) for a genuinely neutral wholesale player
to offer that capability, rather than one MNO trying to negotiate a
site-specific roaming or interconnect deal with all its rivals.
Another
reason is eSIM and dual-SIM. Devices can have separate profiles for
on-premise and wide-area subscriptions, and just switch from one to the
other when they're off-site. This is an increasingly common feature in
smartphones and vehicles.
In fact, private cellular networks don't
even need SIMs - 5G allows the use of other identifiers such as
enterprise security credentials, or even the new Wi-Fi OpenRoaming
model.
At a radio level, there are distinct advantages to running
private networks in isolated fashion, in separate spectrum. They can use
different configurations to the macro environment, perhaps optimised
for a different mix of up- and downlink in TDD spectrum.
And
lastly, it is much easier to treat a private network as private, rather
than some unusual public/private hybrid. The legal situations and
liabilities are clearer. SLAs can be described and enforced in
contracts. There doesn't have to be alignment in deployment speeds or
priorities. Different vendors can be chosen.
This doesn't mean
that MNOs don't have a role in such private enterprise networks - but
it's likely to be done by a separate business unit that can engineer
solutions specifically for verticals, thinking about the customer first.
It won't be done by the main "mothership" network group, desperate to
find "5G use cases" and crowbar-ing its main network (and also its
#networkslicing and #edgecomputing platform) into unsuitable
applications.
That MNO enterprise business unit might
decide the macro RAN is suitable for a given client. Or it may choose to
build its own network locally, with the enterprise owning the spectrum
license. Or it might work with 3rd parties - or use WiFi instead. I'm
expecting MNOs to acquire lots of vertical-specialist integrators and
network installation firms in some industries like manufacturing, ports,
mining and healthcare.
Maybe over time they'll add value and
revenue to the central 5G network business, or act as channels for its
#URLLC and MEC businesses. But that won't be their only offering - just
one of a portfolio of options.
More generally, all of this points
to private 4G/5G networks - especially in industrial sectors and areas
such as ports and mining - being based on discrete, isolated
deployments. There may be involvement by a national MNO in its deployment or operation (or spectrum licensing), but the network usually won't be part of
an MNO's main infrastructure. There might be service continuity - but
there's many ways to offer that, and it usually won't be in the top 10
priorities considered.
I definitely think that the roaming
approach and neutral-host model offer many opportunities connected to
private cellular too. There's some interesting angles relating to Open
RAN here as well. Unfortunately, many of the verticals holding most
appeal - hotels, airports, stadiums, office complexes - have obvious
problems for the next year or so, given the pandemic and ensuing
recesssion.
I'll be exploring these issues at a couple of different upcoming events.
Firstly,
on July 7th, I'm running my next private workshop on Neutral Host
Networks with Peter Curnow-Ford. It's now switched to a virtual event,
over morning and afternoon sessions - plus a networking event (a virtual
"pub" with special entertainment) in the evening. The broad outline is
the same as first announced (link here)
with more detailed updated agenda and format in the next couple of
days. It will remain as a private, off-the-record event under the
Chatham House Rule.
Also on August 20th, I'm doing another
#5GRealised session with Juliet Media, specifically on the role of
telcos in private networks. Details are here
As
always, this theme and broader area is one I also advise on privately.
Please drop me a message if you have specific needs for consulting or
insight.
#5G #NeutralHost #Verticals #PrivateLTE #Private5G
