Techno-economics of 5G transport deployments

Network densification is a crucial enabler for 5G, requiring the installation of a large number of devices and/or cables for the 5G transport network. This invited paper provides a techno-economic study focusing on adopting microwave and fiber equipment for 5G transport network deployments. Different architectures for low layer split supporting latency critical services are considered

Fiber- vs. Microwave-based 5G Transport: a Total Cost of Ownership Analysis

Answering a key question from operators, the paper compares the techno-economic performance of fiber and microwave-based 5G transport deployments using vendor’s inventories and real-life field deployment scenarios. Results highlight how microwave gains vary based on the geo-types, the fiber trenching, and microwave equipment costs

Techno-economics of Fiber vs. Microwave for Mobile Transport Network Deployments [Invited]

One of the challenges for network operators is to design and deploy cost-efficient transport networks (TNs) to meet the high capacity and strict latency/reliability requirements of today’s emerging services. Therefore, they need to consider different aspects, including the appropriate technology, the level of reconfigurability, and the functional split option. A crucial aspect of network design is assessing the impact of these aspects against the total cost of ownership (TCO), latency, and reliability performance of a given solution. For this reason, this paper proposes a framework to investigate the TCO, latency, and reliability performance of a set of fiber and microwave-based TN architectures. They are categorized based on their baseband functional split option and the reconfigurability capabilities of the equipment used. The results, based on real data from a non-incumbent operator, show that in most of the considered scenarios, a microwavebased TN exhibits lower TCO than a fiber-based one. The TCO gain may vary with the choice of the functional split option, geo-type, reconfigurability features, fiber trenching costs, and cost of microwave equipment, with a more significant impact in a dense urban geo-type, where for a low layer functional split option the fiber- and microwave-based architectures have a comparable TCO. Finally, it was found that the considered fiber and microwave architectures have almost similar average latency and connection availability performance. Both are suitable to meet the service requirements of 5G and beyond 5G services in most of the considered scenarios. Only in extreme latency-critical scenarios, a small number of the cells might not fully satisfy the latency requirements of a low layer split option due to multiple microwave hops in the microwave-based architecture