Infrastructure Forum: Indoor Infrastructure

SUMMARY   |   AGENDA   |   ATTENDEES   |   LIBRARY  

Silicon Valley, California, Dec 2016/Meeting Recap/ Our TC meeting in Indoor infrastructure was a panel, but with expert moderation from Jon Metzler, of Blue Field Strategies, it quickly elevated into a room-wide discussion among network operators, technology providers, and startups.

One of the interesting take-aways, I found, was the paradox of Wi-Fi, as it relates to indoor coverage. First, the entire room basically accepted a future in which most mobile phones could roam onto Wi-Fi, and integrate that into their cellular networks as a benefit of IP Multimedia Subsystems and digital migration. That said, what is the best way to cover indoor spaces:

1) Wi-Fi technology

Benefits

• cheap
• ubiquitous
• provided by facility, often at no cost to operator
• cheap enough to over-provision as a gap-filler strategy, reduces network planning
• no interference with the macro network
• multi-carrier, supports all Internet devices, IoT, as well as voice
• Often can be self-installed by facility or end user

Issues

• Loss of carrier control
• hand-over issues will persist
• No QoS control for carrier, hard to support SLAs
• Carriers may prefer a single-carrier solution at their frequency
• Often has login problems, AAA (authentication, authorization, accounting) is an issue

2) Femtocell, DAS, and other cellular technology

Benefits

• Can deliver QoS to meet SLAs
• Can drive customer loyalty with single-carrier network (or be multi-tenant if desired)
• No handover issues
• AAA seamlessly managed
• Better battery consumption in some cases

Issues

• High cost, terrible scalability
• Network planning required
• Truck roll required
• Self-interference with the macro, unless new bands are used (ex: 3.5GHz)

So, in those lists lies the paradox. For carriers, Wi-Fi is cheap and fast, but represents a los off control, both in terms of the quality of the user experience, but also in customer loyalty. And while carrier-deployed indoor solutions are better on both of those counts, they are terribly expensive to install and maintain. We should expect a mix of these solutions to persist, with Wi-Fi dominating as measured by square feet or number of buildings covered.