5G fanatics would lead you to believe that 5G will make fibre obsolete. So how real are their claims and how does 5G fixed wireless access (FWA) compare to FTTH on performance and RoI? To answer, we teamed-up with our partners at DTS to objectively assess the performance of fibre and millimeter wave (mmWave) FWA. We combined our expertise in fibre and wireless networking together with our cost databases to map the performance and cost models. We published the result of our analysis recently at Cable-Tec Expo / SCTE addressing a suburban deployment scenario. In our paper (download here), we show how FWA performs against fibre on both technical and financial scale against fibre for our illustrative scenario. Our conclusion shows FWA as a good “tactical” play to fill service gaps. However, fibre remains the “strategic” technology where long-term roadmap results in superior performance and RoI.
How FWA Compares with FTTH
We focused on a suburban deployment scenario, similar to that of current US deployments. The business case for 28 GHz mmWave FWA is very susceptible to the range of coverage and the ability of service provider to sign up new subscribers. Both of these are on the revenue side of profitability.
Our analysis uses the best of equipment dimensioning parameters to squeeze out all the possible range and capacity. The performance dependency on the deployment scenario shows that mmWave FWA falls short on performance and price in comparison to FTTH. In markets where fiber assets are already available, the fiber operator can drop service prices and drive the FWA service provider out of the market.
RoI is Tied to Deployment Scenario
However, it is not all gloomy for mmWave FWA. There is in fact many caveats. For instance, our paper focuses on suburban areas with a leasing model for FWA infrastructure buildout. In reality, there are different types of terrains and different models for infrastructure buildouts. This means that there is no single answer on the comparative advantage of one technology over another. However, the baseline parameters that we developed give good clues on the outcome in other scenarios and the associated capex/opex and deployment trade-offs.
For instance, we can extrapolate the model into rural areas where subscriber density is much lower than that of suburban areas. In rural areas, mmWave will have more challenge to meet the desired coverage range, unless one could mount both the base station and user terminal at high elevation above ground. Some of the recent tests we came across do just that.
Just as mmWave FWA has challenges in rural areas, so does fibre. There are different reasons for this, including the cost of laying fibre in some types of terrains as well as due to regulations/authorizations. Aerial deployment may help in certain cases, but the subscriber density may still not result in positive RoI. This is where we think solutions in mid-band spectrum such as 3.5 GHz have a niche. With such solutions, it is possible to achieve gigabit throughput, but service providers must be ready to pay a higher price for the massive MIMO antennas featured in these solutions. Depending on density, among other parameters, the RoI advantage would tilt towards FWA.
FWA Benefits Operators Differently
Our analysis uncovered many of the nuanced aspect of both FWA and fiber service models. For example, many mmWave FWA user terminals (CPEs) support dual-mode 5G and 4G technology. These terminals provide the service provider a fallback strategy that mitigates potential shortcomings in mmWave performance. Combing low band LTE and mmWave makes much sense for a service provider like Verizon where technologies would be seen as complementary for specific use cases. However, this would not be the case for a service provide with mmWave spectrum only. In such a case, one needs to carefully assess the impact of truck rolls on RoI.
Concluding Thoughts
I had been involved in WiMAX FWA deployments during the past decade (actually it’s now two decades back!). I dusted off some of the calculations and parameters we used in those days. It brings a smile to see how we used to plan with 3.5 MHz or 7 MHz channels as opposed to 400 MHz or more used today in mmWave FWA. The technology did advanced leap and bounds over previous generations. But all technologies evolve. On the other hand, the market and business aspects seem to evolve on a slower path. Something to think about!
PowerPoint presentation download here.
For additional information contact me here or at: frank at xonapartners dot com.