FWA vs. FTTP: Sometimes Wireless Has the Advantage

摘要

In brief The push for broadband connectivity in underserved and remote rural areas and the need to fill gaps in urban and suburban wireline broadband coverage is creating renewed interest in the use of fixed wireless access (FWA) systems. The availability of LTE lies behind the current surge in interest. As an established technology that benefits from a robust set of standards, a global installed base with associated economies of scale, and a clearly defined performance-migration path, fixed LTE could be the best hope for delivering cost-effective, high-speed broadband access to those communities that have so far missed out. FWA has been used only in limited deployments to date, but we expect it to become a viable broadband access approach for a broader range of urban and suburban scenarios, competing for the unconnected and for users with lower-bandwidth connections. However, FWA is not likely to replace higher-bandwidth subscribers, whether FTTP, VDSL2, G.fast, or coax. In addition, FWA does not support fast network monetization for rural areas, even in high-ARPU countries. While FWA is set to play a larger role in broadband access, its monetization viability is highly dependent on typical access network factors, including household concentration and take-up rates, bandwidth demand, subscriber ARPU, type of MBH required, and indoor versus outdoor CPE. As with other types of broadband access solutions, the location-specific details matter. Operators, including wireline, wireless, and integrated, should evaluate whether FWA fits into their respective strategies for growing revenues and subscribers. Likewise, equipment vendors need to encompass FWA solutions, either directly or through partnerships, in their broadband access solution toolkits. Ovum view 1. FWA does not provide fast network monetization for the rural unconnected. Unfortunately, our models do not show fast monetization using FWA in rural scenarios, regardless of subscriber ARPU. 2. FWA can be financially viable for urban/suburban areas. Numerous urban/suburban scenarios show network monetization at under 10 years, and many come in at under five years. While five years is a long time in the wireless market, it is fast compared to many wireline broadband access scenarios. 3. Operators should evaluate FWA based on their respective situations and strategies. This requires detailed analysis across respective service areas and consideration of new service models, such as traditionally wireline operators entering the FWA market. 4. Access equipment vendors will need to support operators regarding the benefits of FWA compared with wireline broadband solutions. Even equipment vendors without complete toolkits will need to be able to advise CSPs. Recommendations for service providers 1. Operators - whether pure mobile, integrated, or fixed - that think they can gain advantage by deploying FWA should give it careful consideration. This may be as infill for existing broadband coverage in selected urban/suburban areas, or in order to reach out to new subscribers in unserved areas. 2. However, they should be selective about how and where they deploy FWA on a caseby- case basis using financial models. Where the prospects for monetization are poor, other considerations, such as gaining access to government funding, need to be explored. 3. CSPs should strive to minimize capex but take future-proofing into account. Minimizing capex can be achieved byreusing existing network resources, sourcing low-cost backhaul where available, or taking care not to overprovision. However, CSPs should plan around bandwidth and subscriber growth, along with possible upgrade or replacement of FWA with wireline-based networks. 4. Monetization should not be taken in isolation. Integrated operators should assess payback relative to providing an FTTP alternative, while mobile-only operators shouldn’t expect returns comparable to their equivalent mobile broadband services. Recommendations for equipment vendors 1. Wireless-only equipment vendors will need to decide how to compete in the FWA market. While wireless-network knowledge is important, FWA is focused on broadband-tothe- home rather than to a single device; consequently, knowledge must be expanded to adequately support CSPs. 2. Wireline-only equipment vendors must decide whether or not to enter the FWA market. If they do so, they can develop solutions either internally or through partnerships. 3. Integrated access-equipment vendors are well positioned. However, they must resolve internal positioning of their wireline versus FWA solutions, in order to provide operators with coherent analysis of the best solution for specific scenarios. Recommendations for governments and regulators 1. Governments and regulators need to be flexible. The option of delivering broadband services via FWA should be incorporated into national broadband plans, and approved in cases where wireline service is not economical. 2. Appropriate spectrum for the delivery of FWA services should be freed up as soon as is practicable. This is particularly the case with TDD spectrum, notably in the 3.5GHz bands. 3. Overpricing of spectrum could jeopardize the sometimes tenuous FWA business case. It should therefore be avoided during the auction process. 4. Consider some degree of private/public funding for FWA. This may be required in areas where the service would otherwise be economically unsustainable, such as in rural areas or those with low ARPU.