Tag: Mavenir

Telco Cloud Deployment Tracker : Is 5G SA getting real?

5G SA core: Will 2H23 finally see momentum?

At the end of 2021, we predicted that 5G SA core deployments would significantly accelerate in 2022, but they did not. There were 21 launches of converged 5G NSA/SA or pure 5G SA cores in 2022, against 18 in 2021. In the January 2023 update of our tracker, when we reviewed telco cloud activity for 2022, we shifted all the outstanding deployments once expected in 2022 to 2023. Some of these deployments had been announced for over two years and this made 2023 look as if it might become the year of 5G SA.

Now at the half-way point in 2023, there have been only seven 5G SA (including converged 5G NSA/SA) core deployments so far:

  • Although few in number, these deployments are significant either by their scale (Reliance Jio in India) or by virtue of the importance of the operators involved: E& (introduced in the UAE in March); and Vodafone (in the UK in June).
  • And for Orange, which is engaged in 5G SA deployments across its entire European footprint, the launch of a first country (Spain in February 2023) is encouraging progress.

But it is legitimate to ask whether the remaining 30 5G SA launches that we still have pending for 2023 are likely to take place in the remaining six months (as our Tracker currently reflects). Or will they in fact trickle in over the next few years or even not happen at all?

Global deployments of 5G core by type, 2018–2024

Source: STL Partners

 

Enter your details below to download an extract of the report

Why have SA 5GC deployments gone off track?

Our September 2022 report 5G standalone (SA) core: Why and how telcos should keep going provided some pointers as to why operators are slow in jumping to 5G SA. These remain valid today:

  1. 5G SA requires significant investment, for which (in some markets at least) there is no clear ROI because the use cases that would leverage 5G SA capabilities (in terms of latency, bandwidth or high volume of connections) are yet to emerge, both on the consumer and the enterprise fronts, as are the ways to monetise them.
  2. Many operators are still weighing up their strategy for partnering with the hyperscale cloud providers. In particular, this relates to the role of public cloud as an infrastructure platform for 5G SA deployments and the role hyperscaler infrastructure can play in accelerating SA network coverage.
  3. Some of the leading operators that are yet to launch SA are also among the main supporters of open RAN and/or are engaged in fibre rollout projects: those conflicting investment requirements may create delays and a need for phasing in some of the rollouts.

To fully exploit 5G SA requires an organisational evolution within telcos. To reap its benefits as both a pure connectivity enabler and as a platform for innovative services, telcos need to undergo an evolution in their processes and organisations to support cloud practices and operations. This doesn’t happen overnight.

In APAC where SA is steaming ahead, greater telco ambition and strong state support have spurred deployments

One way to address the question of stalled 5G SA deployments is to examine what has driven the deployments that have taken place. Will the use cases involved there drive a bigger wave of deployments globally?

While there have been 13 (converged 5G NSA/) SA core deployments in Europe, 31 have taken place in APAC. They involve the leading operators in China, Japan, the Philippines, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan. The roll-outs support bandwidth-hungry consumer use cases such as gaming, AR/VR, HD/4K content streaming, VoNR, etc. Some operators, such as NTT Docomo, SK Telecom and the Chinese players, have made SA available to support a limited number of private networking and industrial IoT use cases. Factors driving these deployments include:

  • State support or mandates for 5G SA (China and South Korea)
  • Consumer enthusiasm for and early adoption of 5G, with the SA version offering tangible performance gains over 4G
  • Rich ecosystem of local device manufacturers and app developers, and a commitment by operators to invest in new use cases and services
  • Ability to offload ‘power users’ of bandwidth-hungry, latency-critical services off the 4G and 5G NSA network and willingness from those users to pay a premium for these benefits (the three Chinese operators have seen modest ARPU increases between 2020 and 2022 of between 2.5% and 5.2% per annum)
  • Pre-existing local and metro fibre, supporting 5G SA backhaul.

Effective deployments of 5G SA and converged 5G NSA/SA cores by region, 2019-23

Source: STL Partners

 

Table of Contents

  • Executive summary
  • Deep dive: Is 5G SA getting real?
  • Regional overview
  • Operator view
  • Vendor view

Related research

Enter your details below to download an extract of the report

Telco Cloud Deployment Tracker: Will vRAN eclipse pure open RAN?

Is vRAN good enough for now?

In this October 2022 update to STL Partners’ Telco Cloud Deployment Tracker, we present data and analysis on progress with deployments of vRAN and open RAN. It is fair to say that open RAN (virtualised AND disaggregated RAN) deployments have not happened at the pace that STL Partners and many others had forecast. In parallel, some very significant deployments and developments are occurring with vRAN (virtualised NOT disaggregated RAN). Is open RAN a networking ideal that is not yet, or never will be, deployed in its purest form?

In our Telco Cloud Deployment Tracker, we track deployments of three types of virtualised RAN:

  1. Open RAN / O-RAN: Open, disaggregated, virtualised / cloud-native, with baseband (BU) functions distributed between a Central Unit (CU: control plane functions) and Distributed Unit (DU: data plane functions)
  2. vRAN: Virtualised and distributed CU/DU, with open interfaces but implemented as an integrated, single-vendor platform
  3. Cloud RAN (C-RAN): Single-vendor, virtualised / centralised BU, or CU only, with proprietary / closed interfaces

Cloud RAN is the most limited form of virtualised RAN: it is based on porting part or all of the functionality of the legacy, appliance-based BU into a Virtual Machine (VM). vRAN and open RAN are much more significant, in both technology and business-model terms, breaking open all parts of the RAN to more competition and opportunities for innovation. They are also cloud-native functions (CNFs) rather than VM-based.

Enter your details below to request an extract of the report

2022 was meant to be the breakthrough year for open RAN: what happened?

  • Of the eight deployments of open RAN we were expecting to go live in 2022 (shown in the chart below), only three had done so by the time of writing.
  • Two of these were on the same network: Altiostar and Mavenir RAN platforms at DISH. The other was a converged Parallel Wireless 2G / 3G RAN deployment for Orange Central African Republic.
  • This is hardly the wave of 5G open RAN, macro-network roll-outs that the likes of Deutsche Telekom, Orange, Telefónica and Vodafone originally committed to for 2022. What has gone wrong?
  • Open RAN has come up against a number of thorny technological and operational challenges, which are well known to open RAN watchers:
    • integration challenges and costs
    • hardware performance and optimisation
    • immature ecosystem and unclear lines of accountability when things go wrong
    • unproven at scale, and absence of economies of scale
    • energy efficiency shortcomings
    • need to transform the operating model and processes
    • pressured 5G deployment and Huawei replacement timelines
    • absence of mature, open, horizontal telco cloud platforms supporting CNFs.
  • Over and above these factors, open RAN is arguably not essential for most of the 5G use cases it was expected to support.
  • This can be gauged by looking at some of the many open RAN trials that have not yet resulted in commercial deployments.

Global deployments of C-RAN, vRAN and open RAN, 2016 to 2023

Image shows global deployments of C-RAN, vRAN and open RAN, 2016 to 2023

Source: STL Partners

Previous telco cloud tracker releases and related research

Enter your details below to request an extract of the report

Open RAN: What should telcos do?

————————————————————————————————————–

Related webinar: Open RAN: What should telcos do?

In this webinar STL Partners addressed the three most important sub-components of Open RAN (open-RAN, vRAN and C-RAN) and how they interact to enable a new, virtualized, less vendor-dominated RAN ecosystem. The webinar covered:

* Why Open RAN matters – and why it will be about 4G (not 5G) in the short term
* Data-led overview of existing Open RAN initiatives and challenges
* Our recommended deployment strategies for operators
* What the vendors are up to – and how we expect that to change

Date: Tuesday 4th August 2020
Time: 4pm GMT

Access the video recording and presentation slides

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

For the report chart pack download the additional file on the left

What is the open RAN and why does it matter?

‘The open RAN’ encompasses a group of technological approaches that are designed to make the radio access network (RAN) more cost effective and flexible. It involves a shift away from traditional, proprietary radio hardware and network architectures, driven by single vendors, towards new, virtualised platforms and a more open vendor ecosystem.

Legacy RAN: single-vendor and inflexible

The traditional, legacy radio access network (RAN) uses dedicated hardware to deliver the baseband function (modulation and management of the frequency range used for cellular network transmission), along with proprietary interfaces (typically based on the Common Public Radio Interface (CPRI) standard) for the fronthaul from the baseband unit (BBU) to the remote radio unit (RRU) at the top of the transmitter mast.

Figure 1: Legacy RAN architecture

Source: STL Partners

This means that, typically, telcos have needed to buy the baseband and the radio from a single vendor, with the market presently dominated largely by the ‘big three’ (Ericsson, Huawei and Nokia), together with a smaller market share for Samsung and ZTE.

The architecture of the legacy RAN – with BBUs typically but not always at every cell site – has many limitations:

  • It is resource-intensive and energy-inefficient – employing a mass of redundant equipment operating at well below capacity most of the time, while consuming a lot of power
  • It is expensive, as telcos are obliged to purchase and operate a large inventory of physical kit from a limited number of suppliers, which keeps the prices high
  • It is inflexible, as telcos are unable to deploy to new and varied sites – e.g. macro-cells, small cells and micro-cells with different radios and frequency ranges – in an agile and cost-effective manner
  • It is more costly to manage and maintain, as there is less automation and more physical kit to support, requiring personnel to be sent out to remote sites
  • It is not very programmable to support the varied frequency, latency and bandwidth demands of different services.

Enter your details below to request an extract of the report

Moving to the open RAN: C-RAN, vRAN and open-RAN

There are now many distinct technologies and standards emerging in the radio access space that involve a shift away from traditional, proprietary radio hardware and network architectures, driven by single vendors, towards new, virtualised platforms and a more open vendor ecosystem.

We have adopted ‘the open RAN’ as an umbrella term which encompasses all of these technologies. Together, they are expected to make the RAN more cost effective and flexible. The three most important sub-components of the open RAN are C-RAN, vRAN and open-RAN.

Centralised RAN (C-RAN), also known as cloud RAN, involves distributing and centralising the baseband functionality across different telco edge, aggregation and core locations, and in the telco cloud, so that baseband processing for multiple sites can be carried out in different locations, nearer or further to the end user.

This enables more effective control and programming of capacity, latency, spectrum usage and service quality, including in support of 5G core-enabled technologies and services such as network slicing, URLLC, etc. In particular, baseband functionality can be split between more centralised sites (central baseband units – CU) and more distributed sites (distributed unit – DU) in much the same way, and for a similar purpose, as the split between centralised control planes and distributed user planes in the mobile core, as illustrated below:

Figure 2: Centralised RAN (C-RAN) architecture

Cloud RAN architecture

Source: STL Partners

Virtual RAN (vRAN) involves virtualising (and now also containerising) the BBU so that it is run as software on generic hardware (General Purpose Processing – GPP) platforms. This enables the baseband software and hardware, and even different components of them, to be supplied by different vendors.

Figure 3: Virtual RAN (vRAN) architecture

vRAN architecture

Source: STL Partners

Open-RAN – note the hyphenation – involves replacing the vendor-proprietary interfaces between the BBU and the RRU with open standards. This enables BBUs (and parts thereof) from one or multiple vendors to interoperate with radios from other vendors, resulting in a fully disaggregated RAN:

Figure 4: Open-RAN architecture

Open-RAN architecture

Source: STL Partners

 

RAN terminology: clearing up confusion

You will have noticed that the technologies above have similar-sounding names and overlapping definitions. To add to potential confusion, they are often deployed together.

Figure 5: The open RAN Venn – How C-RAN, vRAN and open-RAN fit together

Open-RAN venn: open-RAN inside vRAN inside C-RAN

Source: STL Partners

As the above diagram illustrates, all forms of the open RAN involve C-RAN, but only a subset of C-RAN involves virtualisation of the baseband function (vRAN); and only a subset of vRAN involves disaggregation of the BBU and RRU (open-RAN).

To help eliminate ambiguity we are adopting the typographical convention ‘open-RAN’ to convey the narrower meaning: disaggregation of the BBU and RRU facilitated by open interfaces. Similarly, where we are dealing with deployments or architectures that involve vRAN and / or cloud RAN but not open-RAN in the narrower sense, we refer to those examples as ‘vRAN’ or ‘C-RAN’ as appropriate.

In the coming pages, we will investigate why open RAN matters, what telcos are doing about it – and what they should do next.

Table of contents

  • Executive summary
  • What is the open RAN and why does it matter?
    • Legacy RAN: single-vendor and inflexible
    • The open RAN: disaggregated and flexible
    • Terminology, initiatives & standards: clearing up confusion
  • What are the opportunities for open RAN?
    • Deployment in macro networks
    • Deployment in greenfield networks
    • Deployment in geographically-dispersed/under-served areas
    • Deployment to support consolidation of radio generations
    • Deployment to support capacity and coverage build-out
    • Deployment to support private and neutral host networks
  • How have operators deployed open RAN?
    • What are the operators doing?
    • How successful have deployments been?
  • How are vendors approaching open RAN?
    • Challenger RAN vendors: pushing for a revolution
    • Incumbent RAN vendors: resisting the open RAN
    • Are incumbent vendors taking the right approach?
  • How should operators do open RAN?
    • Step 1: Define the roadmap
    • Step 2: Implement
    • Step 3: Measure success
  • Conclusions
    • What next?

Enter your details below to request an extract of the report