Frédéric Bonnin, Orange Group Spectrum Office

Telecom Networks 2.0. Sharing & Engineering Forum

Moscow October 4th, 2012

Mobile networks infrastructure and spectrum sharing Orange’s views

2

Agenda

1 Network sharing at Orange

2 Spectrum sharing

3 Conclusion

3

Orange Conquest 2015 strategic plan

leverage more efficient, shared operating models

- the Chrysalid programme aims to improve sharing of operational best practices and innovative business models to accelerate their deployment throughout the Group. This will help contain the increase in expenses (limited to 3.5 billion euros by 2015 compared with 6 billion euros at present, without any action by the Group)

Network sharing was clearly identified as a key driver at Orange

4

Mobile Network sharing rationales

Financial Rationales

– MNOs’ margins are slipping downward– Economical climate is not favourable– Investors want their dividend anyway

Technical rationales

– Sharing make site densification cheaper and enable high throughput mobile data on average.

– Faster network deployment– MNO differentiation out of radio access always possible

Regulatory/environmental rationales

– Social pressure leads operators to minimize environmental impacts– Regulators impose network deployment in low density area.

The future of mobile telecom business lies in network sharing

5

Network Sharing at Orange

EoY 2011, Ratio Total sites shared/Total sites represented circa 26% at Orange

6

>20% sites shared in Europe Orange footprint end of 2010

Spain 3G: ~4,000 sites shared in rural areas end of 2010

France 3G:~2,500 “white zones”from 2010 to 2013

cost per site (CAPEX and OPEX)

UK: Three – Everything Everywhere RAN joint venture

Network sharing: from 20% to ~ 50% savings on cost per site

100 %

80 %

50 %

stand alonesolution

site infrastructure

(passive) sharing

active RAN sharing

merged RAN

level of sharing

more than 35% of total group sites shared in 2015

7

Agenda

1 Network sharing at Orange

2 Spectrum sharing

3Conclusion

8

Strong growth of mobile data traffic

Source: ITU-R

Number of independent reports have been published. The only question is how fast will be the data traffic growth

9

Capacity on the radio access derives from three main factors

Radio Capacity =

Amount of spectrum X Spectrum Efficiency X Radio Cells density

Licensed or not licensed spectrum

Licensed or not licensed spectrum

Technology and standards

SE improves with new releases or device

performance

Technology and standards

SE improves with new releases or device

performance

increases with densification/sectorisation(i.e. deploying new sites)

increases with densification/sectorisation(i.e. deploying new sites)

can significantly increase with smart sectorisation indoor emission points (wifi, femto, indoor solutions)

from ~1.5 Mbps/carrier in 2010 to ~6.5 in 2020 thanks LTE performance

Additional spectrum from 4G spectrum auctionUsing spectrum aggregation will give more efficiency.

There is still plenty of radio capacity coming with LTE launch, new spectrum band and engineering solutions (small cells, WiFi offload)

10

Tiers of regulation to identify spectrum for mobile ITU (part of the UN) establishes international radio regulations which

include:

– allocation of the radio spectrum (International Frequency Allocation Table)

Holds WRC ever 4 years to define/amend what services / technologies bands can be used for.

3 ITU regions: Europe-Africa, Americas & Asia – so different bands

International Level

Regional Level European region is governed by CEPT. CEPT’s main committee is

ECC (electronic communications committee) is most relevant.

– The ECC’s role is to: Harmonise spectrum allocations across Europe/ harmonise licensing regimes/ coordinate European input to ITU WRCs/ CEPT member states can decide, but are not required to commit tothe implementation of ECC decisions.

EU sets policy framework but detailed technical work done in CEPT

National Level National governments implement CEPT decision, but can influence

the distribution of spectrum between operators and define which bands are in use (some bands have more than one classification)

11

PROS

It proved to be a very successful and mobile industry growth was built on this.

individual authorisation makes sense since mobile industry is using spectrum very efficiently (always on and everywhere)

Current spectrum management methods based on individual authorisation

Individual licensed spectrum vs. Other licensing regimes.

CONS

It is a lengthy regulatory process

Identifying new mobile dedicated process is a fierce political battle

There is not so much spectrum available below 6 GHz.

Alternative spectrum management methods: shared used of radio spectrum

PROS

Unlicensed spectrum is a good complement: 2.4 GHz band usage is very successful (WiFi).

Under twofold mobile data traffic assumption, we will need more and more spectrum, so sharing will be needed.

CONS

As far as network QoS is concerned, nothing better than individual authorisation

Multiplying general authorisation regimes and opportunistic accesses schemes could result in a radio-electric chaos.

Who would want to share?

12

European Commission communication onshared used of radio spectrum

Rationale: Radio Spectrum Policy Program’s goal to indentify 1200 MHz will impose to manage radio spectrum much faster to achieve this by 2015

Beneficial Sharing opportunities (BSO)

BSO are based on collective use of spectrum and licensed sharedaccess

Beneficial Sharing opportunities (BSO)

BSO are based on collective use of spectrum and licensed sharedaccess

Spectrum Sharing Access Rights (SSAR)

This is a new procedure to allowmobile operators to negotiateshared use of spectrum bands already occupied by other userssuch as Radar, PPDR.

Spectrum Sharing Access Rights (SSAR)

This is a new procedure to allowmobile operators to negotiateshared use of spectrum bands already occupied by other userssuch as Radar, PPDR.

Orange comments: This process is still at an early stage and Orange willmonitor very carefully the coming development. Individual authorisation

regime is by far our prefered option.

Source: EC communication on ‘Promoting the shared use of radio spectrum resources in the internal market’ September 3, 2012

13

Licensed Shared Access

What is Licensed Shared Access

Main pros

LSA is a complementary authorisation model for spectrum rights of use, which allows for a shared use of spectrum

• On a non interference basis to incumbent user

• Using cognitive radio technologies(database)

• Based on an individual authorisationmodel of spectrum rights, in bands allocated by ITU to mobile services

LSA is a complementary authorisation model for spectrum rights of use, which allows for a shared use of spectrum

• On a non interference basis to incumbent user

• Using cognitive radio technologies(database)

• Based on an individual authorisationmodel of spectrum rights, in bands allocated by ITU to mobile services

•It gives timely access to new spectrum resource•The use of harmonised band make the deviceecosystem favourable.•Incumbent spectrum users can monetise their under-used spectrum, creating an incentive to share. •Well suited for small cells (low power, indoor)

•It gives timely access to new spectrum resource•The use of harmonised band make the deviceecosystem favourable.•Incumbent spectrum users can monetise their under-used spectrum, creating an incentive to share. •Well suited for small cells (low power, indoor)

14

Multi Operator Core Network (MOCN) is standardised at 3GPP and enables 2 operators to share their radio access network and spectrum holdings. It will mainly enable operators to aggregate theirchannels to get wider carriers and later on to aggregate theirspectrum holdings in different bands as possible with LTE evolution.

Sharing licensed spectrum

It is the possibility for a licensee to share its spectrum with a thirdparty. It could be, for instance, in region where another operator as more traffic than you and you don’t use your spectrum

Regulatory barriers remains to authorise spectrum sharing, although this is a good solution to optimize spectrum use.

15

Non licensed spectrum sharing techniques

In general we are skeptical on extending unlicensed type of accesssince QoS remains a key factor for mobile operators.

White spaces

Originally developped for the US where TV spectrum is under used(space/time). TVWS model isproposed by EC in lower UHF band 470-698 MHz.

It remains a technical challenge witha risk of interfering primary users.

The unlicensed aspect isproblematic since anybody cantransmit, interfer and jump to antother frequency without any body being held responsible for this.

White spaces

Originally developped for the US where TV spectrum is under used(space/time). TVWS model isproposed by EC in lower UHF band 470-698 MHz.

It remains a technical challenge witha risk of interfering primary users.

The unlicensed aspect isproblematic since anybody cantransmit, interfer and jump to antother frequency without any body being held responsible for this.

Collective use of spectrum

WiFi using ISM 2.4 GHz band is a good example in favour of this type of sharing.

The 5 GHz band remains unusedand is a good candidate for WiFievolution. WiFi offload is part of operators’toolkit to alleviate macro layer.

Identifying more bands ischallenging and the tradeoffbetween quick access to new bands without guarrantee on quality and cleaner licensed bands as to be considered carefully.

Collective use of spectrum

WiFi using ISM 2.4 GHz band is a good example in favour of this type of sharing.

The 5 GHz band remains unusedand is a good candidate for WiFievolution. WiFi offload is part of operators’toolkit to alleviate macro layer.

Identifying more bands ischallenging and the tradeoffbetween quick access to new bands without guarrantee on quality and cleaner licensed bands as to be considered carefully.

16

Agenda

1 Network sharing at Orange

2 Spectrum sharing

3 Conclusion

17

Mobile network sharing is no more an option

Exclusive spectrum rights are still preferred, but spectrumsharing schemes could be considered as a complementarysolution.

Both network and licensed spectrum sharing should beauthorised by governments within the limit of anticompetitive behaviour.

Regulatory framework should remove restrictions on operators negotiating and concluding agreements governed by private law on sharing bands dedicated to Mobile Broadband.

Only harmonised mobile spectrum must be favoured whenclosing spectrum sharing agreement (risk of de-harmonisation)

Conclusion

Спасибо