Infonetics C SON White Paper 2015

695 C ampbe l l Techno lo gy Pa rkway Sui t e 200 Ca mpbe l l C a l i fo r n ia 95008 t 408. 583 .0011 f 408 . 583 . 0031

www. i nf one t i c s . com S i l ic o n Val le y, CA Bos ton, MA London, UK

The Logical Rise of C-SON Why C-SON Is About to Rule the World

February 2015

By Stphane Tral

INFONETICS RESEARCH WHITE PAPER

The Logical Rise of C-SON Reprinted with permission from Infonetics Research. 2015 Infonetics Research, Inc.

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION 1

THE CASE FOR C-SON HAS NEVER BEEN STRONGER, FOR SEVERAL REASONS 2

C-SON addresses 2G/3G network complexity 2

With 360 live LTE networks, the need for C-SON-based coordination is crucial 3

Since not everything is defined by 3GPP, a wide range of C-SON opportunities open up! 4

And SON standards have their own limitations that create niches for C-SON 5

Therefore, customization is inevitable and further cements the case for C-SON 5

The introduction of C-SON in D-SON environments gives birth to hybrid SON 5

VENDOR-AGNOSTIC C-SON SYSTEMS ARE REAL. . . 6

. . . AND THERE IS NO SHORTAGE OF VENDOR AGNOSTIC C-SON BUSINESS CASES 6

All cases relate to network performance optimization, higher QoE and better operational efficiencies 7

Here is why 10% opex reduction is very substantial 10

BOTTOM LINE 10

WHITE PAPER AUTHOR 11

ABOUT INFONETICS RESEARCH 11

REPORT REPRINTS AND CUSTOM RESEARCH 11

List of Exhibits

Exhibit 1 Commercial LTE Networks Launched So Far 3

Exhibit 2 Factors Driving the Use of SON Tools 8

Exhibit 3 Survey Respondents Capex and Opex Savings from SON 9

1 The Logical Rise of C-SON Reprinted with permission from Infonetics Research. 2015 Infonetics Research, Inc.

INTRODUCTION

The concept of automation through integration of network planning, configuration, and optimization into a single, mostly automated process requiring minimal manual intervention is not new, and implementing automation into mobile networks is now a reality after the 3rd Generation Partnership Projects (3GPP) and the Next Generation Mobile Networks (NGMN) Alliance made it a top priority on their agenda a few years ago.

The chief objectives of introducing self-organization into mobile access networks are operational and capital expenditure reductions by diminishing human involvement in network operational tasks, as well as optimization of network capacity, coverage, and service quality. The role of vendor-agnostic centralized SON (C-SON) is critical to achieve that goal, and this paper explains why.

SON was standardized as baked in LTE with functions distributed among the network elements at the edge of the network: the eNodeBs. This implementation is known as distributed SON (D-SON) and is supplied by traditional RAN vendors. As a result, D-SON is generally RAN-centric and proprietary.

As LTE network deployments have reached their peak in terms of number of mobile networks LTE upgradable worldwide, the planet is becoming saturated with islands of D-SON coming from multiple RAN vendors. In addition, one-third of commercial LTE networks are already being upgraded to LTE-Advanced, and the beyond-LTE agenda has already been set, with substantial work on defining 5G. Consequently, the need to rationalize, coordinate, and manage those D-SON islands with C-SON is increasing, and to allow a broader overview of network elements and a better coordination across a wide geographic area, C-SON typically sits at the same level as the OSS and is supplied by a flurry of vendor specialists such as Amdocs, CellWize, Cisco, Eden Rock Communications, and Reverb Networks.

In the end, networks are managed by a mix of centralized and distributed SON or a tactical combination of elements of each in a hybrid solution, known as hybrid SON. In this paper, we discuss the rising need, the benefits, and the fundamental role of vendor-agnostic C-SON to address mounting 2G/3G/LTE network complexity often resulting from multi-vendor D-SON environments. Seamless and smooth integration of multiple D-SONs under the centralized command of C-SON is a chief benefit that always implies various degrees of customization. In addition, C-SON is so versatile and flexible that it can address a plethora of specific compelling business events such as spectrum clearing for LTE in the case of Vodafone Hutchinson Australia. Multiple examples illustrate the fact that C-RAN is a reality and currently deployed in many real life networks for various specific reasons that always differ from initial use cases and converge toward network optimization, higher quality of experience (QoE), and better operational efficiencies. The various examples suggest that there are as many C-SON business cases as there are business issues.

Finally, on operational efficiencies, in a recent Infonetics Research survey of 20 selected service providers that currently operate a mobile network and run or plan to run commercial SON indicates, a large majority of respondents expect to achieve substantial opex saving with the implementation of SON.


THE CASE FOR C-SON HAS NEVER BEEN STRONGER, FOR SEVERAL REASONS

Adding LTE to existing mobile network is putting operational stress on operators who are looking to automate the day to day management and optimization of their legacy networks, and even more so at time of declining services revenue in some regions such as Europe. This is increasingly driving the need for SON in 2G and 3G networks, which necessitates a C-SON approach. Overall the four chief reasons for deploying a C-SON system can be summed up as follows:

2G/3G network complexity across multiple-vendors and multiple 2G and 3G technologies is pushing the need for automated optimization across the layers

LTE network coordination between all network elements and D-SON systems

Customization needs and efforts as every mobile network operator is different and the ability to heavily customize C-SON algorithms make it easier to adapt them to individual operators needs

Specific compelling events such as spectrum clearing for LTEillustrated by the Vodafone Hutchinson Australia case

C-SON addresses 2G/3G network complexity

In 2014, the planet ended up with more than 7 billion mobile subscriptions, out of which 2G still accounts for 62%, and 3G for 32%. Despite aggressive migration to 3G and LTE across the board, it will likely take at least another decade to move as many subscriptions as possible to 3G and LTE. In the meantime, service providers need to protect their lucrative voice business, which remains a $500 billion/year market, despite declining usage and ARPU. All of this is occurring in an era of disparate networks generated by consolidation and several rounds of mergers and acquisitions among mobile operators in various regionsfor instance Deutsche Telekom, Orange, and Vodafone in Europe, and Telefnica in Latin America. Each time, economies of scale is the objective, but in reality those 2G and 3G networks hardly become just one network. As humans can no longer keep up with the many traditional network optimization tools, C-SON takes over to collect, analyze, and process performance data and automatically adjust network configuration parameters. Typically, C-SON is initially deployed to improve voice call drop rates as well as data session drop rates. The next step consists of looking at how SON can address coverage holes, indoor coverage issues, abnormal key parameter indicators (KPIs), and QoE monitoring.

In addition to 2G and 3G, most mobile operators now have to manage LTE with the same resources at best, if not less. Implementing C-SON helps manage those stretched resources and allows mobile operators to allocate limited staff to either network performance improvement projects or revenue growth projects. This action delivers network performance optimization and a higher quality of experience, and more automation leads to opex reduction.


With 360 live LTE networks, the need for C-SON-based coordination is crucial

The D-SON market is directly positively correlated with LTE rollouts. In other words, there is not a single eNodeB being deployed without its inherent software used for self-configuration, and that is SON. Based on the most recent GSA report (1/07/15), 94 commercial LTE networks were launched in 2014, bringing the total to 360 worldwide:

2009: 2 networks launched

2010: 14 networks launched

2011: 30 networks launched as of 12/31/11, of which 27 are FDD and 3 TDD

2012: 102 networks launched as of 12/31/12

2013: 119 new networks launched as of 12/31/13

2014: 94 new networks launched as of 1/07/15

312 of the current LTE networks are FDD, 31 are TDD, and 17 are a mix of FDD and TDD. Exhibit 1 shows the GSAs most recent LTE update (January 7, 2015).

Exhibit 1 Commercial LTE Networks Launched So Far

Source: Global Mobile Suppliers Association (GSA), January 7, 2015


Given that its extremely rare that a mobile operator purchases its eNodeBs uniquely from a single RAN vendor such as Alcatel-Lucent, Ericsson, Huawei, Nokia Networks, Samsung, and ZTE, these 360 networks have at least two vendors, and therefore two associated proprietary D-SON systems that only address RAN-centric use cases defined by 3GPP.

Since not everything is defined by 3GPP, a wide range of C-SON opportunities open up!

3GPP standards are a good start since they gave the language, terminology, and automation frameworks for network optimization use cases that were long in use. However, standards can only go so far, and operators have specific pain points and are interested in other concepts that are not immediately addressed by the standards. Hence, there is a large scope of work outside of the standards that third-party SON providers can address. Some examples of gaps in the SON standardsthat remain pain points and requested by mobile operatorsinclude:

Lack of multi-radio access technology (multi-RAT) approach in all the use cases: For instance, only ANR seems to be very well defined for a multi-RAT case, and so far it is the most widely deployed feature, but others such as mobility load balancing (MLB) and mobility robustness optimization (MRO) seem restricted to LTE cases only and point to a lack of clear application of use cases for 3G UMTS and 2G GSM networks, both among the operator requirements for a true multi-technology SON

Lack of definition for out-of-RAN use cases: Some use cases (by design) are not defined deeply because they reside at the network management level. For instance in the case of capacity and coverage optimization (CCO), the implementation and algorithms are subject to wide interpretation and are related to strategic planning aspects that may be beyond the scope of the 3GPP standards. In other words, how do you strategically optimize coverage and capacity based on business needs and not just on network needs?

Lack of specific customer experience driven optimization use cases: Tying customer experience with network optimization is the subject of intense work. There are thousands of KPIs available but most mobile operators find that there is no direct correlation between the customer experience and the KPIs; put another way, the customer experience can still be mediocre while KPIs are good.

Lack of infrastructure sharing (e.g.: RAN sharing) consideration: In Europe and India where RAN sharing is very common, there is nothing that says how SON automation is expected to work in such scenarios with specific policies for the operators under the sharing agreements.

Lack of operator level of service quality measurements that can drive the overall SON use cases instead of current radio level only measurements.

SON in the paradigm of NFV and SDN: If the future networks are all going to be virtualized on COTS hardware, the current D-SON functions embedded in the eNodeBs could also be exposed for greater control than they are today. In this paradigm, there will be a much greater scope for control by a SON function for example in a virtualized C-RAN network model.


And SON standards have their own limitations that create niches for C-SON

Multi-vendor application is the foremost niche, starting with cross-interoperability in a multi-vendor LTE network (for example, X2 interoperability between vendor A and vendor B or vendor As eNodeB working with vendor Bs MME). One way to address this issue is by deploying old fashioned techniques such as network probes, an expensive proposition that the LTE flat architecture itself is addressing by eliminating many interfaces seen in 3G. Another option would be the implementation of SON at the network management level with a coordination approach from 3rd party SON providers. However, for legacy 3G, 2G, non-standards based C-SON seems to be the only option.

Therefore, customization is inevitable and further cements the case for C-SON

Although all eNodeBs shipped meet 3GPP and many other standards, a close look at architectural design and topology implementation points to a flurry of differences between RAN vendors, often resulting from their own interpretation of those standards. As a result, the D-SON system that comes with the RAN vendor eNodeBs to make a part of an LTE network may not easily work with another D-SON system coming from another part of this same multivendor LTE network.

Many mobile operators complain that some interfaces are proprietary and cannot easily be adapted to specific situations. Enormous complexity is the resulting outcome of this accumulation of D-SON systems that at some point will need to move from standalone implementations to a full integration with the entire network, all the way up to the OSS. This is achieved by deploying a vendor-agnostic C-SON system capable of processing various sets of data coming from multiple vendor network elements and D-SON systems. Such C-SON systems are developed and mainly supplied by vendor specialists including Amdocs, CellWize, Cisco, Eden Rock communications, and Reverb Networks. However, Huawei and Nokia Networks also offer C-SON products in their portfolios.

The introduction of C-SON in D-SON environments gives birth to hybrid SON

Hybrid SON combines the features of D-SON (in which SON algorithms are deployed locally in the NodeBs and eNodeBs) and C-SONs (in which algorithms are deployed above the network infrastructure). A hybrid SON is generally located in the network operations center (NOC) and typically requires that the RAN vendor supplying D-SON provide a set of open interfaces to allow the mobile operator to use a control algorithm that operates on a wider geographic area and on a slower time scale. By deploying C-SON for the four reasons previously explained, the resulting SON ensemble resembles hybrid SON architecture.


VENDOR-AGNOSTIC C-SON SYSTEMS ARE REAL. . .

Vendor agnostic C-SON is not a theoretical need for the future, it is in existence and already deployed commercially, up and running to address high level compelling events such as Vodafone Hutchinson Australias spectrum portfolio management. In 2014, the mobile operator deployed Amdocss C-SON solution to help with the program to improve its 4G coverage and customer experience across Australia. The solution helps Vodafone to free up 850MHz spectrum previously used for 3G so that it can be used for LTE. The 850MHz spectrum is the most widely supported low-band spectrum for 4G smartphones and tablets, and provides a superior customer experience with fewer dropped data sessions.

Amdocs Self-Optimizing Networks enables service providers to automate the optimization of their radio networks, thereby reducing operating expenses and delaying capital expenditure through efficient traffic management, as well as improve the customer experience. In this deployment, the solutions algorithms have been customized to meet Vodafone Hutchison Australias network spectrum and traffic steering goals.

. . . AND THERE IS NO SHORTAGE OF VENDOR AGNOSTIC C-SON BUSINESS CASES

Although SON is baked in LTE and therefore starts as D-SON supplied by specific RAN vendors, in reality vendor-agnostic C-SON has also been deployed in 2G and 3G networks making a strong business case for C-SON. Here are some selected examples of innovative C-SON implementations driven by specific business cases:

AT&T caught everyone by surprise in 2013 with its massive SON rolloutdefined by the 1,200 SON-managed RNC installed in less than 9 monthsto optimize its 3G HSPA+ network. The company has commercially deployed a C-SON product from Cisco in a hybrid architecture where some decentralized features are implemented at the network layer and others remain centralized either within a vendor (e.g., self install/configuration, automatic neighbor relations (ANR) planning, primary scrambling code (PSC)/physical cell identity (PCI) planning, and automatic parameter) or at the network management layer.

TIM Brasil successfully implemented the Amdocs C-SON solution in select Brazilian cities that hosted the World Cup soccer games to deliver an overall improved customer experience with fewer dropped calls and better data throughput for visitors and citizen, before rolling it out to the whole country.

Turkcell has developed its own SON product to optimize its 3G HSPA+ network; the system collects all parameters, creates reports, identifies defaults and corrects them, then updates the history; the in-house web-based system performs transport and RAN resource automation.


All cases relate to network performance optimization, higher QoE and better operational efficiencies

All cases presented in this paper depict the significance of SON in managing, optimizing, and coordinating complex legacy multi-vendor networks, including 2G, 3G, and LTE. In November 2014, we conducted our annual SON and Optimization Strategies: Global Service Provider Survey, for which we interviewed 20 service providers that currently operate a mobile network and run or plan to run commercial SON. In addition, respondents must have detailed knowledge of their companys SON and optimization tools and influence in the planning and purchase decisions for mobile network equipment.

Respondents rated the importance of factors in the decision to use SON tools on a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 is not a driver, 4 is somewhat of a driver, and 7 is a strong driver. The chart on the next page shows the percentage of respondents rating each factor 6 or 7, or a driver. Network performance optimization, higher quality of experience, and cost saving obtained through automation were highly rated as drivers; here is why:

Network performance optimization is directly linked to customer retention; poor network performance translates into dropped voice calls and interrupted data session, which may prompt users to leave the network and switch to a better network. As mentioned earlier, although there is no direct correlation between good KPIs and great user experience, optimized network performances are likely to improve the customer experience.

High quality of experience is also linked to customer retention and mainly related to data sessions such as using an application and downloading/uploading content; users prefer not to see the infamous spinning wheel.

More automation leading to opex reduction is the concept of minimizing human intervention to perform more complex tasks while cutting the number of errors. As wages and salaries are the highest opex component on mobile operators balance sheet, staff tends to be maintained at a stable level while network complexity is increasing exponentially and totally surpassing human skills (unless operators employ armies of engineers and technicians, which is inconceivable).

Overall, the role of SON is to relieve humans burden of dealing with too many KPIs, most of them irrelevant to ensuring a great experience, and that is network performance optimization automation.


Exhibit 2 Factors Driving the Use of SON Tools n=20

Source: Infonetics Research, SON and Optimization Strategies: Global Service Provider Survey, November 2014


Now that SON has been normalized, service providers expect substantial cost savings

SON was not invented to cut capex by any means; it was aimed at addressing the network opex conundrum. Well, all respondents believe SON can cut capex 0%20%, with 65% leaning toward the less-than-10% bracket. On the opex side, only 25% of respondents think they can achieve a 10%20% reduction; 35% believe they can cut less than 10%.

Exhibit 3 Survey Respondents Capex and Opex Savings from SON n=20, 20

Source: Infonetics Research, SON and Optimization Strategies: Global Service Provider Survey, November 2014


Here is why 10% opex reduction is very substantial

To analyze this finding more thoroughly, lets start with the big picture. In an $800-billion worldwide mobile service market, total opex consumes at least 75% of the revenue. However, in our biannual Service Provider Outsourcing to Vendors Market Share, Size, and Forecasts, we have tracked global opex for over 5 years, and network opex is an average of just 20% of total opex (which tends to be dominated by smartphone related marketing expenses). However, total network opex includes RAN opex, and anything that can lead to a 10% reduction can have a broad impact, particularly when its getting harder and harder to find room for significant network opex savingsreduction in staff has been the quick fix for some time and has a one-time significant impact on opex.

BOTTOM LINE

C-SON delivers on its promises and has become crucial and indispensable. From proof-of-concept to live deployments, C-SON has already made serious inroads, and as the planet gets close to being blanketed by LTE, the C-SON opportunities continue to swell.

Although the network automation concept is not new, SON provides the first iteration of the zero-touch network, which just 10 years ago was perceived as an unrealistic dream! It just took LTE to make it happen, initially in the form of proprietary D-SON, which created so much complexity that a new need has emerged: SON coordination for D-SON through a centralized system named C-SON.

Operational efficiencies always convert into a business case for vendor-agnostic C-SON. As seen in this paper, any burning business issue is addressed by the implementation of C-SON. In the particular case of Vodafone Hutchinson Australia, Amdocs provided a unique inter carrier load balancing (ICLB) capability that allowed the mobile operator to free up 850MHz spectrum by shifting traffic to 2100MHz while existing SON use cases were deployed to maintain network KPIs. Various other examples are cited, and all converge toward the implementation of C-SON to address specific business issues, which in turn lead to network performance optimization, higher quality of experience, and more automation.

Whats also interesting is the difference between the service provider initial playbook that lists typical C-SON use casesreported to 3GPP and MGMNand providers often unpredictable real business needs. This is a great illustration of the innumerable possibilities and business cases for C-SON paving the way to the achievement and materialization of the true zero-touch, zero-human-intervention network.


WHITE PAPER AUTHOR

Stphane Tral

Principal Analyst, Mobile Infrastructure and Carrier Economics

Infonetics Research

+1 408.583.3371 | [email protected]

Commissioned by Amdocs to educate the industry about the need for centralized self-organizing networks (C-SON), this paper was written autonomously by analyst Stphane Tral based on Infonetics independent mobile network research.

ABOUT INFONETICS RESEARCH

Infonetics Research is an international market research and consulting analyst firm serving the communications industry since 1990. A leader in defining and tracking emerging and established technologies in all world regions, Infonetics helps clients plan, strategize, and compete more effectively.

REPORT REPRINTS AND CUSTOM RESEARCH

To learn about distributing excerpts from Infonetics reports or custom research, please contact:

North America (West) and Asia Pacific Larry Howard, Vice President, [email protected], +1 408.583.3335

North America (East, Midwest, Texas), Latin America, and EMEA Scott Coyne, Senior Account Director, [email protected], +1 408.583.3395

Greater China, Southeast Asia, and India Jeffrey Song, Market Analyst [email protected], +86 21.3919.8505

Documents

Infonetics C SON White Paper 2015