We are used to the concept of building-owned structured wiring systems, as well as the idea of communications services offered to building tenants as an amenity. The former is a simple matter of the difference between the public network and in-building private networks, whether the in-building distribution uses cabling or Wi-Fi.
The latter--building owner supplied communication services--tends not to be too popular, in part because it limits tenant choice.
A switch to wholesale in-building signal distribution, using small cells to boost interior signal coverage, is different, in principle. Still, the business issues are significant.
The building wholesale small cell access provider would need to build the equivalent of a radio network supporting all major air interfaces, with software support to integrate with major supplier operations support systems as well.
Then potential wholesale customers would need to decide they are comfortable renting access rather than building and owning their own infrastructure.
As always, building owners will have their own opinions--even if they do not want to own and operate neutral host networks--about the installation of multiple small cell networks on the premises.
Most likely, some big issues will remain. Building owners will not really want to invest the capital to create neutral host networks, but neither will they necessarily want multiple small cell networks built on premises.
Also, tt likely will not be the first choice of most service providers to put access operations into third party hands, as much as they might like to shift capital investment to facility owners.
In principle, neutral host is possible at major venues, for example. But neutral host is not typically the choice made by venue owners, or necessarily preferred by mobile service providers.
The business model is the issue.
No comments:
Post a Comment