A few years ago, we were often asked whether wireless would make fibre obsolete. We’re receiving similar questions again. Interest comes from established and new service providers (including fixed, mobile and fixed-mobile operators) and technology and equipment vendors. Operators deploying fibre may wonder if fixed wireless could be a solution in areas where fibre deployment is currently too expensive. They might wonder whether new players offering fixed wireless could be a competitive threat. Mobile service providers might want to know if fixed wireless use cases could be part of their initial 5G migration strategies, cities and municipalities need to assess the role fixed wireless can play in broadband development programs.

 

 

No single answer

 

Diffraction Analysis researched this topic, bringing in an external expert to avoid bias. One key finding: it is impossible to simply say whether fixed wireless is a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ idea. What it can achieve for you depends entirely on how you are positioned in the market and which challenges you face. There are many factors to consider. Some players may already have access to bandwidth or ducts. Regulatory aspects of wireless are far more complex than in the fixed world, involving everything from spectrum to in-building wiring access.

 

In emerging markets with limited fixed-line infrastructure, mobile has historically been embraced as a fixed connection substitute. Technology evolution is expected to bolster the market for fixed wireless further. However, current cost of customer premises equipment represents a major challenge to take-up in such markets. Wireless equipment providers may claim that they can provide a point-to-point connection offering hundreds of MBs for a few hundred dollars. True, perhaps – but only if there’s a fibre connection and a direct connection on the network side.

 

Fixed wireless doesn’t offer FTTH-like speeds at a significantly reduced price point. But it can be useful for expanding footprint. It can be deployed relatively and bring revenue-generating services to customers quickly, and later be replaced by wireline to deliver a long-term service. Once the fixed network is in place, wireless equipment can be repurposed for a new installation. The nearer you can get fibre up to the end point, the better. Good 4G requires one fibre-back antenna for every 1-10 km. We’re not there yet, even though 5G is on the horizon. Operators deploying FTTH today will deploy 5G much faster than those who don’t have fibre assets.

 

 

Alternative to FTTC

 

The cost of emulating a 500 MB or 1G fibre network with wireless would be vast. But if you wanted to emulate the 100 or 150 MB/s offered by Fibre-to-the-Cabinet, you’re suddenly in a competitive position. In Australia and New Zealand, we see structural separation. The fixed network is independent from service providers. The fixed network is a monopoly, whereas the wireless network is not. In both markets, competitors (former incumbent service providers) deploy wireless services to compete with the fixed network. This is not forbidden by regulatory structures. In New Zealand this approach is only successful in areas where fibre hasn’t been deployed. In Australia, wireless disruption potential is greater in large areas without FTTC.

 

Commercial, technological and market conditions will influence fixed broadband service providers’ decisions on fixed wireless user cases and deployment scenarios. The most promising prospects seem to be for operators with existing fixed and wireless infrastructure. Pure mobile operators are in the most compromised position, whilst availability of low-cost unlicensed and lightly licensed high band spectrum, along with spectrum sharing, present opportunities for new entrants in the fixed wireless market.