The main upfront costs related to FWA coverage requirements typically are associated with towers, shelters, backhaul, and basebands. Operators with existing assets and excess capacity are thought to have virtually zero additional costs when offering FWA along with their mobile proposition. Though some additional costs for an existing mobile operator will include the indoor CPE which is also considered more expensive than fibre network terminals. Those offering FWA via an outdoor CPA will additionally require engineer installations which will accrue labour and material costs.
Through targeted deployments, some vendors argue, any additional investments into FWA can pay off in less than two years. The GSMA, an organisation which represents the interests of mobile network operators (MNOs), estimates up to 80% cost saving through the deployment of FWA versus FTTH in rural settings, 60% savings in suburban, and 35% savings in urban settings. In terms of absolute capex for existing mobile players this makes sense.
To sum up, FWA, based on 5G technology, has a number of strengths including the ability to reach fibre-like speeds especially if deployed via an outdoor antenna; high throughput in combination with mmWave; and finally, percentage of saving on upfront capex in comparison to FTTH deployments for existing mobile operators with excess capacity. Combined, these benefits can act as part of an efficient road-to-market strategy, especially for MNOs with no other fixed-line assets.
#FWA #5g #MBB #mobile #ODU #router #outdoorcpe #5glte #cellular #mmwave #5ginstallation #verizon #hotspot #cellular #wirelessnetwork #5gphone #5gmobile #IDU #5Goutdoor #5Gindoor #industrialrouter
