| Neutral Host In-Building DAS |
|
|
|
| The cure for the wirelessly stranded enterprise | |||
Page 3 of 5 The IB matrix Enterprise spaces largely fall into one of the following categories as illustrated by the IB (in-building) matrix shown in Figure 1. This is, admittedly, a simplified illustration, but it clarifies the choices available to the ‘wirelessly stranded’ enterprise-in-a-building.  The
X-axis plots improving provider ROI, which means that building spaces
falling higher on this axis meet the ROI model of the provider and,
therefore, stand a good chance of funding by the provider. The Y-axis
plots the level of competition between providers in macro coverage. An
enterprise that is higher on this axis can expect to have increased
choices in service provider availability and, therefore, a favourable
situation.Let us describe four broad areas (quadrants) of this matrix: A: Only a single provider’s macro signal available in the area and enterprise falling short of provider’s ROI threshold. B: Only a single provider’s macro signal available in the area and enterprise within the provider’s ROI threshold. C: More than one providers’ macro signal available in the area and enterprise falling short of all providers’ ROI thresholds. D: More than one providers’ macro signal available in the area and enterprise within the providers’ ROI threshold. “Falling short of providers’ ROI threshold” above also includes situations where only fractional funding is offered by the provider to build a dedicated IB coverage system. For the sake of simplicity, we have not included some rare cases like availability of more than one provider but only one or some providers willing to invest in an IB system for the enterprise (this doesn’t affect the overall conclusions and recommendations for the enterprise, anyway). Situations A and B reflect the lack of competitive choices for the enterprise and are rather rare in urban and semi-urban regions where most of the wirelessly stranded enterprise building are usually located. Usually, however, more than one provider is present in urban/semi-urban areas. Further, increased competition is expected to make this problem even smaller in those regions, but businesses will continue to locate in rural settings (like farms, forestry-based businesses, etc.) and that is what Situations A and B aim to describe. Quadrant A is easy to analyze as it dictates investment in an IB system and there are no other options—at least in the short term. The investment is, however, better protected when the system is ‘neutral host’—meaning it can accommodate more than one provider in the future and also benefit from multiple bands from the same provider. Even when an enterprise falls into the better of the two situations, namely B (good ROI model), investment in a neutral host system avoids the lack of negotiation options when new competitive providers become active in the area. Situations C and D reflect acceptable competition between providers. Naturally, situation D is ideal and businesses lucky to fall in this category don’t really have the in-building problem, as providers have already built IB add-ons to their macro network based on pre-existing and recognized business justification. It can be deduced, then, that situations B and D don’t require the enterprise occupant of a building to really invest in any system of its own. This is definitely true for D but not so clear-cut for B. Depending on the specifics of each situation, it may be better for a Situation B enterprise to invest in a wide-band in-building system (neutral host) of its own, which can support both the current provider as well future competitors. It will, of course, require an investment to deploy IB gear in the short term, but the enterprise will be in better control of its future and possibly evolving wireless connectivity needs when new wireless providers come knocking with new macro signals in the area. Were the enterprise to let the sole current provider deploy its narrow-band IB system in their building space, the potential benefits of increased competition will bypass them as the new entrant in future will not be able to offer a competitive offering on the same system. In a majority of cases, the service providers will shy away from investing their money into an enterprise IB system when the enterprise insists on a neutral host option versus a single carrier system that only supports their service. Another related aspect to remember here is that a provider will often offer to stretch its ROI model to accommodate an enterprise customer in exchange for not insisting on a wide-band or neutral host system to keep competitors out of the picture. The real value of this offer can best be evaluated for each individual case but, more often than not, it represents only short-term gain for the enterprise. It does free the enterprise from not having to pay for the IB system upfront, but it sacrifices the enterprise’s long-term negotiating power for better service deals and control over its IB wireless future. |
|||||||
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
