Advertisement

Wireless Personal Communications

, Volume 95, Issue 1, pp 69–82 | Cite as

Micro Operators to Boost Local Service Delivery in 5G

  • Marja MatinmikkoEmail author
  • Matti Latva-aho
  • Petri Ahokangas
  • Seppo Yrjölä
  • Timo Koivumäki
Article

Abstract

Future digital society depends heavily on timely availability of high quality wireless connectivity the offering of which today is dominated by mobile network operators (MNOs). Future 5G systems aim at connecting billions of devices to serve versatile location and case specific needs of vertical sectors in parallel with the provisioning of traditional mobile broadband services. As the majority of mobile traffic originates from indoors, cost-efficient and fast deployment of new indoor small cell networks is fundamental, which calls for new developments in regulation and technology to enable new business. This paper proposes the concept of micro operators (uO) for local service delivery in 5G to build indoor small cell communication infrastructure and offer context related services and content. Key elements of the new micro operator concept are introduced including regulation-related factors of local spectrum access rights, and technology-related factors of flexible network implementation. Several business opportunities are identified for the uO concept including the provisioning of hosted local connectivity to all MNOs in specific locations, operation of secure networks for vertical sector specific use, and offering of locally tailored content and services.

Keywords

5G Business model Mobile communication network Mobile network operator Spectrum sharing 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Authors would like to acknowledge Tekes – the Finnish Funding Agency for Innovation in “Micro-operator concept for boosting local service delivery in 5G (uO5G)” project.

References

  1. 1.
    GPPP (2016). 5G empowering vertical industries. Roadmap paper. The 5G Infrastructure Public Private Partnership. https://5g-ppp.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/BROCHURE_5PPP_BAT2_PL.pdf. Accessed 15 July 2016.
  2. 2.
    Ahokangas, P., Matinmikko, M., Yrjölä, S., Okkonen, H., & Casey, T. (2013). “Simple rules” for mobile network operators’ strategic choices in future cognitive spectrum sharing networks. IEEE Wireless Communications, 20(2), 20–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wirtz, B. W., Schilke, O., & Ullrich, S. (2010). Strategic development of business models: Implications of the web 2.0 for creating value on the internet. Long Range Planning, 43(2), 272–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ahokangas, P., Moqaddamerad, S., Matinmikko, M., Abouzeid, A., Atkova, I. Francis Gomes, J., & Iivari, M. (2016). Future micro operators business models in 5G. In International conference on restructuring of the global economy (ROGE). Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Basole, R. C. (2009). Visualization of interfirm relations in a converging mobile ecosystem. Journal of Information Technology, 24(2), 144–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Al-Debei, M. M., Al-Lozi, E., & Fitzgerald, G. (2013). Engineering innovative mobile data services. Business Process Management Journal, 19(2), 336–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    CEPT ECC (2009). Light licensing, license-exempt and commons. In ECC Report 132. European conference of postal and telecommunications. Electronic Communications Committee.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    ITU-R (2014). Cognitive radio systems in the land mobile service. In Report ITU-R M.2330. International telecommunication union radiocommunication sector.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    FCC (2016). Fact sheet: Spectrum frontiers rules identify, open up vast amounts of new high-band spectrum for next generation (5G) wireless broadband. Federal Communications Commission. http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016/db0714/DOC-340310A1.pdf. Accessed 15 July 2016.
  10. 10.
    CEPT ECC (2016). Operational guidelines for spectrum sharing to support the implementation of the current ECC framework in the 3600–3800 MHz range. In ECC report 254. European conference of postal and telecommunications. Electronic Communications Committee.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    FCC (2015). Amendment of the commission’s rules with regard to commercial operations in the 3550–3650 MHz band. In Report and order and second further notice of proposed rulemaking. FCC-15-47. Federal Communications Commission.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    FCC (2016). Amendment of the commission’s rules with regard to commercial operations in the 3550–3650 MHz band. In Order of reconsiderations and second report and order. FCC-16-55. Federal Communications Commission.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    RSPG (2013). RSPG opinion on licensed shared access. RSPG13-538. European Commission, Radio Spectrum Policy Group.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    CEPT ECC (2014). Licensed shared access. In ECC report 205. European conference of postal and telecommunications. Electronic Communications Committee.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    ETSI. (2015). System architecture and high level procedures for operation of licensed shared access (LSA) in the 2300–2400 MHz band. In ETSI TS 103 235. European Telecommunications Standards Institute.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    ITU-R (2015). IMT vision—framework and overall objectives of the future development of IMT for 2020 and beyond. In Recommendation ITU-R M.2083-0. International telecommunication union radiocommunication sector.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wang, C.-X., Haider, F., Gao, X., You, X.-H., Yang, Y., Yuan, D., et al. (2014). Cellular architecture and key technologies for 5G wireless communication networks. IEEE Communications Magazine, 52(2), 122–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dehos, C., González, J. L., De Domenico, A., Kténas, D., & Dussopt, L. (2014). Millimeter-wave access and backhauling: the solution to the exponential data traffic increase in 5G mobile communications systems? IEEE Communications Magazine, 52(9), 88–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ge, X., Cheng, H., Guizani, M., & Han, T. (2014). 5G wireless backhaul networks: Challenges and research advances. IEEE Network, 28(6), 6–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nguyen, V.-G., Do, T.-X., & Kim, Y. (2016). SDN and virtualization-based LTE mobile network architectures: A comprehensive survey. Wireless Personal Communications, 86(3), 1401–1438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rost, P., Berberana, I., Maeder, A., Paul, H., Suryaprakash, V., Valenti, M., et al. (2015). Benefits and challenges of virtualization in 5G radio access networks. IEEE Communications Magazine, 53(12), 75–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    GPPP (2015). 5G and eHealth. White paper. The 5G Infrastructure Public Private Partnership. https://5g-ppp.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/5G-PPP-White-Paper-on-eHealth-Vertical-Sector.pdf. Accessed 15 July 2016.
  23. 23.
    GPPP (2016). 5G and media & entertainment. White paper. The 5G Infrastructure Public Private Partnership. https://5g-ppp.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/5G-PPP-White-Paper-on-Media-Entertainment-Vertical-Sector.pdf. Accessed 15 July 2016.
  24. 24.
    Kemppainen, L., Pikkarainen, M. & Koivumäki, T. (2016). Business models for platform operators in the field of human-centered personal data management: A case study approach. In Research publication, digital health revolution project. University of Oulu.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gnyawali, D., & Park, B. (2009). Coopetition and technological innovation in small and medium-sized enterprises: A multilevel conceptual model. Journal of Small Business Management, 47(3), 308–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marja Matinmikko
    • 1
    Email author
  • Matti Latva-aho
    • 1
  • Petri Ahokangas
    • 2
  • Seppo Yrjölä
    • 3
  • Timo Koivumäki
    • 2
  1. 1.Centre for Wireless Communications (CWC)University of OuluOuluFinland
  2. 2.Oulu Business SchoolMartti Ahtisaari Institute (MAI)OuluFinland
  3. 3.NokiaOuluFinland

Personalised recommendations