Co-primary Spectrum Sharing and Its Impact on MNOs’ Business Model Scalability

  • Petri Ahokangas
  • Kari Horneman
  • Marja Matinmikko
  • Seppo Yrjölä
  • Harri Posti
  • Hanna Okkonen
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering book series (LNICST, volume 172)


This paper focuses on inter-operator spectrum sharing, specifically co-primary spectrum sharing (CoPSS), that denotes the case where two or more MNOs (mobile network operators) operate in the same frequency band. Specifically, we discuss the concept and its impact on the mobile network operators’ (MNO) business model scalability potential. CoPSS has several technical and business advantages in volatile demand conditions. It highlights predefined policies and rules for sharing, utilization of subscriber and usage profiles for spectrum resource allocation, hybrid business models, value differentiation between exclusive and shared spectrum licenses, utilization of customer experience management systems (CEM) for value differentiation, and utilization of the LTE ecosystem.


Co-primary Spectrum sharing Business models MNOs 



This research is part of the CORE++ project. The authors would like to acknowledge the project consortium: VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, University of Oulu, Centria University of Applied Sciences, Turku University of Applied Sciences, Nokia, PehuTec, Bittium, Anite, FairSpectrum, Finnish Defence Forces, Finnish Communications Regulatory Authority, and Tekes – the Finnish Funding Agency for Innovation.


  1. 1.
    Bennis, M.: Spectrum sharing for future mobile cellular systems. Ph.D. thesis, University of Oulu (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sousa, E.S., Alsohaily, A.: Spectrum sharing LTE-advanced small cell systems. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Wireless Personal Multimedia Communications (WPMC) (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gangula, R, Gesbert, D., Lindblom, J., Larsson, E.G.: On the value of spectrum sharing among operators in multicell networks. In: Proceedings of the IEEE VTC-Spring 2013 (2013)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ahokangas, P., Matinmikko, M., Yrjölä, S., Okkonen, H., Casey, T.: “Simple rules” for mobile network operators’ strategic choices in future spectrum sharing networks. IEEE Wireless Commun. 20(2), 20–26 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ahokangas, P., Matinmikko, M., Atkova, I., Yrjölä, S., Minervini, LF., Mustonen, M.: Co-opetitive business models in mobile broadband. Paper presented at the 6th Workshop on Coopetition Strategy, Umeå, Sweden (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ahokangas, P., Horneman, K., Posti, H., Matinmikko, M. Hänninen, T., Gonçalves, V.: Defining “co-primary spectrum sharing” – a new business opportunity for MNOs? Invited paper presented at 9th International Conference on Cognitive Radio Oriented Wireless Networks (CrownCom) June 2–4, 2014, Oulu, Finland (2014)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bengtsson, L., Kock, S.: Coopetition in business networks: to cooperate and compete simultaneously. Ind. Mark. Manage. 29, 411–426 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hultell, J., Johansson, K., Markendahl, J.: Business models and resource management for shared wireless networks. In: IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Beckman, C., Smith, G.: Shared networks: making wireless communication affordable. IEEE Wirel. Commun. 12, 78–85 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Frisanco, T., Tafertshofer, P., Lurin, P., Ang, R.: Infrastructure sharing and shared operations for mobile network operators: From a deployment and operations view. In: Proceedings of the IEEE ICC, Beijing, China, May 2008Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Markendahl, J., Nilson, M.: Business models for deployment and operation of femtocell networks: Are new cooperation strategies needed for mobile operators? In: 21st European Regional ITS Conference, Copenhagen, September 2010Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gnyawali, D., Park, B.: Coopetition between giants: collaboration with competitors for technological innovation. Res. Policy 40, 650–663 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ahokangas, P., Juntunen, M., Myllykoski, J.: Cloud computing and transformation of international e-business models, In: Sanchez, R., Heene, A. (eds.) Building Competences in Dynamic Environments. Research in Competence-Based Management, vol. 7, pp. 3–28. Emerald Group, London (2014)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Agrawal, D., El Abbadi, A., Das, S., Elmore, A.J.: Database scalability, elasticity, and autonomy in the cloud. In: Yu, J.X., Kim, M.H., Unland, R. (eds.) DASFAA 2011, Part I. LNCS, vol. 6587, pp. 2–15. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    TR 36.885, 3rd Generation Partnership Project, Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network, Study on LTE-based V2X Services (2015)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cellular IoT Whitepaper: A Choice of Future m2 m Access Technologies for Mobile Network Operators, 28 March 2014Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    The Tactile Internet, ITU-T Technology Watch Report, August 2014Google Scholar

Copyright information

© ICST Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Petri Ahokangas
    • 1
  • Kari Horneman
    • 1
  • Marja Matinmikko
    • 1
  • Seppo Yrjölä
    • 1
  • Harri Posti
    • 1
  • Hanna Okkonen
    • 1
  1. 1.Oulu Business SchoolUniversity of OuluOuluFinland

Personalised recommendations