How Many Users for Network Slicing for 5G Fixed Wireless?

Reliance Jio plans a rollout of network slicing capabilities on its 5G network to support fixed wireless access for home broadband users. And while everyone expects capacity to grow over time, there have been questions about the number of “slices” any single radio or cell site might be able to support. 

Assume the number of concurrent network slices that can be supported from any single radio and single radio site with six sectors, using Nokia or Ericsson radios, in general, will support up to six concurrent network slices per sector, for a total of 36 concurrent network slices across all six sectors at any single site. 

Nokia's AirScale base stations are said to support up to 12 concurrent slices per radio site. This is because each AirScale base station has six sectors, and each sector can support up to two slices. 

Ericsson's Radio System 6000 base stations likewise are said to support up to 12 concurrent slices per radio site. This is because each Radio System 6000 base station has six sectors, and each sector can support up to two slices.

Nokia's AirScale Radio 6221 can support up to six  concurrent slices per sector, while Ericsson's 6449 Radio can support up to five concurrent slices per sector. 

The exact number of concurrent slices that can be supported will also depend on the configuration of the network, such as the amount of spectrum that is available and the type of traffic involved. 

Assume concurrent users all are consuming about 100 Mbps of capacity at any one time. Then 10 concurrent users can be supported on a channel supporting 1,000 Mbps of capacity, some point out. 

Some believe Jio might be able to support as many as 100 users for voice sessions but perhaps as few as 10 concurrent users all watching high-definition video streaming. 

Use case	Number of users per slice
VoIP	100
HD video streaming	10
Gaming	50
File sharing	100

That estimate also likely assumes there is no contention for that capacity from other uses and customers. And, as always, the amount of available spectrum shapes performance. If a network allocates just 100 MHz for network slicing, then both bandwidth and the number of users is reduced. 

Number of users	Theoretical maximum download speed per user
6	16.67 Mbps
12	8.33 Mbps
18	5.56 Mbps
24	4.17 Mbps
30	3.33 Mbps

So, as always, having lots of bandwidth matters.

Microsoft 365 Copilot: AI for Business for $30 a Month/User

What Will Drive Connectivity Industry Revenue in 2030?

What really has the potential to drive global connectivity service provider revenues? IoT, private networks, edge computing? Probably not. The bulk of revenue is earned by just a few ubiquitous services: mobile phone subscriptions, mobile internet access and home broadband. 

All the new services together will amount to as little as five percent of total revenues globally by 2030. Instead, performance will depend on revenue per unit trends. 

Assume the following about connectivity industry saturation: 

• mobile subscriptions reach 96 percent by 2025

• mobile internet use reaches 75 percent by 2025

• ARPU is about   10.50 per line by 2025

• Revenue growth rate is about two percent annually from 2020 to 2025.

Assume that mobility services drive about 80 percent of total industry revenues. What are the odds the industry can discover or create new growth drivers big enough to offset the “end of growth” in the core mobility area?

For the sake of argument, assume new products can be developed around 5G, such as network slicing; internet of things connections and edge computing connectivity revenues. How much incremental growth can those products provide? 

Not so much. Edge computing connectivity revenues likely will be something like an SD-WAN-sized revenue stream. That is not going to significantly move the revenue needle for most service providers, if any. 

One might say the same about private networks. IoT connectivity revenues should be more relevant, perhaps adding double-digit  s of dollars of revenue by about 2025. Fixed wireless might be a new source in about the same range, by about the same time. 

To 2030, one might argue, global service provider revenue will continue to be driven by mobile subscriptions, home broadband and mobile data. 

Year	Revenue   $B	Mobile Subscriptions	Mobile Data	Home Broadband	IoT Connections	Private Network Services	Edge Computing Connectivity
2023	1,805.61	1,053.24	458.71	215.71	49.04	28.02	20.60
2024	1,908.26	1,104.52	485.66	224.10	52.38	30.23	22.01
2025	2,018.36	1,158.84	514.03	233.21	56.10	32.70	23.52
2026	2,136.21	1,216.23	543.72	242.94	60.12	35.42	25.12
2027	2,262.11	1,276.69	574.63	253.29	64.45	38.41	26.82
2028	2,406.76	1,340.25	606.68	264.27	69.11	41.68	28.63
2029	2,559.45	1,406.91	640.00	275.88	74.12	45.24	30.57
2030	2,874.76	1,476.69	674.52	288.10	79.47	49.10	32.57

Some will be more optimistic about service provider ability to assume new roles in cloud computing as a service, or edge computing as a service, or IoT system integration or management of private networks as a service. If so, contributions from those sources will be larger. 

But in this analysis, IoT connections, managed private networks and edge computing connectivity revenue only collectively manage to represent about five percent of total revenue. 

The number of mobile subscriptions, average revenue per unit, fixed and mobile internet access overwhelmingly determine outcomes. 

None of that is terribly troublesome unless service providers are unsuccessful at maintaining or boosting ARPU, assuming connectivity really is “essential,” as most believe. If so, subscription volume will not be the key issue. Revenue per unit is going to make the difference. 

--------------------

Time to Market, Risk Reduction, Revenue: Choose any Two

Infrastructure joint ventures to build home broadband infrastructure have grown more common since 2020. And while it certainly makes sense to reduce the amount of capital investment--especially when speed is of the essence--it also might be pointed out that such joint ventures also reduce the incumbent ISP’s share of revenue gains and profits. 

But revenue and profits are not the only consideration. Speed and risk reduction arguably are more important, as many believe the first supplier to deploy a fiber-to-home network, for example, could have twice the market share of the second supplier.

Then there is the matter of risk. Where FTTH networks once assumed per-customer consumer revenues of $130 per month or more, some ISPs now believe consumer revenue will be as low as $50 to $70 per month.

Couple that with significant competition and the risk of deploying arguably is higher than it was two decades ago. So many ISPs now are viewing joint ventures more favorably, even if, traditionally, full ownership and control was preferred.

So joint ventures have become more common. Telefonica, for example, has used such joint ventures in South America.  

The key advantage is time to market, as a limited amount of capital can be leveraged to build out more locations, faster. To the extent that the estimated financial return is risky, the joint ventures allow ISPs to reduce the amount of risk and stretch their capex budgets to reach more potential customers. 

Of course, revenue and profit shares also are reduced.

Venture	Percentage of Ownership by Telco or ISP	Projected Share of Revenue	Projected Share of Profits
Google Fiber	70%	60%	50%
Comcast-Charter	50%	50%	50%
Verizon-Frontier	50%	50%	50%
Astound Broadband	50%	50%	50%
Broadband Infrastructure Partners	50%	50%	50%
CityFibre	40%	40%	30%
Openreach	50%	50%	50%
Voyager	50%	50%	50%

But speed matters, to the extent that the first FTTH supplier might be able to gain twice the share of the second network provider. So even if full ownership and control might be desirable, risk reduction and time-to-market seem to matter more.