INFONETICS RESEARCH WHITE PAPER

The Logical Rise of C-SON

Why C-SON Is About to Rule the World
February 2015
By Stphane Tral

6 9 5 C a mp b e l l T e c h n o l o g y P a r k w a y S u i t e 2 0 0 C a mp b e l l C a l i fo r n i a 9 5 0 0 8 t 4 0 8 . 5 8 3 . 0 0 1 1 f 4 0 8 . 5 8 3 . 0 0 3 1
w w w . i nf o ne t i c s . c o m S i l i c o n V a l l e y , C A B o s t o n , M A Lo n d o n , U K

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION

THE CASE FOR C-SON HAS NEVER BEEN STRONGER, FOR SEVERAL REASONS

C-SON addresses 2G/3G network complexity

With 360 live LTE networks, the need for C-SON-based coordination is crucial

Since not everything is defined by 3GPP, a wide range of C-SON opportunities open up!

And SON standards have their own limitations that create niches for C-SON

Therefore, customization is inevitable and further cements the case for C-SON

The introduction of C-SON in D-SON environments gives birth to hybrid SON

VENDOR-AGNOSTIC C-SON SYSTEMS ARE REAL. . .

. . . AND THERE IS NO SHORTAGE OF VENDOR AGNOSTIC C-SON BUSINESS CASES

All cases relate to network performance optimization, higher QoE and better operational
efficiencies

Here is why 10% opex reduction is very substantial

10

BOTTOM LINE

10

WHITE PAPER AUTHOR

11

ABOUT INFONETICS RESEARCH

11

REPORT REPRINTS AND CUSTOM RESEARCH

11

List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1

Commercial LTE Networks Launched So Far

Exhibit 2

Factors Driving the Use of SON Tools

Exhibit 3

Survey Respondents Capex and Opex Savings from SON

The Logical Rise of C-SON

Reprinted with permission from Infonetics Research.
2015 Infonetics Research, Inc.

INTRODUCTION
The concept of automation through integration of network planning, configuration, and optimization into a single,
mostly automated process requiring minimal manual intervention is not new, and implementing automation into
mobile networks is now a reality after the 3rd Generation Partnership Projects (3GPP) and the Next Generation
Mobile Networks (NGMN) Alliance made it a top priority on their agenda a few years ago.
The chief objectives of introducing self-organization into mobile access networks are operational and capital
expenditure reductions by diminishing human involvement in network operational tasks, as well as optimization of
network capacity, coverage, and service quality. The role of vendor-agnostic centralized SON (C-SON) is critical
to achieve that goal, and this paper explains why.
SON was standardized as baked in LTE with functions distributed among the network elements at the edge of the
network: the eNodeBs. This implementation is known as distributed SON (D-SON) and is supplied by traditional
RAN vendors. As a result, D-SON is generally RAN-centric and proprietary.
As LTE network deployments have reached their peak in terms of number of mobile networks LTE upgradable
worldwide, the planet is becoming saturated with islands of D-SON coming from multiple RAN vendors. In
addition, one-third of commercial LTE networks are already being upgraded to LTE-Advanced, and the beyondLTE agenda has already been set, with substantial work on defining 5G. Consequently, the need to rationalize,
coordinate, and manage those D-SON islands with C-SON is increasing, and to allow a broader overview of
network elements and a better coordination across a wide geographic area, C-SON typically sits at the same level
as the OSS and is supplied by a flurry of vendor specialists such as Amdocs, CellWize, Cisco, Eden Rock
Communications, and Reverb Networks.
In the end, networks are managed by a mix of centralized and distributed SON or a tactical combination of
elements of each in a hybrid solution, known as hybrid SON. In this paper, we discuss the rising need, the
benefits, and the fundamental role of vendor-agnostic C-SON to address mounting 2G/3G/LTE network
complexity often resulting from multi-vendor D-SON environments. Seamless and smooth integration of multiple
D-SONs under the centralized command of C-SON is a chief benefit that always implies various degrees of
customization. In addition, C-SON is so versatile and flexible that it can address a plethora of specific compelling
business events such as spectrum clearing for LTE in the case of Vodafone Hutchinson Australia. Multiple
examples illustrate the fact that C-RAN is a reality and currently deployed in many real life networks for various
specific reasons that always differ from initial use cases and converge toward network optimization, higher quality
of experience (QoE), and better operational efficiencies. The various examples suggest that there are as many CSON business cases as there are business issues.
Finally, on operational efficiencies, in a recent Infonetics Research survey of 20 selected service providers that
currently operate a mobile network and run or plan to run commercial SON indicates, a large majority of
respondents expect to achieve substantial opex saving with the implementation of SON.

1
The Logical Rise of C-SON
Reprinted with permission from Infonetics Research.
2015 Infonetics Research, Inc.

THE CASE FOR C-SON HAS NEVER BEEN STRONGER, FOR SEVERAL
REASONS
Adding LTE to existing mobile network is putting operational stress on operators who are looking to automate the
day to day management and optimization of their legacy networks, and even more so at time of declining services
revenue in some regions such as Europe. This is increasingly driving the need for SON in 2G and 3G networks,
which necessitates a C-SON approach. Overall the four chief reasons for deploying a C-SON system can be
summed up as follows:

2G/3G network complexity across multiple-vendors and multiple 2G and 3G technologies is pushing the
need for automated optimization across the layers

LTE network coordination between all network elements and D-SON systems

Customization needs and efforts as every mobile network operator is different and the ability to heavily
customize C-SON algorithms make it easier to adapt them to individual operators needs

Specific compelling events such as spectrum clearing for LTEillustrated by the Vodafone Hutchinson
Australia case

C-SON addresses 2G/3G network complexity

In 2014, the planet ended up with more than 7 billion mobile subscriptions, out of which 2G still accounts for 62%,
and 3G for 32%. Despite aggressive migration to 3G and LTE across the board, it will likely take at least another
decade to move as many subscriptions as possible to 3G and LTE. In the meantime, service providers need to
protect their lucrative voice business, which remains a $500 billion/year market, despite declining usage and
ARPU. All of this is occurring in an era of disparate networks generated by consolidation and several rounds of
mergers and acquisitions among mobile operators in various regionsfor instance Deutsche Telekom, Orange,
and Vodafone in Europe, and Telefnica in Latin America. Each time, economies of scale is the objective, but in
reality those 2G and 3G networks hardly become just one network. As humans can no longer keep up with the
many traditional network optimization tools, C-SON takes over to collect, analyze, and process performance data
and automatically adjust network configuration parameters. Typically, C-SON is initially deployed to improve voice
call drop rates as well as data session drop rates. The next step consists of looking at how SON can address
coverage holes, indoor coverage issues, abnormal key parameter indicators (KPIs), and QoE monitoring.
In addition to 2G and 3G, most mobile operators now have to manage LTE with the same resources at best, if not
less. Implementing C-SON helps manage those stretched resources and allows mobile operators to allocate
limited staff to either network performance improvement projects or revenue growth projects. This action delivers
network performance optimization and a higher quality of experience, and more automation leads to opex
reduction.

2
The Logical Rise of C-SON
Reprinted with permission from Infonetics Research.
2015 Infonetics Research, Inc.

With 360 live LTE networks, the need for C-SON-based coordination is crucial
The D-SON market is directly positively correlated with LTE rollouts. In other words, there is not a single eNodeB
being deployed without its inherent software used for self-configuration, and that is SON. Based on the most
recent GSA report (1/07/15), 94 commercial LTE networks were launched in 2014, bringing the total to 360
worldwide:

2009: 2 networks launched

2010: 14 networks launched

2011: 30 networks launched as of 12/31/11, of which 27 are FDD and 3 TDD

2012: 102 networks launched as of 12/31/12

2013: 119 new networks launched as of 12/31/13

2014: 94 new networks launched as of 1/07/15

312 of the current LTE networks are FDD, 31 are TDD, and 17 are a mix of FDD and TDD. Exhibit 1 shows the
GSAs most recent LTE update (January 7, 2015).

Exhibit 1

Commercial LTE Networks Launched So Far

Source: Global Mobile Suppliers Association (GSA), January 7, 2015

3
The Logical Rise of C-SON
Reprinted with permission from Infonetics Research.
2015 Infonetics Research, Inc.

Given that its extremely rare that a mobile operator purchases its eNodeBs uniquely from a single RAN vendor
such as Alcatel-Lucent, Ericsson, Huawei, Nokia Networks, Samsung, and ZTE, these 360 networks have at least
two vendors, and therefore two associated proprietary D-SON systems that only address RAN-centric use cases
defined by 3GPP.

Since not everything is defined by 3GPP, a wide range of C-SON opportunities open up!
3GPP standards are a good start since they gave the language, terminology, and automation frameworks for
network optimization use cases that were long in use. However, standards can only go so far, and operators have
specific pain points and are interested in other concepts that are not immediately addressed by the standards.
Hence, there is a large scope of work outside of the standards that third-party SON providers can address. Some
examples of gaps in the SON standardsthat remain pain points and requested by mobile operatorsinclude:

Lack of multi-radio access technology (multi-RAT) approach in all the use cases: For instance, only ANR
seems to be very well defined for a multi-RAT case, and so far it is the most widely deployed feature, but
others such as mobility load balancing (MLB) and mobility robustness optimization (MRO) seem restricted
to LTE cases only and point to a lack of clear application of use cases for 3G UMTS and 2G GSM
networks, both among the operator requirements for a true multi-technology SON

Lack of definition for out-of-RAN use cases: Some use cases (by design) are not defined deeply because
they reside at the network management level. For instance in the case of capacity and coverage
optimization (CCO), the implementation and algorithms are subject to wide interpretation and are related to
strategic planning aspects that may be beyond the scope of the 3GPP standards. In other words, how do
you strategically optimize coverage and capacity based on business needs and not just on network needs?

Lack of specific customer experience driven optimization use cases: Tying customer experience with
network optimization is the subject of intense work. There are thousands of KPIs available but most mobile
operators find that there is no direct correlation between the customer experience and the KPIs; put another
way, the customer experience can still be mediocre while KPIs are good.

Lack of infrastructure sharing (e.g.: RAN sharing) consideration: In Europe and India where RAN sharing
is very common, there is nothing that says how SON automation is expected to work in such scenarios
with specific policies for the operators under the sharing agreements.

Lack of operator level of service quality measurements that can drive the overall SON use cases instead
of current radio level only measurements.

SON in the paradigm of NFV and SDN: If the future networks are all going to be virtualized on COTS
hardware, the current D-SON functions embedded in the eNodeBs could also be exposed for greater
control than they are today. In this paradigm, there will be a much greater scope for control by a SON
function for example in a virtualized C-RAN network model.

4
The Logical Rise of C-SON
Reprinted with permission from Infonetics Research.
2015 Infonetics Research, Inc.

And SON standards have their own limitations that create niches for C-SON
Multi-vendor application is the foremost niche, starting with cross-interoperability in a multi-vendor LTE network
(for example, X2 interoperability between vendor A and vendor B or vendor As eNodeB working with vendor Bs
MME). One way to address this issue is by deploying old fashioned techniques such as network probes, an
expensive proposition that the LTE flat architecture itself is addressing by eliminating many interfaces seen in 3G.
Another option would be the implementation of SON at the network management level with a coordination
approach from 3rd party SON providers. However, for legacy 3G, 2G, non-standards based C-SON seems to be
the only option.

Therefore, customization is inevitable and further cements the case for C-SON
Although all eNodeBs shipped meet 3GPP and many other standards, a close look at architectural design and
topology implementation points to a flurry of differences between RAN vendors, often resulting from their own
interpretation of those standards. As a result, the D-SON system that comes with the RAN vendor eNodeBs to
make a part of an LTE network may not easily work with another D-SON system coming from another part of this
same multivendor LTE network.
Many mobile operators complain that some interfaces are proprietary and cannot easily be adapted to specific
situations. Enormous complexity is the resulting outcome of this accumulation of D-SON systems that at some point
will need to move from standalone implementations to a full integration with the entire network, all the way up to the
OSS. This is achieved by deploying a vendor-agnostic C-SON system capable of processing various sets of data
coming from multiple vendor network elements and D-SON systems. Such C-SON systems are developed and
mainly supplied by vendor specialists including Amdocs, CellWize, Cisco, Eden Rock communications, and Reverb
Networks. However, Huawei and Nokia Networks also offer C-SON products in their portfolios.

The introduction of C-SON in D-SON environments gives birth to hybrid SON

Hybrid SON combines the features of D-SON (in which SON algorithms are deployed locally in the NodeBs and
eNodeBs) and C-SONs (in which algorithms are deployed above the network infrastructure). A hybrid SON is
generally located in the network operations center (NOC) and typically requires that the RAN vendor supplying
D-SON provide a set of open interfaces to allow the mobile operator to use a control algorithm that operates on a
wider geographic area and on a slower time scale. By deploying C-SON for the four reasons previously explained,
the resulting SON ensemble resembles hybrid SON architecture.

5
The Logical Rise of C-SON
Reprinted with permission from Infonetics Research.
2015 Infonetics Research, Inc.

VENDOR-AGNOSTIC C-SON SYSTEMS ARE REAL. . .

Vendor agnostic C-SON is not a theoretical need for the future, it is in existence and already deployed
commercially, up and running to address high level compelling events such as Vodafone Hutchinson Australias
spectrum portfolio management. In 2014, the mobile operator deployed Amdocss C-SON solution to help with the
program to improve its 4G coverage and customer experience across Australia. The solution helps Vodafone to
free up 850MHz spectrum previously used for 3G so that it can be used for LTE. The 850MHz spectrum is the
most widely supported low-band spectrum for 4G smartphones and tablets, and provides a superior customer
experience with fewer dropped data sessions.
Amdocs Self-Optimizing Networks enables service providers to automate the optimization of their radio networks,
thereby reducing operating expenses and delaying capital expenditure through efficient traffic management, as
well as improve the customer experience. In this deployment, the solutions algorithms have been customized to
meet Vodafone Hutchison Australias network spectrum and traffic steering goals.

. . . AND THERE IS NO SHORTAGE OF VENDOR AGNOSTIC C-SON BUSINESS

CASES
Although SON is baked in LTE and therefore starts as D-SON supplied by specific RAN vendors, in reality
vendor-agnostic C-SON has also been deployed in 2G and 3G networks making a strong business case for
C-SON. Here are some selected examples of innovative C-SON implementations driven by specific business
cases:

AT&T caught everyone by surprise in 2013 with its massive SON rolloutdefined by the 1,200 SONmanaged RNC installed in less than 9 monthsto optimize its 3G HSPA+ network. The company has
commercially deployed a C-SON product from Cisco in a hybrid architecture where some decentralized
features are implemented at the network layer and others remain centralized either within a vendor (e.g.,
self install/configuration, automatic neighbor relations (ANR) planning, primary scrambling code
(PSC)/physical cell identity (PCI) planning, and automatic parameter) or at the network management
layer.

TIM Brasil successfully implemented the Amdocs C-SON solution in select Brazilian cities that hosted the
World Cup soccer games to deliver an overall improved customer experience with fewer dropped calls
and better data throughput for visitors and citizen, before rolling it out to the whole country.

Turkcell has developed its own SON product to optimize its 3G HSPA+ network; the system collects all
parameters, creates reports, identifies defaults and corrects them, then updates the history; the in-house
web-based system performs transport and RAN resource automation.

6
The Logical Rise of C-SON
Reprinted with permission from Infonetics Research.
2015 Infonetics Research, Inc.

All cases relate to network performance optimization, higher QoE and better operational
efficiencies
All cases presented in this paper depict the significance of SON in managing, optimizing, and coordinating
complex legacy multi-vendor networks, including 2G, 3G, and LTE. In November 2014, we conducted our annual
SON and Optimization Strategies: Global Service Provider Survey, for which we interviewed 20 service providers
that currently operate a mobile network and run or plan to run commercial SON. In addition, respondents must
have detailed knowledge of their companys SON and optimization tools and influence in the planning and
purchase decisions for mobile network equipment.
Respondents rated the importance of factors in the decision to use SON tools on a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 is not
a driver, 4 is somewhat of a driver, and 7 is a strong driver. The chart on the next page shows the percentage of
respondents rating each factor 6 or 7, or a driver. Network performance optimization, higher quality of experience,
and cost saving obtained through automation were highly rated as drivers; here is why:

Network performance optimization is directly linked to customer retention; poor network performance
translates into dropped voice calls and interrupted data session, which may prompt users to leave the
network and switch to a better network. As mentioned earlier, although there is no direct correlation
between good KPIs and great user experience, optimized network performances are likely to improve the
customer experience.

High quality of experience is also linked to customer retention and mainly related to data sessions such
as using an application and downloading/uploading content; users prefer not to see the infamous spinning
wheel.

More automation leading to opex reduction is the concept of minimizing human intervention to perform
more complex tasks while cutting the number of errors. As wages and salaries are the highest opex
component on mobile operators balance sheet, staff tends to be maintained at a stable level while
network complexity is increasing exponentially and totally surpassing human skills (unless operators
employ armies of engineers and technicians, which is inconceivable).

Overall, the role of SON is to relieve humans burden of dealing with too many KPIs, most of them irrelevant to
ensuring a great experience, and that is network performance optimization automation.

7
The Logical Rise of C-SON
Reprinted with permission from Infonetics Research.
2015 Infonetics Research, Inc.

Exhibit 2

Factors Driving the Use of SON Tools

n=20

Source: Infonetics Research, SON and Optimization Strategies: Global Service Provider Survey, November 2014

8
The Logical Rise of C-SON
Reprinted with permission from Infonetics Research.
2015 Infonetics Research, Inc.

Now that SON has been normalized, service providers expect substantial cost savings
SON was not invented to cut capex by any means; it was aimed at addressing the network opex conundrum.
Well, all respondents believe SON can cut capex 0%20%, with 65% leaning toward the less-than-10% bracket.
On the opex side, only 25% of respondents think they can achieve a 10%20% reduction; 35% believe they can
cut less than 10%.

Exhibit 3

Survey Respondents Capex and Opex Savings from SON

n=20, 20

Source: Infonetics Research, SON and Optimization Strategies: Global Service Provider Survey, November 2014

9
The Logical Rise of C-SON
Reprinted with permission from Infonetics Research.
2015 Infonetics Research, Inc.

Here is why 10% opex reduction is very substantial

To analyze this finding more thoroughly, lets start with the big picture. In an $800-billion worldwide mobile service
market, total opex consumes at least 75% of the revenue. However, in our biannual Service Provider Outsourcing
to Vendors Market Share, Size, and Forecasts, we have tracked global opex for over 5 years, and network opex
is an average of just 20% of total opex (which tends to be dominated by smartphone related marketing expenses).
However, total network opex includes RAN opex, and anything that can lead to a 10% reduction can have a broad
impact, particularly when its getting harder and harder to find room for significant network opex savings
reduction in staff has been the quick fix for some time and has a one-time significant impact on opex.

BOTTOM LINE
C-SON delivers on its promises and has become crucial and indispensable. From proof-of-concept to live
deployments, C-SON has already made serious inroads, and as the planet gets close to being blanketed by LTE,
the C-SON opportunities continue to swell.
Although the network automation concept is not new, SON provides the first iteration of the zero-touch network,
which just 10 years ago was perceived as an unrealistic dream! It just took LTE to make it happen, initially in the
form of proprietary D-SON, which created so much complexity that a new need has emerged: SON coordination
for D-SON through a centralized system named C-SON.
Operational efficiencies always convert into a business case for vendor-agnostic C-SON. As seen in this paper,
any burning business issue is addressed by the implementation of C-SON. In the particular case of Vodafone
Hutchinson Australia, Amdocs provided a unique inter carrier load balancing (ICLB) capability that allowed the
mobile operator to free up 850MHz spectrum by shifting traffic to 2100MHz while existing SON use cases were
deployed to maintain network KPIs. Various other examples are cited, and all converge toward the
implementation of C-SON to address specific business issues, which in turn lead to network performance
optimization, higher quality of experience, and more automation.
Whats also interesting is the difference between the service provider initial playbook that lists typical C-SON use
casesreported to 3GPP and MGMNand providers often unpredictable real business needs. This is a great
illustration of the innumerable possibilities and business cases for C-SON paving the way to the achievement and
materialization of the true zero-touch, zero-human-intervention network.

10
The Logical Rise of C-SON
Reprinted with permission from Infonetics Research.
2015 Infonetics Research, Inc.

WHITE PAPER AUTHOR

Stphane Tral
Principal Analyst, Mobile Infrastructure and Carrier Economics
Infonetics Research
+1 408.583.3371 | stephane@infonetics.com

Commissioned by Amdocs to educate the industry about the need for centralized self-organizing networks
(C-SON), this paper was written autonomously by analyst Stphane Tral based on Infonetics independent
mobile network research.

ABOUT INFONETICS RESEARCH

Infonetics Research is an international market research and consulting analyst firm serving the communications
industry since 1990. A leader in defining and tracking emerging and established technologies in all world regions,
Infonetics helps clients plan, strategize, and compete more effectively.

REPORT REPRINTS AND CUSTOM RESEARCH

To learn about distributing excerpts from Infonetics reports or custom research, please contact:
North America (West) and Asia Pacific
Larry Howard, Vice President, larry@infonetics.com, +1 408.583.3335
North America (East, Midwest, Texas), Latin America, and EMEA
Scott Coyne, Senior Account Director, scott@infonetics.com, +1 408.583.3395
Greater China, Southeast Asia, and India
Jeffrey Song, Market Analyst jeffrey@infonetics.com, +86 21.3919.8505

11
The Logical Rise of C-SON
Reprinted with permission from Infonetics Research.
2015 Infonetics Research, Inc.