”femto guys” and small cell are esseentially the same.

The issue about just how well those devices live in a separate layer under the macro layer with independence & without problems is, indeed, at the heart of the debate.

For residential it clearly works.

The indications where small cell contracts are separate from macro contracts (for Korea with LTE, USA & UK with 3G) suggest that this is viable.

While I’m goring sacred cows, they should also consider whether their efforts to make Public Wi-Fi access work similarly to, and in conjunction with, legacy BSS and OSS models is the right longterm decision. Those architectures were developed around a voice service paradigm decades ago. We could come up with much better/simpler solutions focused around mobile data today. If they don’t do it, some upstarts from the Wi-Fi side eventually will.

Operators who insist on this holy grail of a unified cellular/WLAN infrastructure are missing out on a huge market that is developing all around them as they dither. I don’t need my access networks to be unified and coordinated, I just need them to be available, to work, and to provide access to my services and data.

(Note, I think 802.11u and Hotspot 2.0 are great enhancements for Public Wi-Fi. But we need to see some architectures put forward that don’t involve integrating them with a legacy cellular core)

I think you will see some aggregation (& indeed already do) – although almost certainly not the sort of network-centric seamless approach that some envisage. Seams – borders, really – are too important to get rid of arbitrarily. See my blog post from a few weeks ago:
http://disruptivewireless.blogspot.com/2012/04/operator-wifi-seamless-is-wrong.html

There are some use-cases where HetNets will be valuable, but equally there are plenty of others where that level of integration will be damaging to the user experience, or the desires & requirements of private WiFi owners.

Dean

Good points. I think ALU is firmly in the single vendor camp, though, as is NSN. The may not make Wi-Fi access points but they can easily partner with companies that do (or buy Ruckus). Otherwise they’re advocating their carriers adopt a single-vendor lifestyle. :)

The femto guys make an interesting case for a multi-vendor world, but their main argument seems to be low cost, which has merits, but if there is no integration it just won’t work. I think the femto guys would have us believe their cells can live in colonies without SON right under the macro network and somehow magically not interfering with the macro network.

As for Wi-Fi, great idea, but I’m shocked at just how hard it is to implement. Maybe it’s because there are three separate standards, three separate industry bodies trying to implement three separate technologies…

For example, Ericsson would advocate that macro, small cell & WiFi all come from one vendor: het net in layers, but “homo net” in service, vendor, OSS and purchasing (ahem)

An operatopr may prefer single network from services but the freedom to purchase from different suppliers: one can imagine Ruckus or ALU advocating this, as distinct from macro contracts.

Will .11u / HotSpot2.0 and the 3GPP SmallCell analogs support this – or is it a coherent, integrated, single vendor monolithy?

I agree that at 1,000 carrier-hotspot effort means little, but there are a lot of hotspot operators, telcos and and cable operators looking to sell their capacity off. If you can piece enough of those deals together, they could have a big impact. I’m not yet willing to concede that Wi-Fi offload is quite as silly as IMS. :)