Considerations on the
equipment ecosystem for 5G
private networks in 3.4-3.8
GHz - Final Report Public
24 November 2022
Tony Lavender, Frederic Pujol

plumconsulting.co.uk

About Plum
Plum offers strategy, policy and regulatory advice on
telecoms, spectrum, online and audio-visual media issues.
We draw on economics and engineering, our knowledge of
the sector and our clients’ understanding and perspective to
shape and respond to convergence.

About this study
This study for EZK / Agentschap Telecom considers how the
4G/5G ecosystem for private mobile networks is developing
in Europe with a view to spectrum reservation for local
private networks in the 3.4-3.8 GHz band.

Plum Consulting
10 Fitzroy Square
London
W1T 5HP
T +44 20 7047 1919
E info@plumconsulting.co.uk

Considerations on the equipment ecosystem for 5G private networks

Contents
Summary

4

1

Introduction

6

2

5G private networks

7

2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4

7
10
16
23

3

4

5

Use and characteristics of 5G private networks
5G private networks market trends
Ecosystem and supply side
Base station and device options and limitations

Spectrum options

25

3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6

25
26
27
28
29
32

Introduction
Status of 3.4-3.8 GHz spectrum
Spectrum for private networks
Equipment for private networks
Examples of private network approaches
Issues for spectrum reservation for private networks

Analysis

35

4.1 Why private networks need dedicated spectrum
4.2 Spectrum
4.3 Carrier aggregation

35
35
38

Conclusions

39

© 2022 Plum Consulting

Considerations on the equipment ecosystem for 5G private networks

Summary
The Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate (MinEZK) needs to better understand how the equipment
ecosystem for 4G/5G private networks is developing in Europe with a view to assessing the use of 3.4-3.8 GHz
to support these networks in The Netherlands. The Ministry is also interested in influencing factors from
regions/markets outside Europe and how relevant the exact allocation of spectrum for private network use in
the C-band (mainly in the 3400-3800 MHz) is to enterprises wanting to make the best use of the products and
solutions possible with the ecosystem available at these frequencies.
In this report we set out key issues around mobile private networks operating in these frequencies and the
supporting ecosystems, together with our understanding of the spectrum situation and constraints it might
impose on allocations.
The report is based on the prior experience of the project team and a review of relevant literature and a small
number of interviews carried out with key players. Interviews with base station vendors, a vertical also providing
base stations and devices, a module manufacturer and an antenna manufacturer enabled us to answer
questions not covered with our desk research.
This is our final report and it contains the output of the research and interviews carried out together with the
synthesis of the material obtained and our conclusions.
4G/5G private networks are developing quickly around the world and the most advanced countries are China,
the United States and Germany. The overall global market for private networks within enterprise verticals is
expected to reach US$109 billion by 2030 according to ABI Research in March 2022.
In the 3.4-3.8 GHz band Germany was the first EU country to make a frequency reservation for local networks at
3.7-3.8 GHz. Sweden has also made spectrum available for private networks in 3.76-3.80 GHz. We could not find
any relevant examples of spectrum being made available for assignment to private networks at the lower end of
the band (3.4-3.5 GHz). Some countries are making spectrum available for private networks above 3.8 GHz
including the UK (3.8-4.2 GHz) and France (3.8-4.0 GHz for test licences). Norway has made spectrum available
for test licences (3.8-4.2 GHz). There is evidence of demand for mobile private networks in such spectrum from
the assignments being made in Germany and the UK.
There are leasing / sub-licensing arrangements specified for industry verticals in some countries (e.g. in
Denmark, Finland, France) for the 3.4-3.8 GHz band, which work as an alternative to a reservation / set-aside but
it is not clear so far what demand has emerged via this spectrum access method.
The radiolocation service in 3.1-3.4 GHz creates a problem for operation at frequencies immediately above 3.4
GHz and several European administrations have avoided assigning the bottom 10 MHz of the 3.4-3.8 GHz band
to protect services in the lower adjacent band. In the Netherlands the requirements for protection of the
radiolocation service applies nationwide. The EU Implementing Decision 2019/235 specifies clear and stringent
out-of-band emission limits to protect radiolocation and allows for a 10 MHz guard band below the 3.4 GHz
band edge. The most likely workable mitigation for mobile private networks is the use of a guard band above
3.4 GHz, which will reduce the amount of spectrum available for these networks but may still provide sufficient
spectrum (e.g. 80 MHz). Imposition of a power limit for mobile private networks in addition to a guard band will
also reduce the risk of interference (these networks are not likely to need to transmit at the powers used by
macro cells in public networks). However, whether such measures will completely avoid the need to fit additional
filters to mobile private network equipment to ensure no disruption of the radiolocation service requires further
investigation.

© 2022 Plum Consulting

4

Considerations on the equipment ecosystem for 5G private networks

There was a reluctance on the part of some of the new equipment vendors approached to contribute to the
study to adapt their network equipment to specific RF environments that would require modifications like
additional filtering (either because these networks will be operating at the band edge or of a guard band not
fully protecting adjacent services). These players want to design and deploy standard equipment that enables
them to secure manufacturing and operational economies of scale. It is difficult to modify / add additional
filtering to modular small cell implementations, for example. Adaptations might also be costly (e.g. costs and
mechanical issues for filters, diplexers, and other RF components for small cells). There is less pressure on device
vendors from these restrictions.
It is still relatively early in the lifecycle of the 5G network equipment ecosystem for verticals and local network
deployments, although activity by smaller / alternative vendors is building to compete with the larger vendors in
these sectors. Today, more than 90% of the equipment for commercial and mobile private networks is provided
by five major manufacturers: Huawei, Ericsson, Nokia, Samsung and ZTE. The device ecosystem is also
developing and while there are a growing number of mainstream 5G devices operating in the band, the
ecosystem for other CPE and modules is still at an early stage and will take another year or more to fully
develop as demand for private network equipment increases. The advent of Open RAN and its opening of more
options for building networks with defined interfaces and simplified radio units may lower barriers to entry for
private 5G network equipment development and production.
Looking forward we note that the European Commission has mandated CEPT to consider the use of 3800-4200
MHz for terrestrial wireless broadband systems providing local area network connectivity. Equipment and device
vendors are looking at the development this would entail. While solutions across the 3400-4200 MHz band can
be supported by 3GPP band n77 vendors might focus on the upper part of the band (e.g. 3700 MHz upwards)
for private network use and adapt their product roadmaps accordingly. CEPT will provide its final view on the
Mandate by March 2024 and it is anticipated that an Implementing Decision will be published in the following
year.
Our key finding from the research undertaken for this project is that there is significant reluctance among
equipment vendors and especially the newer entrants to this market (including Open RAN providers) to develop
solutions that meet the block edge mask requirements for protection of the radiolocation service operating in
3.1-3.4 GHz. Application of a suitable guard band and limitation of power might provide a means of achieving
suitable mitigation but the detail of this requires further study.
The established vendors serving the MNO market are able to provide suitable equipment to meet these
requirements, but their price points are unlikely to be attractive for private network builders. If spectrum is
allocated in 3.4-3.5 GHz for private networks, there is a risk that the cost of providing solutions will deter private
network investment.

© 2022 Plum Consulting

5

Considerations on the equipment ecosystem for 5G private networks

1

1 Introduction

Introduction

The Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate (MinEZK) responsible for spectrum policy in the Netherlands needs
to better understand how the equipment ecosystem for 4G/5G private networks is developing in Europe with a
view to progressing a frequency allocation to support these networks in The Netherlands. The Ministry is also
interested in influencing factors from regions/markets outside Europe and how relevant the exact allocation of
spectrum for private network use in the C-band (mainly in the 3400-3800 MHz) is to enterprises wanting to
make the best use of the products and solutions possible with the ecosystem available at these frequencies.
Summer 2022, MinEZK set out the intended 3.5 GHz band plan for public consultation, containing the proposal
to reserve the 3.4-3.5 GHz for local private networks and to allocate the remaining part of 300 MHz to public
mobile networks. The consultation responses proved it necessary to review the band plan proposal. A specific
need that emerged was to improve the understanding about how the international equipment ecosystem for
local private networks will develop in the coming years and how that could affect the choices to be made for the
band plan, specifically regarding the reservation of spectrum for local private networks.
In this report we set out key issues around private networks operating in these frequencies and the supporting
ecosystems, together with our understanding of the spectrum situation and constraints it might impose on
allocations.
The report is based on the prior experience of the project team and a review of relevant literature and a small
number of interviews carried out with key players. Interviews with base station vendors, a vertical also providing
base stations and devices, a module manufacturer and an antenna manufacturer enabled us to answer
questions not covered with our desk research.
This is our final report and it contains the output of the research and interviews carried out together with the
synthesis of the material obtained and our conclusions.
This remainder of this report contains the following sections:
•

Section 2: 5G private networks with an analysis of the use and characteristics of 5G private networks, 5G
private networks market trends, ecosystem and supply side and an analysis of base station and device
options and limitations.

•

Section 3: Spectrum options setting out the availability and constraints on use of spectrum, analysis from
other administrations of provision of private networks and potential future allocations and their
implications for spectrum used for private networks in the 3.4-3.8 GHz band.

•

Section 4: Provides further analysis of the information set out in previous sections and in particular
factors driven by choice of spectrum.

•

Section 5 sets out our conclusions.

Use of the  symbol indicates where commercially sensitive information has been redacted.

© 2022 Plum Consulting

6

Considerations on the equipment ecosystem for 5G private networks

2

5G private networks

2.1

Use and characteristics of 5G private networks

2 5G private networks

A wireless private network is a network that provides broadband connectivity to a closed user group. Wireless
private networks1 currently use various wireless access technologies such as DECT, WiFi, cellular technologies
(2G, 3G, 4G, 5G), or dedicated industrial technologies such as IEEE 802.15.4. Spectrum used can be the MNO’s
spectrum, dedicated spectrum for private networks or unlicensed spectrum. Wireless private networks can be
built and operated by a vertical or enterprise or operated by a mobile operator or via a mix of responsibilities
between the players. In this analysis, we focus on the use of 5G for wireless private networks and we also
consider 4G when the private networks are easily upgradable to 5G.

2.1.1

4G/5G private networks deployed by vertical stakeholders

According to a survey carried out by the GSA and the European 5G Observatory, the main sectors of the
economy that deploy 5G private networks are manufacturing which comes as the first vertical sector deploying
private mobile networks today, education, power utilities and mining. Defence, national railways and smart cities
also represent a significant number of private mobile networks. It should be noted that GSA figures cover 4G
and 5G contracts worth more than €100,000.
Figure 2.1: Number of identified customers deploying private mobile networks (World)

Source: GSA (in trials and commercially, by sector - base: 889 organisations)

The manufacturing vertical covers various industries and among them, automotive comes first, followed by
machinery & equipment and electrical equipment.

1

In this report, we also use “private mobile networks” for networks using cellular technologies such as 4G or 5G.

© 2022 Plum Consulting

7

Considerations on the equipment ecosystem for 5G private networks

2 5G private networks

Figure 2.2: Number of manufacturing customers deploying private mobile networks (World)

Source: GSA (in trials and commercially by subcategory where identified - base: 103 organisations)

2.1.2

Possible configurations and main characteristics of 4G/5G private networks

When considering these networks it is important to understand technology choice and the size of mobile private
networks. Also the type of services supported by mobile private networks.

2.1.2.1 Mobile private networks size and technology
Large-scale private networks such as GSM-R deployed by national railway companies represent the largest
mobile private networks in size and operate on dedicated spectrum in Europe.
As far as private 5G networks’ coverage is concerned, the demand for indoor solutions is much greater than
outdoors. Private 5G networks generally need to be compact both in capacity and size and their required
capacity may be less than that of a macro network (although the use characteristics may be different). Local
private networks generally cover reduced geographical areas and can also be interconnected to connect
different production sites for industries.

2.1.2.2 4G/5G private networks distribution
In 2022, 5G is supported by 40% of the mobile private networks identified by GSA on a worldwide basis. LTE still
represented between 57% and 75% of the total in early 2022 (the GSA report was published in August 2022).

© 2022 Plum Consulting

8

Considerations on the equipment ecosystem for 5G private networks

2 5G private networks

Figure 2.3: Private mobile network customers by technology used (World)

Source: GSA (base: 889 catalogued customers deploying private wireless networks)

2.1.2.3 Type of services supported by 5G private networks
5G is bringing many enhancements compared to 4G with Ultra-Reliable Low Latency Communication (URLLC),
enhanced Mobile Broadband (eMBB), and massive Machine-Type Communication (mMTC).
Today, almost all 5G private networks provide eMBB services, with higher speeds and more capacity than 4G
networks. IoT services are currently provided on 4G technologies such as NB-IoT and LTE-MTC. LPWA (Lowpower wide-area network) technologies such as LoRaWAN or Sigfox use unlicensed spectrum and are out of the
scope of this study.
As an example, Samsung’s private 5G solution delivers applications to provide various services. Currently, the
supported applications are as follows:
•

IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) solution for voice communication.

•

Mission Critical Push-To-All (MCPTX) solutions for mission-critical voice or video group communication.

•

Video surveillance platforms for monitoring and analysis of video information.

•

IoT solutions for device controlling such as sensors, machines, and facilities.

•

Drone solutions for controlling drones.

© 2022 Plum Consulting

9

Considerations on the equipment ecosystem for 5G private networks

2.2

2 5G private networks

5G private networks market trends

In this section, we analyze how the 5G private market is developing today in Europe and around the world. We
also present market forecasts for the coming years and identify main market trends for the 5G private market.

2.2.1

The 5G private network market today

The 4G/5G private network market tracking from GSA shows that activity started in 2013 and reached 293 new
private networks (over €100,000) in 2021. Figures for 2022 should be quite similar as mid-year figure was 140
new networks.
Figure 2.4: Private mobile network customers, by year announced (World)

Source: GSA

USA leads the ranking with a lot of activity in the CBRS band, followed by Germany, China and the United
Kingdom.
Figure 2.5: Number of private network customers by country

Source: GSA (base: 498 organisations, where country has been identified)

© 2022 Plum Consulting

10

Considerations on the equipment ecosystem for 5G private networks

2 5G private networks

Note: blue bars correspond to countries with no dedicated spectrum for private networks

In terms of spectrum used for 4G/5G private networks, the C-band comes first (both “C-band and b48/n48
which corresponds to CBRS), followed by b31 (450 MHz), b41/n41 (2.5 GHz in the USA). Then come frequency
bands largely used by MNOs such as b3/n3 (1800 MHz) or b28/n28 (700 MHz).
Figure 2.6: Spectrum bands used for private mobile networks (World)

Source: GSA (number of customer deployments identified using each band - base: 203 organisations)

2.2.2 Outside Europe
2.2.2.1 USA
In the USA, mobile private networks are mainly developing in the CBRS (Citizens Broadband Radio Service)
band. CBRS covers 150 MHz (3.55 to 3.7 GHz) of spectrum only assigned in the USA and it can be used for
mobile private networks.
In 2020, neutral hosts and private cellular networks represented only 15% of small cells shipments in the USA.
Figure 2.7: Distribution of LTE-based CBRS small cell shipments by use case: 2020 (%)

Source: SNS Telecom

© 2022 Plum Consulting

11

Considerations on the equipment ecosystem for 5G private networks

2 5G private networks

As of March 2022, the OnGo Alliance reported that there were 208,000 CBRS base station devices (CBSDs)
deployed in the CBRS band, a 100% increase over the previous year.
Today, most CBRS devices are 4G devices and there was very limited availability of 5G devices in October 20222.
This is primarily because 5G chipsets do not yet support the CBRS band.
It should also be noted that hyperscalers such as AWS are now offering private network support for the CBRS
band in the USA. AWS offers base stations rental and core network support with its AWS Private 5G service.

2.2.2.2 China
In China, 5G private networks are built by the Chinese MNOs. In July 2022, there were 6,518 private 5G networks,
up from 1,655 a year ago, according to Communications World and 5,325 in May 2022 according to the Ministry
of Industry and Information Technology3. Main verticals using these private networks are smart factories (1,000
5G private networks), hospitals (600), smart mines (200), smart grids (180), and ports (89).
According to the Chinese Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, China had over 2.1 million 5G base
stations at the end of August 2022. The 700 MHz, 3300 to 3600 MHz and 4800 to 5000 MHz bands are currently
used for 5G networks in China. The 26 GHz band might also be used for 5G.
Figure 2.8: frequency bands used by MNOs in China
Band

Frequency

MNO

703-798 MHz

China Broadnet

n41

2.515 - 2.675 GHz

China Mobile

n78

3.4 - 3.5 GHz

China Telecom

n78

3.5 - 3.6 GHz

China Unicom

n79

4.8 - 4.9 GHz

China Mobile

Source: Plum Consulting

2.2.3 4G/5G private networks market forecasts
It is expected that 5G private networks should continue to develop quickly around the world. Market forecasts
for the coming years show a continuous growth of this market:

2

As an example, the RFWEL site references only two n48 5G devices but 83 4G devices for the LTE band 48 (https://wdi.rfwel.com/wireless-devicesinfo/cellular-bands/nr-n48/ retrieved November 7, 2022)
3
https://finance.sina.com.cn/tech/2022-05-22/doc-imizirau4200986.shtml?finpagefr=p_114
© 2022 Plum Consulting

12

Considerations on the equipment ecosystem for 5G private networks

2 5G private networks

Figure 2.9: Private LTE and 5G network market forecasts

Source: Nokia/ABI Research

In March 2022 ABI Research announced that the overall market for private networks within enterprise verticals
will reach US$109 billion by 2030. This includes radio access network, edge & core deployments, as well as
professional services revenues. However, at the same date, research and consulting firm Dell’Oro Group
presented a more pessimistic view on the US market and reduced its expectations for sales of equipment
running in the CBRS band.
5G will represent more than 50% of the mobile private market in 2029 according to ABI Research:
Figure 2.10: Private networks revenue by technology – World market, 2020-2030

Source ABI Research

2.2.4 3GPP standardisation and 5G private networks
3GPP release 16 brings many functionalities necessary for private network in the industry such as very high
connection density, reduced latency, five “9” reliability, non-public networks support, Industrial IoT support for
Time Sensitive Networks (TSN) and direct communication between end-devices (SideLink). These functionalities
are only available with equipment and devices compatible with 3GPP Release 16 published in July 2020.

© 2022 Plum Consulting

13

Considerations on the equipment ecosystem for 5G private networks

2 5G private networks

Figure 2.11: Functionalities necessary for 5G private network in the industry and 3GPP Releases
RAN part

Release 15

Release 16

Release 17

Release 18

Connection density (1 million/km2)

Partially

Partially

Yes

Yes

Latency (< 10 ms)

No

Partially

Yes

Yes

Reliability (99.999% under 10 ms)

No

Partially

Yes

Yes

Localization (1 meter accuracy)

No

Partially

Partially

Yes

NPN: Non-Public Networks (Private)

No

Partially

Yes

Yes

Industrial IoT (TSN support)

No

Partially

Partially

Yes

SideLink (Direct Communication
between end-devices)

No

Partially

Partially

Yes

Source: Adapted from Siemens

The figure below shows a timeline with indications of the 3GPP releases and the availability of 5G network
equipment, 5G Open-RAN equipment, 5G chipsets, 5G devices, 5G dedicated industrial devices.

© 2022 Plum Consulting

14

Considerations on the equipment ecosystem for 5G private networks

2 5G private networks

Figure 2.12: 3GPP and 5G Private Networks Timeline

Source: Plum Consulting

© 2022 Plum Consulting

15

Considerations on the equipment ecosystem for 5G private networks

2.3

2 5G private networks

Ecosystem and supply side

There is a well-developed and evolving ecosystem for networks and devices based on 3GPP specifications. For
private networks there are differences from what is generally required for provision of public network services
(although over a longer timeframe there may be some convergence). Differentiating factors might include:
•

The need for higher bandwidths

•

The need for lower latency with Ultra Reliable Low Latency Communication (URLLC).

•

The need to support extensive IoT devices.

•

Less bias toward download with applications that may be symmetrical or even uplink bandwidth biased.

•

Whether networks are fully “on-site” or virtualised / provided as a service by equipment vendors, SIs or
others (including MNOs).

•

Whether there is a need for Mobile Access Edge Computing (MEC).

While many of these factors may not directly influence the choice of spectrum the availability of a range of
devices and small cell architectures to support the user needs is important. There is a range of devices available
in the n77 and n78 3GPP bands. There is a range of suppliers for devices of varying types (e.g. indoor and
outdoor CPE, modems, rugged terminals, etc.) and several options for network supply.
Other issues for consideration when deploying 5G private networks include use of standalone or nonstandalone networks, and practical issues such as geographic coverage requirements.

2.3.1

Mobile network equipment manufacturers

Today, more than 90% of the mobile network equipment is provided by five major manufacturers: Huawei,
Ericsson, Nokia, Samsung and ZTE. With the advent of Open RAN, many newcomers have already started to
grab market share. In this section, we focus on the Radio Access Network (RAN) part of the mobile equipment
market and identify the main suppliers and trends for this market.

2.3.1.1 Base station suppliers
The recent trend of RAN disaggregation was initiated to enable a distributed deployment of RAN functions over
the coverage area. In 3GPP’s Release 15, the base station (gNB) is logically split into three entities denoted as CU
(Central Unit), DU (Distributed Unit) and RRU (Remote Radio Unit) as shown in the figure below:
Figure 2.13: 5G functional split options

Source: Small Cell Forum

© 2022 Plum Consulting

16

Considerations on the equipment ecosystem for 5G private networks

2 5G private networks

Open RAN network specifications allow the placing of network functions in different parts of the network
architecture. There are several splits4 specified which allow tradeoffs and optimization depending on the type of
network being addressed. The Option-7.2 split was selected by the O-RAN Alliance and corresponds to the
interface between the RU and the DU. The Small Cell Forum choice is Option-6, with a split within the DU and
Option-2 corresponds to a split between the DU and the CU.
•

The Remote Radio Unit (RRU) hosts the functions below split 7 as well as all the RF processing

•

The CU (Central Unit) hosts the RAN functions above split 2

•

The Distributed Unit (DU) runs functions below split 2 and above split 7

The following table presents the main manufacturers present on the Radio Unit market, the Distributed Unit
market, the small cell market, and the RAN (Radio Access Network) market.
•

Small cell: a small cell generally has embedded antennas and comprises the RU, DU and CU in one box.

•

RAN: the Radio Access Network comprises the Radio Unit, the Distributed Unit and the Central Unit. This
category comprises both small cells and macro cells.

Figure 2.14: RAN equipment manufacturers (non-exhaustive list)

RAN part
Remote radio unit*

Distributed unit

Small cells

4

Manufacturers

4G/5G private networks

Open RAN (Y/N)

AceAxis

Y

N

Airrays (Xilinx)

Y

Y

AW2S

Y

N

Celestia

Y

N

CommAgility

Y

Y

Commscope

Y

Y

Filtronic

Y

N

Gigaterra

Y

N

MTI

Y (RF modules)

N

NTS

Y

N

SRS

Y

?

CommAgility

Y (development p/f)

Y

Dell

Y

Y

HPE

Y

Y

Kontron

Y

Y

Supermicro

Y

Y

Altiostar

Y

Y

Baicells

only 4G

Y

A split corresponds to the distribution of the various functions of the base station between the entities.

© 2022 Plum Consulting

17

Considerations on the equipment ecosystem for 5G private networks

RAN part

“Full” Radio Access Network

2 5G private networks

Manufacturers

4G/5G private networks

Open RAN (Y/N)

Benetel

Y

N

Comba

Y

N

Mavenir (IP Access)

Y

Y

Sercomm

Y

N

Airspan

Y

Y

Ericsson

Y

N

Huawei

Y

N

Fujitsu

Y

Y

NEC

Y

Y

Nokia

Y

Y

Parallel Wireless**

Y

Y

Samsung

Y

Y

ZTE

Y

N

Notes: *: including active antenna systems; **: integrates RRH from third parties
Source: Plum

The following network vendors provide small cells usable for 5G private networks:
•

“Incumbent” vendors: Nokia, Ericsson, Samsung, Huawei and ZTE today control more than 95% of the
global mobile network market. (For MNOs, private networks, neutral hosts and Fixed Wireless Access).

•

New entrants (e.g. in the Open RAN area) such as Altiostar, Mavenir, Parallel Wireless, Airspan and
Radisys.

•

Other suppliers of network components such as Cisco, Fujitsu, NEC or Commscope.

Some vendors have dedicated private 5G solutions as shown in the figure below for Samsung:
Figure 2.15: Samsung’s Private 5G Solution

Source: Samsung

© 2022 Plum Consulting

18

Considerations on the equipment ecosystem for 5G private networks

2 5G private networks

It is important for small cell vendors to understand if the market will be large enough in a dedicated country and
if there will be additional requirements in terms of adjacent bands protection. Real neutral R&D expertise would
be needed to be able to make decisions.

2.3.1.2 Open RAN
Open RAN is a subset of the RAN market with new entrants providing elements of the whole RAN. Open RAN
equipment is suitable for private networks deployment. The three main suppliers in the Open RAN market today
are NEC, Samsung, and Fujitsu according to Dell’Oro Group and it is estimated that 200,000 Open RAN base
stations will be shipped in 2022 (source Joe Madden).
Figure 2.16: Revenue forecast for RAN and Open RAN

Source: ABI Research

2.3.1.3 C-band support (n77 and/or n78)
Vendors do not always publish information about frequency bands supported by their RF network equipment.
We requested information from some vendors and indicate in the table below the main characteristics of small
cells suitable for indoor and outdoor 5G private network deployment.
Figure 2.17: 5G small cells main characteristics

Vendor

Product

Frequency
band

Airspan

AirSpeed
2200

Sub-6 GHz

Dual/single
sector

Airspan

AirVelocity
1900

Sub-6 GHz

Benetel

5G-O-RU*
RAN 550

n78 (33003800MHz)
n77u (37004200MHz)
n79 (44005000MHz)

© 2022 Plum Consulting

Configuration Deployment
type

Channel BW

Antenna

Power

Outdoor

150 MHz

Integrated/
External

4T4R

Indoor

100 MHz

Integrated

2x250 mW

4T4R

Indoor

100 MHz

Integrated

Up to 24dBm
(at antenna
port)

19

Considerations on the equipment ecosystem for 5G private networks

Vendor

Product

Frequency
band

Comba

Open
Platform
Small Cell DP

n78

n/a

Fujitsu

RU

Sub 6 Band:
600 MHz –
5.0 GHz

Mavenir

E511

Samsung
STL

2 5G private networks

Configuration Deployment
type

Channel BW

Antenna

Power

Indoor

50/60/80/100
MHz

Integrated

n/a

4TRX – 64TRX

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n78

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Link Cell

CBRS, n79,
n257

n/a

Indoor

100 MHz

Integrated

n/a

Garuda

n78

1 CC, 4T4R

Indoor RU

100 MHz

Omni

4x 250mW

Legend: BW: bandwidth; n/a: not available; *: Open RAN support (split 7.2)
Source: Plum Consulting

2.3.2 Chipset manufacturers
2.3.2.1 Tier-one chipset manufacturers
Qualcomm, Mediatek and Broadcom are the leaders in the 5G smartphone market today. Qualcomm and
Mediatek are the leaders in the smartphone chipset market. Broadcom provides custom RF front end module
(FEM) devices for mobile wireless applications.
In 2021, some chipset manufacturers started to develop 5G products for other devices such as CPE (Customer
Premises Equipment) for fixed wireless access such as MediaTek T750, industrial modules (Qualcomm 315), PC
modules (MediaTek T700).
In the Open-RAN market, various chipsets are used in 5G base stations for the RF functions and the broadband
treatment. The latter allows the use of off-the-shelf hardware using non-specialized chipsets provided by Intel,
ADI, Marvell and Nvidia – as well as in-house developments from Nokia, Ericsson and Huawei.

2.3.2.2 Tier-two and three
Many tier-two chipset manufacturers such as Infineon, Sequans or Qorvo provide chipsets for IoT applications
and modules. Availability of cheap chipsets for IIoT seems to be limited today for 5G. Qorvo offers RF
components such as 5G Infrastructure Front End Modules covering frequency bands up to 5 GHz.

2.3.2.3 C-band support by chipset manufacturers
C-Band support for 3GPP Release 16 started in 2021 when major chipset manufacturers such as MediaTek
(M80/T800), Qualcomm (x62/65) or UNISOC (V516) released modems able to support this frequency range.
In October 2022, it seems that Qualcomm’ chipsets do not support 5G for the US CBRS band. This is likely to be
implemented in upcoming versions of their chipset for the US market.
In October 2022, Sequans, does not appear to provide chipsets or modules supporting the n77 or n78 bands.
© 2022 Plum Consulting

20

Considerations on the equipment ecosystem for 5G private networks

2 5G private networks

2.3.3 Device manufacturers
2.3.3.1 Market status
Hundreds of 4G devices are available for the C-band today but there are less 5G devices on the market. Airspan
indicated that in the USA, it is easier today to get 4G devices for the CBRS band than 5G devices and that the
performances are the same due to the constraints linked to Qualcomm’ chipsets. According to Nokia, “For
4.9G/LTE, there is a very developed industrial ecosystem with over 6,800 LTE-enabled non-phone-form factor
devices”.
In order to provide devices together with the infrastructure for private mobile networks, Nokia works with
partners such as Savox, that brings ruggedized LTE and 5G devices for industrial environments.

2.3.3.2 Dedicated devices and modules availability for 4G/5G private network users
Radio Frequency (RF) module suppliers, integrate 5G chipsets onto dedicated modules for IoT applications. 5G
modules can be integrated into devices and for various industrial applications such as Industrial Router,
Industrial personal digital assistant, Rugged Tablet PC and Digital Signage. Players in this field include AW2S,
Comba, KRW, MTI, Quectel, Sierra Wireless, Telit…
•

Sierra Wireless is an example of a device vendor supporting the C-band with 5G modules covering n77,
n78 and n79 frequency bands. It seems that these modules are mainly targeting the Asian and US
markets.

Figure 2.18: Sierra Wireless 5G modules

© 2022 Plum Consulting

21

Considerations on the equipment ecosystem for 5G private networks

2 5G private networks

Source: Sierra Wireless

•

Quectel: the Quectel RM510Q-GL and the 5G RM50xQ series modules incorporate Qualcomm’ chipsets
and support bands n77, n78 and n79. They support a wide range of eMBB and IoT applications such as
industrial router, home gateway, STB, industrial laptop, consumer laptop, industrial PDA, rugged tablet
PC, video surveillance and digital signage.

•

Telit: the FN990Axx LTE/5G data card incorporates Qualcomm’ chipsets and supports bands n77, n78
and n79. They target future-proof IoT, enterprise applications and video.

5G industrial devices
•

In the USA, Sierra Wireless’s EM7511 module along with several gateways have been certified for the
CBRS band.

•

Many vendors already provide 5G industrial devices such as routers (Advantech, HMS, Milesight,
Siemens, Wlink…) or Industrial IoT modules.

Figure 2.19: Example of industrial 5G router

Source: Siemens

2.3.3.3 C-band support by device manufacturers
Major modules and device manufacturers support frequency bands n77, n78, n79. Smaller manufacturers may
only support band n78.
Figure 2.20: 5G industrial devices main characteristics
Vendor

Product

Type

Frequency bands

Mobile/
Fixed

NSA/SA
support

Carriers/Vendors validation/certification

Advantech

ICR-4453

Router

n77/n78/n79

Fixed

Yes

Deutsche Telekom, AT&T, FirstNet, T-Mobile,
Verizon (planned), Telstra

HMS

5G Starterkit

Router

n78 (other bands
on request)

Fixed

Yes

T-Mobile/tested and verified in collaboration
with Ericsson

Milesight

UR75-5G

Router

n77, n78, n79

Fixed

Quectel

RG500Q-EA

IoT
module

n77, n78, n79

Mobile

Yes

Many MNOs

© 2022 Plum Consulting

22

Considerations on the equipment ecosystem for 5G private networks

2 5G private networks

Vendor

Product

Type

Frequency bands

Mobile/
Fixed

NSA/SA
support

Carriers/Vendors validation/certification

Siemens

SCALANCE
MUM853-1 5G
router (EU)

Router

NSA: n77, n78,n79
SA: n77, n78

Fixed

Yes

Sierra
Wireless

EM Series (M.2)

IoT
module

n77, n78, n79

Mobile

Yes

Many MNOs

WLINK

G930 Industrial
5G Router

Router

n77/n78/n79

Fixed

Yes

n/a

Source: Plum Consulting

2.4

Base station and device options and limitations

In this sub-section, we discuss how equipment can cope with additional constraints such as protection of
adjacent bands.

2.4.1

5G base stations

There are more constraints on base stations than on devices as the former manage the radio link and the device
power level. Learnings from the interviews are the following:
•

Antenna systems: 2x2 or 4x4 antenna configurations are available for most indoor small cells available
on the European market. Massive MIMO configurations provided for macro base stations are not well
suited to 5G private networks as the radiated power can exceed reasonable limits in certain areas of the
coverage zone.

•

Adjacent band protection beyond 3GPP specifications & ability to effectively handle specific restrictions
for out-of-band emissions (ability to add/change filtering profiles). The 5G base stations adapt to their
environment (power level) but it is expected that many small cell manufacturers will not do any
dedicated development (add a filter for instance) if there is a specific national regulation on top of
European regulations or to meet stringent out of band emissions.

•

Carrier aggregation between 3.4-3.5 GHz or 3.7-3.8 GHz and a potential future allocation in 3.8-4.2 GHz
for localised networks: Airspan recently discussed with EUWENA (European Users Wireless Enterprise
Network Association) on the same topic and answered that it is mainly an issue for 5G devices and thus
a question for chipset and device manufacturers. While technically possible the ability in practice to
aggregate the 3.4-3.5 GHz band with the 3.8-4.2 GHz band will depend on equipment vendor
development choices (i.e. do they see demand for the additional complexity that might be involved)..

•

In the 3.8-4.2 GHz band, the UK set up a dedicated spectrum mask which would have obliged Airspan to
add an external cavity filter. Due to the mechanical and costs constraints this implies, Airspan decided
not to address this market. Other vendors have addressed this market including incumbent vendors
such as Nokia, Huawei or ZTE as base stations able to support such additional constraints.

•



•



© 2022 Plum Consulting

23

Considerations on the equipment ecosystem for 5G private networks

2 5G private networks

2.4.2 5G chipsets and devices
2.4.2.1 Chipsets


2.4.2.2 Devices
Airspan underlines that in the USA, it is easier today to get 4G devices for the CBRS band than 5G devices and
that the performances are the same due to the constraints linked to Qualcomm’ chipsets. Apple’s new iPhones
support CBRS, and Sierra Wireless’s EM7511 module along with several gateways have been certified for CBRS.
5G Routers are already sold by Siemens. Larger availability of 5G devices for industrial environments in Europe is
expected for 2023. A majority of 5G devices that are coming to the European market support band n77 (3.3-4.2
GHz).


© 2022 Plum Consulting

24

Considerations on the equipment ecosystem for 5G private networks

3

Spectrum options

3.1

Introduction

3 Spectrum options

This section considers options to provide spectrum to 5G private networks and constraints that might apply. It
considers the proposal to use a spectrum reservation at 3.4-3.5 GHz in the Netherlands and makes comparisons
to use of 3.7-3.8 GHz as used in Germany.
In order to consider the characteristics of a spectrum reservation it is important to consider where it sits in the
3.4-3.8 GHz band and what current use and potential future use of adjacent spectrum might be.
Figure 3.1: 3.1-4.2 GHz

3100-3400 MHz
Radiolocation (primary)

5

3400-3800 MHz
Harmonised for electronic
communication services
(3600-3800 MHz fixed satellite
space to earth and fixed service –
both primary)

3800-4200 MHz
Fixed satellite space to earth and
fixed service – both primary

•

In the spectrum below 3.4 GHz the key service deployed is radiolocation. This is primarily shipborne
radar systems, which require protection from harmful interference originating in band and in adjacent
bands. Specific requirements are specified for this in the European Union Implementing Decisions for
the 3.4-3.8 GHz band. There are no changes foreseen to use of 3.1-3.4 GHz and the need to protect
services using the band will continue. The block edge mask requirements for protection of the
radiolocation service apply nationwide in the Netherlands and are applicable to the deployment of
mobile services (public or private) in spectrum above 3.4 GHz. The implications of the protection
requirements are discussed later in this chapter

•

In 3.4-3.8 GHz, which is harmonised for electronic communication services, the main service requiring
protection is ground stations of the Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) when the administration deems this
necessary. There are several ways in which protection can be delivered including physical shielding of
the FSS stations, not assigning certain frequencies to mobile services in the proximity of FSS ground
stations, reduction of transmitter powers and imposing isolation zones around satellite ground stations.
The precise protection measures to apply will be determined by administrations.

•

The spectrum above 3.8 GHz is mainly used by FSS ground stations and again protection of these will
depend on the policy applied by the administration. The future use of spectrum in the frequency range
3.8-4.2 GHz is being considered by the European Commission, which has issued a mandate to CEPT 5 on
technical conditions for shared use of the band for local area network connectivity. The timetable for this
activity concludes in March 2024 with a final report to the European Commission. It is anticipated that,
depending on the outcome of the CEPT work and associated consultation, that the Commission will
move to an Implementing Decision on shared use of the band. It is important when considering the
choice of spectrum for private networks that the potential future allocation of 3.8-4.2 GHz is taken into
account.

Mandate to CEPT on technical conditions regarding the shared use of the 3.8-4.2 GHz frequency band for terrestrial wireless broadband systems
providing local area network connectivity in the Union. 16 December 2021.

© 2022 Plum Consulting

25

Considerations on the equipment ecosystem for 5G private networks

3.2

3 Spectrum options

Status of 3.4-3.8 GHz spectrum

The 3.4-3.8 GHz band is key for deployment of 5G infrastructure and services within the European Union. There
are several instruments applying to its use:
•

Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/2356 - this is the most recent Implementing Decision regarding the
band. It modifies Decision (EU) 2008/411/EC 7 which itself was modified by (EU) 2014/276. The changes to
the Decision update relevant technical conditions with the advance of technology toward 5G and the
adoption of TDD technology for the band (the earlier Decisions permitted a mix of FDD and TDD). A key
part of the Decisions is the definition of Block Edge Masks (BEMs) that apply to base station equipment
operating in the band.
–

The Radiolocation service operating in 3.1-3.4 GHz is a specific case covered by Decision EU
(2008)/411/EC where EU countries with military radiolocation systems operating below 3400 MHz
(two cases are specified) can decide whether to use an EIRP limit of -59dBm/MHz or -50 dBm/MHz
(for non-active antenna systems). Administrations can also set a guard band below 3.4 GHz in which
case the power limit applies below the guard band. In the case of active antenna systems for Case A
the limit is -52dBm/MHz/cell (TRP).8

Figure 3.2: Base station additional baseline power limits for country specific cases
Case

BEM element

Frequency range

Power
limit

A

Union countries with military
radiolocation systems below 3 400
MHz

Additional Baseline

Below 3 400 MHz
for both TDD and
FDD designation

– 59
dBm/MHz
EIRP

B

Union countries with military
radiolocation systems below 3 400
MHz

Additional Baseline

Below 3 400 MHz
for both TDD and
FDD designation

– 50
dBm/MHz
EIRP

C

Union countries without adjacent
band usage or with usage that
does not need extra protection

Additional Baseline

Below 3 400 MHz
for both TDD and
FDD designation

Not
applicable

Source: European Commission

•

The 3.4-3.8 GHz band has been assigned to operators in most of the European Union. In many instances
all spectrum available in the band has been assigned to mobile network operators (MNOs). 9 In Germany,
300 MHz was assigned to MNOs and 100 MHz was reserved (3.7-3.8 GHz) for the provision of local
usage. Bundesnetzagentur has set out guidance for the use of this 100 MHz.10 Sweden, made 3760-3800
MHz available for local private network use in 2021 (indoor and outdoor). So far Germany and Sweden
are the only countries in Europe to make reservations for mobile private networks within the 3.4-3.8 GHz
band. Otherwise, mid-band spectrum in the frequency range 3.4-3.8 GHz is generally being made
available for these networks via leasing obligations rather than specific frequency allocations.

6

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/235 of 24 January 2019 on amending Decision 2008/411/EC as regards an update of relevant technical
conditions applicable to the 3 400-3 800 MHz frequency band.
7
Commission Decision of 21 May 2008 on the harmonisation of the 3 400-3 800 MHz frequency band for terrestrial systems capable of providing
electronic communications services in the Community.
8
Annex 1 to the implementing Decision specifies that alternative measures may be required on a case by case basis for indoor AAS base stations on a
national basis and that in a multi-sector base station, the radiated power limit applies to each one of the individual sectors
9
In some cases the assignments avoid the bottom of the band and have, for example, left 10 MHz of the band unoccupied to provide protection in
services below 3400 MHz.
10
Administrative rules for spectrum assignments for local spectrum usages in the 3700-3800 MHz band (Administrative rules for local broadband
applications). Bundesnetzagentur 01 December 2021.
© 2022 Plum Consulting

26

Considerations on the equipment ecosystem for 5G private networks

3.3

3 Spectrum options

Spectrum for private networks

There are several factors that influence the choice of spectrum for mobile private networks. Ultimately spectrum
demand will be driven by the characteristics of the applications supported on private networks, which could
include mobile broadband, sensors, control equipment, with some use cases being mission critical. Applications
could be used indoors and/or outdoors and be static, nomadic or mobile. A key trend potentially influencing
spectrum demand is the move from devices that are often voice and/or low data rate sensors and controllers to
more sophisticated broadband devices providing more complex and extensive information and control
functions (in both uplink and downlink).
To assess spectrum needs applications can be characterised by considering:
•

QoS – This refers to the application’s requirement in terms of the network speed and consistency as well
as requirements on latency and resilience. High QoS is needed for applications that are mission-critical.
High QoS requires a predictable spectrum environment.

•

Coverage level – This relates to the setting in which the application is deployed as well as requirements
for mobility. Industrial applications can include the use of wireless connectivity in wide outdoor areas
such as on large farms or in indoor spaces such as storage facilities. Lower frequencies may favour
longer range applications.

•

Bandwidth – Bandwidth requirements refer to the throughput level necessary to enable the
application(s) to operate. Some applications (e.g. virtual reality) not only require high QoS but also very
high data transmission rates.

•

Symmetry – Consumer focused mobile networks are downlink biased. However, in some applications,
the relative amounts of bandwidth required for uplink and downlink transmissions differ. Applications
that are based on high-definition video monitoring, for example, will require a very high bandwidth in
the uplink direction.

Most private and industrial network environments require a mix of the above. Mid-band spectrum generally
provides a good compromise to deliver services but in some very dense traffic use environments there may be a
need for mmWave spectrum.
Spectrum for mobile private networks can be accessed via several means:
•

11

Provide the network using spectrum licensed to an MNO. This could include:
–

An MNO directly providing the private network via its existing network footprint and/or addition of
infrastructure to meet the private network’s requirements.

–

Through trading or leasing of MNO spectrum to the entity providing the private network. While this
is possible there are relatively few examples of such transfers to date. The ability to transfer
spectrum on a subnational basis is required for this approach to work. There are leasing / sublicensing arrangements specified for industry verticals in some countries (e.g. in Denmark, Finland,
France)11 for the 3.4-3.8 GHz band, which work as an alternative to a reservation / set-aside but it is
not clear what demand has emerged so far.

Spectrum leasing in the 5G era. GSMA January 2022,

© 2022 Plum Consulting

27

Considerations on the equipment ecosystem for 5G private networks

–

•

3 Spectrum options

Via advanced spectrum sharing mechanisms (e.g. dynamic spectrum access). Aside from the
deployment of the Citizens’ Broadband Radio Service (CBRS) in the United States there are few
operational examples of this approach at these frequencies.

Provide the network from spectrum dedicated for provision of private networks:
–

This approach has been applied in Germany and Sweden for spectrum in the 3.7-3.8 GHz band (see
above).

–

A similar approach has been applied in the UK since 2019 in 3.8-4.2 GHz for low and medium power
local networks. France has adopted 3.8-4.0 GHz for this purpose since March 2022.

The table below summarises our understanding of the way in which spectrum for private networks is being
made available in European countries.
Figure 3.3: Spectrum for private networks in the 3400-4200 MHz range
Country

Band

Conditions

Belgium

3.8-4.2 GHz

Belgium is planning to reserve the band for 5G private networks

Czechia

3.4–3.6 GHz

20 MHz blocks won by O2 and CentroNet were attached to the obligation of
leasing frequencies to support Industry 4.0

Denmark

3740–3800 MHz

Portion of spectrum acquired by TT-Network and subject to an obligation to
lease locally to enterprises and public institutions for private networks

Finland

3410-3800 MHz

The band was allocated to the MNOs with a leasing option from private
networks

France

3.8-4.0 GHz

Available for private networks until the end of 2022

Germany

3.7-3.8 GHz

Reserved for the provision of local usage

Norway

3.8-4.2 GHz

Free 3.8-4.2 GHz private network test licenses for businesses (in 2022)

Sweden

3760 - 3800 MHz

Available for local outdoor and indoor use, minimum frequency block of 10
MHz with steps of 10 MHz to a maximum of 40 MHz

3.8-4.2 GHz

Available for private networks

UK

Source: Plum Consulting

There are multiple factors that might influence the choice of spectrum access method for a business wanting to
implement a mobile private network. These include the coverage, capacity, quality of service and resilience the
network is required to deliver (as mentioned above) and whether or not an MNO solution is able to meet the
requirements. Also of importance are cost and the ability of the business wanting to procure the network to
implement and integrate the solution.

3.4

Equipment for private networks

Harmonised standards exist for equipment that will be deployed in the 3.4-3.8 GHz band. On the assumption
that 5G is deployed the key equipment standard is for 3GPP frequency band n77. This covers the frequency
range 3.3-4.2 GHz. Band n78 covers a subset of n77 (3.3-3.8 GHz). The standards support several carrier
bandwidths:
•

For frequencies in the category “FR1” sub-6 GHz carrier bandwidths range from 5-100 MHz.

© 2022 Plum Consulting

28

Considerations on the equipment ecosystem for 5G private networks

•

3 Spectrum options

Carriers can be aggregated to support wider channel bandwidths up to 60, 200 or 300 MHz using
combinations of two or three carriers.12

Aspects of equipment for private networks have been considered in detail in Section 2. Three key issues to
address from a spectrum management perspective are:
•

The need to protect in-band or adjacent band users. Requirements for this are usually specified for base
stations as they control operation of the radio resource and usually operate at higher power levels than
the devices connected to them.

•

The physical implementation of base station equipment and the flexibility it allows for adaption to
specific circumstances. For example is the equipment modular and antenna and other RF components
fully integrated or can adaptions be made to add extra filtering or change antennas / their
characteristics?

•

The ability to make use of spectrum in the full n77 band frequency range if 3.8-4.2 GHz subsequently
becomes available for private network use.

3.5

Examples of private network approaches

Two cases are considered for this report – Germany with 3.7-3.8 GHz and the UK with 3.8-4.2 GHz.

3.5.1

Germany

The 3.7-3.8 GHz band was made available for local networks in 2019 and Bundesnetzagentur has set out
administrative rules for its use (which can include private networks for industry and other purposes). Key points
covered include:

12

•

Spectrum will be assigned on a technology neutral basis in multiples of 10 MHz. No guard bands will be
defined and only TDD usage is possible. There is no requirement for synchronised network operation
but where adjacent networks are not synchronised there may be a requirement for a guard band to be
applied by the spectrum users.

•

Spectrum users are permitted a relatively free hand in terms of planning their networks and
Bundesnetzagentur does not generally define a maximum permissible field strength at the edge of the
assignment area. However, users are required to operate in a way that does not cause harmful
interference to other networks and are encouraged to use low transmit powers, low antenna heights
and directional antennas.

•

Geographically adjacent networks are required to negotiate coexistence and it is assumed that they will
find appropriate solutions. There is a requirement for operators to submit agreements in this respect to
Bundesnetzagentur. In the event of agreement between geographically adjacent operators not being
achieved Bundesnetzagentur will define a field strength limit of 32 dBμV/m/5 MHz at a height of 3
metres at the border of the assignment area.

•

At the application stage details submitted by local network spectrum users will be used to assess
compatibility for coexistence with incumbent spectrum users. No interference may be caused to

3GPP TSG-RAN TS 38.101-1 User Equipment (UE) radio transmission and reception; Version 17.4.0

© 2022 Plum Consulting

29

Considerations on the equipment ecosystem for 5G private networks

3 Spectrum options

coordinated FSS ground stations in an assignment area. Other coordinated installations in Germany
include:

•

–

Geodetic Observatory Wettzell.

–

Leeheim monitoring earth station.

–

Radio monitoring stations of the Bundesnetzagentur's radio monitoring and inspection service.

–

Radio stations in border areas.

Bundesnetzagentur has defined block edge masks for non-active and active antenna systems operating
in 3700-3800 MHz. These parameters match those set out in the Annex to Commission Implementing
Decision (EU) 2019/235.

As of September 2022 Bundesnetzagentur reported that 249 applications had been made for local licences in
the 3.7-3.8 GHz band and of these 243 authorisations had been granted. The types of entities granted licences
include industrial, media, automotive, universities and research institutes.

3.5.2 United Kingdom
In the UK Ofcom has made spectrum available on shared basis in the 3.8-4.2 GHz band for the provision of local
networks. This spectrum is available under Ofcom’s Shared Access Licence regime which in addition to this
frequency band also covers 1.8 GHz, 2.3 GHz and the lower part of 26 GHz (24.24-26.5 GHz).13
Ofcom has set out guidelines for use of the 3.8-4.2 GHz band.14 Key points covered include:
•

The purpose of licences granted in 3.8-4.2 GHz is for provision of localised networks. It is not permitted
to provide national mobile services using this spectrum.

•

Two licence types are made available:
–

Low power permitting the spectrum users to deploy as many base stations as required within a
circular area with radius 50 metres. It is possible to apply for multiple low power licences to cover
larger areas (contiguous or spaced out). Indoor and indoor/outdoor licensing options are available.
Maximum permitted EIRP 24 dBm.

–

Medium power suitable for larger coverage areas authorising a single base station generally
deployed in rural areas. Maximum permitted EIRP 42 dBm.

•

There are restrictions on applications within 5km of some sensitive installations.

•

Ofcom has indicated that in future it might implement a dynamic spectrum access approach in the
shared access bands and that it may, from time to time, request users to change their transmission
frequencies.

•

Technical conditions for low power licences include:

13

Note that Ofcom has yet to finalise its approach to award of spectrum in the 26 GHz band, See Enabling mmWave spectrum for new uses. Ofcom
consultation 09 May 2022.
14
Ofcom Shared Access Licence Guidance Document. Updated 20 September 2022.
© 2022 Plum Consulting

30

Considerations on the equipment ecosystem for 5G private networks

•

3 Spectrum options

–

Outdoor antennas limited to 10m above ground level.

–

Authorised bandwidths of 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 80 and 100 MHz.

–

Base station: 24 dBm / carrier for carriers of ≤20 MHz or 18 dBm/5 MHz for carriers of > 20MHz
(EIRP).

–

Terminal: 28 dBm (including a 2dB tolerance).

–

Ofcom has defined out of band channel emission limits based on its analysis of relevant ECC
Reports.15 Industry concerns have been raised how the block edge masks specified by Ofcom might
align with the work being undertaken by CEPT in response to the Mandate on 3.8-4.2 GHz.

–

There is no frame structure requirement but Ofcom has reserved the right to mandate this later if
required.

Technical conditions for medium power licences are identical to those for low power licences except for:
–

No specification on antenna height (aside from normal planning limits applied).

–

Base station: 42 dBm / carrier for carriers of ≤ 20 MHz or 36 dBm/5 MHz for carriers >20 MHz
(EIRP).

–

Terminal 28 dBm (including a 2 dB tolerance).

As of end October 2022 Ofcom’s Wireless Telegraphy Register showed for the 3.8-4.2 GHz band:
•

184 low power licences issued to 42 users. The types of entities granted licences include municipalities,
3rd party network builders / operators, industrial, media, universities and research institutes.

•

408 medium power licences issued to 27 users. The types of entities granted licences are similar to those
mentioned above and include public network operators (using the spectrum for non-public network
purposes).

Plum carried out work for the UK Spectrum Policy Forum toward the end of 2021 that considered practical
difficulties with operation of the Shared Access Licence. Key feedback included:
•

Whether coexistence and protection criteria are too restrictive?

•

Determination of options to site masts in relation to existing sites.

•

Maximum permissible height of antennas at a specific location.

•

Calculation of maximum permissible power levels at a specific location.

•

The use of omni-directional antennas and the inability to handle multi-sector cells, directional antennas
and MIMO/beam forming.

•

The need for more thought on handling indoor use cases and whether Low Power Indoor (LPI) and/or
Very Low Power (VLP) regimes could be considered.

15

See Ofcom’s consultation: Enabling opportunities for innovation – shared access to spectrum supporting mobile technology December 2018 –
Annex 5 and resulting Statement published July 2019. ECC reports referred to include Reports 203, 281, and 296.

© 2022 Plum Consulting

31

Considerations on the equipment ecosystem for 5G private networks

3 Spectrum options

These are all examples of issues needing consideration when defining the private networks regime for the
Netherlands.

3.6

Issues for spectrum reservation for private networks

The currently identified option to support a spectrum reservation for private networks in the Netherlands is
3400-3500 MHz. This has been reviewed in this study from the perspective of:
•

Interference to other services, and

•

Carrier aggregation with spectrum in the frequency range 3.8-4.2 GHz should this band be subsequently
harmonised for provision of private networks.

We also compare 3.4-3.5 GHz with the 3.7-3.8 GHz allocation enacted in Germany.

3.6.1

Interference to other services

The table below summarises the potential coexistence scenarios.
Figure 3.4: Coexistence scenarios
Frequency option

Adoption by other
countries for local networks

Likely in-band coexistence
cases

Adjacent band coexistence
cases

3.4-3.5 GHz

None

- Fixed Service
- Fixed Satellite Service

- Radiolocation (<3400 MHz)
- Fixed Service
- Fixed Satellite Service
- Mobile

3.7-3.8 GHz

Germany (3.7-3.8 GHz) and
Sweden (3760-3800 MHz)

- Fixed Service
- Fixed Satellite Service

- Fixed Service
- Fixed Satellite Service
- Mobile
- Possible localised mobile
private networks in future

Source Plum and other public documents – note that FS and FSS GS are not deployed in 3.4-3.5 GHz or 3.7-3.8 GHz in the Netherlands.

Sharing between mobile networks, the fixed service and the fixed satellite service is well understood and
manageable (especially when transmitter powers employed in private networks are lower than those used on
macro cells by MNOs). However, operating adjacent to the radiolocation service is more problematic. There are
several approaches to resolving this:
•

Provide a guard band above 3400 MHz (e.g. 10 or 20 MHz). This would apply nationwide in the
Netherlands as the BEM16 applies to the whole of the country. The application of the BEM nationwide
limits the utility of private networks by reducing the overall amount of bandwidth available at all
locations. There may also still be a need for filtering to be applied to base stations operating low down
in the band (i.e. just above the guard band).

16

Block Edge Mask (BEM) correspond to a regulatory approach for the definition of a set of “common and minimal (least restrictive) technical
conditions” optimised for, but not limited to, fixed/mobile communications networks (source: CEPT). A BEM is a transmitter spectrum mask that
applies at the edge of a contiguous licensed block of spectrum and is designed to offer sufficient protection from interference to any anticipated
receiving system in an adjacent frequency block (source: telecomabs.com).

© 2022 Plum Consulting

32

Considerations on the equipment ecosystem for 5G private networks

3 Spectrum options

•

Reduce transmit power to very low levels for frequencies near to the band edge (or restrict use to
indoor only). This may reduce the coverage provided by private networks and lead to deployment of
more infrastructure to cover the same area. However a greater number of transmit stations in an area
may still require aggregate effects to be considered for interference.

•

Modify the RF transmit chain to include additional filtering that will meet the block edge mask
requirement specified in Decision 2008/411 (EC). While in theory this approach can deliver the protection
required, in practice its implementation depends on whether the equipment is able to be modified and
the willingness of the vendor to do this. If it is not possible to modify the equipment then it will not meet
the requirement and cannot be used Provision of such filtering capability on MIMO and/or active
antenna systems might also be expensive and problematic. Key considerations to implement protection
through additional filtering are:
–

The form factor of the equipment. Radio units for macro cell and larger base station
implementations may be able to accommodate the additional equipment more easily (e.g. provision
of cavity filters, modification to diplexers / other parts of the transmit/receive chain), although this
will be more difficult and costly for active antenna systems. Small cell implementations may have less
flexibility due to their form factor and space budgets.

–

There will be design and testing costs to develop the implementation to meet the block edge mask
requirements. Without sufficient scale these could result in price rises to radio units that
manufacturers do not consider viable.

–

There will be additional costs resulting from obtaining type approval for the modified equipment.
Again these might not be viable in the absence of sufficient scale of deployment.

3.6.2 Carrier aggregation
While carrier aggregation of two or three carriers is specified by 3GPP for bands n77 and n78 there may be
practical issues with implementation. Ideally for intra-band aggregation contiguous carriers deliver best
performance (intra-band contiguous carrier aggregation) as the configuration can be handled by a single RF
transceiver. If this is not possible and there is a gap between the component carriers an RF configuration that
supports two or more RF channels is required (non-contiguous intra-band carrier aggregation).
Figure 3.5: Contiguous and non-contiguous carrier aggregation
Carrier 1

Carrier 2

Carrier 1

Contiguous carrier aggregation

Carrier 2

Non-contiguous carrier aggregation

Source: Plum

The number of transceivers in equipment (e.g. small cell or user device) is likely to depend on the application
and its price point. We expect to see a range of devices emerge over time and that some of these will be simple
single transceiver designs with others being more complex and supporting higher bandwidths and greater
functionality – in practice the simpler designs are likely to meet many user needs for mobile private networks.
Single transceiver designs will not support aggregation between 3.4-3.5 GHz carriers and spectrum above 3.8
GHz. The same may be true for spectrum in 3.7-3.8 GHz unless the carriers being aggregated are immediately
adjacent and at the top of one band and the bottom of the other.
© 2022 Plum Consulting

33

Considerations on the equipment ecosystem for 5G private networks

3 Spectrum options

For dual (or more) transceiver equipment there are less restrictions and aggregation should be possible
between carriers in spectrum above 3.8 GHz and those in both 3.4-3.5 GHz and 3.7-3.8 GHz. However there
may be RF efficiency issues if carriers are several hundred MHz apart although modern antenna technology
offers better linearity of performance over entire bands. Equipment vendors have suggested, especially for small
form factor equipment, that there might be a sweet spot for private network equipment and carrier aggregation
operating in a 300 MHz frequency range (e.g. 3.7-4.0 GHz) to maximise antenna and RF efficiency.
For aggregation within either 3.4-3.5 GHz or 3.7-3.8 GHz equipment / devices designed for band n78 can be
used. To aggregate carriers between either 3.4-3.5 GHz or 3.7-3.8 GHz with carriers above 3.8 GHz, equipment
supporting either 2 or 3 CA in band n77 is required.
Carrier aggregation requires additional processing, which can increase power drain. While this may not be an
issue for network equipment it might be an issue for battery powered devices (especially those that are required
to support long operational durations without external power) and may lead to some CA scenarios not being
implemented. The uplink capacity required should also be considered.
In many public networks there is a 75%:25% downlink:uplink split based on the need for greater downlink
transmission capacity to support video and other high bandwidth applications. In industrial application there
may be a need for different TDD splits to accommodate more symmetrical or uplink biased services and the
possible use of carrier aggregation to support enhanced uplink capability (e.g. if transmitting UHD video from a
device to the network). It should be noted that the option sometimes used on public networks of using a carrier
in a different band to provide additional / more robust uplink capability will not be available for standalone
private 5G networks based on a single frequency band solution.
Hence, the key issue that arises for carrier aggregation in the scope of this study is with single transceiver
equipment operating in the 3.4-3.5 GHz frequency range and its inability to support aggregation with carriers in
the 3.8-4.2 GHz band should this become available later for mobile private networks.

© 2022 Plum Consulting

34

Considerations on the equipment ecosystem for 5G private networks

4

Analysis

4.1

Why private networks need dedicated spectrum

4 Analysis

The increasing use of automation and other cyber-physical systems for the realisation of Industry 4.0 and similar
initiatives is driving a requirement for more and better wireless connectivity for factories, other industrial venues,
sea and airports and similar locations. There are several ways in which mobile private networks (i.e. networks
serving a non-public mobile application such as an industrial, enterprise or similar environment) can be realised.
Some of these require access to spectrum on a shared basis that is not being used by MNOs or other services.
In other cases, where the mobile private network is procured through an MNO, the private network can run on
spectrum already assigned to the MNO.
Key questions when building a mobile private network are the coverage, capacity, quality of service and
resilience it requires. If these parameters fit with what an MNO can deliver, then using an MNO service may be
an option if price and other non-spectrum factors are suitable. If an MNO cannot meet the requirement, then a
mobile private network may be the way forward. As set out elsewhere in this report it may be possible to lease
spectrum from an MNO to enable the network, otherwise there is a need for access to spectrum to support the
requirement. The type and amount of spectrum required is then a function of unserved demand.
Demand is emerging for mobile private networks. It is difficult to quantify demand where the need is served
directly through an MNO as these cases are not always visible. In the case where a spectrum allocation has been
made to support these networks there is evidence of emerging demand as in Germany and the UK. In Section 2
we have set out forecasts for private networks volumes.17 If one is focusing on use of 5G it is likely that users
could need bandwidths of 40 MHz or more and potentially up to 100 MHz depending on the applications
supported.18
Without an option to access dedicated spectrum there is a risk that the development of mobile private networks
will run at a slower pace, which potentially impacts innovation, productivity and international competitiveness.
Reasons for this might be slower adoption of automation or smarter manufacturing techniques, reductions in
quality through less good sensor and control networks, less effective human machine interaction and a
reduction in flexibility resulting from the advantages wireless brings in terms of being able to reconfigure
equipment and processes. Although development of the mobile private network market using dedicated
spectrum is at an early stage it appears clear that networks builders value the ability to be able to access this
spectrum.

4.2

Spectrum

4.2.1

Options for mobile private networks

There are several spectrum options to support mobile private networks for 5G – examples are set out below:
•

The 3.4-3.8 GHz and 3.8-4.2 GHz bands are commonly identified as they offer a useable balance
between capacity and coverage (given that most of these networks will cover constrained geographic
areas and often be indoors). An ecosystem is developing around these frequency bands to support

17

Note that forecasts for private networks do not distinguish between those using dedicated spectrum and those supported on spectrum assigned to
MNOs.
18
The actual bandwidth requirements for a private network are driven by the sorts of applications being supported (e.g. narrowband or broadband,
the concurrent volume of devices operating in a cell. Other factors like link budget and uplink/downlink requirements can also drive the need for
more spectrum.
© 2022 Plum Consulting

35

Considerations on the equipment ecosystem for 5G private networks

4 Analysis

mobile private networks and 5G specifications allow options to support effective network realisation
(especially for 5G standalone networks).
•

Longer term the 3.8-4.2 GHz band looks like it will be adopted for private (and other localised) networks
in the European Union and this is becoming a focus for vendors and ecosystem suppliers. The band has
already been adopted in the UK and 3.8-4.0 GHz is being adopted in France for test licences.

•

Other licensed spectrum bands available in parts of Europe are the 1.8 GHz (e.g. UK), 2.3 GHz (e.g.
Finland), 2.6 GHz (e.g. France) and 26 GHz bands (e.g. Finland, UK). Unlicensed spectrum can also be
used in the 5 GHz band (e.g. with WiFi 6) and in the CBRS band (3.5 GHz) in the USA (e.g. GAA spectrum
or PAL lease)19.

•

Other bands potentially identified for mobile private networks include 4.9 GHz and further mmWave
frequencies.

For now the use of spectrum in the 3.4-4.2 GHz frequency range appears to be gaining the most momentum
given its characteristics and its developing equipment ecosystem. With some of the other bands that might be
used for mobile private networks disadvantages for support of 5G include lack of available bandwidth and
suitable ecosystems.

4.2.2 Analysis of options for dedicated spectrum
Early movers have used leasing or reservation of spectrum for mobile private networks. The most prominent
example of spectrum reservation (or set-aside) is in Germany at 3.7-3.8 GHz. Equipment vendors have moved to
make kits available to support 5G networks in this band. Sweden has also made 3.76-3.80 GHz available for
similar use.
In the Netherlands two options have been consulted on for mobile private networks and a public consultation
took place in 2022 for the spectrum option 3.4-3.5 GHz (the currently identified option).
3.4-3.5 GHz is problematic for all spectrum users (public and private mobile network operators) due to
protection of the radiolocation service operating in 3.1-3.4 GHz for which stringent block edge masks are
specified in the EU Implementing Decision. The requirement to comply with the protection criteria is applied
nationwide across the Netherlands because radar carrying platforms might be nomadic throughout the country.
Mainstream equipment vendors (e.g. Ericsson, Nokia) have supplied equipment that meet the relevant criteria
but we have been told during the interviews that this is challenging (technical and cost) or even prohibitive for
smaller scale suppliers of 5G private network equipment.

4.2.3 Coexisting with the radio location service
Meeting the protection criteria for the radiolocation service can generally be achieved by several means:
•

Shielding of radiolocation service receiver sites – not really practical given the nature of the service
(radars).

19

GAA is General Authorised Spectrum is unlicensed spectrum that users can access subject to compliance with technical conditions. PAL is Priority
Access Licenses awarded to users on a localised basis. These licenses can be used to support networks (public or private) and PAL holders are also
able to lease their spectrum to support other networks. See the FCC’s overview https://www.fcc.gov/wireless/bureau-divisions/mobility-division/35ghz-band/35-ghz-band-overview

© 2022 Plum Consulting

36

Considerations on the equipment ecosystem for 5G private networks

4 Analysis

•

Use of isolation zones20 around receivers. If there were relatively few of these, this approach might work.
However, if they are spread out and if some are in motion / nomadic use, this approach becomes
problematic due to the total area of all isolation zones and the need to possibly create temporary zones
for moving receivers. The size of isolation zones depends on the parameters applied to the sharing
analysis.

•

In the Netherlands, the aforementioned measures are not applicable. Hence, the use of frequency
separation – guard band could be considered. In some countries a guard band has been created at the
top end of the radiolocation band (e.g. 10 or 20 MHz).21 This reduces the out of band power of any
transmitter likely to interfere with radiolocation receivers. However, even with guard bands other
measures like reducing power within areas where radar receivers are located might still be necessary.
For the Netherlands, that would imply a nationwide limitation in radiated power. Given that localised
networks are likely to have base station transmit powers significantly below those of macro cells the
extent of additional measures where guard bands exist might be limited.

•

Use of limiting power levels as a means of protection can become more complex where active antenna
systems are used (although this is less likely to be the case today with mobile private networks).

If a “generic” approach is to be taken to authorisation of private networks in spectrum close to the radiolocation
service without detailed coordination of every private network – the only way in which this can be achieved is
through guard bands.
According to the interviews most small cell equipment vendors are unlikely to readily support an ecosystem
based on 3.4-3.5 GHz for 5G mobile private networks if they are required to implement solutions to meet the
out of band block edge mask due to the costs, fabrication issues and testing / type approval required to provide
such a solution, especially for one relatively small market. Also, this is a distraction for them from working on an
ecosystem at higher frequencies (e.g. 3.7-4.2 GHz), which is where many are currently focusing their efforts.
Note that the protection issues described largely apply to base stations rather than devices, which transmit at
lower power levels (although consideration may have to be given to aggregate interference levels in some
cases).

4.2.4 Implications of protection
We note that operation in 3.4-3.5 GHz is more complex close to the lower edge of the band when near to sites
of the radiolocation service. For all users it creates additional costs through provision of extra filtering and
potentially implementation of other mitigating measures. Application of a suitable guard band may provide
sufficient mitigation with industry standard equipment but further technical analysis is required to verify whether
this is achievable.
A key question is who is better able to make effective use of this spectrum and under what conditions – public
mobile network operators with access to equipment that can be used in this part of the band even if it is more
costly, or private network operators who may be faced with an increase in costs or reduction in available
bandwidth (guard band) that might reduce the effectiveness of their business plans?

20

An isolation zone refers to an area around a receiver where other transmissions are not allowed or are restricted to ensure that harmful interference
is not being caused to the protected service.
21
Note that this might be implemented as 10 MHz below the band edge and 10 MHz above the band edge as in the UK.
© 2022 Plum Consulting

37

Considerations on the equipment ecosystem for 5G private networks

4 Analysis

It should be noted that the supply market for mobile private networks differs from that that which serves MNOs
with largely macro networks (although some players developing Open RAN and similar solutions are looking at
both public and private deployments). Also for industrial and other private network players establishing
workable price points for equipment/systems is vital. Suppliers in the private network market need to establish
economies of scale (especially for small Radio Units), which can only be achieved by offering standardised
solutions and largely limiting customisation to what is possible in software.
Hence, it is not possible to treat spectrum in the 3.4-3.5 GHz frequency range as being homogenous as there
are clearly different characteristics and therefore conditions that will apply to use of the spectrum depending on
proximity to the 3.4 GHz band edge.

4.3

Carrier aggregation

This report also considers options for carrier aggregation between 3.8-4.2 GHz and 3.4-3.5 GHz or 3.7-3.8 GHz.
At standards level these aggregation possibilities are achievable (intra-band carrier aggregation in 3GPP band
n77) but whether they can be done in practice largely depends on the implementation of base stations and
devices (chipsets and radio units). Carrier aggregation is always easier to achieve if contiguous carriers are used
but this will not be so for the 3.4-3.5 GHz case and may not be so for the 3.7-3.8 GHz case. Non-contiguous
carrier aggregation requires the use of two or more transceivers depending on how many non-contiguous
carriers are to be aggregated. This is a design and manufacturing decision for vendors based on the applications
likely to be served. We came across examples of both single and multi-transceiver equipment in our research.
A further issue raised is the ability of the RF components (especially antennas) to handle transmissions where
carriers might be separated by several hundred MHz. We understand that there have been significant
improvements to the linearity of antennas used in mobile systems and that while such frequency combinations
might have presented problems in the past they are less likely to do so now.
Hence, the ability to aggregate carriers across the bands specified comes down to more of an equipment cost
and procurement issue, rather than fundamental limitations of the technology.

© 2022 Plum Consulting

38

Considerations on the equipment ecosystem for 5G private networks

5

5 Conclusions

Conclusions

In this report, we have described the status of wireless private networks around the World and analysed the
associated equipment ecosystem for base stations and devices. We have evaluated spectrum options setting out
the availability and constraints on use of spectrum, analysis from other administrations of provision of private
networks and potential future allocations and their implications for spectrum used for private networks in the
3.4-3.8 GHz band. An analysis of this information has been provided and in particular factors driven by choice of
spectrum.
Germany was the first EU country to make a frequency reservation for local networks in spectrum at 3.7-3.8 GHz.
Sweden has also made spectrum available for private networks in 3.76-3.80 GHz. We could not find any relevant
examples of spectrum being made available for assignment to mobile private networks at the lower end the
band (3.4-3.5 GHz). Some countries are making spectrum available for private networks above 3.8 GHz including
the UK (3.8-4.2 GHz) and France (3.8-4.0 GHz). Norway has made spectrum available for test licences (3.8-4.2
GHz). While it is still early in the deployment of mobile private networks, evidence of demand is emerging
through frequency assignments being made in both the UK and Germany.
In addition to the specific allocations / assignments mentioned above, there are leasing / sub-licensing
arrangements specified for industry verticals in some countries (e.g. in Denmark, Finland, France) for the 34003800 MHz band, which work as an alternative to a reservation / set-aside but it is not clear so far what demand
has emerged through these arrangements.
The radiolocation service in 3.1-3.4 GHz creates a problem for operation at frequencies immediately above 3.4
GHz and several European administrations have avoided assigning the bottom 10 MHz of the 3400-3800 MHz
band to protect services in the lower adjacent band. The EU Implementing Decision 2019/235 specifies clear and
stringent out-of-band emission limits to protect radiolocation and allows for a 10 MHz guard band below the
3.4 GHz band edge. The most likely workable mitigation for mobile private networks lacking special/steep
filtering to meet the BEM requirement is the use of a guard band above 3.4 GHz, which will reduce the amount
of spectrum available for these networks but may still provide sufficient spectrum (e.g. 80 MHz). Imposition of a
power limit for mobile private networks in addition to a guard band will also reduce the risk of interference
(these networks are not likely to need to transmit at the powers used by macro cells in public networks).
However, whether such measures will completely avoid the need to fit additional filters to private network
equipment requires further investigation.
We noted a reluctance on the part of some new equipment vendors to adapt their network equipment to
specific RF environments that would require modifications like additional filtering (either because these networks
will be operating at the band edge or of a guard band not fully protecting adjacent services). It is difficult to
modify / add additional filtering to modular small cell implementations, for example. Adaptations might also be
costly (e.g. costs and mechanical issues for filters, diplexers, and other RF components for small cells). There is
less pressure on device vendors.
It is still relatively early in the lifecycle of the 5G network equipment ecosystem for industry verticals and local
network deployments, although activity by smaller / alternative vendors is building to compete with the larger
vendors in these sectors. The device ecosystem is also developing and while there are a growing number of
mainstream 5G devices operating in the band, the ecosystem for other CPE and modules is still at an early stage
and will take another year or more to fully develop as demand for mobile private network equipment increases.
The advent of Open RAN and its opening of more options for building networks with defined interfaces and
simplified radio units may lower barriers to entry for private 5G network equipment development and
production. Other ecosystem points from our research include that with CBRS 5G is not yet supported but
chipsets and RF implementations are being worked on and may come to market in a 12-month window.

© 2022 Plum Consulting

39

Considerations on the equipment ecosystem for 5G private networks

5 Conclusions

Generally, it is also early in the ecosystem lifecycle for 5G standalone private networks but these are coming to
market and are expected to simplify the implementation of private networks over the next 12-24 months.22
Carrier aggregation is possible in both 3GPP bands n77 and n78. On the question of whether carriers in 3.4-3.5
GHz can be aggregated with carriers above 3.8 GHz there is a requirement that band n77 equipment / devices
are used (the n78 upper limit is 3.8 GHz). For n77 aggregating across carriers below and above 3.8 GHz will
require that devices support non-contiguous intra-band aggregation across the whole frequency range of band
n77. From a technical perspective this is possible but realisation depends on equipment specifications
implemented by vendors for the private network market.
While outside the scope of this study it is important to consider the socio-economic benefits of where the
spectrum allocation for mobile private networks sits in the 3.4-3.8 GHz band. To frame this there could be
different benefits from locating mobile private networks at the lower end of the band to those that would arise
from location at the upper end as in Germany. Key to this in each case is to assess how benefits flowing from private
5G deployments (e.g. in harbours and industrial areas) weigh against the benefits driven by all possible end users of
MNO’s.

22

The point on availability of standalone networks applies to both public and private 5G networks and the entire frequency band covered by
equipment (e.g. 3GPP bands n77/n78).

© 2022 Plum Consulting

40

Considerations on the equipment ecosystem for 5G private networks

© 2022 Plum Consulting London LLP, all rights reserved.
This document has been commissioned by our client and has been compiled solely for their specific
requirements and based on the information they have supplied. We accept no liability whatsoever to any party
other than our commissioning client; no such third party may place any reliance on the content of this
document; and any use it may make of the same is entirely at its own risk.

© 2022 Plum Consulting

41