ngFWA vs Fibre: A Comprehensive TCO Analysis 

In the quest to provide optimal network solutions, broadband operators face a crucial decision: selecting the most suitable technology for their infrastructure. Among the various factors influencing this choice, the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) stands out as a significant determinant. Achieving the right balance between technical capabilities, market readiness, and long-term economic viability is paramount. Notably, TCO can fluctuate considerably depending on the technology employed. Recent analysis has shed light on the next-generation fixed wireless access (ngFWA) as a cost-effective alternative, delivering gigabit speeds while drastically reducing expenses.

Scenario

To illustrate this, let's delve into a hypothetical scenario set in a rural South African context. Imagine 750 households scattered across a sprawling 65 square kilometres of hilly and sparsely populated terrain, resulting in a density of approximately 12 households per square kilometre.

When considering the challenges posed by distance and difficult topography, the estimated cost of deploying fibre is projected at a staggering R10,000 per household reached, with an additional R150 required for each household connection. This estimation draws from a formula derived from a comprehensive 2019 FTTH study, which incorporates a 25% adjustment to account for intricate terrain and inflation. Multiple credible sources validate this cost, while some studies even consider it conservative for such deployment scenarios. For more in-depth information, please refer to the complete research paper, available for download.

In Contrast

For the wireless option, we propose implementing Tarana's ngFWA G1 platform utilising three towers, each equipped with four sectors. The capital expenditure comprises the construction of two new towers, priced at R100,000 each, and the cost of connecting individual households.

With these details at hand, let's break down the capital costs as follows: 

In this illustrative example, deploying ngFWA proves to be a mere 10% of the cost compared to a fibre-based network. However, it's important to acknowledge that these figures represent expenses incurred within the first year. While fibre is often praised as "future-proof" with an anticipated lifespan of 50 years, this projection excludes the potential need for multiple upgrades to electronic components throughout that period.

Scenario

Even if we assume that the wireless network undergoes five upgrades over the next 50 years (although not necessary to achieve gigabit speeds in the first year), ngFWA remains more cost-effective than an all-fibre network. Let's consider the revised costs: 

Under these parameters, deploying Tarana's G1 solution results in a remarkable 47% savings compared to an all-fibre approach over a 50-year span. These substantial savings can be strategically utilised to enhance return on investment (ROI) or reinvested in other critical infrastructure upgrades.

Conclusion

For broadband operators seeking a cost-effective solution without compromising on performance, Tarana's G1 emerges as an ideal choice. This next-generation fixed wireless access product not only delivers endgame connectivity at gigabit speeds but also presents superior economic advantages, costing 50% or less than traditional fibre networks in both the short and long term.

Disclosure: In this blog post, we have made reference to another blog from Tarana Wireless. The referenced blog provides additional insights and information on the topic discussed. We encourage readers to visit the mentioned blog for further reading and a more comprehensive understanding of the subject matter.