5G PPP Automotive

Working Group

Business Feasibility Study

for 5G V2X Deployment

Version 2, February 2019

Executive Summary

5G-PPP Automotive Working Group | 5G Automotive White Paper

T
he key technology enablers for 5G Vehicle- enabler. The exemplary highway environment
to-anything (V2X) communication are well considered through this work includes 5G radio
studied and understood in the wireless base station sites, civil work and fibre backhaul
industry, while standardization of 3GPP Rel. 16 connections. It is further assumed that this
V2X is in its final phase. Nevertheless, there is still investment could be used to a certain extent to
some lack of insights into the required rollout provide enhanced Mobile Broadband (eMBB)
conditions, roles of different stakeholders, services in parallel to CAM services. The overall
investments, business models and expected costs are standard-wise formed by CAPEX
profit from Connected and Automated Mobility and OPEX including maintenance and service
(CAM) services. It is foreseen that these advanced overhead.
CAM services, including high-definition (HD ) The assumptions that have been made in the
maps support, highway chauffeur, teleoperated context of this white paper rely on working
driving, highly and ultimately fully autonomous hypothesis and estimates aiming at identifying
driving, will be enabled through next-generation the most suitable investments model(s), but yet
5G vehicular networks, starting with 3GPP Rel. they should not prejudge the effective level of
16. economic viability of the CAM business cases as
This second version of the white paper from the it will result from market developments in the
5G PPP Automotive Working Group builds on coming years.
the first one, which was published in early 2018 This work aims at drawing the 5G CAM landscape
[1]. With respect to the first version, this paper of main stakeholders and relationships.
includes further work and enhancements that Moreover, an investment and business model
targets the description of the 5G V2X ecosystem are proposed to describe the value flow
and stakeholder relationships, different sharing between the involved actors. It shows under
models for network infrastructure, as well as a which conditions a return on investments for
business setup and finally a techno-economic the 5G-digitalized highway can be expected,
assessment of the investment. The scope of depending on investment costs, user fees and
the paper is to provide insights and trigger number of users. Moreover, a positive business
discussions on business models for CAM case can be expected, especially when network
services, 5G V2X deployment costs and potential infrastructure is shared between different
revenues. Available research studies, ongoing operators. Particularly in the early phase of the
discussion within the 5G PPP, standardization 5G network deployment, synergies between the
bodies and other alliances are used as references private and the public sector could speed up the
to build the arguments in this paper. deployment, allowing more users to get access
The starting point is that, due to the technical to CAM services with lower charging rates and
requirements of CAM services, the deployment ultimately lead to much safer roads and efficient
of a so-called 5G digitalized highway is a main transportation.

1
 Table of Contents
5G-PPP Automotive Working Group | 5G Automotive White Paper

Executive Summary.............................................................................................................................................................................1

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations..........................................................................................................................................3

1. Introduction.........................................................................................................................................................................................5

2. Business Blocks in 5G V2X Deployment................................................................................................................................7

2.1 Ecosystem of actors and relationships..........................................................................................................................7

2.1.1 Stakeholder categories....................................................................................................................................................7

2.1.2 Primary stakeholder relationships............................................................................................................................8

2.2 Investment and revenue models....................................................................................................................................10

2.2.1 Infrastructure and network sharing models....................................................................................................10

2.2.2 Charging and revenue models.................................................................................................................................11

3. Costs and Profit Analysis...........................................................................................................................................................13

3.1 Business setup and geographical area.......................................................................................................................13

3.2 Techno-economic model....................................................................................................................................................14

3.3 Deployment scenarios and investment-revenue estimations for connected

and automated driving............................................................................................................................................................15

3.4 Discussion and future considerations.........................................................................................................................17

4. Conclusions.......................................................................................................................................................................................19

5. References.........................................................................................................................................................................................20

6. List of Contributors.......................................................................................................................................................................21

2
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

5G-PPP Automotive Working Group | 5G Automotive White Paper

3GPP 3rd Generation Partnership Project

5G Fifth Generation

5G PPP 5G Public Private Partnership

5GAA 5G Automotive Association

ACN Automatic Crash Notification

ADAS Advanced Driver Assistance Systems

AECC Automotive Edge Computing Consortium

CAM Connected and Automated Mobility

CAPEX Capital Expenditure

CEF Connecting Europe Facility

eMBB enhanced Mobile Broadband

ETSI European Telecommunications Standards Institute

gNB Next generation NodeB

HD High Definition

IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

IETF Internet Engineering Task Force

IIC Industrial Internet Consortium

IRTF Internet Research Task Force

ISO International Organization for Standardization

ITS Intelligent Transport System

ITU International Telecommunication Union

LTE Long Term Evolution

MEC Mobile Edge Computing

MNO Mobile Network Operator

NGMN Next Generation Mobile Networks

NR New Radio

OBU On-Board Unit

OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer

OPEX Operational Expenditure

PC5 Proximity Communication 5

3
 QoE Quality of Experience
5G-PPP Automotive Working Group | 5G Automotive White Paper

RAN Radio Access Network

Rel Release

SAE Society of Automotive Engineers

SDO Standards Developing Organization

SLA Service Level Agreement

SME Small to Medium sized Enterprise

TCO Total Cost of Ownership

V2V Vehicle-to-Vehicle

V2X Vehicle-to-Anything

VAI Vehicle as Infrastructure

4
1. Introduction

5G-PPP Automotive Working Group | 5G Automotive White Paper

T
his white paper brings insights on the Looking towards the future radio access, the
deployment costs for 5G Connected and first efforts to define a standard for V2X by 3GPP
Automated Mobility (CAM) solutions with had already resulted into the LTE-based Release
a profit analysis for its financially and socially 14, where broadcast V2V communication is
beneficial commercialization. With more supported. In order to enable more advanced
advanced CAM services, automated driving is CAM services, 3GPP is currently working on
seen as a technological highlight that will shape Release 16, which will be the first 5G V2X
the future mobility concept and improve quality standard, supporting different connectivity
of modern life by providing traffic safety together modes between vehicles. In order to accelerate
with added environmental and information and satisfy the growing demand, the main focus
improvements. Connectivity, and more precisely on Release 16 will be on eMBB services and
V2X communications, is seen as one of key operating frequencies below 6 GHz, whereas it
technological enablers of autonomous driving, is envisioned that more ambitious CAM services
especially in SAE levels 4 and 5 [2]. Already in requiring URLLC and even larger data rates shall
2015, an early 5G Automotive Vision insight be supported by the next releases of the 3GPP
was provided by 5G PPP [3] and in 2018 the 5G standard.
Automotive Working Group followed up with From the deployment perspective, it is non-
a 5G V2X deployment white paper [1]. Here, in realistic to expect that 5G V2X will be deployed
contrast to the first version of the white paper, over the whole road network within a short time
we are focusing on the business feasibility for period but will be rather deployed over a period
5G CAM deployment from a network operator of several years. However, road authorities and
perspective (in this white paper, the focus car manufacturers (car OEMs) cannot expect
is given to key roles in the ecosystem, as it is services interruption during a trip; especially if
possible for different actors to take ownership of CAM is used for safety applications. Even when
certain roles in different markets. For example, crossing borders at corridors there should be
the role of “network operator” could be taken be seamless service. According to the European
a traditional mobile network operator or, e.g., by 5G Action plan, the milestone is set to 2025 [4].
a road operator willing to deploy and manage its Therefore, coexistence of 5G-based systems with
own network). legacy technologies such as 3GPP Rel.14/15
In technological terms, the advance towards fully may be seen, also including possible synergies
automated driving is understood as an evolutionary between those systems.
process and is mainly driven by the corresponding As for any new technology, the establishment and
stakeholders in the automotive industry. From success of 5G CAM will strongly depend on the
the communication technology point of view, it required investment costs and expected revenue,
is meanwhile widely accepted that future CAM especially during its initial years of deployment.
services, ultimately leading to autonomous driving, As the level of required investment has not been
will require a high level of connectivity of vehicles yet clarified, there might be reluctance by some
through an advanced communication technology Mobile Network Operators (MNOs) and other
as 5G V2X. The multitude of CAM services with possible road infrastructure investors to invest in
heterogeneous requirements calls for a flexible 5G deployment to target the 5G CAM services.
radio air interface, where multiple radio access To cope with the large investment costs and
technologies may potentially co-exist. In parallel, to support the natural need for multi-operator
5G core functions and features as Mobile Edge vehicular communication, network operators
Computing (MEC) and slicing are being developed also consider solutions of sharing network
to enhance the end-to-end performance and fulfil infrastructure and other resources.
the technical requirements of CAM.

5
 The conducted modelling approach is generic Connecting Europe Facility (CEF). Considering
5G-PPP Automotive Working Group | 5G Automotive White Paper

for both revenue and cost analysis. In an early all this, our 5G V2X business feasibility study is
stage, advanced driving solutions are foreseen conducted in a highway setting.
to be applied in relatively less challenging areas The remaining part of this paper is organized
with more predictable mobility behaviour and as follows. Section 2 introduces actors and
with easier to handle algorithmic complexity. relationships as well as provides an initial take
One such area are the highways, where only 8% on investment and revenue model options
of the 2017 road fatalities in Europe took place for network deployment. In Section 3, the
[5]. To bring Europe even closer together, the investment costs and profits are estimated,
Commission is promoting the testing of 5G CAM providing insights on sharing and non-sharing
technology in cross border corridors in Horizon options. Finally, conclusions are summarized in
2020 projects like 5GCroCo, 5G CARMEN, Section 4.
and 5G-MOBIX, and further supported by the

6
2. Business Blocks in 5G V2X Deployment

5G-PPP Automotive Working Group | 5G Automotive White Paper

2.1 Ecosystem of actors and relationships

Based on the 5G PPP projects target stakeholders industry, Standards Developing Organisations
[6] we have identified key stakeholder (SDOs), road infrastructure operators, policy
categories involved in the deployment of 5G V2X makers, and users. The relationship between
technologies: 5G industry (network operators, them are depicted in Figure 1.
network and devices vendors), automotive

Figure 1: Diagram of the main stakeholders and relationships in the context of 5G V2X deployment.

From the diagram, we first elaborate on the key by a description of the key relationships among
stakeholders and the main roles they take in them.
the 5G V2X deployment ecosystem, followed

2.1.1 Stakeholder categories

5G industry: these actors include any general developing or using 5G technology or providing
business activity or commercial enterprise 5G-related services. Considering the deployment

7
 of 5G, this may include Mobile Network regional entities in charge of the deployment,
5G-PPP Automotive Working Group | 5G Automotive White Paper

Operators (MNOs), Telecom vendors, Cloud operation and maintenance of physical road
providers and other Technology providers such infrastructure. In some cases, they also have
as device providers, software developers, etc. the responsibility of managing road traffic
Automotive industry: this category includes operations, own or operate the toll system, etc.
car OEMs (car manufacturers), component Each European country has its own regulation
manufacturers, Tier 1 suppliers, CAM service about road infrastructures. Some of them are
providers and HD map providers and other operated by public entities, while others are
automotive-specific technology providers (it operated by private companies, which may be
also includes other services such as the logistic partially owned by local governments.
sector). The category brings the automotive Policy makers: correspond to international,
expertise and services (including mobility European or national government authorities
services) to customers (business and consumers). or organizations responsible to define the
Standard Development Organizations: legal framework and policies, such as road and
correspond to entities whose activities transport authorities or telecom regulators.
coordinate the development, interpretations The ITU as well as national spectrum regulators
and production of technical standards that also belong to policy makers. Policy makers
will be adopted by the 5G industry, including provide the highest authorities and regulate
3GPP, ETSI, IETF/IRTF, IEEE, as well as 5G-related the relationships within the whole stakeholder
alliances such as NGMN, IIC, 5GAA, AECC. In the ecosystem.
case of safety-related 5G applications (e.g. ADAS Users: The end users could be either drivers, vehicle
and autonomous driving), pertinent standards owners, passengers or pedestrian. Passengers
developing organizations such as ISO (c.f. the are expected to take a more active role in the
recent ISO/PAS 21448:2019 Road vehicles -- near future due to the decoupling of the “owner
Safety of the intended functionality) may be as driver” and the embrace of the “passenger
relevant. enjoying different mobility services” paradigm
Road Infrastructure Operators: national or that autonomous vehicles will support.

2.1.2 Primary stakeholder relationships

The primary relationships between the main are relevant in the case of network deployment.
stakeholder categories, as depicted in the Figure For example, it is assumed that there is an
1 diagram, are defined and briefly described in existing link between the Automotive Industry
Table 1. The list does not contain all possible and the Standard Development Organizations,
relationships, the objective is rather to highlight but it can be assumed that this link is indirectly
key relationships from the 5G perspective that handled by the 5G Industry as intermediary.
Table 1: Description of the relationships between stakeholders shown in Figure 1.

Index in Stakeholders Description of the relationship

Figure 1 involved
R1 Users and Policy Users are covered by regulation provided by public authorities.
Makers In the automotive and communications context, this usually
involves environmental, safety and financial aspects.
Users are licensed by authorities.
R2 Users and The Automotive Industry collects feedback and the needs of
Automotive end users to define the requirements and features of the new
Industry products, functionalities and services.
Users are buying vehicles, products and services from the
Automotive Industry

8
Index in Stakeholders Description of the relationship

5G-PPP Automotive Working Group | 5G Automotive White Paper

Figure 1 involved
R3 Policy Makers Policy Makers define the regulation framework that the
and Automotive Automotive Industry follows. The Automotive Industry
Industry provides feedback to the Policy Makers to define and improve
regulations.
R4 Users and 5G The 5G Industry collects feedback from the end users to define
Industry the network requirements, usually in terms of Quality of
Experience (QoE), as well as their needs in terms of services and
new applications.
Users are buying products and services from the 5G Industry
R5 Automotive The 5G industry collaborates closely with the Automotive
Industry and 5G industry to design a 5G V2X technology that meets the needs
Industry. of both on system and component level. The Automotive
Industry defines the network requirements to be met for their
products and services, while the 5G Industry puts requirements
for the functionality and performance enhancement of
communication (sub-)systems.
Within the automotive industry, the component manufacturers
supply the Tier 1s, so that the latter ones can integrate these
components and build higher-level components for the OEMs.
Tier 1 companies are direct suppliers to OEMs, which are the
ones producing the products for the consumer marketplace.
This traditional chain has been extended with the advent of
advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) and autonomous
driving solutions. Now, CAM service providers and HD map
providers are important drivers, together with technology
providers including start-ups, SMEs, research labs and the
academia.
The Automotive Industry players are buying products and
services from the 5G Industry
R6 Policy Makers and Policy Makers define the regulation that the 5G Industry must
5G Industry follow. The 5G Industry gives feedback to the Policy Makers
influencing the definition of new regulation.
Policy Makers also make spectrum available to the 5G Industry
R7 Policy Makers and SDOs have to consider regulatory conditions in standards
SDO development. For example, ETSI is working based on a mandate
of the EU Commission.
R8 SDO and 5G The Standard Developing Organizations define the standards
Industry that are implemented in the 5G deployments. The 5G industry
and the automotive industry need to work hand in hand with
standardisation organisations. In particular for autonomous
driving applications, where high levels of service (e.g. ultra-
reliable low-latency) are needed, technical solutions need to
undergo assessment based on safety standards.

9
 Index in Stakeholders Description of the relationship
5G-PPP Automotive Working Group | 5G Automotive White Paper

Figure 1 involved
R9 5G Industry Road Infrastructure Operators may participate in the deployment
and Road of 5G V2X and provide or facilitate licenses or other infrastructure
Infrastructure requirements that are under their responsibility (This would
Operators require involvement of policy makers). In this way, they may
influence the 5G V2X deployment procedure by defining
network requirements to be considered by the 5G Industry. After
having deployed the 5G network, the 5G Industry shall offer
communication services to the Road Infrastructure Operators
based on commercial agreements. It is expected that 5G network
providers will own and operate most or parts of the network
infrastructure. Potentially, this entity can be further distinguished
between RAN infrastructure provider and cloud infrastructure
provider. The former owns the physical infrastructure such as
the antenna sites and the hardware equipment for the antenna.
The latter owns and manages local and central datacentres
providing the virtual resources such as computing, storage and
networking. Such roles of 5G network providers can be taken by
the MNOs. However, it is also possible that the Road Infrastructure
Operators go one step further and deploy or operate (parts of)
the 5G V2X network, directly providing the necessary coverage
for CAM services to the users.

2.2 Investment and revenue models

2.2.1 Infrastructure and network sharing models

One of the main messages from [7, 8] was that ›› Passive infrastructure sharing: each network
the cost of deploying and operating 5G V2X for operator deploys its own network in the service
providing CAM and other Intelligent Transport area. Only passive infrastructure elements
System (ITS) services will be very high and are shared between operators, e.g. space,
challenging to be carried by one single network masts, power generators, and air conditioning
provider, e.g., a single MNO or Road Infrastructure equipment. These elements could be deployed
Operator. In what follows, four different sharing by Road Infrastructure Operators, a joint MNOs
models are briefly presented, according to venture or third-party infrastructure providers.
the level of sharing of network infrastructure, Savings: 16% to 35% CAPEX and 16% to 35%
network functionalities and radio spectrum OPEX [8].
between different network operators. A possible ›› Active infrastructure sharing excluding
scenario is that, in an earlier phase, sharing is spectrum sharing: active elements of the
more extensive, followed by independent and cellular network such as base stations are
separate investments by each operator. These shared. Each operator is still transmitting on
models will co-exist and be used according to his own spectrum. Savings: 33% to 35% CAPEX
the area and users’ density. Different sharing and 25% to 33% OPEX [8].
models have significant implications on the
›› Active infrastructure sharing including
required investments to deploy and operate 5G
spectrum sharing: active elements such as
V2X networks and the savings in CAPEX and
base stations are shared. One single operator
OPEX with regards to the baseline of no sharing
operates the dedicated spectrum. The RAN
based on the estimates provided by [8]:
connects to the core network of the visitor’s

10
 operator (the different MNOs) directly. Savings: 2G) or sharing agreements related to specific

5G-PPP Automotive Working Group | 5G Automotive White Paper

33% to 45% CAPEX and 30% to 33% OPEX [8]. locations. Moreover, they need to be in line with
›› Core network sharing: elements of the core the regulatory frameworks in each country.
network are shared by more than one network This implies both telecom regulation and also
operator. Savings: the savings corresponding any possible concerns from the competition
to just sharing elements of the core network authorities.
are reported as very low [8]. If the sharing Additionally, backhauling options and other
agreement includes some aspects of the possible sharing models are envisaged. While
RAN, then the savings are similar to active certain areas already count with optical fiber
infrastructure sharing including spectrum backhaul deployed along roads, commercial
sharing model. agreements are sometimes unfeasible to allow
National roaming can be considered a form of sharing mechanisms for such fiber access. In
active sharing [8]. According to this approach, any case, sharing options should be encouraged
subscribers can roam to other networks within a to reduce additional deployment costs; for
country (e.g., in case coverage is provided by an example, if a road operator owns fiber backhaul
exclusive operator in a locality). As in the general infrastructure, it could collaborate with MNO(s)
international roaming case, the connection goes to cover different geographical segment.
to the core network of the exclusive operator The new regulatory business models for co-
before going to the core network of the visitor’s investment and wholesale-only network
operator; this is referred to as Home Routing and provisions that have been introduced by the
it could generate additional delays if used as European Legislator in the European Electronic
the default roaming option. Other alternatives, Communications Code [9] have been identified
such as Local Breakout should be considered as relevant for 5G for corridors deployment, but
for latency-sensitive services. In addition, yet have not been integrated in the modelling
international roaming should be supported work of this white paper as there is not yet a
especially for cross border corridors. sufficient relevant experience in the field. Co-
Any type of sharing will require a certain investment agreements in particular offer
set of agreements between the network significant benefits in terms of pooling of costs
operators, related to the passive sharing (also and risks. Moreover, they are particularly relevant
on a lease base), active sharing involving a joint in challenging areas where there is insufficient
deployment, agreements of using other network infrastructure-based competition due to a lack
operator’s network for a specific technology (e.g. of economic viability.

2.2.2 Charging and revenue models

The revenue models for the 5G V2X deployment today the focus is mainly on infotainment (e.g.,
are highly dependent and related to how audio/video streaming). However, they are
revenues are, or can be, generated on the expected to cover, through virtualization and
application level. For the analysis, we consider artificial intelligence, other use cases requiring
a “pay per use” model to estimate the network isolated software execution environments and
revenues. In pay per use, it is considered that a a secure interaction between applications and
fee is paid every time a section of a road is used vehicle’s smart devices, sensors and actuators.
(similar to toll fees in highways). Other options This translates into new business opportunities
(not considered in the study) include one-time for municipalities, insurances and other service
payment; in this case, it is assumed that users providers, as well as road and connectivity
pay an intermediary up-front fee that guarantee infrastructure owners. Other possible financing
service subscription. Recurring subscription and revenue models include:
(with fair-use policy) is also an important and ›› Advertisement: since in autonomous driving,
likely model. the driver will have time to engage in other
The monetization from the network is highly activities, it is possible to envisage additional
dependent on the services enabled by revenues coming from ads. The same reasoning
connectivity. For example, in-vehicle applications applies to other commercial offers.

11
 ›› Outcome-based (reduction of operational ultra-reliable, low-latency communications
5G-PPP Automotive Working Group | 5G Automotive White Paper

costs, maintenance, insurance, accidents for these applications. This will create new
prevention, etc.). opportunities for the network deployer to create
As 5G deployment progresses and the industry differentiated connection pricing policies and
moves toward demanding vehicle applications charge significantly higher fees for advanced
(especially advanced driver assistance, applications with high-grade SLAs. At the same
autonomous driving, and other safety related time, however, the investment may rise (e.g.
applications), network slicing will increasingly expenditures for first-time and continuing safety
be used to provide a high-grade 5G connections certification by relevant authorities) as more
with guaranteed SLAs regarding in particular ambitious applications are supported.

12
3. Costs and Profit Analysis

5G-PPP Automotive Working Group | 5G Automotive White Paper

3.1 Business setup and geographical area

In order to make a deployment evaluation, we deployment and operation.

make important assumptions to ground the study: ›› The CAM service provider receives a fee from
›› The network deployment investment is done end customers. It could also be envisaged that
by one actor. For simplicity, we call this actor service fees are indirectly covered by OEMs in
network operator (it could be a traditional their service offers to end customers.
MNO or potentially any actor (from Figure 1), ›› The CAM service provider will then pay a
such as a road operator, willing to invest in fee to network operators for the provision
network deployment). of connectivity products and added-value
›› The network operator might have the services. This is the main revenue source
possibility to reuse physical infrastructure considered in the analysis.
(such as towers, power supply or fiber network) The simplified diagram in Figure 2 presents the
from a road infrastructure provider. assumed business scenario. But it is important
›› CAM services might be provided by road to, once again, highlight that other setups are
operators, OEMs, MNOs or other service perfectly feasible depending on the market
provider to have this role. For the analysis conditions and the regional or national interests
purpose, we consider that it is not necessarily and regulatory frameworks.
the same actor in charge of the network

Figure 2: Main business setup for the network deployment analysis. The roles of “Network Operator”
and “CAM Service Provider” can be covered by different actors in the stakeholder ecosystem. These
two roles can even be taken by the same actor, depending on commercial interest.
13
 Regarding the geographical area, two important density of 50 000 vehicles is considered
5G-PPP Automotive Working Group | 5G Automotive White Paper

assumptions are taken: to use the highway segment each day.

1. To estimate the deployment extent a 100 The traffic density numbers are based on
km highway segment is considered, measurements provided by the German
Federal Highway Research Institute [10].
2. To estimate the potential income a traffic

3.2 Techno-economic model

To handle the complex problem of cost ›› Fibre backhaul provision along the highway.
and revenue estimation, some assumptions ›› OPEX
and parameter choices are taken to model
›› Network operation, maintenance and
the calculations. The network deployment
replacement, corresponding to the standard
parameters used for the calculations are based
assumption of 10% of the accumulated
on general assumptions, without any detailed
CAPEX.
technical requirements for providing network
›› Site lease: permissions to use land perimeters.
coverage and connectivity service for advanced
CAM services. The source of income from the perspective of
the network operator is a percentage of the CAM
In what follows, a business period of ten years is
service fee, the part associated to communication
considered, e.g. from 2025 to 2035. In this study, an
aspects. A CAM service fee of 1 Euro per 100 km
estimation of the deployment costs and revenues
per vehicle is consider for end customer, which
is provided for a horizon of ten years. The costs
shall also cover the connection and HD map fees.
presented in Table 2 are considered as our baseline
This is a conservative assumption, since some
scenario [11] and should be only understood as
estimates suggest CAM service provider fees to
coarse estimates for study purposes. The Total Cost
be over 5 Euro per 100 km (0.01 USD per mile)
of Ownership (TCO) includes CAPEX and OPEX.
[12]. Regarding the charge price to estimate the
The main cost contributions for the network
revenues for the network operator, we consider
investment are [11]:
a rough charged fee estimate of 0.5 Euro per 100
›› CAPEX:
km (this is what the network operator would
›› Site infrastructure: gNBs, network equipment, receive for the enablement of the connectivity
cabinets, etc. for CAM services). The remaining part of the
›› Civil works: physical cabinets, fences, antenna customer fee is to provide the CAM service, e.g.
masts, etc. real-time monitoring and updating of HD maps.

Table 2: Deployment costs and assumptions for the baseline scenario.

Parameter Value Unit

5G site (CAPEX) 64 000 Euro per site

Civil works (CAPEX) 20 500 Euro per site

Deployment
Fibre backhaul (CAPEX) 23 000 Euro per km
costs
Network operation (OPEX) 10 % of total CAPEX

Site lease (OPEX) 5 700 Euro per site

14
 Parameter Value Unit

5G-PPP Automotive Working Group | 5G Automotive White Paper

Inter-site-distance (ISD) 1 km
Area and
capacity Deployment length 100 km
demand
Number of vehicles 50 000 Vehicles/100km/day

Connectivity cost for CAM 0.5 Euro per 100 km

55 % for year 1 for coverage

Network deployment rate
Deployment 5 % from year 2 to 10 for capacity
rate 80 % year 1
Fiber deployment rate
20 % year 2

Yearly penetration rate 10 % from year 1 to 10

Costs CAPEX Yearly price evolution -3 % from year 1 to 10

evolution OPEX Yearly price evolution 3 % from year 1 to 10

Even if the trend for data costs is to decrease and need to be reasonable and in general as
over each year, it is important to consider that low as possible. Forecasts expect that cellular
more advanced services will be progressively connectivity will be available in 55% of new
introduced. This will result in an estimated vehicles globally by 2020 and it is expected to
flat charge for the communication services. be higher in the European Union [13] since the
For advanced driving applications, especially consumers demand for connected cars in higher
autonomous driving level 4 and 5, a 5G and legislation for Automatic Crash Notification
deployment implementing network slicing may (ACN) is required in all new vehicles from 2018.
offer slices with the necessary guaranteed SLA Moreover, spectrum costs, engineering and
(e.g. low latency) at significantly higher costs procurement costs are not considered as part of
per 100 km (e.g. 1 or even 2 Euro per 100 km), CAPEX in this study.
creating a separate scenario. As a realistic market behavior, a 10% yearly
The required costs for 5G on-board units (OBUs) penetration of new CAM users is assumed.
for vehicles shall be covered by the vehicle Considering all above, it is then straightforward
owner and are therefore not considered in the to calculate the investment costs, income
current cost analysis. However, these costs may (revenue) and profit for the period of ten years.
influence the expected user penetration rate

3.3 Deployment scenarios and investment-revenue

estimations for connected and automated driving

To gain more insight into the influence of to support all users independently of their
individual parameters on the overall profit, provider and nationality.
two deployment alternatives are considered ›› Deployment 2: the active elements of the
(assuming pessimistic cost savings provided in network are deployed by a single actor. The
[8]): passive elements of network infrastructure
›› Deployment 1: the CAPEX and OPEX investment are shared with the road operator (mast, sites,
for the network and fiber backhaul is carried cabinet, power, conditioning). Cost savings:
out by a single same actor (no infrastructure or 16% CAPEX, 16% OPEX [8].
network sharing is considered). This approach ›› Deployment 3: besides sharing passive
requires national and international roaming

15
 elements, the active elements in the radio captures 35% of the vehicle penetration rate.
5G-PPP Automotive Working Group | 5G Automotive White Paper

access network are shared by more than one The evaluation results for the accumulated
network operator. Cost savings: 33% CAPEX, profit are depicted in Figure 3 for a fixed user
25% OPEX [8]. penetration rate of 10% per year. As observed,
Also, two different pay per use revenue payback periods between four and eight years
alternatives, as introduced in Section 2.2.2 are are expected, depending on the deployment
considered with different values of CAM service and revenue alternatives considered.
fee and traffic density: Nevertheless, where there are parallel network
›› Revenue 1: baseline scenario presented in deployments, the number of subscribed vehicles
Table 2, corresponding to 50 000 vehicles is divided among the different networks, under
using the highway segment each day and a these competitive conditions it is not profitable
revenue of 0.5 Euro per vehicle on each use of to invest in network deployment unless passive
the highway segment. All vehicles are served or active network sharing options are in place.
by a single network operator. From the three deployment alternatives and
›› Revenue 2: it is assumed that several network the two renuve alternatives considered, Table 3
operators provide connectivity along the presents the resulting scenarios.
highway; a single network operator only

Table 3: Resulting scenarios based on the deployment and revenue alternatives.

Revenue 1 Revenue 2

A single network operator makes More than one network operator

a full deployment and provides makes a full deployment, each
connectivity to all vehicles on the provides connectivity only to its
highway. subscribers on the highway.
Deployment 1
This can be interpreted as the case In a realistic interpretation, this
where all vehicles are served by could be the case of parallel network
the same network, using national deployments with no investment nor
roaming. network sharing.

A single network operator makes More than one network operator

a deployment, sharing road makes a deployment, sharing
infrastructure; it provides connectivity road infrastructure; each provides
to all vehicles on the highway. connectivity only to its subscribers on
Deployment 2 This can be the case where all the highway.
vehicles are served by the same In a realistic interpretation, this
network by using national roaming could be the case of parallel network
and passive sharing with the road deployment; with passive sharing of
operator. elements with the road operator.

More than one network operator

makes a deployment, sharing network
and road infrastructure; each provides
Deployment 3 connectivity only to its subscribers on
the highway.
In a realistic interpretation, this could
be the case of active network sharing.

16
 5G-PPP Automotive Working Group | 5G Automotive White Paper
Figure 3: Accumulated cost and revenues for different scenarios.

Note 1: if a single network operator is able to capitalize on all vehicles in the highway segment
(revenue model 1), all deployment options break-even within the first 5 years of service.
Note 2: if there is more than one network operator and the vehicle subscriptions are split, the
deployment options allowing network sharing break-even after 8 to 10 years of service.
Note 3: if no network sharing is allowed and the number of subscribed vehicles is divided among
different network operators, there is no profit reached within 10 years.

3.4 Discussion and future considerations

Considering the sharing models used for the uplink. At the same time, it is possible that a set
cost and revenue estimations, it is important to of services will require ultra-reliable and low-
highlight that certain sharing concepts assume latency connectivity in very specific locations
that the overall investment will be larger for one and conditions. For these reasons, a sufficiently
operator. This disparity in investments is usually dense cellular network using 5G technology
compensated by revenue sharing agreements. will be a fundamental enabler. The deployed 5G
In addition, network sharing can reduce the network will enable a multi-service environment,
investment required by a specific operator. At allowing other services like infotainment to be
the same time, the market demand is divided provided over the same infrastructure.
for more than one operator, these conditions It is important to stress that CAM services can
will ultimately affect the break-even time. be equally provided by actors coming from the
Due to massive sensor data sharing between automotive industry or the 5G industry. In this
mobile users and the access network, a heavy white paper we have considered CAM services
data traffic will be expected mainly in the as part of the automotive industry, but different

17
 realizations are foreseen in this emerging and data. Similarly, a vehicle can be rewarded for
5G-PPP Automotive Working Group | 5G Automotive White Paper

industry. forwarding data to nearby vehicles, i.e. serving

Standard business models as the one shown as a mobile relay. We call this concept Vehicle-
in the previous sections are based on the as-Infrastructure (VAI), and it is an interesting
assumption that the user pays for a service innovative direction to be explored in future
provided by the application developer. However, activities.
the computing power made available by car Finally, it is also clear to us that additional
electronics today can be also used in a different business models may rise since it is expected
way in the future, that is, the vehicle owner can that the whole traditional ecosystem will be
in fact be rewarded (e.g., with money or fees disrupted and changed, as well as new use cases
discount) for providing computing resources and societal impact could appear.

18
4. Conclusions

5G-PPP Automotive Working Group | 5G Automotive White Paper

C
onnected and Automated Mobility (CAM) in terms of the investment costs, different
services require a network with high parameters and scenarios for providing 5G
reliability, speed, capacity, and ultra-low CAM services over the network infrastructure
latency, as well as advanced service features may impact the estimated profit calculations.
such as network slicing. Future 5G network It is mainly related to the OPEX and CAPEX
infrastructures are expected to meet the needs assumptions, but it also depends on the market
of CAM in terms of performance and Quality of share and the percentage of usage of the
Service. infrastructure for CAM services. Since the 5G
The first part of this study provided an overview network will enable a multi-service environment,
of the 5G CAM deployment, including the additional revenue streams are also expected,
ecosystem of actors and their relationships, and leading to shorter return on investment. A
the investment and revenue models. The second positive business case can be expected for roads
part is focused on the costs and profit analysis with a high density of vehicles. Of course, as the
an exemplary 5G CAM deployment case. number of users that can be served is limited by
the road capacity (number of vehicles per km),
According to the model used for the analysis,
the success of investment will also depend on
investment in 5G networks along highways
the possibility to monetize additional services,
can lead to a positive business case. To cover
such as those based on eMBB traffic, along roads.
highways and roads, investments are required,
whose business feasibility has yet to be verified. A detailed breakdown of 5G OPEX and CAPEX
In this white paper, a working assumption is that costs is difficult and not in the scope of the
the investment and revenue models only involve current work. However, the estimated results
the private sector. However, this is not the only give trustworthy insights, which are also based
foreseen setup, since public investments for on existing know-how from previous studies
societal positive impacts will also be available, on network deployment and the extensive
as stated in the Action 8 of the “5G for Europe: available research in the area. Even with
An Action Plan” [4]. strongly conservative assumptions, positive
business cases can be expected. Nevertheless,
One of the main findings of the analysis is that a
a more detailed modelling and analysis of the
key factor influencing the profit of CAM services
investment, which will be required to derive
from the network deployment perspective is the
more concrete and quantitative conclusions,
possibility to consider any type of infrastructure
shall be considered by the authors for further
and network sharing mechanism. Moreover,
study.

19
 5. References
5G-PPP Automotive Working Group | 5G Automotive White Paper

[1] 5G PPP Automotive Working Group: A Study www.analysysmason.com/Consulting/

on 5G V2X Deployment, February 2018 content/reports/investment-in-5G-and-IoT-
5G PPP.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/5G infrastructure-Dec2016/
PPP-Automotive-WG-White-Paper_ [8] BEREC: BEREC Report on Infrastructure
Feb.2018.pdf Sharing, June 2018
[2] SAE: Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms berec.europa.eu/eng/document_register/
Related to Shared Mobility and Enabling subject_matter/berec/reports/8164-berec-
Technologies, September 2018 report-on-infrastructure-sharing
www.sae.org/standards/content/ [9] Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of the European
j3163_201809/ Parliament and of the Council of 11
[3] 5G PPP, European Commission, and ERTICO: December 2018 establishing the European
5G Automotive Vision, October 2015 Electronic Communications Code (Recast)
5G PPP.eu/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/5G Text with EEA relevance
PPP-White-Paper-on-Automotive-Vertical- eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/
Sectors.pdf [10] German Federal Highway Research
[4] Communication from the Commission to Institute: Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen
the European Parliament, the Council, the (Automatic Counting Stations), 2017
European Economic and Social Committee www.bast.de/BASt_2017/DE/
and the Committee of the Regions: 5G for Verkehrstechnik/Fachthemen/v2-
Europe: An Action Plan - COM(2016)588 verkehrszaehlung/Aktuell/zaehl_aktuell_
and Staff Working Document - node.html
SWD(2016)306, September 2016 [11] Edward J. Oughton, and Zoraida
ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/ Frias: The cost, coverage and rollout
news/communication-5g-europe-action- implications of 5G infrastructure in Britain,
plan-and-accompanying-staff-working- Telecommunications Policy, 42 (8), pp 636-
document 652, 2018
[5] European Commission: 2017 Road Safety [12] Lawrence D. Burns, Christopher Shulgan:
Statistics: What is Behind the Figures?, Autonomy: The Quest to Build the
April 2018 Driverless Car—And How It Will Reshape
europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-18- Our World, Publisher: Ecco, August 2018
2762_en.htm
[13] Based on the Ricardo Energy and
[6] 5G PPP: Stakeholders Survey, April 2016 Environment report for 5GAA: Safety of life
5G PPP.eu/5G PPP-stakeholders-survey/ study, July 2018
[7] Analysys Mason: Regulatory options 5gaa.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/
to promote investment in 5G and IoT Safety-of-life-study_Final_Issue-4.pdf
infrastructure in Europe, December 2016

20
6. List of Contributors

Editors
Mikael Fallgren (Ericsson), Konstantinos Manolakis (Huawei)

Contributors
Andrés Laya (Ericsson), Konstantinos Manolakis (Huawei), Gorka Vélez (Vicomtech),
Mikael Fallgren (Ericsson), Shane He (Nokia Bell-Labs), John Favaro (Trust-IT Services),
Panagiotis Syros (Huawei), Michele Paolino (Virtual Open Systems), Bessem Sayadi
(Nokia Bell-Labs), Baruch Altman (LiveU), Mohamed Gharba (Huawei), Markus
Dillinger (Huawei), Leonardo Gomes Baltar (Intel), Jose F. Monserrat (Universitat
Politècnica de València).

This white paper has been designed and printed by Global5G.org, which has received funding from the
European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 761816.