Investment decisions for in-building connectivity and private 5G begin with a practical question: what service or operational need must the network meet?
My 18 years of experience in telecommunications span radio network planning, infrastructure investment planning, and implementation coordination for in-building and transportation connectivity projects. This experience has shaped my interest in how technical requirements, delivery constraints and long-term costs come together in an investment decision.
As part of my continuing professional development, I explored selected publications on private-network economics and feasibility. Below, I distinguish their findings from my own interpretation of how they can inform engineering practice.
Define the service requirement first
In-building connectivity describes a service environment, while private 5G describes a network approach. They are not interchangeable concepts.
A distributed antenna system (DAS) supporting public mobile services and an enterprise private 5G network may address different users, applications and operational requirements. Both may be relevant within the same venue, but each needs a clearly defined purpose.
My starting point would therefore be to identify the intended users, required coverage, capacity, service continuity and application needs before comparing investment options.
1. Architecture influences the cost assessment
Frank and colleagues examine the techno-economics of 5G non-public network architectures, including network function virtualisation and neutral-host approaches. Their analysis explores how deployment choices and cost-saving strategies affect total cost of ownership. [1]
My takeaway is that architecture belongs in the investment discussion from the beginning. Comparing equipment prices alone can miss differences in operating arrangements and costs over the network’s life.
However, modelled savings are conditional on the assumptions used. They should not be transferred directly to another project without checking the deployment configuration, scale and cost inputs.
For a venue-level assessment, I would also ask who will operate the infrastructure, maintain it and fund future changes. These responsibilities need to be understood alongside the technical design.
2. Separate projected benefits from demonstrated outcomes
The published abstract of Zhu and colleagues’ aviation study describes an assumption-based economic assessment of a hypothetical private 5G deployment at Heathrow Airport. It considers capital and operating expenditure, projected benefits and financial indicators including net present value, return on investment and payback period. My discussion of this publication is limited to its abstract. [2]
This is a proposed investment scenario, not evidence of realised financial returns from an operational Heathrow deployment.
My interpretation is that the value of such an assessment lies in making the business-case assumptions explicit. Which operational process is expected to improve? What baseline supports the estimate? Who will measure the improvement after deployment?
I would also examine how the decision changes if implementation takes longer or the expected benefits are lower. This helps expose assumptions that deserve further investigation.
3. Feasibility depends on the site and enterprise context
Jairus and colleagues use Estonian enterprise data to examine private 5G feasibility through spatial, technical and economic criteria. Their analysis considers factors including proximity to fibre infrastructure, network coverage relative to site boundaries and enterprise economic activity. [3]
For me, this highlights the importance of connecting network planning with the circumstances of the site. A promising technology does not remove constraints associated with location, infrastructure access or the organisation’s requirements.
The study provides a structured screening approach. My interpretation is that its thresholds require contextual assessment before use elsewhere; screening should inform, rather than replace, a detailed project evaluation.
A practical set of investment questions
Drawing on these publications and my professional experience, I would structure an initial investment discussion around six questions:
- Service need: Which users and applications justify the investment, and what requirements must be met?
- Technical options: Which architectures are suitable, and what alternatives have been considered?
- Lifecycle cost: What installation, operation, maintenance and upgrade costs should be included?
- Delivery responsibilities: Who manages access, approvals, integration and implementation?
- Operational continuity: What availability and recovery requirements must the solution support?
- Benefits and uncertainty: How will outcomes be measured, and which assumptions could change the decision?
In complex venues, these questions benefit from input across engineering, operations, finance and infrastructure stakeholders. My proposed approach is to record the assumptions, responsibilities and evidence gaps together, so that the investment case can be revisited as better information becomes available.
This article is a professional reflection on selected literature, not an original research study or a validated investment model. Its purpose is to encourage discussion about how research can support practical telecommunications investment decisions.
Which factor has most often changed an investment decision in your experience: service requirements, lifecycle cost, delivery constraints or the evidence supporting expected benefits?
References
[1] Frank, H., et al. (2022). Techno-Economic Analysis of 5G Non-Public Network Architectures. IEEE Access, 10, 70204–70218.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3187727
[2] Zhu, Y., et al. (2025). 5G Network for Aerospace Sector: An Economic Review. 2025 International Conference on Software, Knowledge, Information Management & Applications (SKIMA). IEEE. Discussion based on the published abstract.
https://doi.org/10.1109/SKIMA66621.2025.11155239
[3] Jairus, T., Pilvik, R., Korbe Kaare, K., Sadam, A., and Kuhi, K. (2024). Coherent enterprise information modeling for 5G private network feasibility. Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences, 73(2), 100–107.
https://doi.org/10.3176/proc.2024.2.01