http://solidtechusa.com/blog/
We propose that the integrated delivery network own the technology and or DAS solution. This has several advantages.
1. This will allow the healthcare system look to the carriers for participation in the funding of the system.
2. The healthcare system now has the ability to actually look to the best technology out in this space, versus settling for either what the carrier proposes, and/or outside leasing company.
3. The cellular technology evolution is not static…it is constantly moving forward. For example two years ago 4G or LTE was not even being discussed. If a carrier or an outside entity that “owned” the DAS implemented the proposed in-building coverage solution, how could the healthcare system be ensured that the proposed DAS solution would meet their future requirements?
Overall Cost of Ownership and why this is important to look at?
• As in the aforementioned, when the healthcare system actually “owns” the in-building coverage system; the overall total cost of ownership over the life of the system is actually much lower.
However there are other costs that need to be considered both from a capital expenditure and operational expenditure side.
The vast majority of in-building coverage systems utilize a combination of fiber optic cable and coaxial cable distribution. As said, it is important to look at the capital expenditure cost to implement these systems. The following areas should be looked at.
1. How much fiber optic cable or strands are required from the MDF (Main Distribution Frame) to the IDF (Intermediate Distribution Frame)?
2. How many remote units are required to convert the RF over fiber signal to RF on the coaxial cable infrastructure? More remote units, higher capital expenditure costs.
3. What is the total cost to support all carriers as well as public safety coverage?
4. We do not recommend supporting the use model of combining WLAN (Wireless LAN) with a DAS or WMTS (Wireless Medical Telemetry Service) with a DAS. However if an integrator proposes this; then what is the cost of WLAN and/or WMTS combined with a DAS, versus a separate discrete WLAN and a discrete DAS? Will the WLAN provider if combined with a DAS provide the appropriate warranty support?
Looking at the overall cost of operational expenditures as well as potential liability, one should also take into account the following.
1. Are the remote units in the IDF capable of being locked and sealed from water ingress? This is important because the in-building coverage system has now become a very important communication system in the healthcare enterprise. There should be no way for any outside person to potentially cut cable and or the fire department in the event of a fire to cause damage to the electronics with water.
2.How modular is the system for upgrades to new technology? This is also important because some designs require the replacement of the “remote unit” to upgrade to new technology offerings, or do not allow future expansion?
3. Upgrading and MTBF. What is the calculated mean-time between failure of the system components? Can the system components be hot swappable without taking the system down both in terms of upgrade and replacement?
Recommendation and Rationale
In evaluating in-building coverage system and requirements the market has evolved from a single carrier coverage system to a multi-carrier business model in healthcare. As a result of this there are several business models that need to be evaluated and it is our premise that the owner operated business model provides the best total cost of ownership and protection of the technology investment. From a total cost of ownership many factors need to be looked at that will reduce the initial capital equipment expenditures as well as operational expenditures.