ely as initially anticipated and as a result, the number of chipset/products supporting this market has diminished over time. Reasons for lack of market traction include the following: Interference with macro base station. Not a topic for coverage limited networks but a major issue when targeting capacity enhancement solutions. Consumer value proposition. While the femtocell provides a net benefit to the operator, the operational cost is carried by the consumer (electricity, wireline backhaul, dealing with "yet another box" in the home). Alternative solutions such as Wi-Fi solve (pieces) of the problem in an often more cost- effective way, especially when macro coverage is "good enough" to provide voice support and data can be offloaded to Wi-Fi. The ISC is expected to play a larger role in 5G deployments because of the physical char- acteristics of the deployments in higher frequency bands (C-Band, mmWave). These fre- quency bands have impaired propagation characteristics that dictate smaller cell sizes. In addition, certain target 5G markets such as private networks are ISC markets by definition: regulators stipulate low RF power and implied small cell size. Pico/micro cell The pico/micro follows much the same concept of physical implementation as the ISC, but at a larger scale, supporting typically multiple concurrent RF bands and potentially multiple operators as shown in Fig. 1-14. RF output power/antenna can be higher as the pico/micro cell is owned and managed by the wireless network operator and hence sub- ject to different regulations. Capacity enhancement is the first and foremost reason for pico/micro cell deployment for obvious reasons. The higher output power of the pico cell allows much less dense deploy- ment compared to ISC but still provide the required capacity enhancement. Shopping malls, dense urban deployments, and similar are targeted by pico/micro cells. These cells are typi- cally connected directly to the operator network. Pico/Micro Cell Low Physical High Physical PDCP/ Ethernet DFE/RF M