huppe

What are the current challenges in pushing fibre to the home? : 

What are the current challenges in pushing fibre to the home? Jean Huppé Bell Canada Director - Network and Technology Development

FTTH Major Challenges: 

FTTH Major Challenges Critical Mass Technology Cost & Maturity Community Fiberization Very High Bandwidth Services Major issues to be solved before we see a massive deployment of FTTH Cheaper optic components Start with FTTB (business) Very high bandwidth Killer Application Advanced features Improved neighborhood value Competition between cities

Agenda: 

Agenda Service Demand for FTTH Fiber Community Model Options FTTH Protocols ATM-PON (FSAN/ITU) GE-PON (IEEE) Outside Plant Components Access Technologies Costs and Evolution Conclusion

Service Demand For FTTH: 

FTTH VDSL ADSL Service Demand For FTTH Access Speed PC Clip 3 10 15 20 Mbps HDTV DVD Video VCR Video 6 1 PC Video 3 Mbps MPEG-2 500 to 800 Kbps MPEG-4 100-400 Kbps Real Player, Quick Time 14-19 Mbps MPEG 6 Mbps MPEG-2 Download (Best Effort) VOD (Near Real Time) Direct Viewing (Real Time) Most high bandwidth services, like video, can be served today using alternative technologies like ADSL or VDSL May need new services to justify generalized FTTH deployment

Agenda: 

Agenda Service Demand for FTTH Fiber Community Model Options FTTH Protocols ATM-PON (FSAN/ITU) GE-PON (IEEE) Outside Plant Components Access Technologies Costs and Evolution Conclusion

Fiber Community Model Options: 

Fiber Community Model Options Independent SP Networks (Today’s Model) Each Service Provider (SP) builds, owns, and maintains their networks Simple model and works today with optimized topology for each SP Very costly (multiple trenching and infrastructures) and difficult to justify in a competitive environment First SP Builds The Network But Must Unbundle Dominant SP or first in must unbundle loops to other SPs Topologies may not align with other SPs Who serves the least economical areas

Fiber Community Model Options: 

Fiber Community Model Options Joint Trenching SPs share the costs of providing a trench Still different cables, cabinets and equipements What happen when a new SP arrives years later Joint Infrastructure plant Over and above trench, share cabinets, pedestals, enclosures… Multi SP agreement on a common topology and type of passive equipment Manage different mix of SP in different areas, legal implications

Fiber Community Model Options: 

Fiber Community Model Options Independent Infrastructure Builder Independent company builds physical infrastructure (Could include: design, trenching, cable installation and splicing…) Need to be independent from SPs for fair treatment SP are dependant on builder’s topology which may change depending on region or company Independent Infrastructure Builder with Electronics Same as above except with electronics and specific interface (typically layer 2 like GE or ATM) Builders may have different interfaces forcing SPs to use different types of equipements What happen if the builder goes bankrupt or does not upgrade his network to adapt to new capabilities

Fiber Community Model Options: 

Fiber Community Model Options Public Bid from Municipalities Give the municipalities the responsibility to choose one builder or SP through an open RFQ bid Optimize trenching and urban planning Different rules, requirements and types of network from different municipalities (trench only or passive infrastructure or active equipments,…) Gouvernement Owned Monopoly Create a Fiber Utility responsible to fiberize cities and villages Offer a structured approach and could get fiber to the vast majority of the population regardless of revenu paterns Gouvernements are going away from this model with trends towards privatization and competition

Agenda: 

Agenda Service Demand for FTTH Fiber Community Model Options FTTH Protocols ATM-PON (FSAN/ITU) GE-PON (IEEE) Outside Plant Components Access Technologies Costs and Evolution Conclusion

FTTH System Maturity: 

FTTH System Maturity FTTH systems today are first generations Mainly proprietary, no interoperability For mass deployment: need to have standard systems or at least stable hardware Major vendors are coming with systems in 2002 Competing standards: ITU ATM-PON vs IEEE GE-PON 1rst Gen Proprietary Bleeding Edge Pre-Standard Standard 2nd Gen Early Deployment 3rd Gen Mass Deployment

ATM PONalso called broadband PON (BPON): 

ATM PON also called broadband PON (BPON) ITU G.983 ATM-PON approved standards: G.983.1(1998): optical layer, transmission convergence layer, and ATM layer for BPON systems G.983.2 (2000): operations channel protocol and message set (OMCI) between the BPON OLT and the ONT G.983.3 (2001): alternative wavelength plan including additional wavelength band for downstream video broadcast or for bi-directional transport of data using DWDM 155 symmetrical to 622 Mb/s asymmetrical shared by homes for voice and data Guaranteed Quality of Service through ATM: CBR, VBRnrt, VBRrt, UBR… FSAN committee as a major source of input (Service Provider oriented) Alcatel, Paceon (Mitsubishi), Quantum Bridge and others are aligning to offer a standard product Beta products coming out later this year Relatively few vendors but very serious in development work

Ethernet in the First Mile IEEE : 

Ethernet in the First Mile IEEE Ethernet in the First Mile (EFM) IEEE vendor initiative to standardize a Gigabit Ethernet system, including PON IP QoS protocols and Gigabit Ethernet standards exist today but these are open to interpretation by vendors and at first generation EFM standard would focus on end-to-end system level Committee formed in November 2000 Lagging behind FSAN and ITU, could take a few years before any standard would appear Nortel, Cisco, Onepath, Alloptic, and multiple other Ethernet protocol based vendors are participating Large US Telcos also tracking activities of this committee EFM gaining attention but agreement on a standard could be slow

GE-PON Features: 

GE-PON Features Customers share a Gigabit for all their services: voice, video and data Voice is offered as VoIP or as TDM transported in an Ethernet frame Softswitches and calling name servers for VoIP not standard in our network today Video delivery uses multicast protocol: customers receive on demand as opposed to broadcast model Some vendors propose traffic policing techniques to control behavior of network using QoS protocols like MPLS, Diffserv, TOS, VLAN 802.1Q CoS …Others say just over-provision the network at day one and worry about it later! Many different systems, each has it’s own particularity

Other Protocols: 

Other Protocols These systems use proprietary multiplexing schemes with a mixture of different protocols, ATM, Ethernet, RF... Most systems vendors in this category intend to move to FSAN or EFM model Realize ILEC (prefer standard systems) market has more potential than CLECs (willing to go with non-standard) Past experience with non-standard systems: Difficult to evolve with platform, box by box approach Single-vendor approach keeps equipment prices high Interoperability with other carrier’s systems is an issue Limited evolution of platform These systems should not see many generations

Evolution of Protocols: 

Evolution of Protocols ATM near term GE: Momentum MPLS ATM ATM ATM ATM ATM MPLS MPLS ATM MPLS ADSL VDSL FTTH Trend towards backbone MPLS, GE gaining momentum in the FTTH access ATM GE Shared GE will require QoS

Increasing FTTH Bandwidth: 

Increasing FTTH Bandwidth PON Increasing Throughput 155 Mbps ATM 622 Mbps ATM 2,4 Gbps ATM 10 Gbps ATM 1 Gbps GE 10 Gbps 10GE

Agenda: 

Agenda Service Demand for FTTH Fiber Community Model Options FTTH Protocols ATM-PON (FSAN/ITU) GE-PON (IEEE) Outside Plant Components Access Technologies Costs and Evolution Business Technology Alternatives Conclusion

Fibre-to-the-Home From the drawing board to reality: 

Fibre-to-the-Home From the drawing board to reality CSP Riser Loose tube Loose tube Drop Loose tube Splice Vault splice NID Splice Terminal FDI Coupler Closure Coupler Splice Tray Central Office or Fiber Distribution Interface FDI - Coupler Splice Point CSP -

Fibre-to-the-Home From the drawing board to reality: 

Fibre-to-the-Home From the drawing board to reality CSP Riser Loose tube or ribbon Loose tube Loose tube Drop 2 F/O Loose tube Splice Vault splice NID Splice Terminal FDI Aerial Drop Buried Drop Pedestal Terminal NID (Network Interface Device) Central Office

Agenda: 

Agenda Service Demand for FTTH Fiber Community Model Options FTTH Protocols ATM-PON (FSAN/ITU) GE-PON (IEEE) Outside Plant Components Access Technologies Costs and Evolution Conclusion

Costs of Access Technologies: 

Costs of Access Technologies FTTH Overall cost very high, especialy in existing areas High upfront cost requires good penetration thus increases risk Equipment cost should go down with mass deployment Trenching, cable and hardware (most upfront cost) will not decrease dramaticaly ADSL $ 1000 - 1200 US $ 400 - 500 US VDSL $ 1200 - 1500 US FTTH Greenfield $ 1500 - 5000 US Fixed Variable FTTH Existing Mainly served from CO Increment costs from remote cabinets Costs may go down with ultra small cabinet to the outside plant Interface (OPI) Minimum infrastructure costs Ideal location to start with FTTH More expensive for buried plant High risk & fixed costs Capital costs based on 20% take rate, including modem and backbone for voice and Internet

ADSL + Satellite EraNext 3-5 years: 

ADSL + Satellite Era Next 3-5 years 4.7 km CSA ADSL VDSL 1-6 Mbps VDSL ADSL + Satellite 22 Mbps Large MDU FTTH Greenfield Medium MDU FTTH Remote ASAM 50+ Mbps ADSL V D S L F T T H Satellite Broadcast TV Interactive TV Internet High Speed Voice Transparent Delivery

VDSL - 22 Mbps Era5 to 10 years: 

VDSL - 22 Mbps Era 5 to 10 years VDSL VDSL 22 Mbps Large MDU FTTH Greenfield Medium MDU FTTH 50+ Mbps Small MDU Rehab VDSL F T T H Broadcast TV Interactive TV Internet High Speed Voice Transparent Delivery Remote ASAM JWI DSL Box

FTTH - 50+ Mbps Era10 + years: 

FTTH - 50+ Mbps Era 10 + years Large MDU FTTH Greenfield Medium MDU FTTH 50+ Mbps Small MDU Rehab FTTH Broadcast TV Interactive TV Internet High Speed Voice Transparent Delivery

Agenda: 

Agenda Service Demand for FTTH Fiber Community Model Options FTTH Protocols ATM-PON (FSAN/ITU) GE-PON (IEEE) Outside Plant Components Access Technologies Costs and Evolution Conclusion

Conclusion (1/2): 

Conclusion (1/2) Three major components are necessary to attain a critical mass for FTTH Technology maturity and affordable cost Community model for fiber deployment in existing areas Services requiring very high bandwidth Most high bandwidth services today, like video, can be served using alternative technologies like ADSL or VDSL The deployment of fiber in existing areas need to be harmonized and standardized to avoid multiple construction costs ATM-PON have an advance in standards development however GE-PON will come very strong due to the high bandwidth availability

Conclusion (2/2): 

Conclusion (2/2) Outside plant passive components are available today for limited deployment FTTH cost is becoming interesting but for greenfield areas only Bell Canada will use ADSL + Broadcast satellite to deliver converged services in the coming years VDSL will most likely be deployed to relief ADSL when interactive bandwidth goes beyond 6 Mbps The need for massive deployment of FTTH in existing areas may not happen before 5 to 10 years

Slide29: 

Thank You