FTTH solutions for providing broadband services to end-users

FTTH solutions for providing

broadband services to end-users

Thomas Pfeiffer, Alcatel SEL

ITG workshop “Zukunft der Netze”

Kaiserslautern, 1.10.2004

New life for FTTH ?

>

FTTH has been proposed and discussed since the late

80ies, but until recently has never been deployed on a

larger scale

>

Presently environmental conditions are changing :

increasingly bandwidth hungry applications

•

competition for DSL by TV-cable

political programs and regulation

•

aggressive cost reduction of optical components

Outline

>

Observations about FTTH in the market

>

The technology

>

Deployment issues

The need for speed

>

No killer application, but provide triple play services with gradually

increasing bandwidth requirements

•

data

– high speed internet / peer-to-peer networks (file sharing) /

online-gaming / tele-medicine / e-learning / ...

– support for high peak bitrate to support fast downloads is essential,

rather than high average link capacity

•

voice

– POTS / ISDN / VoIP

•

video (the broadband service)

– broadcast TV / HDTV / VoD / time shifted TV / remote video recording /

video-meeting / online-gaming / tele-medicine / e-learning / ...

– video will increasingly shift from mainly broadcast downstream to

Broadband in the market: competition

>

Presently competition for broadband between

• TV-cable / DSL/ satellite (minor) / wireless (to be seen)

>

Broadband in US in 2003 : 68 % via TV-cable, 31 % via DSL

• need for telecoms to upgrade their network beyond cable performance

>

Solution

• either upgrade to VDSL via remote nodes (bitrate not guaranteed)

• or directly switch to FTTH (reliable bitrates, differentiator in the market)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0,0 0,3 0,9 1,4 2,7 3,6 5,5 Distance in km of 24 (.5mm) ga wire Mbit/ s VDSL ADSL Example : VDSL & ADSL over twisted pair

7300 ASAM with

Remote Unit Extension Modules

FTTH / FTTB vs. FTTx / xDSL solutions

Curb

Remote (Area)

MDU

MDU:Multi Dwelling Unit

electr. multi-plexer fiber twisted pair CPE FTTCab -ADSL+ Cabinet FTTB -VDSL FTTC -VDSL Feeder Drop Customer Premise 1 Mbit/s > 100 Mbit/s (downstream bitrates per subscriber) FTTH this talk InterOffice FTTex -ADSL FTTArea -ADSL+

FTTH around the world : Japan

Connected FTTH subscribers of NTT (West + East)

200 650 2000 5000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 in March of year th ou sa nd s u b s c ri b er s FTTH investment 2004&05: 1.83 G$ (=25% of NTT total investments) • Technology : BPON + 100 Mb/s EPON

future EPON: (Gb/s), GPON ? • Services : internet VoIP TV • Cost : 55,- €/month for 100 Mb/s (about 30,- € add. to DSL) 2004: >100 000 new subs per month

FTTH around the world : RoW

>

US :

• joint RFP of Verizon, SBC, Bell South in 2003

• Verizon :presently the only one to deploy; will spend 1 (2) G$ in 2004 (2005);

will have passed 1(2; 5) million homes by end 2004 (2005; 2006)

• 622/155 Mb/s down/up, 5 - 30 Mb/s per user, 35 $/month

• SBC and Bell South: situation remains unclear; no specific actions to be seen

>

Asia-Pacific :

• Korea : moving from DSL to FTTH ; China to be seen

>

Europe :

• Italy : FastWeb in 6 cities, 400 000 users

• Sweden : several small networks, Fiber-from-the-Home • France, Netherlands : several small networks

• Germany : EWEtel deploys FTTH in northern countries of Germany since

2004

Outline

>

Observations about FTTH in the market

>

The technology

>

Deployment issues

FTTH solutions

>

FTTH = FTTU = FTTP = .... (Fibre-to-the-home / -user / -premises ... )

3 solutions with different properties and requirements on

infrastructure, hardware, service transport :

xPON passive star CO (central office) Optical Ethernet active star CO Remote_Node Optical Ethernet point-to-point CO

>

Common requirement for all 3 spolutions:

The need for aggregation

>

LEx and OSP requirements for large scale FTTH deployment

• on average 10.000 subscribers per LEx

(residential + business)

• without aggregation, i.e. point-to-point:

– 10.000 - 12.000 fibres = 35 - 42 cables with 288 fibers – 10 MDF racks needed

– 10 - 15 OLT racks needed

• with aggregation, i.e. point-to-multipoint (1:32 split)

– 315 - 375 fibers = 2 cables with 288 fibres – 2 MDF racks needed

– 2 OLT racks needed

7340 P-OLT shelf

up to 4 PONs / LIM 2048 subs / shelf 3 shelves / rack

Alcatel 7340 FTTU : Fibre to the User (BPON)

Voice, data and video over single fiber (bidirectional) WDM over 3 wavelengths - 1490 / 1310 / 1550 nm 622 (1244) /155 Mb/s data rate over 2 wavelengths separate wavelength for video (el. cable-TV spectrum) 32 subscriber per PON , 20 km reach

20 km 1,550 nm 622 (1244) Mb/s 1,490 nm 1,310 nm Splitters 7340 V-OLT 7340 P-OLT 7340 EMS Central Office or

Remote Terminal DistributionFibre Outside PlantPassive

155 Mb/s 7340 H-ONT RJ-11 Coax RJ-45 POTS POTS POTS POTS 10/100 Base-T CATV or DBS HPNA UPS 7310 Voice Gateway to Class 5 Switch Inter net

The PON-abc

>

STM-PON

ITU-T G.982 (ed. 1996)

up to 2 Mb/s

/ user

>

APON

ITU-T G.983.1 (ed. 1998)

typ. 155/622 Mb/s

>

BPON

ITU-T G.983.3 (ed. 2001)

APON + RF video

>

EPON

IEEE 802.3ah ... (ed. 2004)

1 Gb/s net rate

or early non-IEEE Japanese PON 100 Mb/s net rate

>

GE-PON

to distinguish 1 Gb/s from 100 Mb/s version

The future : GPON and EPON specifications

GPON

EPON

linerate downstream 1244 / 2488 Mb/s 1250 Mb/s

upstream 155 / 622 / 1244 / (2488) Mb/s 1250 Mb/s split factor 1:64 (128) ONUs ≥1:16 ONUs

link length 60 km max. / 20 km differ. ≥10 km or ≥20 km (max. 20 / 25 / 30 dB atten. with 15 dB differ. for class A / B / C) WDM upstream 1260 - 1360 nm 1270 - 1360 nm

downstream 1480 - 1500 nm 1480 - 1500 nm

enhancement 1539 - 1565 nm not specified

framing fixed 125 µsec frames flexible grant cycles (up- and downstream) (typ. 1 msec)

Layer 2 protocol ATM and GEM Ethernet

PON transceivers for ONT : major cost factor at ONT

(Infineon samples) SFF style case

Physical layer challenges in PON

>

Burst mode receiver for upstream at OLT :

specific challenge for GPON

• high dynamic range of Rx power

GPON : ∆P_opt = 21 dB

• short recovery time between bursts

GPON : 32 bit = 26 ns

• long sequences of identical bits

GPON : CID _≥ 72 bits

>

No low cost lasers for ONT at high bitrates on long links:

specific challenge for EPON

• mode partition noise limits use of low cost

Video service delivery in PONs

>

Further trend towards higher quality : HDTV is happening today

>

Video services will increasingly shift from mainly broadcast downstream to

unicast bidirectional services with real time requirements

• video-meeting / gaming / ...

>

Transport options :

RF cable spectrum analog + digital channels (fiber performance and Raman crosstalk !) WDM overlay

(1539 - 1565 nm)

broadcast

unicast inband

(in data channel)

over baseband IP

GPON and EPON in the market

>

GPON as successor to BPON :

• well suited to telecoms network due to common ATM base and adaptation to

telecoms‘ needs in terms of QoS features

• equally well suited to data and NGN due to native Ethernet transport (in GEM)

>

EPON as extension of 802.3 Ethernet to p2mp networks:

• well suited to packet transport networks by native Ethernet protocol • adaptations needed to support classical telecom services (and video) • only basic QoS support on Layer 2 (via VLAN-tagging)

>

However: EPON will be first on the market

• early adopters and new entrants will chose EPON (e.g. Asia-Pacific)

• telcos with their legacy protocols and network equipment will consider GPON

FTTH based on switched Ethernet

Voice, data und video over single fiber (bidirectional) WDM over 2 wavelengths - 1310 / 1550 nm

100 Mb/s optical Ethernet per subscriber

PC/VoIP analog Tel. Ethernet a/b 100BASE-FX over SMF N x 1000BASE-LX over SMF 1000BASE-LX over SMF L2/3 Switch set-top box TV Telephony V5.2

Switched Ethernet for FTTH : pros and cons

>

Pro:

• relies on proven and established IEEE 802.3 Ethernet technology

(standard now includes also optical links over SMF and MMF for 100 Mb/s)

• expected to be low cost due to widespread deployment in LANs (and

MAN)

• interoperability of equipment guaranteed (?):

especially important aspect for the CPE market

>

Con:

• needs temperature stabilized outdoor enclosures and onsite electrical

powering

• no support for traditional RF video • Ethernet is a basic Layer 2 protocol:

– QoS and security aspects are only partly supported – needs additional support from higher layers

Outline

>

Observations about FTTH in the market

>

The technology

>

Deployment issues

Network deployment aspects

>

Deployment of fiber infrastructure is the most expensive part

• aerial deployments simplify deployment in US and Asia-Pacific as

compared to Europe

• alternative Right-of-Way solutions as an option (utility companies,

municipalities)

• generally : need for massive deployment within a dedicated program

>

FTTH requires more infrastructure than just the fiber

• outdoor equipment, electrical powering (for switched Ethernet) • lifeline support : to be revised

• connection and adaptation to service core networks:

– additional gateways to classical voice and video networks – common management system

>

Choice of video solution is an essential aspect of network layout

>

Anticipate future migration paths to other protocols, higher data rates

Political aspects

>

Regulatory uncertainties prevent operators from deploying:

• after US FCC had decided not to unbundle the RBOC‘s future fiber

access networks the joint RFP was issued

• China and others in AsiaPacific: presently no way for triple play from one

single operator; negotiations ongoing to change this regulation

• deregulated markets favour competition between multiple players thus

encouraging them to deploy most advanced technology

>

National programs / visions:

• direct or indirect funding (tax reductions); cf. Sweden, US, Korea • national broadband policy; cf. South-Korea, US, ...

Fiber monitoring

>

Large scale deployment of fibers requires means for supervision and

monitoring of fiber performance also during operation

>

Traditional approach :

• use extra OTDR equipment (Optical Time Domain Reflectometer); expensive

and service interrupts; hence only used in case of fiber failures

>

Alternative approach :

• move OTDR functionality into

optical transceiver modules

• upgrade node equipment to

support OTDR fiber monitoring

• detailed presentation on embedded OTDR concept

on ITG conference „Kommunikationskabel“ on 6./7.12. 2004 in Cologne

Outline

>

Observations about FTTH in the market

>

The technology

>

Deployment issues

Conclusion

>

Market :

• Japan is leading FTTH deployment

• In US the competition between cable-operators and telecoms favours FTTH

deployment

• Europe :

– no national programs nor seriously competing technology forces large

operators to consider large scale FTTH deployment, instead focus on DSL

– fiber only in small regional networks

>

Competing FTTH technologies :

• BPON vs. Switched Ethernet

• GPON vs. EPON vs. Switched Ethernet

>

Nationwide FTTH deployment needs political commitments and big