DSL Rings White Paper

DSL Rings® White Paper  

INTRODUCTION 

DSL Rings® (DSLR) is a patent‐pending access technology that re‐uses existing copper telephone 

cabling to provide bandwidth of up to 400 Mb/s with Quality of Service (QoS) and Efficient 

Multicast.  Unlike fibre‐ or cable‐based alternatives DSLR can also provide E911/E999 service when 

the power is out. 

ANALYSIS 

Telecom Service Providers are being forced to examine their network’s last mile technology due to 

a number of factors, including VoIP‐based competition from cable providers; and whilst video 

offerings have been in their plans for many years they have had limited success. 

Current implementations of copper telephone networks cannot support the bandwidth necessary 

to offer a realistic streaming Standard Definition Video (SDV) service; even with MPEG4 

compression (requires approximately 4 Mb/s guaranteed/channel).  VDSL2 technology has 

increased the bandwidth‐carrying capability of the wires significantly but, as with all DSL‐based 

technologies, is highly distance‐from‐the‐DSLAM sensitive (see Figure 2). 

Other technological alternatives exist but they all require significant financial investment to 

upgrade the physical cabling, generally to fibre‐based technologies.  The business case for these 

deployments varies from situation‐to‐situation but certainly does not apply to all cases.   

Any additional fibre deployment in the access network, other than for green field situations, 

cannibalises the existing copper wire infrastructure to varying degrees.  FTTP/H replaces the entire 

copper wire infrastructure; and FTTC & FTTN requires replacement of a substantial amount of 

existing, invested in, revenue‐generating infrastructure. 

Wireless‐based network upgrades, whilst being relatively inexpensive compared to fibre, often 

require spectrum licensing, have physical security challenges, and peak bandwidth difficulties.  

They are also subject to disruption, location and reception issues, and they lower the barrier to 

market entry as competing carriers can deploy such solutions almost as easily as incumbents.  

Both wireless‐based and fibre‐based bandwidth enhancement options result in cannibalising the 

existing copper wire that is the single most valuable asset to the telcos. 

To summarise, these developments don’t meet market demands, require disproportionate 

investment, or reduce competitive differentiation. One alternative is shared bandwidth. 

SHARED BANDWIDTH 

Shared network bandwidth has always been a part of our telecom experience.  Statistical 

multiplexing is used by every carrier on earth though the ratios vary from carrier‐to‐carrier and 

location‐to‐location.   

Cable networks are entirely based on bandwidth sharing via a ‘bussed’ model (i.e., one common 

physical wire that everyone connects to). This means that everyone on that network segment can 

see (if they have sufficient equipment and understanding) what everyone else is doing on that 

cable. 

The point is that bandwidth is currently a shared resource in our networks, it has always been a 

shared resource (at varying levels) and there are economic benefits to retaining a shared 

bandwidth model. 

“Bonding” enables a significant increase in bandwidth at virtually every distance provided, as long 

as there are pairs available for the purpose.  Bonding is when the original high bandwidth signal is 

split into several pieces and then each uses several different physical pairs as a single transmission 

link. This process is specified under the moniker G.Bond (ITU – G.998.1, 2, 3).   

The difficulty of applying bonding by itself to the existing cable plant is that there are generally 

between 2 and 4 pairs going into each residence.  If the current standard of 4 Mb/s is used, this 

yields a maximum of 16 Mb/s available to each house (this bandwidth is still shared once it hits the 

DSLAM).  Typically there are only 2 pairs in residences and the maximum bandwidth would be 8 

Mb/s.  This is still considered to be very tight for video transmission, even with MPEG4 

compression (which is not very common) as the bandwidth and latency needs to be guaranteed. 

DISTANCE REDUCTION 

A frequently used technique to reduce the transmission distance seen by electrical (and optical) 

signals is to regenerate the signal somewhere along the path.  This has the effect of resetting the 

transmission distance to zero and starting again.  From the perspective of the telecom network, 

simply regenerating DSL signals serves little purpose and provides no real value‐add.  For example, 

to maintain ‘maximum’ VDSL2 bandwidth (at a 500 ft distance) would require digging up all the 

large >1000‐pair cables every 500 ft to deploy a regenerator; not to mention all the smaller cables 

as well. 

A solution used in the optical domain was to turn the regenerator site into an Add‐Drop 

Multiplexer (ADM).  This allowed the main signal to be completely regenerated, and at the same 

time, add and drop traffic at that point.  The ADM configuration was later modified so that the 

ADMs could be arranged in closed rings so that all bandwidth was available to all sites if they 

APPLICATION TO CURRENT ‘TREE AND BRANCH’ COPPER TELEPHONE NETWORKS 

DSL Rings is a patent‐pending network architecture developed by Genesis Technical Systems Corp.  

The architecture provides most opportunity in the current ‘tree and branch’ network if the portion 

of the network from the Central Office (CO), or Exchange, to the last Pedestal (Distribution Point – 

DP) is bonded.  

Refer to Figure 1 ‐ for a graphical description of the architecture.  Note that the links between the 

houses are implemented via passive jumper wires that do not come back to the Convergence 

Node (CN).  In this way, a single CN design can efficiently manage 2‐16 houses in a given ring.  

Genesis suggests a maximum of 16 houses in the ring due to the delay introduced by transiting 

each node to get back to the CO; however RPR has an upper limit of 255 nodes in a ring. 

DSL RINGS

Figure 1 ‐ Current vs. DSL Rings Architecture 

DP

Ring architecture – 2 copper pairs

Shorter distance between VDSL nodes

2 new nodes

- CN = GTS Convergence Node

- HGW = GTS Home Gateway

CN

HGW

HGW

HGW

HGW

Bonded pairs are used to obtain maximum bandwidth from the CO to the pedestal (DP).  The 

Convergence Node, which is environmentally hardened and powered via the copper wire from the 

CO, terminates the bonded signals and acts as the gateway node for the subscriber ‘collector’ ring.   

As each node in the ring is a full ADM, based on VDSL2, the DSL transmission bandwidth starts at 

zero again on each individual hop.  In most cases the hops back to the pedestal and then to the 

neighbour’s house are less than 250 meters (<750ft).  VDSL2 bandwidth at this distance is about 

200 Mb/s (depending on VDSL2 chipset manufacturer’s specifications and the quality of the cable). 

Please refer to Figure 2 ‐ DSL Rate Curves for comparisons. 

Figure 2 ‐ DSL Rate Curves 

Source: Infineon: “Future Proof Telecommunications Networks with VDSL2” by Stephan 

Wimoesterer, Product Marketing Manager, VDSL2; July 2005. 

With DSL Rings there are two paths into and out of each house, each with the potential of carrying 

up to 200 Mb/s.  Therefore the bandwidth potential for this scenario is up to 400 Mb/s (200 Mb/s 

Eastbound and 200 Mb/s Westbound) depending on the number of bonded pairs and the actual 

distance from the DSLAM to the pedestal. The greater the number of subscribers on the ring, the 

greater the bandwidth pool available due to the greater number of pairs available for bonding 

from the pedestal to the CO. 

Figure 3 – Throughput vs. Distance provides a rate comparison of standard VDSL2 with DSL Rings 

using various numbers of subscribers. 

Bonded DSL Rings Bandwidth vs. Distance from CO

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

50

125

250

375

500

750

1000

1250

1500

1750

2000

2250

2500

2750

3000

Distance (m)

Standard VDSL2

Standard ADSL2+

BDR Bandwidth

RPR PROTOCOL 

DSL Rings technology is based on the RPR protocol that provides multiple advantages.  The 

technology enables a fail‐safe in that, if a single pair is cut, the traffic goes in the opposite 

direction around the ring to get to the network gateway node.  This is extremely useful for 

maintenance purposes, as well as for adding and removing nodes (houses) to/from the ring.  This 

allows for a deployment business case based on customer demand which eliminates the sunken 

investment in a ‘build it and they will come’‐type approach.  RPR also provides built in Quality of 

Service (QoS) for traffic differentiation and managed services as well as an Efficient Multicast (EM) 

capability that significantly reduces overall ring bandwidth requirements for multicast/broadcast 

video. 

RURAL AREA COVERAGE 

Within the DSLR architecture the bonded link to the CO/Exchange, which is typically a binder 

group (20 – 25 pairs depending on the telco), is terminated at the pedestal where a ring is 

initiated.  In rural and suburban areas the pedestals are often connected together by the same 

physical binder cable.  The cable comes out, drops a few pairs to service a few homes, progresses 

down the street, drops a few more pairs, etc.  The pairs that were ‘dropped’ at the first pedestal 

are still physically in the cable bundle that progresses down the street to the next pedestal. 

DSL Rings provides the capability to, not only terminate the bonded link from the CO but to also, 

initiate another bonded link towards another pedestal down the road.  It is thus possible for DSLR 

to provide up to 400 Mb/s bandwidth to homes that are greater than 7 km from the CO/Exchange, 

using the existing copper wire infrastructure, depending on the distances from the CO to the first 

pedestal and between pedestals. 

Figure 3: Typical Rural Telephony Deployment 

Figure 4: DSLR Rural Implementation 

NETWORK EVOLUTION 

Figure 5 depicts an evolution of the current network based on an expansion of the metro 

architecture into the last mile using hierarchical optical RPR rings deployed to the pedestal with 

the Genesis DSL Rings as the last 100m access technology.  

Figure 5 – Evolution of the Network 

Optical RPR Ring

Optical RPR Ring

Central

Office

Central

Office

Central

Office

Central

Office

DSLR

Ring

Convergence

Node

DSLR

Ring

Convergence

Node

DSLR

Ring

Convergence

Node

DSLR

Ring

Convergence

Node

DSLR

Ring

Convergence

Node

which can be used for live broadcast events and CPE software upgrades. The copper telephone 

line can be used to supply electrical power to the convergence nodes and CPE devices. 

DSLAM BYPASS 

The DSLR bonded backhaul link can be logically considered to be a single communications channel 

of relatively significant bandwidth.  Accordingly DSLR blades could be produced that would fit 

directly into Edge Routers, Broadband Remote Access Servers (BRAS’s) or Multi‐Service Access 

Nodes (MSANs) thereby bypassing the Central Office DSLAM altogether. 

value of the network?

Looking  at  work  done  in  the  UK  as  a  reference  and  realizing  that  there  are  much  

greater  distances  and  many  more  people  in  America  even  if  the  total  proposed  $9  

billion  over  5  years  was  matched  by  participating  Telcos,  it  would  not  put  much  of  a  

scratch  in  the  overall  need  in  America  –  if  optical  fiber-­‐based  approaches  were  to  be  

considered  at  all.  In  the  UK  the  Broadband  Stakeholders  Group  commissioned  a  

report  by  Analysys  Mason  (BSG  Report:  The  costs  of  deploying  fibre-­‐based  next  

generation  broadband  infrastructure  –  8  September  2008)  on  installing  optical  fiber  

to  the  whole  of  the  UK.    Their  report  showed  a  cost  of  £24.5  billion  to  install  FTTP  

(GPON)  nationwide,  £28.8  billion  to  install  FTTP  (Point-­‐to-­‐Point,  e.g.:  Gigabit  

Ethernet),  and  £5.1  billion  to  install  FTTN/VDSL.  (The  UK  (British  Isles)  cover  an  

area  about  the  size  of  New  Mexico.)  

xDSL-­‐based  approaches  make  use  of  what  has  been  called  the  trillion-­‐dollar  asset  of  

incumbent  US  telcos  –  the  copper  twisted  pairs  that  go  into  each  residence.    Fiber-­‐

based  alternatives  look  to  replace  this  still  useful  asset  at  enormous  expense.    The  

architecture  of  the  telephone  access  network  has  not  changed  in  the  130+  years  

since  the  telephone  was  patented.    By  making  intelligent  technology  choices  it  is  

possible  to  achieve  huge  increases,  potentially  in  the  vicinity  of  100  Mb/s,  in  

available  bandwidth  at  distances  even  beyond  23kft.      This  seems  incredible  as  the  

standard  DSL  transmission  curves  fall  off  quickly  with  distance:  

The  message  here  is  that,  to  achieve  maximum  DSL-­‐based  bandwidth,  the  FULL  

CABLE  (24-­‐pairs  is  often  called  a  binder  group  in  telecom  speak)  needs  to  be  

terminated  at  the  first  pedestal  in  the  diagram  above.    If  the  bandwidth  at  that  

distance  is  only  4  Mb/s/pair  the  technology  exists  (G.Bond  for  DSL-­‐layer  or  Ethernet  

Link  Aggregation  at  the  TCP  layer)  to  aggregate  the  available  bandwidth/pair  into  a  

single  communications  link.    The  result  in  the  picture  above  would  be  4  Mb/s  x  24  

pairs  =  96  Mb/s  that  can  be  made  available  to  all  downstream  customers.  

As  can  be  seen,  the  distances  after  that  first  pedestal  are  not  insignificant  either.    

The  obvious  solution  is  to  re-­‐bond  all  pairs  going  downstream  to  the  next  pedestal  

in  the  same  manner  that  they  were  done  from  the  Central  Office  in  the  first  place.    In  

these  pictures  it  is  often  easy  to  forget  the  physical  aspects  of  cabling…  at  the  first  

pedestal  (or  cabinet)  the  twisted  pairs  that  serve  the  nearest  customers  are  not  

physically  removed  from  the  cable  (binder).    If  the  cable  was  installed  correctly  

those  pairs  were  simply  cut  at  the  punch  block  where  they  connect  to  the  drop  wires  

that  travel  the  last  100  yards  or  so  to  the  house.    If  they  weren’t  cut  it  is  called  a  

“bridged  tap”  and  is  a  real  problem  for  xDSL-­‐based  systems.    The  point  is  that  the  

physical  pairs  are  still  in  the  cable  that  goes  down  the  road  to  the  next  pedestal.    As  

The  bandwidth  would  be  shared.    As  bandwidth  in  the  telecom  network  is  ALWAYS  

shared;  it  is  just  a  question  of  at  which  point  the  sharing  begins.    Most  people  would  

probably  say  that  being  able  to  share  a  large  bandwidth  is  better  than  having  none  

at  all.  

As  this  bandwidth  has  been  achieved  over  the  EXISTING  copper  infrastructure  the  

costs  are  a  fraction  of  the  cost  of  optical  fiber-­‐based  alternatives  and  the  

deployment  times  are  measured  in  days  as  opposed  to  months.  

This  system  requires  some  intelligence  in  the  pedestals  and  in  the  home  modems  

that  is  not  there  today.    It  also  requires  mains  power  at  the  pedestals.    To  minimize  

delays  in  traffic  that  is  sensitive  to  delays  (e.g.:  voice,  video  conferencing,  etc.)  it  is  

necessary  to  have  the  system  add/drop  the  traffic  from  upstream/downstream  in  

the  pedestals.    To  be  cost  efficient,  the  system  needs  to  have  a  single  piece  of  

equipment  that  applies  to  however  many  of  houses  are  served  by  each  pedestal  with  

a  minimum  of  unused  resources  (e.g.:  ports).    Unused  ports  represent  significant  

amounts  of  stranded  capital  investment  for  the  Telcos.    They  are  also  a  continuous  

electrical  power  drain  for  no  benefit  to  the  telco  or  customer.    The  core  optical  

network  between  Central  Offices  (COs)  solves  this  by  using  optical  rings.    This  

architecture  also  adds  resiliency  in  the  case  of  fiber  cuts.    Applying  these  same  

concepts  to  the  access  network  is  a  technology  called  DSL  Rings®  (DSLR)  that  has  

been  shown  to  work  and  is  being  developed  by  Genesis  Technical  Systems  of  

Calgary,  Canada  &  Coventry,  UK.  

by  femtocells.  

The  question  then  becomes:  if  spending  $9  billion  can  deliver  ultra  high  bandwidths  

such  as  those  described  above  over  completely  brown-­‐field  copper  infrastructure  

for  likely  17  million  of  the  18  million  unserved,  why  consider  spending  the  same  

amount  and  delivering  similar  bandwidths  over  fiber-­‐based  infrastructure  to  

probably  much  less  than  1  million?  

xPON (Passive Optical Network) Optical Ethernet (often called _{Point-to-Point)}

A single optical fiber runs all the way from the CO to the neighbourhood where it 'passes' each house in that neighbourhood. When the customer requests service a technician comes out to 'connect' the house to the single fiber strand via an optical splitter or coupler. In some cases Verizon removed the copper wires from houses where they provided xPON services so that

the customer had no fall-back option.

A 'cable' of fibers is routed from the CO to the neighbourhood. There are sufficient individual fibers in the 'cable' (or 'bundle') so that there can

be a single fiber routed to each house in that neighbourhood if every house requests service. When service is requested by the customer a technician comes out to physically route their individual fiber from the 'cable' to the customer's house. This is similar to the current copper network architecture except

using fiber.

Cost Efficiency

How well does the capital expenditure scale with adding/removing customers? What is the potential for stranded capital

investment?

Highly inflexible physical architecture. Fiber is deployed in the hopes that customers will buy the services offered over that fiber. A neighbourhood has a single fiber deployed to it, then a truck roll has to occur for each customer. High potential for stranded capital

investment.

Highly inflexible physical architecture. Fiber is deployed in the hopes that customers will buy the services offered over that fiber.

A neighbourhood has the fiber 'cable' deployed to it, then a truck roll has to occur for each customer.

Highest potential for stranded capital investment.

Once installed there are no physical changes that need to occur to add or remove served customers. The potential for stranded capital investment is comparitively

non-existent.

Minimal customer impact other than seeing higher bandwidth over their DSL connection. May need a new modem to achieve the higher rates.

However, least return for Telcos in that all it offers is increased bandwidth of 2-4x non-FTTN

systems

Not as cost efficient as FTTN. High initial costs to supply a neighbourhood with the risk of low

take rate on premium services. Higher bandwidth is the only advantage of this approach over

straight DSL or FTTN.

Very long as new fiber cable must be Very long as new fiber cable must be

Faster deployment than FTTP/H but

still requires significant amounts of _{Much longer than FTTN but not as} Economic Criteria

Description Comparison

The 24-to-50-pair cables from the Pedestal to the CO are logically bonded together to create a single communications link. This can be done as a Plain Old Telephone Service (POTS) overlay so that Emergency voice services are not

impacted when the power fails. From the pedestal to the home a copper ring is created by connecting

home-to-home in the pedestal using a passive cross-connect matrix (which enables adding & removing houses from the ring remotely) and using 2-pairs/home. Home Gateway devices in each home terminate (traffic can be added, removed, passed through, or drop-and-continue multicast) and regenerate

the signal on the existing copper lines so that the VDSL2 transmission curve re-starts at each

home. This enables very high bandwidth over the existing copper

telephone wires.

Fiber is routed from the CO to the big cabinet (typically more than 6 feet across and 4 feet high) - often green in colour. A Remote DSLAM is installed in this cabinet along with the big wiring patch panel. The fiber link basically replaces the big

1000-pair cable coming from the CO thereby reducing the distance that

the DSLAM has to transmit. This makes the resultant DSL-based

bandwidth higher as the transmission distance has been reduced by the distance from the Cabinet to the CO. The link from the

cabinet to the house is still the existing copper plant. Often VDSL2

is the DSL technology of choice from the Cabinet to the home.

Fiber is routed from the CO to the Pedestal. This bypasses the 1000-pair copper cables from the CO to the Cabinet and the 24-to-50-pair cables from the Cabinet to the Pedestal. A mini-Remote DSLAM is

installed in the pedestal. The original pedestal - basically a small wiring patch panel - is replaced with a new enclosure that has mains power and batteries. This is an outside plant, environmentally

Power How is power provided to the _system?

Downstream power supplied by CO, upstream power supplied by

consumer mains.

Downstream power supplied by CO, upstream power supplied by

consumer mains.

All power to the pedestal is supplied by the CO in urban situations. Mains

power required for rural applications. Lifeline capability

provided by POTS support.

Mains power has to be supplied to the cabinet, which generally has only a passive wiring patch panel in

it today. The household modem is powered by the household mains.

Mains power required to terminate the optical signal which also suggests batteries and a larger

enclosure than the standard pedestal.

Lifeline Support

How does the system provide lifeline support when the power fails? What if a natural disaster (Katrina, ice storm) knocks out power for an extended period where

mobiles will not be able to be charged from the home?

Lifeline capability provided by batteries in CPE. Typical battery life

is 8 hours or less.

Lifeline capability provided by batteries in CPE. Typical battery life

is 8 hours or less.

DSL Rings can be implemented as a frequency overlay on top of POTS. POTS has been shown to survive weeks without power as long as the

CO power is maintained.

Generally no battery back-up for

power failure situations. Generally no battery back-up for power failure situations.

Sharing

All network bandwidth is shared at some point. What is the mechanism

for sharing the bandwidth?

PON technology broadcasts all downstream data to all houses so all

downstream bandwidth is shared. Upstream bandwidth is dynamically assigned timeslots based on various parameters such as transmit queue

fill levels.

Sharing happens once the traffic reaches the CO in the larger network

'cloud'.

Each DSL Ring-based Home Gateway is an Add Drop Multiplexer

(ADM). All ring bandwidth is available at each node subject to

QoS and SLA provisions.

The copper portion of the link between the cabinet & the home is not shared but the fiber link from the cabinet to the CO is shared between however many houses are served by the cabinet (typical numbers would

be in the several hundreds).

The copper portion of the link between the pedestal & the home is not shared but the fiber link from the

pedestal to the CO is shared between however many houses are

served by the pedestal (typical numbers would be in the 3-16

range).

Security _{considerations in each system?}What are the traffic security

Encryption is used to protect each user's data. Otherwise it is a bus

model and everyone can 'see' everyone else's encrypted traffic.

Most physically secure as the fibers do not go near the other customers

and are not shared.

All traffic is encrypted and the Convergence Node in the pedestal is

firewalled. There is also an aspect of physical security as a user's data

only goes in one direction around the ring. The closer the house is to the pedestal the more traffic that can be seen assuming the technology

and understanding.

Physical security is strong (as the wires do not pass through neighbour's houses). Encryption is generally not used because of this.

Physical security is strong (as the wires do not pass through neighbour's houses). Encryption is generally not used because of this.

Quality of Service

Given that all bandwidth is shared, are there any provisions for prioritizing different kinds of traffic

at higher levels than others?

Can be implemented in the upstream (customer to network) direction but downstream priorities are set by the

network.

Not really necessary until the traffic hits the wider network 'cloud'

Can be supported around the DSL Ring to the pedestal or throughout the network as a whole. Service Level Agreements can be offered based on traffic priorities so that the

network becomes a revenue-generator again.

Most telcos do not implement QoS in these networks as the link to the cabinet is not shared. Unfortunately this means that all traffic is treated

the same once it hits the DSLAM.

Most telcos do not implement QoS in these networks as the link to the

pedestal is not shared. Unfortunately this means that all traffic is treated the same once it hits the Remote mini-DSLAM.

Multicast Support Are there any built-in provisions for _{supporting large broadcast events?} PONs are broadcast media so this _{can be implemented easily.}

Depends on the capabilities of the router that terminates the fibers going to the individual houses. This

has little impact on the bandwidth seen by the individual customers.

Can be supported around the DSL Ring to the Convergence Node in the pedestal or throughout the

network as a whole.

Depends on the capabilities of the Remote DSLAM that sits in the cabinet. This has little impact on the

bandwidth seen by the customer over the copper in this architecture.

Depends on the capabilities of the Remote DSLAM that sits in the pedestal. This has little impact on the bandwidth seen by the customer

over the copper in this architecture.

Infrastructure Re-Use

Deployment timeframes and community disruption are generally lower if the existing infrastructure is

being re-used

None None Complete Partial Partial

Most PONs are split at less than 1:32 but the split ratios can be up to 1:128 for GPON or 1:32k for EPON.

The fibers are there and 200+ fiber

'cables' don't cost a lot more than 10- _{Customers may be added or} Whatever bandwidth is available

Depends on the granularity of the Remote mini-DSLAM that resides in

the pedestal. If there are more customers than ports provided by Logistical Criteria

Managed Services How is the Telco able to provide services that they can charge a premium for?

Carrier has complete control

Only matters in the network 'cloud' as there is really no restriction on the potential bandwidth available to

the home.

Carrier has complete control Only matters from the network to the cabinet as the customer sees a dedicated link.

Only matters from the network to the cabinet as the customer sees a

dedicated link.

Rural Application _{made for deployment in rural areas?}Is there an economical case to be None None

Definite application, ROI Timeframe may be somewhat higher than urban application and would benefit from

government rural incentive programs

Minimal None

ROI Timeframe

How long will it take for the upgraded network infrastructure to

generate an operating profit? [estimated]

>10 years >10 years <2 years >5 years >8 years

Risk Profile

What is the risk that the capital spent will not generate a profit for

the Telco?

Highest Highest+ Lowest by far Middle High

DSL Rings is Better Because…

DSLR is generally less than 1/10 the cost to deploy in urban areas and 1/100th the cost in rural areas, can be deployed much faster, gives Telcos more time to decide what fiber-based option they really need,

can provide POTS when the power fails, etc…

DSLR is generally less than 1/10 the cost to deploy in urban areas and 1/100th the cost in rural areas, can be deployed much faster, gives Telcos more time to decide what fiber-based option they really need,

can provide POTS when the power fails, etc…

N/A

DSLR can be deployed in conjunction with FTTN making the FTTN deployment look even better to the consumer. Instead of FTTN, DSLR can be deployed more quickly

and economically in far more scenarios/situations.

DSLR can be deployed in conjunction with FTTC making the FTTC deployment look even better to the consumer. Instead of FTTC, DSLR can be deployed more quickly

and economically in far more scenarios/situations.