Upload
pierce-barnett
View
222
Download
3
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
UTStarcom Confidential 1
FTTx Options
Technology Comparison
BAN MarketingBroadband BU
UTStarcom Confidential 2
Agenda
• FTTx Market Study• GEPON Technology – NOW and FUTURE!• Technology Options and comparison
– GEPON vs. GPON– PON vs. Active Ethernet
• Q&A
UTStarcom Confidential 3
FTTx Market Trends
• Fiber deployment in access network is more rapid than expected– Over 10% broadband installations are FTTx (Source: DSL Forum)– Fiber-to-the-home networks will reach more than 85 million homes by
2011, representing 5% of all households, Heavy Reading forecasts
• APAC is leading the way– Japan and Korea are main drivers; China will catch-up– Number of Asian FTTH users will grow eightfold in the next five years,
from five million in 2005 to more than 40 million in 2010 (Source: TDG)– NTT expects to have 30 million subscribers by end of 2010
• Next generation broadband network in US and Europe is FTTx based– FTTH: Verizon, France Telecom– FTTN: at&t, Telecom Italia, DT– FTTC: BellSouth
UTStarcom Confidential 4
FTTx Options
FTTH IP Network
Fiber
IP Network
IP Network
IP Network
GEPON/GPON/Ethernet
Splitter/Active Switch
GEPON/GPON/Ethernet
Splitter/Active Switch
FTTB
FTTN
FTTC
IPDSLAM
Fiber
ADSL2+/VDSL2
ADSL2+/VDSL2
Cabinet
GEPON/GPON/Ethernet
GEPON/GPON/Ethernet
Includes fiber to both individual houses and to apartment blocks (aka FTTH)
To an office/apartment block
Up to about 1,500 meters from the premises
Up to about 150 meters from the premises (aka FTTCab)
Ethernet ONU
iHFC ONU
UTStarcom Confidential 5
FTTx Market Drivers
• Increasingly limited capacity of traditional networks– ADSL2+ is not enough to handle future broadband needs– VDSL2 adoption is very slow, cost is high (comparable to PON)
• Continuing innovations and cost reductions in optical infrastructure and active equipment
• Ability to leverage existing infrastructure to capture incremental revenues and an accelerated ROI
• Broadband viewed by governments as tool for national competition
UTStarcom Confidential 6
Global Broadband and FTTH Installations
Source: Corning Presentation
UTStarcom Confidential 7
FT Business Case for FTTH
Source: France Telecom
UTStarcom Confidential 8
Why FT has chosen FTTH?
Source: France Telecom
UTStarcom Confidential 9
A closer look into US Market
Source: Adventis Corporation
UTStarcom Confidential 10
$-
$500,000,000
$1,000,000,000
$1,500,000,000
$2,000,000,000
$2,500,000,000
2007 2008 2009
Year
FTTx Forecast (Revenue)
GEPON
GPON
Active Ethernet
FTTx Market Forecast
• GEPON demand will continue to be strong thru 2008 until GPON becomes mature and cost effective
• GPON will mostly fill-in for BPON, which will retire in coming years• Active Ethernet demand is projected to significantly lower than PON in next three
years
-
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
7,000,000
2007 2008 2009
Year
FTTx Forecast (Ports)
GEPON
GPON
Active Ethernet
Source: Infornetics Research Source: Infornetics Research
UTStarcom Confidential 11
Agenda
• FTTx Market Study• GEPON Technology – NOW and FUTURE!• Technology Options and comparison
– GEPON vs. GPON– PON vs. Active Ethernet
• Q&A
UTStarcom Confidential 12
GEPON Technology Overview
`
Voice
Data
Video
ONUONU
`
ONUONU
ONUONU
Data
OLTOLT CC
NB
BB
Access Node
GbE
0-20 Km physical reach range
Up to 1:64Splitter ration
Upstream (TDMA)
Downstream (Broadcast
802.3 frames)
CC: Cross Connect
NB: Narrow Brand
BB: Broad Brand
GEPON Access Network Structure
Voice
UTStarcom Confidential 13
GEPON OverviewOLT ONU
GEPON Technology Overview (Contd.)
10 km – 20 km
1.25 Gbps
1.25 Gbps
EPON Down Stream1490nm
EPON Up Stream1310nm
UTStarcom Confidential 14
IP NetworkNetwork
PSTN PSTN
1:N Splitter
RF TV
Media network
CATV/DBS
1550nm Video1550nm Video
WDM
EDFA
OLT
WDM
RFRF
IPTV
RF enabled ONU
GEPON based RF Video Overlay Solution
Video Transmitter
•1490nm DS Data•1310nm US Data•1550nm Video
• Leverages existing CATV infrastructure• Reduced IP bandwidth requirement• Easy inside-home wiring
Overlay / Broadcast Video:EPO
NSubsy
stem
POTS
FE/GE
UTStarcom Confidential 15
GEPON – The Future
• IEEE P802.3av Task Force - 10Gb/s Ethernet Passive Optical Network (10GEPON)
• As Ethernet evolves from GE to 10GE, EPON physical interfaces will evolve to 10GEPON
• IEEE 802.3 Work Group has approved the “10Gbps PHY for EPON” Study group with the following Objectives– Provide physical layer specifications:–
• PHY for PON, 10 Gbps downstream/1 Gbps upstream, single SM fiber • PHY for PON, 10 Gbps downstream/10 Gbps upstream, single SM fiber
– Define up to 3 classes of PMD. Define PMD(s) to operate with split ratios of 16 and 32, and with distances of 10 or 20 km. Investigate split ratios of 64 and 128.
– Support subscriber access networks using point to multipoint topologies on optical fiber
– PHY(s) to have a BER better than or equal to 10-12 at the PHY service interface
GEPON : A Future-proof Technology
UTStarcom Confidential 16
Key Operators’ Expectation from 10G EPON
• World’s largest EPON network operator - NTT and Taiwanese incumbent CHT has the following expectations from 10G EPON:
UTStarcom Confidential 17
10G EPON Market Drivers
Source: IEEE 10GEPON Call for Interest,; Denver May 2006
Digital HOME
Digital TV
UTStarcom Confidential 18
10G EPON Market Drivers (Contd.)
MDU/MTU Application
Source: IEEE 10GEPON Call for Interest,; Denver May 2006
UTStarcom Confidential 19
10G EPON Feasibility Study Completed
Source: IEEE 10GEPON Call for Interest,; Denver May 2006
UTStarcom Confidential 20
Migration from 1G EPON
Source: IEEE 10GEPON Proceedings,; Denver May 2006
Objectives
Possible Solution
UTStarcom Confidential 21
10G EPON Wavelength Plan
• Objectives– Backward compatible with 1G
EPON– Allow for co-existence of 1G
EPON for smooth migration– Continue to support 1550nm for
RF Video Overlay
• Proposals– Downstream: 1574nm ~
1580nm– Upstream: 1260nm ~ 1360 nm
• Still under study
Source: IEEE 10GEPON Proceedings,; Geneva May 2007
UTStarcom Confidential 22
10G EPON Timeline and Conclusion
• Most of the studies are complete
• First technical draft to be released in July 2007
• Standard to be ratified by May 2009
“10G EPON” is ultra-high-
bandwidth, simple, and cost-effective FTTx solution for next-generation
broadband networks
“10G EPON” is ultra-high-
bandwidth, simple, and cost-effective FTTx solution for next-generation
broadband networks
UTStarcom Confidential 23
Agenda
• FTTx Market Study• GEPON Technology – NOW and FUTURE!• Technology Options and comparison
– GEPON vs. GPON– PON vs. Active Ethernet
• Q&A
UTStarcom Confidential 24
The Technology Debate
• The hottest topic among carriers hoping to provide FTTH services is the debate on the technology choice
• The major contenders in the race are– PON
• EPON or GEPON• GPON
– Active Ethernet
• What will determine the result is– Market Success– Technical Advantages– Technology Roadmap
UTStarcom Confidential 25
Technologies and Targeted Applications
Major Carriers Applications Key Criteria
GEPON - NTT, Japan
- SBB, Japan
- FTTH and FTTB (Triple play Service)
- Available, cheaper, and matured technology
GPON - Verizon, US
- FT, TI and other EMEA tier-1s
- FTTH (sub-urban areas)
- FTTB (MDU/MTU)
- FTT Business (Legacy TDM Services)
- Long-term investment in standards (ITU-T)
- Native TDM support
- Up to 2.5 Gbps downlink
Both GPON and GEPON
- CHT, Taiwan
- BSNL, India
- CTC/CNC, China
- FTTH Residential (use GEPON)
- Fiber to the businesses (GPON)
- FTTB (GEPON/GPON)
- Deploy the available technology (GEPON)
- Deploy GPON for legacy services
Active Ethernet - Free (Illiad), France
- Netherlands operators
- City carriers
- FTTH (triple play using two fibers)
- FTTB (Cat-5 to home)
- Available and simple
- Perceived to be cheaper
UTStarcom Confidential 26
Comparison at glance
GEPON GPON P2P
Standard Body IEEE 802.3ah – P2MP ITU-T G.984 IEEE 802.3ah – P2P
Downstream (DS) 1250 Mbps 1244/2488 Mbps 1250 Mbps
Upstream (US) 1250 Mbps 622/1244 Mbps 1250 Mbps
Split Ratio 1:32 1:64 1:32 1:64 1:128(Future)
1:1
Reach 20 Km / 10Km 20 Km 20 Km / 10 Km
Throughput efficiency 73% 93% 74%
Protocol Ethernet Ethernet over GEM and/or ATM
Ethernet
Video Support IPTV or RF overlay (1550nm)
IPTV or RF overlay (1550nm
Second Fiber
TDM Support Pseudo-wire Native Pseudo-wire
Encryption AES AES Not defined
Network Protection In Progress Defined Not defined
UTStarcom Confidential 27
CAPEX & OPEX Comparison
• GEPON is both low on CAPEX and OPEX• P2P has much higher OPEX because of active electronics
in the field; Also two fibers are needed to offer triple play services
• GPON has high CAPEX
OPEX
CA
PE
XGEPON
GPON
P2P
- Infrastructure Cost- Fiber (Material)- Fiber Installation- Labor- Customer Acquisition
- Manpower- Equipment Mtce.- Truck-roll repairs- Power for CO/RO
UTStarcom Confidential 28
Agenda
• FTTx Market Study• GEPON Technology – NOW and FUTURE!• Technology Options and comparison
– GEPON vs. GPON– PON vs. Active Ethernet
• Q&A
UTStarcom Confidential 29
Why GEPON?
• Key Benefits– Low Risk– Low CAPEX and OPEX– Built for Ethernet Infrastructure
GEPON: “Cost Effective FTTH Solution”GEPON: “Cost Effective FTTH Solution”GEPON: “Cost Effective FTTH Solution”GEPON: “Cost Effective FTTH Solution”
WHY?
SimplicitySimplicitySimplicitySimplicity ProvenProvenTechnologyTechnology
ProvenProvenTechnologyTechnology
CostCostAdvantageAdvantage
CostCostAdvantageAdvantage
“GePON is still the dominant [FTTH] technology, and this trend will not change in the next two years,” Dittberner said
Source: Telephonyonline.com
UTStarcom Confidential 30
Cable Services and GEPON
• Cable MSO Services– All IP-based
• Voice over IP• RF Video or IPTV• High Speed Internet Access
– In future, multimedia services also to be IP-based• E.g., Online Gaming, Movie/Music download, etc.
√ Simple Technology like EP2P with PON efficiency
√ Ethernet based architecture√ End-to-end bandwidth efficiency√ Cost Effective
X Designed by Telcos for TelcosX Complex mechanism to
accommodate ATM and TDM transport Useless feature for Cable MSO
X Still very expensive
GEPON GPON
UTStarcom Confidential 31
GEPON Market Success
• Proven deployment success– GEPON accounts for 66% of all PON deployments in 2005– Continuing growth in worldwide demand – 5 million lines
deployed by 2006. – 10 million lines installed CO Capacity.– Many major carriers including SBB, NTT and Korea Telecom
have announced EPON deployments.
• Larger Manufacturing Base– EPON has a much larger base of system and component
manufacturers.– Marked decrease in price of systems and optics since the IEEE
802.3ah was standardized in 2004
UTStarcom Confidential 32
GEPON Value Proposition
• Supports bandwidth-intensive, high margin applications• Smooth migration to triple play (video / voice / data)• Can match all GPON services
– TDM over EPON with jitter and wander within ITU-T specs.
• Seamless Integration with IP/Ethernet Core Network • Provides strict quality of service support• Ability to provide guaranteed QoS / SLA on each flow
– Guaranteed minimum bandwidth– Controlled maximum bandwidth
• Market trends forecast higher EPON subscribers by 2010 than GPON subscribers (3X) – which will translate into much cheaper EPON MAC chips and transceivers
Simplifies Migration to New revenue generating services
UTStarcom Confidential 33
Major Installations – Current Situation
• Very Large Scale Deployment– More than 5 million lines installed
by end 2005
• NTT Japan, – More than 3 Million FTTH installed– Expects to have 30 million
subscribers by end of 2010• Korea Telecom
– More than 1.5 Million FTTH installed
• CNC/CTC China – Will deploy more than 1 Million
FTTH in 2007• CHT, Taiwan has chosen EPON
for FTTH application
• Only Trials and Small Networks
• Verizon, USA– Still deploying BPON, because
GPON solution is not ready for prime-time
• AT&T and Bell South– Decided to stay with FTTN and
FTTC with GE backhaul• European incumbents
– So far only FT has announced its plans to offer FTTH using GPON
• Deployed in small MUNI networks– MOC, Kuwait
GE-PON GPON
UTStarcom Confidential 34
End-to-end Bandwidth Efficiency
GEPON OLT
GPON OLT
• Factors to consider– Backhaul for all multi-play applications (voice, video, data, gaming, etc.) HAS to be IP– Ethernet links to the network in multiple of 1Gbps or 10Gbps– End-to-end efficiency should be compared instead of just between OLT and ONU– Both GEPON and GPON support up to 64 splits per OLT
• Symmetrical IP uplinks• Ethernet based design• Effective throughput:
– 960 Mbps (DS); 900 Mbps (US)
• Per OLT– 1GE uplink (complete non-blocking)– Uplink efficiency (US): 91%– Uplink efficiency (DS): 96%
• Under-utilized & asymmetric IP uplinks• SDH/SONET based design• Effective throughput:
– 2300 Mbps (DS); 1150 Mbps (US)
• Per OLT– 3GE uplink (complete non-blocking)– Uplink efficiency (US): 38%– Uplink efficiency (DS): 76%
900 Mbps
1x GE 3x GE
2300 Mbps / 1150 Mbps
UTStarcom Confidential 35
GEPON Interoperability
• Open and matured technology• More than 4 chipset vendors with complete interoperability• Choice of chipset technology on both OLT and ONT side
Source: China Telecom
ONU OLT
PMC Sierra
Teknovus Gateway Technologies
Immenstar Conexant
PMC Sierra Teknovus Gateway Technologies Immenstar
UTStarcom Confidential 36
Agenda
• FTTx Market Study• GEPON Technology – NOW and FUTURE!• Technology Options and comparison
– GEPON vs. GPON– PON vs. Active Ethernet
• Q&A
UTStarcom Confidential 37
PON vs. Active EthernetTriple Play (FTTH) Service Model
• Simplicity of Ethernet based architecture• Single fiber to home (premise)• Reuse of existing RF video infrastructure• Use of 1550nm for RF video transport – Needs WDM
triplexer• Easy to expand; Planning is much easier
IP Network
GEPON OLT1:N PON Splitter
Optical Fiber
EPON Link
L2/L3 AggregationSwitch
Cu GE
COCO
WDM
EDFA
Video TransmitterVideo Headend
GEPON Based Triple Play SolutionGEPON Based Triple Play Solution
IP Network
ME Switch
L2/L3 AggregationSwitch
Optical GE Fiber Ring
COCO
RORO
Optical F
iber
(100 b
ase F
X)
Video TransmitterVideo Headend
Single Fiber for Triple-Play
1:N PON Splitter
Optical
Fib
er
(RF V
ideo
)
Active Ethernet Based Triple Play SolutionActive Ethernet Based Triple Play Solution
• Two fibers to each home – one for data/voice, other for RF Video
• Optical FE based access to each home• RF distribution plant can’t be reused for data/voice,
however no need for WDM triplexer• Higher CAPEX and very high OPEX
- Local Power and backup- Remote Site or Outdoor Cabinet- Added Maintenance
UTStarcom Confidential 38
PON vs. Active EthernetFTTH Service Model
• Simplicity of Ethernet based architecture• One time investment in outside plant; Low OPEX• RF Overlay support• Reuse of existing RF video infrastructure• Easy to expand; Planning is much easier• Fiber sharing allows for optimum bandwidth allocation
to each subscriber• Connection to aggregation device using inexpensive
Cu GE
IP Network
IP Network
GEPON OLT 1:N PON Splitter ME Switch
L2/L3 AggregationSwitch
< 20Km < 100m (Cu)
Cat5e/Cat6(FE/GE)
Optical Fiber
- Local Power and backup- Remote Site or Outdoor Cabinet- Added Maintenance
EPON Link
Optical GE Fiber Ring
Business
Business
Optical Fiber (FE/GE)
GEPON Based FTTH SolutionGEPON Based FTTH Solution Active Ethernet Based FTTC/FTTH SolutionActive Ethernet Based FTTC/FTTH Solution
• Significant OPEX spending on Active Ethernet outside plant (OSP)
• Expansion needs more OPEX and very good planning• Cat5e/Cat6 has limited reach (only up to 100m)• Fiber access (GE/FE) using Active Ethernet solution is
very expensive• Additional GE ports and SFPs are needed on L2/L3
switch to terminate the ring
L2/L3 AggregationSwitch
Cu GE
COCO COCO
RORO
< 20Km
Very Expensive Optics (SFP)
UTStarcom Confidential 39
PON vs. Active EthernetMDU/MTU Service Model
• Common architecture for FTTH and FTTB applications• RF overlay support• Reuse of existing RF Video infrastructure• Low-cost MDU/MTU ONU for each building• Easier network expansion• Flexibility to offer MDU/MTU service from same optical
infrastructure – can serve via existing cat5/cat6
IP Network
IP Network
GEPON OLT 1:N PON Splitter
L2/L3 AggregationSwitch
Optical Fiber
MDU/MTU ONU
MDU/MTU
Optical GEFiber Ring
GEON Based FTTB SolutionGEON Based FTTB Solution Active Ethernet Based FTTB SolutionActive Ethernet Based FTTB Solution
• More expensive MDU/MTU units• Optical fiber ring reliability is low because of active
components – Building-node failure will have network-wide impact
• Network expansion still a challenge, especially when a new node to inserted in an active (operational) ring
L2/L3 AggregationSwitch
EPON LinkCu GE
COCO COCO
ME Switch
Power Backup is essential
Power Backup is optional
UTStarcom Confidential 40
Triple Play service over existing coax
• Reuse of existing coax for providing triple-play service– FTTH may not be viable for all customers
• FTTB based architecture – 60 subscribers per CLT• IP VoD can be supported by providing 2 CNUs to
the customer
IP Network
GEPON OLT1:N PON Splitter
Optical Fiber
iHFC CLT(basement)
L2/L3 AggregationSwitch
EPON LinkCu GE
COCOMDU/MTU
CNUVideo
Headend
RF Video over coax
BuildingBuilding
Equipment Unit Price Qty Total Price
Aggregation Switch - GE-TX Ports $75 24 $1,800
GEPON OLT (Including PON SFPs) $24,000 1 $24,000
PON Splitters $3,600 1 $3,600
60-user HPNA based CLT $900 240 $216,000
HPNA CNU (Ethernet, RF ports) $90 7200 $648,000
ATA (Voice and Ethernet ports) $50 7200 $360,000
Total $1,253,400
Per Subscriber $174.08
GEPON and iHFC Based Triple Play
UTStarcom Confidential 41
Cat6 Copper vs. Optical Fiber
• What is Cat6?– Cable standard for 1000 Base-TX– Based on TIA/EIA-854 standard– Operates over broader spectrum – up to 200
MHz– Reach up to 100 meters– Recommended for green-field installations– About 20% more expensive than Cat5e
• Cat6 advantages over Cat5e– Better performance than Cat5e (Higher SNR
and reliability)– Offers access to full 1000 Mb/s
1000 Base-TX over 4-pair Cat6
• Is Cat6 an alternative to Fiber?– Major argument for deploying copper instead of fiber has been higher cost, however as the
speed goes up, cost of copper goes up and becomes comparable to fiber– Limited reach makes Cat6 only usable for indoor wiring (FTTB scenario)– Fiber is immune to EMI, which makes it suitable for industrial installation– Unlike Fiber, Cat6 or Cat5e not suitable for RF video transmission
Cat6 complements Fiber access, it is not an alternative to FiberCat6 complements Fiber access, it is not an alternative to Fiber
UTStarcom Confidential 42
PON vs. Active EthernetTechnology Advantages/Disadvantages
• PROS– Very low cost terminal equipment for
Cat5/Cat6 access– Ubiquitous availability of end user
equipment with Ethernet interfaces and customer familiarity
– Overall simple system – end to end
• CONS– Higher fiber plant cost– No support for RF overlay– Much Higher OPEX– Network expansion is expensive– Power backup mandatory for ME
nodes– Higher cost and larger interfaces in
Upstream Routers (higher CAPEX at CO)
• PROS– PON reduces CAPEX
• Accommodates a large number of FTTx users efficiently
– Significant OPEX savings• Reduces the footprint and power
consumption of central office equipment
• Reduces outside-plant deployment and repair cost
– Support for CATV using RF overlay– Reuse of existing video distribution
infrastructure– Knowledge/skill already exists for
optical installation
• CONS– Relatively higher cost of Customer
Premise Equipment
Active Ethernet PON
UTStarcom Confidential 43
Agenda
• FTTx Market Study• GEPON Technology Now and Future!• Technology Options and comparison
– GEPON vs. GPON– PON vs. Active Ethernet
• Q&A
UTStarcom Confidential 44
Thank You
This presentation is provided by UTStarcom for planning purposes only. Changes in market conditions and/or other changes in circumstances, can affect the assumptions upon which this presentation was based or otherwise impact the contents of this presentation and therefore such contents cannot be guaranteed and are subject to change at any time without notice. Nothing contained in this presentation shall be deemed to create, modify or supplement any commitments or warranty made by the company, whether expressed, implied or statutory, in connection with the products, technology and/or services referenced herein.
*Some features may require addition development and may not be ready for immediate implementation.