Bandwidth Trends on the Internet... A Cable Data Vendor's Perspective

Bandwidth Trends on the

Internet… A Cable Data

Vendor’s Perspective

Tom Cloonan, Chief Strategy Officer, ARRIS

Agenda

• Introduction

• Observed Bandwidth Trends (& Predictions for the

Future)

• Networking Equipment Trends

• Conclusions

ARRIS Talk for IEEE - September 20112

Monitoring Bandwidth Trends for the Cable

IndustryWe need to predict the capacities for these products in the future…


Taps and Splitters

Headend Optics

and Transmitters

Universal Edge QAM

CMTS Edge Routers

Local

Encoders

Transcoders

Fixed Mobility

Convergence

Wireless Networking

Customer Premise

VOD and

Advertising

Encoders

EPON and RFOG

Residential Gateways

Nodes and

Amplifiers

Video Gateways and

Players

SMBGateways

Head-end Hosted Service

Portal

Wi-Fi® Solutions

Indoor/OutdoorTools & Services

Outside Plant

Agenda

• Introduction

• Observed Bandwidth Trends (& Predictions for

the Future)


• Conclusions


ARRIS Investor Conference

March 2008

5www.arrisi.com

time

Instantaneous BW

Min BW=0 Mbps

Max Permitted BW=20 Mbps

Max Possible BW=120 Mbps(w/ 3-Channel Bonding

Modems)

On-line(busy-hour)

On-lineOff-line

Average Consumed BW=300 kbps

Average Busy-hour BW & Average Consumed BW tend to be used

quite extensively for Traffic Engineering calculations (determining how

much Bandwidth Capacity is required to satisfy a given Service Group

(pool) of subscribers)

Some Basic Terms Used In This Talk

Average Busy-hour BW=600 kbps

6

2.4 kbps

Max Permitted Bandwidth for Modems (bps)

1982 1986 1990 1994 1998

1

10

100

1k

300 bps

2002 2006

56 kbps

10k

100k

1M

1.2 kbps

9.6 kbps14.4 kbps

28 kbps33 kbps

10M

100M

1G

128 kbps

256 kbps512 kbps

1 Mbps5 Mbps

50 Mbps

The Era ofDial-Up Modems

The Era ofCable Modems

The Era ofWideband

Cable Modems

2010

Year

???

2014

10G

100G

12 Mbps

~288 Mbps

1 Gbps

10 Gbps

100 Gbps

12 Mbps

2016

After Curve-Fitting, the Past 25-years Show a

Constant Increase of ~1.5x every year...

resulting in Max Permitted BW=288 Mbps

in 2016

Max Permitted Bandwidth Trends for Modems

(First Charted in 2008)

(1.5) (2006-1982) = 5M/300

(1.5) (2016-2006) = 288M/5M

Giving Credit Where Credit Is Due:

Nielsen’s Law of

Internet Bandwidth (1998)


Bandwidth Trends and Predictions

Ma

x D

S P

erm

itte

d B

an

dw

idth

fo

r M

od

em

s (b

ps)

1982 1986 1990 1994 1998

1

10

100

1k

2002 2006

10k

100k

1M

10M

100M

1G

2010Year

2014

10G

100G

2016

The Era ofWideband

Cable Modems

12 Mbps

The past 29-years show a constantbandwidth increase of ~1.5x every year...

~300 Mbps ?

128 kbps

256 kbps512 kbps

1 Mbps

5 Mbps

The Era of

Cable Modems2.4 kbps

300 bps

56 kbps

1.2 kbps

9.6 kbps14.4 kbps

28 kbps

33 kbps

The Era of

Dial-Up

Modems

50 Mbps

200 Mbps

8

0

50000000

100000000

150000000

200000000

250000000

1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

Ban

dw

idth

(b

ps)

Year

Modem Bandwidth (bps) vs Year

9

Average Bandwidth Trends for Modems

(First Charted in 2008)

2016 Sanity Check: Predicted Concurrency=(Avg BW)/(Max Permitted BW)=3.5/288= ~1.2%...

This roughly matches the predictions from a Comcast conference paper:Saifur Rahman, "DOCSIS® Migration Methodology: From A to B to 3", Communication

Technology (SCTE, Vol. 24, No. 11, November 2007), pp. 34-40.

Average Downstream Bandwidth for Modems

10k

100k

1M

10M

100M

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

30 kbps

90 kbps

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Year

2015 2016

3.5 Mbps(A ~10x increaseover the Avg. BW

of Today)

2017 2018 2019

Useful for estimating the required Bandwidth for a Service GroupPer-sub Bandwidth must rise…

Bandwidth

# Subs

Assume a Constant Increase of ~1.5x every year

(1.5) (2016-2007) = 3.5M/90k

135 kbps

456 kbps

Example Of How Some MSOs Might Choose To

Manage Their BW/Subscriber Metric

10

CMTS

40 Mbps

30 Mbps

As more Bandwidth per Subscriber is Needed...

Avg DS BW per sub= 40 Mbps/320 subs

= 125 kbps/sub

800 Home Service Group

(320 subs)

Fiber Node

2008

CMTS

40 Mbps

40 Mbps

30 Mbps

30 Mbps

400 HomeService Group

(160 subs)

Fiber Node

80 Mbps Bonding Group

2011

Avg DS BW per sub= 80 Mbps/160 subs

= 500 kbps/sub

60 Mbps Bonding Group

Extended View of HSD Downstream

Bandwidth Trends (Per Subscriber)

11

Ma

x D

S P

erm

itte

d B

an

dw

idth

fo

r M

od

em

s (b

ps)

19821986

19901994

1998

1

10

100

1k

20022006

10k

100k

1M

10M

100M

1G

2010

Year

2014

10G

100G

2018

The Era of

Wideband

Cable Modems

12 Mbps

The past 29-years show a constant

bandwidth increase of ~1.5x every year...

~73 Gbps?

128 kbps

256 kbps512 kbps

1 Mbps5 Mbps

The Era of

Cable Modems

2.4 kbps

300 bps

56 kbps

1.2 kbps

9.6 kbps14.4 kbps

28 kbps

33 kbps

The Era of

Dial-Up

Modem

s

50 Mbps

200 Mbps

2022

Avg

DS B

an

dw

idth

fo

r Sin

gle

Mo

de

m (

(bp

s)

19821986

19901994

1998

1

10

100

1k

20022006

10k

100k

1M

10M

100M

1G

2010

Year

2014

10G

100G

2018

Assume that DS Tavg is 220 kbps in

2010 and grows by 1.5x per year

~731 Mbps?

2022

Max. Downstream BW/sub Avg. Downstream BW/sub

20262030

20262030

A Philosophical Side-Bar on Downstream

Bandwidth Growth (Better Done Over Beers)

• Some argue that we will soon hit an asymptotic limit in Downstream Bandwidth Growth due to the limit of the human eye and mind to absorb information

• Ex: If a 20 Mbps, 3D-HD, H.264 video feed is sent to (on average) 2.3 people per home, then each home should be satiated with an average bandwidth offer of

(20 Mbps)*(2.3)=46 Mbps… which we predict we will hit by ~2023 (in ~12 years).

• Maybe… BUT…

− What about the impact of DVR pumping bandwidth?

− What about the impact of cloud technologies (like Apples iCloud)?

− What about machine-to-machine transfers for video search engines looking for our optimal content for each night?

− What about holography?

− What about the smell & touch & taste technologies that are yet-to-be invented?

• It may be a while before we hit the asymptotic limit…


Source: ARRIS Estimates

Upstream Bandwidth Growth

13

Max US Permitted Bandwidthfor Modems (bps)

1998

10

100

1k

2002 2006

10k

100k

1M

10M

100M

1G

2010Year

2014

10G

100G

2016

The Era ofWideband

Cable Modems

???

The Era ofCable Modems

The Past 10 years Show a

Constant Increase of

~1.1x every year...

128 kbps450 kbps

768 kbps

1 Mbps

Will that pace continue?

Recent activity suggests

an accellerating rate of

increase… we will

assume it will increase

to the 1.5x growth rate in

the next slide.

5 Mbps

Extended View of HSD Upstream

Bandwidth Trends (Per Subscriber)

14

Max. Upstream BW/sub Avg. Upstream BW/sub

Avg

US B

an

dw

idth

fo

r Sin

gle

Mo

de

m (

bp

s)

19821986

19901994

1998

1

10

100

1k

2002

2006

10k

100k

1M

10M

100M

1G

2010

Year

2014

10G

100G

2018

Assume that US Tavg is 73 kbps in

2010 and grows by 1.5x per year

2022

Ma

x U

S P

erm

itte

d B

an

dw

idth

fo

r M

od

em

s (b

ps)

19821986

19901994

1998

1

10

100

1k

2002

2006

10k

100k

1M

10M

100M

1G

2010

Year

2014

10G

100G

2018

Assume the US Tmax is always

1/5 of the DS Tmax

(ex: 50 Mbps DS tier has

10 Mbps US today)

~14.6 Gbps?

20222026

20302026

2030

~241 Mbps?

Some Notes On Upstream Bandwidth

• Upstream Bandwidth is comprised of two types of traffic:

− Protocol Messages (ex: HTTP GETs, TCP ACKs, etc.)

− Uploads (ex: P2P torrents, Web-Page inputs, FTP transfers)

• The Protocol Message Bandwidth is predictable and almost calculable (if you know the Downstream Bandwidth & assume typical TCP ACK behavior):

US Protocol Message BW = ~DS BW * (64 bytes/ACK pkt)/(2*1500 bytes/TCP pkt)

= ~DS BW * (0.0213)= ~2% * DS BW

• The Upload Bandwidth is harder to predict… it is highly dependent on the popularity of apps at any given time− Ex: When P2P was big in 2008, US BW was ~41% of DS BW

− Ex: When OTT IP Video became big in 2010, US BW dropped to ~28% of DS BW



Over-The-Top (OTT) Streaming Media Is

Dominating the DOCSIS HSD Growth

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

January-10 January-11

Pe

rce

nt

of

To

tal B

an

dw

idth

Mix of Traffic Protocol Types vs. Time

Streaming Media Peer-to-Peer

Web Browsing Other Protocols

0

40

80

120

160

Ja

n-0

4

Feb-0

5

Ma

r-06

Ap

r-07

Ju

n-0

8

Ju

l-09

Au

g-1

0

Se

p-1

1

Avg

Ban

dw

idth

/Su

b (

kb

ps

) P

er

Se

rvic

e G

rou

p

Per-Subscriber Avg. Bandwidth Is Being Rapidly Increased

Downstream Bandwidth/Sub (kbps)

Upstream Bandwidth/Sub (kbps)

16

• The traffic mix is changing fast… Service Providers must respond quickly

• The ratio of Downstream-to-Upstream bandwidth is growing as IP Video

increases… ~2.4 in 2008 and ~3.5 in 2010

Note slope change

due to OTT video

(since 2009)

Sourc

e fo

r both

gra

phs: T

op 5

US

MS

O

Bandwidth Trends for

Different Traffic Mixes


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Jan-10 Jan-11

Am

ou

nt

of

Ban

dw

idth

Date

Mix of Traffic Types vs Time

Other Protocols

Web Browsing

Peer-to-Peer

Streaming Media

IP Video Trends Over TimeMay 2010 – March 2011

0.00%

2.00%

4.00%

6.00%

8.00%

10.00%

12.00%

14.00%

16.00%

18.00%

20.00%

5/1/2010 6/1/2010 7/1/2010 8/1/2010 9/1/2010 10/1/2010 11/1/2010 12/1/2010 1/1/2011 2/1/2011 3/1/2011

% o

f O

ve

rall

Tra

ffic

Avg IP Video from the Internet

You Tube Flash Itunes RSTP Netflix Windows Media Hulu Unbox

18

Source: Top 10 US MSO

Overall IP Video Traffic Details

(March 2011)

Max Downstream Bandwidth Consumption (Gb/s)

Overall IP Video Upstream 6.64Percentage of Overall Traffic

You Tube (Add all You Tube and Google Video)

1.59 1.52%

Netflix (Add all Netflix Values) 1.44 1.38%

Flash (Add Flash and Shockwave) 0.98 0.94%

RSTP (RTSP, RTMP and RTSP over UDP) 0.93 0.89%

Slingbox 0.40 0.39%

Itunes 0.27 0.26%

Windows Media (WMP and MS ASF) 0.18 0.17%

CCTV 0.17 0.17%

Qvod 0.11 0.11%

Hulu 0.08 0.07%

Overall IP Video Downstream 185.67Percentage of Overall Traffic

Netflix (Add all Netflix Values) 65.73 18.19%

You Tube (Add all You tubes and Google Video)

52.36 14.49%

Flash (Add Flash and Shockwave) 25.12 6.95%

RSTP (RTSP, RTMP and RTSP over UDP) 13.26 3.67%

Itunes 10.45 2.89%

Windows Media (WMP and MS ASF) 5.66 1.57%

Hulu 2.15 0.60%

Max Upstream Bandwidth Consumption (Gb/s)

19

Internet to Subscribers Subscribers to Internet


Snapshot of Packet Size Trends


Bandwidth Trend Differences Between

Different Service Providers


Subscriber Satisfaction Issues Will Drive Service Providers

to Increase Investment to Retain and Attract Customers

This may represent an

“un-congested” subscriber’s

bandwidth level in 2011

These may represent “congested” subscriber bandwidth levels in 2011

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

1Q10 1Q11

Av

era

ge D

ow

nstr

eam

Ban

dw

idth

per

Su

bscri

ber

(kb

ps)

Bandwidth Trends at Five Service Providers in 2010

33% Growth

33% Growth

100% Growth

60% Growth

40% Growth


Agenda

• Introduction


Future)


• Conclusions


Why Discuss Equipment In A Talk On

Bandwidth Trends?

• In order for the Bandwidth Trends to materialize, the available Equipment MUST be able to support the predicted Bandwidths at acceptable cost levels

• We will explore this topic from the point-of-view of DOCSIS CMTS Equipment, which serve 20-50 “Service Groups”

• For an Typical Single High-Speed Data “Service Group” with ~500 Homes Passed, MSOs predict:

− 2008: 1 DOCSIS Downstream (~40 Mbps)

− 2011: 4 DOCSIS Downstreams (~160 Mbps)

− 2015: ~20 DOCSIS Downstreams (~800 Mbps)



Downstreams Per DS-SG Bandwidth Trends

(for ~500-Homes Passed DS-SG)

24

CCAP… The Cable Industry Response

to Rapid Bandwidth Growth

• Converged Cable Access Platform− CMTS (HSD, VoIP)

− UEQ (VoD, SDV, M-CMTS)

− IP Video

− EPON

• Highly Available− Fully redundant design, no single point of failure

− Separate upstream and downstream modules supporting dynamic mix of services

• Future Proof− Terabit-plus capacity in backplane

• Extreme Density− 20x-80x increase in capacity

− 14x-60x power reduction

− 20x-80x space reduction

• Support for up to ~6.3 Gbps of Downstream Bandwidth to each Service Group

25

The CCAP Architecture Has Been Designed to Carry the

Cable Industry Deep Into the Next Decade and Beyond...

US

US

Re

du

nd

an

cyU

SU

SU

SU

S

DS

DS

Re

du

nd

an

cyD

SD

SD

SD

S

XR

1X

R2

Power Supply

Modules

Primary Switch/Route Engine

12 Ports/DS Card

32/48/64 Narrowcast QAMs/Port

96 Broadcast QAMs/Port

Fan Modules

Intake Air

Primary 100-Gig-E Ports

Secondary 100-Gig-E Ports

Exhaust Air

Secondary Switch/Route Engine

24 Ports/US Card(Implemented using

high density UCH w/

MCX-75 connectors)

Front View

16U Chassis

Rear View

16U Chassis


1 D

S4 D

S8 D

S

16 D

S

32-1

60

DS

2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Do

wn

str

ea

m C

ha

nn

els

Pe

r S

erv

ice

Gro

up

CMTS Edge Router EvolutionOngoing Capacity Expansion based on Moore’s Law

To

da

y

Moore’s Law & a Perfect Storm of New

Technologies Will Enable Required Features

for this Decade

• Allows higher capacities within a given chassis size

• Allows increased densities

• Allows for a single chassis that supports all services

• Allows Lower Cost/Channel

• Allows Next-Gen Networking Equipment to support the Need

27

Building

Blocks2007 Capabilities 2011 Capabilities Increase

L2/L3 Switch

Chips60 Gbps 640 Gbps 10x

High-Speed

Digital-to-Analog

Converters

1 Downstream

Channel per DAC

100+ Downstream

Channels per DAC100x

Burst Receivers

2 Upstream

Channels per

Receiver

12 Upstream

Channels per

Receiver

6x

Processor Chips 2 Cores per Chip 32 Cores per Chip 16x

Agenda

• Introduction


Future)


• Conclusions


Conclusions

• Bandwidth growth on Service Provider networks has been growing exponentially for ~30 years

• The Downstream growth rate has been roughly 1.5x per year… Web-Surfing was the driver of growth in 2000… P2P was the driver of growth in 2008… IP Video is the driver of growth today

• The growth is expected to continue for many years into the future as new “yet-to-be-invented” applications are created

• Network equipment providers are capitalizing on Moore’s Law to provide the capacities that will support this growth

• The Internet will continue to grow to support the newly-evolving Applications & the higher Bandwidth Goals (ex: “1 Gbps to every home”) that will dominate the markets of the future


THANK YOU

Documents

Bandwidth Trends on the Internet... A Cable Data Vendor's Perspective