Detecon Opinion Paper OpEx and CO2 - Killing two Birds with one Green Stone. Strategic Considerations for incorporating Sustainability & Energy Efficiency in Access Networks

8/8/2019 Detecon Opinion Paper OpEx and CO2 - Killing two Birds with one Green Stone. Strategic Considerations for incorpo

1/29

Opinion Paper

OpEx and CO 2 Killing twoBirds with one Green Stone

Strategic Considerations for incorporating

Sustainability & Energy Efficiency inAccess Networks

2010 / 04

We make ICT strategies work


2/29

OpEx and CO 2 Killing two Birds with one Green Stone

Opinion Paper 2 Detecon International GmbH

Table of Contents

1 Summary ............................................................................................................. 3

2 Green ICT Pressure & Enabler.........................................................................4

2.1 ICT Sector in the (green) Spot Light............................................................4

2.2 Pressure Points ........................................................................................... 5

2.3 Battlefield Data Centers............................................................................5

2.4 Where to Continue Green Networks.........................................................6

2.5 Breaking the Network into Slices.................................................................7

3 Bad Boys Access Network & Customer Premises ........................................... 8

3.1 Customer Premises ..................................................................................... 8 3.2 Last Mile - Access ..................................................................................... 10

3.3 Savings xDSL ......................................................................................... 12

3.4 No Access Network is the same................................................................13

3.5 Savings Copper and Fiber......................................................................16

4 Network Optimization ........................................................................................ 19

4.1 Tangibility = Accuracy................................................................................19

4.2 Parameterization .......................................................................................20

4.3 As-Is Network ............................................................................................ 21 4.4 To-Be Network...........................................................................................23

5 Bibliography.......................................................................................................24

6 Abbreviations.....................................................................................................26

7 The Authors.......................................................................................................28

8 The Company....................................................................................................29


3/29



1 Summary

Bad Guys beyond the Datacenter Access Networks

A lot has been said about green datacenters. Magazines, the internet, conferences are allfull of tips and tricks to control the energy consumption of these network components. Theperception created is that datacenters are the big dogs in terms of opportunities forsustainability and energy-efficiency in carrier networks. Wrong. Access networks burn twiceas much power than datacenters do. They are the real bad guys in network infrastructures;only hiding it better by distributing their power consumption over a plethora of nationwidecomponents.

This paper draws attention to the access portion of the network because quantity matters.The total number of components in the access is greater than in any other part of thenetwork by several orders of magnitudes. As a result, improving the power consumption ofDSLAMs by just 1% can result in savings which are beyond the entire power consumption ofcore routers. Due to the massive number of hardware components, the access network is fullof green low hanging fruits that offer potentially large (aggregated) impact.

Translation into CO 2 and Energy

Making the right green choice to be future-proof with respect to expectations and pressurefrom regulatory authorities, shareholders and customers, may yield savings of hundreds ofmillions of dollars. This is sufficient to connect entire cities with fiber technology. At the same

time carbon emissions can be reduced by more than half a million tons. Decision makers areadvised to keep these numbers in mind when strategy/roadmap meetings are taking place.This paper will address:

1. Energy footprint of the current top-4 fixed access technologies2. Impact on carbon footprint (CO 2) of the carrier3. Energy-related savings when switching technologies4. Opportunities in customer premises

Do It once Do It Right

Reducing operational expenses and saving the environment sound appealing, but how doesone get there? Compared to defined and confined datacenters, a carrier network is a huge,complex, multi-vendor beast. Detailed assessment cannot be achieved with a patchwork-like, excel-sheet approach. It requires an in-depth, holistic network analysis and planning toolincorporating all network levels and OSI layers and extended by a large set of greenparameters.

Without an accurate planning and optimization tool, any green action plan will likely sufferfrom a lack of tangibility and measurable success. Even worse, analyzing only parts of anetwork without consideration to the rest can cause green, low-hanging fruits to beoverseen. When it comes to greening nationwide networks, an integrated big-picture view is

indispensable. It is no longer sufficient to adopt a fragmented piecemeal there-is-an-app-for-that approach.


4/29



2 Green ICT Pressure & Enabler

If there is one constant in the ICT universe, then it is the reality of ever-declining ARPUs andthe constant battle to maintain profits. And although new opportunities of revenue streamsare lurking around the corner driven by the myriad of emerging app services the attentionof carriers also has to remain on the other side of the profit equation; that of operational andcapital expenses.

2.1 ICT Sector in the (green) Spot Light

Cost optimization in the telco industry has undoubtedly been always very important. But inlight of the global recession which fully unfolded in 2009, the discussions around costs havebeen pushed to new levels. Green ICT the synonym for environmental friendly and energyefficient communication technology has moved center stage. It got a second chance. Mostcompanies, however, chose to act without much fanfare either because they were worriedabout potentially angering their shareholders or because they saw only a limited value inpushing a green image. But this has now changed. Keywords such as Sustainability, CO 2 and GHG were the hot topics of 2009. They are taken very seriously. There are countlesspublications, presentations, conferences, posts, blogs, and articles. Green ICT is killing twobirds with one stone saving money and reducing the negative environmental load onMother Nature.

Contributing just 2% of global CO 2 emissions [Global e-Sustainability Initiative, 2008], theICT sector has been pulled into the bulls eye of attention. Looking at such numbers, ICTexecutives may feel that they are being unjustly pressured to clean-up their operations when

the real emission sources lie elsewhere. Here, however, are the top 3 reasons why the ICTindustry is under the green spotlight:

2% is just an Average : 2% of CO 2 emission for ICT is only a global average.For developed countries the ICT sector can have stakes of beyond 10% in thetotal national power consumption [Fraunhofer Institute, 2009]

ICT Emissions are steadily increasing: Assuming unchanged current trendsand boundary conditions, analysts predict that in 2020 the ICT industry couldaccount for up to 15% of global average CO 2 emission. This sevenfold rise willbe driven by the necessity of satisfying direct and indirect needs of theInternet [IBBT, 2009]

ICT Performs an Enabler Role: Attention is drawn to companies whose corebusiness is Communications and IT and hence the ICT sector itself 1. They areseen as the enablers; the ones expected to come up with new, smart, andenvironmental-friendly solutions which can then be transferred and applied tothe other 98% of CO 2 emitters and create a positive avalanche effect[European Information and Communication Technology Association, 2008]

1 It is argued that the majority of other industry sectors only indirectly use IT to follow their (non-ICT) corebusiness rather than directly generating revenue from it.


5/29



2.2 Pressure Points

There is pressure on the ICT sector. It is on carriers, service providers, manufacturers and

vendors. Various expectations from different angles have to be met and the sooner thebetter. On a high level, there are essentially 4 groups acting like a clamp on ICT players:

Consumers

Competitors

Government

Stakeholders

Figure 1 gives an overview of the dilemma facing ICT players. As mentioned, differentgroups have different expectations. How does one satisfy the consumer, the tree-hugger andthe CEO at the same time? The solution is to find the overlap of commercial, consumer and

ecological considerations. For companies within the clamp, the important step is todetermine the core intersection of interests or the sweet spot [HP Labs, 2009].

Operator /Carrier /

ISP

SocialCustomers

EnvironmentalPlanet

EconomicShareholders

EcologicallyHarmful

CommerciallyUnfeasible

NicheMarket

SweetSpot

Group Perspectives Interest Perspectives

Operator /Carrier /

ISP

SocialCustomers

EnvironmentalPlanet

EconomicShareholders

EcologicallyHarmful

CommerciallyUnfeasible

NicheMarket

SweetSpot

Group Perspectives Interest Perspectives

Figure 1: Clamps with competing interest surrounding ICT players

Here lies the challenge. Green ICT is a relatively new and emerging field. There are few realmature best-practices yet or lessons-learned to follow. Companies have to assess theirmarket position and the degree to which the four clamps are of priority to them. It is a case-by-case decision to evaluate, judge and project if, when, and how prime directives andcorporate guidelines can be redefined and tuned toward both a sustainable businessstrategy (external issue) and optimized energy-efficient operations (internal issue). Tomaximize compliance with demands and requirements the overlap of internal and externaltopics and interests has to be found and the roadmap accordingly adjusted.

2.3 Battlefield Data Centers

Given the pressure and expectation on the ICT community and given all the hype and push,what is the status of Green ICT today? Have best-practices emerged for a well-evolvedsustainable and energy-efficient implementation strategy? Are there tangible, deployable,

solutions or just concepts? The answer is yes. There is a lot of activity. Is it holistic? Theanswer is a resounding no.


6/29



The majority of advice, opinions and publications on how to become green (or greener) arefocusing on datacenters (DC). Key fields and topics deal with HVAC improvements,increased utilization via virtualization, smart power management software and equipment

aiming for higher efficiency/energy ratios. What is the reason for the dominance of DC inliterature? Well, a DC can be also seen as a kind of low-hanging fruit.

From an architectural perspective they are well defined and confined objects, abuilding densely packed with technology and electronics of manageablediversity. Needless to say, the complexity of a DC is far less compared to anationwide network.

DCs in ICT are a paradigm of enablers. Large enterprises outside the ICTsector often have their own DCs. Transferability and quick impact to and onthe other 98% is reasonable. As mentioned before, this is an opportunity for agreen avalanche effect throughout a lot of industry sectors.

This is good for the economy. This is good for the environment. But it does not solve theexorbitantly high electricity bills of carriers. From their view the DC represents only one pieceof the puzzle. Carriers constantly need to (re)design, build, operate, and maintain (DBOM)their large network infrastructure. On top of this (considering Figure 1), they have to adjust toand comply with the 4 sections of the clamp in a sustainable (S) and energy-efficient way(EE). DBOM is expanding into SEE-DBOM.

2.4 Where to Continue Green Networks

Datacenters meanwhile are to a certain extent already under the green microscope or are atleast evolving to a low carbon future according to a loosely-defined roadmap. But what is

next? The logical next step is the network infrastructure.Tackling network infrastructure, however, is a difficult and complex problem with many openquestions. Should the carrier focus on core, aggregation, access network, or on everything?Who is in charge of the customer premises? Do they count as part of the access network ornot? What can be tweaked with deployment techniques? Are smart Network ManagementServices available for analyzing network components? Should a carrier optimize productlifetimes, analyze their supply chain or do something else? Should a carrier publicize theiractivities and launch PR announcements? Or should a carrier just postpone the majoractivities until being forced by authorities who enact regulations? What is the risk ofdisappointing customers and stakeholders?

Once a carrier decides to act and starts mapping the energy consumption of their networkthings get only more complicated. Open the technical specifications of an individual networkcomponent and the total power consumption is readily available. But how is this scaled to anationwide fixed or mobile network? How does one maintain accuracy while taking diverse,deployed, multi-vendor hardware into account? How does one show geographical break-downs, consider different OSI layers and incorporate metrics such as utilization, servicetype, protocol type, number of line cards, etc.?

There are many ways to address operational efficiency and sustainability in a carriernetwork. While some starting points only result in minor differences others can trigger major(positive) changes. Greening a network is a highly complex endeavor. So, how does oneproceed?


7/29



2.5 Breaking the Network into Slices

From an analytical point of view, the next step applicable to systems too large and complex

to be solved in one step would be to dissect the task into many simplified ones. Determineindividual environmental and energy impacts, followed by putting the pieces together againto get the big picture. An approach like this not only allows localizing fields of high priority(mapping energy hotspots) but also identifying quick-wins (small effort, large impact). Itaddresses some major question occupying the minds of carriers:

Where exactly in the network is energy consumed (energy mapping)?

How much watt is burned per transmitted MB (as function of technology)?

Are CapEx justified by lowered OpEx?

Figure 2 illustrates a break-down of power consumption for telecommunication networks. Inreality no network is the same as they are adapted to geographic conditions and the level ofindustrial development of the country. They differ in scope, hardware and software, and age.The given numbers should thus be treated as ballpark figure 2. About a third of the ICT powerusage goes to the telco networks (third bar) of which about 50% is again coming from thefixed network (14% of 28%, see scale of middle bar). Of that another 55% is caused by theaccess network. Essentially, the power consumption in the access network and DC are ofsimilar magnitude.

The figure further visualizes that Telcos carry an extra energy burden. When aiming toimprove environmental aspects most industry sectors only need to focus on internal IT(servers, computers, peripherals, and DC). Carriers, on top, have to maintain and operatelarge network infrastructures. Combining fixed and mobile, this part is responsible for 75% of

all power consumption in a telco network.

Access55%

Core35%

CarrierDependent

10%

Access70%

Core20%

Telco Networks28%

Peripherals58%

Data Centers14%

FixedNetworks

14%

MobileNetworks

12%

TelcoDC7%

Fixed Network Energy Breakdown(% of typical total fixed network)

Mobile Network Energy Breakdown(% of typical total fixed network)

Other2%

CarrierDependent

10%

Global ICT Energy Usage

Customers Residential & Business (70%)ICT (30%)

Telco Share of ICT Use(35% of global ICT)

0 20 40 60 80 100

0 7 14 21 28 35

0 25 50 75 100 0 25 50 75 100

Figure 2: Breaking the network into slices

2 Detecon Analysis derived from averaging various sources - [O2, 2008], [Huawei, 2010], [GreenComm 09],[Global e-Sustainability Initiative, 2008], [Fujitsu Laboratories of Europe, 2009], [Nokia Siemens Networks, 2008]


8/29



3 Bad Boys Access Network & Customer Premises

Given the power consumption breakdown in Chapter 2.5, it makes sense why telcos firstdrew their attention to datacenters. Within a confined space, these buildings burn about 20%of the total network power consumption (7% of 35%). However, other top-dogs are around:

Customer Premises

Access Networks

Access networks (fixed and mobile) are equal to about 45% of telco power consumption and15% of global ICT power, respectively. This is twice as much as for DCs the carriers areoperating. Customer premises are a special case. With 70%, they are almost 5 times higherthan access networks. If customers were to be assigned to the access networks their powerrequirements are 20-fold higher than for DCs of the global ICT sector. However, the scale ofcomplexity to implement improvements is most likely one order of magnitude higher as well.

DC1x

Customers &Access Networks

20x

DC1xDC1x


20x


20x

Figure 3: Customer last mile and access network energy needs dwarfs data centers

3.1 Customer Premises

While at first glance residences appear to be outside the responsibility of network operators,the importance of the clamps (Figure 1) is never to be neglected. The increasing social andenvironmental responsibility put upon carriers to minimize energy consumption is a double-edged sword. The expansion of responsibility into the customer premises is often perceivedas a burden, accompanied by additional efforts and investments. However, it is anopportunity to leverage reputation and brand image and in the long-run triggers trust andcustomer stickiness.

Given current trends, the customer premises are a source of new revenue streams. HomeArea Networks (HAN) is an example. Global revenues from products and services in thiscategory (remote home security monitoring, device and appliance control, utility demandresponse programs, remote temperature and media control, etc.) are estimated to grow to a

total global value of US$ 52 billion by 2014 [Practel Inc., 2009].


9/29



Centralized control of communication, multimedia and other home electronics is anappealing thought to end-consumers as it touches fundamental interests:

Socialize / Communicate

Entertainment / Multimedia

Save Money /Energy Control

52,1

34,3

18,4

8,77,4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

20142013201220112010

HAN (Billion $)

Figure 4: Revenue growth from home automation

Electronics9%

Lighting11%

H2O Heat12%

Temp43%

Other8%

Appliances17%

Electronics9%

Lighting11%

H2O Heat12%

Temp43%

Other8%

Appliances17%

Figure 5: Typical home energy consumption profile [U.S. Department of Energy, 2006]

And this is the opportunity for carriers. They are already in the house, own the internetconnection and have established trusted relationships. In this respect carriers are (still) ontop of the food chain. And it is where muscles can be flexed; the sooner the better.Otherwise expansion to a full scope of services ends up being a struggle and becomes adefense of the once-owned territory against aggressive newcomers (e.g. Apple and Google).For carriers the time has come to decide whether they want to be a sole bit pipe or not.


10/29



Given that no carrier is alike in terms of size, market position, global footprint, purchasingpower and product portfolio, a move into the arena of home control is a case-by-casedecision. Indispensable are strategic partnerships. Energy providers and manufacturers of

home appliance and end-consumer devices have to be brought to the table. An example ofdevelopments in this space is Verizons partnership with home automation vendor 4Home tobring connected home solutions to its end-consumers via its LTE network in 2010.

It is advised to (re-)define strategic goals and determine financial and environmental benefitsof an umbrella portfolio which has been complemented by low-power consuming productsand smart services. To cross-connect communication, entertainment, and home-control inthe customer premises creates added-value, positive perception, stickiness, reduces powerconsumption and, opens new revenue streams. It hits the sweet spot of Figure 1.

3.2 Last Mile - Access

Although there are (near-future) revenue opportunities that await carriers in the customerpremises, sustainable and energy-efficient advancements in that area are rather irrelevant toa carrier when it, again, comes to their monthly energy bill. For immediate relief theattention should be drawn to equipment the carrier owns themselves i.e. their own network.And as just stated, the bad guy waiting to be caught is the access network.

Common perceptions are that high power consumption is caused by specs on theindividual box-level

While this statement is correct, it lacks precision because a holistic network-wide perspectiveis neglected. More accurate would be:

High power consumption is caused on a network level and scales with the quantity ofspecific hardware; so do the opportunities for improvement

CPECPE

AccessAccess

AggregationAggregation

CoreCore

Network Equipment Quantity

1,000 10,000 100,00010 1001

N e t w o r

k P o w e r

C o n s u m p t

i o n

1,000,000

CarrierCustomer

Figure 6: Quantity matters


11/29



As Figure 6 illustrates, the number of access nodes can be 10,000 times higher than nodesrequired for the core [Cisco, 2009]. The difference in quantity leads to a multiplying effect.Minor changes can trigger major savings.

Table 1 highlights the above mentioned box- and network-level perspectives. Core and edgenodes are top dogs in power consumption. They can outpace access nodes 3 up to 100times. However, to conclude that a core box is a significant contributor to the overall powerconsumption is, as mentioned before, inaccurate. First, only a few are necessary, andsecond, from a network perspective the per-user consumption is actually x100 less. Inother words, the apparent power-draining operation is compensated by their capability tohandle a large amount of users.

Type Box Box Network

Access- DSLAM ~ 50 900W / box 1 user / port = ~ 1.5 2W / user

Access- OLT ~ 15 30W / module 32 user / module, 8 m/box = ~ 0.5 0.9W/ user

Core/Edge Router ~ 2k 11kW / chassis ~ 128 640 Gb/s capacity = ~ 16 W/Gb/s 20W/Gb/s

Bandwidth: 12Mbps / user ~ 10k - 53k users = ~ 0.20 - 0.25 W/user

Ove rs ubs crip tion : x20 ~ 2 00 k - 1 Mio us ers = ~ 0.01 W/user

Power Consumption

Table 1: Power consumption of ICT network equipment

What does this mean if a common improvement factor (e.g. 20%) is applied to the boxes in the core/edge and access region?

Example :

A network with 20 million DSL subscribers requires tens of thousands of DSLAMS, a fewhundred edge routers and tens of core routers 4 Table 2. About 98% of the network boxesare located in the access part. Here, the multiplying effect takes effect.

Network Boxes for 20 Mio users Consumption h improve reduced by kWAccess - DSLAM 35,000 31.5 MW (98%) 1% 315

Core - Router 20 220 kW (0.7%) 100% 220

Edge - Router 200 400 kW (1.3%) 79% 316

Improvement

Table 2: Effect of efficiency improvements in ICT network equipment of access, core, and edge

3 Ranges depend on number of ports the DSLAM offers, e.g. Mini DLSAMs with 24 ports can consume as little as50W while larger models with e.g. 576 ports may require power beyond 900 W. The situation is similar with OLT(Optical Line Terminals) [Detecon Analysis, 2010].

4 The total number of users which are switched and routed in aggregation- and -core networks is determined by theaverage traffic volume generated per user and not by the bandwidth the user subscribed to . Determining the ratioyields the overbooking factor which can be as high as 20-50. Yet, applying different overbooking factors does notnecessarily command hardware changes, thus direct changes in power consumption (we neglect utilizationdependency for a moment). Contrary to this, the number of users in the access network can only be increased by adding more ports . More ports means additional hardware which triggers increased power consumption.

Example : Traffic of 100,000 users (each 100 Mbps) or 10mio users (each 1 Mbps) is essentially the same andwith this, the required router as well. But for the latter case the carrier requires to roll-out 100fold more customerports.


12/29



Although per-box power consumption of a DSLAM is rather low theircontribution to the total power consumption (DLSAM, edge, core router) issignificant (98%).

1 % of power reduction on the DLSAM level (315kW) is already 1.5 timeslarger than the basic power consumption (220kW) of all core routers together(Table 2)

Core routers would essentially need to run power-free (100% improvement)and still do not reach the same reduction. Edge routers were to improve by79%. 5

Improvements by 1%, 100%, or 79% are extreme values, hence rather unrealistic. But theyemphasize the strength of impact the access network can unfold. If 20% improvement were

and given a product lifetime of, e.g. 5 years, carriers can reduce their OpEx by ~$40 millionsolely by reducing energy consumption in the DSLAM. This corresponds to 150,000 tons ofCO 2

6 (Table 3).

Network Boxes for 20 Mio users Consumption 5y (GWh) improve Savings US$ / PLAccess - DSLAM 35,000 1,380 20% 41,391,000

Core - Router 20 9.64 20% 289,080

Edge - Router 200 17.5 20% 525,600

Network Boxes for 20 Mio users Consumption 5y (GWh) improve Savings Tons CO2 / PLAccess - DSLAM 35,000 1,380 20% 150,111

Core - Router 20 9.64 20% 1,048

Edge - Router 200 17.5 20% 1,906

Savings US$ during Product Lifetime (5y)

Savings in CO2 Emission during Product Lifetime (5y)

Table 3: OpEx and CO 2 emission savings from efficiency improvements during a 5y product lifetime

3.3 Savings xDSL

The previous numbers were derived in a simplified way as they were only referring tostandalone DSLAM and routers. In reality, the degree of complexity for power consumptionis by far higher. Racks, MDF, cabinets, AC/DC power supplies, converters, cooling ofequipment and building, lighting, etc. have to be considered. Also, power consumption as afunction of vendor, model, service, utilization, and number of line cards / modules needs tobe taken into account.

No common denominator or best practice for a holistic power consumption determination isyet available. For example, referring to Figure 7 34% of the total power consumption incentral offices of a US carrier is caused by cooling [Verizon, 2009]. However, this number isa function of geographic location. In Iceland the same equipment could be cooled effectivelyby literally speaking leaving the windows open. Accordingly, the numbers in the break-down of would shift. Nevertheless, the estimated 12% of total energy consumption causedby DSLAMs can be used to further estimate potential savings.

5

A publication by Tucker et al. indicates that when the average Internet bandwidth per user exceeds 150Mbps(overbooking 25x), the routers will become the dominant energy consuming components in a carrier network.Todays average Internet bandwidth is 2.5Mbps (overbooking 25x). [Tucker, 2009]

6 1kWh assumed 15 US cent. Conversion: 1kWh = 0.544 Kg CO 2 for grid electricity, www.carbontrust.co.uk


13/29



Equipment 48%Power & Cooling 52%

Figure7: Power consumption in central office

Again assuming 20% improvement and a 5 years product lifetime for all equipment in allcentral offices of the access network, the US$40 million (Table 4) would increase to US$340million. This is equal to 1.25 million tons of CO 2.

When carriers arrive at strategic crossroads to implement sustainable and energy efficienttechnologies, it is advised to classify approaches using an IER (impact/effort ratio), bytime-to-implement (quick-wins/long-term) and, by Opex and CapEx. Carriers should realizethat there are significant savings that they can make right now.

Network Power % of Centra l Office Consumption 5y (GWh) improve Savings US$ / PL

DSLAM 12 1,380 20% 41,391,000

Central Office 100 11,498 20% 344,925,000

Network Power % of Centra l Office Consumption 5y (GWh) improve Savings Tons CO2 / PL

DSLAM 12 1,380 20% 150,111

Central Office 100 11,498 20% 1,250,928

Savings Central Office CO2 / Product Lifetime (5y)

Savings Central Offices $ / Product Lifetime (5y)

Table 4: OpEx savings over product lifetime in Central Offices assuming 20% energy improvement

3.4 No Access Network is the same

Not all of currently deployed access technologies are future-proof in a sense of being able tomaster the increasing bandwidth demands of end-consumers. On a per-user level differenttechnologies vary in power consumption and available bandwidth. Some technologiesoperate virtually independent of the distance to the central office while others dont live up totheir promises. With regard to access network technologies no matter if new deployment orupgrade a solid understanding of operational expenses and, more important, for savingopportunities is crucial.


14/29



The example in Chapter 3.2 was given for unspecified DSL technology i.e. no differentiationof flavor. Optical access was not considered as well. As shown in Figure, this chapter goesone level deeper and compares the top 4 fixed-line access technologies: ADSL2+, VDSL2(both copper), PON and AON (both fiber).

Figure 9a) compares fixed-line access technologies. Black dots present power consumptionper user [Alcatel-Lucent, 2009] while blue bars are maximum available bandwidth.

FiberFiber

Vendor x,y,zVendor x,y,z

DSLDSL

EletronicsEletronics

PONPON ADSLADSL

OpticsOptics

AONAON VDSLVDSL

CarrierCarrier

Figure 8: The four most commonly deployed access technologies

Given that end-consumers do not reside in the central office (exchange) a bandwidthcomparison is conducted at 800m. 7 Figure 9a) shows that power consumption appears toincrease with the offered bandwidth (left to right, exception: GPON). While for dial-upmodems (0.056 Mbps, left bar) the bandwidth is barely visible, the power consumption issimilar to ADSL2+ (~1.2W). However, the ADSL2+ connection offers 25Mbps. Normalizingthe power consumption to the maximum available bandwidth reveals that ADSL2+ is about410 times more power-efficient per Mbps compared to dial-up. The ratios (required powerper offered Mbps) are shown in Figure 9b).

7 Such average distances are reasonable for densely populated regions such as urban areas. Larger distances areless informative, at least for copper based technologies. VDSL2 is very distance-dependant. Beyond 2km (~6,500 ft) the down-stream bandwidth has converged to those of ADSL2+. Optical solutions are quite different.GPON and AON maintain their maximum bandwidths up to distance of 20km from the central office / exchange.

It is one of the reasons why many carriers often go with a hybrid solution; fiber to the curb/cabinet with the lastfew hundred meters to the residential premises via VDSL2. For completeness, dial-up modems (56kbps) aregiven as well although they are rather inefficient with respect to W/Mbps. However, in Germany, there are ~ 5miodial up modems still in operation.


15/29



0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0

1

2

3

4

5Mbps/userWatt/user

0.04

21.40

0.02

0.00GPON

0.007

AON/AE

0.033

VDSL2

0.046

ADSL2+

0.052

Dial-up

Watt/Mbps

[ M b p s / u s e r

]

[ W a t

t / u s e r ]

[ W a t

t / M b p s ]

0.056

Bandwidth Powera)

b)

[ M b p s / u s e r

]

[ W a t

t / u s e r ]

[ W a t

t / M b p s ]

0.056

Bandwidth Powera)

b)

a)

b)

Figure 9: Power consumption and bandwidth on a per-user level (a) and power normalized to bandwidth

(b) for the most common fiber and copper access technologies

Comparing access technologies yields that

GPON consumes 6.5 times less power per Mbps than VDSL2

AON/AE consumes 1.4 times less power per Mbps than VDSL2.

Note: Figure b) should be treated with care as it may be misunderstood that powerconsumption freely scales within a given access technology. This is not the case. Having acustomer with 10Mbps ADSL2+ is not equal to a power consumption of 10x0.052W/Mbps.The ratios are based on maximum available bandwidth, meaning only valid for customerssigning up for the full speed but not for fractions of it.

In the majority of todays deployed carrier networks both fiber and copper accesstechnologies still run on full-power-mode for lines and ports. Power consumption is largelyindependent of the subscribed bandwidth. 8

8 Low power L2-modes are implemented for ADSL/2+. However, due to introduced delay, risk of packet drop anddisturbance of neighboring lines, most carriers have not activated that feature.


16/29



3.5 Savings Copper and Fiber

The differences in power consumption of the access technologies are now translated intocosts and CO 2 emission. The scenario is as follows: Users sign up for xMbps internetconnection. All ports/lines at the central office run on full-power mode (Figure a).

The results for power consumption and electricity cost are summarized in Table 5 9.Compared to the previous calculation where a mixed flavor of DSL was used (Table 1), thedetailed break-down confirms that advancements in DSL speeds always come along withincreased power consumption (triggered by the usage of wider frequency bands). Doublingthe bandwidth by moving from ADSL2+ to VDSL2 increases the power nearly twofold. Table5 also gives a cost ratio (normalized to VDSL). It facilitates direct comparison.

Access Technology ADSL2+ VDSL2 AON/AE GPON

Costs 20M users / 5 y (US$) 170,820,000 302,220,000 433,620,000 91,980,000

CO2 20M use rs / 5 y (tons ) 619,507 1,096,051 1,572,595 333,581

Penalty (35$ per ton CO2) 21,682,752 38,361,792 55,040,832 11,675,328

Cost Ratio (norm alized to VDSL2) 0.57 1.00 1.43 0.30

Costs and CO2 emission during Product Lifetime

Table 5: Cost and emission savings by access technology over product lifetime

Governmental policies may emerge in the near future that punish companies for CO 2 emissions. It is estimated that fees in the order of $US20 50 per ton will emerge [Gartner,2010]. Carriers should remember that this has an immediate negative impact on any revenue

calculation. Assuming an average of US$35 per ton, VDSL2 would generate another 38million dollars of additional expenses/costs (Table 5).

Apparently, in the course of the product lifetime and from an environmental point of view, theright choice of access technology can

make a difference of a several hundred million dollars in OpEx

be accompanied by CO 2 reductions of at least 500,000 tons

Greenest approach is GPON. Costs and CO 2 are at a third of VDSL2.

The following Figure 10 and Figure 11 shall establish a gut feeling for potential savings(financial and carbon foot print) when switching technologies. In the same vein, comparingnetwork components with real-life carbon emitters (cars) is also meant to better visualizethe scale of impact.

9 Dial-up modems are neglected in this example. It is also assumed that all ports and modules of the DSLAM andOLT, respectively, are fully connected with users and in operation. For simplicity we assume the OLTs cover asimilar 12% contribution to the Central Office as DSLAMs do.


17/29



333,581

1,572,595

1,096,051

619,507

0.300

1.430

1.000

0.570

GPONAON/AEVDSL2ADSL2+

CO2 / Year (Tons)

Ratio (VDSL2 =1)

5 year product lifetime

CO 2 emissions decline by 700,000 tons whenswitching from VDSL2 to GPON

OpEx decreases by 200 Mio US$ when switching fromVDSL2 to GPON

Compared to VDSL2

ADSL2+ generates 60% of CO2 emissions (~600,000tons)

GPON generates 30% of CO2 emissions (~300,000tons)

333,581

1,572,595

1,096,051

619,507

0.300

1.430

1.000

0.570


CO2 / Year (Tons)

Ratio (VDSL2 =1)

333,581

1,572,595

1,096,051

619,507

0.300

1.430

1.000

0.570


CO2 / Year (Tons)

Ratio (VDSL2 =1)

5 year product lifetime

CO 2 emissions decline by 700,000 tons whenswitching from VDSL2 to GPON

OpEx decreases by 200 Mio US$ when switching fromVDSL2 to GPON

Compared to VDSL2

ADSL2+ generates 60% of CO2 emissions (~600,000tons)

GPON generates 30% of CO2 emissions (~300,000tons)

Figure 10: CO 2 emission and OpEx savings after 5 years (upper) and comparisonof VDSL to other access technologies

1 VDSL2DLSAM

15 carsNew York to Berlin

=CO2

1 VDSL2DLSAM

15 carsNew York to Berlin

=CO2

Cars versus VDSL DSLAM

1 million tons of emitted CO2 is equal to the CO2emission of half a million cars (with average USmileage) driving 4000 miles from New York City toBerlin.

Figure 11: Comparison of VDSL emission to car usage

Unfortunately, capital expenditures do not work in favor for optical technologies.

DSL can (re-)use existing copper wires even from decades ago. Cost factorsare therefore located on the material/hardware side.

For optical access networks green-field approaches are often necessary. Theyrequire investments mostly arising from digging and trenching. Dominant costfactors are located on labor side.

Reusing own cable ducts is not always feasible/possible. Thus, carriers are investigatingalternative deployment methods to standard trenching. Often discussed is micro-trenching,

joint usage of existing power pipes and sewage systems or outdoor overhead lines.Obviously efforts vary and so does the cost. Among them micro-trenching is a promisingcandidate despite their higher risk for cable damage due to the low surface clearance.However, costs reductions are estimated to be around 70% [Alcatel-Lucent, 2009]. Inaddition, the financial investment for fiber deployment varies by country, all triggered by laborcosts.


18/29



Costs involved for fiber roll-out in developed countries are 1,000 - 3,000 US $ per household[Verizon, 2008], [NRW, 2009]. Using those, we can now roughly estimate the number ofhousehold which can be connected free-of-deployment cost. Expenses were paid via the

savings achieved by switching from VDSL2 to GPON (Figure 12)10

.

Free fiber deployment to households

The switch VDSL -> GPON accumulates around 200Mio US$ in OpEx savings after 5 years. This can berechanneled to CapEx. It is equal to the costs ofconnecting 100,000 households with fiber.

CapEx

=

Reinvest savings200 Mio US $

No additional costs100,000 households

OpEx

Figure 12: VDSL to GPON switch saves OpEx

Reality Check: A lot of numbers have been juggled in the last chapters. They were all basedon a simple bottom-up box-to-network-level expansion approach (Chapter 3.2). A quickcheck is done to verify if the conclusions arrived at are reasonable. A top-down approach isconducted. Statements from carriers, manufacturers, and research institutes are used asinput.

Energy consumption of Deutsche Telekom was 3.6 TWh in 2008 [DeutscheTelekom, 2008].

About 14% and 28% of ICT power stems from DC and telco networks,respectively (Global e-Sustainability Initiative, 2008). 50% of the 14% DCpower is caused by Telcos. Hence, from 3.6 TWh of DTAGs about 2.9 TWh isnetwork related.

Power distribution between core and access equipment is 30/70 and 40/60 forfixed and mobile networks, respectively [Huawei, 2010]. DTAG has both mobileand fixed. A mixed 35/65 ratio is taken. About 1.9 TWh left for both mobile andfixed access equipment.

50% share for fixed networks compared to 43% for mobile networks (7% rest)[Nokia Siemens Networks, 2008]. About 0.95 TWh left for the fixed line accessnetwork.

DSLAMs contribution to central offices is about 12% [Verizon, 2009]. This isequal to ~ 110 GWh for DSLAMs from the 0.95 TWh.

Bottom-up box-level resulted in annually ~ 276 GWh for DSLAMs (Table 3) andwas based on 20 Mio subscribers. DTAG has ~ 13 Mio subscribers.Adjustment from 276 GWh to 179 GWh.

The reality check shows that numbers estimated in this report (179 GWh) match well withreal-life operator data (~ 110 GWh).

10 Average deployment costs of 2,000 US $ (USA, Germany, rural and urban) is assumed and savings of about200,000,000 US$ are taken from Table 5 (difference between VDSL2 and GPON after 5 years of lifespan)


19/29



4 Network Optimization

To estimate numbers for power consumption, cost saving, and CO 2 emissions the either/orprinciple has been applied in the previous chapters. Carriers were assumed to use, e.g.either DSL or fiber optics deployed with ADSL or VDSL, GPON or AON, respectively. Thereality-check in Chapter 3.5 showed that such simplified cases indeed deliver reasonablenumbers. However, they are tied to one specific type of box, to network components alwaysrunning on 100% utilization, and most important, yielded total power estimations.

The reality looks very different. Todays carrier networks are a blend of various accesstechnologies to say nothing about different vendors, models, ages (efficiencies). Theyoperate at the same time, run on different utilizations and may differ in the scope ofsupported services. Technologies may be even combined e.g. high investments with GPONto the curb and bridging the last few 100m to residential premises with high power

consumption VDSL2.How are green impact factors determined for mixed technologies? How does a telcoproceed when only a partial upgrade or technology replacement is considered? In whichregion of the country shall modifications be started? This chapter is addressing concepts ofhow to deal with nationwide networks in a correct and tangible way.

Without an up-to-date fully-fledged picture covering the real-life complexity of a carriersnetwork it becomes close to impossible to accurately determine the benefits of any greenactions in the network.

4.1 Tangibility = AccuracyHow valuable are green recommendations if after their implementation the impact cannot orcan only barely be verified in measurable numbers?

This question might appear absurd as one would think that tangibility is one of the majorgoals when deploying network modifications. However, a survey published [OECD, 2008]analyzed 92 government programs and business initiatives across more than 20 countriesplus the European Commission 11 . The document reports that 80% of submitted programsand initiatives do not address a clear and measurable line of action on how to captureimprovements. Only 20% showed measurable targets and/or indicators to measure whetherthese targets are being achieved. While government programs were still relatively focusedon tangibility, only 2 of 42 submitted business initiatives contained measurable targets.

The study implies that companies and carriers are facing tremendous challenges to yieldreproducible and tangible results for green improvements. One likely cause is the networkinfrastructure itself with its (nearly overwhelming) complexity. As mentioned, networks havegrown over years into a multi-facetted animal.

11 The programs and initiatives where focusing on R&D, innovation, Green ICT applications, data centers,employee awareness, value chains, etc essentially everything around ICT.


20/29



Figure 13 illustrates which basic steps are advised for a carrier who is planning to green hisnetwork in a holistic and accurate fashion (see also Chapter 3.2: Power consumption takesplace on the network- and not box-level).

The ideal way is to utilize a network analysis and planning tool that can import a carriernetwork on a nationwide level and considers all OSI layers (from physical to application).

The granularity of detail that has to be captured in a network level analysis includesspecific device categories, network technology, vendor-specific hardware (brand,model), power consumption dependency on utilization, type of service, number of ports,lines, etc. After vendor benchmarking different scenarios can be simulated to meet growthand demand of the carrier.

It is this very degree of accuracy determining if a network analysis goes beyond apparentand shallow opportunities but also reveals hidden and deeper ones.

VendorBenchmarking

ScenarioSimulations

AB

CD

AccessArea (GIS)

DistributionArea (GIS)

PlanningTool

Country (Geography)

Local Map(Geography)

VendorBenchmarking

VendorBenchmarking

ScenarioSimulations

AB

CD

ScenarioSimulations

AABB

CCDD

AccessArea (GIS)

DistributionArea (GIS)DistributionArea (GIS)

PlanningTool

Country (Geography)Country (Geography)



Figure 13: Assessing a nationwide carrier network

4.2 Parameterization

A green network planning tool must deliver GIS maps (Geographic Information System) ofthe network reflecting energy hotspots. Above-mentioned, high-granularity, adjustableparameters have to be established. They enable simulating different network scenarios tofind the solution which complies with given boundary conditions (Performance, Efficiency,Sustainability, and Environment).

An important aspect of boundary conditions is hardware assessment. Figure 14 shows keycornerstones to benchmark vendors. From the start of the manufacturing process, throughthe operational phase and to the end-of-life recycling, the entire chain of individual steps hasto be taken into account.


21/29



0

5

10Capex

Manufacturing

Lifetime

Power dissipation

Power input

Recycling

Vendor Benchmarking Product xProduct y

S ustainability

P erformance E fficiency

Environment

Valuation

1 2 3 4 5 60 1 ... ... 9 10weak strong

0

5

10Capex

Manufacturing

Lifetime

Power dissipation

Power input

Recycling

Vendor Benchmarking Product xProduct y

S ustainability


EnvironmentS ustainability


Environment

Valuation

1 2 3 4 5 60 1 ... ... 9 10weak strong

Valuation

1 2 3 4 5 60 1 ... ... 9 10weak strong

Figure 14: Parameters for Vendor Benchmarking and valuation comparison

Benchmarking should go beyond the ranking of hard specification but also include soft-factors such as level of innovation, maturity, and product roadmap. In light of fast-pacedindustrial research the latter is of particular importance as technological advancements mayemerge on time-frames which are shorter than product lifetimes. A missing innovationroadmap minimizes the carriers chances to stay competitive. Vendor 1 might be the betterchoice today, but not in e.g. 6 months from now. Without a roadmap the gatheredinformation is reduced to trend-less and static screenshot in time.

Carriers must stay up-to-date. As just stated, in an ideal case they must stay up-to-date notonly about todays technologies, but also about the ones yet to come. It creates the pressureto know everything, to have knowledge beyond the box and into the module/componentlevel such as low-power consuming processor technology [Detecon, 2007] or opticalswitching and onboard interconnects [Detecon, 2009].

The look under the future hood approach is often neglected or treated poorly in RfPssimply because of limited knowledge or the lack of granularity. No question, a networkengineer responsible for a RfP can hardly be a specialist in on-chip processor busstructures or skilled in silicon nanophotonics at the same time.

Nevertheless, when it comes to the greening of purchase and supply chain carriers haveto become future-proof by covering all aspects / parameters / boundary conditions.Eventually, it is their money which has been spent wisely; or not.

4.3 As-Is Network

As indicated in Figure a holistic network analysis commences with the assessment of theAs-Is-Network; the starting point of any before-after approach.

Figure 15 shows the concept in more detail. A GIS visualized map of location (nation) servesas the foundation on which the different network layers and levels are placed on top.


22/29



To do so, the network is analyzed regarding deployed hardware and software, based onvendor specifications as well as exported data from the network. This step covers measuringenergy consumption in general and under different loads of operations/utilization.

Consolidating all data allows performing a gap-analysis with results located around quick-wins. Here it is useful to show the network in energy heat-map mode. It flags regions ofhigh power consumption. Normalizing the map to the regional density of served customersavoids misinterpreting urban regions as power-inefficient areas per se. Important istangibility. Without hard numbers for the network, it is questionable as to whichimprovements can be tracked and proven.

Assess architecture

Identify HW & SWcomponents

Apply evaluationparameters

Establish Audit Plan

Measure energyconsumption and

collect data

Conduct gap andpain-point analysis

Create energyheat map

Scope Analyze Consolidate

Measure networkperformance vs.

energy consumption

Derivepower/performance

ratio &efficiency

W kB

$ kB

Dissect network intoenergy zones

As-is Network

Location

Demand

Dimensioning

Cost Calculation

Scenario Simulation

To-be Network

Assess architecture

Identify HW & SWcomponents

Apply evaluationparameters

Establish Audit Plan

Measure energyconsumption and

collect data

Conduct gap andpain-point analysis

Create energyheat map

Scope Analyze Consolidate

Measure networkperformance vs.

energy consumption


ratio &efficiency

W kB

$ kB


ratio &efficiency

W kB

$ kB

Dissect network intoenergy zones

As-is Network

Location

Demand

Dimensioning

Cost Calculation

Scenario Simulation

To-be Network

Figure 15: Capturing the "As-Is" network of a carrier

To a certain degree a network dissection might be applied; separating the network into DC,Access, Aggregation/MAN, and Core and focusing on one part only. However, if networklayers are analyzed out of context, it carries the risk of losing the big picture. As elaboratedearlier, energy improvements for routers can put the core network into a favorable light, butmay have only marginal impact on power consumption of the entire network (Table 1).

There is healthy activity around energy-efficiency improvements, reflected mostly in

industrial and academic R&D. Some might take a few years to hit the market while othersare ready to be launched. While this is undoubtedly good, most publications are focusing onspecialized niches, often on one particular box or even a single component/module.Naturally, companies draw their attention to the technologies/products within their corebusinesses. And as commented before, advancements of this kind are of indispensablevalue. They can contain indicators in which direction technology will evolve. Carriers, on theother hand, are never dealing with one specific technology/module but are, instead, amelting pot of many. They are primarily interested in a consolidated end-to-end solutionrather than patchwork activities. According to statements of major US carriers andequipment manufacturers a holistic planning & optimization tool which can deal with entirenetworks and offers green adjustable parameters would be of large benefit for the

telecommunications industry [Conference, 2009].


23/29



4.4 To-Be Network

The path from the as-is state to the anticipated to-be is a long and winding road full ofpitfalls, potholes, and missed opportunities. Some are hidden and easily overseen. One wayto avoid stepping into/over them are network simulations that vary parameters and track howenergy heat maps and power efficiencies are changing. Figure 16 illustrates this. It isassumed that the as-is-network is known, the forecast for traffic growth and the roll-out ofnew services finalized, and the increase in network capacity accordingly dimensioned. At thisstage vendor benchmarking is needed (Figure 14). Essentially every single piece of infor-mation should be used to further parameterize the network simulation. A matrix with e.g. 4major fields (operational, technological, financial, roadmap) would allow direct comparison ofthe different computed solutions.

A B C

Operational

Technological

Financial

Roadmap A s s e s s m e n

t

C r i

t e r i a

Assessment Matrix

long-termquick-wins

UpdateUpgradeReplaceRedesign

cornerstones

Performance

EfficiencySustainabilityEnvironment

Solution Scenarios

D e s i gn

E v al u a t i on

S e

l e c t i on

D e s i gn

E v al u a t i on

S e

l e c t i on

As-is Network

Location

Demand

Dimensioning

Cost Calculation

Scenario Simulation

To-be Network

Figure 16: Developing the To-Be Network of a carrier based upon simulation different scenarios

parameterized with green criteria

For instance, solution A might be a green-field approach. It runs on the latest technology andoffers services beyond competition with an outstanding degree of sustainability. But itrequires high investments. Solution B is rather conservative, upgrades stepwise the existingtechnology, is low in investment, and equal to competition. But it shows only moderate CO 2 reductions. In light of Figure 1 (pressure point, expectation, and perception) which path is theright one? Which one to take? Or is a blend of A and B is the right way?

Todays available planning tools must have an extended set of parameters; a blend ofwell-known regular and new green parameters. They give carriers the opportunity toanalyze and optimize their networks according to energy-efficiency and sustainability. Atool known to do this is NetWorks developed by Detecon in the course of the last 30years and recently expanded to cover sustainable and energy efficient parameters[Networks, 2010].


24/29



5 Bibliography

Alcatel-Lucent. (2009). Eco-sustainable Fixed Access. New York City: Green Telecom East2009.

Cisco. (2009, July). Scaling IP/MPLS - A service provider's view.

Conference, G. T. (2009). (Dr. E. Dulkeith, Interviewer)

Detecon Analysis. (2010). ICT node power consumption based on statements andpublications of 15 vendors, scientific publications and research studies.

Detecon/Intel (2007). Convergence on a chip: Potential opportunities for telco industry, Dr. E.Dulkeith and Dr. Dominik Schmidt

Detecon. (2009). From the village lane to the highway: Optical fiber networks reach high speed using photonic packet switching. Detecon Management Report, Dr. E. Dulkeith, Dr. K.Grunert, S. van-der Merwe

Deutsche Telekom. (2008). Corporate Social Responsibility Report. Retrieved 2010, fromhttp://www.cr-bericht.telekom.de/site08/en/daten-fakten/kennzahlen/oekologische-kennzahlen-/index.php

European Information and Communication Technology Association. (2008). High Tech: Low Carbon -The role of the European digital technology industry in tackling climate change.

Fraunhofer Institute. (2009). Electricity consumption by information technology is steadily rising - "GreenIT" can stem the tide. Retrieved 2010, fromhttp://www.izm.fraunhofer.de/EN/fue_ergebnisse/materials_and_reliability/Informationstechnologien_verbrauchenmehrundmehr_Strom.jsp

Fujitsu Laboratories of Europe. (2009, October). Trends in Green Wireless Access. Fujitsu Scientific and Technical Journal , pp. 404-408.

Gartner. (2010). Top End User Predictions for 2010: Coping with the New Balance of Power.

Global e-Sustainability Initiative. (2008). Smart 2020: Enabling the low-carbon economy in

the information age.

GreenComm. (2009). First International Workshop on Green Communications. Dresden.

HP Labs. (2009). ICT and Smart Power Management: Impact on Sustainability.

Huawei. (2010). Energy Efficiency Solutions . Retrieved 2010, fromhttp://www.huawei.com/green/energy_efficiency.do

IBBT. (2009). Is ICT Green? IEEE ICC 2009 Panel P04 - Green Communications. Dresden.

Networks. (2010). Analysis, Planning and Optimization Software for Telecommunications

Networks. Detecon Consulting.


25/29



Nokia Siemens Networks. (2008). Power consumption and energy efficiency of telecom networks. Kyoto: ITU/MIC Symposium on ICTs and Climate Change.

NRW. (2009). Glasfaser-Ausbau wird durch Umdenken bei den Netzbetreibern erleichtert .Retrieved 2010, from http://www.ikt-nrw.de/blog/jkaack/glasfaser-ausbau_wird_durch_umdenken_bei_den_netzbetreibern_erleichtert

O2. (2008). O2 Corporate Social Responsibility Report 2008 . Retrieved 2010, fromhttp://www.o2.com/cr2008/performance/environment/electricity_consumption/2008.html

OECD. (2008). Towards Green ICT strategies: Assessing Policies and Programmes on ICTs and the Environment. Retrieved 2010, fromhttp://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/18/43044065.pdf

Practel Inc. (2009). Home Area Networks and Wireless Smart Sensors: Technologies and

Markets.

Tucker, P. R. (2009). A Green Internet. Center for Ultra-Broadband Information Networks.

U.S. Department of Energy. (2006). Building Energy Data Book.

Verizon. (2008). A Fiber Future: Challenges for markets and policy. Stavanger: OECDWorkshop.

Verizon. (2009). Green Solutions for Todays Telecom Networks. New York City: GreenTelecom East 2009.


26/29



6 Abbreviations

AC/DC alternating current / direct current

ADSL2+ Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line 2

AE Active Ethernet

ALU Alcatel-Lucent

AON Active Optical Network

ARPU Average Revenue Per User

AT&T American Telephone and Telegraph Company

CapEx Capital Expenditure

CO 2 Carbon Dioxide

CSR Corporate Social ResponsibilityDBOM (re)Design, Build, Operate, and Maintain

DC Data Centers

DLNA Digital Living Network Alliance

DSLAM Digital Subscriber Line Access Multiplexer

EE Energy-Efficient

Gbps Gigabit per second

GE General Electric

GHG Green House Gas

GIS Geographic Information System

GWh Giga-Watt hours

HVAV Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning

IBBT Interdisciplinary institute for BroadBand Technology

ICT Information and Communication Technology

IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

IER Impact/Effort Ratio

ISP Internet Service Providers

IT Information Technologyk kilo (thousand)

kW kilo-Watt

MAN Metropolitan Area Network

MB Megabyte

Mbps Megabit per second

MDF Main Distribution Frame

Mio Million

MPG miles per gallon

NMS Network Management System


27/29



NYC New York City

OECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development

OEO Optical-Electrical-Optical conversion

OLT Optical Line Terminals

OOO pure optical switching (optical-Optical-Optical)

OpEx Operational Expenditure

OSI Open Systems Interconnection

PESE Performance, Efficiency, Sustainability, Environment

PL Product lifetime

PON Passive Optical Network

PPS Photonic Packet Switching

PR Public RelationsR&D Research and Development

RfP Request for Proposal

ROI Return on Investment

S Sustainability

SEE-DBOM Sustainable, Energy-Efficient Design, Build, Operate, and Maintain

Telco Telecommunication Company

US United States

VDSL2 Very High Speed Digital Subscriber Line

W Watt

xDSL x digital subscriber line (mix of different DSL technologies)

y years


28/29



7 The Authors

Dr. Eric Dulkeith is member of the Strategy & Innovation Group in Detecons Silicon Valleyoffice in California. The main focus of his activities is on innovation management andbusiness development of converging technologies and markets. Before joining Detecon, heworked at IBM Watson Research Center in New York on the analysis of future optical on-chip communication architectures. He was awarded the degree of Ph.D. in Physics from theUniversity of Munich (LMU) for his work on nanosensor technology. He is the author ofnumerous publications and has given more than 30 written/oral contributions for internationaltechnology magazines, conferences, and workshops.

Eric Dulkeith can be reached at [email protected]

Rajat Mukherjee is a Business Analyst for Detecon Americas Strategy and InnovationGroup. He is also a member of the Mobile Internet Center of Excellence at DeteconInternational. He was awarded a Bachelors degree in Electrical Engineering (Honors) byMcGill University in Montreal, Canada and a Masters degree in Management Science andEngineering by Stanford University in Palo Alto, USA. His prior work in thetelecommunications industry has focused on next generation access and convergencetechnologies. He is the co-author of over 35 patents pending with the US Patent andTrademark Office on various aspects of ICT technology. His current work at Detecon centersaround best practices in product and service launch strategies and innovation research andmanagement.

Rajat Mukherjee can be reached at [email protected]


29/29


8 The Company

We make ICT strategies work

Detecon is a consulting company which unites classic management consulting with a highlevel of technology expertise.

Our company's history is proof of this: Detecon International is the product of the merger ofthe management and IT consulting company Diebold, founded in 1954, and thetelecommunications consultancy Detecon, founded in 1977. Our services focus onconsulting and implementation solutions which are derived from the use of information andcommunications technology (ICT). All around the globe, clients from virtually all industriesprofit from our holistic know-how in questions of strategy and organizational design and inthe use of state-of-the-art technologies.

Detecons know-how bundles the knowledge from the successful conclusion of managementand ICT projects in more than 160 countries. We are represented globally by subsidiaries,affiliates, and project offices. Detecon is a subsidiary of T-Systems International, thebusiness customer brand of Deutsche Telekom. In our capacity as consultants, we are ableto benefit from the infrastructure of a global player spanning our planet.

Know-how and hands-on expertise

The rapid development of information and telecommunications technologies has anincreasingly significant influence on the strategies of companies as well as on the processeswithin an organization. The subsequent complex adaptations affect business models andcorporate structures, not only technological applications.

Our services for ICT management encompass classic strategy and organization consultingas well as the planning and implementation of highly complex, technological ICTarchitectures and applications. We are independent of manufacturers and obligated solely toour client's success.

Detecon International GmbHOberkasselerstr. 2

53227 BonnTelefon: +49 228 700 0

E-Mail: [email protected]: www.detecon.com

Detecon Inc., Strategy & Innovation128 Spear Street

San Francisco, CA 94105, USAPhone: +1 703 476 4800

E-Mail: [email protected]

Internet: www.deteconusa.com

Documents

Detecon Opinion Paper OpEx and CO2 - Killing two Birds with one Green Stone. Strategic Considerations for incorporating Sustainability & Energy Efficiency in Access Networks