Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Fiber Access Network A Cable Operator’s Perspective. Mr. John A. Brouse, Jr. Director of Network Implementation Charter Communications, Inc. Fiber Access Network A Cable Operator’s Perspective. Historical Perspective Current Decision Drivers HFC Model FTTH Model - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
ITU-T Workshop All Star Network AccessGeneva, 2-4 June 2004
International Telecommunication Union
Fiber Access NetworkFiber Access NetworkA Cable Operator’s A Cable Operator’s
PerspectivePerspective
Mr. John A. Brouse, Jr.Director of Network Implementation
Charter Communications, Inc.
2June 2-4, 2004
ITU-T
nu nFiber Access Network
A Cable Operator’s Perspective
o Historical Perspectiveo Current Decision Driverso HFC Modelo FTTH Modelo Comparative Cost Assessmento Conclusions
3June 2-4, 2004
ITU-T
nu nFiber Access Network
A Cable Operator’s Perspective
o Historical Perspectiveo Current Decision Driverso HFC Modelo FTTH Modelo Comparative Cost Assessmento Conclusions
4June 2-4, 2004
ITU-T
nu nHistorical Perspective
o RF was the Technology of Choice• Frequency Division Multiplexing easily allows
simultaneous transmissions• Ubiquitous service achieved through a Tree and
Branch system of cascading RF amplifiers, coaxial cables, and directional couplers
• Cost to build and operate the network is independent of service penetration levels
o Network and Product Expansion• More Homes and More Programming• Expanding the network footprint increased the
number of actives in cascade• New product launches required additional RF
bandwidth• Higher frequencies required RF electronics change
outs and re-spacing• Result was more components, reduced signal
quality and lower reliability
5June 2-4, 2004
ITU-T
nu nHistorical Perspective
o 1988• Realization that network bandwidth expansion and
footprint expansion hit a technical wall• Industry move quickly to adapt existing fiber optics
technology to improve RF signal quality and reliability
• First generation RF broadband optics developed and deployed within 18 months
o First Generation Application• RF cascade reductions• Called Fiber Backbone
• focus was RF performance • minimal fibers used• minimal nodes deployed• maximize number of homes served per node
• Lead to eventual evolution to today’s HFC network• node serving areas of 500 homes or less• focus is efficient interactive bandwidth usage
6June 2-4, 2004
ITU-T
nu nFiber Access Network
A Cable Operator’s Perspective
o Historical Perspectiveo Current Decision Driverso HFC Modelo FTTH Modelo Comparative Cost Assessmento Conclusions
7June 2-4, 2004
ITU-T
nu nCurrent Decision Drivers
o CASH FLOW• OSP O&M costs are escalating
• work force costs and benefits • network power costs• fleet operating costs• liability insurance
• Costs to launch advanced products and services are increasing
• node splitting (internal, external or both)• headend RF splitting/combining network
reconfiguration• network power reconfiguration• increased time to launch delays revenues
8June 2-4, 2004
ITU-T
nu nFiber Access Network
A Cable Operator’s Perspective
o Historical Perspectiveo Current Decision Driverso HFC Modelo FTTH Modelo Comparative Cost Assessmento Conclusions
9June 2-4, 2004
ITU-T
nu nHFC Model
o Typical Operating System Characteristics• 54,000 households passed• 33,500 customers• 1410 miles of plant• 199 fiber nodes• 4380 RF actives• 584 power supplies• 1752 batteries• 2.5% monthly service call rate• 50% of the service calls result in a truck roll to resolve
plant related problems• 2 plant outages per month not related to cut/damaged
cable• 6.0 vehicle accidents per 1,000,000 VMD• 5.8 OSHA recordable employee injuries per 200,000
hours worked• 8 Maintenance Technicians• 23 Service Technicians• 3 Technical Field Supervisors
10June 2-4, 2004
ITU-T
nu nHFC Model
VoiceSwitch
DataRouter/
IP Switch
Video
DFB Node
CoaxRG6
Headend
P/S
Home
RF MUX
RF
RF
RF
RF
RF
RF
RF
RF
11June 2-4, 2004
ITU-T
nu nFiber Access Network
A Cable Operator’s Perspective
o Historical Perspectiveo Current Decision Driverso HFC Modelo FTTH Modelo Comparative Cost Assessmento Conclusions
12June 2-4, 2004
ITU-T
nu nFTTH (RF PON) Model
o Modeled after same Operating System used for the HFC Model• 54,000 households passed• 33,500 customers• 1410 miles of plant• 0 fiber nodes• 0 RF actives• 0 power supplies• 0 batteries• 1.25% monthly service call rate• 0% of the service calls result in a truck roll to resolve
plant related problems• 0 plant outages per month not related to cut/damaged
cable• 0 vehicle accidents per 1,000,000 VMD• 0 OSHA recordable employee injuries per 200,000 hours
worked• 0 Maintenance Technicians• 12 Service Technicians• 1 Technical Field Supervisors
13June 2-4, 2004
ITU-T
nu nFTTH (RF PON) Model
VoiceSwitch
DataRouter/
IP Switch
Video
EDFA
CoaxRG6
HeadendHome
RF MUX
RF
RF
RF
RF
RF
RF
RF
Splitter
Splitter
OpticalNetworkTerminal
UPS
14June 2-4, 2004
ITU-T
nu nFiber Access Network
A Cable Operator’s Perspective
o Historical Perspectiveo Current Decision Driverso HFC Modelo FTTH Modelo Comparative Cost Assessmento Conclusions
15June 2-4, 2004
ITU-T
nu nComparative Cost Assessment
HFC O&M Expenses per Mile of Plant
Technical Supervision $ 42.03
Service Trouble Truck Rolls (for plant problems) $ 226.15
Plant Maintenance Truck Rolls $ 235.50
Material Inventory $ 49.64
Electricity Consumption $ 446.81
Power Supply Battery Replacement $ 43.49
Power Supply Equipment Repair $ 1.77
RF Line Equipment Repair $ 35.46
Vehicle Accident Loss $ 8.80
Employee Injury Loss $ 5.01
Emergency Cable Repair $ 8.51
Total annual O&M expense per mile of OSP plant
$1,103.17
16June 2-4, 2004
ITU-T
nu n
Comparative Cost AssessmentFTTH (RF PON) O&M Expenses per Mile of Plant
Technical Supervision $ 0.00
Service Trouble Truck Rolls (for plant problems) $ 0.00
Plant Maintenance Truck Rolls $ 0.00
Material Inventory $ 0.00
Electricity Consumption $ 0.00
Power Supply Battery Replacement $ 0.00
Power Supply Equipment Repair $ 0.00
RF Line Equipment Repair $ 0.00
Vehicle Accident Loss $ 0.00
Employee Injury Loss $ 0.00
Emergency Cable Repair $ 85.11
Total annual O&M expense per mile of OSP plant
$ 85.11
17June 2-4, 2004
ITU-T
nu nComparative Cost Assessment
HFC Deployment Costs per Mile of Plant
Outside Plant Deployment
Materials $ 12,273.93
Labor $ 16,408.61
Total OSP Deployment Cost per Mile $ 28,682.54
Headend Equipment Deployment
Materials $ 736.51
Labor $ 83.50
Total Headend Equipment Deployment Cost per OSP Mile $ 820.02
Total Cost to Deploy HFC (excluding drops & CPE) $ 29,503.08
Drop Installation (Materials & Labor) per Customer $ 125.00
18June 2-4, 2004
ITU-T
nu nComparative Cost Assessment
FTTH Deployment Costs per Mile of Plant
Outside Plant Deployment
Materials $ 16,505.22
Labor $ 9,578.79
Total OSP Deployment Cost per Mile $ 26,084.01
Headend Equipment Deployment
Materials $ 15,910.00
Labor $ 208.76
Total Headend Equipment Deployment Cost per OSP Mile $ 16,118.77
Total Cost to Deploy HFC (excluding drops & CPE) $ 42,202.78
Drop Installation (Materials & Labor) per Customer (ONT incl) $ 748.00
19June 2-4, 2004
ITU-T
nu nComparative Cost Assessment
Life Cycle Cost ComparisonHFC and FTTH (RF PON)
Life-Cycle Cost AnalysisHFC vs FTTH PON
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
$40,000
$45,000
$50,000
$55,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Years in Operation
Co
st p
er M
ile o
f O
uts
ide
Pla
nt
HFC
PON
20June 2-4, 2004
ITU-T
nu nFiber Access Network
A Cable Operator’s Perspective
o Historical Perspectiveo Current Decision Driverso HFC Modelo FTTH Modelo Comparative Cost Assessmento Conclusions
21June 2-4, 2004
ITU-T
nu nConclusions
o FTTH (RF PON) best addresses the business decision drivers.
o Current FTTH equipment costs place it at a significant disadvantage.
o Construction costs for the OSP portion of the PON are 9% lower than HFC OSP deployment; however, the headend costs are over 16 times more favorable to an HFC approach.
o Best areas to seek cost improvements are in the headend and CPE.
o Under current price points, the Life Cycle break even point occurs during year 12.
22June 2-4, 2004
ITU-T
nu nConclusions
o Only part of the economic equation has been investigated.
• Future looking cost modeling and comparative analysis need to be undertaken in order to develop the full scope of costs.
• Transition from RF format to Ethernet for Voice and Data.• Transition from RF to IP Video.
• Future looking business model comparative analysis needs to be undertaken to determine cash flow impact of FTTH vs HFC.
• Changes in penetration levels.• Transition from Cable Modems to Ethernet to the Home.• Transition from RF video to IP Video.• Transition to an all IP world.
23June 2-4, 2004
ITU-T
nu nConclusions
o For the near term, cable operators will continue to refine the HFC platform with efforts to design out much of the current O&M costs by driving fiber closer to the curb – but not to the home.
