Jean-Pierre Lartigue Access Network Division October 2004 · > Medium Density Rural Area (20-50 users): WiMAX, WiMAX + DSL, FTTx • Reasonable investment costs (2-3 times that of

Perspective on Broadband Access Evolution

Jean-Pierre Lartigue

Access Network Division

October 2004

lastlastnextnextbackback

All rights reserved © 2004, Alcatel

The path towards user-centric broadband services

BroadbandServices

BroadbandServices

User-Centric Broadband

Services

User-Centric Broadband

Services

Multiple New Connectivity

Services

Multiple New Connectivity

Services

20051995 2000 2010

New Services

Adoption

Mobile voice, LAN, Internet, PC

DSL, WiFi, 3G, PC, TV

One service, any broadband, any device

BB growth is fueled by

> Service creation

• From high-speed

Internet to video,

VoIP… and more

> Geographical expansion

• 12% WW penetration

today

BB growth is fueled by

> Service creation

• From high-speed

Internet to video,

VoIP… and more

> Geographical expansion

• 12% WW penetration

today



Universal Broadband Access Challenges

Sustained growth & scale

An access to all services Service to everyone

Service-Aware AccessUniversal

BroadbandAccess

Wireline

WirelessSatellite

Mobile

• Reduce OPEX (network management)

• Mass market systems

• Access node as first gating point

• Distributed service intelligence

• IP & Ethernet, the convergence layer

• Large-scale video over DSL• VoIP in all access nodes• Combo voice/DSL card• Business services

• Deliver 100% coverage (remotes, FTTU, Wimax, Satelitte)

• Cost-effective reach (management, aggregation)



Deliver 100% coverage

FTTArea

FTTCabinet/campus

FTTCurb/MDU

FTTHome/apartment

Back-bone

COExisting Copper

X-connect

NewLocation forElectronics

Buildings / MDUs

Homes

Curb / MDU basement

Apartments

Satellite

FTTx Wireless



1- FTTx: Manage the coverage trade-off

Loop length & service constraints drive fiber & remotes

Technology

Korea,Japan,PAC

China

RoAPAC, Taiwan

MEA,India

LAM

North America

5% 20% 37% 74%

13% 53% 77% 97%

Western Europe

Central & East Europe

Km from COMbits

ADSL2plusVDSL2 ADSL READSL0,75 2 3 6

7% 14% 26% 62%

13% 54% 78% 98%

10% 40% 71% 95%

13% 51% 74% 96%

Over 25 10 to 15 5 to 8 0.5

18% 56% 78% 97%

13% 52% 75% 97%

Alternative deployment strategies

SServiceervice driven driven

Infrastructure driven &Service Leapfrog

Initial first investment

Time

ADSL FTTArea

FTTCab

FTTCab

Deep Fiber(FTTU, FTTN)

Challenges: Remotes, Fibre reach, powering, rights-of-way, civil work, operations

Challenges: Remotes, Fibre reach, powering, rights-of-way, civil work, operations



1- FTTx: Key Parameters for deployment choices

4 Mbit/s6 Mbit/s6 6 Mbit/sMbit/s 2 Mbit/s

1 Mbit/s(when fed from

CO)

•• Number of subscribersNumber of subscribers

•• For central office or cabinetFor central office or cabinet

•• Service offering & uniformityService offering & uniformity

•• Type of uplink: copper/Type of uplink: copper/fiberfiber, capacity , capacity

•• Power & Existing civil workPower & Existing civil work

•• Environmental conditionsEnvironmental conditions

•• Size limitsSize limits

•• Stopgap solution or Evolutionary pathStopgap solution or Evolutionary path

CO



1- FTTx: Capital Expenditure comparison

0,00

2,00

4,00

6,00

8,00

10,00

12,00

14,00

CA

PE

X

Fibre Costs 0,0 1,6 2,4 12,6CabinetInstallationcost

0,2 0,4 1,5 0,0

Hardwarecosts

0,8 1,0 1,8 0,4

CO FTTArea FTT Cab FTTH

Note : Hardware cost = Cabinet + Electronics + ASAM equipmentCabinet Installation cost = Installation+Commissioning+EasementsFiber Cost = Feeder fiber + distribution fiber

TOTAL COST 1 3x 6x 13x

1313100+100+14.5k (1 14.5k (1 per home)per home)

FTTH

661515--22223030FTT

Cab

3355--101055FTT

Area

1111--331 (in CO)1 (in CO)FTT

Exchange

Relative

cost

Bandwidth (Mbps)

# Nodes per CO area

Scenarios sizing Relative initial first cost /subscriber

Greenfield

xDSL remote for short loop /quality copper FTTU/PON for greenfield or bad loop qualityxDSL remote for short loop /quality copper

FTTU/PON for greenfield or bad loop quality



2- Remote Areas: Access Solutions

RemoteDSLAM

Aggregation

CO DSLAM

(> 100 subs. / site)

2 Way SAT

x< 5 km

Wireless/WIMAX

xx

WLAN (SAT)

< 5 km

< 15 km(100>x>20 subs./site)

(< 20 subs./site) (20<x< 50 subs./site)



1

10

30

50

1 5 30 50 100 1000

70

Average

Microvillage

LargeVillage

1 5 30 50 100 1000Backhauling distance (km)

# connected users/density

15

2- Remote Areas: 2006 End to End Cost Comparison

E2E 2way Satellite

DSLUrban

Ref.Price

x2 x4

DSL/WiMAX

(Satellite)

E2E WiMAXor DSL (WiMAX)

x4 DSL(µWave)

x4

x1,5 x2

x3x2,5...

DSL (Fibre-with light civil works)

Note: Access technology (Backhaul)



Conclusion: anticipate 100% coverage & triple play

> High Density Rural Areas & Urban Areas (+50 users): FTTx• ADSL, the most competitive solution• xDSL remote for short loop /quality copper • FTTU/PON for greenfield or bad loop quality

> Medium Density Rural Area (20-50 users): WiMAX, WiMAX + DSL, FTTx• Reasonable investment costs (2-3 times that of urban ADSL) • Good SME & residential solution but limited interactive video services with WiMAX

> Very sparsely populated Areas (less 20 users): Satellites• Remote businesses as first targets • Interactive video obtained in combination with satellite broadcast TV

Thank you

Documents

Jean-Pierre Lartigue Access Network Division October 2004 · > Medium Density Rural Area (20-50 users): WiMAX, WiMAX + DSL, FTTx • Reasonable investment costs (2-3 times that of