Towards Competitive Universal High-speed Broadband … · Towards Competitive Universal High-speed Broadband Access Dr. Sanjay S. Patel CTO, Wireline Networks Product Division WIK

Towards Competitive Universal High-speed Broadband Access

Dr. Sanjay S. Patel

CTO, Wireline Networks Product Division

WIK International Conference, Berlin, April 2010

All Rights Reserved © Alcatel-Lucent 2010

Outline

FTTx market update

Architectural/wholesale evolution

Next generation fixed access

2 | Sanjay S. Patel - WIK Berlin, April 2010

All Rights Reserved © Alcatel-Lucent 20103 | Sanjay S. Patel - WIK Berlin, April 2010

NG game consolesw/Internet

(PS3, Xbox 360, Wii: Nintendo forecasts 16M units in ’07)

Mass-market multimedia devices are changing our personal lifestyle

Multimedia-capable PCs (25 Mio sold in ‘06,

10% growth)

Digital photography (20% of BB subs used

Internet upload services)

MP3 players (35 Mio sold in ’06,

30% growth)

Multimedia applications drive the demand for UHS broadband

Heavy Reading FTTH Market in Europe 2006-2011

High-definition TV sets (50% of TVs purchased

are HD-ready(5% in ’05))

Consumer-focus

Digital cameras (Owned by 60% of

households end ’06)


~6.8M ~2.3M ~32.2M

Source: FTTH C NAR (Sept 2009); FTTH C Europe/iDate (Sept.2009 + including Russia); FTTH C AP/Ovum (Sept 2009)

Fiber Nations are gaining ground around the worldEurope is struggling behind



Source: IDATE for FTTH Council Europe

European Economies with greater than 1% household FTTH/B Penetration

Fiber To The Home Subscribers

Fiber To The Building Subscribers

0,0%

2,0%

4,0%

6,0%

8,0%

10,0%

12,0%

Sweden

Norway

Sloven

iaAnd

orra

Denmark

Icelan

dLit

huan

iaNeth

erlan

dsSlov

akia

Finlan

d

Italy

Estonia

Russia

Latvi

a

The Nordics is taking the lead, with Central and Eastern Europe making good progress. Major European economies still not in top-10.

The Nordics is taking the lead, with Central and Eastern Europe making good progress. Major European economies still not in top-10.

Europe mid 2009

2M FTTH/B subscribers

13M FTTH/B homes passed

4M FTTx subscribers

30M FTTx homes passed



What is wrong in Western Europe?Why is FTTH/B so limited? Any why is the take-rate so low?

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Dec 07 June 08 Dec 08

FTTH

/B s

ubsc

riber

[M]

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

FTTH

/B ta

ke ra

te

WE USA So

uth

Kor

ea Japa

n

WE USA So

uth

Kor

ea

Japa

n

WE USA So

uth

Kor

ea

Japa

n

SouthKorea

JapanUSA

WE

Unclear regulatory framework? No local marketing? Unclear business case? Competition? Economic stimulus? Few nation-wide FTTH strategies?

Good copper? End-user mentality?

Unclear regulatory framework? No local marketing? Unclear business case? Competition? Economic stimulus? Few nation-wide FTTH strategies?

Good copper? End-user mentality?



Outline

FTTx market update





ADSL~12 Mbps

VDSL~50 Mbps

VDSL~50 Mbps

VDSL~100 Mbps

P2P/AE100 Mbps+

GPON100 Mbps+

Drivers: up-front CAPEX, competition, and time-to-market

Fiber to the most economical pointThe pragmatic way



300Mbps over 2 pairs @ 400m – Bell Labs “Phantom mode” innovative demo

2

1

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

First line + 2nd line +Phantom Mode +Vectoring +Bonding

Bonded

Phantom Mode

Line 2

Line 1

Industry-first demonstration of 300Mbps@400m over 2 pairsInnovative combination of phantom mode + vectoring

300Mbps in 5 steps

Start with a 1st twisted pair – good for about 80Mbps.

Add a 2nd twisted pair –good for another 80Mbps.

Create a 3rd virtual pair or ‘phantom mode’ pair – another 50Mbps.BUT: bit rates on pairs 1 & 2 drop due to Xtalk from phantom pair.

Apply vectoring (crosstalk cancelation) to boost bit rate by approx 50%.

Bond the 3 links (2 physical pairs + phantom mode) creating one big 300Mbps pipe.

Dow

nstr

eam

bit

rat

e (M

bps)

3

45

400m quad pair 0.6mm

1

23

4

5



Point-to-

Point

ActiveEthernet

TDMPON

Central Office Access loop Home

IP

Ethernet switchEthernetswitch

Efficient Outside PlantPassive OSP

No remote powering

Cost-effective FeederSmaller duct sizes, Less RoW,…

CO consolidation

Wavelength per userFew fibers in feeder section

CO consolidation

Best ScalabilityPassive OSP, lowest CAPEX

CO scalability & Consol. (20+ km)PON OLT Optical splitter

IP

Ethernetswitch

More distributed

More concentrated

IP Splicing

PON OLT WavelengthSplitter

IPWDMPON

A Basic Comparison of Four FTTH Architectures



Next generation point-to-point fiberHow to improve P2P scalability?

P2P scalability issues… …innovation areas to expect

0

1

2

3

4

p2p AE GPON

Pow

er (W

/use

r)

Main area of innovation for P2P is higher density optics, fiber and connectors.

Increased Capacity

FE → GE → 10GE→ 100GE

High Density optics

Dual Channel SFP

Quad SFP

High Density fiber

Ribbon fiber

Multi-fiber connectors



10G PON value proposition – not only capacityCapacity, reach, split and optical troubleshooting

Less dense areas addressed and central office consolidation

10Gb/s

2.5Gb/s

Reach 20km 30 km 60 km

Split 32 64 128

GPON B+Today

GPON C+2009-2010

Extended GPON2009-2010

10 Gb/s PON2010-2011

Extended 10 Gb/s PON1

2 3

Three targetapplications

1.FTTB backhaul

2.BusinessAccess

3.Fiber to thebase-station: LTE backhaul

RE

RE



No fork-lift upgrade for 10G GPON Wavelength overlay in both uplink and downlink

GPON

10 Gb/sGPON

No changes to OSP, including

fiber and splitter

Many GPON ONTs today have WBF

10 Gb/s ondifferent wavelengths

(up and down)

WDM to split GPON from

10 Gb/s GPON

No stranded investments: GPON OLT, ONT and OSP can be reusedNo stranded investments: GPON OLT, ONT and OSP can be reused

1260-1280

1290-1330

1480-1500

1550-1560

1575-1580 λ

(in nm)

GPON up GPON downXGPON up XGPON downCATV

GPON

10 Gb/sGPON



10G PON(10Gb on top of 2.5Gb)

WDM PON (as P2P) solutions are subscriber density ‘challenged’WDM PON (as P2P) solutions are subscriber density ‘challenged’

What about WDM PON?CAPEX and operational disadvantages

WDM PON(Everyone Gets a Lamda)

Today Over Time Today Long term

GPON

GPON

OLT

Splitter

ONT

Based on a1:32 split

CAPEX Operations

TDM PON WDM PON

CAPEX Lowest cost FTTH x3-4 TDM PON

OPEX Low CO Power, CO floor space

EcoLowest power consumption

High power consumption

Standardized Yes Not started

Dynamic BW Yes Not possible

Video overlay Yes Not possible

Passive OSP Passive splitters Temp controlled or temp extended AWG

System Design Straight forward Complex, many dependencies

Reliability Excellent AWG needs to be athermal & reliable



Outline

FTTx market update





Private and public hand in handThe layered model

Retail Services(residential, public & business)

Active Network(network equipments,

business & operation support)

Passive Infrastructure(trenches, ducts, fibre)

End-user

Passive Infrastructure Provider

Active Network Provider

Retail Service Provider

Integrated or separated? Passive Infrastructure Provider

Active Network Provider

Retail Service Provider



Sharing can take place at many layers, independently of technology

Zooming into the different sharing options“Open Access” is not well defined and is sometimes abused

Network Provider

Application Provider

Content Provider

SLA

IP & Ethernet Wholesale

Wavelength

Passive Infra. Provider

Dark Fibre Provider

Ducts, Sewers, Poles

Dark fiber

Active“Unbundling”

Service“Open Access”

Passive“Infrastructure Competition”

GPON P2P WDMPON

Feeder filling

Open Access (Packet)

Open Access (Wavelength)

Open Access (Fiber)

Open Access (Duct)



Infrastructure and service based competitionRequire different degrees of regulatory intervention

NetworkOperator

InfrastructureOwner

Full separationVertically Integrated

Service

Active

Passive

Retail Service

Provider

Retail Service

Provider

Retail Service

Provider

InfrastructureOwner

Passive Sharing

Active Sharing

Retail Service

Provider

Retail Service

Provider

Retail Service

Provider

VerticalInfrastructure

Provider

Vertically Integrated O

perator


perator


perator

Vertical ServiceProvider



Competition Infrastructure Competition

Service Competition“Open Access”

Regulated passive

wholesale

Regulated active wholesale

Regulated passive & active

wholesale

Access to public infrastructure

Regulation



General principle, based on lessons from DSL: Prepare for competition on the lowest feasible layer

Lesson learnt from DSL: Infrastructure based competition prevails. Bitstream: Entry strategy & When infra competition not feasible

Differentiation

Capacity

QoS/QoE

Innovation

Technology agnostic:

P2P

GPON

WDM PON

Independent migration to NGA

End-to-end fiber trouble shooting

Merits of infrastructure based competition

Competition on lowest possible layer for DSL is gaining ground

Bitstream

Local loop unbundling



Multi-fiber to the Central Office/Metro PoPhas CAPEX, OPEX and reliability issues

Network Provider


Content ProviderSLA


Wavelength


Dark Fibre ProviderDucts, Sewers, Poles

Dark fiberMulti fiber

Multi-fiber in feeder segment

Multi-fiberin terminating segment

CO 1

WDM PON

CO2

GPON

CO3P2P

Central Offices

Multi-fiber to the metro PoP is expensive, with severe operational hurdles and not necessary to stimulate infrastructure competition

Filling ratio: New ducts needed?

CAPEX fiber

Reliability: fiber cut

Synchronous co-investment

Limited competition:# competitors ≤ # fibers

Fiber mgmt in CO

CAPEX floor space

Significant probability

of mis-connection

Fiber Mangement Point

Infra Sharing Point



Dark Fiber Sharing in the Terminating SegmentFiber Flexibility Point Supports Any Technology

Duct/sewer/trench sharingin the horizontal OSP

Dark Fiber Sharingin terminating segment

patch panel

Fiber Flexibility PointInfra Sharing Point

CO 1WDM PON

CO2GPON

CO3P2P

Central Offices

Fiber mgmtoptimumRural Urban

€500

€1,000

€1,500

€2,000

CAPE

X pe

r Su

bscr

iber

Civil work OSP

Civil Work Terminating SegmentCO equipment& floor space

CPE

Fiber

Network Provider


Content ProviderSLA


Wavelength



Dark fiberDark fiber

Duct/sewer sharing in horizontal OSP & dark fiber in terminatingsegment is optimal from a techno-economic point of view



Wider benefits of fibre

Reduced telecom costs

E-learning

Innovation in public services:

Healthcare

Elderly care

Rural GDP

Reversed urbanization trend

Simulate collaboration:

between municipalities, public bodies and communities

ICT innovation/R&D



Fraction public to private

investment

FTTH policy of competition on lowest feasible layerPublic investment model should consider geographical segmentation

Socio-economic impact of fiber HighLow

Market Driven Policy DrivenRisk Driven

Stockholm

Dense city

Lindefallet

VillageKilafors

JönkopingMedium-size town

HudiksvallSmall town

Services

Active

PassivePublic €

Private €

0 %

100 %

Socio-economic impact Low/Medium Medium High

Investor Payback Time ~5 year ~10 year ~20 year

Public Sector Intervention

Access to infra, RoW,

in-house labeling..

Ducts, sewers,

dark fiber. Active?

Passive, active.

Utility services?



Summary

Consumers benefit from competition where they can independently choose ISPs, ACPs , and, can easily switch between providers

Promote competition at the lowest possible layer

Remain technology neutral

Promote innovation

Let providers compete on the merits of their innovation

Do not impose regulatory burden on one technology over another

Apply graduated remedies /public investment based on geographic segmentation in case of market failure to promote Universal Broadband Access

When multiple Retail SPs per subscriber are allowed, the Wholesale SP must coordinate resources among RSPs and resolve conflicts.

Likely that static partitioning among RSPs will be required (e.g., bandwidth per VLAN)

A technology-agnostic, graduated regulatory environment can promote Competitive Universal Broadband Access

A technology-agnostic, graduated regulatory environment can promote Competitive Universal Broadband Access



www.alcatel-lucent.comwww.alcatel-lucent.com



MiniMDF

Infrastructure Sharing Point

CO2:

CLEC

Sub local-loop unbundlingWidespread agreement that complexity outweighs benefits

SC1

SC2

CO1:

Incumbent

Unbundling cost:

•Must be regulated

•SLU<<LLU

•Difficult collocation or sharing

•High OPEX (maintenance) & CAPEX

•Prevents NGN DSL: Vectoring

•Partially filled DSLAM are not green

•Duct space issues

•Extra Fibers seldom available

•Regulated wholesale offer needed

patch panel

Central Offices

Network Provider


Content ProviderSLA


Wavelength



Dark fiberSLU


In reality, sub-local loop unbundling is not taking place. Regulated bitstream wholesale offer may be necessary.

Documents

Towards Competitive Universal High-speed Broadband … · Towards Competitive Universal High-speed Broadband Access Dr. Sanjay S. Patel CTO, Wireline Networks Product Division WIK