Broadband and FTTx – What has been done? Where is it going?

electronics must be completely replaced when moving to VDSL,which clearly changes the economic scenario. Of course, if thecopper cable infrastructure is still available and capable of transportingthe new very high bit rates, then the cost of deployingVDSL will still remain far lower than its corresponding fiber technology.However, if cities adopt legislation forcing every transporttechnology to be buried in new neighborhoods, thus requiringnew infrastructure to be deployed (Greenfield), then the previousMethodModemT1 LineBy CarFTTHPONSpeed56 Kbit/s PC500 Kbit/s Cable10 Mbit/s100 Mbit/sDuration~26 h 12 min~3 h1.5 Mbit/s ~1 h~90 km/h ~40 min

Per Subscriber Downstream Line Rate (Mbit/s)240220200BPON (622M/1×32) (w RF Video Overlay)GPON (1×32);GPON (1×64); BPON (1.25G/1×32)180EPON (1×16)EPON (1×32 w FEC)160140VDSL2 (30 MHz)VDSL (12 MHz)ADSL2+ (2.2 MHz)120ADSL100806040200 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12Premises Reach (km)Note: With radio frequency (w RF); with forward error correction (w FEC)Figure 4. Distance-bandwidth limitations for various broadband transport technologies20 kmas well as CATV operators, thus explainingthe fierce competition. The continuous housingdevelopment (also called Greenfield) alsoensures a permanent growth for operators.Figure 5(a) illustrates typical successful broadbandsubscription conditions for the operatorsin North America.However, European culture presentsanother context, where demand is not necessarilyas strong as in North America (seeFigure 5(b)). Again, the situation is quite differentin the Asia-Pacific region, telecommunicationsconsumption (not always broadband)is massive due to the dense populationmostly living in multidwelling units (MDUs)(see Figure 5(c)).Figure 6 illustrates a typical networktopology for a FTTP-related MDU usinghybrid PON-xDSL architecture.This variety of conditions for broadbandconsumption offers some potential for FTTx,especially FTTC, FTTP and FTTH but noteverywhere. Fiber still remains costly toWealthy Middle-Class NeighborhoodIndividually Owned Expensive House With:Many TV Sets (At Least One HDTV Set)Many PCs with HS Internet ConnectionsA Phone EverywhereLarge Telecommunication Consumption(a) Situation in North AmericaMDUs EverywhereTV Sets, PCs, Mobiles EverywhereMostly MDUs in CitiesTendency to Go Outside and in CafesIndividually Owned or Rented Apartment With:Roughly One TV SetRoughly One PC with SS Internet ConnectionOne Phone or Even Only a MobileWeak Telecommunication Consumption(b) Situation in Europe (EU)HDTV in Rich NeighborhoodsHuge Telecommunication Consumption300 M+ Internet Subscribers inChina Only and Growing(c) Situation in the Asia-Pacific regionFigure 5. Typical subscription conditions for the operators in various continents8 IEEE LEOS NEWSLETTER April 2008

IEEE MemberDigital LibraryEasy. Effi cient.Powerful. Essential.Staying current inmy work and personalinterest areas is botheasy and affordablewith the IEEE MemberDigital Library.– Wolfgang KrausIEEE MemberDiscover how IEEE information can helpfuel your imagination and equip you withthe research you need to compete.Access to all IEEE journals andconference proceedings—over1.7 million documentsThe most affordable access,exclusively for IEEE members—under US$2 per articleOnline filing cabinet for convenientaccess to your past researchWhat are you waiting for?BUY NOW.www.ieee.org/ieeemdlIEEE Information Driving Innovation08-PIM-0007-1c-MDL-Kraus-Final.indd 13/21/08 3:26:01 PM

CentralOfficeOLTFTTP PON≤ 20 km of Fiber (One Fiber Only, P2MP)Fiber CopperFigure 7. Example of installation of buried fiber-optic cabledeploy, especially if conduit infrastructures must be installed inthe access network, up to the home. For example, in a Greenfielddeployment, FTTH becomes very expensive project, as more than60% of the entire project cost must be allocated to diggingtrenches in order to install the fiber-optic cable (see Figure 7) andother infrastructure elements (cabinets, splice enclosures, etc.).In such cases, the North American FTTH model and the Asia-Pacific MDU-based FTTP model would tend to offer sufficientreturn-on-investment (ROI) for the telecom companies. In Europe,however, because of the typically short distances between premises,the classical FTTC and the MDU-based FTTP models would offerthe same relative advantage.Regardless of the specific country and context, a set of five mainconditions can be defined to ensure successful FTTP or FTTHdeployment:1. Growing telecom market2. Favorable government policies/regulations3. Educated middle class, interested in using technologies4. Optical fiber used as marketing incentive5. HDTV≤ 300 m ConduitMulti-Dwelling UnitDSL Modem+ STBDSL Modem+ STBDSL Modem+ STBOONTVDSL2EFigure 6. Typical FTTP topology for MDUs with hybrid PON and DSL architectureThe first two conditions are a must, as in a recession context,there is not much chance to see many new developments or governmentincentives in areas perceived to beexpensive. The next two conditions implythat demand and subscriptions for highbandwidthbroadband services will soar ifthe country’s middle class is highly educated,and maybe even wealthy and interestedin the technology itself. This renders fiberoptics, as a medium, very appealing to theuser, as they recognize how this technologycan provide entertainment and improvetheir quality of life. In that context, FTTPand FTTH developers would use fiberbasedservice access in their advertisementsand promotional material. The last conditionis one of the most important as itdrives the substantial growth for bandwidthdemand and, consequently, providesthe most impressive and visual use ofbroadband access.It would certainly be interesting to verifyif such conditions could apply to the FTTxmarket situation around the world as of 2007.Figure 8 below provides a good overall indicator of market tendencies,although the numbers provided in the figures are approximate.Until now, practically all TV channels have been transmittedusing analog RF, even for service providers that were early adoptersof FTTH and offering video services together with BPON (seeFigure 9).However, the prospect of transporting video using theInternet protocol (IPTV) is an interesting alternative to RF videowith some major benefits such as using the same wavelengths inboth downstream and upstream directions, without the need foran EDFA, as shown in Figure 10. Once full digital telecommunicationtransmissions become mandatory worldwide, IPTV willopen up the opportunity for video production in small officehome office (SOHO) and video transport in both directions. Thismay then generate new business opportunities and new additionalbandwidth requirements. As a “killer telecommunicationapplication” may be defined as a high-speed upstream applicationrequiring even more returned bandwidth downstream, full digitaltransport and IPTV may then enable such applications andbring about the opportunity that everyone in telecom business iswaiting for.In 2007, there were approximately 10 million IPTV subscribersworldwide, and the growth rate seems to be constant.This may be taken as an indication that much more IPTVbusiness is yet to come.In conclusion, there still remain other interesting questionsthat can be posed as to what the future holds for broadbandand FTTx. Will IEEE802.16e WiMAX (worldwideinteroperability for microwave access) wireless transport everbecome a serious alternative to deliver triple-play communications—especiallyHDTV? Will it become part of the globaltelecommunication transport solution? Will wirelessbecome the communication technology of choice insidehomes in the future? Only time will tell with certainty, butwe can prepare ourselves with solid solutions that will serveour purposes for the foreseeable future.10 IEEE LEOS NEWSLETTER April 200830–40 Mb + (3-Play)

CountryUSACanadaChileColombiaArgentinaBrazilOperatorVerizon (BPON); AT&T (GPON)Bell; Telus (Both GPON)TelefonicaEmbratelNumber ofSubscribers~6 M(EssentiallyUS)~0.3 MCountryJapanSouthKoreaOperatorNTT, KDDI, USEN, TEPCO, YahooSoftBankKTSingapore SingtelChinaChina Netcom (EPON), Beijing Netcom(BPON), China Telecom (EPON/GPON),China Mobile (GPON)Hong Kong PCCW, NOW (~0.7 M Active EthernetSubscr.)Taiwan Chunghwa Telecom (GPON)Number ofSubscribers~7 M (EPON)~4 M (BPON,EPON)~5 MTotalMostly BPON (Verizon); a Few GPON~7–8 MTotalMostly EPON (Few BPON and GPON)~16–20 M(a) Projects in the Americas(b) Projects in EuropeCountrySwedenItalyNetherlandsFranceUKNumber ofOperatorSubscribersBredbands Bolaget (Active Ethernet), MälarenergiStadsnät AB (Active Ethernet), Koping Kabel-TV(GPON), Stadsnäts (Network Association, 200 Cities) ~0.5 MTelecom Italia (GPON), Fastweb (Active Ethernet)Citynet, Portaal, KPN, ETNL, Dansk Bredbaand,Volker Stevin Telecom, Kenniswijk (All Act. Ethernet)FT Group-Orange (GPON) and Erenis, PAUBroadband Country & Free (All Active Ethernet)BT (GPON)~0.5 M~0.6 MDenmarkSydfyns Elforsyning (GPON), Trefor, Energimidt(Active Ethernet)~0.4 MTotal Mostly Active Ethernet; a Few GPON ~2 M(c) Projects in AsiaCountryAustraliaNewZealandPakistanRussiaKuwaitUnited ArabEmiratesTotalTelstraTelecomNayatelOperatorCenter TelecomKuwait TelecomEtisalat; Dubai Internet CityMostly GPON; a Few EPON(d) Projects in the rest of the worldNumber ofSubscribers~2 M~2 MFigure 8. PON and active Ethernet FTTx worldwide projects in 2007 (~30M total subscribers)April 2008 IEEE LEOS NEWSLETTER 11

COOLTFiber Management SystemService Interfaces1490 nm TxVoice/Data1310 nm RxVideo EDFA1550 nm TxFeeder Cable (F1)Feeder FiberPremisesSplitterFiberDistributionHub (FDH)DistributionCable (F2)DropCabinetDropCable(F3)When Only F2 isUsed (No F3)ONU/ONT1490 nm RxVoice/Data1310 nm TxVideo1550 nm RxBatteryBackupUser NetworkInterfacesNote: Transmitter (Tx); receiver (Rx); erbium-doped fiber amplifier (EDFA)Figure 9. FTTP PON architecture with analog RF video overlayServiceInterfacesCOOLTVoice/Data/Video1490 nm Tx1310 nm RxFiber Management SystemFeeder Cable (F1)Feeder FiberPremisesSplitterFiberDistributionHub (FDH)DistributionCable (F2)DropCabinetDropCable(F3)When Only F2 isUsed (No F3)ONU/ONT1490 nm Rx1310 nm TxBatteryBackupUser NetworkInterfacesFigure 10. FTTP PON architecture favoring IPTV transport12 IEEE LEOS NEWSLETTER April 2008