utstarcom confidential1 fttx options technology comparison ban marketing broadband bu

UTStarcom Confidential 1

FTTx Options

Technology Comparison

BAN MarketingBroadband BU


Agenda

• FTTx Market Study• GEPON Technology – NOW and FUTURE!• Technology Options and comparison

– GEPON vs. GPON– PON vs. Active Ethernet

• Q&A


FTTx Market Trends

• Fiber deployment in access network is more rapid than expected– Over 10% broadband installations are FTTx (Source: DSL Forum)– Fiber-to-the-home networks will reach more than 85 million homes by

2011, representing 5% of all households, Heavy Reading forecasts

• APAC is leading the way– Japan and Korea are main drivers; China will catch-up– Number of Asian FTTH users will grow eightfold in the next five years,

from five million in 2005 to more than 40 million in 2010 (Source: TDG)– NTT expects to have 30 million subscribers by end of 2010

• Next generation broadband network in US and Europe is FTTx based– FTTH: Verizon, France Telecom– FTTN: at&t, Telecom Italia, DT– FTTC: BellSouth


FTTx Options

FTTH IP Network

Fiber

IP Network

IP Network

IP Network

GEPON/GPON/Ethernet

Splitter/Active Switch

GEPON/GPON/Ethernet

Splitter/Active Switch

FTTB

FTTN

FTTC

IPDSLAM

Fiber

ADSL2+/VDSL2

ADSL2+/VDSL2

Cabinet

GEPON/GPON/Ethernet

GEPON/GPON/Ethernet

Includes fiber to both individual houses and to apartment blocks (aka FTTH)

To an office/apartment block

Up to about 1,500 meters from the premises

Up to about 150 meters from the premises (aka FTTCab)

Ethernet ONU

iHFC ONU


FTTx Market Drivers

• Increasingly limited capacity of traditional networks– ADSL2+ is not enough to handle future broadband needs– VDSL2 adoption is very slow, cost is high (comparable to PON)

• Continuing innovations and cost reductions in optical infrastructure and active equipment

• Ability to leverage existing infrastructure to capture incremental revenues and an accelerated ROI

• Broadband viewed by governments as tool for national competition


Global Broadband and FTTH Installations

Source: Corning Presentation


FT Business Case for FTTH

Source: France Telecom


Why FT has chosen FTTH?

Source: France Telecom


A closer look into US Market

Source: Adventis Corporation


$-

$500,000,000

$1,000,000,000

$1,500,000,000

$2,000,000,000

$2,500,000,000

2007 2008 2009

Year

FTTx Forecast (Revenue)

GEPON

GPON

Active Ethernet

FTTx Market Forecast

• GEPON demand will continue to be strong thru 2008 until GPON becomes mature and cost effective

• GPON will mostly fill-in for BPON, which will retire in coming years• Active Ethernet demand is projected to significantly lower than PON in next three

years

-

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

7,000,000

2007 2008 2009

Year

FTTx Forecast (Ports)

GEPON

GPON

Active Ethernet

Source: Infornetics Research Source: Infornetics Research


Agenda



• Q&A


GEPON Technology Overview

`

Voice

Data

Video

ONUONU

`

ONUONU

ONUONU

Data

OLTOLT CC

NB

BB

Access Node

GbE

0-20 Km physical reach range

Up to 1:64Splitter ration

Upstream (TDMA)

Downstream (Broadcast

802.3 frames)

CC: Cross Connect

NB: Narrow Brand

BB: Broad Brand

GEPON Access Network Structure

Voice


GEPON OverviewOLT ONU

GEPON Technology Overview (Contd.)

10 km – 20 km

1.25 Gbps

1.25 Gbps

EPON Down Stream1490nm

EPON Up Stream1310nm


IP NetworkNetwork

PSTN PSTN

1:N Splitter

RF TV

Media network

CATV/DBS

1550nm Video1550nm Video

WDM

EDFA

OLT

WDM

RFRF

IPTV

RF enabled ONU

GEPON based RF Video Overlay Solution

Video Transmitter

•1490nm DS Data•1310nm US Data•1550nm Video

• Leverages existing CATV infrastructure• Reduced IP bandwidth requirement• Easy inside-home wiring

Overlay / Broadcast Video:EPO

NSubsy

stem

POTS

FE/GE


GEPON – The Future

• IEEE P802.3av Task Force - 10Gb/s Ethernet Passive Optical Network (10GEPON)

• As Ethernet evolves from GE to 10GE, EPON physical interfaces will evolve to 10GEPON

• IEEE 802.3 Work Group has approved the “10Gbps PHY for EPON” Study group with the following Objectives– Provide physical layer specifications:–

• PHY for PON, 10 Gbps downstream/1 Gbps upstream, single SM fiber • PHY for PON, 10 Gbps downstream/10 Gbps upstream, single SM fiber

– Define up to 3 classes of PMD. Define PMD(s) to operate with split ratios of 16 and 32, and with distances of 10 or 20 km. Investigate split ratios of 64 and 128.

– Support subscriber access networks using point to multipoint topologies on optical fiber

– PHY(s) to have a BER better than or equal to 10-12 at the PHY service interface

GEPON : A Future-proof Technology


Key Operators’ Expectation from 10G EPON

• World’s largest EPON network operator - NTT and Taiwanese incumbent CHT has the following expectations from 10G EPON:


10G EPON Market Drivers

Source: IEEE 10GEPON Call for Interest,; Denver May 2006

Digital HOME

Digital TV


10G EPON Market Drivers (Contd.)

MDU/MTU Application



10G EPON Feasibility Study Completed



Migration from 1G EPON

Source: IEEE 10GEPON Proceedings,; Denver May 2006

Objectives

Possible Solution


10G EPON Wavelength Plan

• Objectives– Backward compatible with 1G

EPON– Allow for co-existence of 1G

EPON for smooth migration– Continue to support 1550nm for

RF Video Overlay

• Proposals– Downstream: 1574nm ~

1580nm– Upstream: 1260nm ~ 1360 nm

• Still under study

Source: IEEE 10GEPON Proceedings,; Geneva May 2007


10G EPON Timeline and Conclusion

• Most of the studies are complete

• First technical draft to be released in July 2007

• Standard to be ratified by May 2009

“10G EPON” is ultra-high-

bandwidth, simple, and cost-effective FTTx solution for next-generation

broadband networks

“10G EPON” is ultra-high-

bandwidth, simple, and cost-effective FTTx solution for next-generation

broadband networks


Agenda



• Q&A


The Technology Debate

• The hottest topic among carriers hoping to provide FTTH services is the debate on the technology choice

• The major contenders in the race are– PON

• EPON or GEPON• GPON

– Active Ethernet

• What will determine the result is– Market Success– Technical Advantages– Technology Roadmap


Technologies and Targeted Applications

Major Carriers Applications Key Criteria

GEPON - NTT, Japan

- SBB, Japan

- FTTH and FTTB (Triple play Service)

- Available, cheaper, and matured technology

GPON - Verizon, US

- FT, TI and other EMEA tier-1s

- FTTH (sub-urban areas)

- FTTB (MDU/MTU)

- FTT Business (Legacy TDM Services)

- Long-term investment in standards (ITU-T)

- Native TDM support

- Up to 2.5 Gbps downlink

Both GPON and GEPON

- CHT, Taiwan

- BSNL, India

- CTC/CNC, China

- FTTH Residential (use GEPON)

- Fiber to the businesses (GPON)

- FTTB (GEPON/GPON)

- Deploy the available technology (GEPON)

- Deploy GPON for legacy services

Active Ethernet - Free (Illiad), France

- Netherlands operators

- City carriers

- FTTH (triple play using two fibers)

- FTTB (Cat-5 to home)

- Available and simple

- Perceived to be cheaper


Comparison at glance

GEPON GPON P2P

Standard Body IEEE 802.3ah – P2MP ITU-T G.984 IEEE 802.3ah – P2P

Downstream (DS) 1250 Mbps 1244/2488 Mbps 1250 Mbps

Upstream (US) 1250 Mbps 622/1244 Mbps 1250 Mbps

Split Ratio 1:32 1:64 1:32 1:64 1:128(Future)

1:1

Reach 20 Km / 10Km 20 Km 20 Km / 10 Km

Throughput efficiency 73% 93% 74%

Protocol Ethernet Ethernet over GEM and/or ATM

Ethernet

Video Support IPTV or RF overlay (1550nm)

IPTV or RF overlay (1550nm

Second Fiber

TDM Support Pseudo-wire Native Pseudo-wire

Encryption AES AES Not defined

Network Protection In Progress Defined Not defined


CAPEX & OPEX Comparison

• GEPON is both low on CAPEX and OPEX• P2P has much higher OPEX because of active electronics

in the field; Also two fibers are needed to offer triple play services

• GPON has high CAPEX

OPEX

CA

PE

XGEPON

GPON

P2P

- Infrastructure Cost- Fiber (Material)- Fiber Installation- Labor- Customer Acquisition

- Manpower- Equipment Mtce.- Truck-roll repairs- Power for CO/RO


Agenda



• Q&A


Why GEPON?

• Key Benefits– Low Risk– Low CAPEX and OPEX– Built for Ethernet Infrastructure

GEPON: “Cost Effective FTTH Solution”GEPON: “Cost Effective FTTH Solution”GEPON: “Cost Effective FTTH Solution”GEPON: “Cost Effective FTTH Solution”

WHY?

SimplicitySimplicitySimplicitySimplicity ProvenProvenTechnologyTechnology

ProvenProvenTechnologyTechnology

CostCostAdvantageAdvantage

CostCostAdvantageAdvantage

“GePON is still the dominant [FTTH] technology, and this trend will not change in the next two years,” Dittberner said

Source: Telephonyonline.com


Cable Services and GEPON

• Cable MSO Services– All IP-based

• Voice over IP• RF Video or IPTV• High Speed Internet Access

– In future, multimedia services also to be IP-based• E.g., Online Gaming, Movie/Music download, etc.

√ Simple Technology like EP2P with PON efficiency

√ Ethernet based architecture√ End-to-end bandwidth efficiency√ Cost Effective

X Designed by Telcos for TelcosX Complex mechanism to

accommodate ATM and TDM transport Useless feature for Cable MSO

X Still very expensive

GEPON GPON


GEPON Market Success

• Proven deployment success– GEPON accounts for 66% of all PON deployments in 2005– Continuing growth in worldwide demand – 5 million lines

deployed by 2006. – 10 million lines installed CO Capacity.– Many major carriers including SBB, NTT and Korea Telecom

have announced EPON deployments.

• Larger Manufacturing Base– EPON has a much larger base of system and component

manufacturers.– Marked decrease in price of systems and optics since the IEEE

802.3ah was standardized in 2004


GEPON Value Proposition

• Supports bandwidth-intensive, high margin applications• Smooth migration to triple play (video / voice / data)• Can match all GPON services

– TDM over EPON with jitter and wander within ITU-T specs.

• Seamless Integration with IP/Ethernet Core Network • Provides strict quality of service support• Ability to provide guaranteed QoS / SLA on each flow

– Guaranteed minimum bandwidth– Controlled maximum bandwidth

• Market trends forecast higher EPON subscribers by 2010 than GPON subscribers (3X) – which will translate into much cheaper EPON MAC chips and transceivers

Simplifies Migration to New revenue generating services


Major Installations – Current Situation

• Very Large Scale Deployment– More than 5 million lines installed

by end 2005

• NTT Japan, – More than 3 Million FTTH installed– Expects to have 30 million

subscribers by end of 2010• Korea Telecom

– More than 1.5 Million FTTH installed

• CNC/CTC China – Will deploy more than 1 Million

FTTH in 2007• CHT, Taiwan has chosen EPON

for FTTH application

• Only Trials and Small Networks

• Verizon, USA– Still deploying BPON, because

GPON solution is not ready for prime-time

• AT&T and Bell South– Decided to stay with FTTN and

FTTC with GE backhaul• European incumbents

– So far only FT has announced its plans to offer FTTH using GPON

• Deployed in small MUNI networks– MOC, Kuwait

GE-PON GPON


End-to-end Bandwidth Efficiency

GEPON OLT

GPON OLT

• Factors to consider– Backhaul for all multi-play applications (voice, video, data, gaming, etc.) HAS to be IP– Ethernet links to the network in multiple of 1Gbps or 10Gbps– End-to-end efficiency should be compared instead of just between OLT and ONU– Both GEPON and GPON support up to 64 splits per OLT

• Symmetrical IP uplinks• Ethernet based design• Effective throughput:

– 960 Mbps (DS); 900 Mbps (US)

• Per OLT– 1GE uplink (complete non-blocking)– Uplink efficiency (US): 91%– Uplink efficiency (DS): 96%

• Under-utilized & asymmetric IP uplinks• SDH/SONET based design• Effective throughput:

– 2300 Mbps (DS); 1150 Mbps (US)

• Per OLT– 3GE uplink (complete non-blocking)– Uplink efficiency (US): 38%– Uplink efficiency (DS): 76%

900 Mbps

1x GE 3x GE

2300 Mbps / 1150 Mbps


GEPON Interoperability

• Open and matured technology• More than 4 chipset vendors with complete interoperability• Choice of chipset technology on both OLT and ONT side

Source: China Telecom

ONU OLT

PMC Sierra

Teknovus Gateway Technologies

Immenstar Conexant

PMC Sierra Teknovus Gateway Technologies Immenstar


Agenda



• Q&A


PON vs. Active EthernetTriple Play (FTTH) Service Model

• Simplicity of Ethernet based architecture• Single fiber to home (premise)• Reuse of existing RF video infrastructure• Use of 1550nm for RF video transport – Needs WDM

triplexer• Easy to expand; Planning is much easier

IP Network

GEPON OLT1:N PON Splitter

Optical Fiber

EPON Link

L2/L3 AggregationSwitch

Cu GE

COCO

WDM

EDFA

Video TransmitterVideo Headend

GEPON Based Triple Play SolutionGEPON Based Triple Play Solution

IP Network

ME Switch


Optical GE Fiber Ring

COCO

RORO

Optical F

iber

(100 b

ase F

X)

Video TransmitterVideo Headend

Single Fiber for Triple-Play

1:N PON Splitter

Optical

Fib

er

(RF V

ideo

)

Active Ethernet Based Triple Play SolutionActive Ethernet Based Triple Play Solution

• Two fibers to each home – one for data/voice, other for RF Video

• Optical FE based access to each home• RF distribution plant can’t be reused for data/voice,

however no need for WDM triplexer• Higher CAPEX and very high OPEX

- Local Power and backup- Remote Site or Outdoor Cabinet- Added Maintenance


PON vs. Active EthernetFTTH Service Model

• Simplicity of Ethernet based architecture• One time investment in outside plant; Low OPEX• RF Overlay support• Reuse of existing RF video infrastructure• Easy to expand; Planning is much easier• Fiber sharing allows for optimum bandwidth allocation

to each subscriber• Connection to aggregation device using inexpensive

Cu GE

IP Network

IP Network

GEPON OLT 1:N PON Splitter ME Switch


< 20Km < 100m (Cu)

Cat5e/Cat6(FE/GE)

Optical Fiber

- Local Power and backup- Remote Site or Outdoor Cabinet- Added Maintenance

EPON Link

Optical GE Fiber Ring

Business

Business

Optical Fiber (FE/GE)

GEPON Based FTTH SolutionGEPON Based FTTH Solution Active Ethernet Based FTTC/FTTH SolutionActive Ethernet Based FTTC/FTTH Solution

• Significant OPEX spending on Active Ethernet outside plant (OSP)

• Expansion needs more OPEX and very good planning• Cat5e/Cat6 has limited reach (only up to 100m)• Fiber access (GE/FE) using Active Ethernet solution is

very expensive• Additional GE ports and SFPs are needed on L2/L3

switch to terminate the ring


Cu GE

COCO COCO

RORO

< 20Km

Very Expensive Optics (SFP)


PON vs. Active EthernetMDU/MTU Service Model

• Common architecture for FTTH and FTTB applications• RF overlay support• Reuse of existing RF Video infrastructure• Low-cost MDU/MTU ONU for each building• Easier network expansion• Flexibility to offer MDU/MTU service from same optical

infrastructure – can serve via existing cat5/cat6

IP Network

IP Network

GEPON OLT 1:N PON Splitter


Optical Fiber

MDU/MTU ONU

MDU/MTU

Optical GEFiber Ring

GEON Based FTTB SolutionGEON Based FTTB Solution Active Ethernet Based FTTB SolutionActive Ethernet Based FTTB Solution

• More expensive MDU/MTU units• Optical fiber ring reliability is low because of active

components – Building-node failure will have network-wide impact

• Network expansion still a challenge, especially when a new node to inserted in an active (operational) ring


EPON LinkCu GE

COCO COCO

ME Switch

Power Backup is essential

Power Backup is optional


Triple Play service over existing coax

• Reuse of existing coax for providing triple-play service– FTTH may not be viable for all customers

• FTTB based architecture – 60 subscribers per CLT• IP VoD can be supported by providing 2 CNUs to

the customer

IP Network

GEPON OLT1:N PON Splitter

Optical Fiber

iHFC CLT(basement)


EPON LinkCu GE

COCOMDU/MTU

CNUVideo

Headend

RF Video over coax

BuildingBuilding

Equipment Unit Price Qty Total Price

Aggregation Switch - GE-TX Ports $75 24 $1,800

GEPON OLT (Including PON SFPs) $24,000 1 $24,000

PON Splitters $3,600 1 $3,600

60-user HPNA based CLT $900 240 $216,000

HPNA CNU (Ethernet, RF ports) $90 7200 $648,000

ATA (Voice and Ethernet ports) $50 7200 $360,000

Total $1,253,400

Per Subscriber $174.08

GEPON and iHFC Based Triple Play


Cat6 Copper vs. Optical Fiber

• What is Cat6?– Cable standard for 1000 Base-TX– Based on TIA/EIA-854 standard– Operates over broader spectrum – up to 200

MHz– Reach up to 100 meters– Recommended for green-field installations– About 20% more expensive than Cat5e

• Cat6 advantages over Cat5e– Better performance than Cat5e (Higher SNR

and reliability)– Offers access to full 1000 Mb/s

1000 Base-TX over 4-pair Cat6

• Is Cat6 an alternative to Fiber?– Major argument for deploying copper instead of fiber has been higher cost, however as the

speed goes up, cost of copper goes up and becomes comparable to fiber– Limited reach makes Cat6 only usable for indoor wiring (FTTB scenario)– Fiber is immune to EMI, which makes it suitable for industrial installation– Unlike Fiber, Cat6 or Cat5e not suitable for RF video transmission

Cat6 complements Fiber access, it is not an alternative to FiberCat6 complements Fiber access, it is not an alternative to Fiber


PON vs. Active EthernetTechnology Advantages/Disadvantages

• PROS– Very low cost terminal equipment for

Cat5/Cat6 access– Ubiquitous availability of end user

equipment with Ethernet interfaces and customer familiarity

– Overall simple system – end to end

• CONS– Higher fiber plant cost– No support for RF overlay– Much Higher OPEX– Network expansion is expensive– Power backup mandatory for ME

nodes– Higher cost and larger interfaces in

Upstream Routers (higher CAPEX at CO)

• PROS– PON reduces CAPEX

• Accommodates a large number of FTTx users efficiently

– Significant OPEX savings• Reduces the footprint and power

consumption of central office equipment

• Reduces outside-plant deployment and repair cost

– Support for CATV using RF overlay– Reuse of existing video distribution

infrastructure– Knowledge/skill already exists for

optical installation

• CONS– Relatively higher cost of Customer

Premise Equipment

Active Ethernet PON


Agenda

• FTTx Market Study• GEPON Technology Now and Future!• Technology Options and comparison


• Q&A


Thank You

This presentation is provided by UTStarcom for planning purposes only. Changes in market conditions and/or other changes in circumstances, can affect the assumptions upon which this presentation was based or otherwise impact the contents of this presentation and therefore such contents cannot be guaranteed and are subject to change at any time without notice. Nothing contained in this presentation shall be deemed to create, modify or supplement any commitments or warranty made by the company, whether expressed, implied or statutory, in connection with the products, technology and/or services referenced herein.

*Some features may require addition development and may not be ready for immediate implementation.

utstarcom confidential1 fttx options technology comparison ban marketing broadband bu

Documents

fttx source

utstarcom confidential9

utstarcom confidential8

bellsouth slide

ftth source

france telecom slide

active ethernet qa slide

comparison gepon