1 / 23

Fiber Access Network A Cable Operator’s Perspective

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

Download Presentation

Fiber Access Network A Cable Operator’s Perspective

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Fiber Access NetworkA Cable Operator’s Perspective Mr. John A. Brouse, Jr. Director of Network Implementation Charter Communications, Inc.

  2. Fiber Access NetworkA Cable Operator’s Perspective • Historical Perspective • Current Decision Drivers • HFC Model • FTTH Model • Comparative Cost Assessment • Conclusions

  3. Fiber Access NetworkA Cable Operator’s Perspective • Historical Perspective • Current Decision Drivers • HFC Model • FTTH Model • Comparative Cost Assessment • Conclusions

  4. Historical Perspective • 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 • 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

  5. Historical Perspective • 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 • 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

  6. Fiber Access NetworkA Cable Operator’s Perspective • Historical Perspective • Current Decision Drivers • HFC Model • FTTH Model • Comparative Cost Assessment • Conclusions

  7. Current Decision Drivers • 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

  8. Fiber Access NetworkA Cable Operator’s Perspective • Historical Perspective • Current Decision Drivers • HFC Model • FTTH Model • Comparative Cost Assessment • Conclusions

  9. HFC Model • 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

  10. P/S HFC Model Home Headend Voice Switch RF RF Data Router/ IP Switch RF MUX RF RF RF DFB RF Node Video RF RF Coax RG6

  11. Fiber Access NetworkA Cable Operator’s Perspective • Historical Perspective • Current Decision Drivers • HFC Model • FTTH Model • Comparative Cost Assessment • Conclusions

  12. FTTH (RF PON) Model • 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

  13. S p l i t t e r S p l i t t e r UPS FTTH (RF PON) Model Home Headend Voice Switch RF RF Optical Network Terminal Data Router/ IP Switch RF MUX RF RF EDFA RF Video RF RF Coax RG6

  14. Fiber Access NetworkA Cable Operator’s Perspective • Historical Perspective • Current Decision Drivers • HFC Model • FTTH Model • Comparative Cost Assessment • Conclusions

  15. Comparative Cost AssessmentHFC O&M Expenses per Mile of Plant

  16. Comparative Cost AssessmentFTTH (RF PON) O&M Expenses per Mile of Plant

  17. Comparative Cost AssessmentHFC Deployment Costs per Mile of Plant

  18. Comparative Cost AssessmentFTTH Deployment Costs per Mile of Plant

  19. Comparative Cost AssessmentLife Cycle Cost ComparisonHFC and FTTH (RF PON)

  20. Fiber Access NetworkA Cable Operator’s Perspective • Historical Perspective • Current Decision Drivers • HFC Model • FTTH Model • Comparative Cost Assessment • Conclusions

  21. Conclusions • FTTH (RF PON) best addresses the business decision drivers. • Current FTTH equipment costs place it at a significant disadvantage. • 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. • Best areas to seek cost improvements are in the headend and CPE. • Under current price points, the Life Cycle break even point occurs during year 12.

  22. Conclusions • 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.

  23. Conclusions • 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.

More Related