Bringing Fibre To Icelandic Homes
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View Bringing Fibre To Icelandic Homes as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 1,349
- Pages: 16
Bringing Fibre to Icelandic Homes A case study for FTTH deployment
Saemundur E. Thorsteinsson Director R&D
•
Thorsteinsson, S.E.
FTTH Council Europe, Building a Sustainable Future – 11-12 February 2009
Overview • Síminn’s FTTH strategy in the residential market segment – Background – FTTC system – Rationale – Greenfield vs. Brownfield Scenarios – Eurescom FANGS study – Síminn’s PON trials •
Challenges for a small operator
•
Triple play services •
Voice, Data and TV
– Home Gateways and ONTs •
SIP port placement •
ONT or Residential Gateway or both?
– Real deployment issues
•
Thorsteinsson, S.E.
FTTH Council Europe, Building a Sustainable Future – 11-12 February 2009
Background information • Since 1994 Síminn has deployed fibre in all Greenfields and in Brownfields where civil works have taken place due to other utility services – FTTC reaches about 2/3 of households in the Reykjavik area – Final drop is maximum 250 m UTP – Gives an excellent opportunity for VDSL, up to 100 Mb/s downlink and 30 Mb/s uplink service • In 2007 functional separation on a free will basis – Sister company Míla owns the access- and transport networks – Síminn owns GPON and DSL infrastructure • IPTV service launched in 2005 •
Thorsteinsson, S.E.
FTTH Council Europe, Building a Sustainable Future – 11-12 February 2009
Síminn International Connections
FarIce: 1.705 Mb/s Dunet Bay Scotland
Cantat 3: 310 Mb/s Redcar England
Cantat 3: 245 Mb/s Pennant Point Kanada
•
Thorsteinsson, S.E.
2.260 Mb/s on Farice/Cantat January 2009
FTTH Council Europe, Building a Sustainable Future – 11-12 February 2009
Rationale for FTTH deployment • Continuing exponential increase in demand for bitrate • Market demand and pressure from competition – Reykjavik Energy has aggressively been deploying fibre in the Reykjavik area • FTTH is “future proof” • ToIP is sufficiently mature to start replacing PSTN – No plan to emulate PSTN over FTTH • FTTH is probably already more cost-effective than copper deployment – Shown below
•
Thorsteinsson, S.E.
FTTH Council Europe, Building a Sustainable Future – 11-12 February 2009
Greenfields vs. Brownfields 100%
• In brownfield urban areas, up to 80% of deployment cost is due to Civil Works
90%
• Ducting systems and fibre cables constitute 70% of the rest
70%
80%
60%
• In greenfields civil works cost is there, irrespective of FTTH or not
50% 40%
• FTTH deployment in greenfields is therefore obviously a smart idea
30% 20%
• Brownfields:
10%
– Business Case for FTTH is tough, except civil works cost can be shared with e.g. utilities
0%
– Therefore Síminn uses ADSL2+ and has started VDSL2 deployment in “difficult ADSL areas” – VDSL2 will gradually replace ADSL2+ – Deployment both in Street Cabinets and LEXs
•
Thorsteinsson, S.E.
FTTH Council Europe, Building a Sustainable Future – 11-12 February 2009
Source: Eurescom CENTS project
Techno-Economic Comparison of FTTH alternatives • Eurescom FANGS study – Fibre in Access Network Greenfield Scenarios – Techno-Economic comparison between •
GPON
•
Point-to-Point (Home-run) fibre
•
Active Star (Active Ethernet)
•
Benchmarking with a Conventional Copper Network
– Methodology •
Imaginary greenfield scenarios analysed •
A neighbourhood of Single Family Units (SFUs), 2000 homes
•
A neighbourhood of Multi Dwelling Units (MDUs), 2000 homes
– Study carried out in 2006 but results should still be applicable
•
Thorsteinsson, S.E.
FTTH Council Europe, Building a Sustainable Future – 11-12 February 2009
FANGS - Scenarios
1 cluster (10 MDUs)
1 cluster (200 homes)
• The SFUs area
• The MDUs area – 2000 apartments
– 2000 homes – 10 clusters of 200 homes – 1 cluster: 10 streets of 20 homes
•
10 clusters of 10 MDUs
•
20 flats per MDU
– 1 cluster: 10 streets of 10 MDUs – Main feeder length = 3000 m – Distance between houses = 20 m – Distance between houses and the street = 10 m
– Main feeder length = 1500 m – Distance between MDUs =100 m – Distance between MDUs and the street = 100 m – In-house wiring in each MDU = 25 m
•
Thorsteinsson, S.E.
FTTH Council Europe, Building a Sustainable Future – 11-12 February 2009
FANGS – Results SFUs
1 200 € 1 000 €
1103 € 915 €
1072 €
SFU Case - 2006 costs EQPT_Other
800 € EQPT_CPE (including installation)
600 €
EQPT_LEx (including installation)
400 €
INFRA_Other INFRA_Fibre Cables & Installation
200 €
INFRA_Civil_Work
0€
GPON
Home Run
Active Star
GPON most economical solution Copper Benchmarking: 964 € •
Thorsteinsson, S.E.
FTTH Council Europe, Building a Sustainable Future – 11-12 February 2009
FANGS – Results MDUs 600 € 500 €
504 €
473 €
483 €
MDU Case - 2006 costs EQPT_Other
400 € EQPT_CPE (including installation)
300 €
EQPT_LEx (including installation)
200 €
INFRA_Other INFRA_Fibre Cables & Installation
100 €
INFRA_Civil_Work
0€
GPON
Home Run
Active Star
GPON most economical solution •Copper Benchmarking: 444 € •More detailed results: http://www.eurescom.eu/Public/projectresults/P1600-series/P1651-D3.asp •
Thorsteinsson, S.E.
FTTH Council Europe, Building a Sustainable Future – 11-12 February 2009
Síminn’s PON trials • PON trials commenced in early 2006 – User trial with a BPON system – 25 users, incl. Síminn employees but also “ordinary customers” – BPON was extremely difficult •
Problems in all sections of the network, from IP-network interface to Home Gateway
•
BPON was replaced by GPON
– GPON trial in Q4 2006 •
IPTV and High Speed Internet Services could be easily delivered •
•
•
•
IPTV multicast “froze” every 10 days, rectified with a new sw. Release
ToIP caused major problems •
Softswitch and SIP ports on RG/ONT could not communicate
•
Difficult for a small Telco to reach Vendors’ ears
•
Tried a number of RGs
Problems solved when Softswitch was replaced and with help from our main RG vendor
Thorsteinsson, S.E.
FTTH Council Europe, Building a Sustainable Future – 11-12 February 2009
Síminn PON trials - Results • When field trials showed success decision was made – Future greenfield deployment will be based on GPON in Reykjavik area – Copper deployment abandoned – Triple play offering •
ToIP, IPTV and HSI
•
No plans to utilise RF overlay for TV distribution
•
Deployment has slowed down due to economic crisis
• Brownfield deployment based on FTTC and VDSL2 – Already started for IPTV delivery – Demand for Very High Speed Internet connectivity (> 20 Mb/s) is still limited
•
Thorsteinsson, S.E.
FTTH Council Europe, Building a Sustainable Future – 11-12 February 2009
GPON at Customer Premises
Local Exchange
Home Service seggregation using VLANs Multicast Streaming (VoD) Portal communications HSI VoIP
Telephone RG
SM fibre
Splitter POTS
Ethernet
OLT
Ethernet
ONT
Set-top Box
Ethernet PC
•
Thorsteinsson, S.E.
FTTH Council Europe, Building a Sustainable Future – 11-12 February 2009
Residential Gateways and ONTs • SIP port placement, ONT or RG ? – ONT advantages •
Not all services on the same box •
e.g. customer calls help centre and is asked to reset the RG !
•
Usually not of importance for home wiring
•
We have the feeling that the ONT SIP client is more stable than SIP clients in RGs
•
We have never experienced a faulty ONT!
– RG advantages •
SIP ONT is marginally more expensive
•
Data only ONT seems to be preferred by other Telcos •
•
TR-69 supported on RGs •
•
Therefore place SIP client in RG
Thorsteinsson, S.E.
Will ONTs be TR-69 controlled ?
FTTH Council Europe, Building a Sustainable Future – 11-12 February 2009
Real Deployment Issues • A Customer demanded to have four Telephones numbers – solved with an ATA-box • Telephone in an elevator – Solved by using an ONT with a SIP client • Where should the RG be placed in the Customer home ?
• GPON is very flexible, OLTs have a small footprint and serve many customers – e.g. 4*14*64 = 3584 Customers/Shelf – Long reach, 12 km is quite practical
•
Thorsteinsson, S.E.
FTTH Council Europe, Building a Sustainable Future – 11-12 February 2009
Thank you for your attention
•
Thorsteinsson, S.E.
FTTH Council Europe, Building a Sustainable Future – 11-12 February 2009
Saemundur E. Thorsteinsson Director R&D
•
Thorsteinsson, S.E.
FTTH Council Europe, Building a Sustainable Future – 11-12 February 2009
Overview • Síminn’s FTTH strategy in the residential market segment – Background – FTTC system – Rationale – Greenfield vs. Brownfield Scenarios – Eurescom FANGS study – Síminn’s PON trials •
Challenges for a small operator
•
Triple play services •
Voice, Data and TV
– Home Gateways and ONTs •
SIP port placement •
ONT or Residential Gateway or both?
– Real deployment issues
•
Thorsteinsson, S.E.
FTTH Council Europe, Building a Sustainable Future – 11-12 February 2009
Background information • Since 1994 Síminn has deployed fibre in all Greenfields and in Brownfields where civil works have taken place due to other utility services – FTTC reaches about 2/3 of households in the Reykjavik area – Final drop is maximum 250 m UTP – Gives an excellent opportunity for VDSL, up to 100 Mb/s downlink and 30 Mb/s uplink service • In 2007 functional separation on a free will basis – Sister company Míla owns the access- and transport networks – Síminn owns GPON and DSL infrastructure • IPTV service launched in 2005 •
Thorsteinsson, S.E.
FTTH Council Europe, Building a Sustainable Future – 11-12 February 2009
Síminn International Connections
FarIce: 1.705 Mb/s Dunet Bay Scotland
Cantat 3: 310 Mb/s Redcar England
Cantat 3: 245 Mb/s Pennant Point Kanada
•
Thorsteinsson, S.E.
2.260 Mb/s on Farice/Cantat January 2009
FTTH Council Europe, Building a Sustainable Future – 11-12 February 2009
Rationale for FTTH deployment • Continuing exponential increase in demand for bitrate • Market demand and pressure from competition – Reykjavik Energy has aggressively been deploying fibre in the Reykjavik area • FTTH is “future proof” • ToIP is sufficiently mature to start replacing PSTN – No plan to emulate PSTN over FTTH • FTTH is probably already more cost-effective than copper deployment – Shown below
•
Thorsteinsson, S.E.
FTTH Council Europe, Building a Sustainable Future – 11-12 February 2009
Greenfields vs. Brownfields 100%
• In brownfield urban areas, up to 80% of deployment cost is due to Civil Works
90%
• Ducting systems and fibre cables constitute 70% of the rest
70%
80%
60%
• In greenfields civil works cost is there, irrespective of FTTH or not
50% 40%
• FTTH deployment in greenfields is therefore obviously a smart idea
30% 20%
• Brownfields:
10%
– Business Case for FTTH is tough, except civil works cost can be shared with e.g. utilities
0%
– Therefore Síminn uses ADSL2+ and has started VDSL2 deployment in “difficult ADSL areas” – VDSL2 will gradually replace ADSL2+ – Deployment both in Street Cabinets and LEXs
•
Thorsteinsson, S.E.
FTTH Council Europe, Building a Sustainable Future – 11-12 February 2009
Source: Eurescom CENTS project
Techno-Economic Comparison of FTTH alternatives • Eurescom FANGS study – Fibre in Access Network Greenfield Scenarios – Techno-Economic comparison between •
GPON
•
Point-to-Point (Home-run) fibre
•
Active Star (Active Ethernet)
•
Benchmarking with a Conventional Copper Network
– Methodology •
Imaginary greenfield scenarios analysed •
A neighbourhood of Single Family Units (SFUs), 2000 homes
•
A neighbourhood of Multi Dwelling Units (MDUs), 2000 homes
– Study carried out in 2006 but results should still be applicable
•
Thorsteinsson, S.E.
FTTH Council Europe, Building a Sustainable Future – 11-12 February 2009
FANGS - Scenarios
1 cluster (10 MDUs)
1 cluster (200 homes)
• The SFUs area
• The MDUs area – 2000 apartments
– 2000 homes – 10 clusters of 200 homes – 1 cluster: 10 streets of 20 homes
•
10 clusters of 10 MDUs
•
20 flats per MDU
– 1 cluster: 10 streets of 10 MDUs – Main feeder length = 3000 m – Distance between houses = 20 m – Distance between houses and the street = 10 m
– Main feeder length = 1500 m – Distance between MDUs =100 m – Distance between MDUs and the street = 100 m – In-house wiring in each MDU = 25 m
•
Thorsteinsson, S.E.
FTTH Council Europe, Building a Sustainable Future – 11-12 February 2009
FANGS – Results SFUs
1 200 € 1 000 €
1103 € 915 €
1072 €
SFU Case - 2006 costs EQPT_Other
800 € EQPT_CPE (including installation)
600 €
EQPT_LEx (including installation)
400 €
INFRA_Other INFRA_Fibre Cables & Installation
200 €
INFRA_Civil_Work
0€
GPON
Home Run
Active Star
GPON most economical solution Copper Benchmarking: 964 € •
Thorsteinsson, S.E.
FTTH Council Europe, Building a Sustainable Future – 11-12 February 2009
FANGS – Results MDUs 600 € 500 €
504 €
473 €
483 €
MDU Case - 2006 costs EQPT_Other
400 € EQPT_CPE (including installation)
300 €
EQPT_LEx (including installation)
200 €
INFRA_Other INFRA_Fibre Cables & Installation
100 €
INFRA_Civil_Work
0€
GPON
Home Run
Active Star
GPON most economical solution •Copper Benchmarking: 444 € •More detailed results: http://www.eurescom.eu/Public/projectresults/P1600-series/P1651-D3.asp •
Thorsteinsson, S.E.
FTTH Council Europe, Building a Sustainable Future – 11-12 February 2009
Síminn’s PON trials • PON trials commenced in early 2006 – User trial with a BPON system – 25 users, incl. Síminn employees but also “ordinary customers” – BPON was extremely difficult •
Problems in all sections of the network, from IP-network interface to Home Gateway
•
BPON was replaced by GPON
– GPON trial in Q4 2006 •
IPTV and High Speed Internet Services could be easily delivered •
•
•
•
IPTV multicast “froze” every 10 days, rectified with a new sw. Release
ToIP caused major problems •
Softswitch and SIP ports on RG/ONT could not communicate
•
Difficult for a small Telco to reach Vendors’ ears
•
Tried a number of RGs
Problems solved when Softswitch was replaced and with help from our main RG vendor
Thorsteinsson, S.E.
FTTH Council Europe, Building a Sustainable Future – 11-12 February 2009
Síminn PON trials - Results • When field trials showed success decision was made – Future greenfield deployment will be based on GPON in Reykjavik area – Copper deployment abandoned – Triple play offering •
ToIP, IPTV and HSI
•
No plans to utilise RF overlay for TV distribution
•
Deployment has slowed down due to economic crisis
• Brownfield deployment based on FTTC and VDSL2 – Already started for IPTV delivery – Demand for Very High Speed Internet connectivity (> 20 Mb/s) is still limited
•
Thorsteinsson, S.E.
FTTH Council Europe, Building a Sustainable Future – 11-12 February 2009
GPON at Customer Premises
Local Exchange
Home Service seggregation using VLANs Multicast Streaming (VoD) Portal communications HSI VoIP
Telephone RG
SM fibre
Splitter POTS
Ethernet
OLT
Ethernet
ONT
Set-top Box
Ethernet PC
•
Thorsteinsson, S.E.
FTTH Council Europe, Building a Sustainable Future – 11-12 February 2009
Residential Gateways and ONTs • SIP port placement, ONT or RG ? – ONT advantages •
Not all services on the same box •
e.g. customer calls help centre and is asked to reset the RG !
•
Usually not of importance for home wiring
•
We have the feeling that the ONT SIP client is more stable than SIP clients in RGs
•
We have never experienced a faulty ONT!
– RG advantages •
SIP ONT is marginally more expensive
•
Data only ONT seems to be preferred by other Telcos •
•
TR-69 supported on RGs •
•
Therefore place SIP client in RG
Thorsteinsson, S.E.
Will ONTs be TR-69 controlled ?
FTTH Council Europe, Building a Sustainable Future – 11-12 February 2009
Real Deployment Issues • A Customer demanded to have four Telephones numbers – solved with an ATA-box • Telephone in an elevator – Solved by using an ONT with a SIP client • Where should the RG be placed in the Customer home ?
• GPON is very flexible, OLTs have a small footprint and serve many customers – e.g. 4*14*64 = 3584 Customers/Shelf – Long reach, 12 km is quite practical
•
Thorsteinsson, S.E.
FTTH Council Europe, Building a Sustainable Future – 11-12 February 2009
Thank you for your attention
•
Thorsteinsson, S.E.
FTTH Council Europe, Building a Sustainable Future – 11-12 February 2009
Related Documents
Bringing Fibre To Icelandic Homes
June 2020 11
Bringing Health To Work
May 2020 19
Learn Icelandic
November 2019 15
Learning To Speak Icelandic Ebook
November 2019 27
Homes
November 2019 50