FTTH & Next-Gen HFC: Key Considerations

in Building Cable’s 10G Platform

Sponsored by
Today’s Presenters

Alan Breznick Jack Burton Tommy Taylor

Cable/Video Practice Leader Principal Vice President of IP,
Light Reading Broadband Success Partners Video & Design Services
BCI
Today’s Agenda
• Overview--Cable’s HFC Evolution
• State of FTTH Rollouts
• MSO Legacy Architecture
• New Network Options
• Similarities & Differences
• Decision Factors
• Conclusion
• Buckeye Perspective
• Audience Q & A
 Cable’s Fiber Outlook Report—Cable HFC
Evolution
 Nearly 87% of MSO respondents say their company has
already started extending fiber deeper into the access network
or will start doing so soon.
 Over one-third of MSO respondents (nearly 36%) say their
company aims to go all the way to an FTTH architecture, while
another 29% say their company will go to a node-plus-zero
(N+0) architecture
 MSO respondents view fiber availability and cost as the
greatest hurdle to boosting fiber capacity, with civil and real
estate permitting next

PRESENTED BY
 Cable’s Fiber Outlook Report—DAA Results
 More than three-fifths of respondents (62%) say their
company has started converting its cable systems to DAA or
planned to start doing so by end of 2018
 Nearly three-fifths of respondents (57%) say their company is
pursuing a Remote PHY node approach, while more than two-
fifths (43%) say their company is pursuing Remote MAC/PHY
 More than half of survey respondents (53%) say their
company expects to roll out DAA to most of its cable systems
by the end of 2020
 Over one-fifth of respondents (almost 22%) see upgrading
fiber optic nodes as the greatest challenge of deploying DAA
PRESENTED BY
 Meanwhile, FTTH Penetration is Soaring

• In 2018, fiber surpassed DSL to become the second most common connection for
home Internet in North America after cable
• In the U.S., fiber now passes 41 million unique homes and connects 18.6 million
homes, a 17% increase in homes passed by fiber since 2017
• In all of North America, fiber now passes nearly 60 million homes and connects
23.8 million.
• Canada leads North American fiber deployment, with 19% growth in homes
marketed in 2018 alone.

Source: Fiber Broadband Association

FTTH Has Passed DSL & Now Gaining on HFC

Figure 1: North America broadband subscriptions by type, 4Q17–4Q22

Source: Ovum

Source: Ovum
FTTH or NG HFC:
Myth vs. Reality
Jack Burton
Principal
Broadband Success Partners

21 August 2019
Today’s
Agenda
• MSO Legacy Architecture

• New Network Options

• Similarities & Differences

• Decision Factors

• Conclusion

9
MSO Legacy Architecture
HFC Infrastructure
 Node + 3 or higher

 Sub-split plant (5-42 MHz Upstream)

o 1 Gbps Downstream

o 100 Mbps Upstream

10
New Network Options
NG HFC Networks
 Node + 0

 Distributed Access Architecture

 Node + 0 with DAA

DOCSIS Provisioning

Virtualization

11
 Audience Poll I
Is your company planning to deploy NG HFC? (NG HFC is defined
as Node + 0, DAA or both)

• Yes, we are already doing so

• Yes, probably within a year or two
• We’re not sure – waiting to see if FTTH is worthwhile
• Definitely not any time soon
• N/A – We’re not a service provider
New Network Options
FTTH Networks
 PON

 RFOG

“RFOG needed groups of 16 in some

cases due to lower loss budget.”
VP of Strategy, Tier 1 MSO

13
 Audience Poll II
Is your company planning to deploy FTTH? (Fiber to the home,
defined as RFOG or any type of PON)

• Yes, we are already doing so

• Yes, probably within a year or two
• We’re not sure – waiting to see if FTTH is worthwhile
• Definitely not any time soon
• N/A – We’re not a service provider
Similarities & Differences
Similarities
 Transport from headend to neighborhood
 Lack of legacy fiber infrastructure

Differences
 Optical versus coaxial drop
 Passive versus active
o Active PON may be required – Remote OLT due to lack of fiber infrastructure
 In-home extension of network versus isolated?
 Device compatibility
o RFOG overlay to PON

15
Transport Plant: The Problem
Transport requirements for area served by
legacy 500-home fiber node.
• If convert area to 32-home per splitter PON, require at least 16
fibers.
• If, instead, replace typical 12-line extender amplifiers fed by
that node with new DAA nodes, including the legacy location,
require 26 fibers (separate upstream and downstream).
• If a pro-active MSO wanted to be ready for 5G, we could “Hub to node fiber is insufficient to
assume that each PON splitter or DAA node location will have add enough nodes for fiber deep. We
one fiber-fed 5G radio location, adding another 26 fibers (for must add coherent hardened DWDM
separate upstream and downstream). gear or run many new fibers.”
 Where previously 2 fibers were used, we would now require 52.
VP of Network Architecture
Tier 1 MSO

16
Transport Plant: The Solution
• A field-mounted DWDM multiplexer could serve one or more
legacy node locations.

The transport solution is same for both NG HFC and FTTH

installations. Too few fibers to a neighborhood is corrected via
DWDM networks or additional fiber construction. If FTTH is
used, the DWDM network must feed remote OLTs to generate
the PONs.

17
Decision Factors
1. Maintenance

2. Disruption of Service

3. Construction

4. Terminal Equipment

5. Apartments

6. Training

7. Provisioning

18
Maintenance
Coax Network
• Signal leakage must be detected, measured & repaired “HFC is running about $1,100 per mile per year -
over half being for power alone. Fiber came in
• Higher plant bandwidth
close to zero, for about $100 per mile per year.“
• Detect leaks at multiple frequencies VP of Network Architecture, Tier 1 MSO
• Ingress from new sources - small-cell radios
“Power savings, no more sweeping, no more
• Damaged connectors enable water intrusion and
signal leakage measurement and repair.”
corrosion. Impairs performance. CTO, Tier 2 MSO
• Signal levels must be monitored and maintained Network Powering Connectors Leakage Balancing

• Proof of performance tests and reporting Coaxial Network

Fiber Network
Fiber Network
• Fiber networks require no routine or preventive maintenance Winner: FTTH

19
Disruption
Myth
I can upgrade my coaxial network with minimal
disruption to my customers by doing it out-of-
hours and carefully scheduling replacement of
plant equipment.
Reality
Each service interruption annoys customers, making
them more likely to switch to competitor.
• Changing to Node + 0 or DAA network requires
equipment replacement that will cause all
subscribers to lose service during equip change.
• Changing to higher-bandwidth (ESD) network
where tap housings, tap plates, and drops must be
replaced would be extremely disruptive.
• If changing terminal equipment is required, this is
the most disruptive activity, because customers
must be visited - often requiring the customer to
miss work.
20
Disruption: Perception vs. Reality

Advantage: FTTH
FTTH networks can be overbuilt alongside an
existing HFC network with no disruption to
existing customers.
When terminal equipment must be changed, it
only affects customers taking new FTTH service.
Eventually, all customers on the HFC network
could be changed over at their convenience.

21
Construction
PERCEPTION REALITY
• When building my FTTH network, I need to replace • New types of fiber minimize construction
all OSP coaxial with fiber and all cable drops to costs by handling without overstressing by
each home with fiber drops. pulling/bending
• I cannot reuse parts of coax network for fiber • New duct systems
• Underground construction
• Difference in underground construction cost
• Apartment building wiring varies with network size and complexity
• But, what about hidden construction costs of
NG HFC networks?

“After extensive modeling and analysis of true cost of HFC

greenfield, FTTH was essentially the same cost to deploy.”
VP of Network Architecture, Tier 1 MSO

22
Construction: Myth vs. Reality
Tap Plates
Highly likely that tap plate values must be changed to accommodate
high-output RF levels from NG nodes

Tap Housings
Will existing tap housing be able to perform adequately at new
frequencies? Depending upon the ultimate bandwidth, the entire housing
may need to be replaced at each tap location for FDX and ESD, leading to
significant expense and construction-related outages.

23
Construction: Myth vs. Reality
Drop Cables and Splitters

Will existing RG-6 drop running 100 feet be

adequate to deliver top frequency of 1.8 GHz?
If network is changed to a “Home Gateway”
architecture and splitters at home are not
a concern, the likely answer is yes.

If we consider 3 GHz or long drops:

RG-11 may be required.

24
Construction: Myth vs. Reality
Power
The coaxial network, before an upgrade, has power to feed
the existing amplifiers. What happens if amplifiers are
replaced by DAA nodes, typically with a high-level RF output?

If output level is increased, power consumption, and thus the

need for power supplies and the electricity that feeds them,
will likely increase.

25
Construction: Myth vs. Reality

Advantage: No advantage
In particularly expensive areas, such as urban
underground, if coax is already in place, NG HFC
preferable when buried plant can be reused.
Hidden costs of upgrading NG HFC networks for
future high-bandwidth technologies such as 1.8 GHz,
3 GHz, or FDX can make it very expensive.

26
Terminal Equipment
Myth: With PON, no RF infrastructure. Only
way I can deliver video service is by IPTV. Most
deployed set-top boxes only support RF-
delivered QAM video and would require
replacement - not necessary with NG HFC.

Reality: Many operators have IPTV facilities

to serve video to tablets, laptops and
phones. Use IPTV boxes costing less than RF-
QAM set-tops. Replacing equipment may
also be side effect of NG HFC bandwidth
expansion (ESD and FDX).
27
Terminal Equipment
Perception & Reality: In an FTTH network
terminal equipment will be required.

No Advantage. Both FTTH and NG

HFC will both likely require terminal
equipment replacement.

28
Back-office Provisioning
Myth
Bringing ONT online via established “telco” methods
involves procedures foreign to most cable operators
• Older PON systems require that ONT be brought online
ONLY when home tied to an account and given service
• XML or Netconf used to communicate with back-office
systems rather than DOCSIS methods
• (some cable operators may actually prefer these methods)
• I cannot re-use my PacketCable voice infrastructure
with FTTH
Reality
Emulation of DOCSIS provisioning
• CableLabs – DPoE (EPON only)
• Today, largest PON vendors have tools to allow PON
OLTs to act like DOCSIS modems in how they operate
with cable operator’s back office systems; works with
both EPON- and GPON-based networks.
Voice Services
• Voice adapters using SIP can be fed from same soft
switches used for cable telephony now.
• Some built-in to PON ONTs.
• Virtualization – similar effort
29
Back-office Provisioning:
Perception vs. Reality

Advantage: NG HFC
NG HFC networks using DOCSIS are already equipped
and therefore come out ahead. However, FTTH is not
far behind due to recent advancements that enable it
to mimic DOCSIS.

30
Technician Training & Equipment
Perception Reality
My technicians handling fiber will need special Handling fiber drops themselves no more difficult or
training. Handling fiber is more complicated than complicated than handling coaxial cable
handling coaxial cables. Technicians may also • Putting on connectors does require special tools. But,
require specialized fiber tools such as fusion splicers for a trained technician, level of difficulty is similar.
and Optical Time Domain Reflectometers. • To avoid connectors, fusion splicing is now
available for street-side plant, in drop connection,
and in home
• Low-cost automated portable equipment makes
fusion splicing for all connections practical
“Training for FTTH is not more difficult than for HFC - just • Because fusion-spliced connections are
different.” permanent, no need to worry about re-mating
connections, letting dirt get in or connectors get
“Optical power meter is easier than RF signal level meter.” damaged
“Increasingly difficult to find talent for coax construction.”
VP of Engineering, Tier 2 MSO
31
Technician Training & Equipment:
Perception vs. Reality

Advantage: NG HFC
Since there is some new training required for FTTH,
NG HFC where HFC is already in place would be easier.
In greenfield situations, this is a tie.

32
Apartments
PERCEPTION
Replacing coaxial drops in Multi-Dwelling Unit (MDU)
with fiber drops is daunting task.
• Drop replacement costs can run several hundred
dollars per unit.
• High level of disruption, despite promise of fiber-
optic service.
5G competitors will offer high bandwidth to each
unit from outside-in, without radically re-wiring
building.
REALITY
In cases where homerun coax is available to each unit, a
fiber-fed centralized PON terminal could provide service
over copper. Bandwidth may be limited; specialized
equipment will be required. However, cost should be
much lower.
• MOCA, G.hn, or G.fast over Coax
• Microwave from fiber-fed terminals located outside –
the “Starry” model – possibly using above
• New fiber products
• Small fiber for hallway installation
• “invisible” fiber for in-unit installation without
fishing walls
33
Apartments: Myth vs. Reality

Advantage: No advantage
Winner here could be 5G/mmWave when considering
installation speed, given limitations of mmWave propagation.
Yes, coax infrastructure in apartments might be reused
without new terminal equipment with less difficulty than with
new equipment required for FTTH. Both have limitations.
Radio access requires no work inside the apartment building
at all. Feeding the radio network is best accomplished via fiber
and in this case, fiber ultimately wins.

34
Conclusion
Impact or value of a network upgrade is
determined by what you can do with it FTTH vs. NG HFC: Relative Impact & Cost
that you could not do previously. Impact
High
• NG HFC only adds value when the E C D M
upgrade adds bandwidth.
E C D M
• More upgrades to NG HFC may be
required in the future in order to add Legend FTTH
NG HFC
ESD & New NG HFC

more bandwidth. High Low Cost Upstream

Maintenance M M M
 Node Splits if not already N+0
Disruption of
D D D
 RF Bandwidth Expansion
Service

Construction C C C
 US/DS Split or FDX Augmentation D M C E
Terminal
E E E
• With FTTH, any bandwidth is possible Low Equipment

by changing only terminal equipment.

35
 Audience Poll III
There once was a perception that switching out HFC for FTTH was
an admission of defeat by cable operators. Now vendors are going
out of their way to show how HFC can be enhanced to meet
growing bandwidth needs. How do you feel about that?

• This was never true. Cable operators just used HFC because it was
better/cheaper.
• Old thinking. That’s not the case anymore.
• Some operators still feel that way.
• Yes, it’s still true.
 Conclusion
Analyze capital expense of construction and deployment + operating costs.
 Fiber deployment costs are significant
o NG HFC requires considerable fiber deployment just as FTTH
 NG HFC may ultimately require modifications to coax plant to expand
bandwidth “We felt we would never be
 Terminal replacement costs are very high done pushing fiber deeper
o NG HFC terminal equipment must be replaced just as it must be with FTTH, and deeper, until everyone
when ESD/FDX are deployed had a fiber drop. Why put in
[coax] hardware that we
Operators should consider advances in FTTH technology along know, someday, we have to
with NG HFC when making their decision take out?”
CTO, Tier 2 MSO

37
Thank you!

Jack Burton
Principal
jburton@broadbandsuccess.com
617.780.5600

broadbandsuccess.com
38
 Tommy Taylor
VP of IP, Video and Design Services
 Investment Decision?

Selection process to determine the correct technology to support the operational

requests.
– Does the new area include:
• Residential Homes
• MDU Complex(s)
• Business Opportunities
– Greenfield or a Brownfield Opportunity?
– Geographical Area
– Fiber Availability
– Time to Market while thinking of the Future
– Return on Investment
 Technology (Traditional RF Tools)

– Traditional 870 MHz with a 5-42/54 MHz split

– 1.2 Gig with 5/85 MHz Mid-Split – Brownfield HFC Upgrades
• Convert QAM Video to IPTV this overcomes Legacy OOB (Out-of-Band)
• 100% DOCSIS Platform (32 Single QAM’s and [2] 192 MHz OFDM Blocks)
• Launch OFDM-A for increased upstream throughput
– DOCSIS 3.1 – Brownfield Opportunities
• Currently deployed across 99.9% of the company’s footprint
• Increased Bandwidth Efficiency over DOCSIS 3.0
• Traditional CMTS (Cisco CBR-8 and Arris E6000)
• Software based CMTS, Harmonic CableOS
 Technology (Optical Options)

– RFoG (PON) Greenfield / Brownfield opportunities

• Fiber Deep design that replaces the coax portion of the HFC plant
• Additional Downstream Spectrum, supports 1 GHz of downstream spectrum
• Improves upstream noise characteristics that allows the use of the full 5/42 MHz return
spectrum
• Removes active devices within the access network, Improved Operational Costs
– GPON (1Gig) Greenfield / Brownfield opportunities
• Similar to RFoG, this is a fiber deep design supporting a 1:32 (1 Fiber per 32 Customers)
• Eliminates DOCSIS requirements, uses Ethernet to customer router/computer
• Downstream speeds up to 2.488 Gb/s
• Upstream speeds up to 1.2 Gb/s
Audience Q & A

Alan Breznick Jack Burton Tommy Taylor

Cable/Video Practice Leader Principal Vice President of IP,
Light Reading Broadband Success Partners Video & Design Services
BCI
Thank you for attending!
Upcoming Light Reading webinars
www.lightreading.com/webinars.asp