Ger Bakker UNET


Published on

FTTx Summit Europe 2012

Published in: Business, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Ger Bakker UNET

  1. 1. Experiences with WDM PON in SME markets FttX Summit Europe, London, UK April 23-26, 2012 Ger C. Bakker, MSc CTO & Founder UNET, The Netherlands 1
  2. 2. Agenda‣ Introduction‣ WDM PON overview‣ Why WDM PON‣ Case 1: Remote Business Park‣ Case 2: Surveillance Camera Network‣ Case 3: Long Distance Access Network‣ Case 4: Rural Access Network‣ Wrap up 2
  3. 3. Introduction to UNET‣ First FttH Triple Play Service Provider in Netherlands in 2003‣ Open Access Broadband Service provider in B2B and Wholesale‣ Fibre access infrastructure operator and owner in business parks‣ 1000 km long haul leased optical fibre networks‣ 500 km owned optical fibre access networks‣ Active L2/L3 network operator‣ 2011 revenue € 14.4 M, EBITDA >30% 3
  4. 4. Success created the problem‣ Rapid growth confronted UNET with scaling issues‣ The local optical fiber infrastructure had reached it’s capacity limits and needed to be expanded by blowing new fibre‣ Geographically-dispersed locations demanded more efficient use of available fibers‣ Growth of traffic on UNET’s national core network • From single wave length to CWDM and DWDM • From GE to 10 GE‣ Growth of L2 network services • Q-in-Q, Mac-in Mac, QoS • MPLS/PBB/PBT discussion‣ Open Access is attractive for wholesale business, but requires simple business model 4
  5. 5. The problem with PtP fibre 5
  6. 6. WDM POM explained Up to 60 km SME and Residential 1 ONT 32 wavelengths @ 1Gb/s OLT 2 ONT ONT Wireless Hub, Back Haul CO WDM Filter Service Terminal and Low Loss Passive Filter n Packet Processing in outside plant OLT: Optical Line Terminal ONT: Optical Network Termination ONT WDM: Wavelength Division Multiplexing Business - Multi-Tenant Unit - Local Datacenter  Dedicated Point to Point – secure, symmetrical downstream & upstream  Simplified deployment model – Colorless ONTs, automatic wavelength selection  Service Velocity - tailored to scale for residential and/or business services  Optimized outside plant - no outside plant electronics, single fiber operation 6
  7. 7. WDM PON: a disruptive technology? ↑ Future proof architecturePoint to Point ↑ Bit rate & protocol independent ↑ Follows Telco wiring practices ↑ Standards/Mature Technology ↑ Symmetrical Services ↔Subscriber Density ↓ CO fiber management ↓ Fiber availability ↓ High power consumption ↓ MTTR upon cable break WDM Fiber Access WDM Fiber AccessActive Remote ↑ Symmetrical Services ↑ Standards/Mature Technology ADVANTAGES of ↑ Simple engineering & planning ↔Subscriber Density P2P & TDM PON In Building ↓ Shared bandwidth + Outside Cabinet ↓ Active electronics in OSP ↓ High power consumption Passive Wavelength Filter Secure, Reach, Scalability ↓ Sub-optimal scalability No Wavelength Planning & Simple EngineeringTDM PON ↑ Simplified CO fiber management ↑ Passive OSP solution ↑ Low power consumption ↑ Subscriber Density ↔Interoperability ↔Security ↓ Shared Bandwidth (DS & US) ↓ Trouble shooting ↓ Redundancy 7
  8. 8. Case 1: Remote Business Park 8
  9. 9. Case 2: Surveillance Camera Network 9
  10. 10. Case 3: Long Distance Access Network 20 km 10
  11. 11. Case 4: Rural Access Network 4-way 8-way OLT splitter splitter ONT Add/drop configuration 11
  12. 12. FttB: Technology Comparison & Costs Solution Technology Pro’s Con’s Relative TCOFiber Expansion Jet Net Blow extra mini- ‣ Simple High CAPEX 100% cable in reserved ‣ Reliable mini-ducts ‣ Low OPEXTraffic L2 Switching Ethernet ‣ Medium CAPEX ‣ More Active 35%Aggregation aggregation ‣ Very Flexible PoP’s switched in street ‣ Complex cabinets ‣ High OPEXWavelength WDM PON Passive filter in ‣ Simple ‣ New Technology 20%Multiplexing manhole or street ‣ Reliable ‣ Single Vendor cabinet (Passive) ‣ Low CAPEX ‣ Low OPEX 12
  13. 13. Wrap up‣ WDM PONs current cost level makes it ideal for FttO networks (SME)‣ In FttH WDM PON is more cost effective than PtP, but cannot yet replace existing TDM PON in existing deployments for highly populated areas‣ WDM PON is much easier to manage than PtP fibre‣ WDM PON realizes huge savings on PoP capex and opex‣ WDM PON in add/drop configuration is an attractive solution for fibre to rural areas‣ As mass production and further integration will occur in the next few years, this technology will be the ultimate solution, and in the end replace DSL, cable and TDM PON 13