Uploaded on

Jean Fehlbaum, Director Strategic Projects, Nexans …

Jean Fehlbaum, Director Strategic Projects, Nexans
“FTTH Capex Optimisation by Infrastructure Sharing”

More in: Technology , Business
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
733
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
24
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. FTTH capex optimisation by infrastructure sharing FIBER ALL THE WAY Jean F hlb J Fehlbaum
  • 2. New trends in the regulation In Switzerland, our OFCOM (Federal Office of Communications) has established a new recommendation for the indoor plant cabling of FTTH networks. This technical guideline called «FTTH In-House Installations Layer 1” foresees a 400% vertical and horizontal fibre distribution. In parallel ARCEP (french regulatory body) has defined more or less the same rule for big multidwelling units. In 2009 the same office has introduced for the french operator France Telecom the obligation of opening their duct network to their competitors competitors. In Sweden, and partly Norway and Denmark, there is for the moment no regulatory movement in thi di ti l t t i this direction, b t th market actors are more and but the k t t d more pushing forward a 2- or 4-fiber philosophy, in order to boost internal competition also throughout the infrastructure and give the possibility of accessing several operators at the same time.
  • 3. Potentially shared Network functions POP / CO Urban node or Building Area node Entry Point OLT BB IP O D F Main cables 288 – 864 OF Distribution cables 12 – 288 OF
  • 4. FTTx Network functionalities and new challenges g 1. Feeder cabling : new needs for very high fibre count main cables 2. 2 Distribution Cabinets and BEPs: high flexibility with splitters integration, multi-operators (PON & P2P combinations) and multifibre (up to 400% cabling density) ( p g y) 3. Subscriber cables : preconnectorised optical fibres cables (400%) packaged together with the optical telecom outlet
  • 5. FEEDER CABLING The present market situation allows many different scenarios of sharing infrastructure in the feeder cabling section : 1. Route sharing : subducting and micro-subducting 2. 2 Chambers sharing : several splice closures in the same location 3. Duct sharing : HD optical fibres cables (P2P multifibre networks) 4. 4 Cable sheath sharing : h brid cables hybrid 2. 1. 2. 3. 3 Micro-cable with > 3 fibres/mm2 4. 4. 4.
  • 6. FEEDER CABLING : HIGH DENSITY OF CABLES Fiber count as a function of cable outer diameter 10000 Micro-bundles 2009 LT & μ-bundles 2010 Other μ-bundles 2008 Other Loose Tubes 2009 3 fibers per mm22 1000 2 fibers per mm 100 Today’s t T d ’ trends : increase d i Fibe count density > 2 fibres/mm2 for LT constructions and > 3 er fibres/mm2 for μ-bundles 10 0 5 10 15 1 20 25 2 30 Cable outer diameter [mm]
  • 7. Every network is already now (partly) P2P Version 1 : P2P only in MDUs (100 OR 400%) or up to the area node PON NETWORK P2P PART OF PART OF NETWORK P2P NETWORK POP / CO Urban node or Building Area node Entry Point OLT BB IP O D F Main cables 24 – 144 OF Distribution cables 12 – 72 OF
  • 8. REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AGGREGATION POINTS Version 1 : P2P only in MDUs (100 OR 400%) or up to the area node Needs flexible and scalable PON & P2P patching possibility (as well in street cabinets as in Building Entry Points versions) Advantage : access part scalable as a function of the subscriber demand rate Version 2 : P2P from ODF to OTO Needs a fibre quad from the aggregation point to the subscriber outlet Advantage : only spliced i t Ad t l li d interconnections, no need f patching solutions ti d for t hi l ti 12 - 72 144-576 BEP or Distribution cabinet (Area node) Feeder bl for F d cable f P2P Drop cabling PON or/and P2P
  • 9. Every network is already now (partly) P2P Version 2 : P2P from ODF to OTO Utility company Aggregation point Swisscom investments Utilities investments Common investments (70% of total) Utility Open Access fibres Swisscom own fibres
  • 10. FTTH DEPLOYMENT COSTS Relative costs of the FTTH deployment Potential for cost reduction d ti Components Works 75 to 85% 65 to 75 % Hardware Cables 25 to 35% 15 to 25%
  • 11. REFERENCE MODEL : NETWORK FUNCTIONS 400% CABLING FROM THE AGGREGATION POINT (MANHOLE / CABINET OR BEP) TO THE OPTICAL TERMINATION OUTLET (OTO) Source : OFCOM (Switzerland)
  • 12. DROP CABLING PRECONNECTORISATION IS KEY ( AT THE MOMENT MAINLY IN CASE OF 400% CABLING) ISSUE : DROP CABLE TO BEP IN MDUs BUT ALSO TO DISTRIBUTION CABINETS IN LOW DENSITY AREAS => DISTANCE CAN VARY FROM 10 TO 200 METERS SOLUTION : PULLING TECHNIQUE FOR DENSE AREAS (HIGH MDUs), WITH TYPICALLY 15 TO 30 METERS DISTANCE BETWEEN OTO & BEP ALTERNATIVE : BLOWN SOLUTION UP TO 200 METERS DISTANCE FOR RURAL AREAS Sweden : blown solution Switzerland : solution with pulling up to 200m distance between technique up to 50m distance terminal outlet and between terminal outlet and BEP Distribution point
  • 13. CONCLUSION IN EUROPE THE BUSINESS MODEL IN ALMOST ALL COUNTRIES IS EVOLVING TOWARDS A SERVICES COMPETITION, BUT BASED UPON A SHARED INFRASTRUCTURE. SOME REGULATORS ARE PUSHING FORWARD A 400% VERSION, TO MAINTAIN SOME COMPETITION ON THE INFRASTRUCTURE TOO. THE NEED FOR PON & P2P COMBINATION INDUCES DEMANDS FOR HIGHLY FLEXIBLE SOLUTIONS ABLE TO HOST HYBRID AND VERSATILE CABLINGS VARYING FROM 100% PON TO 100% P2P P2P.