Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Cable Infrastructure Evolution

911 views

Published on

First joint presentation (AT&T Labs and AT&T Broadband/former TCI) on the mini Fiber Node (mFN) technology. SCTE EXPO 1999

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

  • Be the first to like this

Cable Infrastructure Evolution

  1. 1. Cable Infrastructure Evolution Xiaolin Lu Oleh Sniezko AT&T Labs AT&T Broadband & Internet ServicesXL 4/30/99
  2. 2. What is this? A detailed description of the mini Fiber Node technology and the engineering implementation  Presented on SCTE Expo 1999  At that time an extensive field trial was going on in Salt Lake City.XL 4/30/99
  3. 3. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AL ABIS ABSE Ted Darcie Tony Werner Mark Dzuban Alan Gnauck Doug Combs Cameron GoughSheryl Woodward Esteban Sandino Marty Davidson Bhavesh Desai Patrick O’Hare Rob Mcliline Xiaoxin Qiu Larry Cox Tim Peters Quaser, Inc Bogdan Liminar
  4. 4. OUTLINE Historical Overview  Cable Evolution Options  Six Month Joint Study (9/98 - 3/99) Multiplexed Fiber Passive Coax  Convergence of vision Features And Value Field Trial And Moving Forward
  5. 5. CHALLENGES HE FN HE FN HE FN Analog Emerging TV Services 5 50 500 750 1G Bandwidth Capacity: 5-40MHz/1000s HHP upstream Transport Integrity: Ingress noise, dynamic range 103-to-1 Architecture: Upstream MAC to-
  6. 6. SOLUTIONSBandwidth  FiberNode Capacity Network Segmentation  DWDM Trunk  New Platform Transport Integrity  DOCSIS  High level Modem modulation  Centrally- Centrally- 103-to-1 mediated MAC  Simple ProtocolArchitecture
  7. 7. Fiber Node Segmentation HE FN 1,200 Homes Long cascade coax bus shared by many users (1000s)
  8. 8. Fiber Node Segmentation 300 Homes 300 HomesHE FN 300 Homes 300 Homes  1,200 HHP/FN with 300 HHP/Bus
  9. 9. DISTRIBUTED HEAD-END HEAD- HE FNPrimary Primary Hub HE Ring FN HE  Operation complexity  Cost of CMTS at lower take rate
  10. 10. DWDM TRUNK SH FNPrimary Primary Hub SH Ring FN SH  DWDM transport for end-to-end transparency  Route diversity for service protection  Consolidate high-end terminals (CMTS)
  11. 11. DWDM TRUNKPrimary Hub Secondary HubXTR Sl 1 x 8 DWDM 1 x 8 DWDMll. . ... . Fiber Node RCVRCV l 1 x 8 DWDM 1 x 8 DWDMRCV lRCV . . . . . .
  12. 12. DWDM ReverseLOCAL HEADEND SECONDARY HUB OPTICAL NODES 8 dB link at 1550 nm 13 dB link at 1310 nm 1 x 4 DWDM 1 x 4 DWDM RF Combiner/Splitter Routing Circuitry 1 x 4 DWDM 1 x 4 DWDM 1 x 4 DWDM 1 x 4 DWDM 1 x 4 DWDM 1 x 4 DWDM 5 dB link at 1550 nm 7 dB link at 1310 nm
  13. 13. Frequency Frequency Frequency Frequency Destacker Destacker Destacker Destacker 1 x 4 DWDM LOCAL HEADEND 8 dB link at 1550 nm 13 dB link at 1310 nm 1 x 4 DWDM Frequency Frequency Frequency Frequency SECONDARY HUB Stacker Stacker Stacker Stacker DWDM Reverse and FSS7 dB link at 1310 nm5 dB link at 1550 nm OPTICAL NODES
  14. 14. DWDM Reverse &TDM LOCAL HEADEND SECONDARY HUB OPTICAL NODESA/D A/D Demultiplexer MultiplexerA/D 8 dB link at 1550 nm A/DA/D 13 dB link at 1310 nm A/DA/D A/DA/D A/D Demultiplexer MultiplexerA/D A/DA/D A/D 1 x 4 DWDM 1 x 4 DWDMA/D A/DA/D A/D Demultiplexer Demultiplexer MultiplexerA/D A/DA/D A/DA/D A/DA/D A/D MultiplexerA/D A/DA/D A/DA/D A/D 5 dB link at 1550 nm 7 dB link at 1310 nm
  15. 15. MODERN HFC NETWORK SH FNPrimary Primary Hub SH Ring SH FN DWDM Transport Segmentation End-to-end Transparency 4X capacity
  16. 16. What If We Succeed?  Bandwidth exhaustion  Transport integrity  Take rate and multiple lines  New services  User behavior  Performance 10000 1000 Life cycle costDelay (ms) 100 10 v.s. 1 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Front-end cost Users
  17. 17. ARCHITECTURESTree-and-Branch Broadcast FN Cascaded ???Cell-Based Narrowcast RN Clustered
  18. 18. MOTIVATION Architecture Balance  Broadcast v.s. SwitchUpstream Nerdy Ingress  Huge pipe Bandwidth  New services Terminal  Cost and Operation
  19. 19. ARCHITECTURE COMPARISONExisting HFC Initial mFNHub FN Hub FN mFN mFN Analog video Digital Analog video 5 50 500 750 1G 5 50 500 750 1G Fiber to FN with 2-way coax  Fiber to mFN for digital overlay 5 - 40MHz upstream ( - ingress)  550/750 - 1000MHz 2-way  20-200KHz/HHP  2MHz/HHP Powering challenge  Low-power digital path DOCSIS compliant  Simple protocol and terminals  Plausible evolution to FTTC/H
  20. 20. Early Version of an mFN Prototype
  21. 21. PROTOCOL COMPARISONHub FN Hub FN mFN mFN Local REQ Signaling REQ REQ Data Data Data Data Data Other Services 50 500 1GDOCSIS Adapted Ethernet Centrally (Hub) mediated protocol  Distributed (mFN) mediated protocol  Large contention domain (600+users)  Small contention domain (50 users)  Long round trip delay (350+ms)  Small round trip delay (6ms) Complex modulation for precious  Simple modulation with abundant bandwidth bandwidth Ideal for introduction & low take-  Opportunities to reduce terminal rate cost and power consumption
  22. 22. DELAY COMPARISON 1000 100Average delay (ms) 10 mFN-NAD CM 1 0.1 mFN-NAD Cable modem 0.01 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Number of active users
  23. 23. mFN Protocol Performance 6Average Delay (ms) 5 Low Priority (20) 4 3 Medium Priority (10) 2 1 High Priority (20) 0 100 200 300 Request Packet Rate (Kbps/station)
  24. 24. SIX MONTH STUDY Completed 3/99Define Network Upgrade Strategy to Balance Near- Near-term and Long-term Needs Long- ABIS ABSE Werner Dzuban  Experience/planning  New services  Implementation  Requirement AL Darcie  mFN technology  Idealism (nerdy)
  25. 25. SIX MONTH STUDY Network design and cost analysis: 600+ miles Scenarios: Current Upgrade mFN RF mFN Digital Baseband Passive Coax Key results:  Incremental cost associated with deep fiber penetration  Opportunities in: • Reducing power consumption for 2-way services • Reducing terminal and operation cost • Ability to support future demands  Opportunities for mFN to improve current system while migrating to new infrastructure  Multiplexed Fiber Passive Coax
  26. 26. Multiplexed Fiber Passive CoaxHub FN Hub FN mFN mFN HUB MuxNode mFN mFN TV TV DTV DTV New IP New IP DOCSIS DOCSIS New IP New IP  Passive coax between mFN and subscribers  Reduced power consumption and maintenance  MuxNode to reduce cost of deep fiber penetration  Increased bandwidth and flexibility for DOCSIS-based services  Simultaneously support current (DOCSIS) & future (new IP) systems
  27. 27. MIGRATIONPhase 1: Establish A New Infrastructure  Reduce actives and system power consumption  Create more bandwidth for DOCSIS-based services  Improve reliabilityPhase 2: Future Proofing  More capacity & flexibility (10-100Mbps/50-100 HHP)  Low-cost, low-power-consumption user terminals  Provisioning for future opportunities
  28. 28. END-TO- END-TO-END SYSTEM -- Option #1PH SH MuxNode mFN TV XTR RCV-A D D TSD ITU-A W W XTR Today RCV-A D D Filter RCV M M ITU-A 1:8 Coupler XTRV Modem RCV-D New RCV-D DWDM C ITU-D Mux IP C RCV-D Demux Phase 2 ITU-D DWDM ITU-A: Analog ITU ITU-D: Digital ITU RCV-A: Analog RCV RCV-D: Digital RCV  Integrated Platform with Phased Development  Off-the-shelf for Phase 1 with Phase 2 provisioning
  29. 29. END-TO- END-TO-END SYSTEM -- Option #2PH SH MuxNode mFN TV XTR RCV-A D D TSD ITU-A W W XTR Today RCV-A D D Filter RCV M M ITU-A 1:8 Coupler XTRV Modem RCV-D New RCV-D DWDM C ITU-D Mux IP C RCV-D Demux Phase 2 ITU-D DWDM ITU-A: Analog ITU ITU-D: Digital ITU RCV-A: Analog RCV RCV-D: Digital RCV  Integrated Platform with Phased Development  Off-the-shelf for Phase 1 with Phase 2 provisioning
  30. 30. BANDWIDTH ALLOCATIONPH SH MuxNode mFN Passive Coax Analog TSD Analog TSDTV TV Today TV Today 50 750 50 750 TSD ASKToday Analog TSD 5 300 TV Today 5 50 550 750 1G New 622 IP 250 622
  31. 31. MUXNODE PLATFORM 1:8 RCV ITU-A 1:8 XTRV ASK Dem ITU-D Mux RCV-D Demux Multi-dimension (RF, optical, and digital) mux/demux Balance between large scale mux & physical constraint
  32. 32. mFN PLATFORM RCV StandardFiber Node D D Platform XTR-A RCV-D Phase 2 FSK ASK FSK HPF HPF Add-on Mod Mod Demod HPF FPGA HPF  GaAs high-gain amplifiers for maximum mFN coverage  Provisioning add-on for phase 2 implementation
  33. 33. ADVANTAGES Operation Savings  61% reduction in active components  Reduced power consumption  Simplification of maintenance Improved Performance  Reduced ingress noise funneling (10-48MHz operation)  Increased RF bandwidth  Improved reliability Future Proof  Flexibility between current track and future opportunities  Contingency for “surprising” success in broadband growth
  34. 34. Evolution and Value Current Network: 5.5 actives/mile
  35. 35. Evolution and Value 61% reduction in active components 21+% improvement in reliability
  36. 36. COST AND SAVING Potential Saving: 250 200  Mitigates Future NodeCapital Cost/HHP Splitting 150  Customer Satisfaction 100  $11/HHP/year Operating Saving: 50  $5 - 8/HHP Sweep  $1 - 2/HHP Powering 0  $1/HHP Service call Current MFPC  $1/HHP Customer call Fiber Optics mFN Amplifier Reverse Sw eep Passive  $1/HHP Credit/churn Pow er Supply Engineering Taxes  Potential Terminal Cost  $40/HHP Incremental Cost Reduction
  37. 37. FLEXIBILITYHUB MuxNode mFN mFN TV TV DTV DTV New IP New IP DOCSIS DOCSIS New IP New IP Flexible migration to future mFN-based opportunities and beyondBandwidth 20MHz/1,200 HP 100MHz/50 HP 1 TeraHz/50 HP Modem DOCSIS-Based mFN-Based FTTC/H
  38. 38. Field Trial Objective:  Support planned upgrade: bandwidth expansion  Test technology, verify cost and operation saving Trial Scope:  Area: 520 miles (66,619 HHP) in Salt Lake Metro  Cost: $4 - 5M incremental capital cost Schedule:  Service launching: October, 1999  Data collection: January, 2000
  39. 39. PROJECT SCOPE Design Optimization  Maximize the number of amplifiers replaced per mFN  Minimize overall network power consumption  Define design limiting factors  Investigate MDU compatibility Equipment Development:  Technology feasibility  Cost and time to market Implementation and Data Collection  Front-end labor cost  Baseline and new data (service call, number of failures, MTTR, etc)  Change in sweeping and certification due to the new architecture
  40. 40. CURRENT STATUS Vendor Selection: 4/29/99 Trial Area Selection: 4/29/99 Design Guideline: 5/3/99 Project Scope Documentation: 5/7/99 First Unit Delivery: 6/16/99 Installation: 6/22/99
  41. 41. IMPACT On current engineering practice (fiber handling, etc) On business strategy and operation, etc etc, etc

×