network migration demystified in the docsis 3.1 era and beyond

Network Migration Demystified in the DOCSIS 3.1 Era and Beyond

Ayham Al-Banna (ARRIS), Tom Cloonan (ARRIS), Frank O’Keeffe (ARRIS), &

Dennis Steiger (nbn)

Cable Networks Evolution (Next 2-3 Decades)

Node+3 Node+1 Node+0 FTTC FTTT FTTHNode+2

Fiber Depth

Architecture

I-CCAPHFC

Normal DAAHFC

I-CCAPHPON-

FTTC/FTTT

I-CCAPHPON-FTTH

DAAHPON-

FTTC/FTTT

DAAHPON-FTTH

~1-10 Gbps

~1-25 Gbps ?

~1-200 Gbps ?

~1-400+ Gbps ?

~1-10 Gbps

~1-25Gbps ?

~1-200 Gbps ?

~1-400+ Gbps ?

Head-endPON OLT

FTTH

~1-400+ Gbps ?

RemotePON OLT

FTTH

~1-400+ Gbps ?

I-CCA

PDA

APO

N

2017-2025

2015-2025

2020-2030

2020-2030

2025-2035

2025-2035

2030-2045

2030-2045

2030-2045

2030-2045

Technology Enablers for Network Evolution

• Node segmentation • Node splitting • DOCSIS 3.1 • Plant upgrades • Spectrum management and reclamation • Extended spectrum DOCSIS • Selective Subscriber Migration • DAA • Others Need a methodology that utilizes

these technology enablers in selecting the appropriate transition path!

Extended-Spectrum DOCSIS

Optical Tx/Rx

Fiber

Traditional Fiber Node

CCAP

Amp

Tap

Tap

Amp

Traditional Service Group

OFDM Issues in Optics… Dispersion Compensation & Noise OFDM Issues in Coax… Attenuation & Noise

Optional HPON RFoG XCVR(for OBI Mitigation)

coax

Tap Fiber Node

Fiber ~150’ coax drop

Fiber To The Tap Service Group A

68 dBmV, SNR = 35dB

Fiber

RFoG Homesor PON Homes

Fiber

Fiber To The Curb Service Group B

Curb Fiber Node

Tap

Extending the spectrum at the cost of reducing the bit-loading can yield

increased net throughputs!

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 5 10 15 20 25Bit

-lo

ad

ing

(b

its

pe

r sy

mb

ol)

Frequency (GHz)

RG-6 Drop Cable Bit-Loading… 68 dBmV Source w/ SNR = 35 dB… Rx Noise Fig = 15 dB

68 dBmV 150' -No tilt

68 dBmV 500'-No tilt

150’

500’

2048QAM

32QAM

BPSK

150’

500’0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 5 10 15 20 25

Th

rou

gh

pu

t (G

bp

s)

Frequency (GHz)

Extended Spectrum RG-6 Drop Cable Total Bidirectional Throughput

150 ft - No Tilt

500 ft - No tiltOur Demo

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 5 10 15 20 25Bit

-lo

ad

ing

(b

its

pe

r sy

mb

ol)

Frequency (GHz)

RG-6 Drop Cable Bit-Loading… 68 dBmV Source w/ SNR = 35 dB… Rx Noise Fig = 15 dB

68 dBmV 150' -No tilt

68 dBmV 500'-No tilt

150’

500’

2048QAM

32QAM

BPSK

150’

500’0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 5 10 15 20 25

Th

rou

gh

pu

t (G

bp

s)

Frequency (GHz)

Extended Spectrum RG-6 Drop Cable Total Bidirectional Throughput

150 ft - No Tilt

500 ft - No tiltOur Demo

Selective Subscriber Migration

SelectiveSubscribermigration(2 Subscribers)

CCAP w/OpticalOutputs

FiberNode

Traditional DOCSIS 3.1 (~10 Gbps)

HFC Homes (access 10 Gbps)

CCAP w/OpticalOutputs

FiberNode

HFC Homes (access 10 Gbps)

110-1200 MHz on Coax

110-1200 MHz on Coax

H-PON Homes (access 25 Gbps)orPON Homes (access 10 Gbps)

110-3000 MHz on Fiber

BEFORE:

AFTER:

• Move High Tmax (and potentially High Tavg) subscribers to the H-PON Infrastructure

• Reduces congestion on the Traditional HFC Infrastructure

Traditional DOCSIS 3.1 (~10 Gbps)

Fiber

Fiber

QoE Headroom

Nsub*Tavg

2015Nsub = 500

Tavg = 600 kbpsTmax = 200 Mbps

Nsub*Tavg

2025Nsub = 128

Tavg = 35 MbpsTmax = 11 Gbps

2025Nsub = 128

Tavg = 35 MbpsTmax = 11 5 Gbps

(migrate small # of the highest

Tmax subs)

Nsub*Tavg

Required Capacity >= (Nsub * Tavg) + (K * Tmax_max)

300 Mbps

240 Mbps

4.5 Gbps

13.2Gbps

QoE Headroom

4.5 Gbps

6.0GbpsQoE Headroom

Avg Static Traffic Load Headroom for Good QoE

BEFORE:

AFTER:

Moving high peak rate users to a different topology leads to less

unnecessary network-wide upgrades… Enhance service at

reduced cost

DOCSIS 3.1 MSO SNR Operating

Margin (dB) 4K FFT 8K FFT

0 20% 32%

1 17% 29%

2 14% 25%

3 11% 22%

MSO SNR Operating Margin (dB)

2K FFT 4K FFT

0 62% 71%

1 56% 65%

2 50% 59%

3 45% 53%

DS Spectrum D3.0 D3.1 Gain Gbps Gbps %

Optus Case Co-existence

134 – 198 MHz [8 8 MHz channels] 0.41 0.51 25.4 Post Co-existence

[32 8 MHz channels] 1.62 2.03

Telstra Case Co-existence

(291-355) + (498-562) MHz [16 8 MHz channels] 0.81 1.02 25.4 Post Co-existence

(291-419) + (434-562) MHz [32 8 MHz channels] 1.62 2.03

US Spectrum D3.0 D3.1 Gain Gbps Gbps %

Optus Case Co-existence 43 – 63 MHz 0.08 0.19 138

Post Co-existence 5 – 65 MHz 0.19 0.40 113 Telstra Case

Co-existence 5 - 39.4 MHz 0.09 0.23 145 Post Co-existence 5 – 65 MHz 0.19 0.40 113

DS Spectral Efficiency Gain

US Spectral Efficiency Gain

Capacity Gain Analyses

How Much Time Can DOCSIS 3.1 Buy Me?

Next Step?

Check BW

BW Problem?

BW is not enough

BW is good

D3.1 Deployed?

Deploy D3.1

Compare technologies

cost

Tavg is dominant...Compare

technologies cost

Selective Sub Migration

Plant changes (split &/or deeper fiber with

extend spectrum)

Which technology?

RFoG PON

Node SplittingPlant changes

(split &/or deeper fiber with extend spectrum)

Selective Sub Migration

Which technology?

RFoG PON

Yes No

Yes

No Yes

No

Tmax dominant?

Deploy D3.1 Perform node segmentation

Compare other technologies

cost

D3.1 Cheapest & not deployed?

segmentation Cheapest & node is segmentable?

else

DAA can help in headends with power/space/fiber issues

Making a decision in a response to a

bandwidth problem is challenging….

Gradual Migration Strategy Example 1


Fiber Depth

Architecture

I-CCAPHFC

Normal DAAHFC

I-CCAPHPON-

FTTC/FTTT

I-CCAPHPON-FTTH

DAAHPON-

FTTC/FTTT

DAAHPON-FTTH

~1-10 Gbps

~1-25 Gbps ?

~1-200 Gbps ?

~1-400+ Gbps ?

~1-10 Gbps

~1-25Gbps ?

~1-200 Gbps ?

~1-400+ Gbps ?

Head-endPON OLT

FTTH

~1-400+ Gbps ?

RemotePON OLT

FTTH

~1-400+ Gbps ?

I-CCA

PDA

APO

N

2017-2025

2015-2025

2020-2030

2020-2030

2025-2035

2025-2035

2030-2045

2030-2045

2030-2045

2030-2045

Permits MSO tostay in HFC for a longer time

Gradual Migration Strategy Example 2


Fiber Depth

Architecture

I-CCAPHFC

Normal DAAHFC

I-CCAPHPON-

FTTC/FTTT

I-CCAPHPON-FTTH

DAAHPON-

FTTC/FTTT

DAAHPON-FTTH

~1-10 Gbps

~1-25 Gbps ?

~1-200 Gbps ?

~1-400+ Gbps ?

~1-10 Gbps

~1-25Gbps ?

~1-200 Gbps ?

~1-400+ Gbps ?

Head-endPON OLT

FTTH

~1-400+ Gbps ?

RemotePON OLT

FTTH

~1-400+ Gbps ?

I-CCA

PDA

APO

N

2017-2025

2015-2025

2020-2030

2020-2030

2025-2035

2025-2035

2030-2045

2030-2045

2030-2045

2030-2045


Large-Step Migration Strategy


Fiber Depth

Architecture

I-CCAPHFC

Normal DAAHFC

I-CCAPHPON-

FTTC/FTTT

I-CCAPHPON-FTTH

DAAHPON-

FTTC/FTTT

DAAHPON-FTTH

~1-10 Gbps

~1-25 Gbps ?

~1-200 Gbps ?

~1-400+ Gbps ?

~1-10 Gbps

~1-25Gbps ?

~1-200 Gbps ?

~1-400+ Gbps ?

Head-endPON OLT

FTTH

~1-400+ Gbps ?

RemotePON OLT

FTTH

~1-400+ Gbps ?

I-CCA

PDA

APO

N

2017-2025

2015-2025

2020-2030

2020-2030

2025-2035

2025-2035

2030-2045

2030-2045

2030-2045

2030-2045


Very Large-Step Migration Strategy


Fiber Depth

Architecture

I-CCAPHFC

Normal DAAHFC

I-CCAPHPON-

FTTC/FTTT

I-CCAPHPON-FTTH

DAAHPON-

FTTC/FTTT

DAAHPON-FTTH

~1-10 Gbps

~1-25 Gbps ?

~1-200 Gbps ?

~1-400+ Gbps ?

~1-10 Gbps

~1-25Gbps ?

~1-200 Gbps ?

~1-400+ Gbps ?

Head-endPON OLT

FTTH

~1-400+ Gbps ?

RemotePON OLT

FTTH

~1-400+ Gbps ?

I-CCA

PDA

APO

N

2017-2025

2015-2025

2020-2030

2020-2030

2025-2035

2025-2035

2030-2045

2030-2045

2030-2045

2030-2045


Conclusions Many technology enablers exist. They extend the life of HFC networks

– Node segmentation/splitting, DOCSIS 3.1, plant upgrades, spectrum management/reclamation, extended spectrum DOCSIS, selective subscriber migration, DAA, etc.

DOCSIS 3.1 introduces increased efficiencies

– Can delay node splits/segmentation/plant upgrades

Selecting the appropriate action for BW problems is crucial

MSOs have several options for network migration (e.g., gradual, large-step, very large-step)

Thank You! Ayham Al-Banna, Ph.D.

Engineering Fellow CTO Office – Network Solutions, ARRIS

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Full Duplex DOCSIS

John T. Chapman, Fellow, CTO Cable, Cisco Hang Jin, Distinguished Engineer, Cisco

DOCSIS FDX

US Spectrum DS Spectrum Cros

sove

r

US Spectrum

DS Spectrum

Frequency

Frequency

Frequency Division Duplex (FDD)

Symmetrical (Full Duplex)

(FDX)

• Full spectrum for both DS and US • No cross-over band • Targeted at N+0 passive systems

Increase upstream bandwidth by 10x to 50x No DS spectrum reduction when US spectrum expands Allows HFC to better match FTTH capabilities OOB at 74 MHz and FM no longer block upstream spectrum growth

Advantages of FDX DOCSIS

Ideal case. Full Spectrum DOCSIS DS and US. No MPEG-TS Video. Max solution with full complexity with all new silicon

FDX 1218 MHz Compare to

85/1218 MHz

42/750 MHz

DS +5% +67%

US +1700% +5300%

552 MHz allows 24 ch video; 504 MHz allows 32 ch video Note N+0 nodes are smaller and can take less video channels.

Less US complexity but still new CM silicon


85/1218 MHz

42/750 MHz

DS +5% +67%

US +700% +2300%

Variation with existing 204 MHz CM with diplexer. OOB and FM supported by separate devices. Minimum solution with least complexity.


85/1218 MHz

42/750 MHz

DS -14% +38%

US +180% +700%

• A CMTS has an Echo Canceller (EC) in the node (for R-PHY) that performs a 2-wire passive to 4-wire active conversion.

• A EC in the CM would work only if there were no interfering CMs. But there are.

FDX – Echo Canceller

During IG Discovery, a CM transmits a signal and other CMs measure and report.

CMs that are close enough for the US of one CM to interfere with the DS of another CM are sorted into the same Interference Groups (IG).

A typical IG is a tap group and may contain 1 to 8 CMs.

The CMTS identifies “noisy neighbors” and forces them to get along.

IG Discovery

FDX IG Rule: Within an IG, a CM may not transmit at the same time and on the same frequency that an adjacent CM is using for receiving.

Interference Group (IG) Example

IG1 IG2 IG3

Here is what we do. 1. We echo cancel at the CMTS PHY. 2. We measure and sort CMs into interference

groups (IG). 3. We use FDD and/or TDD scheduling within a

IG so that those CMs do not interfere with each other. Any broadcast is handled separately.

4. We overlap IGs in frequency and time so that 100% of the spectrum and the timeline are used for both DS and US.

Making FDX Work

IGs are mapped into TGs (Transmission Groups) for scheduling.

Within each TG, DS and US are on separate channels.

No interference within a TG or between TGs.

In this simple example, 100% of the system resources are used for both DS and US.

Dual TG System

10G x 10G theoretically possible. 10G x 5G more like first target. The biggest impact of FDX is more upstream throughput CMTS and plant are FDX. CM is FDD or TDD. Optimized for R-PHY Node and N+0 deep fiber

Closing Thoughts

USING DOCSIS TO MEET THE LARGER BW DEMAND OF THE 2020 DECADE AND BEYOND

Tom Cloonan, Ayham Al-Banna, Frank O’Keeffe ARRIS

The Problem • What will MSOs do when

current DOCSIS networks run out of gas?

• 2 Options: – Move to New Technologies – Modify & Extend DOCSIS

(aka Extended Spectrum DOCSIS)

10 Gbps D3.1 DS Limit

1

10

100

1k

10k

100k

1M

10M

100M

1G

10G

100G

1982 1990 1998 2006 2014 2022 2030

300 bpsin 1982

~100Gbpsin 2030

Req’

dDS

BW

Cap

acity

(bps

)

Year

Extended Spectrum DOCSIS Spectral Utilization & Bandwidths

15 Gbps Shared DS BW

“Normal”DOCSIS 3.1Modems

(Subs w/ <15 Gbps service)

DOCSIS3.1

Downstream

258 Mhz - 1794 MHz(~15 Gbps)

Extended SpectrumDOCSIS

Downstream

1794 MHz – ~6400 MHz(35 Gbps)

Another 35 Gbps of Extended Spectrum DS BW

ExtendedSpectrum

Spectrum

DOCSIS 3.1

Upstream

5-204 MHz(1.5 Gbps)

FutureExtended Spectrum DOCSIS

Modems (Subs w/ > 15 Gbps)

1.5 Gbps Shared US BW

Figure 2- Extended Spectrum DOCSIS in Spectrum Offering ~50 Gbps in ~6 GHz

Learning from the Shannon Theorem • C = B*log2[1+S/N]

where C is capacity, B is Bandwidth, S is Signal Power, and N is Noise Power

• If we double B and keep S fixed, then S/N drops (bad), but B rises (good)… rising B dominates

• C’ = 2B*log2[1+S/(2*N)]

B (GHz) S/N SNR(dB) C = B*log2(1+S/N) (Gbps)0.75 10000 40.00 9.971.5 5000 36.99 18.433 2500 33.98 33.866 1250 30.97 61.7312 625 27.96 111.4824 312.5 24.95 199.02

Different Plant Configurations w/ Extended Spectrum DOCSIS

• FTTLA

• FTTT

• FTTP

Point-to-PointUn-shared Coaxial Drop

Serv Grp 1Optics

(in OpticalShelf or

CCAP or RPHY)

FTTTFiber Node

@ TapFiber ~150 ft Coax Drop

Serv Grp 2

FTTTFiber Node

@ Tap~150 ft Coax Drop

~150 ft Coax Drop

~150 ft Coax Drop

LongerFiber

Serv Grp 1

Optics(in Optical

Shelf orCCAP or RPHY)

Serv Grp 2

Fiber~1000 ft Coax

~1000 ft Coax

FTTLAFiber Node

FTTLAFiber Node

ShorterFiber

Point-to MultipointShared Coaxial Drop

Serv Grp 1Optics

(in OpticalShelf or

CCAP or RPHY)

Fiber

LongestFiber

Figure 4- Variants of HFC Plant Configurations for Extended Spectrum DOCSIS Delivery

Example OFDM & OFDMA Spectrum Utilization within Extended Spectrum

DOCSIS

“Normal”DOCSIS 3.1Modems

(Subs w/ < 15 Gbps DS)

Spectrum

FutureExtended Spectrum DOCSIS

Modems (Subs w/ > 15 Gbps DS)

Figure 7- Symmetrical Extended Spectrum DOCSIS in 3-band FDD Spectrum Offering ~22 Gbps DS x ~16.5 Gbps US in ~6.4 GHz

DOCSIS DS Spectrum 258 Mhz – 1794 MHz

(~12 Gbps)

DOCSIS US Spectrum 5 Mhz – 204 MHz

(~1.5 Gbps)

192 MHz

OFDMBlock

#1

192 MHz

OFDMBlock

#8

192 MHz

OFDMBlock#15

96MHz

OFDMABlock

#1

96MHz

OFDMABlock

#2

SC-Q

AM

54 M

Hz G

uard

band

96MHz

OFDMABlock

#3

96MHz

OFDMABlock

#4

864 M

Hz G

uard

band

96MHz

OFDMABlock#27

Extended US Spectrum 4194 Mhz – 6402 MHz

(~15 Gbps)

Extended DS Spectrum 1794 Mhz – 3138 MHz

(~10 Gbps)

192 MHz

OFDMBlock

#9

Example Full-Duplex Operation within Extended Spectrum DOCSIS

• Extended Spectrum DOCSIS & Full-Duplex DOCSIS can be used to complement one another

Figure 10- Symmetrical Extended Spectrum DOCSIS w/ Shared Spectrum in ~6.4 GHz

“Normal” DOCSIS 3.1 Modems

(MAY OR MAY NOT WORK… TBD)

DOCSIS DS Overlapped Spectrum 66 Mhz – 1794 MHz (?? Gbps)

Spectrum

Future Extended Spectrum DOCSIS

Modems (Subs w/ > 15 Gbps)

192 MHz

OFDM Block

#9

192 MHz

OFDM Block #10

192 MHz

OFDM Block #11

192 MHz

OFDM Block #12

192 MHz

OFDM Block #33

192 MHz

OFDM Block #13

96 MHz

OFDMA Block #66

Extended DS Overlapped Spectrum 1794 Mhz – 6402 MHz (?? Gbps)

192 MHz

OFDM Block

#1

192 MHz

OFDM Block

#2

DOCSIS US Overlapped Spectrum 66 Mhz – 204 MHz

(?? Gbps)

96 MHz

OFDMA Block #25

96 MHz

OFDMA Block

#1

96 MHz

OFDMA Block

#3

96 MHz

OFDMA Block #17

96 MHz

OFDMA Block #19

96 MHz

OFDMA Block #21

96 MHz

OFDMA Block #23

Extended US Overlapped Spectrum 204 Mhz – 6402 MHz

(?? Gbps)

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&docid=V-Bi3fLXtS9zxM&tbnid=8lZcnKcQz0bHnM:&ved=0CAgQjRw&url=https://www.iconfinder.com/search/?q=modem&ei=uGqkUo22DKeqyAHpuIFY&psig=AFQjCNFwm1Sy4twYac_sF4MBitLICjI61w&ust=1386593336251388

Capacity & Bit-loading within FTTLA Extended Spectrum DOCSIS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 2 4 6 8

Capa

city

[Gbp

s]

Spectrum Size [GHz]

Capacity in an FTTLA system

100 ft

150 ft

200 ft

250 ft

400 ft

500 ft

Drop cable length

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 2 4 6 8

Bit L

oadi

ng [b

ps/H

z]

Spectrum Size [GHz]

Bit Loading in an FTTLA system

100 ft

150 ft

200 ft

250 ft

400 ft

500 ft

Drop cable Length

• Assumes 0.625” Hard-line (5 segments of 200’ each) & RG-6 drops • FTTLA systems may support up to ~32 Gbps of BW for 100 ft drops

Capacity & Bit-loading within FTTT Extended Spectrum DOCSIS

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Thro

ughp

ut (G

bps)

Spectrum Size [GHz]

Capacity in an FTTT System

100 ft

150 ft

200 ft

250 ft

400 ft

500 ft

Drop cable Length

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 5 10 15 20 25

Bit-

load

ing

(bits

per

sym

bol)

Spectrum Size [GHz]

Bit Loading in an FTTT system

100'

150'

200'

250'

400'

500'

Bits/symbol

Drop cable Length

• Assumes RG-6 drops • FTTT systems may support up to ~250+ Gbps of BW for 100 ft drops

Bits/symbol

Throughput vs. Tilt

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5

Throughput [Gbps] vs tilt factor

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 2 4 6 8

Capa

city

[Gbp

s]

Frequency [GHz]

Tilt vs. No Tilt, 45 dB SNR, 5 dB NF, 150 ft drop

tilt

no tilt

• Is zero tilt optimal at the source? It appears to be so…

• Tilt Factor = fraction of Full Tilt, where the Full Tilt setting completely cancels the coaxial attenuation tilt; any other tilt (with a tilt factor of f) is where the applied tilt (in the dB scale) is f times the coax tilt

Xmtr Power

(dB)

Freq

Full tilt (f=1)

Zero tilt (f=0) Half tilt (f=0.5)

Conclusions • Extended Spectrum DOCSIS is a

useful extension of DOCSIS permitting MSOs to greatly extend the longevity of their HFC plant into the deep future

• It can be used for FTTLA, FTTT, or FTTP systems

• It can be used in conjunction with Full Duplex DOCSIS operation

• MSOs may want to consider it for use in the future

96 MHz 4KQAM DOCSIS 3.1 signal successfully passed @ 6 GHz center frequency & received by VSA

Thank You! Tom Cloonan, Ph.D.

CTO- Network Solutions ARRIS

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

An Economic Analysis of Brownfield Migration CTTH vs. FTTH

Michael Emmendorfer Vice President, Systems Engineering and Architecture

ARRIS International PLC May 16, 2016

Purpose and Scope of the Analysis

• Purpose of the Analysis – Should MSOs continue with HFC/DOCSIS investment? – Should MSOs overlay the existing HFC network with FTTH and PON? – What are the economics both from a financial and capacity perspective? – What are the Economics of CTTH & FTTH brownfield migration options to support:

• 1 Gbps downstream service to be available to 100% of the HHP in brownfield networks? • 1 Gbps symmetrical service to be available to 100% of the HHP in brownfield networks? • 1 Gbps symmetrical service to be available to 30-50% of the HHP in brownfield networks?

• Scope of the Analysis

– Leverage existing brownfield investments – Brownfield Capital Assessment from the headend, outside plant, and CPE – Brownfield Migration of CTTH vs. FTTH in the single family unit (SFU) market – Consider the service drivers of video and data services as well as the typical take rates

2

System Wide Based Approach

3

fiber New Fiber Drop at Install

fiber

Headend

FTTH 10G

EPON OLT

Outside Plant Facility Subscriber

fiber EPON GW Fiber

10G EPON Extender

Aggregation

Enablement Capital Success Capital

System Wide Based Approach 1. Proactive investment that is not targeted to any single customer 2. New Build, Rebuild, or Upgrade that happen across a wide serving area 3. Generally is assumed to be service that will have good take rate 4. System wide approaches places the network to within 150 feet of all homes in the serving area 5. Connecting an actual customer requires a drop installation for the remaining 150 feet to the home 6. Service Turn up can be same day

Success Based Capital Approach “Targeted Based” for Offering Very High-Speed Service Tiers

4

Success Based “Targeted Capital” Approach 1. Reactive investment that is targeted to a single customer 2. Success Based Capital often defines limit to the build from the “existing” fiber location 3. Cost effective reachability depends on many factors (Aerial, Underground, other build cost impacts) 4. Success Based approaches often requires very long service turn up window (plan, build, install, etc) 5. Service Turn up can be weeks to over a month 6. Approach used for Business Services (Network Builds are targeted to a customer) 7. Approach used by some MSOs to offer the very highest residential service tiers

Costs vary widely as well as the number of HHP that have cost effective reachability (we strongly recommend MSO internal assessment)

Some MSOs may have a HHP Serviceable

range of 30% to 50% within 1/3 of a mile

of a node

fiber fiber

Headend

FTTH 10G

EPON OLT

Outside Plant Facility Subscriber

fiber

Existing (HFC) Node

Fiber Location

EPON GW Fiber

Build happens only when a customer signs up for the service

Success Capital Success Capital

10G EPON Extender

Aggregation

New Network Build

Key Points of Our Analysis

1. Describes network migration options and economics using CTTH & FTTH

2. These are capital expenditure estimates and no operational costs have been included (Capital estimates will assume leveraging the existing fiber to the node and HFC where applicable.)

3. Focuses completely on the existing “Brownfield” network migration options for single family homes (SFUs) access network

4. The MDU market is very different than the SFU market as you know (Competition may drive the business to replace coax to the unit (CTTU) with Fiber to the Unit (FTTU) and the costs are extremely different as well)

5. New Build “Greenfield” is not the focus of this material but some data comparisons could be

leveraged from this material to illustrate cost differences

5

Cable Operator Network Migration Options

System Wide Approach 1. HFC 2G DOCSIS 2. HFC 2G x 200M DOCSIS 3. HFC Mid-split 2G x 500M DOCSIS 4. FTTH 10G EPON 5. FTTH 10G EPON + PON Extender

Success Based “Targeted Capital” Approach

1. FTTH 10G EPON 2. FTTH 10G EPON + PON Extender 3. FTTH 1G/10G P2P Ethernet

6

Enablement Capital Composition (Per HHP)

7

Success Capital Composition (Per Customer)

8

Use Case Enablement & Success Comparison

9

Use Case Cost Per Sub at 50% Take Rate of HHP

10

Per Subscriber Metrics

11


12

“Estimated” Cost Per Subscriber at 50% Take Rate


13

“Estimated” Cost Per Subscriber at 50% Take Rate

Use Success Based Approach FTTH for Very High Service Tiers

• Success Based FTTH will have lower enablement capital than System Wide Rebuild FTTH – Those uses cases drove fiber to within 150 feet of “all” homes increasing enablement capital – Benefit is reduced service delivery times and smaller success capital

• Lower enablement capital impacts

– A majority of the capital is success based (typically desirable approach for low take rate services) – Often serviceability is not the entire footprint (50% or less is typical) – Service delivery times are often weeks/months from the time of order (will vary between MSOs)

• Service delivery for Comcast is 6-8 weeks (instead of days for the higher enablement capital approaches)

• Major Benefit – Addressing the Billboard Speed War

• Most MSOs are targeting 1 Gbps symmetrical and higher speeds for FTTH Selective Service Tiers – Saves HFC for Video Service and DOCSIS for the majority of Internet Users

14

Thank You! Michael Emmendorfer

Vice President, Systems Engineering and Architecture ARRIS International PLC

May 16, 2016

Full Duplex DOCSIS® Technology over HFC Networks

Belal Hamzeh, Ph.D. CableLabs

VP, Research and Development

Today’s HFC Capacity

DOCSIS 3.0

32 x 10

1280 Mbps x 220 Mbps

DOCSIS 3.1

1.2 GHz / 204 MHz

10 Gbps x 1 Gbps

HOA & MDU Competition Competitive Marketing Disruptive Competition

4K Phone Camera New Applications Business Services

Upstream Capacity Drivers

Easy… Find more spectrum for the upstream

But…

Spectrum is limited

So… Spectrum Sharing

Increasing Upstream Capacity

• Time Division Duplexing (TDD) Taking turn sharing the resource

• Frequency Division Duplexing (FDD) Splitting the resource • Full Duplex 100% of the resource, 100% of the time

Duplexing Technologies

30% 70%

100% 100%

SPECTRUM

TIM

E

200 MHz 1800 MHz 0 MHz

• DOCSIS 3.0, DOCSIS 3.1

• Frequency Division Duplex

• Different Spectrum Downstream and Upstream • 5 MHz to 85/204 MHz Upstream • 108/258 MHz to 1218 or 1794 MHz Downstream

Today’s Duplexing Technology

7

SPECTRUM

TIM

E

200 MHz 1800 MHz 0 MHz

Simultaneously use the same spectrum for Downstream and Upstream

Full Duplex DOCSIS Technology

Full Duplex Communications

Full duplex device must be capable of rejecting/subtracting the self interference generated from

its own transmissions.

Tran

scei

ver

Tx

Rx Ideally: No interference between Tx and Rx paths Practically: Cross coupling between Tx & Rx paths Other Devices: Interference from transmissions from other devices

System must be capable of handling different devices transmitting and receiving at the same time

Com

bini

ng

Cir

cuit

Full Duplex Interference 23 20 17 10

CM1 FD CM CM2

Interference

CMTS

CM3

Self Interference

Isolation and

Cancellation

Isolation and

Management

• Full duplex communication only at CMTS • At any point in time, a CM is either

transmitting or receiving on a channel • While a CM is receiving on a channel, other

CMs can transmit on the same channel – Sufficient RF isolation is required between

transmitting and receiving CMs – Intelligent scheduling at CMTS will enable this

• Interference cancellation at CMTS


SPECTRUM

TIM

E

SPECTRUM

TIM

E

Upstream

Downstream

As seen by CMTS

As seen by CM


Full Duplex DOCSIS

Technology

Self Interference Cancellation

at CMTS

Intelligent Scheduling

RF isolation between CMs

Performance

With 70 dB of cancellation:

Downstream: ~ 1.6 Gbps / 192 MHz

Upstream: ~ 1.4 Gbps / 192 MHz

Network Capacity - Example Band Technology Capacity

Mbps Cumulative Capacity

5-42 MHz DOCSIS 3.0 US: 3 x 6.4 + 1 x 3.2

US: 72 Mbps DS: 0 Mbps

72 Mbps 0 Mbps

42-85 MHz DOCSIS 3.1 US: 43 MHz, 1024 QAM


412 Mbps 0 Mbps

450-642 MHz DOCSIS 3.0 DS: 32 x 6 MHz, 256 QAM


412 Mbps 1283 Mbps

643-1027 MHz DOCSIS 3.1 FD

US: 4 x 96 MHz 1k QAM DS: 192 + 192 MHz 2k QAM


3452 Mbps 4627 Mbps

1028 – 1218 MHz DOCSIS 3.1 FD

3 x 96 MHz 512 QAM DS: 192 + 96 MHz 512 QAM


5504 Mbps 6679 Mbps

5 108 85 450 1002 1218

Upstream D3.0 Digital Video Downstream

D3.0 Full Duplex D3.1 Downstream Full Duplex D3.1 Upstream

42

Upstream D3.1

• Full Duplex DOCSIS Technology can significantly increasing upstream capacities.

• The proposed full duplex solution leverages DOCSIS 3.1 technology is enabled by: – RF characteristics of the HFC plant – Self interference cancellation at the CMTS – Intelligent scheduling.

• Symmetric Gbps service tiers are achievable

Summary

The Fiber Frontier Dr. Robert L Howald

VP Network Architecture Comcast

Mostly (Still) About Persistently Aggressive CAGR

Nothing new here…..same story everywhere Architecture strategy can’t rely on an Internet bandwidth slowdown

50% CAGR Applied to the Cable Network Still a Long-Term Story

Cross-Functional Strategy Team (All Survived) Business, Finance, Engineering, Operations, HR

Optimize Network Investment

Services / Revenue Budgets Capacity Architecture /Technology Construction Operations

Forward-Looking Flexible Brownfield Plan

Fiber Deep (N+0) Building Now More Capacity More Spectrum (Speed) More SNR and MER Access to fiber Convenient FTTH access Less TCs and Opex

Timely Technology to Optimize Architecture • Even more

SNR / MER • Even more

access to fiber (wavelengths)

• Even less TCs and Opex

• Much more scalable for facilities

….Applicable Beyond DOCSIS

• All-IP – Agnostic to last mile access technology • Fiber Deep node definition • Future pluggable modules

….Bigger than the Network Edge • Distribute

• Virtualize • Converge

• Automate Revolutionize network operations and service deployment

The Living Long Range Plan • Equivalent services capability

across different last mile access

• Flexibility of Fiber Deep pays dividends

• Key FDX dependencies Passive Coax (i.e. Fiber

Deep)

Distributed Architecture (DAA)

Transition to All-IP DOCSIS 3.1 deployment

CableLabs Webinar – “The Full Duplex DOCSIS Network,” March 16, 2016

Summary • More access network change in 5 yrs than preceding 25 yrs • Fundamental shifts occurring over a short period of time

– Digital Fiber in access – Purpose Built HW/SW Big Iron to SW modules on COTS – Efficiently integrated FTTP – Use of Spectrum

• Accelerated pace of changing technology assures a Long Range Plan is interrupted by innovation

• Job of the Network Architect is increasingly making judgment calls with higher uncertainties on the timing, potential, implications, and value proposition of new technology options

– Multi-year development cycles of Big Iron systems is dead

• Uncertainties put a premium on a vision, scenario planning, enabling flexibility, and working towards open standards

The Next Evolution in Cable Networks

Distributed and Virtualized Access

Jorge Salinger VP, Access Architecture

Comcast

Narrowcast Service Growth Continues

• Well understood trend observed over long term by MSOs • Requires more capacity per service group => more HE equipment

2

DOCSIS 3.1: Best Performance Yet • DOCSIS 3.1 enables the most bits/Hz/sec on HFC to date

– 1,024 / 2,048 / 4,096 QAM for DS and 256 / 512 / 1,024 US • But not all CMs will be able to achieve the highest performance

– Performance will vary with plant conditions (e.g., SNR/MER) • DOCSIS 3.1 includes a feature called Multiple Modulation Profiles

– Until DOCSIS 3.1 all CMs listened to all DS transmissions – With MMP the CMTS transmits at 4 MPs; one is lowest common

denominator modulation profile (for MAC, multicast, etc.) – This allows CMs to operate at their individual max performance

• Best plant will allow most CMs to operate at the higher MPs

3

HFC Plant Performance Limitation • A significant performance limiting factor in HFC is the DS AM link

– Signals from HE can be launched with >47 dB MER today • CCAP equipment is even better

– AM link in average with 40 wavelengths is at ~38-39 dB MER – Therefore, EOL performance is typically at 35-38 dB MER

• A digital DS link will improve MER to HE quality performance – MER improvement will allow most CMs to operate at best MP

4

Options for Digital Forward Link 1. Digitize in HE

and regenerate in node (used for OOB, FM, etc.)

2. Mode DAC from HE to node

3. Move lower PHY from HE

to node

4. Move entire PHY from HE

to node

5. Move PHY and MAC from HE to

node

5

• Options 3 and 4 under vendor development

• Could also miniaturize the CCAP (cDOCSIS)

Remote Architectures Easily Deployed

CCAP

Provides all broadcast and

narrowcast services

DN Same SM fiber

1. Deploy Linecard in HE any time

2. Migrate HFC node to DN during

CM window

Headend

Maximize service group size Minimum changes in HFC network to start

6

Digital Node Segmentation

CCAP

Provides all broadcast and

narrowcast services

DN

DN

DN Same SM fiber

Same port for multiple DNs

Segment a DN without using

additional fiber Headend

Evolve to smaller service group size as needed Simple evolution to add narrowcast capacity

– Reuse fiber to headend – Leverage common broadcast

7

Reuse of Broadcast in Digital Nodes

CCAP Provides all broadcast

and narrowcast

services

DN 1

DN 3

DN 2 SG #2

SG #1

Indi

vidu

al

Nar

row

cast

DN service groups can be split as the amount for narrowcast increases

Multiple DNs can use the same fiber initially when most spectrum is used for broadcast

50 - 550 550 - 750 750 – 1.2G

50 - 550 550 - 750 750 – 1.2G

50 - 550 550 - 750 750 – 1.2G

Com

mon

Br

oadc

ast

Futu

re U

se

Nar

row

cast

50 - 550 550 - 750 550 - 750 550 - 750 Co

mm

on

Broa

dcas

t

Nar

row

cast

Fo

r DN

1

Nar

row

cast

Fo

r DN

2

Nar

row

cast

Fo

r DN

3

8

Simple and Scalable Migration

Slow gradual migration, or sudden to end state,

or anywhere in between.

Scalable migration is key

9

HE Scaling with Digital Nodes • Significant HE density increase

– All line cards used for US/DS = 2x increase – Higher density of Ethernet = 2x to 3x increase – “Daisy chain” to scale network = 2x to 3x increase

HE equipment scale increases from 4x up to 18x

10

• Remote PHY hardware for DS and US (RPD) – Could be centralized or distributed

• Other CCAP components can be virtualized (CCAP Core) • Will need big SW concepts: SDN and Orchestration • And many things will be different, once again

– More complex testing, integration and maintenance • But, we will get much higher feature velocity

– Will we have agile network implementation sprints?

11

The Road to Virtual CCAP

Conclusions • Capacity growth and segmentation continue • Better performance with DOCSIS 3.1 • Digital link increases performance and reduces space

– HE scaling between 4x and 18x – Several options for digital link: R-PHY and R-MACPHY – Digital Nodes enable smooth network segmentation

• Virtualization of the CCAP is the next frontier – R-PHY node + SW-based CCAP Core – Increased feature implementation velocity 12

All questions, comments or suggestions welcomed

Thank You!! [email protected]

network migration demystified in the docsis 3.1 era and beyond

Documents