Ex Pr Presid esiden ent, , Bo Board rd Mem ember ber NTRA - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Inter ernati national

• nal Pr

Practi tice ce: : Ove vervi rview ew of the Techni hnical al Soluti tions

• ns
• Dr. Amr Ba

Badawi awi Ex Pr Presid esiden ent, , Bo Board rd Mem ember ber NTRA Egy gypt pt

• Broadband Speed
• International Definition
• New Speeds in action
• Technologies
• xDSL
• GPON

WP3 WORKING SLIDES V08 20110414T0955+02 SLIDES 134-135.PPT

Pag e 3

xDSL datarates evolution



ADSL was the first technology that enabled data services via copper lines and achieved data rates in the range of 6Mbps



ADSL2+ brings improvements in datarates (upt to 24Mbps) by increasing the amount of data carriers (and the used frequency band)



VDSL2 aggregate data rates in the range above100 Mbps by flexible bandwidth usage of up to 30 MHz



However, VDSL2 performance falls sharply if the cable is longer than 1 km and datarates will be comparable with ADSL2+ Remarks Uplink (Mbps)

Overview The DSL technologies have evolved in terms of data rates, both in down and upstream. However, the current performance stretches the limits of the copper cable medium.

Downlink (Mbps)

ADS L ADSL2 + 24 6 52 VDS L >100 VDSL 2 1 16 VDS L VDSL 2 >100 ADSL2 + ADS L 3

WP3 WORKING SLIDES V08 20110414T0955+02 SLIDES 134-135.PPT

Pag e 4

UNIs DSL modem

The Outside Plant Architecture for DSL (no change)

Main Distribution Frame building

Cabinet Customer premise Secondary Network Primary Network Distribution Point

ISDN

The Outside plant does not need to change to support DSL services over legacy PSTN copper.

DSLAM

Synergies with existing PSTN network

WP3 WORKING SLIDES V08 20110414T0955+02 SLIDES 134-135.PPT

Pag e 5

xDSL types DSL technologies and standards differentiate between asymmetric, symmetric and very high speed flavors.

SDLS requires the whole frequency band of the copper pair, i.e. no line sharing with telephony takes place.



Symmetrical behaviour is ideal for slow speed fixed line replacement, with SDSL being typically used for business applications



Channel bonding/ aggregation allows to offer n times the bandwidth of a SDSL service



SDSL performs better than the E1/T1 lines in terms of cross-talk Symmetric DSL ADSL uses high Down to Up- stream bandwidth ratios (1:10) which is ideal for client-server applications.



POTS/ISDN frequency band is not used by ADSL



Passive frequency filter separate telephony from broadband



Typical application is within the central office or MDF based



Broadband workhorse for residential and partially business customers Asymmetric DSL VDSL currently forms the leading edge of the xDSL technologies.



Frequencies up to 30 MHz (similar to Fast Ethernet on CAT 5 cables) boost the bandwidth in Fast Ethernet- like regions (> 100 Mbps)



High frequency damping on the line limits the reach to some few 100 meters



VDSL seems to reach the physical limits of typical telco copper cables



Street cabinet or in-MDU placement mandatory to realize high bandwidth Very High Speed DSL

WP3 WORKING SLIDES V08 20110414T0955+02 SLIDES 134-135.PPT

Pag e 6

ADSL Technical View

 VDSL1 is standardized by the ITU as G.993.1,

VDSL2, standardized in 2006 by the ITU as G.993.2,

 In practice, only VDSL2 was adopted by the

vendors, practically all VDSL deployments are based on VDSL2

 Theoretically, VDSL2 can use the transmission

• f asymmetric and symmetric aggregate data

rates above 100 Mbit/s downstream and upstream using a flexible bandwidth of up to 30 MHz.

 VDSL2 is superior to ADSL2+ only in the short

ranges i.e. < 1km; Starting from 1.6 km the performance is similar to ADSL2+.

 In order to take full advantage of the high

bandwidth the deployment of DLSAMs in street cabinets or buildings is required.

 Countrywide deployments require a large

amount of active components in the field. A cost efficient operation of VDSL2 is a challenge for the operators

Remarks 1000 2500 2000 20 3000 10 30 50 80 1500 60 90 40 70 100 500 25 20 8 7 12

VDSL and VDSL2 – Technical View VDSL touches from today's point of view the technical capabilities of the copper pairs. To be significantly superior to ADSL2+ the cable must not be longer than 1 km.

Datarates vs. cable length

Mbps Length (m)

ADSL ADSL2+ VDSL2

WP3 WORKING SLIDES V08 20110414T0955+02 SLIDES 134-135.PPT

Pag e 7

TOPIC-PRESENTATION_RURALBROADBAND_V030_20101222.PPT

The ADSL/2+ throughput meets the basic broadband requirements, but not the ones of future broadband services (e.g. HD multimedia and IPTV), especially for longer reach.

Main Features KPI Evaluation – ADSL technologies

 Throughput

 ADSL offers up to 8 Mbps DL and

1Mbps UL, ADSL2+ may be squeezed up to 24 Mbps DL and 3Mbps UL  Reach

 Limited to few kilometres (~5 km)

 QoS support

 Difficult on the link layer, IP TOS

must be mapped on aggregation layer  NGN Capabilities

 Real NGN apps like RACS are not in

the market, doubts if this will be implemented  Future Potential

 Upgrade to VDSL possible

 Market status

 Mature technology, well understood

 BB service support

 Limited support of multimedia

services, IPTV not possible 5 10

Uplink throughput Downlink throughput Reach QoS support NGN Capabilities Market Status Future potential BB Services Support

Technology Evaluation xDSL

ADSL2 – KPI Evaluation

WP3 WORKING SLIDES V08 20110414T0955+02 SLIDES 134-135.PPT

Pag e 8

TOPIC-PRESENTATION_RURALBROADBAND_V030_20101222.PPT

Main Features KPI Evaluation – VDSL technologies

 Throughput

 VDSL achieves datarates above 100

Mbps (DL / UL) via copper!  Reach

 But only over very short distance (<

1km)  Technical QoS

 Difficult on the link layer, IP TOS

must be mapped on aggregation layer  NGN Capabilities

 Real NGN apps like RACS are not in

the market, their implementation is expected  Future Potential

 Low, VDSL is close to the physical

limits of the copper cables  Market status

 Mature technology, well understood

 BB service support

 Support of multimedia services and

IPTV, with restrictions due to the limited reach of 1 km 5 10

Uplink throughput Downlink throughput Reach QoS support NGN Capabilities Market Status Future potential BB Services Support

VDSL and VDSL2 – KPI Evaluation The VDSL is theoretically able to provide future broadband services at high throughput but only within short ranges, which makes it difficult to implement.

Technology Evaluation xDSL

WP3 WORKING SLIDES V08 20110414T0955+02 SLIDES 134-135.PPT

Pag e 9

GPON flavours The infrastructure of xDSL and FTTH makes the stepwise implementation of GPON possible, allowing for a higher flexibility and cost efficiency based on location specifics .

Central Office Street Cabinet End users

ADSL FTTC FTTB FTTH

Copper Fibre Copper Fibre Acces s Unit Copper Fibre Copper Fibre Fibre

• Downstream:

 Data is transmitted downstream on 1490nm wavelength at a bit rate of 2.4Gbps  The bandwidth per subscriber is dependent on the used splitter ratio  Each user uses a specific timeslot allocated to him to receive its data (Time Division Multiplexing)

WP3 WORKING SLIDES V08 20110414T0955+02 SLIDES 134-135.PPT

Pag e

10

Up/ Downstream Transmission One single optical fiber is used to transmit upstream and downstream wavelengths at bit rates of 2.4 Gbps, respectively 1.25 Gbps

Central Office OLT ONU

ONT ONT ONT ONT

Optical Power splitter Downstream wavelength range: 1480-1500nm Upstream wavelength range: 1260-1360nm

Source: ITU.T G.984.2

Transmission Mechanism



Upstream:



each ONT transmits on wavelength 1310nm at bit rate 1.25Gbps



Data packets are transmitted in a TDMA manner (time division multiple access)

WP3 WORKING SLIDES V08 20110414T0955+02 SLIDES 134-135.PPT

Pag e

11

Optical Splitters Splitters cause optical loss and have a direct influence on the bandwidth delivered to the

• subscriber. The lower the split ratio the higher is the bandwidth at the subscriber.

Source: ITU.T G.984.x

1 : 12 1 : 8 2 : 8 1 : 4 1 : 2 2 : 4 Bandwidth per Subscriber: 208 Mbps 311 Mbps 622 Mbps 1,244 Gbps Optical loss [dB]: 3,7 7,0 10,4 10,7 12,4 7,3 1 : 128 1 : 64 2 : 64 1 : 32 1 : 16 2 : 16 2 : 32 Bandwidth per Subscriber: Optical loss [dB]: 19,4 Mbps 39 Mbps 78 Mbps 155 Mbps 13,5 17,0 20,5 21,1 24,7 14,3 17,5

WP3 WORKING SLIDES V08 20110414T0955+02 SLIDES 134-135.PPT

Pag e

12

Optical Distribution Network The ODN consist of three main sections: Feeder, Distribution and Drop, each one of them has a specific range.

Source: ITU.T G.984.x

Central Office OLT

ONT ONT ONT ONT ONT ONT



Two splitters between the OLT and ONT



The OLT just see the result: 1:12 split



Various combinations of splitter can be used in the GPON design



It is called decentralized split or cascaded configuration

ONT ONT ONT ONT ONT ONT

Drop Feeder Distribute 5-10km 1- 3 km 100 - 500m First splitte r Secon d splitte r Fibre Access Point 1:2 1:6

WP3 WORKING SLIDES V08 20110414T0955+02 SLIDES 134-135.PPT

Pag e

13

Distance limitations GPON has distance limitations as well, such as the logical limit of the protocols (60km), the physical limit (30km).

Source: ITU.T G.984.x

 Logical limit is 60km (if optical loss was not considered) (limited by protocol)  Differential fibre distance limit: (the difference between the most distant and closest

ONT from OLT)

 Physical limit (due to optical loss) is 20-30 km

Central Office OLT

ONT ONT ONT ONT ONT ONT

L 2 Differential fibre limit: L1-L2 < 20km

WP3 WORKING SLIDES V08 20110414T0955+02 SLIDES 134-135.PPT

Pag e

14

Power consumption comparison GPON consumes considerably much less power than the active networks, making GPON also an environmental friendly or “green” technology.

GPO N 0,17 Power consumption [W] [Per subscriber] P2 P 1,90 AO N 2,50 VDSL 2 3,01 ADSL2 + 1,54 Dial Up 1,20

“OPEX savings: A flat IP architecture and higher reliability mean that the costs of operating and maintaining FTTH are lower than for VDSL2. Verizon, for example, estimates that by 2010 it will save $5bn due to the cheaper cost of running an FTTH network. The precise savings will differ from

• perator to operator and may not be seen at all at

the initial stages of the rollout, when an FTTH network is run as an overlay to PSTN.” * Pyramid Research

WP3 WORKING SLIDES V08 20110414T0955+02 SLIDES 134-135.PPT

Pag e

15 5 10

KPI Evaluation GPON is becoming a mature technology with excellent throughput and QoS capabilities. Its passive architecture brings significant OPEX savings in terms of energy maintenance.

Main Features

 Bandwidth

 Depending on split ratio  Downlink – up to 2.5Gbps  Uplink – up to 1.25Gbps

 Coverage reach

 Easily up to 15km

 QoS

 Guaranteed speed, Ethernet

mechanisms, Dynamic Bandwidth Allocation

 Implementation effort

 Complex technology, civil

works required

 Cross Talk

 No crosstalk in electrical or

• ptical domain

 Future potential

 Industry supported migration to

10GPON and/or WDM PON

KPI Evaluation – GPON

Uplink throughput Downlink throughput Reach QoS support NGN Capabilities Market Status Future potential BB Services Support

WP3 WORKING SLIDES V08 20110414T0955+02 SLIDES 134-135.PPT

Pag e

16

Overview of analyzed technologies The mobile and fixed technologies have been analyzed with regard to their technical performance.

HSPA + LTE

LOS Range NLOS Range LOS Throughput NLOS Throughput NGN Capabilities Mobility QoS Support Interoperability 5 10 LOS Range NLOS Range LOS Throughput NLOS Throughput NGN Capabilities Mobility QoS Support Interoperability 5 10 LOS Range NLOS Range LOS Throughput NLOS Throughput NGN Capabilities Mobility QoS Support Interoperability 5 10 LOS Range NLOS Range LOS Throughput NLOS Throughput NGN Capabilities Mobility QoS Support Interoperability 5 10 LOS Range NLOS Range LOS Throughput NLOS Throughput NGN Capabilities Mobility QoS Support Interoperability 5 10 LOS Range NLOS Range LOS Throughput NLOS Throughput NGN Capabilities Mobility QoS Support Interoperability 5 10

WiMAX

5 10 Uplink throughput Downlink throughput Reach QoS support NGN Capabilities Market Status Future potential BB Services Support 5 10 Uplink throughput Downlink throughput Reach QoS support NGN Capabilities Market Status Future potential BB Services Support

VDSL2

5 10 Uplink throughput Downlink throughput Reach QoS support NGN Capabilities Market Status Future potential BB Services Support 5 10 Uplink throughput Downlink throughput Reach QoS support NGN Capabilities Market Status Future potential BB Services Support

GPON

5 10 Uplink throughput Downlink throughput Reach QoS support NGN Capabilities Market Status Future potential BB Services Support

ADSL2+

• Dr. Amr Badawi

Ex President, Board Member NTRA - Egypt

• Egypt signed BTA in 2002.
• Liberalization of Telecom Sector started in

1998.

• First Mobile Operation by Telecom Egypt in

1996 sold to Consortium called Mobinil in May 1998.

• Second License awarded to Vodafone

Consortium in May 1998 leading to a duopoly in Telecom Sector.

Pag e

18

• Third Mobile License awarded to Etisalat in

August 2006 transforming the mobile market into full competition.

• Meanwhile Over the period from 1999 to

2001 several Internet Service Providers came to life creating full competition in the market.

• All ISPs depended on TE copper plant to reach

their customers.

Page19

 By 2008 Requirements for advanced services

based on very high speed fixed connections started to emerge in the Egyptian Landscape.

 The fiber to the home technology was

deemed to be the best technology fit to deliver the requirements of triple and quadruple play namely voice, data, video and mobile.

Page20

 In 2008 It was decided to tender a second

fixed license to complete the liberalization of the telecom sector in Egypt.

 It was expected that this license can stimulate

the market to develop FTTH networks to satisfy the new demand in the market.

 The timing was bad due to the Major global

financial crisis that took the world by surprise in Sep 2008.

Page21

• The need for advanced fixed services

persisted notwithstanding the cancellation of the second fixed license.

• The Incumbent fixed operator could not

deliver those services.

• The above need mainly existed in newly

developed compounds and in upscale areas.

• The idea of tendering two new limited fixed

(compound) licenses was introduced.

Page22

• Provide fiber infrastructure inside gated

compounds to provide quad play services and

• ther new services as needs emerge.
• Build a central location to serve all triple play

needs to be connected to all compounds via dedicated fiber transmission.

• All compounds should benefit from the

services provided by the license holder.

Page23

• Due to certain limitations and since the

license does not dictate service coverage

• bligations, Compounds whose size

exceeded 15000 units were excluded from the license.

• The license did not include the right to build
• wn outside fiber transmission.
• It did not include a central location to serve

the triple play functions.

• Had to rely on the incumbent to provide voice

and main connection to the compound.

Page24

• Incumbents share the same characteristics

due to long monopoly times.

• TE resisted providing voice services and

connecting the compounds for data services.

• Two licensees provided fiber infrastructure

but due to problems in getting transmission, the data services are still very poor.

• Video and TV services are OK.

Page25

• Getting back to the ideal license main two

items regarding building a central service center and build own fiber transmission will definitely help.

• Opening up the size of compounds against

imposing certain coverage obligations or providing fiber infrastructure to support the National Broadband Plan.

Page26

• The current licensees are suffering due to the

incumbent situation.

• One licensee was acquired by a mobile
• perator.
• The second is under negotiations with

another mobile operator who is already a minority shareholder.

• The unified license will eventually provide the

rights of the license and more to all three mobile operators.

Page27

Thank You