When Copper Poses As Fiber

With cable MSOs, satellite, WiFi, and 4G wireless service providers vying for their customers, telecom service providers are facing some of the fiercest competition in decades. With competition heating up, some service providers are turning to the ultimate broadband technology: fiber-to-the-home (FTTH). While FTTH is clearly the strongest competitive weapon a service provider can have in its arsenal, it’s not for everyone. Whether it’s capital constraints, construction limitations, or regulatory hurdles, some service providers simply need a practical competitive alternative to resource intensive FTTH. Fiber-to-the-curb (FTTC) is that alternative.

Fiber-to-the-Curb

In a fiber-to-the-curb or fiber-to-the-cabinet architecture the fiber is terminated in an enclosure near the user’s premises, typically within 1,000 feet. This architecture places the fiber deep within the network and creates a smaller serving area. From the curb to the residence or business it uses existing copper infrastructure to deliver services, making it very attractive for capital-constrained projects.

The architecture can be employed using a string (point-to-point) topology or, in some cases, a ring topology. It allows service providers to network multiple nodes at the curb, enabling them to share the transport costs across the same neighborhood or across multiple neighborhoods. Sharing transport costs provides significant CapEx savings for the provider. Some providers choose an alternative point-to-point FTTC topology in which they deploy nodes throughout the neighborhood and connect fiber to these individual nodes. This topology provides the maximum flexibility for future bandwidth allowing a provider to upgrade subscribers on a node-by-node or neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis.

FTTC offers service providers a viable competitive option — an option that is highly scalable, extremely flexible, cost-effective, and that leverages the existing copper infrastructure. Its architecture provides ample bandwidth for delivering today’s Triple Play and business services, and makes it easy for service providers to meet increasing levels of customer demand over the next 5 to 10 years with relatively minor technological upgrades and minor impact to the deployed infrastructure.

With current bonding and noise cancellation DSL technologies and newer, more effective bonding and noise cancellation technologies on the horizon, service providers can not only extend the life of their copper infrastructure but also use that existing infrastructure as a weapon against growing competition. This approach is not only competitively viable, it also saves both capital and operating costs now and into the future.

Copper’s Lifeline

Today, newer DSL technologies such as VDSL2, which was designed for the shorter loops you find in a FTTC deployment, provide up to 40 Mbps on a single loop at a distance of up to 3,000 feet depending on cable quality and noise environment. With today’s bonding technology you can double that throughput within that same distance. And with the next evolution of bonding technology expected to be commercially viable over the next 2-3 years, a service provider can expect to see an additional 2x increase in throughput, or 80 Mbps. At best, today’s cable MSOs implementing DOCSIS 3.0 are delivering approximately 40 Mbps per 1 downstream channel. Clearly, an FTTC architecture is a competitive weapon against a cable MSO.

Given that most residences are typically wired with 4 copper pairs, providers could potentially use new bonding technologies to bond 2 loops together to deliver 80-160 Mbps by 2013. This type of throughput could be gained rather efficiently — perhaps as easily as upgrading the electronics in the existing FTTC deployment. With FTTC service providers can approach the bandwidth levels afforded by DOCSIS 3.0 with multi-channel bonding. No new infrastructure is required when customers begin demanding higher levels of bandwidth.

In these shorter VDSL2 loops, crosstalk is stronger, however. So, new noise cancellation technologies are currently in the works such as vectored DSL and Dynamic Spectrum Management (DSM). These technologies mitigate most crosstalk in a DSL binder. This will allow service providers to plan more effectively for better rate/reach performance, which will enable them to offer higher-speed Internet connection, more HD TV channels or, perhaps, 3D TV content. Vectoring promises to push data rates to near the 100 Mbps mark at a given distance, approaching the upside of what a basic FTTH architecture affords a service provider without trenching The Last Mile to make it happen. DSM-Vectored DSL promises to double or triple DSL speeds, and can also improve the efficiency of operating and managing DSL services within the network.

And these new technologies are quickly taking form. Vectored DSL technology has recently become a standard, and chip prototypes are currently being developed.

Eight Competitive Advantages

While deploying deep FTTC in an OSP architecture may be driven by budgetary constraints, there are more advantages to this strategy than just short-term economic savings. The benefits of shortened copper loops extend well beyond dollars and cents, and can give telecom service providers a technological leg up on their competition. Deep fiber-to-the-node with shortened copper loops is an excellent weapon for telecom service providers in the competitive battle with cable operators, wireless providers, and other providers.

Following are 8 reasons that FTTC is a smart move for providers aiming to evolve their network for the future without breaking the bank:

Reason 1: Available Bandwidth
DOCSIS 3.0 is on everyone’s radar at the moment as cable MSOs are deploying it or have plans to deploy it. While there are some MSOs that are considering FTTH, most have chosen DOCSIS 3.0 because it gives them a simple upgrade to their existing deployments. But can the technology actually deliver the level of bandwidth that a cable company needs to deliver in the future to effectively compete against deep fiber?

As discussed above, a provider needs to deliver 40 Mbps at a minimum today to compete effectively, and while a cable provider can do that today, what about the future? Existing and new copper technologies alone can easily surpass that bandwidth level. If your network requirements call for more available bandwidth, then fiber is the answer.

Reason 2: Smaller Node Sizes
An inherent advantage of FTTC, particularly when compared to DOCSIS 3.0, is smaller node sizes. This enables a service provider to understand the cost basis of each node very well and to take a very linear approach to servicing subscribers. If a service provider has 100 subscribers, an FTTC architecture provides a very simple, cost-effective way to meet the service requirements of those 100 subscribers.

With DOCSIS, subscribers share the infrastructure, and cable MSOs make the economics work by distributing the cost over as many subscribers as is possible, depending on the statistical nature of traffic to assure they don’t have QoE issues. With an FTTC architecture, a service provider has deployed fiber deep into the neighborhood and has smaller node sizes. This enables the service provider to take advantage of a distribution technology that delivers 40 Mbps or more of service and gives it the flexibility of a targeted deployment as well as very targeted upgrade options. When an upgrade in backhaul capacity or additional bandwidth is required in The Last Mile, the provider can deliver it with pinpoint precision instead of upgrading the entire region or community like a cable MSO would have to do.

Reason 3: Greater Flexibility Provides an Easy Transition to New Technologies
FTTC also offers service providers greater flexibility to transition to new technologies when the need arises with minimal impact on the customer base. This architecture provides a very simple and elegant transition to FTTH in the future if it is needed. Because there is a curbside enclosure in place in an FTTC architecture, it is easy for a service provider to swap out the electronics and install a splitter to create a PON. The provider still has a 1:n distribution model in which there is 1 network uplink coming into the node and n subscribers being fed from that uplink. And because those nodes sizes are small it can be done in a relatively simple, painless approach whether you do either node-by-node or neighborhood-by-neighborhood.

Service providers may decide to install a FTTC architecture as an intermediate step to deploying a point-to-point FTTH network. Providers that think they may want or need to make that move in the next 5 to 10 years can simply install a fiber cable with enough capacity (more fiber strands) to meet anticipated needs. Once a high-capacity feeder is available then a service provider’s distribution options are wide open. At that point it’s a matter of how much bandwidth the provider needs, and how creative it wants to be.

For example, a provider may deploy a FTTC architecture in a neighborhood in which it only needs VDSL2 to meet its current service requirements. Forecasts show that in 10 years customer demand will require FTTH. Therefore, in 5 years, the provider may need to add new vectoring or bonding technologies to meet the level of bandwidth. To do this, the provider only needs to swap out the electronics for a product that supports these technologies. Or depending on the deployment window it may just be a matter of adding a firmware upgrade to the node to support the technological upgrade and swapping out the CPE if necessary.

If customer demand requires a 2x or 4x or more capacity increase, then FTTH is still a viable option from that same footprint. The provider can replace the curb electronics with a splitter and trench the backyard to bring a FTTH Last Mile drop. Or the provider could replace the electronics with an Active Ethernet OLT to accomplish the same goal. This option would provide an even longer infrastructure lifespan and an even higher bandwidth ceiling.

Reason 4: Reduced Capital and Operational Costs
One of the most important benefits of an FTTC architecture is that by leveraging the existing copper infrastructure it not only reduces capital cost but also lowers ongoing operating costs. One of the key ways that it lowers operational costs is that it leverages established practices for activating and qualifying subscribers. That allows a service provider to take advantage of new technologies in a very quick timeframe, enabling them to save money while getting new services to market quickly.

Reason 5: Openness
Fiber networks are inherently open networks when compared to the relatively closed HFC cable networks. For a cable MSO, an upgrade from current DOCSIS technology to newer versions typically requires a wholesale change out of industry approved, compatible set-top boxes across the customer base — a time-consuming and expensive process.

Because a cable MSO has to also consider consumer electronics needs (i.e., HDMI, audio outputs), they are highly dependent on the evolution of CPE and content trends. On the other hand, FTTC networks just transport information and evolve independent of consumer electronics needs.

With FTTC or FTTH the only thing driving the evolution of the network and network components is the amount of bandwidth the customer requires at the premise. The beauty of the network is that there is no change in the set-top box, and if the customer premise equipment must be upgraded it’s a relatively simple process. Content evolves independently of the telco network so service providers are independent of consumer electronics unlike the cable operator.

This fact alone provides the service provider with a healthy competitive advantage since capital and operating expenses are not affected by latest changes in content or consumer electronics. This can help a service provider keep subscriber prices lower, which helps to retain customers.

Reason 6: Time to Market
A "small footprint" technology that allows service providers to "snap in" new technologies is key to leveraging existing capital investments in cabinets. FTTC is inherently a "snap in" architecture. This kind of "snap in" approach allows a service provider to quickly address any new technology or consumer demand more quickly than a cable MSO, a WiFi or 4G wireless provider, or a satellite provider. This ability to respond quickly means that a telecom operator employing a FTTC architecture can bring new services to market sooner, capture share faster, and realize revenues more quickly.

Reason 7: Wireless Quality of Experience
Many service providers who’ve used wireless networking, including 4G, to deliver services have encountered bandwidth degradation as users unpredictably access the network. While wireless devices provide the bandwidth to deliver high bandwidth applications like video, latency is still an issue. With more and more devices on the network and more transactions between the consumer devices, the network bogs down because of load. Because of the smaller node sizes and the incremental building block approach that FTTC takes, quality of experience is predictable and typically not an issue.

Reason 8: Longer Planning Horizon
With an FTTC architecture, service providers can leverage the existing skill set of their employees to turn up new service to an existing subscriber base more quickly. As new technologies become available that offer an increase in bandwidth beyond everyday DSL, service providers will be able to plan further in advance exactly when and how to roll out new, higher bandwidth technologies like FTTH. This longer planning horizon improves a service provider’s ability to forecast accurately and makes it possible to simplify overall operations and thus lower operational costs.

More Than Just a Compromise

Service providers around the globe agree that FTTH is the ultimate goal for delivering next-generation broadband services over time. However, many need to make that transition in a carefully planned manner that allows them to leverage their existing copper infrastructure for as long as possible and make the move to FTTH when the time is right. FTTC offers these service providers a cost-effective option whose scalability and flexibility make transitioning to any new technology simple and painless. It’s the right competitive weapon to make true next-generation broadband a reality.