Post on 27-Apr-2018
transcript
2000796-424
NGA coverage: what is affordable?
Analysys Mason event – The Next Generation of European Regulation
21 October 2014 • Rupert Wood
2000796-424
Are the old assumptions about coverage and costs flawed?
▪ Economies of scale made FTTH viable
only in densely populated areas
▪ Less dense areas would have to make
do with FTTC or wireless access
2
▪ Reality versus expectation:
– urban fibre demand and costs worse
– rural fibre costs better
– rural wireless performance and costs
worse than assumed
– copper performance continues to
improve
‘Old’ model for FTTx deployment ‘New’ model for FTTx deployment
Dense
urban
MDUs:
FTTP
Mid-density
SDUs: FTTC
Wireless
FTTB +
copper/
coax for
MDUs
FTTH/dp for SDUs, FTTB for
the rest
FTTP
2000796-424
Maximising coverage for given service needs within fixed budget constraints ▪ Save money in urban areas and
redeploy outside those areas
– fibre to (almost) every building
– no or very limited role for terrestrial
wireless in residential broadband
– use of FTTx + copper/coax for very
dense areas. Still get n*100Mbps
– aerial fibre where possible outside
urban areas, and fibre aerial drops
unless access to buildings is
problematic
– Asia–Pacific fixed operators often
already use this approach
3
Save on urban, spend on rural
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 C
ost
per
pre
mis
es p
assed
Centile
‘New’ costs ‘Old’ costs
Save with
FTTB/G.fast
etc.
Redeploy
savings
Point at which FTTx
matches FTTP
2000796-424
Consumer choice of broadband is often not based on strict ‘service needs’ ▪ DAE targets related to old forecasts of
‘real service needs of the masses’
▪ Competition still based largely on
headline speed, apparently. DOCSIS3.0
bonding is cheap for cablecos,
DOCSIS3.1 less so
▪ Entry-level cable is sometimes now
100Mbps in Europe, and 1Gbps is only
months away
▪ Mass-market new-entrant FTTP now
appearing, often 1Gbps
▪ Consumers do not decide on the basis
of service needs – ‘service needs’ is
telco-think anyway
4
Cable gain in broadband market share,
last 12 months (% points)
-2 -1 0 1 2 3
Czech Republic Spain
Portugal UK
Romania Finland
Sweden Austria France
Canada USA
Switzerland Hungary Norway Ireland
Denmark Netherlands
Belgium Germany
Poland
Mainly FTTC
Mixed
Mainly FTTH
2000796-424
Minimum marketed cable broadband speeds can be as high as 100Mbps
5
Highest and lowest marketed cable downlink speeds in selected markets, April 2014
Note: Excludes GPON offers by cable operators
Fra
nce
Rom
ania
Fin
land
Irela
nd
Neth
erlands
UK
Czech R
ep
Belg
ium
Denm
ark
Spain
Sw
itze
rland
Hungary
Port
ugal
Austr
ia
Germ
any
Pola
nd
Sw
eden
US
A
Canada
Norw
ay
Minimum marketed dl speed Maximum marketed dl speed
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Mbps
500Mbps fastest
access (Com Hem)
(16-channel-bond)
100Mbps entry level
(Numericable, UPC
Romania)
2000796-424
Third infrastructures might appear in Europe
▪ Other US FTTC operators are following
Google Fiber with gigabit roll-out: AT&T,
CenturyLink
▪ FTTH new entrants in Europe with
mass-market ambitions. Google
reportedly looked at CityFibre in York.
Vodafone + utility (as in Ireland)?
▪ De-skilling labour, pre-connectorisation,
infrastructure access reducing
connection costs by 30%. Access to
non-commercial assets often critical
▪ Interestingly, Google Fiber will not offer
dedicated access for content providers
6
2000796-424
Copper-based telcos are being forced to think beyond FTTC / VDSL2 vectoring
7
FTTC / VDSL2
vectoring
FTT beyond
FTTP overlay
FTTP replacement
Time to market, rapid
coverage
Ability to compete
against cable and third
infrastructure entrants
Opex considerations
Lower capex
Lower risk than fibre
from replicating LLU
Decommissioning
benefits
5G
will b
e s
tartin
g to
affe
ct p
lan
nin
g
2000796-424
Future options are not just a matter of matching architecture to technology options
8
Physical fibre architectures Technology options
FTTC
Distribution
point (dp) FTT last
legacy
node Basement
(dp)
Single line node
(garden gate)
FTTP
VDSL2 17a vectoring
Modified 30MHz
G.fast
PON, PTP
Bondin
g
Illustrative
Dual mode (“FD vectoring”)
G.hn
Some intermediate point
2000796-424
Co-existence and customer migration paths are vital parts of the roadmap
9
Physical fibre architectures Technology options
FTTC
Distribution
point (dp) FTT last
legacy
node Basement
(dp)
Single line node
(garden gate)
FTTP
VDSL2 17a vectoring
Modified 30MHz
G.fast
PON, PTP
Bondin
g
Illustrative
Dual mode (“FD vectoring”)
G.hn
Some intermediate point
2000796-424
G.fast will probably have to co-exist with VDSL2
▪ G.fast targets are for up to gigabit
speeds over what are essentially final
drops (FTTdp or FTTB)
▪ Operators do not necessarily face a
choice between deploying only G.fast or
only VDSL2
▪ G.fast does not offer any better
performance than VDSL2 vectoring at
loop lengths of 250m or so. In some
respects the technologies are targeting
different geotypes
▪ Demand-led approach (no costly forced
migration) makes some level of
coexistence likely
10
106MHz G.fast aggregate target and
achieved bitrates
20 70 100 200 250 0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Mbps (
aggre
gate
)
Metres
Target BT A1
2000796-424
G.fast/VDSL2 coexistence means lower head-line speeds and higher cost and complexity ▪ Coexistence of G.fast with VDSL2
requires notching of the 17MHz of
bandwidth used for VDSL2. This means
lower bitrates than if VDSL2 had not
already been deployed
▪ Needs a single chipset, otherwise
increased cost and complexity. A single
chipset still has significant negative
impact on the performance of VDSL2
lines
11
Achievable aggregate bitrates for
VDSL2 vectoring, full and notched
G.fast
50
150
250
350
450
550
650
750
850
950 0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Aggre
gate
bitra
te (
Mbps)
Metres
VDSL2 VDSL2 vectoring G.fast notched G.fast full
2000796-424
Cost is not the only (and perhaps not even the main) advantage of G.fast ▪ G.fast suitable for FTTdp, FTTB and
single-line nodes
▪ G.fast is meant to be self-install
– but prudent to expect high failure rates
▪ Lower CPPC has to be offset against
potentially higher CPPP than for
FTTP/GPON
▪ Higher proportionate cost savings on
SDUs
▪ FTTP will have lower opex
▪ Time to market is also a critical factor
(arguably the main advantage for G.fast)
12
Indicative costs for GPON and G.fast
0
200
400
600
800
1000
FTTP/
GPON
G.fast
16 port
G.fast
48 port C
ost
Connection Equipment
at node
Fibre
2000796-424
Intermediate solutions are being developed
Modified 30MHz
▪ Leverages existing 30a band plans
(rarely used outside APAC) while
allowing vectored 17a and 30a VDSL2
to coexist in the same binder
▪ No bitrate loss on longer loops, but 30a
bitrates on shorter loops
▪ Can be used anywhere with
FTTC/VDSL2 vectoring now – i.e. any
cabinet
▪ Improvements out to 550m loops
▪ Tone spacing would need to be
changed. ITU would need to
standardise, changes to local ANFPs.
Mid to late 2015 for commercial products
13
Dual-mode (“FD vectoring”)
▪ Like a mobile FD-TD hybrid, notched G.fast
bonds with existing VDSL2 vectoring
▪ No new standards required
▪ More expensive, less scalable (for now)
than modified 30MHz, but potentially
superior performance
Approximate achievable speeds of
modified 30MHz and VDSL2
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
50
15
0
25
0
35
0
45
0
55
0
65
0
75
0
85
0
95
0
Aggre
gate
bitra
te
(Mb
ps)
Metres
VDSL2
VDSL2 vectoring
Modified 30MHz
2000796-424
But FTTP costs are falling too (or perhaps were never so high) ▪ Superfast Cornwall claims GBP380 per
premises passed in a final 5% area
– low pole replacements (3%)
– claims ‘suck it and see’ approach
shows cost models overstate costs
– low planning and disruption costs
– CPPC for urban aerial FTTP can be as
low as GBP100; many rural
connections are similar
– however, individual aerial drop
properties can be difficult (some
‘drops’ up to 500m). Urban non-aerial
costs ‘much more’
▪ Low CPPC costs call G.fast advantages
into question
14
Selected FTTP costs in UK/Ireland
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
Superf
ast
Corn
wall
Vodafo
ne/E
SB
NB
P
CityF
ibre
York
EU
R
CPPP
CPPC
2000796-424
Early examples of FDD-LTE fixed wireless fall a long way short of DAE targets ▪ 700MHz or 800MHz paired spectrum
▪ Higher retail prices than for ADSL
▪ Low attainable speeds in rural areas
(3–12Mbps DL)
▪ Data caps well below average FBB
usage in territory
▪ Often requires external antenna to
provide basic service: customer pays or
self-install
15
Verizon ‘cantenna’
Vodafone self-install (“kinderleicht”)
2000796-424
Active network sharing is becoming common but spectrum pooling is not
▪ Very few examples of full spectrum
pooling in the world (PCCW/3 in Hong
Kong), and none for rural areas
▪ Carrier aggregation with pooled
spectrum improves spectral efficiency a
little
▪ Spectrum sharing will in any case
happen when MNOs are ready to use
licence-exempt secondary-use spectrum
▪ Desirability of maintaining service
differentiation
16
▪ There is no spectrum ‘quick fix’ for deep
rural broadband
▪ Suitability of pooled spectrum bands for
FWA is critical. 800MHz bands alone are
insufficient for fixed wireless. 700MHz
bands are critical, but will probably not
be enough
▪ Fixed-line usage is still vastly higher
than mobile (96% of consumer data
traffic in Europe)
▪ If only higher frequency bands are
available, then infrastructure and CPE
costs (outdoor antennas) rise sharply
towards fixed-line levels
Pooling for rural fixed wireless
2000796-424
NBN Co fixed wireless TD-LTE has many similar features to fibre, but has a high cost ▪ To pass 520K premises: light suburban,
but not outback. Recent review
suggested demand would be 2-3 times
higher than originally planned.
▪ USD2000 per premises passed on
original plan, subsequently more needed
– Would a wired FTTx solution have
been cheaper in retrospect?
▪ Currently uses 2.3GHz; also has unused
3.4GHz holdings. Spectrum holdings for
rural use create a gap between fringe
urban and rural.
▪ Wholesale pricing equivalent to FTTP.
Maximum speed: 25/5Mbps. Outdoor
antenna mandatory but free to end users
17
NBN Co fixed wireless mast and
customer antenna
2000796-424
Operators must weigh the long-term costs of wireless against FTTx for rural broadband LTE has lower up-front costs than FTTC,
especially where existing mobile
infrastructure is used
Adding capacity on LTE is more
expensive than on fixed networks
Adding microcells to boost capacity and
coverage brings cost profile closer to
fixed
Re-use of towers and other
infrastructure makes a major difference
to cost of additional capacity
Decommissioning copper altogether
implies one-off revenue opportunity plus
opex savings
FTTH more viable in markets with low
labour costs
18
Illustrative annualised cost base of
fixed and wireless rural broadband
Data volume (growing over time)
Annualis
ed incre
menta
l
cost
of netw
ork
Macro only Macro plus
micro
FTTC
Cost saving from
decommissioning
copper
This is where
NBN Co is now
2000796-424
Conclusions
▪Operators could refocus away from urban to deliver a more-even,
and quicker-to-market, high bandwidth experience
▪ Improving service coverage of >100Mbps is achievable without
additional costs
▪FTTP may cost less in deep rural areas than imagined
▪Fixed wireless is not a cheap option – in fact it will probably cost
more in the long run
19