How Much Bandwidth is Enough In the Access Network?



Market Studies

1394 Market and Technology Study

How Much Bandwidth is
Enough In the Access Network?
Strategies of AT&T, Verizon, and BellSouth in the Design of the Last MIle

Release: August 2006

Overview | TOC | TOF

$1,995 - Print Copy
$2,995 - Single User PDF
$4,995 - Site Licensed PDF

Order Report



* print copy included with PDF
Overview:

When Bell shouted, “Watson, come here!”   He probably wanted to debate the design of the ‘last mile' of his planned telephone network. Ever since then, telephone engineers and executives have been debating the design of the last mile. The debate continues now with the various FTTX schemes for bringing fiber to within various distances of the customer. In some ways the debate really hasn't changed much – it is still about the economics of each approach – but in a very real way the debate is different now. In the past, this debate was always about POTS, and the economics of various way of providing it. Now it is still about economics, but it is also about – maybe even more so – alternative ways to meet requirements for some very exotic services.




Click for Larger Image

The question is not just, “Which is cheaper?” But also involved are questions such as, “What services will I provide? “How many of each service will the customer need?” “How much bandwidth do I provide for these requirements?”   “How will compression advances impact my choices?” The answers to these questions guide the technology choices for the last mile now, at least, as much as economics. This report addresses these issues in light of the activities of the largest telecommunication companies in the US – AT&T, Verizon, and BellSouth. This report starts with a forecast for demand by end users for bandwidth, based on forecasting bandwidth demand of those end users (watching TV, using the Internet, etc.) It then proceeds to review the available designs to provide bandwidth to the access customer, and finally evaluates each provisioning technology against the demand. The results of this analysis are compared to the activities of the large telecom companies and changes in their strategies are forecast.

While this was never a simple debate, the addition of the new unknowns about service requirements makes it a much more complex consideration. To see how complex, one just needs to note that the three (soon to be two) major telcos – Verizon, AT&T and BellSouth – have studied this issue with all of their great resources and come up with three completely different answers!

.


Table of Contents


TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF FIGURES

THE LIGHTWAVE NETWORK SERIES OF REPORTS

THE LIGHTWAVE NETWORK SERIES OF REPORTS

INTRODUCTION

BANDWIDTH DEMAND

A Prime Time Usage Scenario -2006

A Prime Time Usage Scenario -2010

Time Sharing of Bandwidth Vs. Maximum Requirements

COMPRESSION IMPACTS

A Scenario with Compression

DESIGN ALTERNATIVES

Fiber to the “X”

xDSL Versions

Design Details for Current Plans

Fiber to the Neighborhood (FTTN)
AT & T ‘s Fiber to the Node (FTTN)
BellSouth’s Fiber to the Curb (FTTC)
Verizon’s FTTP
IPTV Video with Verizon PON

Capabilities Summary

HOW DO THE DESIGNS MEET THE REQUIREMENTS?

Time Sharing

Link Capacities of PONs
Statistical Multiplexing
Usage Scenario

Capacity

Need for GPONs

WHAT ARE THE RBOCS CURRENTLY DOING AND WILL IT CHANGE?

Current Plans

Verizon
AT&T
BellSouth

Expected Changes in Plans

 

Verizon
AT&T
BellSouth

 


Table of Figures



Figure 1, BPON Prime Time Usage 2006

Figure 2, BPON Prime Time 2010

Figure 3, Bandwidth Requirements - Current Compression

Figure 4, BPON Prime Time 2010 with Compression

Figure 5, Bandwidth Requirements - Improved Compression

Figure 6, Comparison of Bandwidth Demand

Figure 7, Fiber to the 'X' Varieties

Figure 8, Chart of Various xDSL Technologies

Figure 9, Fiber to the Neighborhood

Figure 10, Fiber to the Node

Figure 11, Fiber to the Curb

Figure 12, PON Basic Arrangement

Figure 13, Verizon Current PON

Figure 14, FTTP Architecture for IPTV

Figure 15, Capabilities Summary

Figure 16, Capabilities Vs. Requirements

Figure 17, Compressed Case, Capabilities Vs. Requirements

Figure 18, 2010 Requirements - Time Shared – Compressed

Figure 19, Link Capabilities of Various Architectures Vs. Requirements