ronpin
Imagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana
 ·AT&T Southwest
4 edits | FiOS CAPEX, why not IPTV, VoIP, Data and No ONT
Now that Verizon is fully engaged in an all-out BPON FTTP buildout -- maybe a proposal to cut the cost nearly in half -- at the premise -- will find an audience.
I fully understand and appreciate BPON, ONT's, shared fiber -- everything about FTTP. It's wonderful! However the ONT accounts for fully half of the premise CAPEX -- some $750 just for the ONT (I don't know the actual price).
If Verizon adopted IPTV and VoIP on top of their internet pkg. -- they could save the cost of the ONT. The main problem of course is that BPON provides for the TDMA'd 32 user shared fiber for the upstream data. No problem! DWDM, with 32 lambda's, is superior to the TDMA scheme anyway -- and it allows you to ditch the $750 ONT. Currently DWDM is not cheap -- but it is cheaper per-port than a $750 ONT -- and the cost is mainly due to the current "specialty" nature of it -- which would rapidly decline in a mass deployment.
So, at the premise, we only need a 2 lambda [WDM] "media converter" equipped with it's upstream laser assigned to one of the 32 lambda's. A simple NAT router such as the one currently in use is all that's needed to distribute the Video, VoIP and data.
The OLT "headend" does need to be supplanted with DWDM for 32 data streams (per OLT port) -- but that's Tellab's problem -- and well worth another $100 or so per user.
The overall data-rate needed to service 32 users with multiple MPEG4 HDTV data streams (6mbs ea.) VoIP and 15mbs of data is about 2gbs (OC48). That's enough for 5 [MPEG4] HDTV's, several VoIP's and 15mbs of [symmetrical] data per user. Compare this generous scheme with SBC's meager VDSL2 scheme for the "triple-play".
All in all Verizon could save at least $500 per home by converting to this method. I want to see Verizon succeed and deploy FiOS widely and rapidly. This will do that  What do you think?
--
When Clinton lied -- no one died. |
|
PONman
join:2005-06-09
Fairfax, VA
1 edit | Re: FiOS Cost, why not IPTV, VoIP, Data and No ONT
First off, I'm only going to comment on the technical aspect of your system as the "half the cost" claim is ridiculous.
Assuming your system was operational, the only advantage it offers is more upstream capibility, which is not necessary for IPTV or VoIP. An uncompressed voice stream using the "full quality" G.711 codec is 64Kb/sec. Using a codec with compression this can be brought down to even 8Kb/sec. IPTV could require more downstream bandwidth than BPON offers. But I'm sure there is some cost effective platform that is more than capible of the downstream bandwidth that IPTV needs *cough* GPON *cough* . |
|
ronpin
Imagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana
·AT&T Southwest
4 edits | said by PONman  :First off, I'm only going to comment on the technical aspect of your system as the "half the cost" claim is ridiculous. You do live closer to Ciena DWDM systems in MD -- maybe you have a better idea of the cost of a 32 lamda DWDM port on the OLT? Keep in mind we have a $750 "Budget" -- per user -- here. I know you can get a WDM media converter for around $100. If you can add DWDM on the OLT for $100 per user ($3200/per OLT port), then your down to a savings of $500 per user. Am I missing something? I'm anxious to see your numbers.
EDIT -- I see from your previous posts that your associated with Tellabs. Clearly you must HATE this idea. So really, tell me if an extra $3200 per OLT port is adequate to add 32 lamda DWDM. Also let me know if I'm close on the [$750] price of the ONT.
BTW -- I'm sure that Optical Solutions would be happy to accommodate the change -- if Tellabs wouldn't )
--
When Clinton lied -- no one died. |
|
NOCMan
Verizon Fios User
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Flower Mound, TX | reply to ronpin
Re: FiOS CAPEX, why not IPTV, VoIP, Data and No ON
Verizon got the price down below 1000 dollars per install(average). That was the magic number before anyone would sign off on the project. |
|
ronpin
Imagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana
·AT&T Southwest
1 edit | said by NOCMan :Verizon got the price down below 1000 dollars per install(average). That was the magic number before anyone would sign off on the project. Please account for the cost for feeder conduit/fiber (~$10/ft), the ONT, the premise install labor, and router (omit the future STB). Horizontal boring/conduit cost ~$50,000/mile -- without the fiber/splicing!. So unless Verizon is getting the ONT for $250 (impossible), then the cost is much more than $1000 (but then maybe you were only citing the premise cost without the conduit/fiber cost)
It sure looks more like $1500 -- minimum (i.e. ~$750 + ~$750 + labor/router). Please submit your breakdown on these items.
I hope everyone sees that the Tellabs guy (above) is naturally hostile to the idea.
--
When Clinton lied -- no one died. |
|
PONman
join:2005-06-09
Fairfax, VA
| reply to ronpin
Re: FiOS Cost, why not IPTV, VoIP, Data and No ONT
I don't know where to start. All I can tell you is that an ONT with DWDM would not be able to compete on a pricing level with the curret ONTs. However, you are not the only person asking about IPTV and VoIP, and there are better, more cost effective solutions afoot. |
|
ronpin
Imagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana
·AT&T Southwest
| There IS NO ONT in this architecture. None. There is only a cheap media converter. I know that would choke Tellabs -- but it would mean more FiOS for more people in less time -- and a faster ROI for Verizon. Change happens -- go with it or be left behind.
--
When Clinton lied -- no one died. |
|
PONman
join:2005-06-09
Fairfax, VA | *sigh* I'm not going to comment further on this. Good luck with your idea Sir. |
|
ronpin
Imagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana
·AT&T Southwest
| said by PONman :*sigh* I'm not going to comment further on this. Good luck with your idea Sir. Smart move on Tellabs part. I'll take the "good-luck" even though Tellabs would not really want me to have it.
Don't worry -- this idea has no where to go outside of this forum -- unless a very astute Verizon person responds
--
When Clinton lied -- no one died. |
|
bbarrett
join:1999-12-29
Germantown, MD
| reply to ronpin
Re: FiOS CAPEX, why not IPTV, VoIP, Data and No ON
Ronpin,
There are other issues involved in business decisions besides cost. Another one is the maturity of the solution. IPTV, for one, is not a mature technology...particularly by the standards of the telcos. Yes, the architecture of FIOS is only an incremental improvement on existing residential voice, video and data technologies. This is quite deliberate. How well will IPTV scale over multiple states and millions of customers? Probably very well...some day. But right now, would you honestly stake billions of dollars (and ultimately the existence of your company) on it, when you could deliver a service that meets or exceeds the competition (digital cable/DBS) at a lower operating cost with well understood technology that is only an incremental technology improvement and thus carries much less risk?
And I would have to concur that I very much doubt your $750 estimated ONT cost. When you're buying a million of something, it's amazing how low you can get the cost. I'll bet it's fully amortized over the first 12-18 months of $100+/mo voice/video/internet service. |
|
ronpin
Imagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana
·AT&T Southwest
1 edit | said by bbarrett :...And I would have to concur that I very much doubt your $750 estimated ONT cost. When you're buying a million of something, it's amazing how low you can get the cost. I'll bet it's fully amortized over the first 12-18 months of $100+/mo voice/video/internet service. Since the ONT cost is the critical-path issue here it is the only one I need to answer.
I have designed FTTP systems. I know the cost of ONT's -- and they were in the $1200 range before Verizon forced the price down (so your right, mass deployment does bring the price down -- to below $1000). Specifically, I was able to get the cost of the Alcatel ONT down to the ~ $800 range. I've only heard rumors that Verizon's price is less than $800 for the Tellab's ONT. If you have specific cost information please submit it.
I do not need to be "Right" about this. I would feel very happy if I could help Verizon achieve the very worth goal of mass FTTP deployment in a cheaper-faster-better way (I am available )
--
When Clinton lied -- no one died. |
|
BD11goal
join:2004-03-13
Huntington Station, NY
| reply to ronpin
Re: FiOS CAPEX, why not IPTV, VoIP, Data and No ONT
that wouldnt really be fiber to the home thats more like fiber to the room. the ont keeps it simple combining everything into one thing. with all ur fancy pants media converters (im assumming 1 per tv) and fiber inside the house too, it wouldnt work. people would bust the fiber cables all the time yo so chill out. |
|
ronpin
Imagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana
·AT&T Southwest
1 edit | Re: FiOS CAPEX, why not IPTV, VoIP, Data and No ON
No -- the "media converter" is a just a tiny 'lil box that can reside in the same physical space that the ONT did -- outside. It can use battery backup power as well. It, like the ONT, converts the optical/fiber signal to copper wires. In this case just one cat5 wire that then goes to your NAT router -- just like the current ONT does. The main difference is that there is no standard CATV or POTs output. The NAT router will have a ethernet line for the IPTV (goes to STB's) and the NAT router itself can handle the VoIP (D-LINK has one that does this, likely Link-Sys too).
Cost (and symmetrical upload speed) is the ONLY reason to do this. That means less to users than it does to Verizon -- unless users can get FiOS sooner -- or at-all because of the cost reduction.
--
When Clinton lied -- no one died. |
|
DMS1
join:2005-04-06
Carrollton, TX
| "NAT router will have a ethernet line for the IPTV (goes to STB's) and the NAT router itself can handle the VoIP (D-LINK has one that does this, likely Link-Sys too)." And how is one supposed to actually cable this? Hooking the router into existing phone wiring will probably be easy in many cases, but routing Cat 5 to every TV location? I suspect in reality that the cost of doing a good job of this will, in many cases, exceed the saving from not having the ONT. |
|
ronpin
Imagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana
·AT&T Southwest
| There are many technologies available to take advantage of existing home wiring -- including ethernet adaptors for Coax, telephone wiring -- even AC wires -- not to mention wireless. Current ONT technology will use existing COAX for CATV -- no reason we can't do the same here. Ethernet STB's for IPTV do already exist -- and of course Microsoft is coming out with the "gold-standard" as we speak.
If IPTV is good enough for SBC and BellSouth -- and it can save a lot of money -- I'm sure it would be good for Verizon too. Verizon has the advantage of fiber's distance and speed -- SBC and BellSouth don't.
--
When Clinton lied -- no one died. |
|
tschmidt
Premium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
 ·Hollis Hosting
·Verizon Online DSL
·Fairpoint Communic..
| reply to ronpin
Re: FiOS CAPEX, why not IPTV, VoIP, Data and No ONT
Nice to see such a large number of posts in an architecture discussion. Normally non-PON FTTP is designed as an active network with switches located fairly close to customers. You are suggesting a novel approach using DWM to share a single fiber and eliminate the need for active electronics in the field. I'm not sure how well the numbers play out. The company would need to stock 32 different flavors of adapter, one for each color. Managing adds and moves would be rather cumbersome, perhaps even requiring truck rolls to customer premise to swap channels as the cable plant was rebalanced.
Telcos are by nature conservative, that is why they opted to ATM based PON, emulate POTS and HFC CATV rather the roll out a pure play IP network as some of the smaller Munis are doing.
One needs to be careful making strategic decisions based on equipment cost. Volume is much more important then complexity. The cost of ONTs is primarily driven by volume. If it were my choice I'd certainly be aware of short term Capex but also the need to factor in operation and management cost. This is something the Baby Bells have a 100 years of experience doing and do it very well
I'd love to see FTTP implement IPTV rather then CATV HFC emulation. But as bbarrett posted IPTV is still immature. No surprise the Baby Bells have shied away from it. The disappointment is the B-PON architecture they are rolling out does not have near enough capacity for traditional Broadcast TV, let alone Video on Demand.
At least Verizon is rolling out fiber in the First-Mile. If they guess wrong and technology changes they have already paid for the expensive stuff: rights-of-way and fiber. Be interesting to see how the various tradeoffs play out over the next 20 years.
/Tom |
|
ronpin
Imagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana
·AT&T Southwest
1 edit | Re: FiOS CAPEX, why not IPTV, VoIP, Data and No ON
All good points. Again I *LOVE* FTTP just exactly the way it is being implemented. The cost does leave something to be desired -- and clearly we have to get outside-the-box if we are to see any dramatic change in the cost.Technology vs. cost is always a grueling decision.
Any conversion like what I'm talking about would be tested and trialed in parallel to the current deployment -- very conservatively.
If cost isn't slowing down deployment and if Verizon is perfectly happy with BPON FTTP as-is -- that's wonderful! I know that people like tschmidt and I stand ready to help when a where we can (OK I'm standing outside the box though -- and no -- not Jack-in-the-Box! )
--
When Clinton lied -- no one died. |
|
10geremote
@verizon.n
| Well, if you want complete network transformation, you might as well go to 10gigE per port in the remote laser boxes right out onto the poles! The emphasis right now is to get the back-end (verizon's portion of the backbone) wide enough to channel an order of magnitude of 100x what its currently capable of... your talking about a system that was meant to channel 5-15 megabit per port, once video is added on the downstream, the per port system maxes out at 100megabits total downstream... the next gen equipment must be 10gigE compatible on a per port basis (at first in backend operations, then ported over to the poles in the remote inface boxes) regardless of the 'ont' infrastructure this is a 10-30 year project for back-end operations, because alot of back-bone providers must get this ultra-low lag time equipment in place for it to mean anything.. the internet itself by comparison is moving much slower than verizon is now... at this rate, verizon would be the internet (in the 10gigabit per port range your talking a dsl connection to internet 2, hehe) |
|
DanJTCollins
join:2002-06-11
Demarest, NJ
| The reason Verizon (or any other Telco) would never adopt such a solution is very simple - it devalues the voice service. VOIP is a commodity business, and the Telcos want voice service to be a premium service - and it makes a difference to customers. The ATM based voice service that FIOS provides offers modem and fax support, true 911 service and all the other things that VOIP finds problematic. When the availablity of "true" voice service can mean an extra $50 per month from the customer, a few hundred bucks for the ONT looks like a wise investment. It's not an architectual issue - it is a business issue. |
|
YellowDart
join:2003-07-09
world
| reply to ronpin
The new Vincini ONT that Tellabs bought is supposed to cost well below the old AFC ONTs. In fact that is why Telllabs bought the company and will allow Verizion to drive the price of ONTs even further.
With the recent approval of Motorola ONTs competitive pricing pressures will decrease Tellabs margins and allow Verizon deploy faster. |
|
