FTTP Feasibility Study – Task 1 Report › connexion › files › feasibility... · FTTP...
Transcript of FTTP Feasibility Study – Task 1 Report › connexion › files › feasibility... · FTTP...
FTTP Feasibility Study – Task 1 Report for
The City of Fort Collins
August 2016
Uptown Services, LLC Neil Shaw and Dave Stockton, Principals
2
Reference architecture
Asset inventory and analysis
Innovative design and construction approaches
Sample designs & capital budget
December 16
Gigabit Passive Optical Network vs. Active Ethernet
4
Gigabit Passive Optical Network (GPON) ITU G.984.x standard Pure Ethernet services 2.4G downstream / 1.2G upstream Single fiber delivery to subscriber optical network terminal (ONT) GPON ONT’s support ActiveE connections where needed Comprehensive bandwidth management standards Passive system with up to 128 splits and 35 km reach
Active Ethernet (IEEE 802.x) Point to point GigE Single fiber delivery to subscriber ONT Dedicated symmetrical 1G to serving switch port - up to 60 km reach
Majority of FTTP deployments have been GPON
December 16
5
Current bandwidth utilization Uptown 1Gig client seeing 1.0Mbps peak utilization per subscriber In GPON 1:32 @ 50%, utilization is 10-15% of 2.4Gbps available Industry data ranges between 1-2Mbps peak per subscriber Consumption tied to subscriber behavior not their provisioned
bandwidth on fiber (high breakage on 1Gig service)
When will GPON 2.4G run out of gas? Calix Networks estimates GPON saturation between 2022 and 2024 Bandwidth headroom impacted by IPTV delivery on FTTP system
Challenges for system design Cater to all levels of the broadband user continuum Build a network that will never be obsolete Time the technology lifecycle correctly Create the right economics for the enterprise to succeed over time
December 16
6
GPON – Low Cost and Flexible 2.5G of shared downstream bandwidth Flexible splitter placement and less demand for fiber strands High port density – 5,210 subs in one chassis (10 rack units) Consumes less space in rack and 33% as much power required Supports path to 10G GPON
Active Ethernet – “Futureproof” Dedicated GigE from serving switch to each subscriber One strand from subscriber to serving switch location Better suited for high capacity transport services than GPON Longer reach – 60 km Extreme fiber strand counts required without active field cabinets Requires more fiber, space, power, cabinets, electronics and capital
Tradeoffs can be quantified
December 16
7
Network Electronics GPON cards and ports = $50 per subscriber AE cards and ports = $320 per subscriber AE is $5.4M more than GPON at 20,000 subscribers
Outside Plant Materials GPON splitters = $15 more per passing AE fibers per cable 2x-3x more = $1,600,000 over 600 miles AE is $700,000 more than GPON at 60,000 passings
Technical Services GPON splitters require four splices / eight passings = $20 per passing AE requires four splices / passing = $160 per passing AE is $8.4M more than GPON over 60,000 passings
AE will also require more and larger cabinets around the City
December 16
Evolving FTTP Standards
9
ITU GPON Standards Evolution XG-PON1 (G.987) – 10G Down / 2.5G Up XG-PON1 available for four years Operators waiting for symmetrical 10G (NG-PON2) NG-PON2 (G.989) – 10G Down / 10G Up Commercial deployments for NG-PON2 starting in 2016
IEEE Ethernet Standards Evolution Point to Point GigE (802.3ah) – 1G symmetrical 10G EPON (802.3av) – 10G symmetrical Commercially available in 2013
December 16
10
Full Service Area Network (FSAN) NG-PON2 Four time and wave division multiplexing (TWDM) channels Up to four 10G PONs combine for 40G aggregate capacity Will operate over legacy splitters Higher split ratios and longer reach included in the standard
Will accommodate point to point overlay WDM technology used to deliver line rates of 1, 2.5 and 10G over
separate wavelengths Will occupy 1603nm – 1625nm channels Full coexistence with other services
Full 4x10G capability not expected until 2017 XGS-PON - 10G/10G interim option to be available in 2016 XGS-PON standard expected to be ratified in early 2016
Eventual capability of 8x10G PONs December 16
11
Deploy GPON as the ruling architecture Design approach for mass market service areas Implement robust design standards in terms of network capacity Centralized versus distributed split? Deployed splitter capacity?
Deploy hybrid architecture as needed for hi-cap services Design for dedicated fiber to equipment sites for active Ethernet Less “cookie cutter” than GPON network One-off designs to reflect specific market conditions
Monitor GPON product lifecycle Determine final GPON platform strategy based on bid results Design system that will easily accommodate upgrades Plan for upgrades based on service mix (linear video?)
December 16
Reference Architecture – Building Blocks
13
Provider Owned Premises Equipment Optical Network Terminal – indoor wall mount or desktop versions Optional router capability (wireless or not) Set Top Boxes required for all TV sets receiving digital video services
Customer Owned Premises Equipment Router – may not be GigE capable All end user computing devices Standard telephones for telephone service
Inside Wire Phone services use the existing phone wiring Digital video services use new CAT6 wiring or Wi-Fi Data services delivered over new CAT6 cable or Wi-Fi
December 16
14
Service Drop and Test Access Point One fiber drop cable installed from drop terminal to premises Fiber drop pushed or pulled in shallow drop conduit Drop fiber terminated in test access point (TAP) mounted on dwelling TAP provides demarcation between outside and inside fiber (bulkhead) Drops installed after subscriber orders service
Network Terminal Network terminals connect drops to the FTTP outside plant network One network terminal serves between four and sixteen passings Drops have traditionally been spliced at the terminal location Connectorized systems allow for “plug and play” installs – no splicing Network terminals are connected to the distribution system
Network terminal strategy is crucial
December 16
15
Distribution fiber Distribution fiber connects network terminals to the feeder network Feeder network connections can occur at a splice closure or cabinet Distribution cables can range in size from 1 to 144 fibers The size and type of cable is driven by the splitting approach
Centralized split approach 1x32 splitters aggregated in splitter cabinets Dedicated fiber strands from network terminals to cabinets Each cabinet typically fed with 12 feeder fibers One cabinet for every 250 homes on average
Distributed split approach 1x4 and 1x8 splitters deployed in network terminals 1x4 and 1x8 splitters also deployed upstream in closure or cabinet Approach reduces fiber and splicing in distribution network by 87.5% One cabinet can support up to 1,500 homes with distributed split
December 16
16
Optical Line Terminals (OLTs) An OLT combines all digital content onto PON ports Each 20 card chassis supports up to 5,120 GPON subscribers Requires environmentally controlled space and 10 Rack Units OLTs connect upstream via multiple 10G uplinks
Feeder Network Feeder connects splitter cabinets to serving OLTs Typically one feeder fiber per 32 passings (PON port) 1,875 feeder fibers would be required to service 60,000 passings Multiple equipment sites reduces the number of fibers per site Typical feeder cable is 144 fiber with multiple OLT sites
December 16
17
Backbone Network – Layer 2 Backbone connects equipment sites to the core network routers OLTs can connect to each other using protected 10G rings (ERPS) Backbone uses much less fiber capacity than feeder – 12 to 24 fibers
Core Network – Layer 3 Core network safely routes traffic to and from the outside world Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) routers connect to the Internet BGP routers deployed in pairs Installed on backbone network in physically diverse locations Each router connects to at least two Internet backbone providers
Outside World – Content Two physically diverse Internet backbone connections desired Video content would come in over one or both Internet connections Phone would also route over one or both Internet connections
December 16
Asset Inventory and Analysis
19
Fiber Network Characteristics 144 fiber cable routed throughout the City in conduit 112 fibers in use / 32 fibers “available”
Network Users City Departments – Traffic, IT, Utilities (electric and water) Third party governmental entities – CSU, Larimer County, Schools Private sector dark fiber leases – Level 3, FRII, i-cubed, “Yipes”
Fiber capacity is limited 32 fibers are likely not available throughout the network City should reserve at least one spare buffer tube for maintenance Capacity could be characterized as “scarce”
Applicability to Future Broadband Efforts Backbone – could be used to connect network hub sites Feeder – not sufficient capacity to provide capacity beyond hub sites
December 16
20
Backbone Capacity Building Blocks 10 Gig using two fibers & 10 Gig using one fiber 40 Gig using two fibers & 100 Gig using two fibers Nx10 Gig using two fibers and wave division multiplexing (WDM)
10 Gig Transport Technology Standard 10 Gig transport is preferred when fiber is abundant One to Two fibers per 10 Gig should suffice for early FTTP demand FTTP would eventually outstrip fiber strand availability on PRPA ring(s)
40 Gig and 100 Gig Optics 40 Gig is available on some platforms, 100 Gig is less prevalent in FTTP Both options are very expensive and introduce risk to network
Wave Division Multiplexing Uses passive couplers to combine different wavelengths on one fiber “Course” and “Dense” options available for passing 2 to 40 waves WDM platforms offer great flexibility at each node – at a cost $$$
Projected bandwidth demands will inform ultimate direction
December 16
21
Significant fiber conduit network in place GIS layers not made available for this stage of study Paper maps show pervasive deployment of 2 inch conduits Most pathways have two conduits including one spare for future use
Applicability to future broadband effort Additional microducts can be blown in with existing fiber cable Spare conduits would support multiple fibers and/or microducts Reduces the feeder network construction requirements Limits costly hard surface construction and new railroad crossings Not appropriate for distribution network
Implications of joint use with Electric Utility Electric staff desires to route around structures with energized facilities Would require creating of path around manholes (in the street) Would avoid safety issues with non-qualified personnel Would limit fiber damage in the case of fires or explosions in manholes Budget will need to reflect additional cost to create alternate paths
December 16
22
Substations Substation buildings are not equipped to house telecom systems Most substations have space for a new telecom hut (≈ 8’ x 12’) Fiber conduits would need to be routed into new huts
Existing fiber network and equipment Existing City network does not appear to be useful for FTTP IT department would prefer to be a customer of the new network CSU manages the Ft. Collins network No overlap beyond the use of 12-24 fibers for backbone systems
Tropos Wireless Network System currently used for meter reading only – not Wi-Fi Sized for collection of meter reading data – 10 routers per square mile Consumer broadband would require 5x-7x routers (> $5M) Tropos 7320 routers do not support 802.11ac (limited to 802.11n) Expanding Tropos system for broadband = expensive distraction
December 16
Innovative Design and Construction Approaches
24
Maintain long term quality and reliability – Overarching Lower subscriber dissatisfaction and higher retention Lower operating expense
Leverage existing infrastructure wherever possible Lower capital expenditures Minimize new crossings in problem areas – Highways and Railroads Minimize new hard surface construction / disruption
Simplify network and subscriber installation requirements Lower capital expenditures More efficient installation process
Minimize cost for high volume items Significant capital reductions Offsets that would allow for additional capital spending in other areas
Minimize impact to landscape Lower capital expenditures Lower subscriber dissatisfaction
December 16
25
Backbone Use existing strands in PRPA fiber to create high capacity backbone Interconnect all OLT sites Connect City FTTP to outside world No need to overbuild existing fiber backbone for this purpose
Feeder PRPA fiber not suitable for feeder network Existing conduits are ideal pathways for new feeder network Should work for majority of conduit mileage
Distribution - Hard Surface Areas Existing conduits may provide pathway in hard surface areas Would require over pulling of microducts Would reduce, but not eliminate hard surface construction
December 16
December 16 26
•Conduit Type •Structure Size
•Boring •Trenching
•Centralized Split •Distributed Split
•Connectorization •Cable type •Terminal type
Fiber Cable, Terminals and Cabinets
Network Architecture
Underground Path Creation
Construction Techniques
What is optimal mix of these elements from cost, operations and quality perspectives?
27
The promise of microtrenching according to YouTube System based approach to hard surface installation of conduits Equipment cuts, vacuums, installs and restores in one pass Narrow cut 8-10 inches deep
Realities Road resurfacing and gutter repairs typically go deeper than 8 inches Hand holes still need to be placed out of the roadway Cost is much higher than boring ($22.00 - $30.00 per foot) Public works engineers prefer 18 inch minimum depth 18 inch depth is difficult to maintain with a very narrow trench
Recommendations Do not assume microtrenching will play a major role for FTTP Include approach in the construction bid specification Include as an option for hard surface areas depending on availability Continue to monitor improvements (e.g. depth and restoration options)
December 16
28 December 16
Spliceless Install
Required
Connectorized Splitters
Distributed Split
Drop Terminal &
Preterminated Cable
Small Terminal Structure
Microduct Pathways
Small Drop Flower Pots
29
Benefits 99% of installs would not require any fusion splicing Significantly reduces the cost of equipment (splicer ≥ $5,000) Simplify installation process Improve testing and troubleshooting Reduced operating expense (in house and contract labor)
Complications Cost to provide connection ports at drop closure location Cost to preterminate and stock different length drop cables Drop terminal size and impact on housing structure Added loss of connector compared to fusion splice
What’s at stake 23,400 + installs with contractor savings of $10 - $30 per splice 15-20 splicers at $5,000 - $7,000 each Additional drop fiber cost of $0.16 per foot
December 16
30
Standard Approach – Network Access Point (NAP) Standard high count fiber cable is accessed at each NAP location Closure is assembled, cable is prepped and assigned fibers are dressed Installer opens NAP, fusion splices drop and closes NAP Total materials and labor for 8 passings = $350
Terminal Approach #1 Standard high count fiber cable is accessed at each NAP location Closure is assembled, cable is prepped, assigned fibers are spliced to
pigtails and plugged into drop port Installer accesses terminal and plugs drop into assigned port Total materials and labor for 8 passings = $650
Terminal Approach #2 Terminal comes equipped with splitter, input port and output ports Single fiber preterminated microcable is plugged into terminal input Preterminated drops are plugged into the terminal outputs Total materials and labor for 8 passings = $300
Minimum savings of $750K assuming 7,500 terminals
December 16
31
Standard Fiber Cable Fiber strand counts typically 288 or less for FTTP Deployed on large cable reels using motorized trailers Cable diameter ranges from 0.4 to 0.8 inches
Microcable Fiber strand counts typically 144 or less for FTTP Deployed on large or medium cable reels Certain designs do not require heavy equipment to install Typically installed in microduct
Preconnectorized Cables Microcables with factory terminated end(s) Connectors available for 1 fiber up to 24 fiber terminations Certain preterminated cables can be installed in microduct
Installation Methods Pulling – traditional approach Pushing – requires special cable design Blowing – very fast, requires specialized jetting device
December 16
32
Fiber cable bend radius Most traditional fiber cable coils will require a 17”x30” handhole Microcable coils will fit inside a 9 inch flower pot
Closure / terminal dimensions Most traditional NAPs will require a 17”x30” handhole Certain terminals will fit inside a 9 inch round flower pot
Conduit type and bend radius Larger HDPE rolled pipe is difficult to sweep up into a small structure Bend radius can sometimes exceed bore depth for 2 inch diameter pipe Microduct is more flexible for sweeping into handholes and flower pots
Structure Material and Labor 17x30x18 Handhole - $84.25 Materials + $245 Labor = $329.25 13x24x15 Handhole - $51.75 Matertials + $150 Labor = $201.75 9 Round x 18 Flower Pot - $17.23 Materials + $95 Labor = $112.23
Minimum savings of $956,250 assuming 7,500 terminals
December 16
Sample Designs
July 2016 34
100% GPON standards based system Relying on next generation standards to support future growth Nx10G capabilities over time
Distributed split architecture Deploy 1x8 and 1x4 splitters in drop terminals Secondary terminal serves subscribers Primary terminals serve multiple secondary terminals Maintains 1x32 split ratio Splicing and cable sizes reduced by at least 75%
Design assumes the use of micro-cable technology Microduct bundles for all distribution fiber Smaller footprint for terminal and drop hand hole locations
No above ground structures
July 2016 35
100% GPON standards based system Relying on next generation standards to support future growth Nx10G capabilities over time
Centralized split architecture One fiber per passing terminates in splitter cabinet Approximately one splitter cabinet per 250 passings Deploy 1x32 splitters as required in splitter cabinets Network Access Points (NAPs) connect subscriber drops to network All drops fusion spliced at serving NAP
Design assumes the use of standard cable technology Single jacket – loose tube fiber cable design throughout 1.5 IN HDPE conduits employed for drops and distribution pathways
No above ground structures
July 2016 36
Mature approach with proven track record Uptown designed our first centralized split network in 2006 Fusion splicing is much less complicated
Economics appear to be a wash for outside plant Less fiber and splicing for distributed split Lower cost terminals and conduits for centralized
Centralized equipment costs are less Centralized splitters and PON ports added as subscribers are added Distributed splitters and PON ports installed up front for 75-90% of
passings Installation process more complex with centralized
All drops fusion splice at the time of the pre-install Requires closure re-entry for each drop install Test points limited to dwelling and splitter cabinet
37 July 2016
38
Design Metric Value Aerial Plant Miles 0.0 Underground Plant Miles 3.2 % Aerial 0% % UG 100% Passings 243 Passings per Mile of Plant 75 Materials Cost per Passing $140 Labor Cost per Passing $980 Total Cost per Passing $1,119 Total Materials (no drops) $33,917 Total Labor (no drops) $238,109 Total Cost $272,025
* - Does not include engineering, fixed equipment, subscriber capital and installation costs.
July 2016
39
Design Metric Value Aerial Plant Miles 0.0 Underground Plant Miles 2.5 % Aerial 0% % UG 100% Passings 243 Passings per Mile of Plant 96 Materials Cost per Passing $132 Labor Cost per Passing $781 Total Cost per Passing $912 Total Materials (no drops) $31,954 Total Labor (no drops) $189,761 Total Cost $221,715
* - Does not include engineering, fixed equipment, subscriber capital and installation costs.
July 2016
40
Design Metric Value Aerial Plant Miles 0.0 Underground Plant Miles 2.2 % Aerial 0% % UG 100% Passings 107 Passings per Mile of Plant 107 Materials Cost per Passing $126 Labor Cost per Passing $699 Total Cost per Passing $825 Total Materials (no drops) $29,538 Total Labor (no drops) $164,279 Total Cost $193,817
* - Does not include engineering, fixed equipment, subscriber capital and installation costs.
July 2016
41
Design Metric Value Aerial Plant Miles 0.0 Underground Plant Miles 0.6 % Aerial 0% % UG 100% Passings 81 Passings per Mile of Plant 143 Materials Cost per Passing $98 Labor Cost per Passing $530 Total Cost per Passing $628 Total Materials (no drops) $7,940 Total Labor (no drops) $42,185 Total Cost $50,905
* - Does not include engineering, fixed equipment, subscriber capital and installation costs.
July 2016
42
Design Metric Value Aerial Plant Miles 0.0 Underground Plant Miles 0.7 % Aerial 0% % UG 100% Passings 63 Passings per Mile of Plant 95 Materials Cost per Passing $128 Labor Cost per Passing $792 Total Cost per Passing $920 Total Materials (no drops) $8,058 Total Labor (no drops) $49,905 Total Cost $57,963
* - Does not include engineering, fixed equipment, subscriber capital and installation costs.
July 2016
43
Design Metric Value Aerial Plant Miles 0.0 Underground Plant Miles 2.6 % Aerial 0% % UG 100% Passings 174 Passings per Mile of Plant 66 Materials Cost per Passing $165 Labor Cost per Passing $1,097 Total Cost per Passing $1,262 Total Materials (no drops) $26,663 Total Labor (no drops) $190,926 Total Cost $219,589
* - Does not include engineering, fixed equipment, subscriber capital and installation costs.
July 2016
44
Design Metric Value Aerial Plant Miles 0.0 Underground Plant Miles 3.8 % Aerial 0% % UG 100% Passings 235 Passings per Mile of Plant 62 Materials Cost per Passing $170 Labor Cost per Passing $1,187 Total Cost per Passing $1,357 Total Materials (no drops) $39,833 Total Labor (no drops) $278,859 Total Cost $318,692
* - Does not include engineering, fixed equipment, subscriber capital and installation costs.
July 2016
45
Sample Design Area
OH Miles
UG Miles Passings
Passings per Mile Weight
Materials per
Passing
Labor per
Passing
Total per
Passing
Quail Hollow 0.0 3.2 243 75 30.1% $140 $980 $1,120
English Ranch 0.0 2.5 243 96 22.6% $132 $781 $913
Alta Vista 0.0 0.7 63 95 6.4% $128 $792 $920
Old Town 0.0 2.2 235 98 5.7% $126 $699 $825
Hearthfire 0.0 2.6 174 66 2.1% $165 $1,097 $1,262
Taft Canyon 0.0 3.8 235 62 1.8% $170 $1,187 $1,356
Willow Brook 0.0 0.6 81 143 0.0% $98 $530 $628
MDUs* 0.0 0.0 0 0 31.3% $73 $424 $497 Weighted Average / Total 0.0 15.6 1,274 82 100% $116 $739 $855
* - MDU and commercial sample designs not completed. July 2016
Single family weightings based on parcels per zoning district Representative MDU and commercial sample designs not completed Willow Brook design area was not deemed to be representative MDU costs estimated to be 50% of average single family costs
46
Outside Plant Costs Weighted Average Per
Passing
Total Construction Cost @ 72,435 Passings
(NOTE: Does not include other system costs e.g. electronics and operations)
Materials $116 $8,402,460
Labor $739 $53,529,465
Total $855 $61,931,925
Contingency @ 15%* $128 $9,271,680
Total $984 $71,276,040
Key Construction Costs Directional boring in landscaped areas - $10.00 per foot Vault, hand hole and flower pot adder - $2.00 per foot Pulling fiber in conduit - $0.75 per sheath foot (average for all cables) Splicing - $30 per splice
July 2016
* - Contingency based on unknowns related to serving a large number of multi-tenant buildings
July 2016 47
$662.55 , 77%
$35.15 , 4%
$35.15 , 4%
$24.89 , 3%
$24.27 , 3%
$22.63 , 3%
$22.54 , 2% $17.44 , 2% $14.80 ,
2%
UG Path Labor
UG Path Materials
Cabinet Labor
Peds and Vaults Materials
Fiber Cable Labor
Cabinet Materials
Enclosures Labor
Fiber Cable Materials
Enclosures Materials
July 2016 48
GPON standards based system will best serve the immediate and long term needs of the Fort Collins market
Centralized split architecture is the best fit the technical and reliability requirements of the Fort Collins technical team
Up to eight huts located in sub station yards could house equipment for the entire FTTP network
Abundant conduit along major arterial routes significantly reduces the cost of the feeder network
Total outside plant cost per passing of $984 is based on sample designs from large cross section of the City
100% underground environment drives outside plant costs higher than a typical FTTP deployment