Access Makes the Parts Grow Stronger

Andrew Woodfin
Corning Optical Fiber, Corning Incorporated, One Riverfront Plaza, Corning, NY 14831
woodfinad@corning.com

Fiber-to-the- home (FTTH) access networks are obviously off and running. With more
and more deployments in the US and around the world, we learn lessons on an almost
daily basis about what is working well and where problems are popping up. By sharing
their experiences, both good and bad, network operators enable vendors to evolve
products to improve system performance, increase design flexibility, and reduce network
cost. There is room for improvement everywhere in the network, ranging from
installation techniques, passive hardware, optoelectronics, to the optical fiber itself. This
paper will touch on a selection of these opportunities. Due to its significance in the total
value of a comprehensive triple-play broadband service, implications of delivering video
services over FTTH are discussed, and associated infrastructure advancements to
improve design flexibility are presented. Additionally, dramatic improvements in
network installation allowed by a number of advancements in passive outside plant
connectivity are reviewed.

Radio Frequency (RF) Video Overlay

The beauty of FTTH is the inherent capacity and flexibility to support a wide variety of
services. This is most evident in the context of video offerings. While copper-based low-
bandwidth access technologies such as the various VDSL and ADSL variants are
fundamentally limited to baseband switched digital video delivered over IP protocol
(IPTV), and hybrid fiber coax (HFC) architectures are best suited to RF video
transmission, FTTH can support either technology. This flexibility is a significant
competitive advantage, and some wisely note that the unique ability to elegantly combine
the two technologies puts FTTH in a class by itself[1,2]. Both technologies have their
advantages and disadvantages. A recent poll conducted by USTA indicates that network
operators planning video services over FTTH are split nearly 50/50 in their choice to
deploy either RF or IPTV. Clearly, RF is the more mature technology, as it has been (and
continues to be) employed in Cable TV networks for nearly 60 years. Still, there are some
key infrastructure limitations which can pose challenges to rolling out RF video services
over FTTH.

Video Delivery Architecture Options

The RF video overlay in a BPON architecture can be implemented in a variety of

different configurations. This fact is frequently overlooked in simplistic analyses of the
limitations and requirements placed on video transport and distribution in FTTH. Three
common implementations are illustrated in Figure 1. There are several commonalities
between all three cases. Each complies with the requirements prescribed in the relevant
ITU-T BPON and GPON recommendations (G.983.3 and G.984.1) for the “Enhancement
Band” of wavelengths, supporting video service transmission between 1550 nm and 1560
nm, although specific requirements and limitations on video transmission truly are given
only a cursory review in the recommendations. Additionally, each case requires that RF
video signals are amplified in the optical domain, due to the relatively high received
power requirements at the ONT (typically -6 to -3 dBm) coupled with the high passive
losses seen in the PON Optical Distribution Network (ODN) between the Optical Line
Terminal (OLT) and subscriber premises- located Optical Network Terminal (ONT).
However, there are also significant differences in the three cases.

Headend OLT 1xN ONT (1)

Central
Office ODN
Video path

OLT 1xN ONT (2)

ODN
Video path

OLT 1xN ONT (3)

ODN
Video path
Figure 1: Three configurations for RF video overlay transport and distribution (1) collocated HE/CO with
collocated OLT and video Tx, (2) collocated HE/CO with remote OLT , and (3) regional HE with RF
transport. Length of the RF video signal path (blue bar) clearly varies depending on configuration, and can
be much longer than the PON ODN (orange bar). Optical amplifiers and video/data WDM are not shown.

Configuration 1 in Figure 1 is easily the simplest to understand and most trivial to

analyze, and is thus typically the most common configuration addressed in basic
overviews of FTTH video service. However, it is not necessarily the most common
configuration. In this arrangement, the terrestrial video signal (regardless of signal
format) originates from the same location as the PON OLT and primary voice/data
network functions from a collocated video headend (HE). Here, broadcast video signals
are received with a combination of aerial off-air antennae, large-diameter satellite dishes,
and (sometimes) direct optical feeds from local broadcasters. Alternately, aggregated
video content may be transmitted digitally from a remote location and converted to RF at
the collocated HE. All terrestrial signal generation equipme nt, such as RF modulators,
optical video transmitters, and optical erbium doped fiber amplifiers (EDFAs) are housed
in the same location as the OLT. Therefore, the RF video signal is only transported over
the PON ODN, covering a standards- mandated maximum distance of 20 km. Optical
losses encountered in this portion of the network are still quite significant, considering
the impact of connectors, optical splitters, cabled fiber, splices, along with allocated
margins in the loss budget for aging and repairs. As a result, amplified optical launch
power requirements for RF video can range from 14 to more than 20 dBm, in order to
meet received power requirements. These power levels are obviously dependent on
distance, choice of standard or specialized optics and electronics, design margins, and
overall configuration of the PON ODN.

Configuration 2 in Figure 1 is quite similar to configuration 1, with optical video signa ls

originating at a local video headend collocated with the local central office. In this case,
however, Optical Line Terminal (OLT) optics and electronics are not centrally located at
the HE/CO, but are distributed through the field in remote terminals (RT). This
configuration is sometimes found in reasonably-sized (several thousand HHP) rural
FTTH deployments with relatively low subscriber density (perhaps 5-20 homes per mile).
ODN characteristics such as loss budget may be similar to configuration 1. By remotely
locating OLTs, operators can accommodate CO-to-ONT distances which otherwise
would exceed the maximum PON ODN lengths determined by logical limitations and as
defined in standards. Therefore, the total distance covered by the optical RF video signal
can significantly exceed the total length of any individual ODN, as illustrated. In most
cases, optical amplifiers will be located at both the HE/CO and at each RT, where video
signals will be multiplexed with OLT signals onto a single fiber for each PON. Overall
video signal distances in such configurations can exceed 30-40 km.

Configuration 3 is commonly used in large (>10,000 HHP) FTTH network deployments.

Here, a regional video headend is centrally located to serve a number of separate central
offices. The headend in this case is sometimes referred to as a video hub office (VHO).
This design somewhat resembles modern consolidated Cable TV networks, with a single
broadcast headend serving multiple local hub facilities over “trunk” or “supertrunk” lines.
Video signals in this case will typically see the longest transmission distances of all the
configurations, sometimes approaching 60-80 km or more between headend and ONT,
well in excess of the maximum allowable ODN distance. Additionally, EDFAs will
typically be placed at intervals of 20 to 40 km.

RF Video Transport Optical Limitations

A standard single- mode optical fiber infrastructure can present limitations in each of the
RF video overlay network configurations discussed above. Common throughout each of
the configurations is the potential limitation of stimulated Brillouin scattering (SBS). SBS
occurs when an optical signal excites the molecular structure of an optical fiber,
generating an acoustic wave which backscatters a portion of the signal back onto itself. In
simplified terms, a portion of the signal is essentially reflected backwards. This will
obviously reduce the power received at the end of the network, but it will also impart
severe noise and distortions onto the transmitted signal. Therefore, SBS limits the
maximum amount of optical power that can be launched into a length of optical fiber by
establishing a threshold, above which RF video signals (both analog and digital) can be
severely degraded. The impact of SBS on analog video signal quality is clearly illustrated
in Figure 2, where the introduction of both noise and distortion is evident.
 a b
Figure 2: Comparison of RF analog video signals with optical launch power (a) below the system’s SBS
threshold, and (b) above the system’s SBS threshold. Both examples are from CH78 monitored under a 78
channel analog load over 20km of single -mode fiber with loss simulated to represent presence of 1x32
optical splitter. No digital QAM loading and no PON 1310/1490nm wavelengths were present, which
would otherwise induce additional signal deterioration. Transmitter used was conventional CATV-grade
and rated for 17 dBm SBS threshold over 50 km of standard single-mode fiber.

The effect of SBS has been identified for quite some time[3], and has been an issue in
video transport networks, such as supertrunk links built by CATV operators, for nearly
10 years since the advent of linearized 1550 nm transmitters and low-noise optical
amplifiers. Transmitter manufacturers have, through various electronic techniques,
mitigated the effect significantly by increasing the fundamental SBS threshold of video
transmitters through various applications of high frequency modulation. However, these
techniques have their limits, and the industry largely has learned to live within the
limitations of SBS, assuming that the capability of single- mode fiber is static. The SBS
threshold of a system employing standard off- the-shelf video transmitters and standard
single- mode fiber (encompassing all standard single- mode fibers with reduced water peak
attenuation) is commonly considered to be 16-18 dBm over a distance of 50 km. SBS
threshold actually increases with shorter distances, and as a result, situations such as
those in configuration 1 can typically support optical power levels about 1.5 dB higher
over a 20 km distance. Still, configurations 2 and 3 commonly see little improvement in
SBS threshold since video signal distances commonly exceed the maximum 20 km
encountered by PON optics. Recent improvements in the fundamental understanding of
SBS behavior in optical fibers[4], however, has allowed the design of ITU-T G.652.D-
compliant single- mode fibers with significantly increased SBS threshold levels[5] while
maintaining backward compatibility with legacy standard single- mode fiber. By
incorporating fibers with enhanced SBS threshold, network operators are seeing more
flexibility in network architecture, video transmission equipment choice, and design
budgets and margins.

Installation and Connectivity

With any broadband access network technology, the cost of network construction
dominates, especially in overbuild scenarios. The same holds true for FTTH. All wireline
architectures must deal with trenching and aerial installation of cables, as well as
establishing cross-connect functionality in the field and making the eventual connection
directly to the subscriber premises.

Reduced-Size Local Convergence Point

A significant element of a FTTH PON-based network is the cross-connect functionality

residing in a local convergence point (LCP) splitter cabinet. The LCP is arguably the
most critical element in the PON outside plant, as it is the point of basic connectivity
between feeder and distribution segments of the network, as well as a rugged enclosure
for the passive optical splitters which form the basis of the PON architecture. The density
of connections in an LCP will vary depending on network density and operator design
choices, but it is not uncommon for a single cabinet to effectively support up to 432 or
864 customer ports.

The importance of design considerations in an LCP cannot be overstated. The cabinet

must be craft-friendly with intuitive fiber routing, offer easy access for the service
technician and adapt to support increasing subscriber take rates and bandwidth. Current
offerings in the market can vary significantly in their ability to meet these design goals,
but very capable options do exist. To date, however, a significant issue still remains
around the overall physical size of these network elements. Typical installation of an LCP
requires several construction technicians, and a crane is commonly employed as the
larger units can weigh several hundred pounds. Freight charges and allocated warehouse
space are also directly dependent on the physical unit size. Aesthetics of an overall
installation must also be taken into account; network operators would much rather have
subscribers be overwhelmed by the speed of the network entering the home than to be
overwhelmed by the size of the box in the ir front yard!

A well-designed cabinet can make very efficient use of space with newly designed
splitter modules, improved fiber management, and jumper cables with reduced outer
diameter combined with a standard single mode fiber with improved bend performance.
The standards-compliant fiber can be bent in tighter configurations than today's standard
single- mode fiber while maintaining the same outstanding optical performance and
mechanical reliability (< 1 ppm failure probability) of conventional single-mode fibers.
All this leads to a new design standard with extremely beneficial implications on the
physical size of local convergence point cabinets, as illustrated in Figure 3. The
dimensions of the LCP can now approach those of a common Cable TV pedestal, which
has significant implications on installation and customer satisfaction. With size reduction
comes dramatic weight reduction, allowing the possibility of installation with fewer
technicians, and no need for a crane. Freight and storage costs are reduced as well. Most
significantly, neighborhood residents will likely not even notice the presence of these
devices.
Figure 3: Comparison of a current generation LCP (left) and size-reduced cabinet (right).
Port density and usability of the two devices are the same, but a dramatic reduction in
size and weight is realized.
Source: Corning Cable Systems

Gel-Free Optical Fiber Cables

Although splice time still needs to be considered for deployment cost and productivity in
the feeder and distribution section of FTTH networks, fusion splicing equipment and
techniques have evolved to a point where the actual time and effort required to perform
and protect the actual splice is minimal. Preparation time, however, with standard cable
configurations continues to introduce significant time and labor costs. Standard cables, in
both loose tube and ribbon configurations, are filled with an oil-based flooding
compound, or gel, to prevent water incursion into the cable. While this gel serves to
water-block the cable, the gel is universally reviled by installers for the tedious cleaning
required to prepare fibers for splicing, not to mention stained clothing and contaminated
equipment that result when opening a cable for access. Recent advancements in “gel-
free” cable designs have eliminated the filling compounds, replacing them with
completely dry water-swellable tapes and yarns. These gel- free cable designs can meet all
relevant industry standards and testing requirements (e.g., Telcordia GR-20-CORE) just
as conventional cable designs do, but offer dramatic improvements in craft-friendliness,
associated labor costs and productivity. Gel- free loose tube and ribbon cable
configurations are illustrated in Figure 4.
 a b
Figure 4: Cutaway views of (a) gel- free loose tube cable, and (b) gel- free ribbon cable.
Source: Corning Cable Systems

Pre-Connectorized Optical Fiber Drop Cables

Finally, termination of FTTH optical drop cables at the subscriber premises introduces a
completely new paradigm to most network operators. Extending the skills of a fiber
splicing technician to every household in a network deployment can significantly impact
installation cost, as well as increase the time required to activate new service. The advent
of pre-connectorized drop cables, either all-dielectric or toneable, dramatically alters this
scenario. This technology allows a standard installation technician to quickly deploy a
drop cable and simply attach an error-proof ruggedized connector to a connector
assembly at the ONT, rather than fusion splicing to a bare fiber pigtail. Installation time
and cost are significantly reduced, and the ease of connecting and disconnecting the drop
allows for rapid and simple network testing when required for fault isolation and service
diagnostics. A pre-connectorized Optical Network Terminal is shown in Figure 5.
Figure 5: Pre-connectorized Optical Network Terminal (ONT), designed to accept a pre-
connectorized optical drop cable. The connector is circled in red.
Source: Corning Cable Systems

Conclusion

Network limitations, to varying degrees, directly impact the bottom line of network
operators looking to begin, or expand upon, FTTH network deployment. Some problems
can indeed be addressed with existing options, but at the expense of increased active
and/or passive equipment cost or reduced network design flexibility. Other problems
have, to date, been largely unresolved and were simply tolerated. Paramount in any
optimization of the underlying physical infrastructure should be considerations of
interoperability with legacy technologies and future increases in bandwidth, and where
appropriate, compliance with accepted industry standards. We have shown various areas
where network flexibility and/or installation costs can limit the success of FTTH
deployments, and presented passive solutions to these issues which allow interoperability
with the widest variety of electronics solutions and transparency to potential future
network service upgrades.

Acknowledgements

The author thank s A. Boh Ruffin of Corning Incorporated for video signal data and
experimental validation, and David Meis and Mark Turner of Corning Cable Systems.
References

1. J. Farmer, “Video in the FTTH triple-play package: Broadcast or IPTV Open this
result in new window,” Lightwave Magazine, (July 2005).
2. C. Knittle, “RF/IP Hybrid Network for Video Delivery over FTTP,” Proceedings of
OFC (2005).
3. R. Smith, “Optical power handling capacity of low loss optical fibers as determined by
stimulated Raman and Brillouin scattering,” Appl. Opt. 11, pp. 2489-2494 (Nov. 1972).
4. A. Kobyakov et al., “Design concept for optical fibers with enhanced SBS threshold,”
Optics Express 13, pp. 5338-5346 (July 2005).
5. “NexCor™ Optical Fiber Product Information Sheet,” Corning Incorporated, (July
2005).