Broadband Access Solutions And Economics For Rural Areas

1
Broadband Access Solutions And Economics For
Rural Areas

• 15.12.2003
• Peter.Vetter_at_alcatel.be

2
Outline

• Introduction
• BB access solutions
• Selecting the most cost effective solution
• Open service platform
• MUSE
• Recommendations
• (Abbreviations)

3
BB access for rural areasIntroduction

• Approaches for (sub)urban areas are not suited
  for rural areas
• High speed internet 1 Mbps (ADSL lt 5 km)
• Multi media streaming 3 Mbps (ADSL lt 3 km)
• HDTV, Video distribution, multiple users/home
  10-100 Mbps
• Different solutions possible

Premises 1 user
Access node 5-75 users
Aggregation node 1000 - 10000 users
Access
Backhauling
ADSL Wireless Satellite Fibre
Leased lines E1 Wireless Satellite Fibre
10-30 km with terrestrial solutions No limits
with the satellite
0-5 km
4
DSL in rural areas
10 Mb/s
10 Mb/s
Coverage
Coverage
Coverage
7.5 Mb/s
Coverage
Coverage
7.5 Mb/s
Coverage
Coverage
Coverage
Remote DSLAM
5.5 Mb/s
5.5 Mb/s
RemoteDSLAM
Coverage
Coverage
Coverage
Coverage
Coverage
Coverage
Coverage
Coverage
3.5 Mb/s
3.5 Mb/s
Remote Unit
Increasing loop length
DSLAM
1 Mb/s
1 Mb/s

• Lowest cost
• Investments scale linear (large choice of remote
  DSLAM with different modularity)
• Suited for clustered rural users

• Limited reach
• Combination with backhauling feeder needed

5
DSL bonding as backhauling
n x 2 Mbps (n1,2,4,8) SHDSL
Active repeater per 2.5 km
ADSL

• Low cable infrastructure cost
• Low cost equipment

• Limited reach for backhauling
• Limited bandwidth
• Active repeater points needed (operational cost)

6
Wireless solutions for rural access
Wireless IP "Wireless DSL" (lt10 GHz) 1 Mbps /
15 km
PTP micro wave lt100 Mbps / 10 km
WiFi WLAN (2.5 GHz) 2 Mbps / 3-5 km

• No wireline infrastructure required
• Fast roll-out possible
• Solutions available for access and backhauling

• Limited BW/reach for non line of sight radio
  technology (lt10 GHz)
• High BW solutions (28-40 GHz) are line of sight
  and high cost

7
2-way satellite access
Bi-directional 64kbps/2Mbps Standard interface
DVB-RCS
Satellite Hub

• Unlimited reach, quick and easy deployment
• Direct access and backhauling
• Robust in times of crisis
• High bandwidth
• Satellite downstream terrestrial upstream
  possible

• Large initial investment (but shared between
  numerous actors)
• Latency (e.g. gaming)

8
Optical fibre
BPON (622/155 Mbit/s) GPON (1.25/1.25 Gbit/s)
FTTH
132
SDH Ethernet

• Long reach, highest BW
• Future safe
• Robust, low maintenance cost
• Today mainly for backhauling

• High civil works cost

9
End to End combinations
Access
Aggregation
CPE
Operator/ISP
- Fiber ATM/IP
Internet
100-1000 Km
10
Selecting the most cost-effective solutions

• Capex estimation (Capital Expenditure)
• CPE cost
• Network costs short term amortisation 3 to 5
  years (3 y. in study)
• Active network equipment (access nodes,
  aggregation, )
• Network costs long term amortisation 15 to 20
  years (20 y. in study)
• Civil works (Laying fibre, Building radio tower)
• Opex estimation (Operational Expenditure)
• Equipment maintenance, renting (space/energy),
  are included.
• Network operations costs are not included.
• Comparison of monthly cost per user (reference
  Urban DSL1)

11
Cost comparison solutions for rural areas
(Access backhauling technology)
(Study for 2003, relative cost Urban DSL 1)
12
Survey end-to-end cost (2003)
Backhauling distance (km)
1
5
30
50
100
1000
1
5
30
50
100
1000
15
1
x6
Micro
2way Satellite
x2
80
ELLITE
village
10
Urban
Urban
x4,5
E2E Wireless IP
x2.5
x5
Average
Wi-Fi or DSL Wireless IP
WIP
WIP
WIP
Urban
or
30
or
DSL
or
Wifi
Wifi
Wi-Fi
WiFi
WiFi
Wi-Fi
x3
x2,5...
or
or
or



Large
DS
L
DS
L
DS
L
Satellite
Satellite
Satellite
70
Village




50
30
Herzien
Liaisons
Leased
x2,5
x2...
Lines
Liaisons
Ref. Price x1
x2,5x4
Louées
Louées
70
connected users
First technology listed is the access technology,
while the second one is the backhauling technology
13
Main conclusions cost comparison

• Compared to DSL in urban areas, broadband access
  is 2 to 6 times more expensive in under-served
  areas

• Scattered users and small villages (about 10/20
  users)
• Medium villages (30-50 users)
• Large villages (70 users)

• Satellite is best solution(Cost ? 50 by 2005)
• Wireless (WiFi/WIP) or Wired (DSL
  Fibre/radio)(Cost ? 30 by 2005)
• Wired (DSL Fibre/microwave)(Cost ? 20 by
  2005)

14
How to improve the economics in rural areas ?

• Subsidies from local authorities to bridge the
  added cost
• prevent the digital divide of under-served areas
• Finance RD techno breakthroughs to drop hardware
  costs
• Exploration of new business models with utility
  companies
• sharing infrastructure and civil works
• New revenues through open service enabling
  platform
• allows access provider to provide added value and
  to tap on the revenue stream
• incentive for access provider to invest in better
  infrastructure

15
Cost improvements for Satellite
16
A competitive broadband services environment with
multiple actors across the value chain requires
open and interoperable industry standards
Home Networking

• Interoperable and open standards will ensure
• Home networking devices independent of services
• Content can be provided over different access
  infrastructures
• A level playing field for all market participants
• Consumers should be able to
• Store content on multiple sites in the home and
  on the network
• Add devices to their home network from multiple
  manufacturers
• Enjoy content on multiple devices

Modem
STB TV set
PC
Wi-Fi
Multiple Platforms
Multiple Services
Wired Networks
Cable Networks
Wireless Solutions
Mobile Networks
17
Multi Service access Everywhere

• EU FP6 Research project
• Objective
• Low cost, full service edge and access network
  for ubiquitous delivery of broadband services to
  all European users

• Consensus about the future access network and
  open service platform by major operators and
  vendors in Europe.
• Pre-standardisation work and joint position in
  standardisation bodies.
• MUSE aims to re-do the success story of GSM, by
  elaborating and promoting a GSB Global System
  for Broadband.
• Evaluation in lab trials.

18
MUSE Consortium
Phase I 2004-2005 Phase II 2006-2007 34
partners 110 PY/year
MUSE
System vendors
Operators
Component vendors
SME Aarhus BB society Robotiker
19
Recommendations

• ? A combination of different available
  technologies can offer the best solution for
  broadband access in rural areas and prevent the
  digital divide

? Open service platforms are needed to increase
the revenues on these networks
? In addition to FP6, research should be extended
in Eureka programme CELTIC to obtain short term
results

• ? Incentives for broadband in rural areas from
  local authorities will pay back
• directly by revenues from services
• indirectly by increased productivity and other
  macro economic returns

20
Abbreviations