1	Video Delivery in FTTH Network & Select Cable Responses May 2005, SCTE Tampa Harmonic, Inc. Broadband Access Networks Division Iain Drummond Senior Director, Product Marketing With thanks to: Ken Wang, PhD Director, FTTP Business Unit
2	What it’s all about… Competing with Cable MSOs Video, Data, & Voice
3	Video Service Coverage
4	HDTV Becoming Mainstream
5	Content Delivery Backdrop Video Delivery Choice Global US Europe Dev. Asia Analog Terrestrial Broadcast Video 37% 14% 50% 48% Analog Cable Broadcast Video 30% 38% 18% 36% Analog Satellite Broadcast Video 4% <1% 10% <1% Analog Only 71% 52% 78% 84% Digital Satellite Broadcast Video 15% 22% 12% 10% Digital Cable Broadcast Video 12% 25% 4% 5% Digital Terrestrial Broadcast Video 2% 0% 5% <1% Digital FTTH (BPON) Broadcast Video 0% 0% 0% 0% Digital Broadcast Only 29% 47% 21% 15% Broadcast Video 99+% 99+% 99+% 99+% ADSL/ ADSL2+ IP Video <1% <1% <1% <1% Digital FTTH (BPON, EPON) IP Video 0% 0% 0% 0% IP Video <1% <1% <1% <1% Source: UBS Global Pay TV model (1 December 2004)
6	Video Delivery Approaches
7	Video Delivery Approaches Why IPTV (switched digital video) Regarded as more highly interactive A converged network in IP High video quality
8	Video Delivery Approaches Why analog TV No need for STB Low cost service Content availability
9	Video Delivery Approaches Why digital TV High spectral efficiency Easily support HDTV (5.2Gbps, 250 MPEG2 HD streams) Easy market segmentation Mature technology Excellent video quality Low cost compare solution
10	Video Delivery – Best Approach RF/IP Hybrid Model
11	Service Coverage
12	FTTH – RF Overlay Architecture
13	RF Video Evolution
14	FTTH Standard; ITU G.983
15	FTTH Network
16
17
18	Video Transport for FTTH – Analog Super-Trunk
19	Why RF Video Overlay?
20	RF/IP video architecture Use RF overlay for broadcast Use IPTV for interactive service, VOD Address all market needs Scalable Flexible – today and tomorrow Competitive overall cost – core network, access, and premise
21	RF/IP Hybrid Architecture
22	Products View
23	The Video-OLT
24	MAXLink Plus HLT8709 – MAXLink Plus 1550nm Transmitter Customized for PON application NEBS compliant Twice the SBS suppression (+20dBm), half the RIN 48dB CNR for a 25dB link budget (-5dBm at ONT) w/ 80 analog, 200MHz digital video channels US Patent 5,940,196 + patents pending SNMP Interface Pizza box form factor
25	Improving performance: dual l Tx
26	Dual l vs. single l transmitter
27	More Cable bandwidth
28	Running out of bandwidth 750 MHz system Analog broadcast 500 MHz Digital broadcast 150 MHz Narrowcast services 50 MHz HSI, VOD, voice, etc 1000 HP / node, 1 transmitter serving each node Bandwidth crunch for two possible reasons Greater Narrowcast take rate (HSI, VOD) New Broadcast video services (HD)
29	Bandwidth expansion techniques Network Upgrade (860 MHz / 1 GHz) Segmentation Switched Digital Broadcast Re-encoding
30	1. Network upgrade Creates new spectrum 19 QAMs (114 MHz) upgrading to 862 MHz additional 23 QAMs (138 MHz) upgrading to 1000 MHz Costly Forklift upgrade of HFC network RF amplifiers, optical transmitters, and nodes Construction takes time Major service impact for all customers Does not help the return path
31	2. Segment service areas Base Case: Service area defined by physical node, ~1000 HP 1 forward transmitter and 1 return transmitter per node All shared bandwidth 50 MHz for narrowcast
32	2. Segment service areas
33	2. Segment service areas Frees a lot of spectrum Narrowcast bandwidth quadruples, 24 QAMs (150 MHz) or reuse narrowcast bandwidth for broadcast content Opens up the return path, 4x return bandwidth Very scaleable Segment one service group at a time Forward and/or return, x2 or x4 ~$4000 per node area for 50 MHz Minimal service impact with scaleable nodes
34	3. Switched digital broadcast
35	4. Re-encoding Increased number of services per 6 MHz channel 16:1 or even 18:1 (comparing to 11:1 today) Mix of HD and SD => More efficiency and QOS No affect on the digital system and CAS High VQ Cost effective for bigger systems Frees 50-60 MHz
36	Closed-Loop SD Statistical Multiplexing
37	Closed-Loop HD/SD Statistical Multiplexing
38	Business Case #2 – Adding 25 HD Current Digital Broadcast Tier of 25 QAMs (150Mhz) Average of 11:1 grooming (275 services) Implementation Decoder/Encoder 275 SD & 25 HD 11-13 SD & 1HD per QAM Result Additional 25 HD channels @ highest VQ & QOS Free ~24 MHz (4 QAMs) Cost: ~$7M Note: can be done gradually as new HD channels are added
39	Reclamation techniques Network Upgrade (860 MHz / 1 GHz) Segmentation Switched Digital Broadcast Re-encoding
40	Leading in Access Focused on Video THANKS!
41	Cost Implication RF/IP Hybrid
42	HDTV Drives Bandwidth Demand
43	Digital Modulation
44	Launched optical power
45	Dual wavelength transmitter
46	Why Harmonic MAXLink Plus? Lower system cost, less EDFA in CO More video channels Superior video quality (better CNR) Longer reach and higher split ratio Simple design rules Maximum benefit when Higher analog channel counts Longer VHO-CO distances more EDFA’s are in the link