Considerations for deployment of IPTV on Passive Optical Networks

by

Shimon Hochbaum
BroadLight, Inc.
shimon.hochbaum@broadlight.com

1 Introduction
Fiber to the Premise (FTTP) deployments have accelerated dramatically since 2003, by
both smaller and larger service providers in North America. While the Radio-Frequency
(RF) overlay has been the method of choice to deliver Video services as part of the
famed ‘Triple-Play,” most operators are now turning to IPTV as the preferred method to
deliver a low-cost, rich set of video services. This is due in part for the need to create a
homogeneous broadband access networks (DSL, Fiber, and Wireless) as well as the
goal to take advantage of richer functionalities of digital systems. This paper will
compare the various Passive Optical Networks (PON) technologies and their capacity
for providing short, medium and long-term IPTV services.

2 PON standards
There are three worldwide standards for PON :
- ITU-T generated first G.983 series of recommendation for a Broadband PON
(BPON), which supports any service encapsulated in ATM; the standard is
defined for up to 1.2Gbps downstream and 64-way split.
- ITU-T G.984 series for a Gigabit-capable Passive Optical Networks (GPON)
supports any service encapsulated in GPON Encapsulation Mode (GEM) or
ATM; line rates defined in this standard range from 622 Mbps and up to 2,488
Mbps in the downstream, and split ratio up to 128 in anticipation of advances in
optical components.
- IEEE 802.3ah (EPON) defines requirements for transport of Ethernet traffic in
point-multipoint mode at 1.2Gbps and a maximum of 64-way split.
Table 1 shows the common configurations for the PON standards. The useable
bandwidth is the bandwidth delivered to the users after the overhead for encapsulation
or point-multipoint management has been subtracted from the line rate.

-1-
 Table 1: Common PON Configurations

Standard BPON GPON EPON

Line-rate (downstream) 622 Mbps 2,488 Mbps 1,024 Mbps
Useable bandwidth (downstream) 507 Mbps 2,300 Mbps 900 Mbps
Split-ratio (practical) 32:1 64:1 32:1 or 16:1

As for the maturity of these standards, they vary greatly. BPON is the most mature of
the three, having been deployed all over the world for the past five years. Due to its
higher speed and lower cost over BPON for Ethernet services, EPON has been
deployed in Japan for the past year where it is known as GE-PON. However, with the
ratification of the GPON standard by the ITU-T in 2004, attentions have shifted and
many carriers are looking to deploy GPON compliant equipment due to its promise of
higher speed and lower cost over EPON. Since BPON generally supports video by
means of an RF overlay while GPON and EPON have the Gbps speed to support IPTV,
the rest of this paper will focus on GPON and on EPON.
An interesting attribute of a PON is the ability to build unicast as well as broadcast
connections. Figure 1 shows two unicast, or point-point, connections on a PON (left
side). The information is carried from the Optical Line Terminal (OLT) in a CO to one
single Optical Network Terminal (ONT), and vice-versa. The example on the right shows
a broadcast connection, where the traffic is sent from the OLT to all ONTs on the same
PON.

-2-
 Figure 1: Unicast and Broadcast connections on PON

3 IPTV services
TV services are offered in two modes. The basic mode is the broadcast mode, where
the same program is available to all customers at the same time. Another mode is “on-
demand”, which encompasses a variety of offerings. The simplest one is “pay-per-view”
where the customer can elect to see a broadcasted program, and pay for it on a special
assessment. These programs are broadcasted simultaneously on multiple “broadcast”
channels and with a staggered delay, creating a “near-on-demand” effect to allow for
some flexibility with the viewing time. The most advanced offering is even more
personalized, allowing the user to select the start-time, and also to pause, or fast-
forward/reward the program. While all this seems transparent to the end-user during
daily use, we are going to see that the network implementations are very different.
Note: Many consumers own or subscribe to a Personal Video Recorder (PVR) offering. This
type of service does not add anything new to the modes exposed above. The PVR device can
record broadcasted or personalized programs in the same way as a person would view the
programs.
Another consideration is the format and the encoding of the programs. While television
programs have been in “standard definition” (525 lines NTSC in the US, black-and-

-3-
white, then color), a significant improvement begun during the 90’s with the specification
of High-Definition TV (HDTV) at up to 1080 lines.
In order to be compatible with an IP network, TV programs must be encoded. The most
common encoding standard is MPEG-2 published in 1994 to carry video in interlaced
format (typical for TV programs) and audio in more than 2 channels over somewhat-
unreliable media. A newer standard, MPEG-4, has been introduced in 1998 with many
enhancements, the most relevant for IPTV being Part 10 Advanced Video Coding (AVC)
which delivers a video quality similar to MPEG-2 at half the bandwidth (or lower). The
bandwidth requirements for the different types of programs and encoding are shown in
Table 2.
Table 2: TV Programs Encoding standards and bit-rates
Program format Standard Definition High-Definition TV
(SD) (HDTV)
Encoding

MPEG-2 3.0 Mbps 18 Mbps

MEPG-4 1.7 Mbps 10 Mbps

4 IPTV and PON

As most of the TV programming is now offered, and consumed, in broadcast mode, it is
likely that IPTV on PON will take advantage of the PON broadcast functionality. This is
described in Figure 2 on the left. A large PON broadcast channel carries all TV
broadcast content over the PON. Dozens and hundreds of programs can be delivered
this way. The Set Top Boxes (STB) in the home communicate with the network on
programs requests by mean of the Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP). The
protocol includes procedure for hosts to join and leave a group: in the IPTV application,
this means STB can request, or abandon, viewing a certain channel. The ONTs have
simply to monitor the IGMP activity to “decide” which programs to send into the home.
In the example on the left, we see that ONT 2 delivers two broadcast programs to the
home, while ONT 1 delivers one broadcast program, and one personal program.

-4-
 Figure 2: IPTV on PON
As there is little content and equipment available now in MPEG-4, the near term
analysis will model the bandwidth requirements of MPEG-2 for the video services.
MPEG-4 will be considered in the long-term analysis.
The model for the short and medium term with broadcast is shown in Figure 3. It is
evaluated for both EPON and GPON, using a short-term channel line-up of 100 SD and
20 HD programs, followed by a mid-term line-up of 80 SD and 70 HD programs.
Another consideration is the mix of services and their take-rate. We propose both a
conservative setup, and a more advanced one. First we show the assumptions for 3
types of users, and the different mix of services they are likely to enjoy. The customer
mix is likely to change over the next few years, with more advanced and early adopters
after a few years. Taking into account the bandwidth per service, we derive an average
bandwidth per home for the short- and mid-term. We also show the amount of
bandwidth that should be reserved on the PON for the broadcast line-up again in the
short- and mid-term. We can then subtract the amount of bandwidth to be reserved and
divide the reminder by the average bandwidth per home. The result is the number of
homes that can be supported by a PON.

-5-
 Basic Advanced Early
User User Adopter
SDTV 3 Mbps / program 1 1 On-demand
HDTV 18 Mbps / program 1 1 channels per home
Interne 20:1 oversubscription 5 15 30 Mbps for Internet
t Access
Voice 100 Kbps / phone line 1.3 2.5 2.5 Phone lines / home
3.38 19.75 26.25 Bandwidth per home
[Mbps]

Customer Mix 85% 20% 5% Short-term

50% 40% 10% Mid-term
Average bandwidth 8 Short-term
required per home 12 Mid-term
[Mbps]
TV channels lineup SD HD
Now 100 20 660 PON bandwidth
~ 3 years 80 70 1,500 reserved for
broadcast [Mbps]
EPON GPON
Short-term “85/20/5” 25 202 Homes per PON, per
Mid-term “50/40/10” N/A 65 model

Figure 3: Near-term IPTV over PON model

The immediate conclusion is that an EPON will be limited in the amount of homes it can
support initially (25 is below the target split of 32:1) and is not likely to support a
broadcast model after a few years. We should also note that this model assumes that
ONTs are dedicated one per home. Some service providers are indeed planning their
network with Single Family Home (SFH) ONT. However, others are taking advantage of
the concentration of apartments in buildings to lower the cost of the network. Deploying
Multi-Dwelling Units (MDU) ONT would task EPON beyond capacity. In comparison,
GPON will continue to support up to 65 homes per PON in the near term.
Two developments are likely in the next 3 to 5 tears:
1) MPEG-4 encoding will be deployed in the network, resulting in lower bandwidth
requirements per program
2) Entertainment is going more personalized to a point where reserving bandwidth for
broadcast channels may not make sense.

-6-
Figure 4 shows the capability of PON to support IPTV in a pure unicast model with
MPEG4 encoding for Video. As this is likely to happen somewhat in the future, the
model assumes a higher take-rate of services.
Note: the figures of 24 and 30 Mbps are modeling numbers for capacity planning, taking into
account average use, and oversubscription factors.

Basic Advanced Early

User User Adopter
SDTV 1.7 Mbps / program 3 2 3 On-demand
HDTV 10 Mbps / program 1 2 3 channels per home
Interne 20:1 oversubscription 20 50 100 Mbps for Internet
t Access
Voice 100 Kbps / phone line 1.3 2.5 2.5 Phone lines / home
16.23 26.98 52.17 Bandwidth per home
[Mbps]

Customer Mix 50% 40% 10% Mid-term

20% 60% 20% Long-term
Average bandwidth 24 Mid-term
required per home 30 Long-term
[Mbps]
EPON GPON
Mid-term “50/40/10” 36 95 Homes per PON, per
Long-term “20/60/20” 29 77 model

Figure 4: Long-term IPTV over PON model

As there is no reserved bandwidth on the PON, and we can now divide the full useable
bandwidth by the bandwidth per home. Here again we find that EPON will be limited,
and service providers will have to reduce the split-ratio of their EPON networks to offer
advanced entertainment options, likely to be the expected by their subscribers in a few
years. On the other hand, GPON exhibits a good margin even in the long term, with
SFH or MDU ONT, allowing up to 77 users per PON.

-7-
5 Conclusion
Service providers deploying EPON will be quickly limited by the broadcast model. As
entertainment is likely to be more personalized, the shift toward a pure unicast model
will accelerate, reducing the numbers of home served by a PON. This negative impact
will be countered by the encoding efficiency of MPEG4 for video information, whether
TV or other forms of multimedia. Nevertheless, as the consumers appetite for
entertainment grows (HDTV, gaming or other forms of multimedia), the long-term model
shows that EPON networks will encounter additional limitations while GPON maintains
a reserve capacity for support of high-density deployments in MDU or additional high-
bandwidth entertainment.
###

-8-