Monthly Archives: January 2019

A Strategy for Upgrading GPON

I’ve been asked a lot during 2018 if fiber overbuilders ought to be considering the next generation of PON technology that might replace GPON. They hear about the newer technologies from vendors and the press. For example, Verizon announced a few months ago that they would begin introducing Calix NGPON2 into their fiber network next year. The company did a test using the technology recently in Tampa and achieved 8 Gbps speeds. AT&T has been evaluating the other alternate technology, XGS-PON, and may be introducing it into their network in 2019.

Before anybody invests a lot of money in a GPON network it’s a good idea to always ask if there are better alternatives – as should be done for every technology deployed in the network.

One thing to consider is how Verizon plans on using NGPON2. They view this as the least expensive way to deliver bandwidth to a 5G network that consists of multiple small cells mounted on poles. They like PON technology because it accommodates multiple end-points using a single last-mile fiber, meaning a less fiber-rich network than with other 10-gigabit technologies. Verizon also recently began the huge task of consolidating their numerous networks and PON gives them a way to consolidate multi-gigabit connections of all sorts onto a single platform.

Very few of my clients operate networks that have a huge number of 10-gigabit local end points. Anybody that does should consider Verizon’s decision because NGPON2 is an interesting and elegant solution for handling multiple large customer nodes while also reducing the quantity of lit fibers in the network.

Most clients I work with operate PON networks to serve a mix of residential and business customers. The first question I always ask them is if a new technology will solve an existing problem in their network. Is there anything that a new technology can do that GPON can’t do? Are my clients seeing congestion in neighborhood nodes that are overwhelming their GPON network?

Occasionally I’ve been told that they want to provide faster connections to a handful of customers for which the PON network is not sufficient – they might want to offer dedicated gigabit or larger connections to large businesses, cell sites or schools. We’ve always recommended that clients design networks with the capability of large Ethernet connections external to the PON network. There are numerous affordable technologies for delivering a 10-gigabit pipe directly to a customer with active Ethernet. It seems like overkill to consider upgrading the electronics to all customers to satisfy the need of a few large customers rather than overlaying a second technology into the network. We’ve always recommended that networks have some extra fiber pairs in every neighborhood exactly for this purpose.

I’ve not yet heard an ISP tell me that they are overloading a residential PON network due to customer data volumes. This is not surprising. GPON was introduced just over a decade ago, and at that time the big ISPs offered speeds in the range of 25 Mbps to customers. GPON delivers 2.4 gigabits to up to 32 homes and can easily support residential gigabit service. At the time of introduction GPON was at least a forty-times increase in customer capacity compared to DSL and cable modems – a gigantic leap forward in capability. It takes a long time for consumer household usage to grow to fill that much new capacity. The next biggest leap forward we’ve seen was the leap from dial-up to 1 Mbps DSL – a 17-times increase in capacity.

Even if somebody starts reaching capacity on a GPON there are some inexpensive upgrades that are far less expensive than upgrading to a new technology. A GPON network won’t reach capacity evenly and would see it in some neighborhood nodes first. The capacity in a neighborhood GPON node can easily be doubled by cutting the size of the node in half by splitting it to two PONs. I have one client that did the math and said that as long as they can buy GPON equipment they would upgrade by splitting a few times – from 32 to 16 homes and from 16 homes to 8 homes, and maybe even from 8 to 4 customers before they’d consider tearing out GPON for something new. Each such split doubles capacity and splitting nodes three times would be an 8-fold increase in capacity. If we continue on the path of seeing household bandwidth demand double every three years, then splitting nods twice would easily add more than another decade to the life of a PON network. In doing that math it’s important to understand that splitting a node actually more than doubles capacity because it also decreases the oversubscription factor for each customer on the node.

AT CCG we’ve always prided ourselves on being technology neutral and vendor neutral. We think network providers should use the technology that most affordably fits the needs of their end users. We rarely see a residential fiber network where GPON is not the clear winner from a cost and performance perspective. We have clients using numerous active Ethernet technologies that are aimed at serving large businesses or for long-haul transport. But we are always open-minded and would easily recommend NGPON2 or XGS-PON if it is the best solution. We just have not yet seen a network where the new technology is the clear winner.

Remember the Dumb Pipe?

I recently read an article that warned that the big ISPS need to embrace artificial intelligence, software defined networks and cloud infrastructure if they don’t want to become a ‘dumb pipe’ provider. It reminded me that the small ISP industry heard this same warning a decade ago. Small telcos and cable companies were all warned by numerous industry experts that they were fated to just become dumb pipes.

After a couple of years the dumb pipe phrase passed out of our conversations, but the issues that led to that warning were all still in play. Even a decade ago we knew that services other than broadband had a dim long-term future.

A decade ago we saw landline penetrations dip below 90% from a high of around 98%. There were dire warnings everywhere that voice would soon be dead and that voice margins would evaporate. Since then we’ve seen a steady market decline of about 5% of total market share annually, but that means that even after a decade that landlines still have a nationwide penetration rate of about 40%. The decline hasn’t been spread evenly and I have clients with voice penetration rates ranging between 20% and 55%.

We also knew a decade ago that cable TV was going to be in trouble. Netflix had just gone online with pay-per-view movies in 2007, but nobody understood then how powerful online video would become. The real concern then was that small video providers were already seeing annual programming rate increases that neared double-digits and everybody feared that the public would not tolerate large annual rate increases forever. For most small providers this was the first time they had ever had to annually raise rates for a product and nobody was comfortable. But the lure of programming is strong, and even after a decade of rate increases that have easily doubled cable TV prices the national penetration rate is around 68% for traditional cable TV – not drastically below the 75% penetration of a decade ago. It turns out that the public still likes the programming more than they hate the rate increases.

The real fear of becoming a dumb pipe a decade ago was that small ISPs would have to survive on nothing but broadband revenues. A decade ago small ISPs had broadband penetration rates in the 40% to 50% range and when they did the math they didn’t foresee that as enough revenue to replace the shrinking landline and video revenues. Many small telcos were so sure about the downfall of the small ISP industry that of them sold their businesses, fearing they’d never see a higher valuation.

However, since then we’ve seen broadband penetration rates continue to grow and roughly 84% of homes nationwide now pay for a broadband connection. Rising broadband penetration rates settled the fears of many small ISPs who are still in business.

Interestingly, many small ISPs have not raised broadband rates since a decade ago. It’s been hard to justify raising rates when the big ISPs also didn’t raise rates. Urban broadband that was overpriced a decade ago looks like more of a bargain after a decade of steady rates.

The good news for small ISPs is that the big ISPs are now poised to significantly raise broadband rates. In November we just saw Charter raise the broadband price for bundled customers by $5 per month – an increase that is unprecedented in the industry. Wall street analysts are telling the big cable companies that the market can bear broadband rates as high as $90, and they seem to be listening. As the big ISPs raise broadband rates, small ISPs will be able to ride the coattails and edge rates higher – knowing that for them that rate increases will go straight to the bottom line.

I don’t see any small ISPs who are worried about becoming the dumb pipe – because most of them are already there. If they still offer cable TV, they do so for customer convenience because the product has no margin. Small ISPs continue to lose landline customers, but they now understand that they can survive on broadband and related products like managed WiFi.

The main issue facing small ISPs these days is economy of scale. It’s clear that when broadband represents most of the margin of an ISP that profits come by controlling costs. The best way to control costs is not by tightening the belt, but by gaining customers to better spread existing costs. I see many small ISPs doing the math and aggressively pursuing new broadband customers. Far from fearing being a dumb pope provider, I see small ISPs enthusiastically embracing that role and growing their customers and their margins.