«Techno-economics for next generation fixed access networks » � Methodology and framework – some key assumptions; � Major results of the fixed broadband access evolution scenarios Author: Thomas Monath, T-Systems Enterprise Services GmbH Co-Author’s: Sandro Krauss, Mario Kind, T-Systems Enterprise Services; Chris Hawinkel, Jan Van den Abeele, Alcatel; Antonio Elizondo, TID; Antoine Chuquet, Yann Denis, FT; Damiano Raspollini, TI; Daniel Ågren, Acreo; José Miguel Santos, Ricardo Afonso, PTI; Panagiotis Saltsidis, Thomas Kallstenius, Ericsson;
Outline � MUSE “Gaming field” � Objectives & Research Questions of MUSE techno-economics � Methodology & Framework Assumptions � Use Case Definitions and major Results � Migration use cases � Native Ethernet cases � Main Conclusion of the fixed broadband access evolution scenarios 2
MUSE “Gaming field” - Network evolution towards NG multi service capability Multi-service capable NGN leads to requirements: > Platform functions converge > Service & Network platform elements require new functions to be implemented (NT … aggregation nodes … BRAS ) > Bottleneck in the last mile must be overcome Automated OAM Application Application Subscriber, QoS, Subscriber, QoS, Lower cost server server and OAM management and OAM management Edge Edge node node Internet Internet FTTH FTTH Fixed-mobile convergence Access Access multiplexer multiplexer PSTN PSTN Increased intelligence New multimedia in access applications Access Aggregation Access Aggregation Network Network Wireless feeder Wireless feeder High bandwidth Home Home Increased fibre penetration New revenues by gateways gateways “Multi-service” access Application Application DSL DSL servers servers Functionality moving Applications initiated Kerb/Cabinet Kerb/Cabinet closer to subscribers from various CP devices 3
Objective & Research Questions Provide techno-economic validations of MUSE architectural and functional choices: > Two major technology trends in NG Access and Aggregation using Ethernet transport technology between home gateway and service edge in order to provide IP based services: > Pure Ethernet based switching technology (IEEE 802.1 xx) based on MAC in combination with service (S)VLAN “pipes” and > “IP” based network architecture using IP forwarding functionality based on the IP packet source and destination information > Functional evolutions: > PPP � DHCP, QoS, Multicast Approach: > Investigate several network migration and “Greenfield” scenarios (actually focused on Network Access Provider) 4
Value-Chain Players & Business Roles �������������#�������������������������!����������������$���� �������� �������� �������� �������� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �����������! �����������! �����������! �����������! �������� �������� �������� �������� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ������������������ ������������������ ������������������ ������������������ ����������� ����������� ����������� ����������� � � � � � � � � � � � � �������� �������� �������� �������� �� �� �� �� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� "�� "�� "�� "�� ��� ��� ��� ��� � � � � ����� ����� ����� ����� � � � � � � � � ��������� ��������� ��������� ��������� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� � �� �� �������� �������� �������� �������� � ��� �� ���� ������ ������ ������ ������ ����������� ����������� ����������� ����������� ��������� ��������� ��������� ��������� �������� �������� �������� �������� �������� �������� �������� �������� ���� ���� ���� ���� �������� �������� �������� �������� ������� ������� ������� ������� ������� ������� ������� ������� �������� �������� �������� �������� � � � � Techno-economic validation based on Network Access Provider (NAP) 5
Methodology – Cash Flow Analysis Demand for the Telecommunications Services Tool - Geometric Services Architectures environment DB Model OA&M Revenues Investments Costs Cash flows, Economic Profit & loss accounts Inputs Year 0 Year 1 Year n . . . Year m Discounted First Installed Payback First Installed NPV IRR NPV IRR … cumulated Cost - CAPEX Cost IST-2000-25172 “TONIC” cash flows 6
General Assumptions > Case study approach with focus on Access & Aggregation Network > Study period 2005 – 2010 > Business Model seeds back a certain percentage of the revenues to all players (NAP share is considered only, 100% market share applied) > Discount Ratio equals to 10% for all scenarios > Network elements in general will be modelled based on publicly available price information combined with learning curves & maintenance costs assumptions > OA cost model considers: • Network Operations incl. Management, Control,.. • Employees depending expenditures • Provisioning costs • Sales and Marketing 7
General Assumptions – Market Forecast and related Service Classes Market Forecast Service bottom up model Service class definition: MUSE penetration potential forecast Downstr. Upstr. Capacity Capacity Platinum-Business based on service bottom up model Service Class T max/ down T max/ up Premium-Business [Mbps] [Mbps] 60,00% Gold-Business Basic- 1 0,5 Residential 50,00% Silver-Business Silver- 3 1 Basic-Business Residential 40,00% Gold- 10 2 Platinum-Residential Residential 30,00% Premium- Premium- Residential 50 10 Residential 20,00% Platinum- Gold- Residential 100 100 Residential 10,00% Silver- Residential Basic- 2 2 0,00% Business Basic-Residential Silver- 10 10 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Business Gold- 50 50 Business Premium- 100 100 Example - Germany T-Com - Dec 2005: Business Platinum- about 8 Mio DSL, 1000 1000 Business about 21% of the total fixed lines; � Penetration evolution based on various consultancy reports Sources: Ovum, Yankee BB market Europe, OECD, IST, survey between the MUSE partners 8
General Assumptions Area Description and Potential Market Central FP7 Exchange LL7 Dense Urban: 2 x 32,768 FP6 Urban : Total 4 x 16,384 Local Connectivity: Suburban: 8 x 8,192 LL6 Exchange 65,536 Rural 32 x 2,048 FP5 Low Dens. Rural 32 x 2,048 LL5 FP4 LL4 FP3 Geo-Model Average link lengths [m] Potential Customers Cabine Building LL3 (Total Europe) Customer- Customer- Cabinet- per Residential Business Covered ts per s per 65.536 Total Potential LEx Cabinet LEx Building per km² % % LEx LEx LEx FP2 Customers Dense Urban 1.267 207 1.060 2 128 512 64 7.187 70 30 LL2 Urban 1.417 290 1.127 4 64 512 32 3.116 76 24 Suburban 1.750 467 1.283 8 64 2.048 4 1.043 82 18 FP1 Rural 2.033 683 1.350 32 32 1.024 2 177 88 12 Low Density Rural 2.767 1.217 1.550 32 32 2.048 1 8 94 6 LL1 FP0 Customer � Input of involved network operators 9
Recommend
More recommend