DOCSIS and EPON

Where will the future lead?

A Technical Paper prepared for the Society of Cable Telecommunications Engineers
By

Brady Volpe
CTO and Founder
Volpe Firm, Inc.

3000 Old Alabama Rd.
Suite 119-434
Alpharetta, GA 30022, USA
+1-404-424-8202 x.201
brady.volpe@volpefirm.com











Overview

This paper will first provide a brief primer on DOCSIS and EPON communications
technologies. Next it will discuss high level installation and maintenance costs between
the two technologies. These sections enable the primary objective of the paper which is
an analysis, via numerical modeling, of DOCSIS and EPON in different applications;
new-build, existing HFC installations, and varying levels of service. The reader will gain
an understanding of potential cases where EPON may be a more cost effective
technology to deploy than DOCSIS and when DOCSIS is clearly more cost effective
than EPON. The intent of the paper is not to present one technology as better than the
other, but to provide an objective analysis of the cost variances of both technologies in a
few specific case scenarios.































Contents
Section 1 Overview ........................................................................................................................................... 1
Section 2 DOCSIS Primer ................................................................................................................................ 1
Section 3 EPON Primer .................................................................................................................................... 2
Section 4 Analysis Assumptions .................................................................................................................. 3
Coaxial and Fiber Installation Costs .......................................................................................................... 3
HFC and EPON Maintenance Costs ............................................................................................................ 4
CMTS and EPON Hardware Cost ................................................................................................................ 5
Section 5 MATLAB Modeling ......................................................................................................................... 6
Set DOCSIS Plant Mile Deployment and Maintenance Costs ........................................................... 6
Set EPON Plant Mile Deployment and Maintenance Costs ............................................................... 7
Begin Model of System ................................................................................................................................... 7
Cost to Maintain Service ............................................................................................................................. 10
Re-Model System Deployment costs with equivalent system performance .......................... 11
Equivalent Service, Brownfield DOCSIS with New EPON Deployment .................................... 14
Node + x vs. EPON Models ......................................................................................................................... 17
Initial Cost Assumptions for Model ........................................................................................................ 17
Model curve for N + X Active devices in network and generate curve ..................................... 18
Calculate EPON cost per curve based on # Homes Passed ........................................................... 19
Plot curve of Total Costs ............................................................................................................................. 19
Section 6 Summary and Conclusions ...................................................................................................... 21
Bibliography ......................................................................................................................................................... 22
Abbreviations and Acronyms ........................................................................................................................ 23



1



Section 1 Overview
This paper will present a comparison between DOCSIS and EPON transport technologies.
Consumer data demands are pushing cable operators to grow the data capacity of their
networks at nearly a 50% CAGR.[2] DOCSIS is primarily an RF coax-based technology
while EPON is primarily an optical fiber-based technology. Which one cable operators use
may depend upon some of the financial and technical factors examined in this paper.
Section 2 DOCSIS Primer
Data Over Cable Service Interface Specification (DOCSIS) is effectively a transparent
Ethernet bridge over a hybrid fiber/coax (HFC) network. There are two (2) functional
components in a DOCSIS network, the cable modem (CM) on the subscriber side and the
CMTS in the headend or hub site. The CMTS communicates with the CMs on one or more 6
MHz wide (8 MHz in Euro-DOCSIS deployments), 64- or 256-QAM (quadrature amplitude
modulation) digitally encoded RF signals on the downstream path of an HFC network
between 108 and 1 GHz. The CMs communicate with the CMTS using one or more
quadrature phase shift keying (QPSK), 8-, 16-, 32-, or 64-QAM digitally encoded RF signals,
transmitted on an upstream HFC frequency between 5 to 85MHz. The digital data,
transported via digitally modulated carriers, contains Media Access Control (MAC)
information which enables the CMs to coexist with other CMs by using a Time Division
Multiple Access (TDMA) scheme or synchronous code division multiple access (S-CDMA).
In essence, the CMTS is the system scheduler which coordinates the power level, frequency,
transmit time, and pre-equalization of all CM signals on the DOCSIS network.
By virtue of the fact that CMs and the CMTS are able to communicate digital data with each
other over the HFC network for the purpose of command-and-control processes, they are
also able to transmit packets containing other non-DOCSIS MAC related data. This is what
fundamentally facilitates the ability to send Ethernet traffic bi-directionally over an HFC
network. The CMTS-CM DOCSIS network transports IP based traffic in the same method
that is used to communicate MAC protocol between the devices. Now that the IP traffic can
traverse the HFC network, end users are also able to utilize this network for the purpose of
transmitting content destined for the multitude of available data network services such as
email, web browsing, IP video, and voice over IP telephony (VoIP).
In summary, each user is assigned a unique cable modem, which conforms to the DOCSIS
standard. The CMTS works as a system scheduler enabling many cable modems to reside
on the same RF network. TDMA and/or S-CDMA is employed in cable modem

2


communications so that each modem is allocated a certain finite time over which it may
transmit and receive IP data. IP data destined for a particular user is sent to that users
modem by the CMTS one or more downstream RF channel. This is the way an Ethernet
network is able to be transparently bridged from a data backbone to a subscribers home or
business location.
Section 3 EPON Primer
Ethernet Passive Optical Network (EPON) is an actual Ethernet network over optical fiber
following the IEEE 802.3av standard for 1 Gbps (supporting up to 10 Gbps). There are two
(2) functional components of an EPON network, an Optical Line Terminator (OLT) and an
Optical Network Unit (ONU). The OLT is analogous to a CMTS in a DOCSIS network while
the ONU is similar to the cable modem. Data is transmitted to by the OLT to ONUs in the
downstream by a broadcast method. Encryption is used, so only the destination ONU
should receive the intended traffic. Similar to DOCSIS, the OLT is responsible for allocating
upstream bandwidth to each ONU in a TDM fashion. During its timeslot, the ONU transmits
data to the OLT.[9]
Differing from the HFC architecture, EPON and Passive Optical Networks (PON) in general,
use only optical splitters between the OLT and the ONU. There are no active components to
fail. Further, the network is completely optical which means ingress, inter-modulation
distortions, group delay, power failures, and all of the typical HFC-related maintenance
issues do not exist.
There are effectively no configuration options with EPON since it is already Ethernet-based.
Advanced provisioning enables the configuration of service flows for Quality-of-Service
(QoS) and upstream encryption. Additionally, a new CableLabs standard has enabled the
integration of EPON with existing DOCSIS back-office provisioning systems. This enables
the cable operator to provision an ONU as if it were a cable modem; rate limiting the ONU
to the same downstream, upstream and QoS profiles as the cable modem. This is one
reason that cable operators are favoring EPON over Gigabit-PON (GPON), another similar
standard.
EPON does only natively support data. This means that any deployment of EPON will
require cable operators to add a second wavelength for video channels. Existing set top
boxes with RF returns would need to be replaced with IP (Internet Protocol) returns.
Alternatively an RF return could be added through yet another fiber optic wavelength for
support of legacy devices such as set top boxes. Such a deployment is often accomplished
through the use of RF-over-Glass (RFoG) products. Such deployments do become more

3


cost prohibitive due to the significant investment in optical components, but can extend the
life of existing infrastructure if that is the desired objective.
Section 4 Analysis Assumptions
In order to conduct an analysis on the deployment and maintenance costs between a
DOCSIS and EPON network some fundamental assumptions had to be made. To date there
is not a standard reference which normalizes the costing analysis between DOCSIS and
PON networks. To further challenge the problem proponents of each technology will tend
to improve the numbers in their favor this is just good marketing.
For the purpose of this document the numbers provided have been taken from a number of
sources. The sources are in most cases actual systems deploying and operating DOCSIS and
EPON networks in large enough scale that their numbers can be considered statistically
sound. Due to confidentiality the names of the operators will not be disclosed unless their
data was otherwise publically available.
Coaxial and Fiber Installation Costs
Coax and fiber installation costs were a significant factor in all analysis and varied widely
across the nation. Depending upon factors such as aerial, underground, Greenfield (new-
build), Brownfield (existing HFC plant) and whether or not the installation is in an urban
area can change installation costs from $10k/mile to $100k/mile or more. One change
which has happened recently is that the raw material cost for fiber and coax has neared
unity. A number of operators are installing both coax and fiber simultaneously for all HFC
plant with at least one installing a dual drop cable of coax and fiber.


4


Table 1: Coax and Fiber Installation Costs
Source: Major US MSO 2011 Budgets National Average
HFC and EPON Maintenance Costs
John Browse of Charter Communications produced a detailed paper in 2004 which was a
comparison between DOCSIS and EPON. Although the equipment costs of EPON and
DOCSIS have radically changed, maintenance costs have stayed relatively constant. The
model below, from the Browse paper, was reviewed by a couple of MSOs who indicated
that $1,100/mile was a reasonable estimate.
Item Cost
Technical Supervision $42.03
Service Trouble Truck Rolls $226.15
Plant Maintenance Truck Rolls $235.50
Material Inventory $49.64
Electric Utility Bills $446.81
Power Supply Battery Replacement $43.49
Power Supply Repairs $1.77
RF Line Equipment Repairs $35.46
Vehicle Accident Loss $8.80
Worker Injury Loss $5.01
Emergency Cable Repair $8.51
Total Annual Operating Expense per Plant Mile $1,103.17
Table 2: HFC Outside Plant (OSP) Maintenance Costs
Source: John Browse, Fiber Access Network A Cable Operators Perspective, presented at ITU-T All
Star Network Access Workshop, Geneva, June 2-4, 2004
Description
Residential
(rural)
Commercial
(Suburban) Average
Coax New Build Aerial $ 20,759.00 $25,958.00 $23,358.50
Coax New Build Underground $39,596.00 $49,997.00 $44,796.50
Fiber New Build Aerial $16,595.00 $20,504.00 $18,549.50
Fiber New Build Underground $54,995.00 $51,013.00 $53,004.00
Coax and Fiber New Build Aerial $24,692.02 $30,817.45 $27,754.73
Coax and Fiber New Build Underground $43,280.67 $53,414.87 $48,347.77

5


Similarly, the table below from the Browse paper can be used for estimating PON
maintenance costs. This table does have some additions recommended by MSOs to account
for vehicle and associated maintenance that the Browse paper did not have, taking the
original cost per mile from $85 to $220.
Item Cost
Technical Supervision $10.00
Service Trouble Truck Rolls $113.00
Plant Maintenance Truck Rolls $0.00
Electric Utility Bills $5.00
Power Supply Battery Replacement $0.00
Power Supply Repairs $0.00
RF Line Equipment Repairs $0.00
Vehicle Accident Loss $4.40
Worker Injury Loss $2.50
Emergency Cable Repair $85.11
Total Annual Operating Expense per Plant Mile $220.01
Table 3: EPON Outside Plant (OSP) Maintenance Costs
Source: John Browse, Fiber Access Network A Cable Operators Perspective, presented at ITU-T All
Star Network Access Workshop, Geneva, June 2-4, 2004 with MSO additions to Service Truck Rolls
CMTS and EPON Hardware Cost
A number of complex models exist for CMTS costing. Extremely detailed models can be
derived from Cisco web sites. However for the purpose of modeling DOCSIS port costs it
was determined that a simplified cost model was needed which took into consideration all
components of the CMTS (chassis, power supply, blades, cabling, upstream, downstream,
etc.) and condensed into a per port cost. This per port cost based upon nation-wide
numbers of one major MSO resolved to $1,285/port. Again, this includes all ancillary
components of the CMTS in todays dollars.
Similarly, EPON costing was approached the same way, though EPON costs vary
dramatically depending upon the market. EPON has not reached the same maturating or
scale of deployment in North America that it has in Asia. In speaking with North American
MSOs, per port costs for EPON systems ranged from $1,600/port to $800/port. The higher
end costs usually involved smaller systems with limited deployments. In Asia, namely
China, government subsidies have enabled costs per subscriber in the $1/sub range,
making China second behind Japan in world deployment of EPON. The result is significant

6


investment in EPON development and price erosion which benefits the global market.[1]
For the purpose of this paper, a fully loaded EPON chassis with power supplies and
network management card was quoted to a major MSO with standard volume discount.
The system was not fully loaded, but capable of server 1024 subscribers. At a cost of
roughly $5k, this brought the per sub cost down to $4.88/sub assuming 32 subs per port.
Ports can manage up to 64 subs per port, but typical deployments are 32 subs per port.
This model generates curves which predict the trade-off between DOCSIS and EPON
networks based on assumptions of density of customers per mile, and deployment &
maintenance costs of both technologies per mile.
Section 5 MATLAB Modeling
Analysis and costing comparisons between DOCSIS and EPON networks was performed
using a numerical modeling tool called MATLAB by the Mathworks Corporation. MATLAB
is similar to a very powerful version of Excel, except it uses a scripting language to perform
Excel-like analysis in rapid succession. The value of MATLAB is that operations can be
performed over and over again when new data is uncovered without copy and pasting
many cells in an Excel sheet. Further, MATLAB can be used to recursively identify cross-
over points and perform many iterations using the same data to determine optimum points
of operation, as will be shown in the following pages.
Set DOCSIS Plant Mile Deployment and Maintenance Costs
As with most programming languages, base assumptions must be established. In the
following block of code, these assumptions are pulled from the previous section along with
descriptions for each assumption. The assumption for these costs is that no additional
equipment or changes have been made to upgrade the DOCSIS plant to make it competitive
with EPON or other networks such as Verizon FIOS. Another model must be generated to
increase the costs to model higher Headend deployment costs associated with 1 Gbps
comparable data rates.

DOCSIS_Maint_Mile = 1103.17; % Cost to maintaine DOCSIS plant per mile
DOCSIS_CMTS = 1285*8; % DOCSIS CMTS @ $1,285/port * 8 ports/FN
RF_Plant = 40000; % Cost to instal RF plant Node + 2 Greenfield
DOCSIS_Coax_Aerial = 28682.54; % Cost to install aerial coax material & labor
DOCSIS_Coax_Buried = 44797; % Cost to install buried coax material & labor
DOCSIS_Drop_Per_Sub = 85; % DOCSIS Drop costs per subscriber (avg)
CostPerQAM = 5.33; % Revenue per sub of a video QAM channel

7


Set EPON Plant Mile Deployment and Maintenance Costs
The assumption is that EPON has 1 Gbps bi-directional point-to-multipoint service. It is
leveraging the existing headend provisioning system via DPoE as well as video distribution
equipment for a video overlay deployment using a separate wavelength on the same fiber.
Notice that the drop per subscriber is $10 more than in the coax case above. This is in line
with industry standards based upon data from Verizon Networks using optical mechanical
connectors rated at a 10 year lifespan.[3]

EPON_Maint_Mile = 220.01; % Cost to maintaine EPON plant per mile
EPON_OLT = 5000; % Cost for OLT everything for 1024 subs
EPON_Fiber_Aerial = 18550; % Cost to hang fiber + labor
EPON_Fiber_Buried = 53004; % Cost to bury fiber + labor
EPON_Drop_Per_Sub = 95; % EPON Drop costs per subscriber (avg)
Begin Model of System
This first part of the program is going to analyze the cost to deploy DOCSIS and EPON in a
Greenfield (no existing coax or fiber) location. It is desirable to know which technology is
more cost effective, all things being equal. The output will represent the number of
subscribers on a per mile basis.

Total_Subscribers = 128; % Number of subscribers (EPON node)
NoOfMiles = 1; % Reasonable distance EPON will reach
k = NoOfMiles;
Video_Loss = CostPerQAM * 8; % Cost of lost revenue due to added DOCSIS
DOCSIS_Aerial_Deploy=zeros(1,Total_Subscribers); % Pre-allocating memory for efficiency
EPON_Aerial_Deploy=zeros(1,Total_Subscribers); % Pre-allocating memory for efficiency

% Run each iteration first with the number of subscribers, starting at one
% subscriber, then compute the cost of one subscriber from 1 to the total_Subscriber

for i=1:Total_Subscribers
%for k=1:NoOfMiles

%Aerial Plant Calculation
DOCSIS_Aerial_Deploy(i) = ((((DOCSIS_CMTS + RF_Plant +...
(DOCSIS_Coax_Aerial * k)) / i) + DOCSIS_Drop_Per_Sub * i) + Video_Loss)/1e3;
% Divide by 1e3 to put in $1k dollars

EPON_Aerial_Deploy(i) = (((EPON_OLT + (EPON_Fiber_Aerial * k)) / i) +...

8


EPON_Drop_Per_Sub * i)/1e3;
% Divide by 1e3 to put in $1k dollars

%Buried Plant Calculation
DOCSIS_Buried_Deploy(i) = ((((DOCSIS_CMTS + RF_Plant + ...
(DOCSIS_Coax_Buried * k)) / i) + DOCSIS_Drop_Per_Sub * i) + Video_Loss)/1e3;
% Divide by 1e3 to put in $1k dollars

EPON_Buried_Deploy(i) = (((EPON_OLT + (EPON_Fiber_Buried * k)) / i) +...
EPON_Drop_Per_Sub * i)/1e3;
% Divide by 1e3 to put in $1k dollars

%end
end
figure;
plot(EPON_Aerial_Deploy);hold all;
plot(DOCSIS_Aerial_Deploy);
plot(EPON_Buried_Deploy);
plot(DOCSIS_Buried_Deploy);
axis([0 128 0 20]);
title({'Cost to Deploy DOCSIS and EPON per Subscriber';'(Not Equivalent Service, EPON = 1
Gbps)'});
xlabel('Number of Subscribers'); ylabel('Cost Thousands $');
legend('EPON Aerial','DOCSIS Aerial','EPON Buried','DOCSIS Buried','Location','NorthEast');
hold off;


9



Figure 1. DOCSIS vs. EPON Greenfield Deployment Costs

The above figure shows that at todays costs, DOCSIS and EPON are fairly equivalent from a
deployment standpoint. It should be considered that the above representation does not
provide equivalent data service from the CMTS. The DOCSIS service is providing eight (8)
bonded downstream channels or 324 Mbps of throughput while the EPON service is
providing 1 Gbps of throughput. So this is a case where the cable operator should consider
what is the future of the neighborhood of this deployment? If it is a retirement village,
DOCSIS is likely more than adequate. If it is an expanding college development then EPON
may be a more future proof technology.


10


Cost to Maintain Service
This models the cost to maintain DOCSIS and EPON services over a five year period

NoOfMiles = 1;
NoOfYears = 5;
DOCSIS_maint=zeros(1, NoOfYears);
EPON_maint=zeros(1, NoOfYears);

for i=1: NoOfYears
DOCSIS_maint(i) = (DOCSIS_Maint_Mile * i * NoOfMiles)/1000;
% divide by 1000 to put into $1000 dollar increments for plotting
EPON_maint(i) = (EPON_Maint_Mile * i * NoOfMiles)/1000;
end

figure;
plot(EPON_maint,'-r');hold all;
plot(DOCSIS_maint,'-b');
title({'Cost to Maintain DOCSIS and EPON over 5 Years';'(1 Mile Plant)'});
xlabel('Years'); ylabel('Cost Thousand $');
legend('EPON','DOCSIS','Location','NorthWest');
hold off;


11



Figure 2. DOCSIS vs. EPON Maintenance Costs

The maintenance costs between DOCSIS and EPON do show a large gap, which has been
proven in numerous other papers. Over a five year time period the maintenance costs of
one mile of PON plant are less than that of just one year of HFC plant. This is largely due to
1) maintenance associated with repairs & troubleshooting and 2) plant powering. PON
plants do not require powering and have minimal troubleshooting other than the
occasional severed cable equivalent to HFC.

Re-Model System Deployment costs with equivalent system performance
Now we want to remodel the system as in Figure 1, but this time the assumption is that the
service will be a symmetrical DOCSIS 1 Gbps downstream and 500 Mbps upstream. Again,
this is being modeled for a Greenfield deployment for both DOCSIS and EPON services (HFC
and PON).


12


Major change occurs to the DOCSIS_Cost_Per_Sub where now the assumption must change
the number of DS channels from eight (8) to 24 at 256 QAM which gives an aggregate data
rate of 970.944 Mbps, which is close to 1 Gbps. This is also the maximum bonding group
that will be accepted by existing cable modems. It should be assumed that a 100:1 over sell
ratio must not be exceeded, which means 100 subs/FN. This is intentionally considered
because traditionally DOCSIS data services are heavily over-subscribed, which is generally
statistically okay with exception during peak usage times. In contrast, EPON and PON
services in general are typically not oversold greater than 10:1, which has resulted in
Verizon FIOS continuing to dominate a so called digital divide between advertised speed
offering and actual speed offering especially during peak times.[6]

DOCSIS_Cost_1Gig = 1285*24; % Assume 100 subs/FN (100:1 oversell)
Video_Loss = CostPerQAM * (24 - 8); % Cost of lost revenue due to added DOCSIS

Total_Subscribers = 64; % Number of subscribers (EPON node)
NoOfMiles = 1; % Reasonable distance EPON will reach

DOCSIS_Aerial_Deploy=zeros(1,Total_Subscribers); % Pre-allocating memory for efficiency
EPON_Aerial_Deploy=zeros(1,Total_Subscribers); % Pre-allocating memory for efficiency

% Run each iteration first with the number of subscribers, starting at one
% subscriber, then compute the cost of one subscriber from 1 to the final
% NoOfMiles. Then repeat the loop with two subscribers until the total
% subscribers has been completed.

% Run loop for different DOCSIS oversell values and generate plots showing
% the results

NoOfMiles = 12;
for Oversell=[1 100]

for i=1:Total_Subscribers

DOCSIS_Aerial_Deploy(i) = (((((DOCSIS_Cost_1Gig / Oversell) + RF_Plant +...
DOCSIS_Coax_Aerial * NoOfMiles) / i) + (DOCSIS_Drop_Per_Sub + Video_Loss) * i) ) / 1e3;
% Divide by 1e3 to put in $1k dollars

EPON_Aerial_Deploy(i) = (((EPON_OLT +...
(EPON_Fiber_Aerial * NoOfMiles)) / i) + EPON_Drop_Per_Sub * i) / 1e3;
% Divide by 1e3 to put in $1k dollars

%end

13


end
figure; hold on; grid on;
plot(EPON_Aerial_Deploy,'-r');
plot(DOCSIS_Aerial_Deploy,'-b');
axis([0 64 5 35]);
title(['Cost/Sub to Deploy DOCSIS and EPON Equivalent Service - 1:',num2str(Oversell),'
oversell)']);
xlabel('Number of Subscribers'); ylabel('Cost Thousands $');
legend('EPON','DOCSIS','Location','NorthWest');
hold off;
end


Figure 3. DOCSIS vs. EPON Equivalent Service 1:1 Oversell


14



Figure 4. DOCSIS vs. EPON Equivalent Service 1:100 Oversell

Figures 3 and 4 demonstrate that in a Greenfield deployment, the cost of EPON for
equivalent high speed data deployment will always favor EPON. This is because the cost of
a large number of CMTS ports coupled with the loss of revenue on video channels is
significant in cost. EPON on the other hand is relatively inexpensive, does not result in the
loss of video channels because they are transported on an adjacent wavelength. There is
additional cost associated with new IP-based set-top boxes, but as suggested in the
Mission Possible: An Evolutionary Approach to Gigabit-Class DOCSIS presented at the
2012 NCTA, many of these devices will be outside of their depreciation life-cycle and can be
written off.[5]
Equivalent Service, Brownfield DOCSIS with New EPON Deployment
The following section will now examine the case where DOCSIS / HFC plant is already
deployed, but the data service must be increased. Which technology is more cost effective,
DOCSIS or EPON? The assumption is that no investment in HFC plant is necessary other

15


than adding DOCSIS channels, which includes loss of video revenue. Significant investment
is still required for EPON deployment, which includes fiber trunks, splitters, drops, OLTs
and ONUs.

DOCSIS_Cost_1Gig = 1285*24; % Assume 100 subs/FN (100:1 oversell)
Video_Loss = CostPerQAM * (24 - 8); % Cost of lost revenue due to added DOCSIS

Total_Subscribers = 64; % Number of subscribers (EPON node)
NoOfMiles = 1; % Reasonable distance EPON will reach

% Major changes are that the RF_Plant and DOCSIS_Coax_Aerial costs are
% removed from the DOCSIS calculations, now changed to DOCSIS_Brownfield.
% It is also assumed that the subscribers will have coax drops to their
% homes, but not fiber drops, so these costs are incured in the EPON
% deployment, but not DOCSIS. DOCSIS does incur the loss of video from the
% added DOCSIS channels.

NoOfMiles = 12;
for Oversell=[1 10 50]

for i=1:Total_Subscribers

DOCSIS_Brownfield(i) = ((DOCSIS_Cost_1Gig / Oversell / i) + Video_Loss * i) / 1e3;
% Divide by 1e3 to put in $1k dollars

EPON_Aerial_Deploy(i) = (((EPON_OLT +...
(EPON_Fiber_Aerial * NoOfMiles)) / i) + EPON_Drop_Per_Sub * i) / 1e3;
% Divide by 1e3 to put in $1k dollars

%end
end
figure; hold on; grid on;
plot(EPON_Aerial_Deploy,'-r');
plot(DOCSIS_Brownfield,'-b');
axis([0 64 0 35]);
title(['Cost/Sub to Deploy DOCSIS and EPON Equivalent Service - 1:',num2str(Oversell),'
oversell)']);
xlabel('Number of Subscribers'); ylabel('Cost Thousands $');
legend('EPON','DOCSIS','Location','NorthWest');
hold off;
end


16



Figure 5. DOCSIS vs. EPON Equivalent Service 1:1 Brownfield



Figure 6. DOCSIS vs. EPON Equivalent Service 1:50 Brownfield

Figures 5 and 6 clearly demonstrate that for brownfield scenarios where no additional HFC
plant changes are necessary, adding additional DOCSIS channels is a more cost effective

17


solution to achieve equivalent downstream bandwidth. A limitation not immediately
noticeable is that the North American DOCSIS upstream is limited to at best four (4) 6.4
MHz wide 64-QAM bonded channels resulting in 123 Mbps. Changes in the physical plant
and DOCSIS cable modems are required to achieve a 1 Gbps upstream. For example, a 200
MHz return plant may be required.[5]
Node + x vs. EPON Models
This next section assumes that as fiber is driven deeper in HFC networks due to fibernode
splitting, there will be a time where EPON may become cost effective. The costs associated
with node splits range from $15k to $50k depending upon the distance to node, rural vs.
urban, aerial vs. buried, labor, and other factors. Median costing was used for the model in
the analysis of node splits at $35,000. A number of other assumptions were applied as can
be seen in the Initial Cost Assumptions for Model below. Many of these costs came from
nation-wide averages from a Tier 1 North American MSO.
This information is then used to determine the cross-over point where PON networks
become equivalent or less costly to deploy than continuing to split fiber nodes. Multiple
factors must be taken into consideration in addition to cost, such as 1) homes passed, 2)
CMTS cost, 3) Node splitting cost, and 4) loss of video channels that do not occur in PON
video overlay networks.
Initial Cost Assumptions for Model
FiberNodeCost = 10000; % Cost of fiber node + Labor
ActiveCost = 1000; % Cost of active + Labor
NodeSplitCost = 35000; % Cost of node split
DistanceNodeMoved = 2500; % Distance in feet traversed by node split
CMTSFNCost = 1285 * 8; % $1,285/port * 8 DS ports/FN
FtPerMile = 5280;
HHP = 513; % Total homes passed at N + 5
MilesPerActive = 1/5.64; % Average miles per active in Major US MSO plant

DOCSIS_Coax_Aerial = 28682; % Cost to install aerial coax materil & labor
DOCSIS_Coax_Buried = 44797; % Cost to install buried coax material & labor
DOCSIS_Drop_Per_Sub = 85; % DOCSIS Drop costs per subscriber (avg)

EPON_Fiber_Aerial = 18550; % Cost to hang fiber + labor
EPON_Fiber_Buried = 58004; % Cost to bury fiber + labor
EPON_OLT = 5000/1024; % Cost for OLT 1024 subs + labor
OpticalSplitter = 450/8; % Cost for optical splitter per sub (8 port) materials + labor
per Aurora Networks

18


EPON_Drop_Per_Sub = 95; % EPON Drop costs per subscriber per Aurora Networks
Settop = 0; % New Settop box required for PON

Model curve for N + X Active devices in network and generate curve
% Let i be the number of active devices after the Fiber Node. The loop
% will run starting at 5 active devices and iterate down to zero active
% devices in increments of one device per loop.

% Pre-allocate variable to increase execuction speed
CostOfActives = zeros(1,6);
CostOfSplits = zeros(1,6);
CostOfFiberAerial = zeros(1,6);
CostofCMTS = zeros(1,6);
TotalHHP = zeros(1,6);
CostOfFiberBuried = zeros(1,6);

% Initialize k, which increments the variables while the number of actives
% (i) decreases. This gives a curve that increses from left to right
CMTSx = [1,2,2.5,3,3.5,4];
NActives = [5,4,3,2,1,0];
TotalHHP = [500 375 250 125 100 64];

for k=1:6

CostOfActives(k) = (FiberNodeCost + (ActiveCost * NActives(k))) /...
TotalHHP(k);

if k == 1
CostOfSplits(k) = 0; % No split on first iteration
else
CostOfSplits(k) = (NodeSplitCost * k) / TotalHHP(k);
% Constant with each split
end

CostOfFiberAerial(k) = ((DistanceNodeMoved *...
(DOCSIS_Coax_Aerial/FtPerMile)) * (k-1)) / TotalHHP(k);
CostOfFiberBuried(k) = ((DistanceNodeMoved *...
(DOCSIS_Coax_Aerial/FtPerMile)) * (k-1)) / TotalHHP(k);
% Increasing with k
CostofCMTS(k) = CMTSFNCost * CMTSx(k) / TotalHHP(k);
% Increasing with each split k

19




end

% Sum of individual component costs
TotalCostAerial = CostOfActives + CostOfSplits + CostOfFiberAerial + CostofCMTS;
TotalCostBuried = CostOfActives + CostOfSplits + CostOfFiberBuried + CostofCMTS;

Calculate EPON cost per curve based on # Homes Passed
z = 6;
EPON_Aerial_Deploy = zeros(1,z);
EPON_Buried_Deploy= zeros(1,z);
% This represents the multiplier for # miles of coax
MilesMultiplier = [65,4,3,2,1,0];

for k=1:6
EPON_Aerial_Deploy(k) = (((EPON_OLT + (EPON_Fiber_Aerial *...
(MilesPerActive * MilesMultiplier(k)))) / TotalHHP(k)) +...
(EPON_Drop_Per_Sub) * TotalHHP(k) * 0.5);


EPON_Buried_Deploy(k) = (((EPON_OLT + (EPON_Fiber_Buried *...
MilesPerActive * MilesMultiplier(k))) / TotalHHP(k)) +...
(EPON_Drop_Per_Sub) * TotalHHP(k) * 0.5);
end

Plot curve of Total Costs
x=1:6;
figure;
plot(x,TotalCostAerial/1e3,'-or',x,TotalCostBuried/1e3,'-xb',x,...
EPON_Aerial_Deploy/1e3,'-xb',x,EPON_Buried_Deploy/1e3,'-+g');
set(gca,'Layer','top')
set(gca,'XTick',1:6)
axis([1 6 0 30]);
set(gca,'XTickLabel',{'5','4','3','2','1','0'})
legend('Nodes + x Aerial','Nodes + x Buried','EPON Aerial',...
'EPON Buried','Location','NorthEast');

20


title('Cost Node Splitting vs. EPON (/ HHP)','FontSize',16);
xlabel('N + x Node Divisions'); ylabel('Cost Thousands $');
grid on;

% For printing, this line ensures the paper position matches the display
set(gcf,'PaperPositionMode','auto')


Figure 7. Cost of Node Splitting vs. EPON Deployment

Figure 7 indicates a $2,500 difference between Node + 1 and EPON, EPON still costing
more. While somewhere between Node + 1 and Node + 0 is the point where EPON
becomes a more cost effective solution. The conclusion to draw from this is that once the
HFC network reaches Node + 2, a cable operator should carefully analyze the demographics
and physical layout (i.e. density) of their network before future node splits. In some
scenarios EPON may be a more cost effective and future proof solution to deploy over

21


DOCSIS. This is certainly not true in all cases, especially in rural or non-data intensive
demographic regions.
Section 6 Summary and Conclusions
This paper examined the costs to deploy and maintain DOCSIS and EPON networks in a few
different scenarios. The objective was to provide cable operators with an objective
perspective between the two technologies and how they may be leveraged to best meet the
needs in different applications. The following conclusions may be drawn from this paper.
Maintenance costs of EPON networks are significantly less expensive than those of HFC
networks. All things being equal, one mile of an EPON network can be maintained for five
years for the same cost as maintaining one mile of HFC network for only one year. This is
because the only costs associated with an EPON network are cut fiber lines, no different
than cut coax lines. On the other hand, HFC networks have line powering, actives, RF
leakage and ingress, plus the troubleshooting costs associated with the RF plant.
In Greenfield (new build) environments, EPON and DOCSIS may present interesting points
for analysis for cable operators. If a cable operator is looking to deploy a system with low
data offering (i.e. very low speed service, and limited future growth) DOCSIS may be a
better choice. On the other hand, EPON maybe a better solution for high-speed data and
future proofing a network with almost a 2:1 cost savings.
In Brownfield (existing HFC) deployments, cable operators must carefully look at the
maturity of their network. Depending upon the number of actives after the node, staying
with DOCSIS is frequently a better solution. In some cases, however, where there are only
one or two actives after the node and node splits are imminent, EPON should be considered
as a possible solution. As subscriber counts dwindle under 100 subs per node, EPON
becomes a more cost effective solution to deploy over continuing to split fiber nodes.
In summary, DOCSIS remains a strong technology which will continue to take the industry
into the future. Cable operators should be cognizant of EPON as another technology that
will enable them to remain competitive. Because of DPoE, both technologies can coexist in
the MSO network enabling the delivery of high speed data more cost effective in certain
scenarios.




22


Bibliography

1. FTTx 2012 Markets & Trends, Facts & Figures White Paper, DigiWorld by IDATE
2012

2. Cisco Visual Networking Index: Forecast and Methodology, 20102015

3. Nebraska Rural Independent Companies Capital Expenditure Study, January
2011

4. The Future Potential of Cable, John Chapman, Cisco Systems, 2009

5. Mission Possible: The Future Potential of Cable, Chapman, Emmendorfer,
Howald, Shulman, May 21, 2012

6. Fastest Internet? It's Complicated, The Wall Street Journal, Shalini
Ramachandran, January 31, 2012

7. DOCSIS 3.0 MAC and Upper Layer Protocols Interface Specification, CM-SP-
MULPIv3.0-I13-100611

8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_optical_network

9. IEEE Std 802.3ah-2004, IEEE Computer Society, 7 September 2004


23


Abbreviations and Acronyms

A number of new terminologies have been developed for hybrid fiber/coaxial and DOCSIS
networks along with re-use of terminology from other communications networks. In order
to help the reader with the many acronyms and initialisms throughout this document, this
section is provided as a terminology primer and reference. The major terminologies
covered are as followed.[7][8]
Cable Modem Termination System Cable modem termination system, located at the cable
television system head-end or distribution hub, which provides complementary functionality to
the cable modems to enable data connectivity to a wide-area network.
Customer Premises Equipment Equipment at the end users premises; may be provided by
the end user or the service provider.
Downstream In cable television, the direction of transmission from the head-end to the
subscriber.
Fiber Node In HFC, a point of interface between a fiber trunk and the coaxial distribution.
Group Delay The difference in transmission time between the highest and lowest of several
frequencies through a device, circuit or system.
Modular Cable Modem Termination System A CMTS composed of discrete functional
blocks linked together using Gigabit Ethernet links.
Optical Line Terminator an OLT is the end point of a passive optical network (PON). It
performs the conversion between electrical and optical signals in addition to coordinating the
TDMA services amongst the various ONUs attached to the device.
Optical Network Unit An (ONU) is a device that converts optical signals to electrical signals at
an endpoint location in a PON network.
Passive Optical Network A PON is a point to multipoint fiber-based network architecture user
optical splitters to serve optical signals to multiple Optical Network Units (ONUs) from a single
OLT. PONs are passive in that they do not require active (powered) devices.
Upstream The direction from the subscriber location toward the head-end.