Table of Contents
1 Executive Summary
2 IP TV Bandwidth Requirements
3 VDSL Technologies and Components
3.1 VDSL Technology
3.1.1 VDSL-1
3.1.2 VDSL-2
3.1.3 ADSL-2 and ADSL-2+
3.1.4 VDSL Performance Requirements
3.1.5 Status of VDSL Components
3.1.6 Conclusions for VDSL
4 Fiber to the Premise Technologies and Components
4.1 EPON Components
4.2 GPON Components
4.2.1 Conclusions for FTTP
5 Video Compression Technologies and Components
5.1 Video Compression Components
5.1.1 Conclustions for Video Compression Components
6 Opportunities, Risks, and Recommendations
6.1 Opportunities
6.2 Risks
6.3 Recommendations
7 Appendices
7.1 Companies Offering VDSL Components
7.1.1 Aware, Inc.
7.1.2 Metalink Ltd.
7.1.3 Texas Instruments Incorporated
7.2 Companies Offering Fiber to the Premise Components
7.2.1 BroadLight, Inc.
7.2.2 Passavé Technologies
7.3 Companies Offering Video Compression Components
7.3.1 Ateme
7.3.2 Equator Technologies, Inc.
7.3.3 LSI Logic Corporation
7.3.4 Sigma Designs
Table of Figures
Figure _3-1: Texas Instruments Estimate of ADSL and VDSL
Performance
Figure _4-1: PON Architecture
Figure _7-1: Reach of IP TV Services Using Two Pair Bonding
Figure _7-2: VDSLPlus Spectrum Allocation
Figure _7-3: VDSLPlus Block Diagram
Figure _7-4: Total-VDSL Downstream Speeds
Figure _7-5: Texas Instruments Estimate of ADSL and VDSL
Performance
Figure _7-6: TI DM642 Component Block Diagram
Figure _7-7: BroadLight XL230 Architecture
Figure _7-8: Equator BSP-15 Architecture
Figure _7-9: Sigma Designs EM8620L Block Diagram
Table of Tables
Table _1-1: VDSL and FTTP Performance
Table _1-2: Video Bandwidth Requirements
Table _1-3: Video Streams Supported with Aggressive Low
Bit Rate Encoding
Table _2-1: Video Bandwidth Requirements
Table _2-2: Video Streams Supported - Key
Table _2-3: Video Streams Supported Using MPEG-2
Table _2-4: Video Streams Supported with Conservative
Low Bit Rate Encoding
Table _2-5: Video Streams Supported with Aggressive Low
Bit Rate Encoding
Table _7-1: Component Profiles
Table _7-2: Aware, Inc. Fiscal 2003 Financial Results
Table _7-3: Aware, Inc. Broadband Video Component Technologies
Table _7-4: Aware, Inc. Broadband Video Components
Table _7-5: System Vendors using Aware, Inc. Components
Table _7-6: Capacity Assumptions for Reach of ADSL2+ IP
TV Services
Table _7-7: Metalink’s Fiscal 2003 Financial Results
Table _7-8: Metalink’s Broadband Video Component
Technologies
Table _7-9: Metalink’s Broadband Video Components
Table _7-10: System Vendors using Metalink’s Components
Table _7-11: Texas Instruments Fiscal 2003 Financial Results
Table _7-12: Texas Instruments Broadband Video Component
Technologies
Table _7-13: Texas Instruments Broadband Video Components
Table _7-14: System Vendors using Texas Instruments Components
Table _7-15: BroadLight’s Broadband Video Component
Technologies
Table _7-16: BroadLight’s Broadband Video Components
Table _7-17: System Vendors using BroadLight’s Components
Table _7-18: Passavé Broadband Video Component
Technologies
Table _7-19: Passavé Broadband Video Components
Table _7-20: System Vendors using Passavé Components
Table _7-21: Ateme’s Broadband Video Component Technologies
Table _7-22: Ateme’s Broadband Video Components
Table _7-23: Equator Technologies Broadband Video Component
Technologies
Table _7-24: Equator Technologies Broadband Video Components
Table _7-25: IP TV System Vendors using Equator Technologies
Components
Table _7-26: LSI Logic’s Fiscal 2003 Financial Results*
Table _7-27: LSI Logic’s Broadband Video Component
Technologies
Table _7-28: Sigma Designs Fiscal 2003 Financial Results
Table _7-29: Sigma Designs Broadband Video Component Technologies
Table _7-30: Sigma Designs Broadband Video Components
for IP TV Set-Top Boxes
Table _7-31: Sigma Designs Comparison Table for IP TV
Components
Table _7-32: System Vendors using Sigma Designs Components
Executive Summary
This report looks at three component technologies that
will have a significant effect on the deployment of IP
TV services:
-VDSL Components
-Fiber to the Premise (FTTP) Components
-Video Compression Components
The VDSL and FTTP components improve the performance
of IP TV networks by significantly increasing the bandwidth
that can be provided to each subscriber. The Video Compression
components improve the performance of IP TV networks by
significantly lowering the bandwidth required to transmit
a video stream to each subscriber.
Table 1-1 lists the performance available from the new VDSL
technologies along with the distance at which this level
of performance is available. In addition, it compares the
new VDSL and FTTP technologies with the current ADSL technologies
as well as the ADSL-2+ technologies that will be deployed
in 2005. The Passive Optical Network (PON) technologies
are point-to-multipoint technologies that share the bandwidth
from a single fiber coming from the central office with
a number of subscribers.
Table 1-1: VDSL and FTTP Performance
| |
Performance |
Distance |
| ADSL |
6 Mbps |
10,000 ft |
| ADSL-2+ |
15 Mbps |
5,000 ft. |
| Proprietary VDSL |
25 Mbps |
4,000 ft |
| VDSL-1 |
50 Mbps |
2,000 ft. |
| VDSL-2 |
100 Mbps |
1,300 ft. |
| APON & BPON |
622 Mbps shared |
20 km |
| EPON |
1 Gbps shared |
20 km |
| GPON |
2.4 Gbps shared |
20 km. |
Source: MRG, Inc.
Table 1-1 shows that VDSL and even ADSL-2+ will require
the deployment of remote systems to get the service close
enough to the subscriber for many service providers, especially
in North America. This will take a significant investment
by these carriers to deploy these services. The Proprietary
VDSL in this table is based on currently deployed central
office based VDSL technology from companies such as Motorola
(based on its acquisition of Next Level Communications).
Distance is not an issue with fiber technologies. The
Fiber to the Home (FTTH) technologies discussed in this
report do require the deployment of fiber to each subscriber’s
home. This could take a capital investment from $100 to
$200 billion to provide fiber to every home in North America.
Table 1-3 lists the bandwidth required to support an
IP TV video stream for both Standard Definition (SD) and
High Definition (HD) TV using MPEG-2 and upper and lower
bond Low Bit Rate encoding schemes. Both MPEG-4 encoding
with H.264 compression and Windows Media 9 are vying to
be deployed by service providers. MPEG-4 and H.264 are
both standards based technologies. Windows Media 9 was
developed as a proprietary technology by Microsoft and
is currently being standardized as VC-1 by SMPTE. At this
time, both of these encoding schemes have similar performance.
Table 1-3: Video Bandwidth Requirements
|
Compression Technique
|
SD
|
HD
|
|
MPEG-2
|
3.5 Mbps
|
20 Mbps
|
|
Low Bit Rate Encoding (Conservative)
|
1.5 Mbps
|
10 Mbps
|
|
Low Bit Rate Encoding (Aggressive)
|
750 Kbps
|
6 Mbps
|
Source: MRG, Inc.
Table 1-3 shows that Low Bit Rate encoding offers a factor
of two improvement in performance when it is first introduced
(as shown in the conservative estimate). It also shows
that it is likely that Low Bit Rate encoding can be improved
by another factor of two (as shown in the aggressive forecast).
Table 1-5 shows the number of SD and HD streams that can
be provided to subscribers over an IP TV network. It uses
the Aggressive Estimate for Low Bit Rate encoding so it
shows what may be achieved when the most advanced video
compression methods are combined with the most advanced
copper based DSL technologies. Bandwidth is much less
of an issue with fiber based access technologies. In this
report we are focusing on downstream speeds. ADSL-2+,
the slowest of these technologies, is capable of support
better that 1 Mbps upstream, which is high enough to eliminate
upstream latency as a system performance issue for channel
changing, or any other system performance consideration.
This table shows that:
-Either VDSL-1 or VDSL-2 has enough bandwidth when an
aggressive Low Bit Rate codec is used to support any reasonable
combination of SD and HD video streams to the home.
-The current, proprietary versions of VDSL can support
up to three HD video streams along with up to five SD
video streams, which is sufficient for the most demanding
user.
-ADSL-2+ is capable of supporting one HD stream along
with up to nine SD streams, so it will be a viable, if
not generous, HD IP TV offering.
-This aggressive Low Bit Rate encoding allows ADSL to
support any reasonable number of SD video streams. Even
with this high rate of compression, ADSL will not be able
to support HD TV.
Table 1-5: Video Streams Supported with Aggressive
Low Bit Rate Encoding
| Streams |
Lowest Performance
DSL that can Support Configuration
|
| 10 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
-- |
- |
- |
- |
| 9 |
ADSL
- 2+
|
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
--- |
- |
- |
- |
| 8 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
-- |
- |
- |
- |
| 7 |
- |
-- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
--- |
- |
- |
- |
| 6 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
--- |
-- |
- |
- |
| 5 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
--- |
- |
- |
- |
| 4 |
ADSL |
- |
Current VDSL
|
VDSL -1
|
VDSL-2
|
| 3 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| 2 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| 1 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| 0 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| SD/ HD |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
Source: MRG, Inc.
Components that support VDSL, FTTP, and Low Bit Rate
video compression are well advanced:
-Components are available that comply with the following
VDSL, FTTP, and Video Compression standards:
• VDSL-1
• APON & BPON
• EPON
• MPEG-2
• Windows Media 9/VC-1
• Components supporting MPEG-4 with H.264 will be
available by the end of 2004
• Components supporting GPON will start to become
available in mid-2005.
The conclusions from this report include:
• VDSL will be an important technology for IP TV
because it will provide the bandwidth required to support
HD. Conversely, IP TV will be the impetus for many if
not most future VDSL deployments.
• FTTP will be of increasing significance as service
providers give up on squeezing the last drop of performance
out of their copper plant using DSL technology.
• GPON will not be ready for volume deployment until
2006.
• EPON components are ready for deployment today
and are likely to be widely deployed in Asia. This will
give EPON a significant advantage over GPON.
• Set-top boxes supporting MPEG-2, MPEG-4 with H.264
compression, and Windows Media 9/VC-1 will be available
in quantity in 2005.
• Further enhancements in video compression will
continue to improve the performance in IP TV systems and
will achieve the results outlined in Table 1-5 in time.
