Fiber Access Network A Cable Operator’s Perspective

Fiber Access NetworkA Cable Operator’s Perspective Mr. John A. Brouse, Jr. Director of Network Implementation Charter Communications, Inc.

Fiber Access NetworkA Cable Operator’s Perspective • Historical Perspective • Current Decision Drivers • HFC Model • FTTH Model • Comparative Cost Assessment • Conclusions

Historical Perspective • RF was the Technology of Choice • Frequency Division Multiplexing easily allows simultaneous transmissions • Ubiquitous service achieved through a Tree and Branch system of cascading RF amplifiers, coaxial cables, and directional couplers • Cost to build and operate the network is independent of service penetration levels • Network and Product Expansion • More Homes and More Programming • Expanding the network footprint increased the number of actives in cascade • New product launches required additional RF bandwidth • Higher frequencies required RF electronics change outs and re-spacing • Result was more components, reduced signal quality and lower reliability

Historical Perspective • 1988 • Realization that network bandwidth expansion and footprint expansion hit a technical wall • Industry move quickly to adapt existing fiber optics technology to improve RF signal quality and reliability • First generation RF broadband optics developed and deployed within 18 months • First Generation Application • RF cascade reductions • Called Fiber Backbone • focus was RF performance • minimal fibers used • minimal nodes deployed • maximize number of homes served per node • Lead to eventual evolution to today’s HFC network • node serving areas of 500 homes or less • focus is efficient interactive bandwidth usage

Current Decision Drivers • CASH FLOW • OSP O&M costs are escalating • work force costs and benefits • network power costs • fleet operating costs • liability insurance • Costs to launch advanced products and services are increasing • node splitting (internal, external or both) • headend RF splitting/combining network reconfiguration • network power reconfiguration • increased time to launch delays revenues

HFC Model • Typical Operating System Characteristics • 54,000 households passed • 33,500 customers • 1410 miles of plant • 199 fiber nodes • 4380 RF actives • 584 power supplies • 1752 batteries • 2.5% monthly service call rate • 50% of the service calls result in a truck roll to resolve plant related problems • 2 plant outages per month not related to cut/damaged cable • 6.0 vehicle accidents per 1,000,000 VMD • 5.8 OSHA recordable employee injuries per 200,000 hours worked • 8 Maintenance Technicians • 23 Service Technicians • 3 Technical Field Supervisors

P/S HFC Model Home Headend Voice Switch RF RF Data Router/ IP Switch RF MUX RF RF RF DFB RF Node Video RF RF Coax RG6

FTTH (RF PON) Model • Modeled after same Operating System used for the HFC Model • 54,000 households passed • 33,500 customers • 1410 miles of plant • 0 fiber nodes • 0 RF actives • 0 power supplies • 0 batteries • 1.25% monthly service call rate • 0% of the service calls result in a truck roll to resolve plant related problems • 0 plant outages per month not related to cut/damaged cable • 0 vehicle accidents per 1,000,000 VMD • 0 OSHA recordable employee injuries per 200,000 hours worked • 0 Maintenance Technicians • 12 Service Technicians • 1 Technical Field Supervisors

S p l i t t e r S p l i t t e r UPS FTTH (RF PON) Model Home Headend Voice Switch RF RF Optical Network Terminal Data Router/ IP Switch RF MUX RF RF EDFA RF Video RF RF Coax RG6

Comparative Cost AssessmentHFC O&M Expenses per Mile of Plant

Comparative Cost AssessmentFTTH (RF PON) O&M Expenses per Mile of Plant

Comparative Cost AssessmentHFC Deployment Costs per Mile of Plant

Comparative Cost AssessmentFTTH Deployment Costs per Mile of Plant

Comparative Cost AssessmentLife Cycle Cost ComparisonHFC and FTTH (RF PON)

Conclusions • FTTH (RF PON) best addresses the business decision drivers. • Current FTTH equipment costs place it at a significant disadvantage. • Construction costs for the OSP portion of the PON are 9% lower than HFC OSP deployment; however, the headend costs are over 16 times more favorable to an HFC approach. • Best areas to seek cost improvements are in the headend and CPE. • Under current price points, the Life Cycle break even point occurs during year 12.

Conclusions • Only part of the economic equation has been investigated. • Future looking cost modeling and comparative analysis need to be undertaken in order to develop the full scope of costs. • Transition from RF format to Ethernet for Voice and Data. • Transition from RF to IP Video. • Future looking business model comparative analysis needs to be undertaken to determine cash flow impact of FTTH vs HFC. • Changes in penetration levels. • Transition from Cable Modems to Ethernet to the Home. • Transition from RF video to IP Video. • Transition to an all IP world.

Conclusions • For the near term, cable operators will continue to refine the HFC platform with efforts to design out much of the current O&M costs by driving fiber closer to the curb – but not to the home.

Fiber Access Network A Cable Operator’s Perspective