Log in
Forgot password ?
Become a member for free
Sign up
Sign up
Dynamic quotes 

4-Traders Homepage  >  Equities  >  Nasdaq  >  Cisco Systems    CSCO

Mes dernières consult.
Most popular
News SummaryMost relevantAll newsofficial PublicationsSector newsTweets

Cisco : The Advantage of Remote PHY

share with twitter share with LinkedIn share with facebook
share via e-mail
10/13/2017 | 04:35pm CEST

Cisco Blog > SP360: Service Provider

SP360: Service Provider Daniel Etman - October 13, 2017 - 0 Comments

An Analysis of Remote PHY vs Analogue Deep Fiber Total Cost of Ownership

In a recently published white paper, The TCO Advantage of Remote PHY, we compare the CAPEX and OPEX of a Remote PHY deployment with an Integrated CCAP/HFC deployment. A next-generation Distributed Access Architecture (DAA), Remote PHY moves access hardware from the headend to smaller hub sites or into the plant, providing cable operators with a number of benefits including a reduced footprint, lower operational costs and bandwidth growth.

Although several options exist for deploying a DAA, the majority of cable industry equipment vendors are aligned with Remote PHY. It is the only DAA standard in the industry; the result of an industry-wide initiative, OpenRPD, chaired by CableLabs® with substantial contributions to the specification from Cisco. It is also the only DAA architecture that supports next-generation technologies such as Full Duplex DOCSIS 3.1 and Cloud Native virtualization. As a market enabler, the Remote PHY standard ensures product development is open and accessible to all equipment vendors. And most importantly, cable operators can select a standardized Remote PHY device (RPD) that best meets their needs, without being locked into a single vendor's proprietary solution.

Remote PHY vs. the Status Quo

Why compare a Remote PHY and an Integrated CCAP/HFC deployment? Although Remote PHY offers a number of advantages, it does represent a new deployment model that must be operationalized. As such, some operators may choose to continue splitting fiber nodes until they ultimately reach the same fiber depth as a Remote PHY Fiber Deep deployment. Theoretically, this approach would offer the same capacity expansion without the challenges of incorporating new technology and adapting to a new operational model.

This approach, which we will call Analog Fiber Deep, is really just continuing down the current path of splitting fiber nodes into new segments and adding corresponding integrated-CCAP capacity in the headends and hubs. Although not as flexible as Remote PHY Fiber Deep, Analog Fiber Deep would enable a fiber deep or node plus zero architecture but with analog modulated optics, i.e. traditional HFC.

The Comparison Model

To accurately compare the OPEX and CAPEX for Remote PHY Fiber Deep and Analog Fiber Deep deployments, we evaluated the costs associated with construction per cable mile, bandwidth per service group, segmentation, CCAP chassis density and scalability, equipment and HVAC powering estimates, headend footprints, and the Remote PHY CIN Network. CAPEX estimates were then developed for both scenarios. CAPEX was estimated based on bandwidth and hardware

CAPEX estimates were then developed for both scenarios. CAPEX was estimated based on bandwidth and hardware scalability and included the cable construction cost estimates.

The Flexibility of Remote PHY

As an inherently flexible platform, Remote PHY supports a number of deployment options that deserve mention. With considerations such as geographic network distribution, short-term and long-term goals, and anticipated subscriber and bandwidth growth rates, an operator may choose to deploy Remote PHY using:

  • A Remote PHY Shelf. A shelf can contain a few or many Remote PHY Devices (RPDs). This deployment option allows a hub to contain only RPD shelves, while centralizing the CCAP core. Shelves can also be used as 'port extenders' when paired locally with a CCAP core.
  • A Business as Usual fiber node location. Th
    is deployment uses the existing or traditional fiber node location, typically passing several hundred homes, and incorporates a number of actives or amplifiers in line after the fiber node. An operator could deploy an RPD in an existing location or as part of a node segmentation effort.
  • A new Fiber Deep node location. Because of its extreme segmentation, this deployment offers the most benefit from Remote PHY as each fiber deep location typically serves 50-70 homes and there are no active components past the RPD/fiber node location. This deployment is also referred to as 'node plus zero' meaning zero active components after the fiber node.

A combination of these deployments is possible and even viable in many situations. For example, an operator could deploy both Business as Usual and Fiber Deep nodes when converting an existing node to Remote PHY. This type of deployment would enable the operator to roll out Fiber Deep only to the areas that need capacity relief. Alternatively, an operator could deploy a mixture of Remote PHY shelves and nodes in a given area. Whichever path they choose, the flexibility of the Remote PHY deployment architecture enables operators to directly address capacity needs.

Remote PHY MER benefits; by replacing the Analog RF Optics with Digital Ethernet Optics the network MER improves dramatically as a result of a reduction in RF impairments. The graph demonstrates the typical improvement that can be accomplished utilizing Remote PHY Nodes.

Advantage: Remote PHY

While the white paper comparison between a Remote PHY Fiber Deep and Analog Fiber Deep deployment is based on a representative but hypothetical hub, both the OPEX and CAPEX data clearly shows the cost-effectiveness and advantages of a Remote PHY Fiber Deep deployment.

Substantial OPEX and CAPEX gains are made based on CCAP chassis density and scalability, equipment and HVAC powering estimates, headend footprints, and the Remote PHY CIN Network. Particular attention should be paid to the Remote PHY Fiber Deep deployment's reduction in headend footprint requirements, as this can often negate the need for facilities expansion.

The graphs above show the number of racks required in a headend for both architectures based on three phases of Bandwidth service tiers growth and two consecutive Service Group splits. Ultimately the difference between the two architectures is 39 headend racks.

Find Out More

Download a copy of the white paper to read our full analysis of Remote PHY's TCO benefits, including how a Remote PHY shelf or a Business as Usual fiber node deployment can be used to gain additional savings.

If you're traveling to the 2017 SCTE-ISBE Cable-Tec Expo this month, make sure you stop by and see us at booth #987 where we will gladly walk you through a demonstration of the Remote PHY technology and explain the benefits in more detail.


Cisco Systems Inc. published this content on 13 October 2017 and is solely responsible for the information contained herein.
Distributed by Public, unedited and unaltered, on 13 October 2017 14:34:02 UTC.

share with twitter share with LinkedIn share with facebook
share via e-mail
Latest news on CISCO SYSTEMS
04:30aGLOBAL IOT MARKET IN THE TRANSPORTAT : Global IoT market in the transportation s..
04/23CISCO : Digital Education – What will school be like for your kids?
04/23EARTH DAY 2018 : Tech and Trees the next big thing?
04/23CISCO : Cryptomining Campaign Returns Coal and Not Diamond
04/23CISCO : Six Ways to Stay Secure on a Budget
04/23NAB SHOW 2018 : Broadcasters must provide fast access to compelling content ever..
04/23CISCO : OT Intent-Based Security Policies
04/23CISCO : and Java Certifying Training
04/23GLOBAL DATA CENTER RACK MARKET TREND : IBM, Dell, Cisco, HPE, Rittal Corp, Oracl..
04/23CISCO : Network Device Maintenance Ppddp (Cisco)
More news
News from SeekingAlpha
04/23CISCO : A Dividend Growth Giant 
04/23How To Retire At 65 With Only Half A Million 
04/21THE PASSIVE DGI CORE PORTFOLIO : Income, Safety, And Growth 
04/18RECENT PURCHASE : Cisco Systems For Dividends And Return 
04/17Meet the electric/autonomous vehicle ETF 
Financials ($)
Sales 2018 49 158 M
EBIT 2018 15 326 M
Net income 2018 -855 M
Finance 2018 31 907 M
Yield 2018 2,76%
P/E ratio 2018 -
P/E ratio 2019 18,60
EV / Sales 2018 3,67x
EV / Sales 2019 3,66x
Capitalization 212 B
Duration : Period :
Cisco Systems Technical Analysis Chart | CSCO | US17275R1023 | 4-Traders
Technical analysis trends CISCO SYSTEMS
Short TermMid-TermLong Term
Income Statement Evolution
Mean consensus OUTPERFORM
Number of Analysts 31
Average target price 48,4 $
Spread / Average Target 9,8%
EPS Revisions
Charles H. Robbins Chairman & Chief Executive Officer
Tiang Yew Tan Senior Vice President-Operations & Digital
Kelly A. Kramer Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President
Guillermo Diaz Chief Information Officer & Senior Vice President
Roderick C. McGeary Independent Director
Sector and Competitors
1st jan.Capitalization (M$)
CISCO SYSTEMS15.12%212 404
QUALCOMM-19.65%76 150
ERICSSON21.23%25 761