Vodafone perspectives

on wholesale fixed access

C3 C1

Prepared for the public Workshop – Access

and interoperability conditions organised by

the European Commission - 8 July 2015

Gavin Young

Head of Fixed Access Center of Excellence

• Vodafone - a significant fixed network player

• Fixed wholesale access conditions vary by

country

• Benefits of harmonisation

• Layer 2 Wholesale Access Product blueprint

Agenda

2

EC – Digital Single Market

Strategy

“ICT networks provide the

backbone for digital products and

services which have the potential

to support all aspects of our lives,

and drive Europe's economic

recovery”

“The Commission will present

proposals in 2016 for an ambitious

overhaul of the telecoms regulatory

framework focusing […] (ii) on

delivering the conditions for a true

single market by tackling regulatory

fragmentation to allow economies

of scale for efficient network

operators and service providers

and effective protection of

consumers” C1

• 19.7m fixed network customers

• 12m fixed broadband customers, mostly in

Europe

• Fixed network is 24% of service revenues in

Europe

• Largest LLU operator in Europe

• 3rd largest broadband provider in Europe

• FTTH Service Provider of the year 2014

Vodafone Offers Fixed Network Services in growing number of

countries

• Significant infrastructure owner and access seeker to achieve national coverage

• Wholesale access services (L2 WAP, Business grade bitstream and leased lines) critical to enable

competition in fixed broadband, IPTV, convergence and services to businesses

• We have fixed access requirements for business users in ~20 European countries

There is wide variability across Europe: Technology

4

Critical

Characterist

ic

Example of Limitation Example of Business Impact

Availability • No regulated L2 WAP available in

Germany, the Netherland or Malta.

• Germany L2 WAP availability 7 years

behind UK

• Constrained to IP bitstream in some markets

hence no scope to differentiate

Interconnect • Spain L2 Ethernet NNI only at regional

handover locations, not local

• Interconnect at NNI is only 1 Gbit/s in Italy

• No ability to use own backhaul network

assets

• N*1 Gbit/s option improves capacity

management flexibility & effectiveness

Multicast • No multicast in Spain or Germany

• No differentiated multicast in the

Netherlands

• Drives need to install equipment (capex,

space, power) in COs to convert backhaul

multicast to unicast for access node

Control of

CPE

• Country specific requirements, test plans &

certification (Belgium, Germany, UK …)

• Duplicated testing of some capabilities (could

make more efficient use of standards-based

certification)

QoS /

Contention

• UK only offers simplistic drop priority, not

multiple QoS classes - not compliant with

either global (BBF) or UK standards NICC)

• Limits ability to use NGA for business

services

There is wide variability across Europe : Process

5

Critical

Characteristic

Example of Limitation Example of Business Impact

SLAs/SLGs • Wide variability across markets in terms of

SLAs and SLGs (e.g. target of 5 working

days for provisioning bitstream in Ireland vs

21 in the Czech Republic in. Poor

wholesale performance generally

• Inconsistent or lowest common

denominator capabilities offered to

customers

Provisioning • In Greece, customer identification only

communicated via DHCP after

implementation

• More timely notification of

DSLAM/port ID could facilitate zero-

touch provisioning

Assurance • ANO can only undertake L1 testing the

systems stack in Italy, not L2

• Takes longer to diagnose root cause

of faults and fix them thus increasing

operational costs and reducing

customer satisfaction

B2B / Portal • In Italy the web portal is sometimes

unavailable for a few days

• Unable to send orders or check

progress

Sub-optimal fixed wholesale access services lead to a lack of level playing field with incumbents, competitive distortions, inferior consumer and business user experiences

Wholesale performance against SLAs remains poor

6

Bitstream

LLU

Leased

Lines

Total number of lines provisioned

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%64

423

99

553

10

984

5

50

349

9

20

748

4

11

665

0

53

0

17

76

68

62

SpainGermany Italy SpainGermany Italy SpainGermany UK

Services not provisioned within the regulated SLA

Data source: Vodafone 2014 except Italy Aug 2014 to Jan 2015 and the UK 2013

to 2014

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Spain Germany Italy Spain GermanyGermany Italy

Faults not repaired within the regulated SLA

• Increased competition and customer choice

• Consistent end-user experience

– For both business AND residential customers

• Harmonised wholesale products leading to:

– Reduced product development complexity

– Faster time to market (design/test once, deploy “many”)

– Ability to leverage economies of scale

• Wholesale service consistency facilitates:

– Cross-border expansion

– Intra-market choice of wholesalers without

interoperability risks

Benefits of greater harmonisation

(based on best practise, NOT lowest common denominator)

7

Technical

Processes

(inc SLAs)

L2 WAP - Res

Ethernet Leased

lines

L2 WAP - Bus

Importance of harmonisation

• Network Architecture & VLAN

configuration

• Network interconnect location options

• User equipment options – CPE/modem

choice

• Bandwidth, traffic prioritisation and QoS

• Multicast

• Security & End-User Identification

Defining requirements for best in class L2 WAP

8

Requirements*

Relevant considerations

L2 WAP should mimic the benefits of physical unbundling

• Market demand for retrospective alignment of each key wholesale product feature needs to be

considered:

– Benefits: e.g. improvement in provisioning, assurance and performance consistency for pan EU

products; greater efficiencies for testing; improved user experience

– Cost: e.g. network equipment change, additional systems modifications

• All the necessary network architecture, interface and technology interoperability standards exist

• B2B & portal interfaces

• Provisioning process

• Assure process

• SLA/SLG

• Unrestricted use

*see back-up slides for detail

• Europe needs to address regulatory fragmentation of wholesale fixed access

services

– Ensure that fit for purpose regulated access is available where competitive conditions require it

– Essential for the digital single market

• We support greater harmonisation of regulated access services

– Technical characteristics

– Processes for consumers and business services

– Greater transparency and monitoring of wholesale performance

• There is a clear role for the European Commission

– To drive greater UPWARD harmonization of technical characteristics and processes

– Must include SLAs, penalties and transparency

• BEREC and NRAs also have a critical role to play

Conclusions

9

BACK-UP

SLIDES

10 C1

Country Reference

Offer/Bandwidths

QoS (Delay,

Jitter, Packet

Loss)

Provisioning Time and

Penalties

Fault Repair and

Penalties

Germany 10, 100 (RO regulated)

1Gbit/s, 10Gbit/s

(unregulated)

Delay <30ms

Variation Voice 2ms,

other 5ms

Frame loss <0.1%

Provisioning date 20 wk.days

Provisioning : 8 weeks – 6 months

Penalties - 20% connection charge 16-30

days, increasing (not in RO)

24h after fault message (not RO)

Express repair 8 hours (extra)

Penalties - 12h late repair 10%

monthly charge increasing to

max 20%

Italy 10, 96,150 Mbit/s

1Gbit/s (10Gbit/s no

RO)

No information No info re order confirmation

48-90 days (95%)

100 days (100%)

Penalties: 1-2 days 30% rental, increasing

5 hours (broken line)

Penalties :<=4 hours late 25%

monthly rental

4-8hours 100% increasing

Netherlands 10, 100Mbit/s

1Gbit/s

Not guaranteed

Delay <10ms

Jitter <10ms

Frame loss <0.05%

Order confirmation 1 day

Provisioning date confirmed 15 days after

order accepted

Penalties: 1-6 days late 20% rental

standard or 50% advanced

Standard 90% in 8 hours, 100%

within 12 hours

Advanced 90% within 4, 100% in

8

Penalties: Delayed repair (from

>2 hours) up to 60% discount

Spain 10, 100Mbit/s

1Gbit/s, 10GBit/s (no

RO)

Delay <10ms

Jitter: 20 microsec

Order confirmed 15 days

Provisioning 60 days

Penalties: 5% connection charge per day

delayed.

6-8 hours

Penalties: 12.5-16.7% monthly

charge per hour

UK 10, 100Mbit./s, 1Gbit/s

10Gbit/s (OSA)

No information Order confirmed 8 days

Provisioned 30 days standard . If

installations required resulting in 60 day

average

Penalties: 1 monthly rental for each day late

5 hours

Penalties: 15% monthly rental for

each fault + 15% per hour in

excess

Case Study – benchmarking Ethernet leased lines

11 Source: WIK Consult review for Vodafone, 2013

• Physical layers for NGA standardised by ITU & ETSI

• Ethernet service & interface definitions developed by MEF (especially for business use)

• Architecture, CPE management and interoperability for NGA fully covered by Broadband

Forum

(referencing NICC): – Broadband Forum TR-178, “Multi-service Broadband Network Architecture and Nodal Requirements”, Issue 1, September 2014.

– Broadband Forum TR-101, “Migration to Ethernet Based DSL Aggregation”, Issue 2, July 2011.

– Broadband Forum TR-156, “Using GPON Access in the context of TR-101”, Issue 3, November 2012.

– Broadband Forum TR-144, “Broadband Multi-Service Architecture & Framework Requirements”, Issue 1, August 2007.

– Broadband Forum TR-145, “Multi-service Broadband Network Functional Modules and Architecture”, Issue 1, November 2012.

– Broadband Forum TR-142, “Framework for use of TR-069 with PON Access”.

– Broadband Forum TR-069, “CPE WAN Management Protocol”.

– Broadband Forum TR-114, “VDSL2 Performance Test Plan”, Issue 1, November 2009.

– Broadband Forum TR-115, “VDSL2 Functionality Test Plan”, Issue 1, November 2009.

– Broadband Forum TR-247, “Abstract Test Plan for GPON ONU Conformance”, Issue 1, November 2011.

– Metro Ethernet Forum MEF26.1, “External Network Network Interface (ENNI) – Phase 2”, January 2012.

– NICC ND1642v1.1.1 ”Requirements for Ethernet Interconnect and Ethernet ALA”, 2010.

– NICC ND1030v1.1.1, “ Ethernet ALA Service Definition”, 2010.

– NICC ND1644v1.1.1 ”Ethernet ALA Architecture” 2010.

– NICC ND1036v1.1.1 “Ethernet ALA NNI“, 2011.

– NICC ND1031v1.1.1, “Ethernet ALA UNI“, 2010.

All the necessary network architecture, interface and technology standards

exist

Standardisation Status

C1

12

• Would it improve the provisioning and assurance process consistency of pan EU

market products?

• Would it improve the network layer performance consistency of pan EU market

products?

• Would the change be noticed by the end-user?

• Does it affect the performance perceived by the end-user?

• Would it lead to greater economies of scale for vendors?

• Would it lead to greater efficiencies in terms of testing (functional, performance,

interop)?

• Would it require significant network equipment change-out in existing deployments?

• Does it necessitate major additional systems development by buyer and/or seller of

L2 WAP?

Considerations for Aligning L2 WAP Across Markets

C1 13

Requirement Alignment

Potential Comment

Network

Architecture & VLAN

configuration

• Standardised, but includes 1:1 & N:1 options

• Must keep UNI VLANs same so changes don’t “cut-off” legacy CPE

• Feasible to add VLANs & still be backward compatible)

• Converting N:1 to 1:1 model in the network would be challenging

Network

interconnect

location options

• If the L2 format of the NNI is preserved then feasible to add backhaul

connectivity options and include migration too.

User equipment

options –

CPE/modem choice

• Feasible to add “wires-only” option, proven in some markets already

Bandwidth, traffic

prioritisation and

QoS

• Can add assured bandwidth, prioritisation and QoS options via

configuration & enhancement of the associated capacity management

processes

• Gating factor is any hardware restrictions (queue limit/scheduler) on

Access Nodes & aggregation equipment

Multicast • Feasible to add as proven by some L2 WAP providers

• Nearly all modern Access nodes and Ethernet aggregation switches

can support multicast

Prospects for Retrospective Alignment for Harmonisation [1]

Requirement

Alignmen

t

Potential

Comment

Security & End-

User Identification

• Network equipment that is compliant with the requirements of the relevant

broadband architecture standards should already be capable of supporting

the suggested best practises.

• It is mainly a question of configuration and testing to deploy these.

B2B & portal

interfaces

• B2B interfaces and schema are normally already on a regular release

upgrade cycle to accommodate improvements and new products

• Modern interfaces based on Internet approaches such as XML and SOAP

are be easier to change, for both L2 WAP provider and ANO

Provisioning

process

• A culture of customer focus and continuous improvement should facilitate

optimisation of the processes for provision of service.

• Some systems development for improved automation may be required

Assure process • Some systems development and deployment of additional technologies

such as probes may be required

SLA/SLG

• Improved measurement and reporting processes and systems

development may be required.

• The most significant aspect of retrofitting best practise in this area could be

commercial in terms of creating and validating new contract terms and

conditions etc.

Prospects for Retrospective Alignment for Harmonisation [2]

• Network Architecture & VLAN configuration

– Support for S-Tagged UNI with a VLAN per service at the residential customer UNI

– Support for S-Tagged or Port Based UNI for business customer UNI.

– Support for S-Tagged or S+C Tagged on the same NNI.

– Minimum of 4 VLANS per residential customer with support for the same set of VLAN IDs on all

UNI

– Full flexibility for the access provider to define the ranges and policy for VLAN allocation on the

UNI and NNI.

– Access to an N:1 VLAN for multicasting

– Unicast services can be identified uniquely using only VLAN IDs (not MAC address)

– VLAN per customer at NNI and UNI for business customers

• Network interconnect location options

– Ethernet Interconnect at CO Level

– Parent-Child CO Aggregation Handover option

– 1G, 10G and resilient handover option (inc. n*1G & n*10G)

• User equipment options – CPE/modem choice

– Wires-only option for ANO to provide own branded & integrated NTE/modem/ONT + router CPE

– CPE interoperability requirements follow BBF standards and certification approach

– CPE interop test/validation environment to facilitate expanded “white list” of approved CPE

Key Network Requirement Areas [1] ANO=Alternative Network Operator

C1 16

• Bandwidth, traffic prioritisation and QoS

– Bandwidth profile available up to the maximum speed achievable by the DSL physical layer

transmission system (including rate-adaptive systems)

– Ability to request new bandwidth profiles for FTTH transmission systems

– Choice of bandwidth profiles at least equal to, and ideally a super-set of, those used by the L2 WAP

Network Provider for their own retail services

– Minimum of 4 levels of traffic prioritisation based on p-bits

– Minimum quantified guaranteed throughput rates (CIR from UNI to NNI) for over-booked and

uncontended services

– QoS SLA targets for each VLAN from UNI to NNI, defined by Frame Loss Rate, Frame Delay and

Frame Delay Variation measures

• Multicast

– Multicast Frame replication functionality for Local and Regional handovers on dedicated N:1 VLAN

– IGMPv3 snooping for end-user access control of multicast in accordance with BBF TR-101 (& MLDv2

for IPv6)

Key Network Requirement Areas [2]

C1 17

• Security & End-User Identification

– Customer Identification by Access Node and physical port identifiers (which can then be

communicated via DHCP option 82 or PPPoE IA) - VLAN identifiers are an alternative only in

situations where they provide unique customer identification co-ordinates

– MAC address anti-spoofing - duplicate MAC address detection and rejection of traffic from

duplicate MAC address sources

– Control and policing of IGMP rate for N:1 VLANs

– Rate limit Layer 2 broadcast

• B2B & portal interfaces

– Automation of all key process interactions between L2 WAP Network Provider and ANO via B2B

and portal interface options

– SLA on systems availability and response time

Key Network & System Requirement Areas [3]

C1 18

• Provisioning process

– Clear processes for provision and handling of errors or changes

– Individual customer order progress reported regularly during all phases of provisioning

– All key customer provide status milestones automatically notified via B2B interface and portal

– Interconnect planned for growth, minimal upgrade impact on live traffic

– Planning information on NGA rollout/coverage (by L2 WAP Network Provider) provided on a timely

and regular basis

– Ability to select and configure DSL line profiles/parameters and DLM stability thresholds

– Option to self-provide the fibre drop within the multi-tenancy building for FTTH

• Assure process

– Automated capability for confirming actual configuration of provisioned parameters (line profile,

VLAN configuration etc.) and performance measures

– Diagnostic capability for L1 and L2 testing (including loopbacks) for analysis of end user

connections and for interconnects

– Access and management to end user CPE from ANO network via industry standards based in-

band methods

– All key customer repair status milestones automatically notified via B2B interface and portal

Key Process Requirement Areas

C1 19

• SLA/SLG

– SLAs & SLGs should be defined for each of the main elements of the life cycle of services

including at least, Ordering, Provisioning, Service Availability & Fault restoration

– SLAs & SLGs should be defined for the electronic platform used to interface with the L2 WAP

Network Provider, including availability and response times.

– SLAs should be aligned with end-user requirements

– SLGs should be high enough to incentivise compliance with the SLAs by the L2 WAP Network

Provider, preferably with no penalty caps and with a right to claim for additional losses above the

level of SLGs

– SLAs & SLGs should apply per fault/event/line/circuit - not in aggregate for average performance

– Payment of penalties should be pro-active /automatic – The ANO shouldn’t have to measure it or

ask for it

– The L2 WAP Network Provider should provide reports on actual performance against SLAs –

ANOs should have a right to challenge reported performance with contrary evidence

– SLAs & SLGs should be tightly worded with limited carve-out conditions, clearly identify

exceptions, limited opportunities for stop-the-clock, outage time for electronic platforms and other

multiple feed-back loops

• The VULA product should also have unrestricted use

– i.e. it should be able to be used for consumer, enterprise or mobile backhaul service delivery.

Key SLA/SLG Areas

C1 20

L2 WAP Reference Model from BBF TR-178

C1 21

VLAN Model: Consumer

C1 22

VLAN Model: Business

C1 23

Illustration of Parent-Child CO Aggregation for NNI

C1 24

• Typical ratio would be ~5 “child” COs per

“Parent” CO

Example Uses for L2 WAP QoS Classes (as per BBF TR-

178)

C1 25

QoS CLASS TYPICAL USE

A Real time delay sensitive applications

(e.g. voice or packet-layer synchronisation)

B Streaming applications (e.g. video)

C Internet data

D Guest or 3rd-party access

Multicast Reference Model from BBF TR-101

C1 26

Vodafone’s Own Fixed Broadband Access Networks

C1 27

• We directly pass over 25m

Europe households with

NGA

• Extending to over 48m

with wholesale deals

Italy

Germany

Spain

UK

Greece

Ireland

Portugal

New Zealand

Egypt

Hungary

Turkey

Netherlands

Czech

Australia

Qatar

Ghana

South Africa

Romania