Digital Due Diligence For The Upstream Toolbox (2011)

By Phil Miguelez and Dr. Robert Howald, Motorola Mobility

As upstream services have become more sophisticated, so too has the technology that supports it. Simple, robust modems were developed to enable STB communications.

Later, more sophisticated DOCSIS® modems complemented these for high-speed data services. Similarly, in the plant, return optics adequately supported the robust physical layer of STB communications using low-cost Fabry-Perot (FP) lasers. For DOCSIS®, laser technology advanced to meet the new challenges. This included higher power FP lasers, isolation techniques to mitigate noise, and the introduction of Distributed Feedback (DFB) lasers into the return transmitter portfolio.

DOCSIS®, of course, has continued to advance. Deployment of DOCSIS® 3.0 began in earnest in 2010 and will continue through 2011 and beyond. A key challenge is the demands that this places on the return channel – yet more sensitive modulation of wider bandwidth, the addition of new DOCSIS® channels, and potentially the addition of new spectrum. Together, it adds up to a much more aggressive use of available dynamic range. Nonetheless, the promise of DOCSIS® 3.0 must be met upstream for consumers whose speed and QoE expectations continue to rise. Next generation systems also may ultimately impose additional high performance requirements on the HFC upstream.

As the deployments of DOCSIS® 3.0 have increased, so too has new confusion over technology options to cost-effectively support this new DOCSIS® era. The new crossroads, replacing the debate over FP and DFB lasers, is around DFB technology options and Digital Return systems. Digital Return, developed now over ten years ago, offers an intriguing set of benefits that all MSOs should consider when planning future HFC migration. However, it also comes with some important constraints. This paper will take a comprehensive look at the use of DFBs and Digital Return technologies for supporting DOCSIS® and new potential upstream requirements in the context of anticipated traffic growth and expansion.

We will delve into the comparable digital return parameters that will help operators compare these systems to the capabilities of their analog counterparts, as well as among the various incarnations of Digital Return systems themselves. Finally, we will weigh the pros and cons of each and provide recommendations.

By clicking the "Download Paper" button, you are agreeing to our terms and conditions.

Similar Papers

Digital Due Diligence For The Upstream Toolbox
By Phil Miguelez and Dr. Robert Howald, Motorola Mobility
2011
Upstream 3.0: Cable’s Response To Web 2.0
By Dr. Robert Howald and Phil Miguelez, Motorola Mobility
2011
The Grown-up Potential Of A Teenage Phy
By Dr. Robert Howald, Robert Thompson, Dr. Amarildo Vieira, Motorola Mobility
2012
Making Room for DOCSIS 3.1 and EPoC – Is your cable plant ready for an OFDM world?
By Phil Miguelez, ARRIS
2013
256-QAM For Upstream HFC
By Robert Thompson, Jack Moran, Chuck Moore, Mike Cooper, Robert Howald, Ph.D., Motorola Home & Networks Mobility
2010
Optical Transmitter Technology for Next Generation Access Networks
By Phil Miguelez, Motorola Mobility, Inc.
2011
Breathing New Lifespan into HFC: Tools, Techniques, and Optimizations
By Dr. Robert L. Howald, ARRIS
2013
Calibrating The Crystal Ball For The Next Decade Of Growth
By Dr. Robert L Howald, Motorola Home & Networks
2010
Repair the Ides Of March: COVID-19 Induced Adaption of Access Network Strategies
By Dr. Robert Howald, Comcast
2020
Roaring into the ‘20s with 10G
By Dr. Robert Howald, Robert Thompson, Sebnem Ozer, Daniel Rice & Larry Wolcott, Comcast; Dr. Tom Cloonan, Dr. Ruth Cloonan & John Ulm, CommScope; Jan Ariesen, Technetix
2020
More Results >>