Status Report and Recommendations June 26, 2001

1
Status Report and RecommendationsJune 26, 2001
NRIC V Network Reliability and Interoperability
Council Focus Group 3Wireline Network Spectral
Integrity

• Ed Eckert, Chair, Focus Group 3
• Phil Kyees, Chair, Spectrum Management
  Subcommittee
• Massimo Sorbara, Chair, Spectrum Compatibility
  Subcommittee

2
What has FG3 done since the February 2001 Council
meeting?

• Six days of face-to-face meetings
• Liaisons to key standards development
  organizations
• Reviewed and considered 12 individual
  contributions towards the FG goals
• Work towards White Paper on Intermediate
  Transceiver Units Remote Deployed DSL
  Advantages, Challenges, and Solutions
• Work towards recommendation on SM information
  exchanges between equipment manufacturers, loop
  owners and service providers.

3
Title Mission Statement

• NRIC V, Focus Group 3 shall be Titled
• Wireline Network Spectral Integrity

• The Mission of the Wireline Network Spectral
  Integrity (WNSI) Focus Group is to provide
  recommendations to the FCC and to the
  telecommunications industry that, when
  implemented, will
• ensure the integrity of coexisting services in
  wireline public telecommunications networks
• facilitate widespread and unencumbered deployment
  of xDSL and associated wireline high speed access
  technologies, and
• encourage network architecture and technology
  evolution that safeguards the integrity of
  wireline public telecommunications networks while
  maximizing capacity, availability and throughput
  in an unbundled/competitive environment.

4
Contribution Categories

• Intermediate TU Issues
• Repeaters in the loop plant
• Spectrum Compatibility of Digital Loop Carrier
  (DLC) based signals with Central Office (CO)
  based signals
• Effect of Intermediate TU-Cs
• Multiple Locations
• Administration of Loops and Technologies in
  Binders
• Grandfathering vs. Sunsetting services/technologie
  s
• Measuring and reporting if particular loop is
  qualified for a specific spectrum management
  class (loop length, bridge taps)
• Measuring Reporting Loop Parameters for use in
  xDSL Loop Qualification
• Equivalent Working Length (EWL), Loop Length,
  Bridged Tap
• Reporting Technologies
• Definition of Known Disturbers
• Bi-directional Disclosure of Spectrum Management
  Class and PSD
• Effectiveness of rules and mechanisms for binder
  group management and interference in dispute
  resolution
• Equipment Registration
• Application of Part 68 to xDSL TU-R (Customer
  Located Equipment)
• Certification/registration of xDSL TU-C Equipment
  to published Technical Requirements

• New Technology
• Frequency Planning for advancement of high-speed
  services in the loop plant
• Short Term Stationary Systems
• xDSL technology evolution to promote long term
  spectral integrity
• Line Sharing
• POTS Quality
• Data Quality
• Metallic Test Access
• Fault Management
• Splitter Ownership
• Splitter Physical and Electrical Location
• Ingress/Egress issues
• Metallic Balance in Network and Customer wiring
• Effect of In-premises Signals on Wireline Network
• In-Premises Wireline Transmitters
• Co-Located TU Compatibility
• Spectrum Compatibility of Co-located xDSL
  Transceivers
• TU-Cs at CO
• TU-Cs at RT

5
SMEs Sponsor Organizations

• Service Providers
• AT T Tom Shen
• BellSouth Gary Tennyson
• Covad David Rosenstein
• Previously Anjali Joshi
• Qwest Jamal Boudhaouia
• Previously Mary Retka
• Rhythms David Reilly
• SBC Gene Edmon
• Sprint Pete Youngberg
• Verizon Greg Sherrill
• WorldCom Paul Donaldson
• Note that Northpoint invitee never attended and
  that invitee Prism is no longer in business.

• Equipment Suppliers
• Adtran Kevin Schneider
• Elastic Networks Patrick Stanley
• Texas Instruments Jim Carlo
• Lucent Harry Mildonian

• Leadership
• Globespan Massimo Sorbara
• Paradyne Phil Kyees
• Catena Networks Ed Eckert

• FCC
• Paul Marrangoni

6
Status of Technical Standards Development and
Implementation

• Committee T1s Technical Subcommittee T1E1 has
  now completed the first American National
  Standard - Spectrum Management for Loop
  Transmission Systems approved by ANSI as T1.417
  on 1/1/2001. Available 3/1/01 at www.atis.org.
• Standards for Inline Filters (for splitterless
  DSL) and Network End Splitters to be balloted by
  Committee T1 in June.
• VDSL standards targeted for default letter ballot
  in August.
• Effort on Dynamic Spectrum Management (DSM) has
  begun.
• Joint work between T1E1.4 and TR41.9 on ACTA
  (Part 68) issues
• T1E1.4 will be responsible for developing a
  recommendation on the installation of ADSL
  splitters in homes having alarms/security
  systems. Call for contributions has been made.
• Joint work to identify appropriate sections of
  T1.417 Spectrum Management for inclusion in a
  future issue of TIA-968.

7
Status of Technical Standards Development and
Implementation

• T1E1.4 continues work on Issue 2 of T1.417, with
  discussions and contributions being focused on
  the spectral compatibility of Central Office
  based DSL with Remote Terminal based DSLs and
  Repeaters (a.k.a intermediate transceiver units
  (TUs)).
• Target is to have draft Issue 2 out for letter
  ballot in 4Q2001.
• Format (i.e. delta document, addendum, or a
  completely new version) for Issue 2 is not yet
  clear, however any changes will be normative.
• Topics for consideration in Issue 2 include
• Revision of non-DSL out-of-band metallic and
  longitudinal signal power limits to provide an
  adequate level of protection for DSL systems.
• Addition of VDSL to the basis systems list.
• Extension of spectrum management class 5 upstream
  band to lower frequencies.
• Methods for optimizing PSDs, maximizing
  throughput and binder group capacity.
• Trade-offs between loop length guidelines and
  spectral characteristics.
• The susceptibility of some deployed systems to
  short term stationary crosstalk.
• Spectral compatibility with T1.419 (splitterless
  ADSL) basis systems.

8
Recommendations

• General information
• An update on actions towards the goals of the
  original recommendations is included in this
  presentation.
• Today, we do not have any new or revised
  recommendations to bring to the Council for
  approval.
• Additional recommendations and at least one white
  paper are targeted for the October Council
  meeting.
• White Paper on Intermediate Transceiver Units
  Remote Deployed DSL Advantages, Challenges, and
  Solutions
• Recommendation on Spectrum Management information
  exchanges between equipment manufacturers, loop
  owners and service providers.

9
Status FG3 Recommendations 1 - 2

• In August 2000, FG3 put forward four
  recommendations. Shown below is an update on
  actions towards their goals
• Rec 1 - New Technology, Frequency Planning
• Revision to original recommendations approved in
  February 2001
• Means of FCC Endorsement of Band Plan 998 is
  still unclear
• Timing for inclusion of Band Plan 998 in Issue 2
  of T1.417 is now.
• Rec 2 Ingress/Egress Issues In-Premises
  Wireline Transmitters
• The ITU-T is developing technical requirements
  for an isolation device it is presumed that such
  technical requirements would be adopted by a US
  standards development organization.
• We expect to report further on this at the next
  council meeting.

10
Status FG3 Recommendations 3 - 4

• Rec 3 - Equipment Registration, Application of
  Part 68 to xDSL TU-R (Customer Located
  Equipment)
• Formation of ACTA (Administrative Council on
  Terminal Attachments) is moving forward under
  ATIS and the TIA, first meeting was May 2, 2001
• Work towards moving Part 68 Technical
  Requirements to ANSI 68 has started in TIA
  TR41 T1E1 will provide advice on this and
  further updates to the proposed ANSI TIA-968.
• Rec 4 - Intermediate TU Issues
• Priority of this issue is shown in T1E1 by the
  fact that nearly all of the contributions towards
  T1.417 Issue 2 are intended to help bring
  resolution to this issue.

11
Status FG3 Recommendations 5 - 6

• Rec 5 - Line Sharing Test Access
• No further information.
• Rec 6 - Intermediate TU Issues Remote DSL
• New recommendation prepared by FG3 was partially
  approved in February
• One part of the originally proposed
  recommendation was remanded to FG3 for further
  consideration
• Since no consensus on the language for this
  aspect of the recommendation could be attained,
  it was agreed that a white paper would be
  produced. This paper is in development and will
  describe, in a factual way, the many complexities
  of Remote DSL deployment. It is not intended to
  provide conclusions or recommendations around the
  facts.

12
Participation Issue

• On May 8, 2001 Service Providers Covad, Rhythms
  and WorldCom sent a letter to NRIC Chairman James
  Crowe and NRIC Designated Federal Officer Kent
  Nilsson, stating that they will not continue to
  participate in Focus Group 3.
• Focus Group 3 is committed to its mission and
  will continue to provide the industry and the FCC
  with information on Wireline Network Spectral
  Integrity that will promote deployment of
  Advanced Services in a competitive environment.

13
Participation Issue

• FG3, with the support of the FCC Common Carrier
  Bureau, respectfully requests that Covad, Rhythms
  and WorldCom reconsider their action to withdraw
  their participation.
• The Focus Group stands ready, as always, to
  institute changes to promulgate the renewed
  participation by these service providers.
• FG3 looks forward to Covad, Rhythms and WorldCom
  contributions towards development of the White
  Paper on Remote DSL as well as further
  recommendations.

14
Special Thanks To

• Young Carlson, FCC Administrative Assistant for
  her excellent work on meeting logistics.
• Kent Nilsson (FCC), Designated Federal Officer to
  NRIC V and Paul Marrangoni (FCC) for their
  ongoing guidance on, and encouragement of, Focus
  Group initiatives.
• Our meeting hosts Catena Networks and Paradyne.
• Our volunteer Subject Matter Experts, especially
  those who have taken on extra assignments.

15
Recommendations 6 (Backup info only)

• Recommendation 6 Intermediate TU Issues
  Remote DSL
• Background See Appendix D for background.
• Recommendation 
• Focus Group 3 recommends that T1E1s continuing
  work on spectrum management standards embrace, as
  a whole, the background and recommendations
  contained herein.
• As a preventative measure, the industry should be
  encouraged to employ available transmit power
  management mechanisms to minimize the effect of
  FEXT from remote deployments. One method that
  has been proposed to do this for ADSL modems is
  to limit the maximum noise margin per tone to the
  smallest value where data performance is not
  affected this effectively results in tones with
  lower transmit power and/or fewer tones used.
  While this will undoubtedly reduce the amount of
  FEXT caused by remote ADSL, the benefits to be
  gained from this recommendation are under study.
  Furthermore, we recommend that industry
  standards bodies incorporate and require
  implementation of appropriate transmit power
  management mechanisms in future DSL standards,
  and that T1E1 incorporate and encourage the use
  of transmit power management mechanisms in future
  spectrum compatibility standards.
• We recommend that the FCC consider the following
  in future rulemaking on the issue of remote ADSL
  deployments Where remote and central office
  ADSL deployments will serve customers with loops
  in the same distribution cable, providers of
  remote deployments should provide means for
  accommodating CO-based deployments. Whether
  this accommodation should be done in a
  preventative or remedial manner depends on the
  projected exposure or expected rate of trouble
  occurrence. If an analysis of the exposure
  suggests that significant spectral compatibility
  problems are likely, CO-based ADSL should be
  accommodated in a preventative manner, as part of
  the remote ADSL deployment. The extent of this
  exposure is currently under study in FG3.
  Therefore, both the strategy (preventative or
  remedial) and the means (e.g. co-location,
  derived circuits, amplifiers, etc.) of
  accommodation will be the subject of future
  recommendations by FG3.

This bullet remanded to FG3 for further
consideration.