SubOptic 2025 Presentations: Wet Plant Design - Part 1
Author: Dmitry Kovsh. Subcom employee.
Presentation Available Upon Request.
In
his presentation Dmitry focused on designing wet plant for open cable
systems. Wet plant is everything in the water up to the beach manhole.
The main components are the fibre optic cable and optical amplifiers. I
define an open cable system as one where capacity owners manage
individually their capacity. This business model involves capacity
allocation by fibre pair or a percentage of a fibre pair's spectrum. Big
capacity owners own one or more fibre pairs. Smaller players own
spectrum called either a quarter fibre pair or half fibre pair. As the
name suggests, a quarter fibre pair means the owner has exclusive right
to use 25% of the fibre pair's usable spectrum. Similarly for a half
fibre pair. Spectrum ownership means the cable delivers usable spectrum
on a fibre pair defined by upper and lower frequency limits. The
spectrum lying in the frequency range belongs to the owner for the term
of the contract. Optical spectrum is measured in gigahertz.
The
open cable system minimizes the common management of the fibre optic
network. It has been reduced to the wet segment, the front haul fibre
from the beach manhole to the cable landing landing station, and the
back haul fibre from the CLS to carrier neutral data centres or telecom
hotels. Even the back haul fibre is not always a collective decision. In
the case of 2Africa one consortium member's main Ghana POP is PAIX.
This is where their SLTE (submarine line termination equipment) is kept.
Other consortium members keep their SLTEs at the Accra Digital Realty
sites. So fibre pair owners under the open cable model can buy or build
their own back haul routes and hence select which data centers will
house the transponders, DWDM, and add-drop gear.
The
open cable maximizes individual owner control and choice. Each owner
selects its POPs and all the active optical equipment with the exception
of the subsea and optical amplifiers. For example, one 2Africa
consortium member could use Ciena gear while another uses SmartOptics or
Nokia. This maximum freedom approach speeds network design and
deployment. In a large consortium where all network elements are owned
collectively, every technology decision requires unanimity or a
qualified majority. It takes a lot of time to reach consensus. Nor is it
necessarily the case that the best technology fit is the same for every
owner or consortium member. If a member is a wholesale carrier, it
competes in a very competitive market where services are standardized
and consequently price pressure is great. It is more likely to go with a
cheaper Nokia or SmartOptics products as opposed to a more expensive
system with greater recurring costs (port activation fees) like Ciena.
On the other hand, a Tech Giant might go with Ciena because the former
enjoys so much bargaining power that it can beat the crap out of the
Ciena rep. 😀

Comments
Post a Comment