Tài liệu Plug and Play Splitter Architectures Drive Operational Savings doc

WHITE PAPER
Plug and Play Splitter
Architectures Drive
Operational Savings
After service providers decide to deploy a particular fiber-to-the-premise (FTTP)
architecture, they are faced with a number of important decisions. This paper
addresses one such decision that will significantly impact the network in terms
of time, performance, flexibility, and cost throughout its operational life.
Providers must decide how to connect the F1 optical feeder cable inputs to
the splitters in the fiber distribution hubs (FDHs). There are several methods
for making these connections, but selecting the best technique will provide
benefits in many other areas, such as turn-up speed, dealing with customer
churn, and easier maintenance and troubleshooting.
Early decisions to splice
Many early FTTP deployments sparked concerns about loss budgets. Since the
use of connectors resulted in more loss than straight splicing, the network
architects decided splicing inputs to the splitters was preferable to minimize
loss. The feeder cable was brought into the cabinet and prepped into a splice
area. New splitters were installed with fiber pigtails that were spliced into
one of the F1 fibers. This method resulted in slightly less loss and enabled the
addition of more splitters as the network grew.
However, there were also a few downsides to splicing the F1 cables to the
splitters. The first issue is the amount of time required to install each splitter.
Splicing obviously takes considerably longer than mating two connectors. Also,
splicing has an affect on the work force. Each time a new splitter is added, it
requires technicians with more training and higher skill sets as well as the need
to have all the specialized splicing equipment available. Not having one or the
other readily available increases the time it takes to perform the task and slows
down the overall deployment.
Another issue created by splicing is in the initial turn-up of the cabinet. In
order to test all the F1 fibers, the technician must splice pigtails for connecting

each F1 input to the test equipment. A considerable amount of time can be
spent during initial turn-up with splicing on pigtails and cutting them off again
following testing. This could lead to testing through the splitter or not testing
F1 inputs at all – neither of which is a recommended practice.
Plug and Play
Splitter Architectures Drive
Operational Savings
Plug and Play Splitter Architectures Drive Operational Savings
Page 3
Testing the splitter itself requires the technician to
splice a connector to the input of the splitter. So, in
essence, to test both the F1 and the splitter would
require breaking a splice, splicing connectors to both
the F1 and the splitter, running the tests, cutting off the
connectors, and re-splicing the F1 to the splitter input.
This process is both time consuming and costly.
Benefits of connectors
Eventually, network technicians determined that there
are advantages to using a connectorized approach in
the FDH. They decided to add a connector onto the
F1 cable that would easily connect it to the splitter
input. Several factors attributed to the decision to
connectorize this process.
First, as volumes have increased, connector quality has
improved significantly in the last few years. The loss
attributed to a connection has dropped about one-
tenth of a dB. Additionally, the splitters have further
reduced loss characteristics. Typical loss for a splitter
was traditionally about 17 dB, but that has improved
to about 16.5 dB today. Together, these improvements

have resulted in more budget for loss – and a good
place to use some of that is in adding a connector to
the splitter input.
Adding a connector to the F1 provides more rapid
testing of the inputs. It also helps achieve faster
installation of the splitters – ADC’s splitters can be
installed in less than five minutes. It eliminates time
and expense involved in installing each splitter into the
FDH while providing one more area for segmenting the
network during troubleshooting procedures
Splitter choices
Once the network architect makes the choice for
connectorization, there are two splitter configurations
available – pigtail-and-play or plug-and-play. Although
both offer substantial benefits over straight splicing, the
plug-and-play has additional advantages. For example,
the F1 connection requires no routing when installing
the splitter. This mitigates the risk of disturbing an
adjacent F1 connection when installing a new splitter.
In the past, there was a potential for the technician
routing the F1 to accidentally disturb an adjacent F1,
which could cause a service interruption or outage for
32 customers. In many cases, the F1 can be exposed
whenever a technician works on the cabinet. This allows
a potential for accidental damage anytime a technician
is performing a task, such as connecting an F2 cable.
But with a plug-and-play splitter design, the connection
is made between the F1 and the splitter simply by
plugging the splitter in the backplane of the cabinet.
One argument for the pigtail-and-play splitter is its

ability to provide more flexibility for routing business
services through the cabinet. Having a pigtail in place
provides a separate patch panel for routing business
services or expressing them through the cabinet.
Although this is a point well taken, it may be an even
better idea to have those business services and their
F1 connection segregated from the residential services.
Business services include several classes of service with
different service level agreements associated with them
– along with different revenue streams.
Even in a plug-and-play scenario, there is typically
a completely separate pass-through panel used for
expressing business services. This method enables
easy identification of a different service running on
a particular cable. Finally, plug-and-play splitters also
require less routing expertise than the pigtail-and-
play version. That equates to less training required
to perform service and maintenance at areas of the
network that incorporate connectors versus splices.
The goal of any FTTP buildout is to achieve the right
balance between up-front initial equipment costs and
the operational costs involved in long-term performance
of the network. Connectors are typically more expensive
than a splice in terms of initial cost. However, a
connectorized FDH cabinet is one point in the network
where using connectors makes sense.
With the improvements in the loss characteristics
of fiber-optic connectors and optical splitters, the
operational cost advantages of connectorization far
outweigh the initial cost savings of splicing. These

operational advantages – faster turn-up, easier test
access, lower training requirements, less specialized
equipment, and an overall more flexible network – are
only achievable with a connectorized F1 input
Website: www.adc.com
From North America, Call Toll Free: 1-800-366-3891 • Outside of North America: +1-952-938-8080
Fax: +1-952-917-3237 • For a listing of ADC’s global sales office locations, please refer to our website.
ADC Telecommunications, Inc., P.O. Box 1101, Minneapolis, Minnesota USA 55440-1101
Specifications published here are current as of the date of publication of this document. Because we are continuously
improving our products, ADC reserves the right to change specifications without prior notice. At any time, you may
verify product specifications by contacting our headquarters office in Minneapolis. ADC Telecommunications, Inc.
views its patent portfolio as an important corporate asset and vigorously enforces its patents. Products or features
contained herein may be covered by one or more U.S. or foreign patents. An Equal Opportunity Employer
105254AE 8/07 Original © 2007 ADC Telecommunications, Inc. All Rights Reserved
WHITE PAPERWHITE PAPER