Approach
  • Firstly we had expectations to produce several technical contributions on cable measurements, modelling, simulation, and the impairments observed in operational networks. This to put a solid ground under performance simulations for G.fast by adjusting the underlying assumptions and by introducing well-designed and validated cable and noise models. By doing so, we could give guidance to the industry in terms of fundamental G.fast design choices.
  • Secondly, we had expectations to produce technical contributions that were more system oriented, such as interworking issues between fibre and copper technologies, reverse/remote powering of nodes, layer 2 end-to-end architecture and management functionalities. This to help the industry in translating these requirements into technical solutions and to consolidate these in standards.
  • Thirdly, we expected to produce contributions that were more deployment related, regarding for instance the identification of service, installation and maintenance requirements, of different deployment scenarios and network topologies. Each of these has an impact on the implementation and performance of G.fast.
  • Project partners participated at the meetings of various standardization bodies. This was not only essential for presenting contributions, but also for the building of consensus on technical proposals. Since various standardization participants were partners in the HFCC/G.fast project, they could exploit the gathered know-how to boosting up the standardization and the developments of Hybrid FttH via G.fast.
  • Test plans/environments on early G.fast prototypes was devised and published to allow for a fair evaluation of potential G.fast solutions.
Search