1. ITU-T Workshop All Star Network Access Geneva, 2-4 June 2004 International Telecommunication Union Fiber Access Network A Cable Operators Perspective Mr. John A. Brouse, Jr. Director of Network Implementation Charter Communications, Inc.

2. ITU-T 2 June 2-4, 2004 Fiber Access Network A Cable Operators Perspective o Historical Perspective o Current Decision Drivers o HFC Model o FTTH Model o Comparative Cost Assessment o Conclusions

3. ITU-T 3 June 2-4, 2004 Fiber Access Network A Cable Operators Perspective o Historical Perspective o Current Decision Drivers o HFC Model o FTTH Model o Comparative Cost Assessment o Conclusions

4. ITU-T 4 June 2-4, 2004 Historical Perspective o RF was the Technology of Choice Frequency Division Multiplexing easily allows simultaneous transmissions Ubiquitous service achieved through a Tree and Branch system of cascading RF amplifiers, coaxial cables, and directional couplers Cost to build and operate the network is independent of service penetration levels o Network and Product Expansion More Homes and More Programming Expanding the network footprint increased the number of actives in cascade New product launches required additional RF bandwidth Higher frequencies required RF electronics change outs and re-spacing Result was more components, reduced signal quality and lower reliability

5. ITU-T 5 June 2-4, 2004 Historical Perspective o 1988 Realization that network bandwidth expansion and footprint expansion hit a technical wall Industry move quickly to adapt existing fiber optics technology to improve RF signal quality and reliability First generation RF broadband optics developed and deployed within 18 months o First Generation Application RF cascade reductions Called Fiber Backbone focus was RF performance minimal fibers used minimal nodes deployed maximize number of homes served per node Lead to eventual evolution to todays HFC network node serving areas of 500 homes or less focus is efficient interactive bandwidth usage

6. ITU-T 6 June 2-4, 2004 Fiber Access Network A Cable Operators Perspective o Historical Perspective o Current Decision Drivers o HFC Model o FTTH Model o Comparative Cost Assessment o Conclusions

7. ITU-T 7 June 2-4, 2004 Current Decision Drivers o CASH FLOW OSP O&M costs are escalating work force costs and benefits network power costs fleet operating costs liability insurance Costs to launch advanced products and services are increasing node splitting (internal, external or both) headend RF splitting/combining network reconfiguration network power reconfiguration increased time to launch delays revenues

8. ITU-T 8 June 2-4, 2004 Fiber Access Network A Cable Operators Perspective o Historical Perspective o Current Decision Drivers o HFC Model o FTTH Model o Comparative Cost Assessment o Conclusions

9. ITU-T 9 June 2-4, 2004 HFC Model o Typical Operating System Characteristics 54,000 households passed 33,500 customers 1410 miles of plant 199 fiber nodes 4380 RF actives 584 power supplies 1752 batteries 2.5% monthly service call rate 50% of the service calls result in a truck roll to resolve plant related problems 2 plant outages per month not related to cut/damaged cable 6.0 vehicle accidents per 1,000,000 VMD 5.8 OSHA recordable employee injuries per 200,000 hours worked 8 Maintenance Technicians 23 Service Technicians 3 Technical Field Supervisors

10. ITU-T 10 June 2-4, 2004 HFC Model Voice Switch Data Router/ IP Switch Video DFB Node Coax RG6 Headend P/S Home RF MUX RF

11. ITU-T 11 June 2-4, 2004 Fiber Access Network A Cable Operators Perspective o Historical Perspective o Current Decision Drivers o HFC Model o FTTH Model o Comparative Cost Assessment o Conclusions

12. ITU-T 12 June 2-4, 2004 FTTH (RF PON) Model o Modeled after same Operating System used for the HFC Model 54,000 households passed 33,500 customers 1410 miles of plant 0 fiber nodes 0 RF actives 0 power supplies 0 batteries 1.25% monthly service call rate 0% of the service calls result in a truck roll to resolve plant related problems 0 plant outages per month not related to cut/damaged cable 0 vehicle accidents per 1,000,000 VMD 0 OSHA recordable employee injuries per 200,000 hours worked 0 Maintenance Technicians 12 Service Technicians 1 Technical Field Supervisors

13. ITU-T 13 June 2-4, 2004 FTTH (RF PON) Model Voice Switch Data Router/ IP Switch Video EDFA Coax RG6 Headend Home RF MUX RF SplitterSplitter SplitterSplitter Optical Network Terminal UPS

14. ITU-T 14 June 2-4, 2004 Fiber Access Network A Cable Operators Perspective o Historical Perspective o Current Decision Drivers o HFC Model o FTTH Model o Comparative Cost Assessment o Conclusions

15. ITU-T 15 June 2-4, 2004 Comparative Cost Assessment HFC O&M Expenses per Mile of Plant Technical Supervision$ 42.03 Service Trouble Truck Rolls (for plant problems)$ 226.15 Plant Maintenance Truck Rolls$ 235.50 Material Inventory$ 49.64 Electricity Consumption$ 446.81 Power Supply Battery Replacement$ 43.49 Power Supply Equipment Repair$ 1.77 RF Line Equipment Repair$ 35.46 Vehicle Accident Loss$ 8.80 Employee Injury Loss$ 5.01 Emergency Cable Repair$ 8.51 Total annual O&M expense per mile of OSP plant $1,103.17

16. ITU-T 16 June 2-4, 2004 Comparative Cost Assessment FTTH (RF PON) O&M Expenses per Mile of Plant Technical Supervision$ 0.00 Service Trouble Truck Rolls (for plant problems)$ 0.00 Plant Maintenance Truck Rolls$ 0.00 Material Inventory$ 0.00 Electricity Consumption$ 0.00 Power Supply Battery Replacement$ 0.00 Power Supply Equipment Repair$ 0.00 RF Line Equipment Repair$ 0.00 Vehicle Accident Loss$ 0.00 Employee Injury Loss$ 0.00 Emergency Cable Repair$ 85.11 Total annual O&M expense per mile of OSP plant $ 85.11

17. ITU-T 17 June 2-4, 2004 Comparative Cost Assessment HFC Deployment Costs per Mile of Plant Outside Plant Deployment Materials $ 12,273.93 Labor $ 16,408.61 Total OSP Deployment Cost per Mile $ 28,682.54 Headend Equipment Deployment Materials $ 736.51 Labor $ 83.50 Total Headend Equipment Deployment Cost per OSP Mile $ 820.02 Total Cost to Deploy HFC (excluding drops & CPE) $ 29,503.08 Drop Installation (Materials & Labor) per Customer$ 125.00

18. ITU-T 18 June 2-4, 2004 Comparative Cost Assessment FTTH Deployment Costs per Mile of Plant Outside Plant Deployment Materials $ 16,505.22 Labor $ 9,578.79 Total OSP Deployment Cost per Mile $ 26,084.01 Headend Equipment Deployment Materials $ 15,910.00 Labor $ 208.76 Total Headend Equipment Deployment Cost per OSP Mile $ 16,118.77 Total Cost to Deploy HFC (excluding drops & CPE) $ 42,202.78 Drop Installation (Materials & Labor) per Customer (ONT incl)$ 748.00

19. ITU-T 19 June 2-4, 2004 Comparative Cost Assessment Life Cycle Cost Comparison HFC and FTTH (RF PON)

20. ITU-T 20 June 2-4, 2004 Fiber Access Network A Cable Operators Perspective o Historical Perspective o Current Decision Drivers o HFC Model o FTTH Model o Comparative Cost Assessment o Conclusions

21. ITU-T 21 June 2-4, 2004 Conclusions o FTTH (RF PON) best addresses the business decision drivers. o Current FTTH equipment costs place it at a significant disadvantage. o Construction costs for the OSP portion of the PON are 9% lower than HFC OSP deployment; however, the headend costs are over 16 times more favorable to an HFC approach. o Best areas to seek cost improvements are in the headend and CPE. o Under current price points, the Life Cycle break even point occurs during year 12.

22. ITU-T 22 June 2-4, 2004 Conclusions o Only part of the economic equation has been investigated. Future looking cost modeling and comparative analysis need to be undertaken in order to develop the full scope of costs. Transition from RF format to Ethernet for Voice and Data. Transition from RF to IP Video. Future looking business model comparative analysis needs to be undertaken to determine cash flow impact of FTTH vs HFC. Changes in penetration levels. Transition from Cable Modems to Ethernet to the Home. Transition from RF video to IP Video. Transition to an all IP world.

23. ITU-T 23 June 2-4, 2004 Conclusions o For the near term, cable operators will continue to refine the HFC platform with efforts to design out much of the current O&M costs by driving fiber closer to the curb – but not to the home.