hv

photonics

Review
Photonic Integrated Circuits for Passive Optical Networks:
Outlook and Case Study of Integrated Quasi-Coherent Receiver
Francisco Rodrigues 1,2,3, *, Carla Rodrigues 1 , João Santos 1,2,3 , Cláudio Rodrigues 4 and António Teixeira 1,2,3

1 PICadvanced S.A., Edifício Central, PCI- Creative Science Park, Via do Conhecimento,
3830-352 Aveiro, Portugal
2 Department of Electronics, Telecommunications and Informatics (DETI), Universidade de Aveiro,
3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal
3 Instituto de Telecomunicações, Universidade de Aveiro, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal
4 Altice Labs, R. José Ferreira Pinto Basto, 3810-196 Aveiro, Portugal
* Correspondence: francisco@picadvanced.com

Abstract: Photonic Integrated Circuits (PICs) are taking a major role in the telecommunications and
datacenter markets. The increased complexity of coexisting and fast evolving standards for Passive
Optical Networks (PONs) suggests the introduction of PICs will be the next step in PON related
optoelectronics. The PICs ecosystem has greatly matured in the past years, becoming a solution that
can cope with the requirements of industry and academia, and presenting the flexibility of combining
multiple platforms available towards viable commercial solutions. In this review, the evolution of
PONs and PICs is presented, with a focus on the optoelectronic integration of PICs for PONs and
coherent PONs. To demonstrate the potential of PICs and their combination with electronics, a
quasi-coherent receiver based on co-hosted PIC and Application Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC) is
presented and characterized.

Keywords: Passive Optical Network (PON); Photonic Integrated Circuits (PIC); coherent receiver;
next-generation passive optical network 2 (NG-PON2); 50 Gbps PON; monolithic integration

Citation: Rodrigues, F.; Rodrigues, 1. Introduction

C.; Santos, J.; Rodrigues, C.; Teixeira,
An ever-increasing demand for bandwidth has led to the evolution of fiber optic
A. Photonic Integrated Circuits for
networks, with Passive Optical Networks (PONs) being the ultimate representation of a
Passive Optical Networks: Outlook
complex structure that connects the whole world. This evolution is not only in terms of
and Case Study of Integrated
bandwidth but also in latency and power consumption of the networks, two pillars that
Quasi-Coherent Receiver. Photonics
the standardization bodies take into consideration when developing the next generation of
2023, 10, 182. https://doi.org/
networks. To keep up with the evolution in a sustained and sustainable manner, electro-
10.3390/photonics10020182
optical hardware needs to move into a stage of higher integration.
Received: 12 December 2022 With this vision, the authors present this paper to provide an overview of PON, and
Revised: 6 January 2023 their electro-optical hardware evolution, with an integrated case study. In Section 2, a first
Accepted: 29 January 2023 sub-section with a thorough description of the PONs’ evolution roadmap is presented,
Published: 8 February 2023
followed by a sub-section with the options and feasibility of electro-optical hardware
implementation for PONs, including the most recent advances for 50 Gbps PONs and
different possible visions of implementation, such as coherent PONs. In Section 3, the
genesis of photonic integration up to the present day’s generic availability is presented,
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
followed by a sub-section dedicated to a review of the photonic integration possibilities
This article is an open access article
for PONs. Section 4 presents a case study of an integrated quasi-coherent receiver, co-
distributed under the terms and packaged with an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), including the description
conditions of the Creative Commons of its assembly and the preliminary characterizations performed on it to demonstrate its
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// applicability to PONs. Section 5 presents the take-away conclusions of the paper.
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).

Photonics 2023, 10, 182. https://doi.org/10.3390/photonics10020182 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/photonics

Photonics 2023, 10, 182 2 of 24

2. Passive Optical Networks: Roadmap and Electro-Optical Implementations

2.1. Passive Optical Networks Roadmap Review
PONs were developed to bring, in a cost-effective manner, high speed and reliable
communications to a massive number of users. Since the 1990s, PONs have been deployed
for various applications stemming from Fiber to the Home (FTTH) to mobile (Fiber to the
Cell-FTTC) technologies being used as the backbone for most of the current day to day
communications [1]. PONs comprise a point to multi point (P2MP) topology connecting
to a central office (CO), where the optical line terminal (OLT) connects multiple optical
network units/terminals (ONUs/ONTs), also known as customer premise equipment
(CPEs), which can be installed at various points of the network. To guarantee P2MP, access
to the medium is via Time Division Multiplexing (TDM), i.e., in the Downstream (DS)
direction (from the OLT to the multiple ONUs) there is a constant broadcast and in the
reverse, Upstream (US) communication only occurs in bursts, in defined time intervals.
Figure 1 depicts the standard PON topology; on the left-hand side is the OLT, that is
connected to multiples ONUs through the Optical Distribution Network (ODN), which is
composed only of passive elements (coexistence element (CEx), fiber, splitters), establishing
the reach of the PON [2]. The CEx multiplexes the multiple technologies deployed over
the same PON, which is then routed to multiple case scenarios (residential, business, or
wireless back haul/mid haul).

Figure 1. Standard PON topology.

To deploy a worldwide technology that runs regardless of the various operators

sharing the fiber infrastructure, standardization is key. Three industry organizations lead
the efforts on PON standardization: the Full Service Access Network (FSAN) Group,
the ITU Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T) Question 2/Study Group 15
(Q2/15), and the IEEE 802.3 Ethernet Working Group [1,3]. In 2004, through FSAN and
Q2/15, Gigabit PON (GPON) was standardized [4]. Almost two decades after being
standardized, GPON has a global footprint and meets most of the current market’s demand.
Nevertheless, as the process of standardization and first field trials required to qualify
a new technology can take up to 10 years, the different standardization bodies kept on
defining new technologies, so that the increasing bandwidth demand coming from the
continued evolution of the internet, and also its ever-increasing number of applications,
can be met. The standardization bodies worked to, in 2009, release 10G-EPON (IEEE,
8022.3av Clause 75–77) and in 2010 XG-PON (ITU Q2/15, G987.x), paving the way for
10 Gbps PON [1]. With GPON widely deployed, operators were educated about the need
to increase the bandwidth in order to offer better and more services, and to keep at the
forefront of the technology in the technological race, however, these upgrades need to
be cost-effective, and the technologies around 2010 were not mature enough to support
low-cost 10 Gbps transmitters and receivers. While efforts were made to push 10 Gbps
hardware technologies to a mature place, ITU standardized XGS-PON (G9807.x) in 2016,
and NG-PON2 (G989.x) in 2015 [1]. The latter comprised the biggest technological leap,
Photonics 2023, 10, 182 3 of 24

offering not only TDM but also Wavelength Division Multiplexing (WDM), and was the
first PON TWDM standardized, offering up to 8 wavelengths with 10 Gbps per wavelength,
allowing an aggregate 80 Gbps in each direction.
With the first deployments of 10G PONs in the Asian markets now in place, PON
standards are now committed to identify the next trend demanded by the increase of
traffic and use of devices, where by 2022 it was expected that data traffic will exceed
4 exabytes/month, with a predicted 28.5 billion networked devices and the number of
Global Internet Users predicted to reach 5.3 billion by 2023 [5,6]. In parallel, 10 Gbps
per wavelength networks, with a reach of 50 km and up to 16 wavelengths, are under
standardization in both bodies, with the name of “Super-PON”. The efforts to standardize
this Super-PON are being led by Google fiber. The latest effort of ITU to standardize PONs
with line rates above 10 Gbps is called Higher-Speed PON (G.9804.x), that was consented
to in November 2019 [7]. This recommendation works as a baseline for standardization
beyond 10 Gbps PON, ensuring coexistence with previous technologies and providing a
common transmission convergence layer. The first Physical Media Dependent (PMD) layer
to be consented to was 50G PON, in April 2021 [8,9], whose first deployments are expected
to occur during the end of the 2020s and peak at high volume by the mid-2030s [10,11].
Figure 2 summarizes, the changing PON standards over time, and the evolution of
task forces with respect to the maximum aggregated DS bandwidth, depicting the differ-
ent generations correspondent to the different technological steps between the different
family standards.

Figure 2. PON standards/task force evolution of max aggregated bandwidth in DS direction over time.

2.2. Passive Optical Networks and Their Electro-Optical Hardware

Given the TDM characteristic of PONs, ONUs are equipped with a burst mode trans-
mitter and a continuous mode receiver, whereas on the OLT a continuous transmitter and a
burst mode receiver operate. Burst mode poses a challenge in any PON deployment, on
the one hand the ONU transmitter needs to be fast and accurately controlled so that no
time overlap with other ONUs occurs, on the other hand, the OLT’s dynamic range of the
receiver poses a challenge as two consecutive messages can come from different distances,
thus with different attenuation and power levels. A typical electro-optic transceiver for a
PON is composed of a bidirectional optical sub-assembly (BOSA) and its driving electronics,
packaged into a standard form factor in accordance with bitrate and power consumption
targets. Inside the BOSA, US and DS band splitters are used to separate/combine the
signals; on the transmitter side a laser is packaged, while on the receiver a photodiode
with a transimpedance amplifier (TIA) is the usual assembly configuration. Concerning the
typical driving circuitry, the key building blocks are a laser driver, commercially available
as continuous or burst mode, a limiting amplifier (LIM), which can include Clock Digital Re-
covery (CDR), and a microprocessor to control the stated peripherals and provide monitor
parameters to the host equipment. Following this baseline, enhancements and an increase
in complexity may need to occur according to the PON technology under implementation,
as will be discussed in the subsequent paragraphs.
GPON offers asymmetric bitrates of 2.5/1.25 Gbps in the DS/US direction. Where
the upstream burst mode 1.25 Gbps communication is at the coarse (+/− 30 nm) 1310 nm
Photonics 2023, 10, 182 4 of 24

O-band, corresponding to the minimum chromatic dispersion of standard single mode

fiber (SSMF), allowing for low-cost deployment [12]. The 2.5 Gbps laser is at the 1490 nm
C-Band and the power budget was extended to be as high as 39 dB with the definition
of the C+ class in 2008 [4]. Today, the GPON ecosystem is fully established and, through
deployment, prices have fallen to mass-production prices of below $5 for ONU BOSA and
below $30 for C+ OLT optics [13].
Concerning 10G PON technologies, at the physical level, 10GEPON and XGS-PON
have minimum differences. The implementation that poses higher technological challenges
is the symmetric 10 Gbps/10 Gbps. While the US transmission is at the coarse (+/−
10 nm) 1270 nm O-Band, DS is at C-Band 1577 nm (+/− 3 nm) [1]. On the receiver side,
no major technological challenges are related to the implementation of these technologies,
the photodiodes in use are Avalanche Photodiodes (APDs), that evolved from the ones
used in GPON, and the requirements of the burst mode receiver on the OLT are for an
improved TIA with ns-scale settling time to synchronize 10 Gbps data. Similar to GPON,
10G EPON and XGS-PON take advantage of reduced chromatic dispersion in the US
direction at O-Band. If this were not the case, chromatic dispersion would be exacerbated
by the increase of bitrate [12]. The low dispersion region associated with +/− 10 nm
wandering, allowed the implementations to re-use GPON laser structures with enhanced
bandwidth, i.e., low-cost direct modulated lasers (DML), typically implemented through
Distributed Feedback Lasers (DFBs). For the downstream, extra complexity is added at
the transmitter level: high output power (+4 to +7 dBm for N2 class) associated with
10 Gbps, transmission at C-Band, and a reach of 20 km poses a roadblock to the use of
DMLs. The use of an external modulator such as Electro Absorption Modulator (EAM),
mitigates the chirp characteristics at the expense of extra hardware, extra packaging steps,
and reduced output power. However, the latter can be overcome with a decrease in the
laser yield or the introduction of an integrated optical amplifier. The control of the laser
with its external modulator, the +/− 3 nm stabilization window associated with the need
to maintain the operation stable for a temperature range (industry standards demand
minimum 0 to 70 ◦ C operation), leads to the use of thermoelectric cooler (TEC) elements
to package the transmitter. One can then observe a clear complexity increase in the OLT
transmitter: 10 Gbps C-Band communication leads to the use of EAM on a cooled package,
which also leads to the correspondent need for extra electronic TEC control. Fortunately,
this is on the OLT side where there is a higher cost-resilience. XGSPON is under rapid
deployment worldwide and there are multiple vendors offering commercial solutions that
are combinations of what was described above, e.g., SFP+ transceiver for N2 class OLT,
based on cooled EML and high sensitivity APD, or BOSA for ONU with uncooled DML
and high sensitivity APD.
Adding tunability to a PON standard means adding a full new set of capabilities
that the operators can explore to optimize their capital expenditures on the network. NG-
PON2, through its multi-wavelength, multi-rate capabilities allows bandwidth flexibility
assignment; “pay as you grow” model, i.e., the network can start its deployment with
one wavelength and, through time as the customer numbers increase, the operator can
then add other wavelengths without having to change OLT cards or ONU equipment;
resilient network maintenance, where the clients that sit on a wavelength can be seamlessly
migrated to another one while the former goes into maintenance, and channel bonding
allowing several channels to be directed to a single CPE, increasing the bandwidth up to
40 or 80 Gbps [14–16]. Coexistence with other PON standards is maintained, meaning
that the tunability cannot be traded-off by the power budget or time division multiplexing
characteristics. It is then possible to conclude that NG-PON2 electro-optical hardware
represents an increased step in complexity. Another concern that arises with tunability
is to guarantee that at each moment the transmitter and receiver are tuned to the right
channel, and that no crosstalk between channels exists, meaning that from the +/− 30 nm
wavelength coarse in GPON that moved to +/− 10 nm in XGS-PON and 10GEPON, NG-
Photonics 2023, 10, 182 5 of 24

PON2 specifies a 100 GHz, i.e., ~0.8 nm channel spacing, where the transmitter needs to
ensure a maximum spectral excursion of +/− 20 GHz, i.e., approximately +/− 0.16 nm [17].
For NG-PON2 OLT electro-optical hardware, the major challenge, when compared
to XGS-PON or 10GEPON technologies, is to ensure stable wavelength operation of the
C-Band laser through time, as the wandering window is shorter. The rationale behind the
hardware choice follows the same line of thought as XGS-PON and 10G-EPON, with typical
implementations using EAM as the external modulator and TEC to ensure wavelength
stability. The receiver side focuses on the burst mode 10 Gbps receiver with fast (ns-scale)
settling time TIAs.
For NG-PON2 ONUs, contrary to the other technologies presented previously, where
the wavelength plan established was C-band wavelengths, also it specifies an output power
varying from +2~+7 dBm for Type B and +4~+9 dBm for Type A ONU with operators look-
ing only to Type A ONU to be used, meaning tunable transmitters with a high output power
and reduced or managed chirp. Beyond these characteristics, NG-PON2 specifies power
spectral densities Out-of-Channel (OOC), Out-of-Band (OOB), and When-not-Enabled
(WNE), to ensure that in a populated PON with multiple technologies no crosstalk occurs
at the OLT receivers. Tunability is defined in classes according to the maximum tuning
time between any channel communication and the main classes establish a maximum of
1 s (Class 3) or a maximum of 25 ms (Class 2). The receiver also needs to be tunable, while
maintaining a high sensitivity performance to ensure a PON typical link budget (−28 dBm
for 10E-3 Bit Error Rate (BER) reference level). For NG-PON2 to succeed and supersede
other 10 Gbps technologies, the new technological challenges cannot mean a proportional
increase in the ONU cost, implying that low-cost tunable electro-optical hardware need
to become available. From the transmitter side, the first challenge concerns successful
transmission on 20 km SSMF of 10 Gbps signals, which at C-Band is almost immediately
translated into an external modulated laser (EML) requirement due to the chromatic dis-
persion of SSMF on that region, associated with the typical chirp of C-Band 10 Gbps lasers.
The wavelength stability and tunability pose the other major challenges of NG-PON2. A
solution would be to package multiple lasers with different wavelengths and electronically
control their switching, however that poses a problem due to the footprint and cost increase
that ONU PON equipment cannot cope with. The simplest alternative for tunability is
thermal tuning, where the laser cavity temperature is controlled, and thus its wavelength
of operation. For NG-PON2 requirements previously presented this means a high precision
control, to ensure that the laser is stable within the +/− 20 GHz window. Added to this,
there is the challenge of burst mode transmission where, as the laser is turned on and off,
its average temperature, and thus its wavelength, changes which, with the tight spectral
characteristics of NG-PON2, becomes a problem that needs to be controlled. In summary,
for an NG-PON2 transmitter, and for a successful deployment on the transmitter side,
10 Gbps C Band lasers, preferably directly modulated, that operate in burst mode in the
tight window of +/− 20 GHz and with a considerable high output power, need to be
packaged (with its thermo-electric circuitry) and developed at the right price point. Several
players have been engaged in this endeavor: Finisar have presented a Distributed Bragg
Reflector (DBR) laser that could be directly modulated due to an innovative technique
of chirp suppression [18]; Nokia have developed a multi-electrode laser that allows the
laser to operate in burst mode within tight spectral conditions [19]; and PICadvanced have
developed algorithms for the driving and temperature control for burst mode operation
of a 10 Gbps C-Band DFB laser. On the receiver side, the straightforward way to achieve
tunability is to add a temperature-controlled filter, such as a thin-film-filter (TFF), which
has a cyclic spectral response. The filter design, typically a thin-film-filter, poses a challenge
as it needs to have a low insertion loss, a flat spectral response within the passband, fast
roll-off between channels, and a small foot-print. On top of the tight filter design conditions,
its packaging needs to be optimized so that there is proper thermal efficiency with the
TEC for an efficient tuning and minimum free space propagation insertion losses in the
path to the high-sensitivity photodiode. NG-PON2 presents major advantages from a
Photonics 2023, 10, 182 6 of 24

network perspective brought by tunability coming at the expense of tight requirements on

the electro-optic hardware, which is highly sensitive to cost (e.g., 10GEPON and XGS-PON
ONU have no need for thermal control, whereas on the NG-PON2 two thermal controllers
are needed). At a commercial level, one can find in PICadvanced portfolio compliant
NG-PON2 solutions for Type A ONU Class 3 and Class 2 tuning times that are based on a
cooled transmitter based in DML and a cooled receiver based on APD.
The efforts of PON standardization have been focused on the delivery of bandwidth
and quality of signal to new applications and case studies that are under development for
the decades to come, while maintaining coexistence with previous technologies and looking
for the best trade-offs between the target performance and electro-optical implementation.
This is the train of thought being implemented in High Speed PON (HSP) standardization,
and in particular in its first, PMD standardized, 50G-PON. Taking advantage of the reduced
dispersion window of fiber, both DS and US are at O-Band. For the DS the only line rate that
was standardized was 50 Gbps, with two power classes, N1 and C+, whose minimum mean
launch power are +5.5 dBm and +8.5 dBm, respectively. The link budget, i.e., the balance
between the power launched into the fiber and the sensitivity at the ONU side, is defined
as a function of Transmitter and Dispersion Eye Closure (TDEC), a figure of merit defined
for this standard that is computed using histograms of the eye diagram for the worst case
scenario of transmission, allowing flexibility of electro-optical hardware implementation
while maintaining the target link budget. While for DS the wavelength of operation is
1340–1344 nm, for US there are two possible windows of implementation: 1260–1280 nm
or 1290–1310 nm, each of them overlapping with legacy technologies, the former with
XGS-PON and the latter with GPON. This choice of spectra forces the operators to decide if
they will go directly from GPON to 50G-PON, skipping XGS-PON, or removing GPON (or
XGS-PON but less likely) from the network in case they already made the deployment of
both legacy technologies. This conflict is being addressed as a possible amendment to the
standard, allowing full coexistence and placing the window of operation on 1284–1288 nm.
For the upstream line rates, 12.5 Gbps and 25 Gbps are already standardized with the bit
error reference level for both at 1E-2 and required sensitivity of −26 and −24 dBm at the
OLT side, respectively. The mean launch power is defined between +5 and +9 dBm for
both line rates, with the extinction ratio defined at 6 dB for the ONU transmitters and 7 dB
for the OLT. To aid the reader, Table 1 summarizes the key performance indicators of the
different standardized PON technologies.
The evolution of electro-optical hardware is dependent on the evolution of PON
standards and its related technologies. The authors of [20] identify two paradigms on PON
hardware development, one which is called “old paradigm” where the hardware was being
pushed by long-haul and metro applications and the “new paradigm” where for 25 Gbps
and 50 Gbps per channel the hardware comes from mature Data Center applications.
Photonics 2023, 10, 182 7 of 24

Table 1. PON technology optoelectronic key performance indicators.

Upstream Downstream

Max. Output Power (dBm)

Max. Output Power(dBm)

Commercial Availability

Commercial Availability
Max. Bit Rate ( Gbps)
Max. Bit Rate(Gbps)

Sensitivity (dBm)
Wavelength (nm)

Wavelength (nm)
Sensitivity(dBm)
Standard

1290–
Regular −28 −32
GPON

1330 4 1480– 7
1.244 BER Mass 2.488 BER Mass
1300– C+ 1500 C+
Narrow 1E-10 1E-10
1320
−28 −28
1260– 9 1575– 9
XGSPON 9.953 BER Mass 9.953 BER Mass
1280 N2 1580 N2
10E-3 10E-3
1532.68 1596.34 9.953
Ramp up

Ramp up
1533.47 9 −28 1597.19 9.953 −28
7
NGPON2 9.953 Type A BER BER
1534.25 1598.04 9.953 N2
10E-3 10E-3
1535.04 1598.89 9.953
UW1– 1290–
Lab trials

Lab trials
Wide 1310 −24 −24.5
9 1340– 5.5
50G 49.764 BER 24.883 BER
UW2– 1260– N1 1344 N1
1E-2 1E-2
Wide 1280

As of 2022 we are in the turning point between the old and new paradigm except for
Super-PON where the 10 Gbps trend is maintained with the technological enhancement of
extended fiber reach and higher number of WDM channels under use, demanding proper
and careful driving whose electro-optic possible options are presented in [21]. For Higher
Speed PON, the new paradigm is applied and adaption of already existing 25 Gbps and
50 Gbps can be done, being the major challenges on differentiation from the Data Center
applications the burst mode requisites demanded by the TDM characteristics of PON. While
the major guidelines for optical requirements for the new standards were being defined,
and to aid with standard development, electro-optical hardware has been developed and
proposed for the next PON generations by pursuing different technological approaches,
one example proposes the use of low bandwidth optics (10 Gbps class optics) to implement
25 Gbps and 50 Gbps per channel communications through the use of multi-amplitude
modulation format and equalization techniques, such as feed-forward or decision-forward
equalization [22]. From Nokia, in order to solve the burst mode problem at 25 Gbps, the
multi-electrode laser presented to operate as DML for NG-PON2, was also tested as EML
for 25 Gbps demonstrating tight spectral conditions at the burst transients and during burst
windows [19]. On the receiver side, for burst mode receiver electronics and techniques,
IBM and Ghent University presented a burst mode adaptative equalization for 25 Gbps
operation [23]. A thorough literature analysis for next generation PON hardware was
provided in the tutorial conference in the 2020 Optical Fiber Communication Conference
(OFC) [24]. In the session, the author addressed the next generation PON implementation
challenges from a network and component perspective, including, but not limited to, burst
mode challenges and possible implementations for transmitters and receivers at 25 Gbps,
demonstrating the ecosystem preparation for the next PON generations.
Photonics 2023, 10, 182 8 of 24

While the standard was taking its final shape, multiple group studies worked on the
feasibility of implementing 25 Gbps upstream and 50 Gbps downstream using bandwidth
limited hardware (i.e., 25 Gbps capable hardware) to do so; the introduction of Digital
Signal Processing (DSP) would be mandatory for the standard. These studies also con-
sidered multiple amplitude level in comparison to the NRZ standard option [25,26]. In
an effort to demonstrate the trade-offs of having 25 Gbps over the C-Band, where the
attenuation is lower but dispersion is higher, compared to the O-Band, as well as to test
burst mode transmitters and receivers to emulate upstream links at 25 Gbps, simulations
and experimental demonstrations were performed to help guide the standard [25,27]. With
the publication of the standard defining 50 Gbps on the DS, it became clear for the opto-
electronic researcher that the major effort would be on the 50 Gbps transmitter of the
OLT, whereas on the receiver side of the ONU, 25 Gbps APD were already commercially
available at the time of the standard’s publication, and the implementation of DSP would
overcome the limit of bandwidth of the referred devices. Nevertheless, efforts to develop
advanced optimized structures for 50 Gbps are being pursued, for example with Ge/Si
APD compatibles with existing CMOS processes to ensure the required high volume of
this application [28]. On the 50 Gbps transmitter side, to achieve an NRZ modulation,
bandwidth in excess of 37.5 GHz is required which, given the commercially available
devices and fabrication processes, requires EML based on EAM with an O-Band DFB. The
trade-off of PON budget, power consumption, and bandwidth requires the development of
state-of-the-art structures and techniques to bring 50 Gbps communications into PON. A
thorough review of the options for EML implementation for multiple telecommunication
applications is provided in [29]. In this review, the authors address means to achieve
high power 10 Gbps EML for XGS-PON OLT and to evolve next generation lasers to cope
with the next generation of standards, from the fabrication techniques to the packaging of
the laser through flip-chip and self-alignment. The ultimate structure for HSP is an EML
structure composed of a DFB, and an EAM and an SOA, which, by using the latter in a
saturation region, can deliver the required high output power and help to compensate
for chirp effects, as was presented in [30]. There are research groups that are focused on
taking the lead on optoelectronic development of 50 Gbps PON, by the end of 2020 the first
demonstration of a 50 Gbps with 35.6 dB of link budget over 20 km was performed by using
25G class EML co-fabricated with an SOA and 25G APD. To achieve 50 Gbps performance,
DSP was used for both transmitter and receiver [31]. Subsequently, one year later, also
using 25 Gbps hardware aided by DSP, a carrier lab trial was performed demonstrating 40
Gbps capacity with 80µs latency over a 10 km SSMF PON link [32]. Through a simulation
of network worst case scenarios, the researchers were able to optimize their demonstration
setups and optoelectronic hardware, achieving an E2 class link with 35.6 dB real time link
budget over 20 km of SSMF [33]. Later, through further optimization, a laser structure
comprising a DFB + EAM + SOA was presented with a bandwidth of 37 GHz, allowing
50 Gbps without a DSP on the transmitter side, demonstrating a link up to 40 km with
emitting output power of +13 dBm and 6 dB ER [34]. By using the same devices, in a PON
with a common SOA that acts as pre-amplifier at OLT, a 30 dB budget link with 50 km
SSMF with burst mode was shown [35].
In another stream of thought, and to achieve a high link budget, hence the desired sen-
sitivity at the receiver side, a possible solution presented to achieve extended performance
in future PONs is to use a coherent receiver, also known as a coherent PON, which refers to
the PON networks that use coherent receivers, i.e., architecture of receiver that not only
is able to recover amplitude information but also phase with the aid of a reference local
oscillator. The implementation of optoelectronic circuitry based on coherent mechanisms
brings major advantages to the network such as high-sensitivity bringing increased power
budget to the PON, possible higher bit rates (through the use of phase and amplitude mod-
ulation schemes), increased spectral efficiency (as the tuning is done with a reference local
oscillator), and opening of the C-Band for communication, as dispersion can be mitigated
through DSP techniques. All these main advantages come at the cost of extra hardware
Photonics 2023, 10, 182 9 of 24

complexity, as to implement coherent reception implies the use of an extra laser source in
the receiver as well as increases in the number of photodiodes needed when compared
with a single-photodiode for the typical On-Of-Keying (OOK) reception. The topic of
coherent PONs has been revised in terms of architectures and hardware implementation
through time, even recently with 50 G-PON simulation and experimental models have
been presented to achieve the desired data rate and link budget using coherent receiver
techniques [36,37]. The concept of ultra-dense WDM-PON (udWDM-PON) arose as an
alternative/complementary solution for TDM-PON, as with coherent reception, channel
selectivity is intrinsic and a dedicated channel could be attributed to a single ONU or set
of ONUs. This type of PON was widely reviewed in [38], where the authors present the
possible topologies for udWDM-PON. and implement an 8 × 2.5 Gbps QPSK system over
80 km of SSMF with off-the-shelf components, showing the commercial availability for
this type of networks. In [39] the authors provided a full set of possible coherent PON
architectures and looked at lowering the cost of implementation of coherent access with the
use of DFB (low cost, higher linewidth) lasers as local oscillators. Albeit there is proof that
coherent PON can be built with off-the-shelf components, cost and hardware complexity
should be of the same order of magnitude when compared with existing PONs under
deployment, such as NG-PON2, where the tunability could be implemented through a
coherent receiver rather than with the use of thermally tuned filters as addressed before. In
order to maintain the right level of cost and complexity, the coherent receiver should use a
low-cost laser as the local oscillator, implement the minimum number of photodiodes to
achieve phase diversity, should not use DSP (due to power and cost consumption), and
should guarantee polarization insensitive operation–coherent receivers are polarization
sensitive, which in many applications is used to increase the bitrate, nevertheless in PON
the systems are single polarization.
The FP-7 project COCONUT [40] explored and developed low cost implementation of
udWDM-PONs showing different topologies for PON implementation and a polarization
independent receiver for OOK receivers [41–43]. The results from the project were further
exploited to develop low complexity/low-cost reduced digital transceivers for udWDM-
PON enabling the possibility to introduce, in a cost-effective manner, DSP into PON [44].
Besides udWDM-PON which takes better advantage of the available spectrum, there
are other topologies and their electro-optical hardware implementation under study to
enable coherent PONs, for example analog and digital implementations for simplified
OOK coherent hardware and suggestions of a network topology to use Dual-LO coherent
receivers are presented by Lavery et al. in [45], with further detail on low-complexity
coherent PON ONU implementation in [46]. A full experimental demonstration of 10 Gbps
NG-PON2, with an extended power budget of 35 dB with 40 km, was conducted based on
coherent reception through the development of analog integrated circuitry to process OOK
signals, exhibiting the advantages of coherent reception on current PON technologies [47].

3. Photonic Integrated Circuits (PICs) Evolution and PON Applications

3.1. PIC from Concept to Generic Availability
The concept of photonic integration was introduced in the late 1960s, when different
types of waveguides, simple lasers, modulators, and other basic building blocks manip-
ulating light were designed to be fabricated with photolithographic processes that were
already available from the integrated electronics industry [48]. The major goal would be
to start composing photonic integrated circuits, envisioned as integrated interconnections
between optical building blocks put together to implement defined functions–the opposite
of discrete packaging where the different building blocks (lasers, couplers, photodiodes)
were packaged separately through free space optics. The advantages of integration were
already clearly observable at the time. Despite the breakthrough in the late 1960s, it took
four decades for the first complex PIC to become commercially available, when Infinera
launched, in 2005, a PIC based transceiver capable of 100 Gbps transmission and reception
with 10 channels of 10 Gbps in a WDM scheme [49]. Infinera kept on introducing PIC based
Photonics 2023, 10, 182 10 of 24

products to the market, and in parallel Data Center technologies under implementation
from major companies such as Intel, Cisco, or Neophotonics were also based on photonic
integration, allowing them to reach 400 Gbps [50–52].
The time gap between photonic integration and the first commercial introduction was
mainly due to a lack of coordination of the investments required to promote and evolve
photonic integration as an open platform, posing the risk of development to big compa-
nies without synergies developed among them leading to the development of different
technologies for similar applications, making process transfer more difficult [53]. The way
to mitigate this gap was through the introduction of a generic photonic integration path,
paving the way to a common photonic development infrastructure and opening the access
to the technology to more users, making it fabrication independent to the designers with
the creation of process design kits (PDKs) for multiple available foundries [53,54]. The
initial work on this path was to identify the two technology branches possible for photonic
integration: InP-based, that supports the highest level of integration, offering the possibility
to jointly integrate passive devices (filters, waveguides) with active elements (lasers, ampli-
fiers); and Silicon Photonics, which comes at a lower entry cost as it offers the advantages
of a mature CMOS process, but is so far not able to monolithically integrate lasers and
amplifiers. These two main platforms were then joined by a third one, TriPlex, offering
dielectric waveguide technology, which increased the performance of the waveguides
and offered thermo-optic functions [53]. For each of the technologies identified, platform
organizations were created opening the access to an increased number of users: JePPIX
from TU Eindhoven for the InP based photonic integration [55]; ePIXfab for SOI-technology
of IMEC [56]; and Lionix, a Dutch company, opening for TriPlex technology [57]. All plat-
form integration started organizing Multi Project Wafer (MPW) runs, a concept migrated
from microelectronics, allowing external users to the different fabs to share a part of a
wafer with a dedicated design, reducing the R&D cost, technological risks, and helping the
different fabs to improve their processes. These platforms also offered brokerage services
allowing the creation of a Photonic Integration ecosystem in Europe. While these steps
were taken in Europe in the late-2000s to early-2010s, the United States launched their own
generic platform integration later on, with a major focus on Silicon Photonics development
but also offering MPW through different fabs that until then were closed to open access.
The project consortium, called AIM Photonics [58], has been evolving over the past years
offering MPWs, education services, and brokerage services fostering further development
on generic photonic integration.
Generic photonic integration allows the creation of a multitude of architectures
through four basic categories of building blocks: Passive, Phase, Amplitude, and Polarisa-
tion, whose possible functionalities are depicted in Figure 3. Falling into these categories, a
multitude of building blocks offered in the PDKs of the foundries can be offered, which
are in constant evolution. As an example, in the technological roadmap of JePPIX for
2020, electro absorption modulators exceeding 56 Gbd transmission rates, and polarization
splitters with more than 20 dB polarization extinction ratio, were predicted [59]. The same
roadmap depicts the access of the users to the MPWs offered, showing an increased number
of overall users with an increased trend of industry-based tape-outs, demonstrating that
the generic photonic integration eases the way to start-ups and SMEs for prototyping
and testing PIC-based devices, accelerating the time to market. The constant evolution
in maturity of the different platforms, and the increasing number of users, is increasing
the number of PICs fabricated and the density of the circuits, closing the gap between
photonics and electronics, and approaching Moore’s law to photonics, as predicted in 2012
by Meint Smit [60].
Photonics 2023, 10, 182 11 of 24

Figure 3. Functionalities that can be realized with the four basic categories of building blocks.

The goal of generic photonic integration is to develop a platform that can jointly bring
the gain offered by InP with the compactness and maturity of fabrication processes of
Silicon Photonics. Over the past decades many steps were taken to reach this goal and
the authors in [61] provided a review of the evolution of the generic photonic integration
platform and defined the trends for its future. They focused on InP and Silicon Photonic
co-integration with a highlight of the IMOS (InP membrane on Silicon) under development
by TU Eindhoven, which already demonstrated wafer bonding level integration between an
InP membrane and a BiCMOS wafer, which is done by transferring the InP membrane to a
CMOS wafer by adhesive bonding with a BCB (benzocyclobutene, a robust polymer) [61,62].
The availability of a generic photonic integration platform is key for PIC development,
but the packaging of the fabricated PICs plays a major role in complexity and cost. Ac-
cording to the JePPIX roadmap [59], assembly testing and packaging represent more than
80% of the cost of PIC-based products. Figure 4 compares the cost structure for the discrete
and integrated implementation of a PIC-based transceiver with tunability capabilities.
Packaging plays a major role on the success of PIC-based devices. This led to the creation
at the European level of packaging pilot lines for the different PIC areas: PIX4life focus on
CMOS processing compatible SiN photonics IC, and the establishment of a supply chain
for visible range targeting biophotonic applications; MIRPHAB is dedicated to prototyping
and production of sources and sensors for the mid-IR range and PIXAPP focus purely on
establishing a supply chain for assembly and packaging from early stage to low-to-medium
volumes [63–66].

Figure 4. Cost structure comparison of a discrete and integrated implementation of a PIC-based

tunable transceiver.

PIC packaging comprises a multitude of challenges, from that for the optical intercon-
nection, which is required to achieve minimum losses and high packaging throughput, to
that for the electric, which requires robust packages, and without compromising the target
bandwidth and thermal challenges to ensure thermal stability of the PIC and its devices.
The problems are applicable across the different PIC platforms, and in [67] the authors
assess the state of the art solutions for the different packaging challenges existing in Si
Photonics. For example, practical studies on a laser-to-pic integration are provided, demon-
strating the effort among different packaging groups on solving packaging challenges. A
focus on thermal management is provided, as most of the components in a PIC have their
performance tightly related to temperature, and a temperature stabilization for the different
Photonics 2023, 10, 182 12 of 24

components is needed for the final module to be able to operate according to the specifica-
tions. The thermal challenges for ONU PIC packaging arise in different manners and are
assessed through the development of a heat propagation theoretical model which was con-
firmed via simulation and experiments as reported in [68]. Following this train of thought,
an electro-thermal circuit for generic PIC packaging with active cooling through a TEC, its
theoretical model and analysis, are provided in [69]. Here the author makes conclusions
about the relative role of the thickness of the heat spreader and the thermal resistance chain
between the PIC and the ambient temperature. The same author later presents solutions for
active cooling of the PIC based on microfluidics [70]. A solution where a holder platform is
used for PIC packaging (electrical, optical, and thermal) is thermally analyzed concerning
the holder material, thermal cross talk of the PIC active elements, and the epoxies used in
the packaging bonding between the PIC and the holder [71].

3.2. An Outlook of PICs for PONs

The increase in complexity of PONs’ requirements increased the appetite for the PIC
community to contribute on an academic and commercial level to the electro-optical inter-
faces, mainly due to the proliferation of WDM PON and the increase of PON bandwidth.
In order to maintain the cost at the right point, photonic integration will be a key solution
enabling the reduction of space floor occupied (planar chip vs. packaged components with
free space optics in a BOSA format), reducing the number of optic/optic and optic/electric
interfaces (i.e., reducing the number of packaging steps), and enabling mass-production
fabrication with all-wafer processing, i.e., bringing the advantages of integration (either
electronic or photonic) into the PON market.
Key lessons from the previous sections indicate that challenges related to electro-
optical hardware for the current and next generation PONs comprise passive building
blocks that are able to separate and combine upstream and downstream bands and wave-
lengths of the different chosen channels of a given PON technology, fast and tunable/multi
wavelength transmitters. and receivers’ architectures that can operate in the integrated plat-
form with a wide temperature range and tight wavelength control that may also need to be
burst mode enabled. Through the past decade, many contributions from the PIC ecosystem
to solve these problems arose, by focusing on a FlexPON approach, i.e., a PON architecture
that is WDM and “on-demand” TDM with wavelength agnostic ONUs, an architecture
of a multi-wavelength transmitter capable of supporting 8 wavelengths was proposed,
fabricated, and tested, achieving 12.5 Gbps operation [72]. The laser architecture in this im-
plementation was based on a DBR with a dedicated Mach Zehnder Modulator (MZM) per
channel and the wavelength multiplexing was achieved through an Arrayed Waveguide
Grating (AWG). In the same work, a WDM receiver architecture was demonstrated with
wavelength de-multiplexing achieved with AWG and a dedicated photodiode per channel;
both transmitter and receiver were fabricated through JePPIX MPW. Another example is
the 16-channel transmitter PIC based on an array of DFB lasers combined with an AWG to
attain wavelength multiplexing and amplification with a Semiconductor Optical Amplifier
(SOA) that was designed and fabricated with a compact size of 4.25 × 4.5 mm; the design
was oriented to WDM PON applications like NG-PON2 or Super-PON [73]. Fraunhofer
HHI, one of the foundries available in the MPW of JePPIX, developed a polymer-based
integration platform called Polyboard that allows passive optical functions and efficient
coupling with InP active elements; through this platform several building blocks and PICs
were developed and presented in [74]. From the contributions presented in [74], the author
of this work would like to showcase the WDM-PON devices developed: a 40 channel 100
GHz spacing receiver based photodiode arrays combined with an AWG, and the 10 Gbps
tunable C-Band ONU with a Dual Gain chip on InP and the polymer Bragg grating and
band mux-demux achieved on the polymer platform. Moreover, a GPON OLT on chip, for
extended link budget and supporting multiple channels on the transceiver, was presented
in [75], where the authors developed passive low-loss polarization insensitive building
blocks for band splitting, and on-chip power monitoring, demonstrating an economically
Photonics 2023, 10, 182 13 of 24

viable path to introduce photonic integration into the widely deployed market of GPON
through the implementation of a quad-transceiver in a single port of the OLT. Alternative
WDM networks have also been presented. An example is the use of wavelength locking
techniques that can simplify the ONU tunable hardware and improve the overall network
capacity. In [76] the authors present PIC based ONU and OLT designs for the implementa-
tion of a full C-Band tunable WDM-PON with a fully integrated transmitter array at the
OLT side, and a tunable DBR based transmitter at the ONU. Efficient on-chip optic amplifi-
cation is key for PIC based PON transceiver amplification to succeed, to ensure low power
consumption and the adequate PON link budget, a thorough study on the integration of
SOA on SOI PIC based transmitters has been conducted in [77]. Polarization insensitive
receiver architectures were presented for an ONU receiver, including the considerations
needed for flip-chip integration of the SOA chip into the SOI PIC, on the transmitter side
a WDM array of 32 transmitters working at 25 Gb/s per channel is presented. On the
trend of monolithic integration, novel low polarization dependent over C- and L-Band
SOA were fabricated and integrated with passive waveguides [78]. As a final example, a
multi-wavelength transmitter and receiver for ONU and OLT of WDM-PON, where the
transmitter is based on a DBR laser and a Mach Zehnder modulator and wavelength multi-
plexing achieved through AWG, was designed fabricated and demonstrated at 10 Gbps
with a 1 mW coupled output power [79].
With NG-PON2 being the standardized TWDM technology, focus on research and
investigation has occurred to develop PIC in order to bring NG-PON2 to a massive de-
ployment with the use of photonic integration. Almost simultaneously with the standard’s
approval, a proposal of a single PIC for ONU and OLT was presented, with the novelty of
ONU and OLT interchangeability achieved through AWG match of Free Spectral Range and
optical switching through SOA [80]. OKI, a Japanese system and component manufacturer,
recently proposed a Silicon Photonics based PIC for NG-PON2 [81]. The transmitter is a
co-packaged InP laser array whose wavelengths are multiplexed through an AWG and a
single Mach Zehnder modulator is used. As the device is bidirectional, band-splitting is
achieved through a polarization rotation Bragg grating and the receiver path comprises
a polarization beam splitter followed on one path by a polarization rotator and on the
other just an AWG. Outputs of both AWGs are then input to a photodiode array grown on
the substrate, achieving in this manner the required polarization independency. The chip
was fabricated and packaged, being 10 Gbps operation of transmitter and receiver demon-
strated for the various channels. In [82], an array of four lasers with SOA for NG-PON2 was
presented showing 80 mW output power for temperature operation from 15 ◦ C to 45 ◦ C,
through a proprietary discrete mode technology. A thorough analysis of the methodologies
and implementations to bring PICs into NG-PON2 was presented in the tutorial session
of [83], where the full methodologies and ecosystem were revised and novel architectures
for transmitter and receivers for NG-PON2 PIC were presented. An assessment of the
implementation of ONU for NG-PON2 is provided in [84], where the trade-offs for mono-
lithic implementation of NGPON2 ONU PIC based transceivers are assessed and compared
against the different technological barriers to meet, and the standard requirements both
at a network and component level. The authors present the comparison of their released
NG-PON2 ONU based on discrete optics and their progress with PIC, where the receiver
is based on a quasi-coherent architecture, which is shown in Figure 5. Table 2 presents an
overview of the NG-PON2 PIC based implementations featured in this section.
Photonics 2023, 10, 182 14 of 24

Figure 5. Diagram comparing the ONU based on discrete optics and the novel PIC based ONU [84].

Table 2. Summary of key parameters of PIC based NG-PON2 implementations.

Reference No. Transceiver Type Integration Technology Target Equipment

Tx DBR array + SOA + AWG ONU and OLT
80 Monolithic
Rx AWG + array of PIN (interchangeable)

Laser array + AWG +

Tx ONU
single MZM
81 Hybrid (InP + Si)
AWG + array of PD per
Rx ONU
polarization
Laser array (80 mW output
82 Tx Monolithic ONU or OLT
power)
84 Rx Monolithic Quasi-coherent ONU

Coherent technologies for PON have been a focus of study as presented at the end
of Section 2.2. Developments of PIC for coherent were focused so far on high-capacity
applications like data centers, however with the change of paradigm to the “New paradigm”
where the data centers’ electro-optic solutions are being transferred to PONs, and with a
high motivation to develop PIC for PON, the development of low-cost integrated coherent
architectures is arising.
A dual polarization phase diversity coherent receiver is composed of a polarization
beam splitter (PBS) that receives the input signal and splits both polarizations that go
through similar paths composed by a hybrid (many implementations are possible for a
90◦ hybrid, a review is provided in [85], and for 120◦ hybrid in [86]) that on the one hand
inputs the signal and splits it in amplitude and phase at its output, and on the other hand
inputs a reference local oscillator (LO) whose polarization is aligned with the one from
the signal. At the hybrid outputs, a combination of the LO with the signal that presents a
phase shift among them, allowing after photodetection, and with the right photocurrent
combination, to recover both the phase and amplitude of the signal. An example of a
dual polarization coherent receiver based on a 120◦ hybrid is depicted in Figure 6. This
exemplary architecture requires six photodiodes instead of the eight photodiodes required
for a 90º hybrid. While the 120◦ hybrid, considering the implementation of single ended
photodiodes, can be considered easier to integrate on to a PIC based solution, the 90◦
hybrid is simpler in the case of use of balanced photodiodes. Additionally, the 120◦ hybrid
is a more compact integrated device when compared to a 90◦ hybrid. For PON, with the
current standardized technologies and standardization occurring, coherent is useful for
WDM PONs where the LO can be used to tune the signal, it can also be useful to achieve a
high sensitivity with PIN photodiodes. For the latter case, it is important to state that the
integrated platforms do not provide APDs, whilst coherent can reach better sensitivities
than generic APD based receivers due to the gain provided by the power of the LO. For
PON based on OOK, simplified architectures should be developed providing polarization
insensitive operation and only amplitude recovery.
Photonics 2023, 10, 182 15 of 24

Figure 6. Dual polarization coherent receiver based on a 120◦ hybrid.

Infinera have put a large amount of tine and effort into the development of coherent
monolithically integrated PICs for datacenter applications, delivering state of the art, and
the best industry rated, transceivers based on monolithic PICs. That same company recently
thoroughly reviewed its production data and statistics, with the best practices for system
on chip PIC based development over the past years, providing an example for academia
and industries working in the field of photonic integration fabrication [87]. For their
coherent transceiver development, in 2017 they reported a full C-Band tunable multi-
channel PIC transmitter and coherent receiver capable of reaching up to 44 Gbaud 16-QAM
dual polarization with an aggregated capacity higher than 1.2 Tbps [88,89]. Evolving from
there, in 2019 the company presented the platform to reach a transmitter and coherent
receiver of 100 Gbaud [90], and in 2020, using this platform, they demonstrated a 1.6 Tbps
2-channel transceiver based on a monolithic Tx/Rx InP PIC, co-packaged with a SiGe
ASIC [91]. Other academic and industry players are working towards PIC based coherent
receivers: Ericsson presented a 120◦ hybrid on a SOI PIC [92]; Sumitomo developed a
very compact coherent receiver based on a 90◦ hybrid capable of reaching 224 Gbps with
dual polarization 16-QAM [93]; and Fraunhofer HHI are actively working to improve their
balanced photoreceiver, that reduces to two the number of photodiodes needed on a 90◦
hybrid, having demonstrated 100 Gbaud operation [94] and a best of class waveguide
integrated balanced photodiode with a 3 dB bandwidth of 115 GHz [95]. Simplified
architectures for coherent PONs were demonstrated at 10 Gbps and 25 Gbps in [96], where
a 2 × 1 coupler, a PBS, and two photodiodes were used in conjunction with a dedicated
ASIC per polarization, that worked as an envelope detector. The authors demonstrated
up to −28 dBm sensitivity at 25 Gbps with a commercial TIA and the dedicated envelope
detector [97]. Subsequently a TIA was designed and co-packaged with the envelope
detector, showing −30.5 dBm sensitivity at 10 Gbps [98]. Finally a customized TIA has been
developed and co-packed with the ASIC for envelope detection, this achieved a −28 dBm
sensitivity at 10 Gbps [99]. In [84] a coherent receiver was implemented in a PIC platform
and it was stated to be polarization independent.

4. Quasi-Coherent Receiver Based on Co-Hosted InP PIC and SiGe ASIC

With the aim of developing PIC based transceivers for PON applications, work has
been carried out to develop transmitter and receiver architectures that can be implemented
in an integrated manner and have a performance comparable to, or better than, current
BOSA based implementations. With the focus on the receiver side, to achieve the desired
sensitivity and the tunability required for WDM applications, coherent receivers are chosen.
The authors present an electro-optical receiver that co-hosts an InP PIC and a Silicon Ger-
manium (SiGe) ASIC, designed to match performance and implement coherent detection
for IM, polarization independent applications [100]. By using a multi-pocket host of Silicon
(Si), both ASIC and PIC are co-packaged, and the device characterization is performed. The
setup and results are presented in the next subsections with an extended set of results.
Photonics 2023, 10, 182 16 of 24

4.1. Co-Hosted Device and Experimental Setup

Figure 7a shows a detailed image of the co-hosted InP PIC + SiGe ASIC mounted
on a specially designed Printed Circuit Board (PCB). The bottom layer of the device is a
TEC that is externally controlled using the Thorlabs TED200C(Thorlabs Inc., Newton, NJ,
USA), to define the base temperature, either 20 or 35 ◦ C. The TEC is attached to the PCB
with thermal paste, where the PCB includes vias for thermal dissipation. Following that,
a proprietary Si multi-pocket host is thermally and mechanically connected to the PCB
using thermal epoxy H20E from EPO-TEK. The Si host contains cavities for the ASIC and
PIC. It is geometrically designed to match the PIC and ASIC input/output interfaces and
dimensions, while minimizing the distance between their high-speed interfaces. The host
also contains electrical traces and pads for the various interconnections required between
the integrated circuits and the PCB as well as V-grooves for fiber alignment. Wire-bonds
between the PIC and the ASIC connect the high-speed PIN receiver output to the TIA
input stage of the ASIC. The ASIC’s output is wire-bonded to the Si host RF lines, which
provide a bandwidth of more than 30 GHz with an insertion loss smaller than 1 dB. The
host RF lines are then wire-bonded to the PCB RF lines. The remaining wire-bonded DC
electrical connections are performed from the PIC/ASIC to the Si host. Both PIC and ASIC
are attached to the Si host via the aforementioned thermal epoxy.

Figure 7. (a) Detailed image of the co-hosted InP PIC and SiGe ASIC; (b) Block diagram of the device
under test (DUT) and setup layout for its characterization.

The InP PIC was designed using the generic integration processes of Fraunhofer
Heinrich-Hertz Institute (HHI) [101], featuring a simplified coherent architecture, capable
of detecting the signal amplitude [102]. An LO, used in heterodyne regime, is mixed
with the input signal and then separated in two PIN receivers with equal amplitude and
orthogonal components to achieve polarization independence. The electrical output signals
from the coherent receiver feed the ASIC, whose input stage is a high-speed linear TIA,
followed by an envelope detection for down-conversion of the signals to baseband, the last
stage that comprises the electrical combination of the two components.
Figure 7b shows the setup used to characterize the device. The green box containing
the quasi-coherent receiver with two photodiodes, represents the PIC while the blue
box contains the ASIC, enclosing the two TIAs and envelope detectors, whose outputs
are combined and wire-bonded to the PCB’s differential output traces. The transmitter
consists of an XFP form factor evaluation board where the XFP transceiver can be changed
according to the laser modulation technique (DML or EML) and wavelength band. A
modulated signal coming from the Bit Error Rate Tester (BERT) ExoBERT2904 with 27 -1
Pseudo Random Sequences (PRBS) at 5 or 10 Gbps, drives the XFP. The output signal
from the transmitter goes through a polarization controller (PC) Thorlabs PM100S, that is
used for the polarization dependence characterization scenario, and feeds a 99%/1% 1 × 2
coupler to enable a monitoring photodiode (PD) on the 1% output. The signal, coming from
the 99% output of the previously described 1 × 2 coupler, then traverses a 2 × 2 coupler,
where the remaining input is fed with an external tunable laser APEX AP3350A/3352A
with wavelengths from 1526 to 1608 nm and a ~300 kHz linewidth, which is used in the
wideband operation characterization as an LO, since the tunability of the integrated LO
would not suffice for the test scenarios and the PIC was designed to allow the use of either
Photonics 2023, 10, 182 17 of 24

an internal or external LO. At the 1% output of the 2 × 2 coupler, an Optical Spectrum

Analyzer Advantest EQ8384 (OSA) is used for monitoring the incoming optical signal to
the PIC, which corresponds to the 99% output of the 2 × 2 coupler. The optical interfacing
is performed through a cleaved SSMF and a Spot Size Converter (SSC) at the PIC side. The
differential electrical output of the recovered signal is then connected to the ExoBERT 2904
for real-time BER measurement, or a digital scope TEKTRONIX DSA72004 with a 20 GHz
Bandwidth and 50 GS/s.

4.2. Experimental Results

The first set of results, depicted in Figure 8, were extracted to verify the band of
operation, electrical bandwidth, and resilience to the characteristics of different commercial
transmitters. The wavelength of the external tunable local oscillator for a given transmitter
was swept around the optimum point of sensitivity for the BER 1E-3 to determine the
penalty stemming from detuning, hence the bandwidth of the device was attained. This
was performed for both 5 and 10 Gbps. In Figure 8a, the transmitter is a C-Band DML
operating at 1532 nm, and in Figure 8b the transmitter is an L-band EML operating at
1596 nm. Figure 8a,b conclude that the intrinsic penalty between 5 and 10 Gbps arises,
and that the behavior around the LO detuning is similar for both transmitter types. The
measured bandwidth, shown by arrows, is broader when the transmitter is an EML, which
is explained by the different spectral characteristics. Although the DML features a broader
spectral width when compared with the EML, both setups are limited by the bandwidth of
the ASIC (30 GHz). On both graphs, eye diagrams are shown for the optimal point of 10
Gbps operation.

Figure 8. Power penalty inferred from the sensitivity of the BER 1E-3 as a function of the LO frequency
detuning for 10 and 5 Gbps. (a): Transmitter is a commercial C-Band DML; (b): Transmitter is a
commercial L-Band EML.

In order to verify polarization independence, the internal LO of the InP PIC was used
to recover the signal coming from the DML transmitter. The wavelength of the LO was
controlled via a closed loop temperature stabilization method embedded in the control
circuit of the PCB. By controlling the PIC, the Best-Case-Condition (BCC) and Worst-Case-
Condition (WCC) of State of Polarization (SoP) were obtained for the measurements, using
the BER at 1E-3 as the point of reference. After defining the BCC and WCC, the BER curves
were obtained and the results are depicted in Figure 9, where the 0 of the normalized
Received Optical Power (ROP) corresponds to the BCC SOP at 1E-3. It was observed that
all SOP could be recovered, and that the BER curve slopes for the BCC and WCC are similar.
The penalty between both cases varies between 3.5 and 4.5 dB. Intrinsic to the architecture
employed, a 3 dB penalty was theoretically expected, the remaining experimental penalty
is explained by the polarization dependence of the PIC components, e.g., the responsivity
of the PD.
Photonics 2023, 10, 182 18 of 24

Figure 9. BER curve for best case scenario and worst-case scenario of state of polarization.

To assess the dependency of the power of the LO, an external tunable laser was used.
By sweeping the signal optical power at the input of the PIC, BER levels were taken for
the LO powers of +5 dBm, +7 dBm, and +10 dBm. Figure 10 depicts the results, which are
normalized in terms of a penalty with respect to the 10E-3 BER level when the LO is +10
dBm. With the increase of the LO’s power, an enhancement of the performance is observed
due to the gain effect of the quasi-coherent mechanism. An approximate 2 dB improvement
can be noted between the curves of +5 and +7 dBm. However, when the LO power reaches
+10 dBm, the improvement does not continue, which may be related to the saturation of
the receiver. The recovered eye diagram for the case of LO power at +10 dBm is also shown
as an inset in Figure 10.

Figure 10. LO power dependency of the system and recovered eye diagram.

To exploit the tunability range, the power penalty was characterized for a BER of 1E-3
using 4 WDM channels separated by 100 GHz for both the C- and L-bands, referring to the
upstream and downstream channels of NG-PON2. In the case of the C-band, two different
LOs were used so that the impact of the laser linewidth could also be assessed. One of the
LO sources was an external tunable laser and the other was a DFB whose linewidth is of
the order of a few hundred MHz, which is comparable to that of the LO monolithically
integrated into the PIC. The XFP used as a transmitter signal is a commercial NG-PON2
ONU based on a DML. In the L-band experiment, the external tunable laser was used as
LO and the transmitter signal was generated by a commercial XFP OLT based on external
modulation. The results can be observed in Figure 11, where it is possible to conclude that
the penalty within each band is less than 1–1.5 dB for the C- and L-bands, respectively. This
demonstrates the wideband tunability of the implemented architecture and methodology.
As seen in the C-band, the DFB laser used as an LO leads to a higher penalty.
Photonics 2023, 10, 182 19 of 24

Figure 11. Power penalty on C and L band.

5. Conclusions
PONs have been evolving over the past decades following consumers’ demand for
higher bitrates. With this evolution complexity arises, being defined the current next trends
as WDM PON with 25 or 50 Gbps per channel. For this increase in capacity per channel,
Data Center technologies are being adapted to be able to meet burst mode transmission
(ONU) and reception (OLT), and an increased link budget, with electro-optical hardware
that has already had feasibility demonstrations performed.
Although photonic integration was introduced in the late 60s, the steps to harmo-
nize PIC development only occurred four decades after that, with the creation of generic
photonic integration fabrication and packaging lines. The availability of photonic generic
processes allowed the increase of accessibility to PIC development. For PONs, the need is
to develop passive building blocks specific to the wavelength band and channel separation,
as well as transmitter and receiver integrated architectures that can meet the tight standard
requirements, associated with the development of integrated drivers for the dedicated
PIC architectures and assembly steps at the electrical optical and thermal levels that can
meet on the one hand, the electro-optical performance required, and on the other hand, the
power consumption required by the target multi-source agreement form factors. Extensive
work in this field was demonstrated in this paper, with a focus on receiver integrated
architectures, where a way to achieve the required tunability and high sensitivity is to use
coherent architectures, a path already explored by several authors. Work has also focused
on the simplifications that a coherent receiver can have when applied to a PON. A case
study of an integrated receiver, where a PIC and ASIC are co-packaged, was presented,
demonstrating its core characteristics of polarization robustness, bandwidth, wideband,
and LO power dependency. All these developments pave the way to bring PIC-based
transceivers to PONs in a rapid and cost-accessible manner, and to be able to efficiently
deliver the performance required of the electro-optic equipment of PONs. Challenges
stem from the high volume manufacturability capabilities of PIC based solutions with the
proper yields for the application, passing by new design platforms and building blocks on
the different bands of communication (in particular O-band), and finalizing novel pack-
aging technologies that allow them to efficiently achieve passive or quasi-passive optical
alignment between different PICs and their optical input/outputs while ensuring proper
electrical and thermal performances.

Author Contributions: This is a review paper, each author contributed to all chapters, F.R. and A.T.
prepared the manuscript, i.e., writing, review, and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work is supported by the European Regional Development Fund (FEDER), through the
Competitiveness and Internationalization Operational Programme (COMPETE 2020) of the Portugal
2020 framework [Project Virtual Fiber Box with Nr. 033910 (POCI-01-0247-FEDER-033910)]; plugPON
(POCI-01-0247-FEDER-047221).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Photonics 2023, 10, 182 20 of 24

Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Wey, J.S. The Outlook for PON Standardization: A Tutorial. J. Light. Technol. 2020, 38, 31–42. [CrossRef]
2. Gupta, H.; Gupta, P.; Kumar, P.; Gupta, A.K.; Kumar Mathur, P. Passive Optical Networks: Review and Road Ahead. In
Proceedings of the TENCON 2018—IEEE Region 10 Annual International Conference, Jeju, Republic of Korea, 28–31 October
2018; Volume 2018-Octob, pp. 919–924. [CrossRef]
3. Nesset, D. PON roadmap [invited]. J. Opt. Commun. Netw. 2017, 9, A71–A76. [CrossRef]
4. ITU. ITU, ‘GPON Standard’. Available online: https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.984.1 (accessed on 21 November 2022).
5. CISCO. Cisco Visual Networking Index (VNI): Forecast and Trends 2017–2022; White Paper; CISCO: Sydney, Australia, 2019.
6. Dias, L.P.; Dos Santos, A.F.; Pereira, H.A.; de Andrade Almeida, R.C., Jr.; Giozza, W.F.; de Sousa, R.T., Jr.; Assis, K.D.R. Evolutionary
Strategy for Practical Design of Passive Optical Networks. Photonics 2022, 9, 278. [CrossRef]
7. ITU-T. Higher Speed Passive Optical Networks Requirements. Available online: https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.9804.1/en
(accessed on 23 November 2022).
8. ITU. Higher Speed Passive Optical Networks: Physical Media Dependent (PMD) Layer Specification. Available online: https:
//www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.9804.3-202109-I (accessed on 23 November 2022).
9. Bonk, R.; Geng, D.; Khotimsky, D.; Liu, D.; Liu, X.; Luo, Y.; Nesset, D.; Oksman, V.; Strobel, R.; Van Hoof, W.; et al. 50G-PON: The
First ITU-T Higher-Speed PON System. IEEE Commun. Mag. 2022, 60, 48–54. [CrossRef]
10. Nesset, D. The Progress of Higher Speed Passive Optical Network Standardisation in ITU-T (Invited). In Proceedings of the 2021
European Conference on Optical Communication (ECOC), Bordeaux, France, 13–16 September 2021. [CrossRef]
11. Rodrigues, C.; Rodrigues, F.; Pinho, C.; Bento, N.; Amorim, M.; Teixeira, A. 25 and 50G Optical Access Network Deployment
Forecasts using Bi-Logistic curves. In Proceedings of the 2021 Optical Fiber Communications Conference and Exhibition (OFC),
San Francisco, CA, USA, 6–10 June 2021.
12. Agrawal, G.P. Fibre-Optic Communication Systems; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2002.
13. PICadvanced S.A. Available online: https://www.picadvanced.store/product-page/sfp-gpon-olt-c (accessed on 23 Novem-
ber 2022).
14. Broadband Forum. The Future of Passive Optical Networking Is Here NG-PON2, May 2019. Available online: https://www.
broadband-forum.org/marketing/download/MU-437.pdf (accessed on 22 November 2022).
15. Nesset, D. NG-PON2 technology and standards. J. Light. Technol. 2015, 33, 1136–1143. [CrossRef]
16. Wey, J.S.; Nesset, D.; Valvo, M.; Grobe, K.; Roberts, H.; Luo, Y.; Smith, J. Physical layer aspects of NG-PON2 standards-Part 1:
Optical link design [Invited]. J. Opt. Commun. Netw. 2016, 8, 33–42. [CrossRef]
17. G989.2. 2014. Available online: https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.989.2 (accessed on 22 November 2022).
18. Matsui, Y.; Li, W.; Roberts, H.; Bulthuis, H.; Deng, H.; Lin, L.; Roxlo, C. Transceiver for NG-PON2: Wavelength Tunablity for Burst
Mode TWDM and Point-to-Point WDM. In Proceedings of the 2016 Optical Fiber Communications Conference and Exhibition
(OFC), Anaheim, CA, USA, 20–24 March 2016.
19. Van Veen, D.; Houtsma, V.; Porto, S.; Basavanhally, N.; Bolle, C.; Schmuck, H. Wavelength-stable burst-mode laser for next-
generation PONs. J. Opt. Commun. Netw. 2019, 11, A155–A165. [CrossRef]
20. Harstead, E.; Van Veen, D.; Houtsma, V.; Dom, P. Technology roadmap for time-division multiplexed passive optical networks
(TDM PONs). J. Light. Technol. 2019, 37, 657–664. [CrossRef]
21. Zhang, T. Tunable Laser Drivers for Next Generation WDM-Based PON Networks. In Proceedings of the 2019 Optical Fiber
Communications Conference and Exhibition (OFC), San Diego, CA, USA, 3–7 March 2019.
22. Gaudino, R.; Torres-Ferrera, P.; Wang, H.; Valvo, M.; Pagano, A.; Mercinelli, R.; Ferrero, V. Opportunities and Challenges When
Using Low Bandwidth Optics for Higher Capacity PON Systems. In Proceedings of the 2020 Optical Fiber Communications
Conference and Exhibition (OFC), San Diego, CA, USA, 8–12 March 2020.
23. Coudyzer, G.; Ossieur, P.; Breyne, L.; La Porta, A.; Paredes, S.; Bauwelinck, J.; Yin, X. Study of burst-mode adaptive equalization
for >25G PON applications [Invited]. J. Opt. Commun. Netw. 2020, 12, A104–A112. [CrossRef]
24. Van Veen, D.; Houtsma, V. Transceiver Technologies for Next-Generation PON (Tutorial). In Proceedings of the 2020 Optical Fiber
Communications Conference and Exhibition (OFC), San Diego, CA, USA, 8–12 March 2020.
25. Torres-Ferrera, P.; Milite, V.; Ferrero, V.; Valvo, M.; Mercinelli, R.; Gaudino, R. Burst-mode equalization strategies in 25 Gbps
US-PON using duobinary and 10G-class APD for 20-km in C-band. In Proceedings of the 2019 Optical Fiber Communications
Conference and Exhibition (OFC), San Diego, CA, USA, 3–7 March 2019.
26. Udalcovs, A.; Salgals, T.; Zhang, L.; Pang, X.; Djupsjöbacka, A.; Spolitis, S.; Bobrovs, V.; Popov, S.; Ozolins, O. Optical power
budget of 25+ Gbps IM/DD PON with digital signal post-equalization. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 6106. [CrossRef]
27. Wang, H.; Torres-Ferrera, P.; Ferrero, V.; Gaudino, R. Experimental study on 25 gbps c-band pon over up to 25 km smf using a
10g-class dml + apd im-dd system. Photonics 2021, 8, 328. [CrossRef]
Photonics 2023, 10, 182 21 of 24

28. Hong, C.; Shi, B.; Qi, F.; Cai, P.; Duan, Y.; Hou, G.; Su, T.; Chiu, T.; Li, S.; Chen, W.; et al. High Speed Ge/Si Avalanche
Photodiode with High Sensitivity for 50Gbit/s and 100Gbit/s Optical Access Systems. In Proceedings of the 2022 Optical Fiber
Communications Conference and Exhibition (OFC), San Diego, CA, USA, 6–10 March 2022.
29. Dai, X.; Debregeas, H.; Da Rold, G.; Carrara, D.; Louarn, K.; Valdeiglesias, E.D.; Lelarge, F. Versatile Externally Modulated Lasers
Technology for Multiple Telecommunication Applications. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quantum Electron. 2021, 27, 3400412. [CrossRef]
30. Watanabe, T.; Sakaida, N.; Yasaka, H.; Kano, F.; Koga, M. Transmission performance of chirp-controlled signal by using
semiconductor optical amplifier. J. Light. Technol. 2000, 18, 1069–1077. [CrossRef]
31. Rosales, R.; Cano, I.; Nesset, D.; Zhicheng, Y.; Brenot, R.; Dubrovina, N.; Duran-Valdeiglesias, E.; Debregeas, H.; Carrara, D.;
Lelarge, F. First Demonstration of an E2 Class Downstream Link for 50Gb/s PON at 1342nm. In Proceedings of the 2020 European
Conference on Optical Communications (ECOC), Brussels, Belgium, 6–10 December 2020. [CrossRef]
32. Zhang, D.; Liu, D.; Nesset, D.; Wu, X.; Ming, J. Carrier Lab Trial of a Real Time 50G-PON Prototype. In Proceedings of the 2021
European Conference on Optical Communication (ECOC), Bordeaux, France, 13–16 September 2021. [CrossRef]
33. Rosales, R.; Cano, I.; Nesset, D.; Brenot, R.; Dubrovina, N.; Durán-Valdeiglesias, E.; Debregeas, H. Achieving high budget classes
in the downstream link of 50G-PON. J. Opt. Commun. Netw. 2021, 13, D13–D21. [CrossRef]
34. Rosales, R.; Cano, I.N.; Nesset, D.; Brenot, R.; Talli, G. 50G-PON Downstream Link up to 40 km with a 1342 nm Integrated
EML+SOA. IEEE Photonics Technol. Lett. 2022, 34, 306–308. [CrossRef]
35. Simon, G.; Saliou, F.; Potet, J.; Chanclou, P.; Rosales, R.; Cano, I.N.; Nesset, D. 50Gb/s Real-Time Transmissions with Upstream
Burst-Mode for 50G-PON using a Common SOA Pre-amplifier/Booster at the OLT. In Proceedings of the 2020 Optical Fiber
Communications Conference and Exhibition (OFC), San Diego, CA, USA, 6–10 March 2022.
36. Li, Z.; Yin, F.; Huang, X.; Ma, Z.; Song, Y.; Yi, L. Demonstration of a 50G-PON with a 45-dB power budget using an IQ-interleaved
coherent detection scheme. Opt. Express 2021, 29, 32523–32534. [CrossRef]
37. Zhu, Y.; Yang, B.; Zhong, Y.; Liu, Z.; Guo, Y.; Wey, J.S.; Huang, X.; Ma, Z. Performance Comparison of Coherent and Direct
Detection Schemes for 50G PON. In Proceedings of the 2020 Optical Fiber Communications Conference and Exhibition (OFC),
San Diego, CA, USA, 8–12 March 2020.
38. Shahpari, A.; Ferreira, R.; Ribeiro, V.; Sousa, A.; Ziaie, S.; Tavares, A.; Vujicic, Z.; Guiomar, F.P.; Reis, J.D.; Pinto, A.N.; et al.
Coherent ultra dense wavelength division multiplexing passive optical networks. Opt. Fiber Technol. 2015, 26, 100–107. [CrossRef]
39. Shahpari, A.; Ferreira, R.M.; Luis, R.S.; Vujicic, Z.; Guiomar, F.P.; Reis, J.D.; Teixeira, A.L. Coherent Access: A Review. J. Light.
Technol. 2017, 35, 1050–1058. [CrossRef]
40. COCOUNUT Project. Available online: http://www.ict-coconut.eu (accessed on 23 November 2022).
41. Prat, J. Technologies for a cost effective UDWDM-PON. In Proceedings of the 2015 Optical Fiber Communications Conference
and Exhibition (OFC), Los Angeles, CA, USA, 22–26 March 2015.
42. Ciaramella, E. Polarization-independent receivers for low-cost coherent OOK systems. IEEE Photonics Technol. Lett. 2014, 26,
548–551. [CrossRef]
43. Ciaramella, E. Assessment of a Polarization-Independent DSP-Free Coherent Receiver for Intensity-Modulated Signals. J. Light.
Technol. 2020, 38, 676–683. [CrossRef]
44. Tabares, J.A.; Ghasemi, S.; Velásquez, J.C.; Prat, J. Coherent Ultra-Dense WDM-PON Enabled by Complexity-Reduced Digital
Transceivers. J. Light. Technol. 2020, 38, 1305–1313. [CrossRef]
45. Lavery, D.; Gerard, T.; Erkılınç, S.; Liu, Z.; Galdino, L.; Bayvel, P.; Killey, R.I. Opportunities for optical access network transceivers
beyond OOK [invited]. J. Opt. Commun. Netw. 2019, 11, A186–A195. [CrossRef]
46. Lavery, D.; Bayvel, P.; Killey, R. Coherent Technologies for Passive Optical Networks. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE Photonics
Society Summer Topical Meeting Series (SUM), Ft. Lauderdale, FL, USA, 8–10 July 2019. [CrossRef]
47. Altabas, J.A.; Valdecasa, G.S.; Didriksen, M.; Lazaro, J.A.; Garces, I.; Monroy, I.T.; Jensen, J.B. Real-time 10Gbps polarization
independent quasicoherent receiver for NG-PON2 access networks. J. Light. Technol. 2019, 37, 651–656. [CrossRef]
48. Miller, S.E. Integrated Optics: An Introduction. Bell Syst. Tech. J. 1969, 48, 2059–2069. [CrossRef]
49. Nagarajan, R.; Joyner, C.H.; Schneider, R.P.; Bostak, J.S.; Butrie, T.; Dentai, A.G.; Dominic, V.G.; Evans, P.W.; Kato, M.; Kauffman,
M.; et al. Large-scale photonic integrated circuits. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quantum Electron. 2005, 11, 50–62. [CrossRef]
50. Gao, Y.; Lo, J.-C.; Lee, S.; Patel, R.; Zhu, L.; Nee, J.; Tsou, D.; Carney, R.; Sun, J. High-Power, Narrow-Linewidth, Miniaturized
Silicon Photonic Tunable Laser with Accurate Frequency Control. J. Light. Technol. 2020, 38, 265–271. [CrossRef]
51. CISCO. Available online: https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/interfaces-modules/transceiver-modules/
datasheet-c78-743172.html (accessed on 23 November 2022).
52. INTEL No Title. Available online: https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/architecture-and-technology/silicon-
photonics/silicon-photonics-overview.html (accessed on 23 November 2022).
53. Smit, M.; Leijtens, X.; Bente, E.; van der Tol, J.; Ambrosius, H.; Robbins, D.; Wale, M.; Grote, N.; Schell, M. A generic foundry
model for InP-based photonic ICs. In Proceedings of the 2012 Optical Fiber Communications Conference and Exhibition (OFC),
Los Angeles, CA, USA, 4–8 March 2012.
54. Smit, M.; Leijtens, X.; Ambrosius, H.; Bente, E.; van der Tol, J.; Smalbrugge, B.; de Vries, T.; Geluk, E.J.; Bolk, J.; van Veldhoven, R.;
et al. An introduction to InP-based generic integration technology. Semicond. Sci. Technol. 2014, 29, 083001. [CrossRef]
55. JEPPIX Platform. Available online: https://www.jeppix.eu/ (accessed on 24 November 2022).
56. ePIXfab Platform. Available online: https://epixfab.eu/ (accessed on 24 November 2022).
Photonics 2023, 10, 182 22 of 24

57. Lionix International BVBV. Available online: https://www.lionix-international.com/ (accessed on 24 November 2022).
58. AIM Photonics. Available online: http://www.aimphotonics.com/ (accessed on 24 November 2022).
59. Jeppix. JePPIX Roadmap 2018: The Road to a Multi-Billion Euro Market in Integrated Photonics. Available online: http:
//wipe.jeppix.eu/public/images/JePPIX-Roadmap-may2018_FINAL.pdf (accessed on 24 November 2022).
60. Smit, M.; van der Tol, J.; Hill, M. Moore’s law in photonics. Laser Photonics Rev. 2012, 6, 1–13. [CrossRef]
61. Smit, M.; Williams, K.; Van Der Tol, J. Past, present, and future of InP-based photonic integration. APL Photonics 2019, 4, 050901.
[CrossRef]
62. Van Der Tol, J.J.G.M.; Jiao, Y.; Van Engelen, J.P.; Pogoretskiy, V.; Kashi, A.A.; Williams, K. InP Membrane on Silicon (IMOS)
Photonics. IEEE J. Quantum Electron. 2020, 56, 6300107. [CrossRef]
63. Fedeli, J.-M.; Nicoletti, S.; Lagae, L.; Artundo, I.; O’Brien, P. EU pilot lines for integrated photonics. In Proceedings of the 2017
IEEE 14th International Conference on Group IV Photonics (GFP), Berlin, Germany, 23–25 August 2017; pp. 79–80. [CrossRef]
64. Jans, H.; O’Brien, P.; Artundo, I.; Porcel, M.; Hoofman, R.; Geuzebroek, D.; Dumon, P.; Vliet, M.; Witzens, J.; Bourguignon, E.;
et al. Integrated bio-photonics to revolutionize health care enabled through PIX4life and PIXAPP. In Proceedings of the Progress
in Biomedical Optics and Imaging—Proceedings of SPIE, San Francisco, CA, USA, 27 January–1 February 2018; Volume 10506.
[CrossRef]
65. Latkowski, S.; Pustakhod, D.; Yao, W.; Leijtens, X.; Williams, K. Test Methods and Processes in Manufacturing Chain of Photonic
Integrated Circuits. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Transparent Optical Networks, Bucharest, Romenia, 1–5
July 2018. [CrossRef]
66. O’Brien, P. Scaling of Integrated Photonic Packaging for Volume Manufacture. In Proceedings of the International Conference on
Optical MEMS and Nanophotonics (OMN), Lausanne, Switzerland, 29 July–2 August 2018. [CrossRef]
67. Carroll, L.; Lee, J.-S.; Scarcella, C.; Gradkowski, K.; Duperron, M.; Lu, H.; Zhao, Y.; Eason, C.; Morrissey, P.; Rensing, M.; et al.
Photonic packaging: Transforming silicon photonic integrated circuits into photonic devices. Appl. Sci. 2016, 6, 426. [CrossRef]
68. Gradkowski, K.; Eason, C.; Lee, J.S.; Bernabe, S.; Temporiti, E.; Carroll, L.; O’Brien, P. Thermal challenges for packaging integrated
photonic devices. In Proceedings of the 2016 6th Electronic System-Integration Technology Conference (ESTC), Grenoble, France,
13–15 September 2016. [CrossRef]
69. Punch, J. Thermal challenges in photonic integrated circuits. In Proceedings of the 2012 13th International Conference on Thermal,
Mechanical and Multi-Physics Simulation and Experiments in Microelectronics and Microsystems, Cascais, Portugal, 16–18
April 2012. [CrossRef]
70. Punch, J. Microfluidics for the thermal control of Photonics Integrated Circuits. In Proceedings of the 2018 19th International
Conference on Thermal, Mechanical and Multi-Physics Simulation and Experiments in Microelectronics and Microsystems,
Tolouse, France, 15–18 April 2018; pp. 1–5. [CrossRef]
71. Kyatam, S.; Mukherjee, D.; Neto, H.; Mendes, J.C. Thermal management of photonic integrated circuits: Impact of holder material
and epoxies. Appl. Opt. 2019, 58, 6126–6135. [CrossRef]
72. Huiszoon, B.; Lawniczuk, K.; de Laat, M.M.; Duijn, R.L.; Broeke, R.G.; Leijtens, X.J.M.; van den Hoven, G.N. Application specific
photonic integrated circuits for FlexPON: Progress of the EuroPIC project. In Proceedings of the 14th International Converence
on Transparent Optical Networks (ICTON), Coventry, UK, 2–5 July 2012. [CrossRef]
73. Zhao, J.; Chen, X.; Zhou, N.; Huang, X.; Cao, M.; Wang, L.; Liu, W. Experimental demonstration of monolithically integrated 16
channel DFB laser array fabricated by nanoimprint lithography with AWG multiplexer and SOA for WDM-PON application. Opt.
Commun. 2015, 339, 78–85. [CrossRef]
74. Kleinert, M.; Zhang, Z.; de Felipe, D.; Zawadzki, C.; Novo, A.M.; Brinker, W.; Möhrle, M.; Keil, N. Recent progress in InP/polymer-
based devices for telecom and data center applications. In Proceedings of the SPIE Integrated Optics: Devices, Materials, and
Technologies XIX, San Francisco, CA, USA, 27 February 2015; Volume 9365. [CrossRef]
75. Zhang, Q.; Fu, S.; Man, J.; Li, Z.; Cherchi, M.; Heimala, P.; Harjanne, M.; Fei, S.; Hiltunen, M.; Aalto, T.; et al. Low-loss
and polarization-insensitive photonic integrated circuit based on micron-scale SOI platform for High Density TDM PONs.
In Proceedings of the 2017 Optical Fiber Communications Conference and Exhibition (OFC), Los Angeles, CA, USA, 19–23
March 2017.
76. Pachnicke, S.; Zhu, J.; Lawin, M.; Wonfor, A.; Eiselt, M.; Cush, R.; Turner, R.; Firth, P.; Wale, M.; Penty, R.V.; et al. Novel
WDM-PON system with shared wavelength locking and full C-band tunability. In Proceedings of the Photonics Networks; 15.
ITG Symposium, Leipzig, Germany, 5–6 May 2014; pp. 58–62.
77. Nadimi Goki, P.; Imran, M.; Porzi, C.; Toccafondo, V.; Fresi, F.; Cavaliere, F.; Potì, L. Lossless WDM PON photonic integrated
receivers including SOAs. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 2457. [CrossRef]
78. Zali, A.R.; Kleijn, S.; Augustin, L.; Tessema, N.M.; Prifti, K.; Stabile, R.; Calabretta, N. Design and Fabrication of Low Polarization
Dependent Bulk SOA Co-Integrated with Passive Waveguides for Optical Network Systems. J. Light. Technol. 2022, 40, 1083–1091.
[CrossRef]
79. Paśnikowska, A.; Stopiński, S.; Piramidowicz, R. Integrated InP-based multichannel transmitters for WDM-PON system.
In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Lasers and Electro-Optics Europe & European Quantum Electronics Conference
(CLEO/Europe-EQEC), Munich, Germany, 23–27 June 2019. [CrossRef]
Photonics 2023, 10, 182 23 of 24

80. Tavares, A.; Lopes, A.; Rodrigues, C.; Mãocheia, P.; Mendes, T.; Brandão, S.; Rodrigues, F.; Ferreira, R.; Teixeira, A. Photonic
integrated transmitter and receiver for NG-PON2. In Proceedings of the SPIE—The International Society for Optical Engineering,
Aveiro, Portugal, 22 August 2014; Volume 9286. [CrossRef]
81. Sasaki, H. Development of silicon photonics integrated circuits for next generation optical access networks. In Proceedings of
the 2019 2nd International Symposium on Devices, Circuits and Systems (ISDCS), Higashi-Hiroshima, Japan, 6–8 March 2019.
[CrossRef]
82. O’Carroll, J. Photonic integrated circuits for NGPON2 Tunable ONUs. In Proceedings of the 2019 Optical Fiber Communications
Conference and Exhibition (OFC), San Diego, CA, USA, 11–15 March 2018.
83. Teixeira, A. Photonic Integrated Circuits for NG-PON2 ONU Transceivers. In Proceedings of the 2019 Optical Fiber Communica-
tions Conference and Exhibition (OFC), San Diego, CA, USA, 3–7 March 2019.
84. Pinho, C.; Rodrigues, F.; Tavares, A.M.; Rodrigues, C.; Rodrigues, C.E.; Teixeira, A. Photonic integrated circuits for NGPON2
ONU transceivers (Invited). Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 4024. [CrossRef]
85. Seimetz, M.; Weinert, C.-M. Options, feasibility, and availability of 2 × 4 90◦ hybrids for coherent optical systems. J. Light. Technol.
2006, 24, 1317–1322. [CrossRef]
86. Dong, P.; Xie, C.; Buhl, L.L. Monolithic coherent receiver based on 120-degree optical hybrids on silicon. In Proceedings of the
2019 Optical Fiber Communications Conference and Exhibition (OFC), San Francisco, CA, USA, 9–13 March 2014.
87. Hoefler, G.E.; Zhou, Y.; Anagnosti, M.; Bhardwaj, A.; Abolghasem, P.; James, A.; Luna, S.; Debackere, P.; Dentai, A.; Vallaitis, T.;
et al. Foundry Development of System-On-Chip InP-Based Photonic Integrated Circuits. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quantum Electron. 2019,
25, 6100317. [CrossRef]
88. Hosseini, A.; Lu, M.; Going, R.; Samra, P.; Amiralizadeh, S.; Nguyen, A.; Rahn, J.; Dominic, V.; Awadalla, A.; Corzine, S.; et al.
Extended C-band tunable multi-channel InP-based coherent receiver PICs. Opt. Express 2017, 25, 18853–18862. [CrossRef]
89. Lauermann, M.; Going, R.; Maher, R.; Lu, M.; Ko, W.; Studenkov, P.; Ferrara, J.; Hosseini, A.; Corzine, S.; Rahn, J.; et al. Multi-
channel, widely-tunable coherent transmitter and receiver PICs Operating at 88Gbaud/16-QAM. In Proceedings of the 2017
Optical Fiber Communications Conference and Exhibition (OFC), Los Angeles, CA, USA, 19–23 March 2017.
90. Going, R.; Wolf, S.; Maher, R.; Studenkov, P.; Lal, V.; Tsai, H.-S.; Corzine, S.; Zhang, J.; Behnia, B.; Giovanni, C.D.; et al. InP-based
coherent pics for 100 gbaud operation. In OSA Advanced Photonics Congress (AP) 2019 (IPR, Networks, NOMA, SPPCom, PVLED);
Optica Publishing Group: Washington, DC, USA, 2019; OSA Technical Digest; paper SpM4E.3. [CrossRef]
91. Lal, V.; Studenkov, P.; Frost, T.; Tsai, H.; Behnia, B.; Osenbach, J.; Wolf, S.; Going, R.; Porto, S.; Maher, R.; et al. 1.6Tbps Coherent
2-Channel Transceiver using a Monolithic Tx/Rx InP PIC and Single SiGe ASIC. In Proceedings of the 2020 Optical Fiber
Communications Conference and Exhibition (OFC), San Diego, CA, USA, 8–12 March 2020.
92. Saber, M.G.; Osman, M.; Patel, D.; Samani, A.; El-Fiky, E.; Alam, M.S.; Shahriar, K.A.; Xing, Z.; Jacques, M.; Dortschy, B.; et al.
Demonstration of a 120◦ hybrid based simplified coherent receiver on SOI for high speed PON applications. Opt. Express 2018, 26,
31222–31232. [CrossRef]
93. Takechi, M.; Tateiwa, Y.; Kurokawa, M.; Yagi, H.; Hara, H. Compact optical receivers for coherent optical communication. SEI
Tech. Rev. October 2017, 24–28.
94. Runge, P.; Zhou, G.; Ganzer, F.; Seifert, S.; Mutschall, S.; Seeger, A. Polarisation insensitive coherent receiver PIC for 100Gbaud
communication. In Proceedings of the 2016 Optical Fiber Communications Conference and Exhibition (OFC), Anaheim, CA,
USA, 20–24 March 2016.
95. Runge, P.; Zhou, G.; Beckerwerth, T.; Ganzer, F.; Keyvaninia, S.; Seifert, S.; Ebert, W.; Mutschall, S.; Seeger, A.; Schell, M.
Waveguide Integrated Balanced Photodetectors for Coherent Receivers. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quantum Electron. 2018, 24, 6100307.
[CrossRef]
96. Altabas, A.; Izquierdo, D.; Clemente, J.; Sarmiento, S.; Valdecasa, G.; Squartecchia, M.; Suhr, L.; Gallardo, O.; Lopez, A.; Losada,
M.; et al. Advanced technologies for coherent access networks. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Transparent
Optical Networks, Angers, France, 9–13 July 2019. [CrossRef]
97. Valdecasa, G.S.; Puertas, O.G.; Altabas, J.A.; Squartecchia, M.; Jensen, J.B.; Johansen, T.K. High-Speed SiGe BiCMOS Detector
Enabling a 28 Gbps Quasi-Coherent Optical Receiver. IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. II Express Briefs 2022, 69, 964–968. [CrossRef]
98. Valdecasa, G.S.; Altabas, J.A.; Kupska, M.; Jensen, J.B.; Johansen, T.K. A 5–50 GHz sige BiCMOS linear transimpedance amplifier
with 68 dbΩ differential gain towards highly integrated quasi-coherent receivers. Electronics 2021, 10, 2349. [CrossRef]
99. Johansen, T.K.; Valdecasa, G.; Kupska, M.; Altabas, J.; Gallardo, O.; Squartecchia, M.; Jensen, J. A 7-30 GHz, 80-dB Ω Noise-
Optimized, Bandpass-Like TIA in 130 nm SiGe BiCMOS Technology for Quasi-Coherent Optical Receivers. In Proceedings of the
2021 16th European Microwave Integrated Circuits Conference (EuMIC), London, UK, 3–4 April 2022; pp. 173–176.
100. Rodrigues, F.; Santos, J.; Rodrigues, C.; Teixeira, A. Hybrid PIC+ASIC quasi-coherent receiver for TWDM-PON. In Proceedings of
the 2022 13th International Symposium on Communication Systems, Networks and Digital Signal Processing, CSNDSP 2022,
Porto, Portugal, 20–22 July 2022; pp. 646–648. [CrossRef]
Photonics 2023, 10, 182 24 of 24

101. Soares, F.M.; Baier, M.; Gaertner, T.; Grote, N.; Moehrle, M.; Beckerwerth, T.; Runge, P.; Schell, M. InP-Based Foundry PICs for
Optical Interconnects. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1588. [CrossRef]
102. Glance, B. Polarization independent coherent optical receiver. J. Light. Technol. 1987, 5, 274–276. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.