| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
To add to Bob's points, there is no sense to compare P2P with PON without considering carriers' business case. SBC, for one, has sent a strong message about using fiber to replace bundled repeated T1s and providing other broadband services at same time. This way, it can keep existing revenue generator and come up with new revenue source. PON is the best to serve this purpose.
For P2P, it takes a bundle of fibers to reach multiple users. It's not cost-justified to implement just one T1 in each fiber to replace the repeated T1, and at same time it's an over-kill design for most of end users.
End users outnumber the number of CO/POP by many magnitude. There got to be a place for concentration of traffic. The greater the end user traffic is, the earlier the concentration should happen. PON provides just that. Compared to copper and coax, PON is a much better media for users to share for cost and concentration purpose.
As Kent pointed out, the longer the distance, the more cost effective PON is vs PtP, not mentioning the saving of cost of many tranceivers. In addition to that, less ports will be needed with PON in CO/POP. In many cases, there are fees associated to ports on top of monthly service charge for leased lines.
One might argue that P2P has more capacity, but over-capacity is dangeous in network planning and buildout.
Wei Gao
Salira Optical Network
Systems
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob
Barrett [mailto:bob.barrett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 3:51 PM
To:
stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
Subject: RE: [EFM] RE: Relative
OSP Costs of PON vs. P2P
I think the main point here will be the telco business case, not
be speed of
the relative VDSL p2p versus EPON burst
rate. The argument will be an
economic one based on use
of existing copper at marginal cost versus fiber
at 'new
dig' cost, versus the revenue stream delta between the two services.
For voice and T1 VDSL will work, and the data pipe will be fat
enough for
most SME businesses and home data use (single
/ two users).
The usual argument for a fatter pipe is broadcast or real time
HDTV i.e.
home use. The bust bandwidth of EPON doesn't
help you there (but a separate
lambda channel would). A
service with the ability to watch anything at
anytime,
pay per view, would just about need such an infrastructure. If the
service is just a competitive delivery mechanism for direct TV
/ 300 channel
cable then it is not going to get as much
traction. There is a proprietary
version of this
technology out, as we have seen, and it is getting traction
in specific geographic areas and green field residential builds. Perhaps
the
vendor can enlighten me regarding market share
compared to cable and Direct
TV. My guess would be less
than 1% at this time, but growing, and it is a
huge
market.
Bob
-----Original Message-----
From:
owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org]On
Behalf Of Kelly, Pat
Sent: 08 June 2001 19:42
To: 'Lund, Bob'; Kelly, Pat; 'Francois D. Menard';
gerry.pesavento@xxxxxxxxxxxx; CarlisleRS@xxxxxxxxxxx;
stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
Cc:
DuX@xxxxxxxxxxx; FengW@xxxxxxxxxxx; JayJA@xxxxxxxxxxx;
KunziAL@xxxxxxxxxxx; MusgroveKD@xxxxxxxxxxx;
JPropst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; ShanemanK@xxxxxxxxxxx;
CSweazey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [EFM]
RE: Relative OSP Costs of PON vs. P2P
Bob,
Sorry if I'm missing something. I understand that PON
systems can burst to
higher rates, but a 32 subscriber,
one wavelength/direction PON should only
be able to
provide 1000Mbps/32 or ~30Meg/subscriber (assuming 100%
efficiency). This is much closer to VDSL than P2P at
1000Mbps/subscriber.
Of course, PON has significant advantages over VDSL (higher
aggregate data
rate, upgradeability, video broadcast
capability, etc.), so it should be a
very compelling
comparison.
Pat
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
N. Patrick
Kelly
Director of Engineering
Networking Components Division
Intel
Corporation
(916)854-2955
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-----Original Message-----
From:
Lund, Bob [mailto:blund@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 11:29 AM
To: 'Kelly, Pat'; 'Francois D. Menard';
gerry.pesavento@xxxxxxxxxxxx;
CarlisleRS@xxxxxxxxxxx;
stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
Cc:
DuX@xxxxxxxxxxx; FengW@xxxxxxxxxxx; JayJA@xxxxxxxxxxx;
KunziAL@xxxxxxxxxxx; MusgroveKD@xxxxxxxxxxx;
JPropst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
ShanemanK@xxxxxxxxxxx;
CSweazey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [EFM] RE: Relative
OSP Costs of PON vs. P2P
I don't think PON and VDSL provide similar levels of bandwidth.
Commercial VDSL systems feed curbside nodes with 155 - 622Mbps
and
distribute asymetric bandwidth with a max of around
25Mbps per set of
twisted pair wires. Nodes typically
serve around 30 subscribers. I've not
seen any
developments that suggest that the 25Mbps max will go up
substantially.
Commercial PON systems provide 155 - 1000Mbps to a passive
optical splitter
that, in turn, feeds up to 32
subscribers, each with 155 - 1000Mbps of
bandwidth.
Bandwidth management protocols enable service providers to
control how much of the aggregate PON bandwidth is used by any
subscriber.
PONs also provide greater upstream bandwidth
than VDSL systems. PONs can
employ higher clock rate
optics and/or CWDM to increase the amount of
bandwidth
to higher rates, e.g. 4 wavelengths would provide 4x the
bandwidth.
Bob Lund
Chief Technical Officer
Optical Solutions Inc.
> -----Original Message-----
>
From: Kelly, Pat [SMTP:pat.kelly@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent:
Friday, June 08, 2001 12:13 PM
> To:
'Francois D. Menard'; gerry.pesavento@xxxxxxxxxxxx;
>
CarlisleRS@corning.com; stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
>
Cc: DuX@xxxxxxxxxxx; FengW@xxxxxxxxxxx; JayJA@xxxxxxxxxxx;
> KunziAL@xxxxxxxxxxx; MusgroveKD@xxxxxxxxxxx;
JPropst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
>
ShanemanK@xxxxxxxxxxx; CSweazey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [EFM] RE: Relative OSP Costs
of PON vs. P2P
>
>
> PON vs. VDSL seems to be a more logical comparison than
P2P vs. VDSL
> because
>
PON and VDSL provide similar levels of service, i.e. bandwidth.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> N. Patrick Kelly
> Director of
Engineering
> Networking Components Division
> Intel Corporation
>
(916)854-2955
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> -----Original
Message-----
> From:
Francois D. Menard [mailto:f.menard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 6:40 AM
> To: gerry.pesavento@xxxxxxxxxxxx;
CarlisleRS@xxxxxxxxxxx;
>
stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
> Cc:
DuX@xxxxxxxxxxx; FengW@xxxxxxxxxxx; JayJA@xxxxxxxxxxx;
> KunziAL@xxxxxxxxxxx; MusgroveKD@xxxxxxxxxxx;
JPropst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
>
ShanemanK@xxxxxxxxxxx; CSweazey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: Relative OSP Costs of PON
vs. P2P
>
>
> > As you can see from the graph, the PTP vs PTMP costs
are sensitive to
> distance - SBC calculated PTMP is
close to the same at short distance, and
> 50% the
cost at >5 km. I'd like to know more about what is behind SBC's
> data (if it includes equipment costs, I think so). I
noticed that neither
> you nor Martin Adams mentioned
distance; an important variable.
>
> I would like to know to which extent, cost of P2P has been found to
be
> more
> extensive,
considering that active equipments could be installed in the
> same
> manner than for VDSL in the
street-end cabinets. I believe that OCCAM is
>
doing this for xDSL. Aggregating residential P2P on giant fibre bundles
> may
> work in Japan due to
house densities, but it is more complex in
>
North-America, however still remains a serious possibility. I would
> rather
> see P2P compared to
VDSL before P2P is compared to PON.
>
> Fundamentally, PON will be subject to the same myriad of
problems that
> open
>
access on cable modem plant is subjected to today, which are high-cost
> terminals, which can potentially screw up your neighbor's
service were
> they
>
going to become defective. This has important implications on
> architecture
> and policy for
third party access. Suffice it to say that such problems
> are
> easily solved in P2P, and that I do
not believe at all in comparing costs,
> while
forgetting about estimating the costs of implementing third party
> access.
>
> -=Francois=-
>