RE: [EFM] RE: Relative OSP Costs of PON vs. P2P

[Harry Hvostov <HHvostov@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Bob,

The 32 subs Pat is referring to may well require sustained rates of 30 Mbps
or more. This would fill up the baseband 1 Gbps pipe, regardless of
statistical multiplexing. Real time application flows with video/IP content
would be an example.

Harry

-----Original Message-----
From: Kelly, Pat [mailto:pat.kelly@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 12:50 PM
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,

Thanks for the clarification.  I agree that PON has significant advantages
over VDSL.  Seeing a side-by-side comparison would clarify the advantages.

Regards,

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 12:16 PM
To:	'Kelly, Pat'; Lund, Bob; '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

Pat,

You are right in your analysis, as far as it goes. The big difference I see
between PON and VDSL is the "highest" speed with which the link to the
subscriber can go. In a PON, it can go up to the maximum speed of the PON
which is an order of magnitude higher than VDSL. I think this
characteristic, coupled with packet transport and the burstiness (at least
with respect to link speed) of the traffic, give PON a significant edge over
VDSL with its more limited subscriber link speed. 

Think of a switched digital video service. In both VDSL and PON, hundreds of
MPEG2/IP high quality video channels can be delivered to the curb unit. In
VDSL, only a few can be delivered to the subscriber. In PON, all can be
delivered to the subscriber.

In more conventional web based services there is also an advantage. The PON
will take advantage of the statistical multiplexing that is possible letting
each user see, apparently more bandwidth than is their average share.

Of course, bandwidth management is required so all of this can be controlled
as desired by the service provider. However, while this bandwidth management
is complex to design in up front it does not add significant cost to the
deployed system.

Bob Lund
Chief Technical Officer
Optical Solutions Inc.


> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Kelly, Pat [SMTP:pat.kelly@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent:	Friday, June 08, 2001 1:42 PM
> 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@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:	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=-
> >