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

["Lund, Bob" <blund@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Harry,

I agree the potential is there. The design question is when. I think the PON
architecture to allow for this is one which has two levels of splitting,
e.g. 1:4 followed by 1:8. If the 1:4 is placed in the CO, then a 32 node PON
can migrate easily to an 8 node PON by removing the splitter when neccesary.
This will increase the average bandwidth by 4x. There will be zero changes
to the outside plant or subscriber equipment. There is an incremental cost
for fiber in the link between the two splitters but with the average cost of
$US0.025/fiber/ft in a large bundle this is insignificant. The net effect is
a compromise between 32 node PONs and P2P. Obviously, different split rates
can be chosen that will change the cost and migration path.

Also, very few service providers get 100% take rate, especially for high
bandwidth services so planning for the "average" becomes a little more
complicated. I think the major issue for all broadband equipment vendors is
to strike a balance between 1st installed cost and eventual service provider
needs.


Bob Lund
Chief Technical Officer
Optical Solutions Inc.


> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Harry Hvostov [SMTP:HHvostov@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent:	Saturday, June 09, 2001 12:53 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
> 
> 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=-
> > >