RE: AW: [EFM] RE: Relative OSP Costs of PON vs. P2P
Roy,
What is the cause of the re-wiring that you mention in your note? A
technology that can use existing riser copper, without running any new
cable, be it copper or optical, would have a cost and deployment velocity
advantage. Equipment using burst mode technology that is the basis for the
proposed 100BaseCu has been successfully deployed in many buildings,
including a single high rise site with 1842 lines, without any riser cable
replacement.
Regards,
Patrick
-----Original Message-----
From: Roy Bynum [mailto:rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2001 8:50 AM
To: Thomas.Murphy@xxxxxxxxxxxx; bob.barrett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
Subject: Re: AW: [EFM] RE: Relative OSP Costs of PON vs. P2P
Tom,
You may find that the telco industry is having such problems with having to
constantly re-wire copper riser that they are looking for technology that
will allow fiber optic riser as a replacement. Adding a managed
demarcation for optical Ethernet at the end of the fiber span, either P2P
or P2M will go a long way toward resolving the issues of copper vs fiber
for building riser.
Thank you,
Roy Bynum
At 10:02 AM 6/11/01 +0200, Thomas.Murphy@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>The point that a fibre system which competes or
>is just better than current combined services
>not having much leverage is very relevant. One thing
>that should be kept in mind is upgradability and
>dedicated services. Achieving this with a separate lambda
>channel is definitely an interesting option.
>I hope to put up some relative figures for this soon in
>terms of technical/financial feasibility.
>
>Tom
>
>
>-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>Von: Bob Barrett [mailto:bob.barrett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Gesendet am: Samstag, 9. Juni 2001 00:51
>An: stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
>Betreff: 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@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=-
> >