RE: AW: [EFM] RE: Relative OSP Costs of PON vs. P2P
Stanley,
The problem is the ownership of the copper riser. As each service provider
goes into a building, often they have to put in their own riser. In
addition, when there is a problem with any one pair or splice point in a
cable, it is abandoned in place creating un-usable riser cables. Some
buildings have shut down elevator shafts in order to have vertical room for
additional copper riser. Other buildings have been "cored" so much that
they are becoming dangerous. This is becoming one of the economic issues
with multi-tenant services today.
Thank you,
Roy Bynum
At 10:24 AM 6/12/01 -0400, Stanley, Patrick wrote:
>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=-
> > >