[EFM] Forwarded from Kent McCammon
The administrivia filter strikes again!
Try to remember to spell it "$ub$cribe".
Our filters reject messages that appear to
contain requests to be added or removed from
the reflector, and these filters are not
very smart.
I know, this seems pretty ridiculous for a
group that is working on "$ub$criber access
networks", but you don't really want to get
ten $ub$cribe/un$ub$cribe messages a day, do you?
Howard
Hello SG,
As you point out, higher split is better economics as a general rule, but
you must give yourself enough bandwidth per customer to meet your services
that you think you can obtain take rate and revenue. The economics for
deployment is number of potential $ub$criber$ or homes passed. A reduced
split ratio to serve a VDSL node with a 1x4 PON split and 8 customers per
VDSL node equals 32 customers passed. On the other hand, bringing fiber all
the way to 32 customers on a PON equals 32 customers passed. Its obvious
that bringing fiber is a future proof media.
My point was that if the PON protocol and PON budget can actually support a
range of split ratio's such as a 1x4 and a 1x32 split, then operators could
use a single PON solution for different applications, thus building volumes
across different operators worldwide with different access directions. I am
sure that PON will be implemented in different split ratios (as well as
point to point) by different operators targeting a particular application in
different parts of the world. My suggestion is to adopt a standard that
has flexible split ratio support.
Regards, Kent