Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

RE: Relative OSP Costs of PON vs. P2P

Title: RE: Relative OSP Costs of PON vs. P2P
Roads (highways) in Europe must be shorter :-). However, I don't want to get into a discussion of the realtive cost models.
On a more serious note, business locations do tend to be clustered into business parks in Europe, probably because of planning (zoning) laws. Physical topologies are more likely to be physical hub and spoke, even though the cables may be connected (hooked) up as logical rings. In the EPON case this just means locating the splitters at the hub site.
It matters not if the standard is defined so that it can handle longer distances, so long as it can cope with short lengths too, e.g. 100M, and may be even 10M if deployed in a TSB in the riser. I have had customers specifically request PON technology for fiber in the riser deployment.
Paying business customers, that need (and will pay for) 1GE to themselves, are probably better served by a CWDM 1GE style of system, i.e. a shared base-level physical medium with a dedicated logical pipe. The base standard for this will be covered by the 1GE point to point EFM work, with vendor specific implementation of CWDM as an overlay. A group of vendors and users may choose to get together to agree a generic interoperable way of doing this.
-----Original Message-----
From: []On Behalf Of Dan_Hanson
Sent: 07 June 2001 05:23
To: 'Carlisle, Robert S'
Cc: ''
Subject: RE: Relative OSP Costs of PON vs. P2P

Robert =
I've been monitoring the discussion on the EFM reflector and appreciated your well considered contribution. My question is, why do you assume the "sweet-spot" is 10km at 1Gbps??? I would assume there's a sweet spot for business at 1:8 or 1:16 split in the range of 20km and delivery of approx. 1000Mb per subscriber. The greater distance allows an initial network deployment to cover a long route (most businesses being deployed along a highwa over 5-10 km for a single PON).

Dan Hanson
Director, Access
RHK, Inc.
3516 Leathertop Drive
Plano, TX 75075
(972) 867-9444 phone
(972) 867-9334 fax
(469) 585-1134 mobile

-----Original Message-----
From: Carlisle, Robert S [mailto:CarlisleRS@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 2:03 PM
To: ''
Cc: Du, Xueping; Feng, Weiwei; Jay, John; Kunzi, Anne; Musgrove,
Kendall; Propst, Jeanne; Shaneman, Keith; Sweazey, Chad
Subject: FW: Relative OSP Costs of PON vs. P2P

The other reflector set up for discussing PON vs P2P costs doesn't seem to be working, so I'm sending this to this forum for dissemination and discussion.


Rob Carlisle

> ----------
> From:         Carlisle, Robert S
> Sent:         Wednesday, June 06, 2001 12:58 PM
> To:   'efmoptics@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'
> Subject:      Relative OSP Costs of PON vs. P2P
> All,
> I wanted to share some relative Outside Plant (OSP) costs based on calculations from analysts here at HQ and my colleagues at Corning Cable Systems.  Based on fixed electronics cost at the Head End (HE) and in the customer premises (CPE), the relative cost of the OSP is about 41% of the total cost for 1 fiber to the home and 52% of total cost for 2 fibers for a Point to Point network.  For a PON, the relative cost of the OSP is about 13-18% of the total cost.  In other words, OSP costs for a P2P network are roughly 2X the cost for a PON.  OSP costs include the feeder and distribution cables, splices and connectors, trenching and/or drops, and splice enclosures.  Of course, as the cost of the electronics at the HE and at the CPE drop, the relative cost of the OSP will go up.  What I don't know and would like to see some discussion on, is the difference in the cost of the electronics in the HE for a P2P vs. PON.  I expect that since the management functions of a PON are more complex, the costs of the electr

> I also wanted to share an Excel graph showing the upstream reach of a 1500 nm FP in a 1X16 split EPON.  Assumptions made: 

> *     21 dBm power budget between the TX and RX (0 dBm TX and -21 dBm receiver sensitivity @ 1 GBPS).
> *     Losses to splices, split, connectors, and 4 dB link margin - 20.4 dB
> *     Spectral width of FP laser - 5 nm
> *     Attenuation of fiber @ 1500 nm - .21 dB/km (vice .34 at 1310)
> Take aways from this:
> Dispersion limited using standard single mode fiber so consider using dispersion shifted fiber if desirable to use cheaper FP laser in CPE.

> Does not reach the sweet spot of 10 km @ 1 GBPS so:
>       Must live with lower link margin or
>       Increase power of laser or
>       Increase sensitivity of receiver
> Is this technically feasible?
> >  <<exportablelink.xls>>
> Best Regards,
> Rob Carlisle
> Rob Carlisle
> Senior Market Development Engineer
> Optical Fiber
> v: 607 974-6806
> f: 607 974-7522
> c:607 368-5442