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

RE: [EFM] EFM aggregation P2P v EPON

Title: RE: [EFM] EFM aggregation P2P v EPON


I am not familiar with Cable deployment issue.  With xDSL, this requires a
'loop qualification' process that has to happen before anything.  Once the
loop testing is done, an order is 'flow through'ed from OSS to DSLAM.  DSLAM
in turns enables the CPE remotely.  (This is over simplified but enough
for our discussion's sake).

Can you please clarify the difference p-t-p will make compared to xDSL
deployment?  What will be the flow through provisioning model for p-t-p?



-----Original Message-----
From: Francois D. Menard [mailto:f.menard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 8:25 PM
To: gerry.pesavento@xxxxxxxxxxxx; f.menard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx;;
Subject: RE: [EFM] EFM aggregation P2P v EPON

> Can you summarize/clarify this - so I don't have to read the ~60 reports

You can check HSCO053A as a starter (there's a B version, much cleaner, not
on the site, that I could rather mail to you or ne1).  Little of it is
directly relevant to EFM, except that it backs up my statement that pure PON
is less preferable than P2P when having to implement open access.   Costs of
issues associated with having to implement Open Access may offset the
savings of PON (unless by some magic the costs of a PON solution is still
significantly cheaper than the costs of enabling P2P by adding more fibre,
OSP support structures and field active equipment & cabinets).  Prices for
PON CPE is still way high IMHO. 5 years of attempting to implement open
access on cable modem plants, and 6 months of intense efforts, have resulted
in this basic argument of "meaning of terminal to network compatibility".