RE: [EFM] RE: Relative OSP Costs of PON vs. P2P
At present, we not discussing the merits of copper riser
technology. Given that 802.3 is a traditional copper infrastructure
standard, I believe that a copper solution, what ever that may be, is a
"given". What we are discussing with this thread is the
merits and requirements that distinguish P2P and P2M optical
infrastructure, as well as what the commonalities need to be.
At 09:40 AM 6/13/01 -0400, Stanley, Patrick wrote:
I indicated in my response to Roy, the successfully deployed burst mode
technology that is the basis of the proposed 100BaseCU is robust enough
to be in service, and stable, in the presence of these
- -----Original Message-----
- From: Rghines1@xxxxxxx
- Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 3:08 AM
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: [EFM] RE: Relative OSP Costs of PON vs. P2P
- Another issue regarding copper riser is the EMI that can cause a
- degrading to a point of UN-usability. This type of spurious
- quite common in long riser runs of ten or more stories.
Copper risers are
- nothing more than a large antenna. This coupled with Ray's advise is
- than enough fact to steer many network engineers/building management
- companies into a tailspin over building access.