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

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.

Thank you,
Roy Bynum

At 09:40 AM 6/13/01 -0400, Stanley, Patrick wrote:
As 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 interferers.
-----Original Message-----
From: Rghines1@xxxxxxx [mailto:Rghines1@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 3:08 AM
Subject: Re: [EFM] RE: Relative OSP Costs of PON vs. P2P

Another issue regarding copper riser is the EMI that can cause a network
degrading to a point of UN-usability. This type of spurious interference is
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 more
than enough fact to steer many network engineers/building management
companies into a tailspin over building access.