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

Re: [EFM] EFM Requirements


FTTH is going to live or die on cost. Whether we run P2P or PON the 
pedestal or curb and then copper into the house, the connectivity has to be 
low cost.  We should definitely be talking about 1000 Mbps.  With a an 
appropriate split ratio, even a PON can deliver sufficient bandwidth.  10 
GBASE is going to be VERY expensive for a long time.


At 12:59 PM 8/19/01 -0700, Rich Taborek wrote:

>It seems we have a major misunderstanding. I'm not advocating any new
>copper drops. I believe that Vladimir's note, which I responded to, was
>not advocating new copper drops for the first/last 0.5 mile as well.
>This is what Vladimir referred to as the "copper tail". The copper tail
>connects to the residence/business on one end and fiber on the other.
>The ONLY issue my response addressed was whether the fiber architecture
>0.5 miles away from the residence/business was PtP or PON. It is at the
>copper/fiber juncture that E/O conversion is obviously required. I
>further assume that the bandwidth requirements at this 0.5 mile central
>point are such that high bandwidth technologies such as 1000BASE-X or
>even 10GBASE-X make more sense than PON.
>I do like the idea of FTTH, but I'm being practical and noting that if
>the fiber gets to 0.5 miles of the home that high enough bandwidths can
>be achieved.
>By "more scalable" I mean that a PtP fiber architecture is more scalable
>than PON. I note that one can deploy existing cost effective technology
>such as PtP 1000BASE-X and achieve 1 Gbps throughput. I expect that the
>relative cost of achieving the same throughput with PON would run two
>orders or magnitude or so more.
>I hope this helps.
>Best Regards,
>ramu wrote:
> >
> > Rich, not sure I understand the logic behind some of your points, but 
> the simple answer appears to be that it requires new trenching for the 
> new copper drops, which will never fly. If I misunderstand, please elaborate.
> >
> > I don't quite get you conclusion: 'since E/O is required, 1KBaseX is 
> significantly more cost effective, scalable, and simpler than PON.'
> >
> > If E/O is required in the field it can't be PON. Whether it is 
> significantly more cost effective cannot be judged without detailed 
> designs of each. Whether it is more scalable I guess depends on your 
> definition. Simpler is hard to imagine, but again may depend on 
> definition. If you could elaborate your view I would be interested.
> >
> > Since you are suggesting an active architecture with new electronics in 
> the field, I for one would welcome a discussion of such a network 
> architecture that had fiber for the last thousand feet. No one has 
> addressed that at all to my recollection. None of the architectues is 
> perfect in all respects so an all-fiber active architecture undoubtedly 
> has some advantages.
> >
> > ==================================================================
> > Vladimir,
> >
> > It would seem that the most cost effective approach for a 10 mile EFM
> > solution would be to use standard point-to-point 1000BASE-X or 10GBASE-X
> > for the first 9.5 miles and then a 0.5 mile copper tail for the
> > first/last half mile. Since E/O conversion is required at the 9.5 mile
> > mark, standard 1000BASE-X or 10GBASE-X technology would be significantly
> > more cost effective, scalable and simpler that PON at that point. I
> > expect that there will be switching equipment located at the upstream
> > (10 miles away) side, negating any benefit of a PON split at that point.
> >
> > Please tell me what's wrong with this picture?
> >
> > P.S. I understand that this does not address the rural market portrayed
> > by Frank Miller in this thread, but neither does PON.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Rich
>Richard Taborek Sr.                     Intel Corporation
>XAUI Sherpa                    Intel Communications Group
>3101 Jay Street, Suite 110         Optical Products Group
>Santa Clara, CA 95054           Santa Clara Design Center
>408-496-3423                                     JAY1-101
>Cell: 408-832-3957          mailto:rich.taborek@xxxxxxxxx
>Fax: 408-486-9783