AW: [EFM] RE: Relative OSP Costs of PON vs. P2P
The point that a fibre system which competes or
is just better than current combined services
not having much leverage is very relevant. One thing
that should be kept in mind is upgradability and
dedicated services. Achieving this with a separate lambda
channel is definitely an interesting option.
I hope to put up some relative figures for this soon in
terms of technical/financial feasibility.
Tom
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Bob Barrett [mailto:bob.barrett@fourthtrack.com]
Gesendet am: Samstag, 9. Juni 2001 00:51
An: stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
Betreff: RE: [EFM] RE: Relative OSP Costs of PON vs. P2P
I think the main point here will be the telco business case, not be speed of
the relative VDSL p2p versus EPON burst rate. The argument will be an
economic one based on use of existing copper at marginal cost versus fiber
at 'new dig' cost, versus the revenue stream delta between the two services.
For voice and T1 VDSL will work, and the data pipe will be fat enough for
most SME businesses and home data use (single / two users).
The usual argument for a fatter pipe is broadcast or real time HDTV i.e.
home use. The bust bandwidth of EPON doesn't help you there (but a separate
lambda channel would). A service with the ability to watch anything at
anytime, pay per view, would just about need such an infrastructure. If the
service is just a competitive delivery mechanism for direct TV / 300 channel
cable then it is not going to get as much traction. There is a proprietary
version of this technology out, as we have seen, and it is getting traction
in specific geographic areas and green field residential builds. Perhaps the
vendor can enlighten me regarding market share compared to cable and Direct
TV. My guess would be less than 1% at this time, but growing, and it is a
huge market.
Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Kelly, Pat
Sent: 08 June 2001 19:42
To: 'Lund, Bob'; Kelly, Pat; 'Francois D. Menard';
gerry.pesavento@alloptic.com; CarlisleRS@corning.com;
stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
Cc: DuX@corning.com; FengW@corning.com; JayJA@corning.com;
KunziAL@corning.com; MusgroveKD@corning.com;
JPropst@services.corning.com; ShanemanK@corning.com;
CSweazey@services.corning.com
Subject: RE: [EFM] RE: Relative OSP Costs of PON vs. P2P
Bob,
Sorry if I'm missing something. I understand that PON systems can burst to
higher rates, but a 32 subscriber, one wavelength/direction PON should only
be able to provide 1000Mbps/32 or ~30Meg/subscriber (assuming 100%
efficiency). This is much closer to VDSL than P2P at 1000Mbps/subscriber.
Of course, PON has significant advantages over VDSL (higher aggregate data
rate, upgradeability, video broadcast capability, etc.), so it should be a
very compelling comparison.
Pat
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
N. Patrick Kelly
Director of Engineering
Networking Components Division
Intel Corporation
(916)854-2955
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-----Original Message-----
From: Lund, Bob [mailto:blund@opticalsolutions.com]
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 11:29 AM
To: 'Kelly, Pat'; 'Francois D. Menard'; gerry.pesavento@alloptic.com;
CarlisleRS@corning.com; stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
Cc: DuX@corning.com; FengW@corning.com; JayJA@corning.com;
KunziAL@corning.com; MusgroveKD@corning.com; JPropst@services.corning.com;
ShanemanK@corning.com; CSweazey@services.corning.com
Subject: RE: [EFM] RE: Relative OSP Costs of PON vs. P2P
I don't think PON and VDSL provide similar levels of bandwidth.
Commercial VDSL systems feed curbside nodes with 155 - 622Mbps and
distribute asymetric bandwidth with a max of around 25Mbps per set of
twisted pair wires. Nodes typically serve around 30 subscribers. I've not
seen any developments that suggest that the 25Mbps max will go up
substantially.
Commercial PON systems provide 155 - 1000Mbps to a passive optical splitter
that, in turn, feeds up to 32 subscribers, each with 155 - 1000Mbps of
bandwidth. Bandwidth management protocols enable service providers to
control how much of the aggregate PON bandwidth is used by any subscriber.
PONs also provide greater upstream bandwidth than VDSL systems. PONs can
employ higher clock rate optics and/or CWDM to increase the amount of
bandwidth to higher rates, e.g. 4 wavelengths would provide 4x the
bandwidth.
Bob Lund
Chief Technical Officer
Optical Solutions Inc.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kelly, Pat [SMTP:pat.kelly@intel.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 12:13 PM
> To: 'Francois D. Menard'; gerry.pesavento@alloptic.com;
> CarlisleRS@corning.com; stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
> Cc: DuX@corning.com; FengW@corning.com; JayJA@corning.com;
> KunziAL@corning.com; MusgroveKD@corning.com; JPropst@services.corning.com;
> ShanemanK@corning.com; CSweazey@services.corning.com
> Subject: [EFM] RE: Relative OSP Costs of PON vs. P2P
>
>
> PON vs. VDSL seems to be a more logical comparison than P2P vs. VDSL
> because
> PON and VDSL provide similar levels of service, i.e. bandwidth.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> N. Patrick Kelly
> Director of Engineering
> Networking Components Division
> Intel Corporation
> (916)854-2955
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Francois D. Menard [mailto:f.menard@muni-ims.qc.ca]
> Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 6:40 AM
> To: gerry.pesavento@alloptic.com; CarlisleRS@corning.com;
> stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
> Cc: DuX@corning.com; FengW@corning.com; JayJA@corning.com;
> KunziAL@corning.com; MusgroveKD@corning.com; JPropst@services.corning.com;
> ShanemanK@corning.com; CSweazey@services.corning.com
> Subject: RE: Relative OSP Costs of PON vs. P2P
>
>
> > As you can see from the graph, the PTP vs PTMP costs are sensitive to
> distance - SBC calculated PTMP is close to the same at short distance, and
> 50% the cost at >5 km. I'd like to know more about what is behind SBC's
> data (if it includes equipment costs, I think so). I noticed that neither
> you nor Martin Adams mentioned distance; an important variable.
>
> I would like to know to which extent, cost of P2P has been found to be
> more
> extensive, considering that active equipments could be installed in the
> same
> manner than for VDSL in the street-end cabinets. I believe that OCCAM is
> doing this for xDSL. Aggregating residential P2P on giant fibre bundles
> may
> work in Japan due to house densities, but it is more complex in
> North-America, however still remains a serious possibility. I would
> rather
> see P2P compared to VDSL before P2P is compared to PON.
>
> Fundamentally, PON will be subject to the same myriad of problems that
> open
> access on cable modem plant is subjected to today, which are high-cost
> terminals, which can potentially screw up your neighbor's service were
> they
> going to become defective. This has important implications on
> architecture
> and policy for third party access. Suffice it to say that such problems
> are
> easily solved in P2P, and that I do not believe at all in comparing costs,
> while forgetting about estimating the costs of implementing third party
> access.
>
> -=Francois=-
>