Re: [EFM] EFM Requirements
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
Get 250 color business cards for FREE!
http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/