Making the Smart Decision: Active Ethernet FTTH (pdf)
Subscribe To FTTX News
Posts
Comments
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Posts
Comments
|
A list of links to the day's news stories about FTTP, FTTH, FTTN, and FTTC. Use this as a research tool to keep track of what is happening and what has happened in the various FTTX fields. |
Posts
Comments
Keywords
FTTP Deployments Around the World
Latest Comments
Administrative Notes
This blog has many purposes, but is probably best used as a feed source in other web pages. See the post feed link at the bottom of the page.
Additional editors and contributors are being solicited. Please email if you'd like to be added to the blog.
Additional editors and contributors are being solicited. Please email if you'd like to be added to the blog.
Sources
- Fiber to the Home Council
- FTTxtra
- Fiber Evolution Blog
- Fibre to the home UK
- Australian FTTH News
- Fibre Optique France
- Broadband Prime (Greece)
- Jim Baller's daily Baller-Herbst email
- Broadband Trends
- Broadband Properties
- LightReading
- Lightwave magazine
- SearchTelecom.com
- Telecommunications Magazine
- Telephony Online
- USTelecom dailyLead
- Fiber to the Whatever
- Others - please email with suggestions
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(857)
-
▼
February
(66)
-
▼
Feb 08
(8)
- FTTH Deployments to Grow More Than 40% in 2008, Ne...
- Verizon Selects Corning ClearCurve for MDU Deploym...
- Making the Smart Decision: Active Ethernet FTTH (pdf)
- Fiber to the Home: Advantages of Optical Access (pdf)
- The Cooperative's Promise - Delivered Right on the...
- Fiber to the Home Means Never Having to Say You're...
- Fiber to the Home Making Japan an Internet Powerho...
- Making the Case for Fiber (pdf)
-
▼
Feb 08
(8)
-
▼
February
(66)
4 Comments:
I disagree strongly with most of the statements in the marketing pitch, but have included it in the interest of fairness and completeness.
This article was written by someone working for an Active Ethernet vendor, so I would expect a bias. But don't you work for a PON vendor? A more detailed, point for point disagreement would be very informative and would help dissuade the preception of bias. I'm just sayin'.
Well, sure I'm biased. But it's an informed bias. At least give me some credit for putting my bias in the mostly ignored "comments" section rather than in the title.
There are multiple references available from both sides touting the benefits of active/p2p versus PON. I personally have been on a couple of panels to argue that point. And I would even agree that there are places where p2p makes sense. Places like Scandinavia where there are short loops and densely packed residences. However, in general I believe that PON is the better technology for most customers.
The problem that I have with this particular article is that it is knowingly slanted to the point of slander (if people rather than technologies were involved). It's a blatant vanity marketing piece with overblown, unsubstantiated (and indefensible) statements like "Active Ethernet will endure longer than any version of PON."
There are too many arguments to put in a comment section, so let me just hit a few highlights from the article.
Claim #1: Active gives the end user more bandwidth.
Argument: I'll hit this one first since it shows up in a lot of p2p marketing presentations. Do you really think that you're going to buy an OLT with enough backhaul capacity to give everyone 1Gbps? That means 3 10GbE connections for 32 users. All technologies require concentration for realistic deployment. PON does it physically and logically, p2p does it on the backplane. It's a misleading statement - knowingly so.
Claim #2: "There is no easy way to allocate higher bandwidth to one customer over another [in PON]."
Argument:Absolutely not true, at least not in GPON. The QoS in GPON is quite advanced and customers can have bandwidth allocated more strictly that current Ethernet standards allow. This statement isn't just misleading, it's blatantly false.
Claim #3: Because Ethernet is standard, the costs of p2p will be lower.
Argument: Yes, Ethernet is standard. However, the standard used for last mile Ethernet isn't "standard" in the way that 802.11 wireless is standard. Just try to connect an ONT from one vendor and an OLT from another. It won't work, because the standard didn't include such things as management interoperability. More insidious is the implication that PON is not standard. GPON standards are very strong and interop events have been ongoing for years. The bottom line is that PON ONTs deployed worldwide are in the 10s of millions. Active Ethernet ONTs are several orders of magnitude smaller. Which do you think is going to cost less in the long run?
Claim #4: Active Ethernet components last as long (or nearly as long) as passive elements.
Argument: On a component-by-component level that might be true, but anyone who has ever had to manage an outside plant with backup batteries, environmental controls, remote power, etc. knows that outside plant equipment costs much more to maintain than a passive outside plant. Just look at Verizon's financial statements (among many others) where they claim OpEx savings by removing outside equipment. And they're not getting the full advantages due to a low take rate. Carriers from NTT to small utilities understand this issue. The article is either misinformed or intentionally dissembling.
I hope that helped explain my earlier comment. Again, I'm not claiming to be unbiased, but this article does a uniquely poor job of presenting facts without an overwhelming and misleading slant.
Thanks for your thoughtful elaborations. My initial comment was concerned with attribution and disclosure as well as bias, and perhaps I'm too much of a stickler with such things. And informed bias is perfectly fine, in fact it's 90% of my day. The article you linked to is disappointing on many levels, and I'm surprised that Telco Systems allowed their name to be attached to something so pedestrian. Its biggest failing is its inability to make an effective case for a technology which is easily distinguished. Both fiber access technologies are arrows in the quiver of next generation providers. Both have their place.
Post a Comment