ronpin
Imagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana
 ·AT&T Southwest
| Poll: Fiber to home? or Fiber to Node?
Poll
If you could choose only one upgrade - fiber to your home? (FTTP) or [the more limited] fiber "closer" to your home? (FTTN) |
|
view results · flash pie chart
--
Lord protect me from your followers |
|
removed
Crisis Management Squad
Premium,VIP
join:2002-02-08
Houston, TX
clubs: | FTTH offers more room for growth. I think SBC butt-fu.... themselves with this ADSL2+ stuff. |
|
David
No,there is another.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL
clubs:
 ·DIRECTV
 ·magicjack.com
·AT&T Midwest
| said by removed  :FTTH offers more room for growth. I think SBC butt-fu.... themselves with this ADSL2+ stuff. I dunno, I call it a interesting move, but at the same time SBC could underestimate it's base, but then again with Verizon they may implode.
I am wanting to "watch and see" but the fiber would not be bad none the less.
--
If you have a topic in the direct forum please reply to it or a post of mine, I get a notification when you do this. My 2005 ford Escape and general dealership experience |
|
koma3504
Advocate
Premium
join:2004-06-22
North Richland Hills, TX | reply to ronpin
I vote this
I think SBC should invest more money for a longer term in the higher quality/future-proof fiber to the home -- even if it takes much longer to provide it |
|
removed
Crisis Management Squad
Premium,VIP
join:2002-02-08
Houston, TX
clubs:
| reply to David
said by David : said by removed :FTTH offers more room for growth. I think SBC butt-fu.... themselves with this ADSL2+ stuff. I dunno, I call it a interesting move, but at the same time SBC could underestimate it's base, but then again with Verizon they may implode. I am wanting to "watch and see" but the fiber would not be bad none the less. True - nobody knows for sure. But given the way things look right now, it looks like not doing fiber all the way is going to hurt SBC.
I hope it doesn't, but .. hope in one hand, poo in the other. See what fills up first. 
--
AIM | irc.removed.us - #dslr |
|
Passing Through
@swbell.ne
| reply to ronpin
I might stand corrected here...but I would bet the economics, customer retention, and ROI would favor getting the speed upgrades they can and at a LOWER cost NOW, not later after cable and WiMax have stolen more customers.
Customer relationships will "stick" if they are well maintained. So while fiber to the home would be the ultimate I think it is very impractical to expect that to happen fast enough to be "smart business" over the near term. Heck they still don't have DSL to everybody that they should.
Fiber to the home would require the node to have fiber...why not get all the nodes upgrade, then let the homes that want to step up with the ADSL-2 have it while you work to bring fiber all the way into the neighborhoods you can do easily... and where the customer base will buy it.
Considering that VERY many homes already have cable or Sat TV it is not a forgone conclusion that even with fiber to the home you'd be able to garner the customer's TV service business. I would suspect cable and Sat TV would be able to reduce costs making your fiber TV pricing less attractive.
Fiber to the home is NOT justified for most homes on the basis of faster surfing or even VOIP alone. TV and VOD are the bigger drivers for SBC...and SBC can't over-build/over-invest and then come out being over-priced compared to cable.
Fiber to the home...all in good time and at lower cost. Heck, maybe they'll reintroduce AT&T's fixed wireless in the meantime.  |
|
ronpin
Imagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana
·AT&T Southwest
2 edits | reply to ronpin
Right or wrong is not really the issue here -- wise or foolish might be.
Is it wise to build a cheap system that can meet all current needs and probably get alot of users too -- only to be laid-waste when the next big thing comes along? Telepresence and 3-D TV require HUGE amounts of bandwidth. Verizon now has the capacity to host such applications (DWDM over BPON). FTTN will be utterly useless for anything beyond our current concept of the "triple-play".
FTTP's range is 30,000 feet! FTTN's range is 5,000 feet. FTTP can operate from CO's with almost no need for any RT's. FTTP is passive and requires no active field electronics or related maintenance.
FTTN introduces more RT's that would be obviated by FTTP -- thus creating a disincentive to convert to FTTP later. Fiber from the RT's erases the passive fiber benefit of FTTP. That means that only VDSL will make sense later. Even VDSL has a ceiling of about 100mbs -- at short distances (1,000 ft.) Telepresence and 3-D TV would eat that up instantly.
Why-why-why limit your system with hard bandwidth ceilings from the git-go??? Fiber/DWDM gives practically unlimited growth potential. Ultra DWDM is currently projected to offer 1024 x 40gbs bandwidth on a single fiber! Who knows what we can squeeze-out of it in the future?
It's not "wrong" to build FTTN -- but it doesn't seem wise -- especially in todays dollars and on Verizon's blueprint.
--
Lord protect me from your followers |
|
Passing Through
@swbell.ne
| reply to ronpin
I must need to get my concepts updated.
Does FTTP put you on your own set of fiber all the way back to the CO?
With FTTP I would have thought your premise traffic would go back over fiber to a node and then be multiplexed over fiber trunks back for the long haul to the CO. I would not have thought each FTTP subscriber would have their own physical fiber back to the CO.
It seems like overkill to not use some distributed multiplexed topology. I just can't see everyone buying the hardware that would really use this for MANY years out into the future. Hell we can't even get HDTV out the door.
Incremental investments make more sense. Just ask "dark fiber overloaded" WilTel and others that have been through bankrupcy and may end up being sold for scrap yet again by their owners LUK. |
|
ronpin
Imagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana
·AT&T Southwest
| said by Passing Through:
Does FTTP put you on your own set of fiber all the way back to the CO? With FTTP I would have thought your premise traffic would go back over fiber to a node and then be multiplexed over fiber trunks back for the long haul to the CO. I would not have thought each FTTP subscriber would have their own physical fiber back to the CO. Each user currently shares a OC12 single-mode fiber with 32 users (via splitters) "all the way back to the CO" (30,000ft.) Upstream is a TDMA'd OC3. This means *NO* active electronics (RT's) in the field. That alone is a huge money saver -- in the long term. So a 2x96 strand bundle will serve 6144 homes in a 6 mile radius from the CO -- with no RT's ! Normally you'd have several 2x96 legs serving a town from a single CO (as in Keller).
It seems like overkill to not use some distributed multiplexed topology. I just can't see everyone buying the hardware that would really use this for MANY years out into the future. Hell we can't even get HDTV out the door. It's not overkill if it frees you from RT's. Adding DWDM later gives everyone their own "virtual strand". There are several applications that are "stuck in the lab" for wont of huge amounts of bandwidth (telepresence, 3-D TV etc.) Retiree's/homebound folks can enjoy "virtual bodies" in cyberspace -- with enough bandwidth (Don't laugh -- retiree's are about to dominate the market and telepresence is real)
Incremental investments make more sense. Just ask "dark fiber overloaded" WilTel and others that have been through bankrupcy and may end up being sold for scrap yet again by their owners LUK.
Incremental investments are fine as long as they don't lead you down a dead-end upgrade path. FTTN leads to VDSL which also has a hard ceiling (100mbs). Again FTTP is virtually unlimited in it's potential. Money is not an issue if you can sell the idea to Wall Street. Verizon has already done that. There's really nothing stopping SBC from FTTP overbuilds. It's just a matter of will. I'll be happy to lead the effort (for stock alone!):)
--
Lord protect me from your followers |
|
wolfox
Gentle Wolfox
join:2002-11-27
Dunnellon, FL
| reply to ronpin
I say bring right on in through my door. Fiber is merely a medium by which any means of modulation and upgraded technologies can be used at either end. The possibilities with using fiber over copper in this case is virtually limitless - It would be more of a "long term" investment than band-aiding the problem by running a fiber loop around a neighborhood and using copper to deliver the "content" to the home.
--
Nothwest Arkansas' ONLY all Techno Radio Webcast, powered by SBC DSL! |
|
scott2ya
Iphone junkie
Premium
join:2002-03-07
Missouri
| reply to ronpin
said by ronpin :Each user currently shares a OC12 single-mode fiber with 32 users (via splitters) "all the way back to the CO" (30,000ft.) Upstream is a TDMA'd OC3. This means *NO* active electronics (RT's) in the field. That alone is a huge money saver -- in the long term. So a 2x96 strand bundle will serve 6144 homes in a 6 mile radius from the CO -- with no RT's ! Normally you'd have several 2x96 legs serving a town from a single CO (as in Keller). I am just not picturing that. got a link or reference?
"Each user currently shares a OC12 single-mode fiber with 32 users"
Does that mean that all 32 customers meet somewhere at say an RT or Node? then ride an oc12 back to the C.O.? or is it each cust gets 1 fiber up to 30kft back to the C.O.? is this how Verizon is doing it? could you imagine what kind of multiplexer would be needed in the C.O. if it had to take 6144 seperate fiber connections? wow! |
|
ronpin
Imagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana
·AT&T Southwest
| BPON Standard (as per Verizon):
This slideshow goes with following video link
»www.spvc.com/Documents/214/Veriz···1st2.pdf
Video link (right click+"copy link" to Win Media player as video URL)
»www.tiaonline.org/media/video/John_White.wmv
Reference PON Stds:
»www.ponforum.org/technology/overview.asp
It's not as hard as it sounds -- but it does require some reading and a desire to know it
--
Lord protect me from your followers |
|
ronpin
Imagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana
·AT&T Southwest
3 edits | reply to ronpin
The quoted article below outlines SBC's strategy of bringing fiber "closer and closer" to homes via RT's. I desperately want to convey that this strategy erases most of the advantages of "Passive Fiber" -- it's 30,000 foot range and it's simple "no active electronics in the field" architecture.
From the article below, Project Pronto started bringing fiber to within 12,000 feet of homes. Now, FTTN would bring it to within 5,000 of homes. So we have 2 layers of expensive RT's -- and we're only out to just over half the range of passive fiber! VDSL will eventually add a 3rd layer of electronics and another [meager] 1,000 feet range to the mix -- for a total range of 18,000 feet -- for a final full service capacity of 100mbs.
Passive fiber needs *NONE* of the 3 RT layers in SBC's roadmap. NONE. It's range is 30,000 feet! It's final capacity can be measured in TERABYTES!
Does anyone else see the folly of continuing down the RT roadmap??? Pushing fiber "closer and closer to homes" contradicts the simple "quantum leap" to homes that passive fiber was designed for. Passive fiber is much simpler, cheaper in the long-run (saves the eventual cost of 2 more RT layers) and it has a VASTLY higher capacity. Passive fiber is designed to obviate RT's -- not add them! Get it? SBC's current path leads away from FTTP -- not towards it. Does ANYBODY think that the 3 layers of RT's SBC will have built here -- to get fiber "closer and closer" -- is any cheaper than what a simple FTTP overbuild would cost???
Please stop the madness. How can I say it? SBC is building a "Rube Goldberg" machine? A laughing-stock in the industry? A contradiction in terms? A "great blunder in history"? I know that Project Pronto was the right thing to do -- at the time -- but now it's logically leading to folly.
I'm at a loss to fully convey the massive error underway here. Please ask me any questions to clear it up ( Chris Rice, SBC CTO -- you know this isn't anything personal -- thanks for Project Pronto!)
SBC Fiber Roadmap (June 2004)
From: »www.ponforum.org/presentations/p···996.html
SBC companies are focusing on a strategy that would drive fiber much deeper into local neighborhoods. First, the company would shift new network investments toward IP-based services over fiber. In most cases, SBC companies would deploy Fiber to the Premises (FTTP) for new network builds, such as developing subdivisions. While well-suited for new construction, the cost, deployment time and customer inconvenience required for FTTP deployment in existing neighborhoods makes widespread deployment impractical for SBC companies and potentially undesirable for some customers.
In existing neighborhoods, SBC companies would use Fiber to the Node (FTTN) technology to run fiber much deeper in its network to nodes that serve 300 to 500 homes. From the nodes to each home or small business, SBC companies would continue to use their existing network connections. FTTN enables significantly higher broadband speeds than any residential service offered by a major carrier in the U.S. today, with download speeds of 15 to 25 megabits per second (Mbps) and upload speeds of 1 to 3 Mbps dedicated to each customer. The Microsoft TV IPTV platform would make it possible to deliver standard-and high-definition TV programming to multiple TV sets in the home over an FTTN network while leaving ample bandwidth available for super high-speed broadband and Voice over IP (VoIP) services.
The FTTN/FTTP strategy would deliver an optimal balance of network capability, cost, speed of deployment, and convenience for customers. FTTN provides a highly efficient means of delivering next-generation services over a relatively short deployment timeframe, while also providing a framework for eventual replacement of copper connections directly to homes and businesses, if and when the technology, economics and customer demand are ripe.
"After evaluating a full range of technologies and deployment scenarios, we're confident that our FTTN/FTTP strategy is an ideal solution to deliver the next generation of IP services, and to evolve our network to meet customers' communications needs for decades to come," said Chris Rice, SBC chief technology officer and executive vice president - services. "The strategy would allow us to deliver advanced integrated services to our customers, while at the same time maintaining the highest levels of discipline and responsibility with our capital investments."
Fiber Strategy Expands SBC Commitment to Broadband Leadership
These milestones in the SBC next-generation network strategy come five years after the company launched Project Pronto, a major initiative to deploy high-speed DSL Internet access service across its service territory. Today, the SBC family of companies is the nation's largest DSL provider, with nearly 4 million DSL lines in service, and the second-largest and fastest-growing broadband provider overall.
Additional fiber deployment would build on the Project Pronto network enhancements by pushing fiber even closer to customers. A key element of Project Pronto was to push fiber to remote terminals to bring fiber-optic bandwidth within 12,000 feet of tens of millions of homes and businesses. With FTTN, SBC companies would deploy fiber from these remote terminals to nodes within 5,000 feet of homes and businesses.
"This strategy would be a substantial shift in the structure of the SBC network, but it is also the next step in a transformation process that we have invested in for years," Rice said. "From our backbone networks to the 'last mile' connections to homes and businesses, we have been bringing the power of fiber-optic connections closer and closer to customers to 'future-proof' our network and meet their bandwidth needs for decades to come."
--
Lord protect me from your followers |
|
ronpin
Imagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana
·AT&T Southwest
2 edits | reply to ronpin
Click for larger image |
From Alcatel's 7340 "Fiber To The User" Brochure
»www.alcatel.com/doctypes/opgprod···_bro.pdf
I just noticed that Alcatel's FTTP range is 12 miles !. Wow.
...The system supports
long reach from the central office (CO) to
the home (up to 20 kilometers or 12.4 miles),
which virtually eliminates the need for remote
terminals. --
Lord protect me from your followers |
|
ronpin
Imagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana
·AT&T Southwest
4 edits | reply to ronpin
(circa 2000 A.D.) Ancient RT technology, rendered obsolete by 12 mi. FTTP |
|
|
sbc pimp
@swbell.net
|  reply to removed
hey man, you realize fttcn (fiber to the consolidated node) ( cost 1/4 the cost of FTTP (FIBER TO THE PREMIS, NOT HOME)IT CREATES BANDWIDTH PER HOME OF 21-28 mbps, and enables ip vod (ip video) service to be rapidly deployed without having to wait for 2007 to role around, they are also deploying fttp where applicable (new vuilds, and very high value areas where customers spend the most and are worth the most. they are also implementing video hubs on this new bread network, maybe you dont know so much about this, for instance, your fttp creates a bandwith of 24-41 mbps depending on the technology used in reflection, (41 mbps costing 7 times more than fttcn the less expensive way which is about 2-3 times more costly only being 24-32mbps) who is butt-fu themselves? |
|
ronpin
Imagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana
·AT&T Southwest
4 edits | It's the TOTAL cost of FTTN and it's follow-on VDSL -- with the eventual 3 layers of RT's, active electronics, electricity, maintenance etc. -- weighed against the cost per megabit capacity and market-life of Fiber To The Premise (FTTP) -- that makes FTTP the obvious choice. If short term quick-fixes are all that can be conceived of, then we should all be sad  As the poll shows -- most people would be willing to wait for fiber to their homes. Doing a long term solution in today's dollars is almost always smart. Capital should not be the show-stopper here -- only leadership is required.
FTTN is a relatively short term solution because we can imagine applications that it can't support -- a 10 year life -- at most. It *will* do all the things you say. VoD might be pretty nice -- and I for one would definitely try it. But what will it be able to do beyond our current concept of the triple-play? Not a whole lot. Even the addition of VDSL would only take-us so-far (no tele-immersion, 3-D TV etc.) Copper based broadband has known limitations. Not so for FTTP. The speeds you cite for FTTP are only for the initial BPON standard. DWDM over BPON starts at 622mbs per user! GPON raises speeds to the OC48 range. Fiber has no hard-set limits. Copper is terribly limted by the laws of physics. Copper is so 20th century.
Many people have not seen Verizon FTTP fiber construction yet (or not recognized it). It's very real though. Half of my subdivision is Verizon territory and has fiber FiOS. The excitement generated over in the Verizon fiber forum ( »Verizon Fiber Optics ) is palpable. When you do see it, ask yourself -- what does Verizon know that other RBOC's don't???
RT's are dead. 12 mile FTTP killed them. Let's move-on
--
Lord protect me from your followers |
|
removed
Crisis Management Squad
Premium,VIP
join:2002-02-08
Houston, TX
clubs:
| reply to sbc pimp
said by sbc pimp:
hey man, you realize fttcn (fiber to the consolidated node) ( cost 1/4 the cost of FTTP (FIBER TO THE PREMIS, NOT HOME)IT CREATES BANDWIDTH PER HOME OF 21-28 mbps, Fiber has more potential though. Instead of stopping at 21-28mbps, fiber has no speed limit.
--
AIM | irc.removed.us - #dslr |
|
ronpin
Imagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana
·AT&T Southwest
2 edits | said by removed :said by sbc pimp:
hey man, you realize fttcn (fiber to the consolidated node) ( cost 1/4 the cost of FTTP (FIBER TO THE PREMIS, NOT HOME)IT CREATES BANDWIDTH PER HOME OF 21-28 mbps, Fiber has more potential though. Instead of stopping at 21-28mbps, fiber has no speed limit. ...
Also keep in mind that FTTP BPON is fed from a 622mbs OC12 downstream (see diagram). The users outside ONT must in fact read the entire 622mbs stream to find any packets addressed to it. The users local data rate is remotely set at some lower number just to be safe. Most ISP's would unabashedly share an OC12 with only 32 users per leg at an OC3 155mbs rate. Engineers assume that no home user could possibly keep up with an OC12 -- so they currently set the local data rates down to ~30mbs. So the only real current limit on FTTP is the users capacity -- not the FTTP capacity. As the market changes, FTTP can simply, and remotely, be sped up. Try that with FTTN -- which is maxed-out from the "git-go"
--
Lord protect me from your followers |
|
ronpin
Imagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to ronpin
I just found SBC Labs detailed FTTP architecture link
»www.cenic.org/gb/events/rt0304/p···iber.pdf
It's just a matter of doing it.
--
Lord protect me from your followers |
|
