[menog] PON

[Fahad AlShirawi]

Absolutely. If the norm is DSL and there are no new networks being dug, then
why invest in FTTH, PON or no PON. Only for us, we are putting a new network
and copper costs pretty much as much as fiber. Standard FTTH would be more
expensive of course because of the network elements, but PON brings this
investment down. It is actually more cost effective to put in PON for us
than it is to install DSL. More importantly, with this type of Bandwidth:
Watch out Incumbent.

 

;)

 

Fahad.

 

 

 

From: John Leong [mailto:leong at qatar.cmu.edu] 
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 3:34 AM
To: Fahad AlShirawi; 'Salman Al-Mannai'; menog at menog.net
Subject: Re: [menog] PON

 

> ADSL is the easier choice for operators [for IPTV]. I don't think 

> it makes it the best though

 

Well, if it works .... and, particularly, if it is cost effective ....

 

Making money (actually, profit) is an important consideration for at least
the North American operators.  Having to recover the cost of laying new
fiber for PON will be a big drag in profit.  Futuristic (not sure what)
services that *may* increase revenue years down the road will not be
convincing to investors - particularly those who have heard that story many
times before, and those who focus on quarterly financial result.

 

BTW:  Any future new service must be able to get *new and additional*
revenue from their customers in order to repay the up front cost of
deploying new optical network.  Having existing services (e.g. the triple
play of voice, video and data) move from copper to the new cable plant will
not get you more money since the customers are aready paying the same
amount.  Even if one can dream up really new bandwidth consuming
application,  the question is how much more will consumer be willing to pay
over and above what they are already paying.  My own communication related
bills are already pretty high at over $300 a month!

 

> My view is that always, provide the bandwidth, and customer 

> will find a use for it. 

 

That may be the case with business customers but not for consumer customers.
Countries like Korea, Hong Kong etc. have affordable and very high bandwidth
(including extensive amount of 100Mbps) services to their consumers for a
long time.  However, in practice, their consumer customer's Internet
experience (including those media intensive one such as YouTube etc.) are
virtually *no* different from what I am getting at home with generic aDSL
... as in once you take away the hypes, they have no real applications that
really takes advantage of those high bandwidth capability.

 

[On a somewhat related front, the countries that make all the HD TV set,
Korea, Japan, Taiwan and China have little or no HD programming.  Basically,
they ends up paying more for the HD set but mostly get either distorted
images or ugly side bars from the mostly (or all) SD broadcast.  Another
example of potential vs reality mismatch.]   

 

Best regards,

John

 

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Fahad AlShirawi <mailto:fahad at 2connectbahrain.com>  

To: 'John Leong' <mailto:leong at qatar.cmu.edu>  ; 'Salman
<mailto:SMANNAI at qtel.com.qa>  Al-Mannai' ; menog at menog.net 

Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 1:59 AM

Subject: RE: [menog] PON

 

True True ;) But the costs of running and maintaining ADSL2 vs PON?
Although, PON being a new(er) technology and ADSL2 being easily deployed on
old infrastructure means that ADSL is the easier choice for operators. I
don't think it makes it the best though. My view is that always, provide the
bandwidth, and customer will find a use for it. Let me give an example, in
our region, the majority of the banking industry is on 512kbps IPLCs. DS3s
and STM1s are for a select few and even those wince at the cost. Reason:
Bandwidth is limited so competition is limited and the users today who
aren't using DS3s and STM1s can't even imagine what the bandwidth can be
used for. 

 

We have had a particular financial institution use us for the last three
years. When they used us, 128kbps was enough for them. Today, they are up to
about 12mbps with no end to their demand in sight. They'll soon reach the
STM1 state, I am sure. 

 

The same is true for the Home. Deliver, and watch the usage increase.

 

 

 

 

Fahad.

 

 

 

From: John Leong [mailto:leong at qatar.cmu.edu] 
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 2:23 AM
To: Salman Al-Mannai; Fahad AlShirawi; menog at menog.net
Subject: Re: [menog] PON

 

> once achieved, then the possibilities are open: IPTV in HD mode 

> (of course this what would first strike any bodys mind), and so on.

 

BTW:  IPTV is specifically designed, even for HD, to work well with ADSL2+
and does not *not* require FTTH.  Indeed, most, if not all, US telecos
deploying IPTV today do so over copper.

 

Best regards,

John

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.menog.net/mailman/private/menog/attachments/20070818/76a1887f/attachment.html