[menog] PON

[John Leong]

RE: [menog] PON> Only for us, we are putting a new network 
  
Then it completely make sense.  

Fiber also gives you better flexibility in topology since it can run for considerably longer distance than copper particulalry when you gets up to ADSL2+ and VDSL.

Do watch out for the more expensive electronics though compare with copper. Also, termination and cost of repair (fiber cut) are higher.

In general, if the cost benefit numbers comes up right, based on currently viable services (with realistic customer growth projection based on price you are going to charge), you have a good business case.  

Best regards,
John

----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Fahad AlShirawi 
  To: 'John Leong' ; 'Salman Al-Mannai' ; menog at menog.net 
  Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2007 1:25 PM
  Subject: RE: [menog] PON


  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 

    To: 'John Leong' ; 'Salman 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/20070819/0dd55977/attachment-0001.html