<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<title>RE: [menog] PON</title>
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body bgcolor=white lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>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. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>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. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>The same is true for the Home. Deliver, and watch the usage
increase.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Fahad.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> John Leong
[mailto:leong@qatar.cmu.edu] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, August 16, 2007 2:23 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Salman Al-Mannai; Fahad AlShirawi; menog@menog.net<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [menog] PON<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>>
</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>once achieved, then the possibilities are
open: IPTV in HD mode </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>> (of course this what
would first strike any bodys mind), and so on.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Best
regards,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>John</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid black 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt;
margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt'>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>-----
Original Message ----- <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='background:#E4E4E4'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'> <a href="mailto:SMANNAI@qtel.com.qa"
title="SMANNAI@qtel.com.qa">Salman Al-Mannai</a> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>To:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'> <a
href="mailto:fahad@2connectbahrain.com" title="fahad@2connectbahrain.com">Fahad
AlShirawi</a> ; <a href="mailto:menog@menog.net" title="menog@menog.net">menog@menog.net</a>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Sent:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'> Sunday, August 12,
2007 4:13 PM<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Subject:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'> RE: [menog] PON<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>Hi All,<br>
<br>
This is interesting Fahad, as matter of fact, Bahrain is will suited, at least
from my own personal estimate, for such deployment (xPON in any flavor),
however, to consider xPON seriously there should be a need, just like peering;
where the need is to reduce transit traffic. saving on cost and gaining on
network performance.<br>
<br>
I've had a discussion with my colleagues in Qtel, re: the technology evolvement
roadmap, now looking at what is possible (of course we are now talking 'almost'
about FTTH):<br>
<br>
1. household will be able to connect (IP connection) at highier speed than the
traditional xDSL (including aDSL 2+).<br>
2. once achieved, then the possibilities are open: IPTV in HD mode (of course
this what would first strike any bodys mind), and so on.<br>
<br>
now the question is had any operator/service provider seen a value out in xPON?<br>
<br>
Regards<br>
<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: menog-bounces@menog.net on behalf of Fahad AlShirawi<br>
Sent: Thu 8/9/2007 9:15 AM<br>
To: menog@menog.net<br>
Subject: [menog] PON<br>
<br>
I just thought I'd start up another topic of interest to network operators.<br>
PONs. Network overheads are supposed to be greatly reduced and operations<br>
more streamlined with the technology. Also, the structure of deployment is<br>
changed so there are lower dig costs and, as a result of reduced capex,<br>
higher IRR rates.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
We've deployed PON in Bahrain and we love it. Still, Bahrain is small. I am<br>
interested in finding out if anyone has deployed it on a much bigger scale<br>
and what their experience is? What technical challenges did they face?<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Fahad.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</body>
</html>