Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth

["Robert E. Seastrom" <rs () seastrom com>]

Owen DeLong <owen () delong com> writes:

> On Jan 29, 2013, at 20:30 , Jean-Francois Mezei <jfmezei_nanog () vaxination ca> wrote:
>
> > On 13-01-29 22:03, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> >
> > > The _muni_ should not run any equipment colo of any kind.  The muni
> > > MMR should be fiber only, and not even require so much as a generator
> > > to work.  It should not need to be staffed 24x7, have anything that
> > > requires PM, etc.
> >
> > This is not possible in a GPON system. The OLT has to be carrier neutral
> > so that different carriers can connect to it. It is the last point of
> > aggregation before reaching homes.
> >
> > Otherwise, you would need to run multiple strands to each splitter box
> > and inside run as many splitters as there are ISPs so that one home an
> > be connect to the splitter used by ISP-1 while the next home's strand is
> > connected to another splitter associated with ISP-2. This gets complicated.
>
> Why can't the splitters be in the MMR? (I'm genuinely asking... I confess
> to a certain level of GPON ignorance).

Sorry for being late to the party (real work and all that).

There is no reason whatsoever that one can't have centralized
splitters in one's PON plant.  The additional costs to do so are
pretty much just limited to higher fiber counts in the field, which
adds, tops, a couple of percent to the price of the build.  More than
offset by futureproofing and not requiring forklift upgrades to add a
new technology for a few customers.  Obviously the splitters should be
owned by the service provider and upstream of the mega-patch-bay for a
muni open access system.

Meanwhile, EPON seems to be the technology that's won out on a global
basis.  Might have something to do with the price - all the hooks to
support legacy ATM stuff in GPON's GEM come at a cost.  :-)

-r

PS: Back in the mid-90s, I used to fantasize about being able to say
"legacy ATM".