Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth

[Jay Ashworth <jra () baylink com>]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert E. Seastrom" <rs () seastrom com>

> > 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. 

Ok, see, this is what Leo, Owen and I all think, and maybe a couple others.

But Scott just got done telling me it's *so* much more expensive to 
home-run than ring or GPON-in-pedestals that it's commercially infeasible.

>                                                              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.

Well, I would assume the splitters have to be compatible with the OLT/ONT
chosen by a prospective L1 client, no?  Or is GPON GPON, which is GPON?

> 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. :-)

Hmmm.  I invite you, Rob, if you have the time, to look at the Rollup
and Followup posts I put out this afternoon, which are the look at this
which is closest to current in time.

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth                  Baylink                       jra () baylink com
Designer                     The Things I Think                       RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates     http://baylink.pitas.com         2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA               #natog                      +1 727 647 1274