1 / 12

ACE/RUS School and Symposium Corralling the Broadband Stampede

Active Vs. Passive Optical Networks. ACE/RUS School and Symposium Corralling the Broadband Stampede. Presented By. Rob Wilkinson Vice President, Planning & Design. Technology Review. Passive Optical Network (PON) Generic GPON technology and topology

clove
Download Presentation

ACE/RUS School and Symposium Corralling the Broadband Stampede

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Active Vs. Passive Optical Networks ACE/RUS School and Symposium Corralling the Broadband Stampede Presented By Rob Wilkinson Vice President, Planning & Design

  2. Technology Review • Passive Optical Network (PON) • Generic GPON technology and topology • OLT (Optical Line Terminal) Splitter ONT (Optical Network Terminal) • Feeder fiber Distribution fiber Drop • Advantages • Lower cost for equipment • Smaller cross-section of fibers (lower cost) • Easy to add splitter for unexpected growth • Disadvantages • Reduced bandwidth to subscriber (2.4 Gbps shared) • Limitation of distances to sub (20 Km with 32:1 splits)

  3. Technology Review • Active (Dedicated Plant) • Active Ethernet technology and topology • OLT (CO or field electronics) ONT (Optical Network Terminal) • Feeder fiber Distribution fiber Drop • Advantages • Maximum bandwidth to each subscriber (1 GB per sub) • Distance to subscriber could reach 80 Km (50 mi) • Most future safe – not as concerned about an evolution plan • Disadvantages • Larger fiber cross sections to meet present and future growth • Typically higher cost electronics

  4. Approach • Identify and Define Study Areas • Three types of study areas • Low density, low growth rural area • High density, high growth rural area • Urban area • Design & Costs • Used a “square” layout scenario for consistency • Cable sizing was completed using a cable fill chart • Economic breakeven years • Percent growth • Costs do NOT include common costs of both scenarios (not project costs)

  5. Study Details • Study Areas • Low density, low growth rural area • 100 square miles • 2 subs per route mile • 140 route miles/280 subs served • 2% growth per year • High density, high growth rural area • 100 square miles • 10 subs per route mile • 140 route miles/1400 subs served • 6% growth per year

  6. Study Details • Study Areas • Urban Area (approx. 5,000 population) • 144 blocks (12 blocks x 12 blocks) • 16 subs per block • 23 route miles/2304 subs served • 2% growth per year

  7. Cost Analysis

  8. Cost Analysis Summary

  9. Study Results • Low density, low growth rural area • Small difference in cost (11%) • PON = $1,795,000 • Active = $2,015,000 • High density, high growth rural area • Even smaller difference in cost (8%) • PON = $3,445,000 • Active = $3,729,000 • High density urban area • Higher difference in cost (29%) • PON = $1,469,000 • Active = $2,071,000

  10. Study Results • Technical Differences • PON has varying distance limitations which could impact fiber sizes • Changing splits can extend reach • Standard Active reach is 20 Km, but could go 80 Km with extended lasers • Enhances reach in low density very rural areas • Distance is less important in high density areas vs. fiber cross sections • Place additional electronics within area to keep fiber sizes lower and manageable • Bandwidth capacity • PON provides shared bandwidth to customer • Active provides dedicated bandwidth to customer • Each has a common bottleneck to the world (10 GigE backplane)

  11. Conclusions So what’s the answer? It’s a bladder control issue! It DEPENDS!

  12. Conclusions • Cost Basis • PON still provides the lowest cost scenario • Technical Basis • Active provides maximum amount of distribution bandwidth at minimal cost increase • How do you chose? • Do BOTH!!!

More Related