I did not see any pon to desktop. Only ONT's in the wall where normally you would have ethernet drops, or the 4port model with a wallwort to run voip handsets mounted on the wall.
On June 23, 2015 11:01:38 AM CDT, Mike Hammett <[email protected]> wrote: >Do they have just a standard PON box at each desktop? If so, that's >critically stupid. PON to the wall is friggin dumb. PON to an SFP in >the machine is what they should be doing. > > > > >----- >Mike Hammett >Intelligent Computing Solutions >http://www.ics-il.com > > > >Midwest Internet Exchange >http://www.midwest-ix.com > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Nate Burke" <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 10:44:14 AM >Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Indoor GPON - Why? > >If the Desktop NIC can talk directly to the PON, that totally makes >sense. But why run PON to the wall/Cube just to terminate into RJ45 >that you still have to power? And you're still going to have Wifi >AP's/VoIP handsets that will require power at the endpoint (one could >argue, at every desk that has a PON connection), which unless they have >some magic, I don't think can be powered via Fiber. Tellabs seems to be >pushing PON to the Wall, I haven't seen any mention of PON to the >desktop in the literature (the little that I looked at on the Tellabs >site). I understand how a proposal can be presented so that that the >'suits' will be really impressed to near wetting themselves with >$1000's of savings, but from an actual usage standpoint, I seems like >it still has some hurdles to overcome. Remember, this is a corporate >LAN environment, where you control everything down to the Users PC >experience, not a BYOD to plug into a PON. > > > > > >On 6/23/2015 10:26 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: > > > >PON to the desktop would only have active gear in the NOC and in the >device. Everything between is passive. > > > > >----- >Mike Hammett >Intelligent Computing Solutions >http://www.ics-il.com > > > >Midwest Internet Exchange >http://www.midwest-ix.com > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Nate Burke" <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 10:16:36 AM >Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Indoor GPON - Why? > >But Why? I understand Long haul PON for FTTH, to conserve miles and >miles of trunk fiber, but why in a building? Instead of having a single >device (a switch) you now have active hardware all over the building to >manage and maintain (And power). > > > >On 6/23/2015 10:08 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: > ><blockquote> > >PON looks to be where people are going for fiber to the desktop. > > > > >----- >Mike Hammett >Intelligent Computing Solutions >http://www.ics-il.com > > > >Midwest Internet Exchange >http://www.midwest-ix.com > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Nate Burke" <[email protected]> >To: "Animal Farm" <[email protected]> >Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 9:49:14 AM >Subject: [AFMUG] Indoor GPON - Why? > >We just had a new public library built here in town. The entire LAN >infrastructure is built on PON using the Tellabs ONT's. >http://www01.tellabs.com/products/tellabs1100ont.shtml I've briefly >looked around their site, and read some case studies, but Why would you > >choose PON infrastructure in a single building? From what I can tell, >you still have to run CAT 5 to the ONT for power, and the 4 port units >(which I saw several around the library) have a wall-wort and a power >switch. I'm having trouble wrapping my head around the concept, other >than someone make a slick presentation, and someone else got a nice >payoff. I wouldn't be surprised of the Latter, every single 120v outlet > >in the building is a 20A duplex receptacle with USB Ports (~$30 each) > > > > > > > > ></blockquote>
