On Jan 31, 2013, at 13:27 , Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote:
Owen,
You can't share access from one splitter to multiple OLTs so the location of
the splitter isn't important. AFAIK there is simply no concept for that idea
in any of the PON specs and its certainly not something that
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
If you have an MMR where all of the customers come together, then you
can cross-connect all of $PROVIDER_1's customers to a splitter provided
by $PROVIDER_1 and cross connect all of $PROVIDER_2's customers to
a splitter
Owen,
Respectfully, it doesn't work that way. You have to understand that the
splitter is a specific part of the PON architecture and they don't have
multiple outputs to connect to several OLTs like a patch panel or even a
switch you can VLAN. One fiber goes to the splitter on the provider side
Scott,
Respectfully, you appear to be misinterpreting what I am saying.
I'm saying you put the splitter next to the OLT and then run multiple fibers
from there to the subscribers IN THE MMR.
Each provider has their own splitters and OLTs, but all the splitters are in
the MMR and the customers
On Jan 31, 2013, at 13:57 , Fletcher Kittredge fkitt...@gwi.net wrote:
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
If you have an MMR where all of the customers come together, then you
can cross-connect all of $PROVIDER_1's customers to a splitter provided
by
On 13-01-31 17:04, Scott Helms wrote:
switch you can VLAN. One fiber goes to the splitter on the provider side
and then from there it splits into 8/16/32/64 connections that go to
customers. You can't exchange one of the customer side ports to make
another provider interface.
Actually
I'm saying you put the splitter next to the OLT and then
run multiple fibers from there to the subscribers IN THE MMR
That's the way I'd expect it to be done if planning ahead,
GPON is today technology and new things always come
I can see why they don't do this though
1. reduced build cost
1. Must sell dark fiber to any purchaser.
2. Must sell dark fiber to all purchasers on equal terms.
(There must be a published price list and there cannot be deviations
from that price list. If the price list is modified, existing
customers
receive the new
On Jan 31, 2013, at 4:36 PM, Brandon Butterworth bran...@rd.bbc.co.uk wrote:
I'm saying you put the splitter next to the OLT and then
run multiple fibers from there to the subscribers IN THE MMR
That's the way I'd expect it to be done if planning ahead,
GPON is today technology and new
On Jan 31, 2013, at 5:08 PM, Ray Soucy r...@maine.edu wrote:
1. Must sell dark fiber to any purchaser.
2. Must sell dark fiber to all purchasers on equal terms.
(There must be a published price list and there cannot be deviations
from that price list. If the price
Sorry for jumping into this discussion so late…. and I apologize if this has
already been talked about (this has been a long thread)
But the most successful municipal undertaking to support telecom I have ever
seen is a municipally owned conduit system…. Any infrastructure L1, L2, or
anything
On 1/31/13 6:28 PM, Dan Armstrong wrote:
But the most successful municipal undertaking to support telecom I have ever
seen is a municipally owned conduit system….
Could you be a bit more specific? What is the muni, and where can the
business model data be found?
Also, what was the muni's ROW
Fletcher nailed it, if you want the architecture you're describing then you
simply don't want PON. Its built around lower cost and a big part of that
lower cost is minimizing the fiber costs by serving splitters (and thus
many homes) from a single fiber that back hauls to the CO. The other
I don't have specific data to point you to. I am speaking from my experience,
in large cities. Totally different story in rural or suburban areas.
In general, if a municipality builds an L1 or L2 network it removes so many
barriers of competition that many idiots get into the business.
On Jan 31, 2013, at 19:21 , Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote:
Fletcher nailed it, if you want the architecture you're describing then you
simply don't want PON. Its built around lower cost and a big part of that
lower cost is minimizing the fiber costs by serving splitters (and thus
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 07:53:34PM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
[...]
It really isn't. You'd be surprised how many uncompensated truck rolls
are eliminated every day by being able to talk to the ONT from the
help desk and tell the subscriber Well, I can manage your ONT and
it's pretty clear the
On Wed 30 Jan 2013 16:58:28 PST, John Osmon wrote:
Does anyone make an ONT with a blinky light that you can toggle on/off
remotely? It'd be great to say:
Go look at the it works light.
If the remote tech can control the light, the end user would have a
better idea that the upstream
- Original Message -
From: Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org
In a message written on Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 07:11:56PM -0800, Owen
DeLong wrote:
I believe they should be allowed to optionally provide L2 enabled
services of various
forms.
Could you expand on why you think this is
- Original Message -
From: Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org
I don't know of any residential telco services (pots, ISDN BRI, or
DSL) that has an active handoff they can test to without a truck
roll.
FiOS and anyone else who's doing triple play from an ONT. :-)
I don't know of any
On 1/30/13 5:01 PM, Jake Khuon wrote:
On Wed 30 Jan 2013 16:58:28 PST, John Osmon wrote:
Does anyone make an ONT with a blinky light that you can toggle on/off
remotely? It'd be great to say:
Go look at the it works light.
If the remote tech can control the light, the end user would have
Some in the industry are pushing the idea of reaching deeper into the
customer's network to provide more value, to generate more revenue and more
stickiness. Don't stop at the ONT, use something like TR-069 to manage the
customer's gateway device.
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 7:50 PM, joel jaeggli
- Original Message -
From: joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com
We're totally at the wrong end of the usability specrum if we even have
to ask questions like this. you can tell of a cable modem is online or
not at a glance.
*You* can tell.
That does not mean the *customer* can tell. That
In a message written on Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 08:27:27PM -0500, Jay Ashworth
wrote:
You're assuming there, I think, that residential customers will have
mini-GBIC ports on their routers, which has not been my experience. :-)
They don't today because there is no demand for such a feature. My
- Original Message -
From: Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org
In a message written on Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 08:27:27PM -0500, Jay
Ashworth wrote:
You're assuming there, I think, that residential customers will have
mini-GBIC ports on their routers, which has not been my experience.
:-)
In a message written on Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 10:00:47PM -0500, Jay Ashworth
wrote:
That can be fixed in other ways. It would be easy to make a standard
SNMP mib or something that the service provider could poll from the
customer gateway, and service providers could require compatable
- Original Message -
From: Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org
The Cable Modem is in many ways very similar to a FTTH ONT. It takes
one media (cable, fiber), does some processing, provides some security
and a test point to the provider, and then hands off ethernet to the
customer. A
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 8:52 PM, Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org wrote:
In a message written on Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 08:27:27PM -0500, Jay
Ashworth wrote:
You're assuming there, I think, that residential customers will have
mini-GBIC ports on their routers, which has not been my experience.
I can't vouch for these yet, since I haven't used one so far.
http://www.calix.com/systems/p-series/calix_residential_services_gateways.html
It looks to be a Broadband Forum spec, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TR-069.
I'm not using it yet either, but find it interesting.
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013
- Original Message -
From: Jason Baugher ja...@thebaughers.com
I can't vouch for these yet, since I haven't used one so far.
http://www.calix.com/systems/p-series/calix_residential_services_gateways.html
Yeah; see my other reply a few minutes ago.
It looks to be a Broadband Forum
Working in a mixed TDM and IP world, it's such a stark difference between
freely available RFCs and $900 per pop Telcordia docs.
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 10:24 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Jason Baugher ja...@thebaughers.com
I can't vouch for
When I get a Cisco router with an integrated CSU and the telco sends a
loop-up my device does it. No reason the same can't be done with
ethernet, other than no demand today.
But your router isn't where the Telco's responsibility ends. It ends
back at the card with the blinky-lights on it,
Some in the industry are pushing the idea of reaching deeper into the
customer's network to provide more value, to generate more revenue and
how sadly desperate. crawl up the stack.
carriers who whine about content going over the top need to get their
heads out of the somethingorother. if
Why do you always assume we're talking about carriers, or the evil telcos,
RBOC's, etc? I'm talking about small to medium-sized service providers
looking to expand services to compete against the Comcast's and ATT's of
the world that can practically give away Internet because they already own
On Tue, 29 Jan 2013, Miles Fidelman wrote:
It's a matter of economies of scale. If everyone has to light their own
fiber, you haven't saved that much. If the fiber is lit, at L2, and
charged back on a cost-recovery basis, then there are tremendous
economies of scale. The examples that come
One thing that is bothersome about carriers is that sometimes if they
have Tons of fiber to your building, they still will only offer
Layer2/3 services. If there's fiber there, I'd like to be able to
lease it in some fashion (even if expensive, but preferably not).
If a muni is making something
It's a matter of economies of scale. If everyone has to light their own
fiber, you haven't saved that much. If the fiber is lit, at L2, and
charged back on a cost-recovery basis, then there are tremendous
economies of scale. The examples that come to mind are campus and
corporate networks.
In a message written on Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 12:54:26PM -0500, Jay Ashworth
wrote:
Hmmm. I tend to be a Layer-2-available guy, cause I think it lets smaller
players play. Does your position (likely more deeply thought out than
mine) permit Layer 2 with Muni ONT and Ethernet handoff, as long
I would put it differently.
I believe that the entity (muni, county, state, special district, or whatever)
should
be required to make dark fiber patches available.
I believe they should be allowed to optionally provide L2 enabled services of
various
forms.
I believe that they should be
In a message written on Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 07:11:56PM -0800, Owen DeLong
wrote:
I believe they should be allowed to optionally provide L2 enabled services of
various
forms.
Could you expand on why you think this is necessary? I know you've
given this some thought, and I'd like to
On Jan 29, 2013, at 7:23 PM, Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org wrote:
In a message written on Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 07:11:56PM -0800, Owen DeLong
wrote:
I believe they should be allowed to optionally provide L2 enabled services
of various
forms.
Could you expand on why you think this is
In a message written on Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 07:53:34PM -0800, Owen DeLong
wrote:
It really isn't. You'd be surprised how many uncompensated truck rolls
are eliminated every day by being able to talk to the ONT from the
help desk and tell the subscriber Well, I can manage your ONT and
it's
On Jan 29, 2013, at 20:16 , Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org wrote:
In a message written on Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 07:53:34PM -0800, Owen DeLong
wrote:
It really isn't. You'd be surprised how many uncompensated truck rolls
are eliminated every day by being able to talk to the ONT from the
help
201 - 242 of 242 matches
Mail list logo
