FTTH for cable companies

Sat Oct 19 13:14:29 UTC 2013

I believe the difference is fairly negligible between RFoG and IPTV.   
RFoG allows the cable companies to leverage the existing RF head end 
while FTTH requires a IPTV head end.    IPTV is less familiar to most 
cable operators and requires new investment in facilities and skills.

Mark

On 10/19/13 6:35 AM, Jean-Francois Mezei wrote:
> I need a reality check...
>
> For telcos, going from barely twisted copper pair to FTTH presents huge
> incremental improvement. FTTN is basically a stop gap medium term
> solution that is more pleasing to some beancounters.
>
> However, for a cable company, is there an advantage to deploy FTTH/GPON
> to bring light originally destined to the neighbourhood node all the way
> to the home and do away with coax ?
>
>  From what I have read, cablecos limit FTTH deployments to greenfields.
>
> Do they save much by replaciung the "node" with a simple optical
> splitter which no longer limits how much upstream bandwidth is
> retransmitted back to head end ?
>
> Will there be a point in the next 10 years where cable companies might
> start to upgrade brownfields from coax to FTTH as some telcos have done ?
>
> While in Canada, FTTH deployment by telcos has been accompanied with
> IPTV deployments on the data path (single wavelength), I hear that
> Verizon has used twin wavelengths, on for GPON data, and one for RFoG
> for TV signals. Would it be fair to state that FIOS is basically
> identical to FTTH deployments by cable companies ?
>
> Do twin wavelength systems as deployed by Verizon end up costing far
> more ? Or is the price difference mininal ?
>
> Any information/insight appreciated.
>

-- 
Mark Radabaugh
Amplex

mark at amplex.net  419.837.5015