FTTH for cable companies

Florin Veres florin at futurefreedom.ro
Sat Oct 19 15:25:05 UTC 2013


Also, RFoG keeps the same STBs as old-school FTTN, and for bean counters
it's pretty hard to justify changing a LOT of STBs to IPTV ones.
On Oct 19, 2013 4:17 PM, "Mark Radabaugh" <mark at amplex.net> wrote:

> 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
>
>
>



More information about the NANOG mailing list