EPON vs. Alternate Architectures
Business cases for EPON often include comparisons with other broadband access architectures,
usually either triple-play xDSL or HFC. As discussed previously, the majority
of the cost for an EPON deployment is in construction of the outside plant, and this
is true for xDSL and HFC networks also. For new construction, the costs for the three
architectures are similar in some aspects because there is little difference in terms
of trenching or cabling costs. For xDSL and HFC networks, however, there are additional
significant costs associated with the placement of active electronics in the
outside plant: right-of-ways for cabinets/enclosures must be secured; weatherproof
cabinets/enclosures, slicing vaults, and so on, must be purchased and installed; and an
overlay powering network must be constructed for the remote electronics. The additional
cost for placing active electronics in the field will vary, depending directly on the
average bandwidth requirement per subscriber, which in turn depends on the service
model for the network.
Stated in another way, if a service provider intends to offer a rich and competitive
spectrum of advanced services on either an xDSL or HFC network, more bandwidth per
subscriber will be required, which means the active electronics must be placed deeper
in the outside plant (smaller fiber-fed subnetworks).
Pages:
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490