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" <m...@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 > > m...@amplex.net 419.837.5015 > > >
