There are two broad choices for FTTH networking, based on the choice of topology and technology: Active Ethernet (AON) over point-to-point (p2p) networks and Passive Optical Networking (PON) over p2p or point-to-multipoint networks. In the Netherlands, Reggefiber seems to have pushed the market towards the former, but PON cannot be ruled out for future deployments. There is no consensus on which option is best, and even attributing cost advantages to PON, and bandwidth advantages to AON, is disputed. In this Research Brief, we juxtapose both options on a number of metrics: bandwidth, security, TV, open access, capex, opex and CPE. WDM-PON, a next-generation PON solution, appears to be promising, but is as yet not standardised and cost prohibitive for the mass consumer market. All in all, AON has a number of advantages, whereas the cost aspect of PON over p2mp could be somewhat more attractive. When the total cost of ownership, including the real option value associated with upgrading and the possibilities of switching technologies, is taken into account, a p2p network is more apt for reducing technology risks.
This is a research product from Telecompaper 2000-2012 ©. All rights reserved. Reproduction or redistribution in any form without prior written permission of Telecompaper is prohibited. Telecompaper sees to the utmost reliability of all research and news publications. Nevertheless Telecompaper does not accept any responsibility for possible inaccuracies.