GNG News Guy
04-29-2008, 02:00 PM
http://i.dslr.net/urls/7/507.gif (http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Should-Cable-Companies-Just-Run-Fiber-93988)
While some have suggested that cable operators should just run fiber to the home and be done with it, cable engineers argue they've got enough bandwidth tricks up their sleeve (including switched digital video) to compete with FiOS. Hardware vendors are trying to convince cable operators to run fiber deeper into their networks, arguing the move comes with some distinct cost advantages, according to Light Reading (http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=152297&site=cdn):In a sample cable system passing 20,000 homes, a traditional HFC (hybrid fiber coaxial) network would require 1,133 powered up "actives" (i.e. RF amplifiers and optical nodes), versus just 200 in a fiber deep architecture. The HFC power cost over ten years would run $564,170 for HFC, versus just $278,373 for a fiber deep system, according to Aurora's analysis. Also from this same ten-year view, maintenance costs would plummet.
Of course that's coming from a marketing executive for hardware vendor Aurora Networks. As it stands, cable operators are largely only exploring FTTP or FTTN in new "greenfield" development builds to avoid taking the capex hit. A 2006 report by Cable Labs (http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB115578482115638079-lMyQjAxMDE2NTE1NzcxODc0Wj.html) however concluded that "at some point, optimization of the (cable) network becomes more expensive than simply deploying" fiber directly to homes.
read comment(s) (http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Should-Cable-Companies-Just-Run-Fiber-93988)
While some have suggested that cable operators should just run fiber to the home and be done with it, cable engineers argue they've got enough bandwidth tricks up their sleeve (including switched digital video) to compete with FiOS. Hardware vendors are trying to convince cable operators to run fiber deeper into their networks, arguing the move comes with some distinct cost advantages, according to Light Reading (http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=152297&site=cdn):In a sample cable system passing 20,000 homes, a traditional HFC (hybrid fiber coaxial) network would require 1,133 powered up "actives" (i.e. RF amplifiers and optical nodes), versus just 200 in a fiber deep architecture. The HFC power cost over ten years would run $564,170 for HFC, versus just $278,373 for a fiber deep system, according to Aurora's analysis. Also from this same ten-year view, maintenance costs would plummet.
Of course that's coming from a marketing executive for hardware vendor Aurora Networks. As it stands, cable operators are largely only exploring FTTP or FTTN in new "greenfield" development builds to avoid taking the capex hit. A 2006 report by Cable Labs (http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB115578482115638079-lMyQjAxMDE2NTE1NzcxODc0Wj.html) however concluded that "at some point, optimization of the (cable) network becomes more expensive than simply deploying" fiber directly to homes.
read comment(s) (http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Should-Cable-Companies-Just-Run-Fiber-93988)