In my experience ONT/OLT interop is mostly proprietary. A Calix ONT
will not work with a Adtran OLT. For GPON and XGS-PON we moved to a ONT
vendor that supports multiple OLT vendors by detecting the OLT and
changing its operation automatically.
For example, we replaced our Calix and Nokia ONTs over time with these
more flexible ONTs, then swapped out the OLT later with minimal disruption.
The ONT also supports downloading a configuration file via a logical
management interface (VEIP/IP-HOST) which can mean far less per
subscriber specific OLT configuration.
That said, I think very few operators do that, so yes, if you have Calix
ONTs in the home, you will need Calix OLT in the headend/cabinet.
Unlike say where a cable modem is a cable modem and will work with any
CMTS, PON is not there yet.
Dave B.
On 10/6/2026 9:35 AM, Adam Moffett wrote:
They're technically ITU standards, and usually you can get 3rd party ONT's
passing traffic on your OLT, but you likely lose the management and monitoring
features, so you still want to replace them but it doesn't have to be an
immediate forklift.
I'd say the most valuable things the provider has are their pole attachments,
conduit leases, and buried conduit. It doesn't really cost a fortune to hang a
cable on a pole, at least not compared to the cost of make-ready, engineering,
and licensing. If you hate their entire infrastructure you can overlash a new
network on top of theirs for a fraction of the original cost.
There is a lot of variety in design choices, and I would say another ISP is
more valuable if they built their infrastructure similar to how you would do
it, but they probably didn't.
-Adam
________________________________
From: AF <[email protected]> on behalf of Ken Hohhof <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2026 9:08 AM
To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PON and UPC
I’ve noticed a lot of medium to large FTTH providers are very heavily
leveraged, all their fiber assets are pledged as collateral to get loans to
build more. I would guess as BEAD rolls out, the copays are also borrowed
money. My gut tells me if revenue fails to meet projections there could be a
lot of loan defaults.
Which gets me to my question. In the popular fiber architectures, what parts
are generic and can easily be used by a new owner? The glass itself would seem
to be useful no matter what. But what about ONTs, OLTs, and customer prem
equipment like routers? And other headend equipment like routers.
What happens if a fiber equipment manufacturer like Calix goes though a
bankruptcy or liquidation (thinking about the Cambium situation). Is this
stuff all proprietary, closed ecosystem?
From: AF <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2026 7:55 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PON and UPC
I've made the same switch myself. PON is definitely easier. Everyone
(including me) likes Ethernet when they're new at it because it seems more
simple and familiar, but PON is easier to manage. I'd keep Ethernet around for
enterprise stuff, but bulk tier3 services are better off on PON.
There was also a business case for Ethernet in a rural area where you might
have small clusters of potential customers. You could add a 24 port or 48 port
Ethernet switch a lot more cheaply than adding an OLT, but in the past decade
you could also use Ubiquiti's UFiber in that same scenario. Or use XGS-PON
where you can get long reach by adjusting min and differential range and
minding your link budget. In that case you can look at it as the cost of
adding ports on a central system vs the cost of adding a new point-of-presence.
In other words, I think the tech based argument for Ethernet was at least
partially wrong from the start, and the most compelling business case for it
has evaporated.
I also see Ethernet in open access networks where they put each provider in a
VLAN and each ISP is just providing a router and customer service. I won't go
on that rant today, but that model seems incredibly dumb in my eyes.
-Adam
On Mon, Oct 5, 2026 at 5:22 PM Nate Burke
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I don't have any PON in the field, only Active, but I'm curious why
you're converting your active network to a PON network? Network
Management? Future Scalability with existing fiber? What's driving the
switch. I'm genuinely curious.
On 10/5/2026 3:53 PM, Jason McKemie wrote:
I have an active optical network that I would like to convert to PON.
Unfortunately, the connectors at the cabinet are all UPC. Am I asking
for a headache if I connect those customers via an APC to UPC cable vs
re-splicing everything at the cabinet? The lengths from the cabinet to
the customer locations are all less than a mile. I'll be splicing on a
new APC connector at the customer locations.
--
AF mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
--
AF mailing list
[email protected]
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
