Put it this way, for each connection on AE you have two SFP optics and a port on a switch. You also probably want to battery back that.
For gpon you just push your 8 or 16 or 32 subs to a splitter that can fit inside someone's pocket and then single strand to your OLT with your non- $800 or so from what I remember Calix Pon optic :P Battery back the OLT, sure, but that's anywhere from 64 to 256 subs per, and a lot lower battery requirements. I think your Calix experience has really skewed you to what's out there, to be fair. On Mar 27, 2017 4:58 PM, "Chuck McCown" <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote: > Yes and no. Pretty much the same amount of fiber depending on where you > locate the splitters or switches. > > On AE you battery back the switch. > On GPON you battery back the OLT/OIM. > > At the remote cabinet, you either have a cheap switch and SFPs. > -or- > You have an expensive OLT/OIM and splitter. > > > > *From:* Josh Reynolds > *Sent:* Monday, March 27, 2017 3:53 PM > *To:* af@afmug.com > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Small Scale PON > > AE requires a lot more electronics and optics. And fiber. And battery > backup. Etc. > > On Mar 27, 2017 4:33 PM, "Chuck McCown" <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote: > >> Years ago, there was a break even point on active vs PON. If you had 16 >> or more in an area that could take a PON it was worth doing the PON. >> But that was comparing Calix AE vs Calix PON. If you do AE like Sterling >> I don't think PON is ever cost effective compared to Calix PON. >> >> With PON you still have to have a drop to each home. The cost of the >> cable is in the placement, not in the cable itself. >> So the question is, where do you place the splitter vs where do you place >> the switch and SFPs. Personally, I would do it Sterling style on new >> greenfield. The ONLY reason I do it with the expensive PON is we are a >> regulated common carrier with provider of last resort obligations. I have >> to give POTS that is battery backed up, legally required to do this. >> >> Cannot risk a 911 call not going through due to a power outage etc. >> Cannot trust the customer to not unplug a UPS. >> >> -----Original Message----- From: Adam Moffett >> Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 3:11 PM >> To: af@afmug.com >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Small Scale PON >> >> Yeah, so PON vs AE was actually the next research project for me to >> tackle. >> >> It seems like there ought to be savings with PON because of lower fiber >> count.....lower fiber count ought to lead to smaller/cheaper enclosures. >> Less junk at the head end too. I haven't gotten that far yet, but I >> was thinking I might "scrimp" with PON. You're saying maybe not? >> >> >> >> ------ Original Message ------ >> From: "Chuck McCown" <ch...@wbmfg.com> >> To: af@afmug.com >> Sent: 3/27/2017 4:54:08 PM >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Small Scale PON >> >> I would be worried that it will go the way of some of their other ideas. >>> Cheap... you get what you pay for. >>> >>> FTTH, I would rather pay more and know it will be solid and be around in >>> the years to come. >>> Not an area where you want to scrimp. If you want to scrimp go active >>> ethernet. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- From: Adam Moffett >>> Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 12:56 PM >>> To: af@afmug.com >>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Small Scale PON >>> >>> Well....I have to build with what's available today. If I delay to wait >>> for the next hot product, I'll always be waiting. >>> >>> Besides, I honestly don't know what Ubiquiti brings to the table that >>> other vendors don't. I suppose it will be cost competitive, but that's >>> less important to me than having it just work. >>> >>> -Adam >>> >>> >>> ------ Original Message ------ >>> From: "Jon Langeler" <jon-ispli...@michwave.net> >>> To: af@afmug.com >>> Sent: 3/27/2017 2:52:03 PM >>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Small Scale PON >>> >>> With ubiquiti shipping real soon, you might want to wait >>>> >>>> Jon Langeler >>>> Michwave Technologies, Inc. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mar 27, 2017, at 2:47 PM, Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I asked the Alphion sales rep about this. He says the optics are >>>>> coded, yes. As far as mixing ONT from one vendor with an OLT from another >>>>> he said in essence GPON is a standard, but it isn't usually tested across >>>>> vendors so whether it works fine, works with bugs, or doesn't work at all >>>>> is going to be a matter of chance. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------ Original Message ------ >>>>> From: fiber...@mail.com >>>>> To: af@afmug.com >>>>> Sent: 3/23/2017 2:54:04 PM >>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Small Scale PON >>>>> >>>>> No, generally speaking there is no crossvendor compatibility with GPON. >>>>>> >>>>>> Jared >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>
