Hi Stephen,
With Ethernet being continually honed and brought up to snuff for WAN and MAN applications, whether to toss SONET out, or not, will be an increasingly theological and investment-preserving question. Not one that is based solely on technological merit. So, what else is new?
Over time it will be far less costly to run Ethernet platforms than it will be to continue running SONET. Especially for the green-fielder. But the existing dominant carriers still have a lot invested in SONET, both in the way of underutilized inventory and capacity, and just as importantly, in personnel training. Equally significant, LEC productization processes - almost their entire business model in every niche of their networks - revolve around the service-creation, operations-support (OSS) and billing (BSS) system capabilities that were uniquely written to SONET/TDM-based offerings and parameters.
I was telling someone on this board just the other day how one ILEC had a metro gig-e network in place for over a year but could not (or would not) begin offering it to the public because they couldn't get the vendor's interface to talk to their TIRKS (for trunk inventory record keeping system) and service provisioning systems. They wound up using it for their own internal use during an interim stage. By the time they finally got the automation figured out, they were ready for accepting the platform's next generation's release from the vendor.
It should come as no no surprise, then, that the ILECs would elect to continue using SONET, especially when compared to the forklift effort and costs that would otherwise be associated with re-writing system code and the re-training of tens of thousands of engineering and plant operating staff.
Can you run VoIP over a native Eternet facility? Sure, but it's done best only when proper (bandwidth) capacity planning is done and when adequate bandwidth is provisioned, first, and/or when due attention is paid to other quality of service enabling practices, such as through the use of prioritization. For example, employing the IEEE "p" extension to the 802.xx family of protocols, or taking equivalent measures higher in the stack.
Whether or not 802.11xx WiFi continues on its path to mobile nirvana remains to be seen. Perhaps it is just what is needed to whet the wireless appetites of end users, exciting them to a point, only to become frustrated with its limitations over time and prompting them to go for more robust, for-fee offerings in the future. Such as WiMAX/802.16x and other emerging offerings. For now, however, I think it's a crucial part of the migration path to a more-widespread wireless presence, allowing folks to get their feet w(h)et at little or no appreciable cost.
re: "Never enough acronyms. Why they add legitimacy to everything including network design. ... I think you are quite right about FSAN. Once a standard is in place, tested and working its not likely to be tossed out. Rather it evolves and forces conformity."
Agreed. And in the process it stands to reason that economies of scale should kick in for the chosen architecture - this is, after all, one of the primary reasons they're going into this RFP on a joint basis. It remains to be seen how much pioneering work that was done by the Ethernet in the First Mile (EFM) and GigE Fiber architecture folks will be flushed down the proverbial tubes, once their field of opportunity is reduced by the size of the three carriers involved. Of course, this is still all highly speculative, but it bears some merit for thought, in my opinion, just the same.
As we look at the candidates I think it is fair to say that the spec will revolve around the FSAN model (full service area network). Rather than re-invent the wheel on this thread I'll point to a good resource that explains the various FSAN passive optical network (PON) options that exist.
Go to the PON Forum Website page at:
ponforum.org.
More specifically, to the page that spells out the differences between the various forms of FSANs and PONs:
ponforum.mblast.com
The above link contains information that spells out the differences between APONs, BPONs, EPONs and GPONs. Of these, I suspect that the ATM PON, or APON, will be specked into the RFP. Whether or not Ethernet is included, as would be the case with the BPON, remains to be seen. Perhaps it will be written in as an upgrade option. Who knows. Whichever one it is, one can almost be assured that the winning vendor will not be a pure-play. ALA or LU, for example, stand a good shot at winning this bid. Neither is hardly a pure play.
Yet, as I peruse the financial boards around the 'Net I'm seeming all kinds of ridiculous speculation about who might benefit from this RFP. The winner will be a highly diversified company, the margins will hardly be visible, and the real opportunities are not being discussed anywhere, from what I can tell. Where are those opportunities? Look behind the curtain.
From all indications that I've seen, the RBOCs' platforms will be digital ones, exclusively. This, as compared to the MSOs whose platforms are, for the most part, based on analog Radio Frequency (RF) modulation techniques, albeit encoded into digital format for some services through the use of QAM, etc.
But the point here is that the Bells will not be embracing the same head end gear (CMTS, or cable modem termination systems) as prescribed by CableLabs, nor with they be delivering content using the same protocols. In short, they will need to adopt systems that are purely digital in nature.
What, then, will these inexperienced players (the RBOCs) use in place of what the cable operators have been using for the past fifty years?
How will the Bells adapt their operations support and billing systems to handle triple play offerings on these new platforms? How about customer care? Especially w.r.t. video?
How about program scheduling and delivery systems? Ad insertion? These capabilities are non-existent today within the confines of ILEC central offices. And who will be houses that supply them with content? Will open video systems (OVS) stick its head up again, as it did during the failed attempts of the Bells during the mid-nineties, when Ray Smith was attempting to bring Bell Atlantic into the video space? This was at about the same time that the TCI/BA merger was set to take place.
If and when the RFP is ever awarded there will be plenty of new investment opportunities. But they won't necessarily be in the commodity areas that are most visibly highlighted by the RFP, itself. The opportunities will be ones that are related to the award, but the point solutions that they represent will reside somewhere else. Behind the curtains.
FAC |
