This is fcoluccio's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following fcoluccio's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
I was impressed with George's characterization of a "fibersphere" when he first wrote about it in the Dec 1992 issue of Forbes ASAP. There are many, many insights to be fledged from that writing. The notion of an all-transparent network fabric emanating from a glob of glass employing an infinite number of colors/wavelengths over a power-splitter supported disteibution network, you'd have to admit, is intriguing on its face. But in reality it doesn't scale very well due to basic physics and the unlikely capability of supporting as many unique wavelengths as there are unique IP addresses in IPv6. I nevertheless commend the read, just the same: -- THE COMING OF THE FIBERSPHERE By GEORGE GILDER Excerpt: "In a world of dumb terminals and telephones, networks had to be smart. But in a world of smart terminals, networks have to be dumb."
Toggle Commented Dec 10, 2011 on Meet me in NYC next week! at Fiberevolution
1 reply
re: "we would have missed this if we focused solely on their largest facilities." And so it is, too, in the enterprise, where a million (+) redundant, soon-to-be-superficial, equipment rooms, server farms and telco-LAN closets go unnoticed, but are maintained at temperatures bordering on frigid.
Some jurisdictions have statutes that make it mandatory to remove discontinued cables within a set period, i.e., from the time of discontinuance. Such practices are designed to improve fire safety and architectural facilitation for growth, as well. Here in the US world of infrastructure management, for example, the national electric code mandates that cables be removed from spaces (manholes) and pathways (conduits and aerial spans), where they exist in both inside plant and outside plant, within a year's time. Do similar requirements exist elsewhere? If not, they certainly should, making allowances for only those situations that are already horrendously embedded, thus would create reliability problems for cables placed later on. Even those, however, could be remedied if the intent were there.
Toggle Commented Nov 29, 2010 on The trouble with ducts and poles at Fiberevolution
1 reply
One has to wonder if this is a trend that will also preclude incentives in the virtual LAN space as well. Currently, due to the embedded mind-share that is owned by the copper cabling sector and the powerhouse vendors that haven't changed their model in over twenty years, there is absolutely no incentive, except for very-small businesses that elect to move to WLANs (WiFi networks), to disembowel millions of equipment rooms that occupy tens of millions of square feet of rentable real-estate within office buildings, which are presently filled with air conditioners and UPSes and copper-based Ethernet switches: the "other data center", as it were. Any thoughts concerning this subject would be greatly appreciated. ------
Hi Benoit. I note the commentator's use of dated references relating to the proposed wireless alternatives by the coalition. Unfortunately, he's probably citing what the coalition would actually install, so his allusions are not very far off the mark at all. A more enlightened presentation of facts centered on the state of the art would include hybrid fiber-wireless (HFW) alternatives that are far more appealing, but I guess, like here in the US, the hybrid fiber-wireless framework to which I refer hasn't hit the Australian trade press just yet. Incidentally, the HFW design to which I refer is not a replacement for FTTH, except in cases where the latter is unaffordable, but instead would represent an adjunct set of capabilities to meet the growing demands of both personal-area and WAN-based wireless requirements without necessarily being tied to a 4G mobile account. Comments. correction, questions welcome. Frank
Toggle Commented Sep 4, 2010 on The NBN Situation in Australia at Fiberevolution
1 reply
I've got to tell ya, Benoit. I'm with Rudolf here. The next time my 2 y-o grandson steps out of line,* I'm going to show him this picture of you. It will surely set him back on track. Now how do I hide it from his mother? Seriously, though. Your message has great value in that it exemplifies the degree to which terms like open access, open architecture, open networks, etc. really do mean different things to different observers. Someone should write a book ... * - it might even work on my 8 month-old miniature Yorkshire terrier when he snips at my feet or barks excessively ...
Toggle Commented Jul 29, 2010 on Am I an Open Access Freak ? at Fiberevolution
1 reply
If you'll allow a moment for musing, I particularly liked reading in your exordium above your reference to option value. A natural question that begs to be answered here, however, which is seldom asked due to memes coloured by preconceived notions and beliefs, would be: Option Value for Whom? Consider the classic three-legged stool used in analysis, consisting of the End User Community, Service Providers, and Governance Bodies. Does the option value to which you refer apply equally to all three? End users are looking for bit stream. Assuming that costs were comparable (which happens to be the case most often, or at least on an alternating basis, making this pretty much a moot point), the overwhelming majority of residential users in the types of cases most discussed (more on this point in a moment) couldn't care less, not to mention that it would do them no good even if they did care, if the intervening protocols and associated wireline constructions were based on individual fibers, discrete wavelengths, Morse Code, ATM, TDMA, EFM, GPON, pt-to-pt IEEE LAN, O-CDMA, or DOCSISOverPON. Citizens care instead that, at the very end of the 'wire' they are handed a connection that consists of an eight-pin modular connector in support of 1Gbps Ethernet, and someday 10Gbps, or beyond, that may soon even consist of POF, or Plastic Optical Fiber. Service Providers want control. Governance entities and their affiliated (and adversarial) schools of thinking find sustenance in ongoing debate and the pendulumatic machinations of regime change. Missing in the usual calculus is a distinction and concomitant application of similar questions and principles between what is generally perceived as "consumer" grade broadband, which I prefer to call "CitizenBand", and all other manifestations of use classes - including mixed-use, commercial and institutional forms of connectivity that increasingly share the same, monolithic 'physical', even if not always the same logical, platforms as those used for CitizenBand. The ensuing blurring now taking place, as the traditional copper-plant access layer continues its metamorphosis to a sheet of glass, only adds to the obfuscation factor while significantly reducing the merit of first-cost and TCO arguments to that of a mere foil behind which can be found the more-fundamentally relevant motivations that each class of stakeholder is most concerned with. Upon closer scrutiny still, it is revealed that the true drivers behind arguing which form of fiber delivery model is optimal really has ultimately little to do with the option value of end users, per se, who merely want assurances of receiving Gigabit Ethernet with their coffee at breakfast time, but all to do with satisfying and preserving the option value of service providers and those who either align with the regulatorium or find greater sustenance in debating it. Comments, corrections are always welcome. End musing. ------
Toggle Commented Aug 21, 2009 on GPON vs P2P Comparison at Fiberevolution
1 reply
marc duchesne, My question was a simple one, and I see that we differ concerning the intent and motivations behind using WDM in the access network. I hardly subscribe to FUD, btw, since I'm neither aligned with nor particularly fond of many of the predilections of the established guard. Since you brought it up, though, in my opinion WDM (or WDM-PON if you prefer, apropos the access layer) will likely be used to support more pt-to-pt straightaway Ethernet than all variants of distribution PON combined. But I didn't ask about the merits of WDM, PON or anything else. I asked merely if ARCEP's clarification on sharing, the subject of this thread, took future wavelength sharing and administration into account. Thanks for your reply just the same.
1 reply
Thanks for highlighting and bringing clarity to this subject. You've outlined the issues very nicely. What considerations, if any, do you suppose will be given to future technological advancements (or, in this case, refinements) in the delivery of emerging optical transmission capabilities (e.g., WDM-PON) when the _turnpike effect_ kicks in in those building riser systems? While I agree that today's-, and even emerging- access-layer PONs are not best suited for facilities sharing, especially in high-rise mixed use situations, would (should?) the same rule extend to wavelengths derived from WDM-PON two years from now as well? Thoughts?
1 reply