natemaingard
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2019
- Messages
- 6
- Reaction score
- 0
Ah nice, thanks a bunch! How does one check which phase one is in, or find out when they'll be activating the fibre by? Haven't been able to get any details yet . Thanks again!
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Do you think Bafana Bafana will win tonight?
GPON vs AON
- Thread starter tkburn
- Start date
Join this page https://www.facebook.com/groups/www...551425994980296¬if_t=group_comment_mention
Its the Octotel facebook page for the Southern Peninsula network , an octotel rep will answer your questions
Theyre pricing is OK on the lower speed packages up to 100mb/s, but they're easily beat out by the smaller providers on price after that.
I'm currently with vox with 2 fat pipe 400gb accounts, if I could use these over Fibre and find a cheap open access 500mb/1gbs connection I would stay with them
Have no experience of frogfoot but, as a current Octotel client I can say stay away! After hour support is non-existent and I was actually told the the reason for that was that "their staff also deserves to have time with their families".
newby_investor
Executive Member
Not so easy to stay away if Octotel is the only provider covering your area...
Johnatan56
Honorary Master
Frogfoot would probably be the better choice based on Feedback on the TV/Blouberg/Parklands group chats.
Both networks use GPON, if you actually had a congestion issue, they'd just remove a splitter and it should be fine (from like 64:1 to 16:1 since a splitter is usually 4:1). How networks work, past that point I'd doubt you'd have any problems. In the distant future they'd move to NGPON2, which is 40-80Gbit/s vs GPON 2.5Gbps, but I doubt that's needed for at least a decade and by that time everything might look completely different.
Your biggest worry is that the network provider sends technicians when you need them, Octotel seems to have a bad record in regards to this, otherwise the ISP is the most important.
That other dude recommending Adept has been posting their services in a number of threads recently, so he's probably affiliated in some way with them.
Both networks use GPON, if you actually had a congestion issue, they'd just remove a splitter and it should be fine (from like 64:1 to 16:1 since a splitter is usually 4:1). How networks work, past that point I'd doubt you'd have any problems. In the distant future they'd move to NGPON2, which is 40-80Gbit/s vs GPON 2.5Gbps, but I doubt that's needed for at least a decade and by that time everything might look completely different.
Your biggest worry is that the network provider sends technicians when you need them, Octotel seems to have a bad record in regards to this, otherwise the ISP is the most important.
That other dude recommending Adept has been posting their services in a number of threads recently, so he's probably affiliated in some way with them.
Geoff.D
Honorary Master
Except that IF those businesses hog all the capacity, no one else will get any decent services! Ultimately GPON is NOT a suitable technology for business use! Businesses should be on AON.
Last edited:
genetic
Honorary Master
I'm on a GPON network, and get 100% throughput all the time.
Don't confuse a technology with a service provider's problem.
WickedP3NGU1N
Well-Known Member
AON Networks are P2P, no not THAT P2P but Point-to-Point so each user theoretically has their own dedicated fibre strand terminated to a concentrator, and AON networks generally have amplifiers, repeaters and shaping circuits, but naturally there are far more points that require powered devices, so more points of failure should there be power outages with inadequate power backup, or from acts of god if they are not protected properly etc.
PON Networks are P2MP or PTMP, and generally use passive components and optical splitters that split to 32 or 64 ONTs in batches of 4, but it can max at 128 with the right equipment and bandwidth, and/or bandwidth control. However portions of the network use shared fibre, not the entire thing.
The advantages of AON are simple. You have a dedicated line with the bandwidth from the port also being dedicated i.e. no sharing, meaning higher speeds and bandwidth are more possible and fault finding is also far easier. However AON systems are inherently more expensive to deploy due to the higher requirement for powered active equipment. The advantages of PON might not seem like advantages but the TCO is lower, installation costs and rollout costs are lower, maintenance costs are lower, and there are fewer points of failure due to not having so many active components in the network. It does make fault finding more difficult due to the shared nature of PON, but it allows for a less complex rollout which takes less time, and offers users a far more palatable price point for their internet.
However both are perfectly feasible topologies and I believe most of the networks in SA are PON based with a few AON based ones. AON tends to be used more for business and PON tends to be used more for home. If the networks here were more AON than PON I think the prices would be a lot higher. The PON networks work perfectly as long as the companies deploying them use them correctly and they don't let things get oversubscribed.
There are a few really good articles that explain the differences better than I can, and I only know what I know from a LOT of reading while patiently waiting for somebody to deem the areas I have lived in worthy of their time to put fibre in.
PON Networks are P2MP or PTMP, and generally use passive components and optical splitters that split to 32 or 64 ONTs in batches of 4, but it can max at 128 with the right equipment and bandwidth, and/or bandwidth control. However portions of the network use shared fibre, not the entire thing.
The advantages of AON are simple. You have a dedicated line with the bandwidth from the port also being dedicated i.e. no sharing, meaning higher speeds and bandwidth are more possible and fault finding is also far easier. However AON systems are inherently more expensive to deploy due to the higher requirement for powered active equipment. The advantages of PON might not seem like advantages but the TCO is lower, installation costs and rollout costs are lower, maintenance costs are lower, and there are fewer points of failure due to not having so many active components in the network. It does make fault finding more difficult due to the shared nature of PON, but it allows for a less complex rollout which takes less time, and offers users a far more palatable price point for their internet.
However both are perfectly feasible topologies and I believe most of the networks in SA are PON based with a few AON based ones. AON tends to be used more for business and PON tends to be used more for home. If the networks here were more AON than PON I think the prices would be a lot higher. The PON networks work perfectly as long as the companies deploying them use them correctly and they don't let things get oversubscribed.
There are a few really good articles that explain the differences better than I can, and I only know what I know from a LOT of reading while patiently waiting for somebody to deem the areas I have lived in worthy of their time to put fibre in.
pinball wizard
Honorary Master
Just because it can be cut up that many times doesn't mean all implementations of PON are hacked up to the nth degree. Most of our implementations are at less than half of the 32 split.
In the industry we know of only some competitors implementations that are well over 64 split.
quovadis
Honorary Master
So much misinformation in this thread. PON vs AON depends on the specific implementation and there are pros and cons to both. You cannot say that AON or PON is more superior in terms of bandwidth or bandwidth control nor can you assert that AON or PON reduces contention unless you are dealing with links in excess of a standards capabilities. Judge your fibre provider on delivering the service specification you're paying for rather than obsessing about what technology they are deploying.
quovadis
Honorary Master
The rest of the world would disagree with you.
Geoff.D
Honorary Master
So where is the misinformation? If there is misinformation draw attention to it and correct it!
Of course, it depends on the nature of the business, but in general business, use requires high upstream capacity as well as downstream capacity. So, again, clarify what you are saying.
Last edited:
Johnatan56
Honorary Master
We did draw attention to it.
In general business does not require high upstream capacity. You're talking about larger corporations and I bet most of them would be fine being served with a PON type connection.
You're saying all PON is bad when it depends on the use case. For e.g. the CBD here in CT an AON Network would probably make more sense as the bandwidth used by an entire skyscraper would be huge, but somewhere like century city the business district is rather spread out and not that concentrated so you could probably get away with a PON system in that area.
Use case defines what roll out. You cannot blanket statement, which you seem to do in every thread, e.g. the Vodacom thread whereby someone mentioned telkom monopoly and you went off on Telkom also having a mobile monopoly, which is completely false.
In general most businesses are micro, small and medium, not Enterprise size.
Geoff.D
Honorary Master
Okay, so we agree that it depends on the nature of the business, how they deploy their data technology and where their services are monitored and controlled from.
That I will accept. If there are just small businesses in an area, and, they run their IT services from centrally placed servers, not on their own premises then the majority of their connectivity requirements would be pretty much the same as any residential users services.
But, there are always exceptions. Hence why my point is the decision to deploy AON or PON requires a careful look at what the market you are trying to address.
Now all I said was AON, is a better choice for businesses because it is more flexible and is able to deal with both symmetrical requirements as well as asymmetrical requirements. Nothing more.
So where is the misinformation???
I have gone back and checked my posts to see where the misinformation is in my posts, and I can't see it. So please point it out for my posts. I made the point that service provision problems are not as a result of the technology used but other factors mostly. The contrary is true, I defended GPON against unreasonable attack. The problem is about reading one post in a thread and taking it out of context. And that is NOT my problem.
That I will accept. If there are just small businesses in an area, and, they run their IT services from centrally placed servers, not on their own premises then the majority of their connectivity requirements would be pretty much the same as any residential users services.
But, there are always exceptions. Hence why my point is the decision to deploy AON or PON requires a careful look at what the market you are trying to address.
Now all I said was AON, is a better choice for businesses because it is more flexible and is able to deal with both symmetrical requirements as well as asymmetrical requirements. Nothing more.
So where is the misinformation???
I have gone back and checked my posts to see where the misinformation is in my posts, and I can't see it. So please point it out for my posts. I made the point that service provision problems are not as a result of the technology used but other factors mostly. The contrary is true, I defended GPON against unreasonable attack. The problem is about reading one post in a thread and taking it out of context. And that is NOT my problem.
Last edited:
Geoff.D
Honorary Master
1. You are quick to say I am generalising, and then you do the same! You cannot say that unless you have specifically investigated the specific business requirement.
2. I never said all PON is bad! In fact quite the opposite. I was saying the same as you are that it depends on the customer requirements --- NOTE NOT on the perception of an operator about what he has decided a business needs!
3. Probably! Really? "You could probably get away with". So, "A customer can have a car painted any colour he wants as long as it’s black” is still the prevailing attitude of service providers in the communications industry?
And no, I did not say "Telkom also having a mobile monopoly". That is what you selectively read into my post. Suggest you read my post again, and then comment in that thread if you need to.
Johnatan56
Honorary Master
I said that your generalization was wrong as you said enterprise is the normal business. Thank you for selectively quoting.
Your 3 is also stupid. A business exists to generate as much profit as possible, if PON can be selected as it saves costs while still meeting demand, why would they ever go AON?
quovadis
Honorary Master
I wasn't aware you were the only person in the thread but to argue that AON is for business and PON is for residential is misinformation.
Whether you have services on-premise or in a datacentre or use cloud apps is irrelevant and I'm not sure what it has to do with the technology employed. If I pay for a 200/200mbit/s fibre service it can be delivered via passive or active optical networks.
A correctly planned PON has many advantages over an AON deployment and vice-versa however both will suffer from contention issues at some stage upstream. The majority of business traffic is downstream traffic unless you are hosting content or a datacentre provider.