2004 Allied Telesyn, Inc.

PON uses powered

equipment in the
central office and
customer premise. In
the outside plant, it
uses passive splitters
and couplers to divide
bandwidth among up
to 32 users over a
distance of 10-20km.

A Passive Optical Network (PON) consists of an optical line terminator (OLT)

located at the Central Office (CO) and a set of associated optical network
terminals (ONT) to terminate the fiber usually located at the customers
premise. Both of these devices require power. PON gets its name because
instead of using powered electronics in the outside plant, it instead uses passive
splitters and couplers to divide up the bandwidth among the end users typically
32 over a maximum distance of 10-20km. Because this is a shared network, it is
sometimes referred to as Point to Multipoint or P2MP.

Usually 1010-20 km
//

OLT
//
//

//

//

ONT

//

Optical splitter
1x16 (1x2, 1x8)
1x32 (1x4, 1x8)

//

//

Figure 1: PON Architecture

Similar to PON, Active

networks use
powered, hardened
equipment in the field,
enabling them to
provide a dedicated
pipe to each
subscriber.
Active networks can
serve a virtually
unlimited number of
subscribers over an
80km distance.

An Active network looks very similar to a PON, however, there are three main
differences. First, instead of having passive, unmanageable splitters in the field, it
uses environmentally hardened Ethernet electronics to provide fiber access
aggregation. Second, instead of sharing bandwidth among multiple subscribers,
each end user is provided a dedicated pipe that provides full bi-directional
bandwidth. Because of its dedicated nature, this type of architecture is sometimes
referred to as Point to Point (P2P). The third architectural difference between PON
and Active is the distance limitation. In a PON network, the furthest subscriber must
be within 10-20km from the CO, depending on the total number of splits (more
splits = less distance). An Active network, on the other hand, has a distance
limitation of 80km, regardless of the number of subscribers being served. The
number of subscribers is limited only by the switches employed, and not by the
infrastructure itself, as in the case of PON.

Up to 70 km

Up to 10 km
//

Switch
Single Fiber (EFM)
//
//

//

CPE

//

//

Powered Device
(Ethernet Switch)

//

Figure 2: Active Architecture

Active vs. PON FTTx Technology Choices, 6/30/04, Rev A

www.alliedtelesyn.com

PAGE 2 of 10

 2004 Allied Telesyn, Inc.

With the basics of these topologies understood, we can now explore the five most
common myths surrounding PON vs. Active networks:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

PON Networks Make Better Use of Fiber

Active Electronics In the Field Are a Liability
PON Systems Dont Require Set Top Boxes for Video
PON Systems Provide Plenty of Bandwidth
PON Has Dominant Market Share Over Active.

!
Years ago, Active
Ethernet required two
fibers, and did not
have options for
outside plant, but new
standards and
products have
removed those
concerns.

"

&

The root of this misperception is one based in reality. However, it is no longer valid
because of two technological developments that have occurred in the past year. The first
of these developments is the completion of the IEEE 802.3ah Ethernet in the First Mile
(EFM) standard that defines, among other things, a method for delivering Ethernet over a
single strand of fiber. Before this standard emerged, Active Ethernet solutions required
two strands of fiber to every subscriber (one to send, the other to receive). Years ago,
when fiber was very expensive, one can understand what a costly proposition this was.
The second development has been the evolution of environmentally hardened Ethernet
devices that can be placed in the outside plant. Prior to the availability of this type of
gear, network operators would have to pull the fiber from every subscriber all the way
back to their CO or else rely on Controlled Environment Vaults (CEVs) or other types of
air conditioned/heated Remote Terminals (RTs).
The two of these developments, along with the fact that fiber costs have dropped to a
fraction of what they were just a few years ago, make the question of which network uses
less fiber virtually a non-issue.

'!

To assess where it makes most sense to place powered devices, one should understand
the different theories of outside plant design. These designs, along with their pros and
cons, are described below.

Traditional PON

The promise of PON has been that you can push a single strand of fiber far out into the
field and split it with a passive, unmanageable device close to the customer premises
(Figure 3). Unfortunately, this approach has a number of drawbacks. One of the biggest
disadvantages is that these splitters have no intelligence, and therefore cannot be
managed. You cannot communicate with them remotely, and with hundreds or thousands
of splitters scattered around in the field, driving to each one to check for problems when
a service outage occurs becomes a very slow and a very expensive proposition.

Figure 3: Traditional PON

Another major disadvantage to PON is its inflexibility. If a 1x4 splitter is used to serve
four homes, hooking up a fifth customer requires pulling a new strand of fiber all the way
from the upstream splitter, or re-designing the network to accommodate a larger splitter
near the customer premises without violating the 32 split maximum allowed.
Unfortunately, changing any splitter in the network requires all downstream customers to
come offline while the work is done.

PON vs. Active FTTx Technology Choices, 6/30/04, Rev A

www.alliedtelesyn.com

PAGE 3 of 10