Reviews:
 ·ProLog
 ·DIRECTV
1 edit | It may be more affordable With RF gear, you constantly have amplifiers, line extenders, nodes, and power supplies. That's quite a lot of equipment to keep powered on and maintained in good working order.
With a passive fiber optic technology, the signal can go for many many miles before needing a repeater. No more multiple power supplies and amplifiers! Less cost from the Power Company and less "active" equipment to maintain.
It's a good idea, and hopefully the large MSO's are weighing the pro's and con's of each future technology and keep us up to date with what works best for both the customer and the business. |
| Another architecture being utilized in newer sub-divisions is FTTC or Fibre-to-the-curb. Their is only one active device, being the node and everything coming out of it is passive. No Trunks or Line Extenders, just Taps. 1 Power supply can feed multiple nodes, and each node is scalable up to 4 upstreams if needed. Also upgrading to 1 GHZ is easy, just replace the RF Module in the Node. This type of system is easy to repair, and can do anything fibre can do. |
Reviews:
·ProLog
·DIRECTV
| Ah yes..
from: »connectedhome2go.com/
There’s a (relatively) new acronym making the rounds: RFOG, or RF Over Glass. In brief, RFOG is a category term for technology that lets cable operators use traditional back-office cable equipment with new fiber-to-the-home deployments. In greenfield situations, even cable operators want to put fiber in the ground, but they’d rather not pay for the other network upgrades that go with it. It’s cheaper and easier to stick with coax if it means they can use existing infrastructure gear and management tools. In other words, there’s incentive to choose coaxial cable over fiber unless you solve the back-office problem. Which is where RFOG comes in.
RFOG is a good thing, but the term may also be used to muddy the marketing waters. It’s good because using an RF overlay makes it financially feasible for operators to deploy deep fiber. On the other hand, RFOG includes many of the same limitations faced on a traditional coax network. There’s virtually no bandwidth gain (unlike with passive optical networking), despite the fact that operators can market the technology as fiber to the home. Ah, marketing.
At the moment, RFOG is a standard in development. (Yes, Motorola is part of that development process.) Ideally, RFOG should act as an intermediate step on the way to passive optical networking (PON), but unless there are clear and open parameters for how RFOG must work, there is no guarantee that today’s RFOG deployment will migrate well to a future PON architecture, or that operators won’t be locked in to a single vendor’s technology.
It’s hard to be brief on a subject this convoluted, but here a couple of key points:
1. As pressure builds for FTTH deployments (especially in new residential areas), RFOG will provide cable operators a viable fiber solution, even if it doesn’t provide the bandwidth benefits of PON.
2. Operators should keep their eyes wide open when choosing a solution labeled RFOG. There is no agreed-upon standard yet, and anything deployed today needs to leave an operator’s options open for upgrades tomorrow |
