Shopping Cart
There are no more items in your cart3 PON Myths Debunked
- Megan
- Latest News
- 0 likes
- 94 views
- 0 comments
Myth 1
PON is New and Untested
PON technology has been around for more than two decades. Major telecommunications service providers and vendors started work on FTTx architecture in 1995. Since then, GPON has been widely used by the USA federal government, including the Army, Marine Corps, Air Force, Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Energy.
By mid-2008, Verizon had installed over 800,000 lines. British Telecom, BSNL, Saudi Telecom Company, Etisalat, and AT&T were in advanced trials in Britain, India, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and the USA, respectively. There are currently over 40 million installed EPON ports making it the most widely deployed PON technology globally.
Myth 2
PON is Less Secure
GPON supports AES-128 encryption and allows for strong 802.1x port-based network access control (NAC) authentication, this is similar to Ethernet.
Physically, fibre optic cables are more secure than copper, tapping into fibre optics without detection is difficult and fibre optic cables are impervious to electromagnetic interference (EMI) making it a safer choice than Ethernet. PON has been adapted in the USA by the Department of Homeland Security that alone should set your mind at ease with regards to the security level offered by PON.
Myth 3
PON Costs More
PON technology takes up less physical space and consumes less energy than traditional Ethernet. In addition to that, PON deployment costs up to 50% less than that of Ethernet, including components, labour and materials. The requirements for cooling is less than Ethernet networks, offering the client a cost saving on their utility bill. Furthermore, fibre optic cable has a lifespan of up to 50 years as opposed to the 15 year lifespan of copper.
Looking at these facts PON technology costs less to deploy and less to maintain. No surprise as to why it has been increasingly embraced by hospitals, government agencies and universities.
Comments
View Comments