Fiber Optic Services And Products

On Fiber Optic Communications

The World Is Against Fiber To The Desk

Experiences, Observations And Causes

Introduction

I am of the opinion that the data communications world is against fiber to the desk. Not neutral, not open, not interested. While this opinion has always been a murmur in the background of my thinking, it is now an overwhelming roar.

This change from murmur to roar has evolved during the last 3 or 4 years, during which I have had many conversations with end users and designers of networks. These conversations have revolved around the fiber to the desk concept, also known as collapsed backbone and, most recently, as centralized cabling.

I am going to share three specific experiences that highlight this negative attitude. Of course, to avoid embarrassing anyone or incurring legal consequences, I will leave the person and/or organization anonymous.

Experience 1: Manager Ignores Cost Benefit

Several years ago, during a BICSI presentation of my fiber optic design program, program FO110 (Pearson Technologies FiberProÅ 5), I presented an overview of an early version of the centralized cabling cost model. This model has since been refined and issued by the Fiber Optic LAN Section of the TIA (http://www.fols.org). An attendee commented that he could probably justify centralized cabling by the reduction in the cost of constructing and supporting telecommunication rooms in his new science building. With the budgetary costs he had developed for this building, we performed a rough comparison of the cost of hierarchical star, or horizontal UTP and vertical fiber network, to that of an all fiber network. The costs indicated a lower initial installed cost for the all fiber network.

In spite of this positive comparison, this gentleman was not able to sell the concept. His final comment was that his boss would not buy the concept, in spite of the demonstrated reduction in cost. His boss would not provide a logical reason for rejection of a change to reduce his installation costs, his maintenance costs and his life cycle costs.

Experience 2: Industry Consultant Ignores Cost, Attacks With Abandon

More recently, I had a conversation with a gentleman from an internationally known firm. Upon review of the FOLS model, he dismissed the entire model without acknowledging that collapsed backbones could enable reduced initial installed cost in any scenario. He then went on to attack the model with inflammatory, non-specific terms that implied that the model could have no potential use to anyone in any situation. This response was in spite of the fact that the model was biased against fiber and still showed scenarios in which centralized cabling resulted in a lower initial installed cost than did the traditional hierarchical star configuration.

Experience 3: Industry Association Ignores TR Size Reduction

Most recently, I reviewed the tenth edition of the Telecommunications Design and Methods Manual, issued by BICSI. While I may have missed something, the manual recommends telecommunication room sizes that are solely determined by the space serviced by the telecommunication room. This same manual, in a different section, includes presentation of centralized cabling and on methods for implementation. To the point: the manual includes the concept of centralized cabling architecture but ignores allowance for the reduced space advantage for such an architecture. Where are the consistency and logic in this approach? Missing, as far as I can see. Perhaps the lack of consistency was an attempt to appease the fiber forces without giving them an outright victory.

Some of these instances could be attributed to the newness of the concept. But this concept has been around since 1992, when I read an article by D Arcy Roche on this concept. I am sorry, but this is not a new concept: it has been TSB-72, which was issued in before 2001.

If a fiber network eliminates only one upgrade, it reduces the life cycle cost by half. Is the data world addicted to UTP? From my perspective, it certainly seems so.

Conclusions

I could make or infer several conclusions of varying validity. However, one conclusion seems evident: it has not been to the advantage of the dominant providers of equipment to UTP networks to facilitate the migration of networks from UTP dominant to fiber dominant. Perhaps, this is the main lesson of the fiber optic data communications industry failure to sell its new, and cost effective technology. Cost effective technology reduces future business, as the UTP industry has seen. Increased life cycle of fiber reduces future UTP cable and connector business.

In short: fiber optic communications has too much benefit to succeed in the data world. Fiber optics has so much benefit that it spawns severe resistance from the companies whose products would be displaced.

A second conclusion is that the UTP industry has created and supported an industry presence that is stronger than that of the fiber industry.

The UTP industry has dominated the standards committees to minimize the progress of standards to facilitate the transition to fiber. Many vendors that produce both fiber and UTP equipment seem to price their fiber products higher than necessary to protect their future UTP business.

It seems that the fiber optic industry has failed to sell its advantages, even now when the cost disadvantage has been significantly reduced, and in some scenarios, eliminated.

A friend commented that one of the differences between the fiber optic industry and the more successful organizations of Gigabit Ethernet, 10Gigabit Ethernet, FTTH Council and Wireless networking is the lack of a unified industry organization. Such an organization would have promoted the advantages of fiber and presented numerous position papers that would be vendor agnostic. With such papers, end users would have increased confidence that the information was not as biased as it might be if from a single vendor. Finally, while the fiber optic data communication industry has the FOLS, it has not been widely supported, as have the organizations listed above.

Respectfully submitted for your consideration,

Eric R. Pearson, CPC, CFOS

President

Pearson Technologies Inc.

For Mr. Pearson contact information, click here.

Pearson Technologies Web Sites

http://www.ptnowire.com http://www.FTTDnow.info

http://www.fiberopticlawsuits.info http://www.sfoi.info

Contact Pearson Technologies Inc.