A question wrt ONT/PON

[#1]

Thanks for all replies.

I guess it can be summed up as a mixture of: Costs, Unbundling and the associated trend of pushing more responsibilities out to the end user/customer(!).

viz. As with HMRC and 'Making Tax Digital'.

[#2]

Last word on this?

Looking up my home on the BT Broadband Availability Checker I saw this line in the notes:

"ONT exists with active service. No spare ports are available. A new ONT may be ordered."

Interesting. 😉

[#3]

Mine indicates

ONT exists with active service. A spare port may be available or a single port ONT may be swappable to a multiport ONT. A new ONT may be ordered.

[#4]

Another way of answering the original question: despite what the original ONT spec might have stated it can offer, why have three distinct multiplexed networks for specific purposes when it can all be carried over just one?

To have it spat out of the ONT as three distinct services ... then it needs to be spitted into the the fibre from three distinct services at the head end.  That has to be at least 3 times the cost!

[#5]

---

@Townman wrote:

Another way of answering the original question: despite what the original ONT spec might have stated it can offer, why have three distinct multiplexed networks for specific purposes when it can all be carried over just one?

---

how did you arrive at "three distinct multiplexed" networks ?

[#6]

@krusty 

I read the OP...

---

@pvmb wrote:

Looking at technical documents led me to a particularly 'interesting' aspect. One of the described functions of an ONT (or ONU in IEEE terminology) was to multiplex between different types of service. Cable TV, IP(Internet) and Telephone were the three mentioned in the literature. Implying a separate output socket for each service.

---

[#7]

Appologies - its monday morning. i didn't read your end part !

pvmb  said this

Looking at technical documents led me to a particularly 'interesting' aspect. One of the described functions of an ONT (or ONU in IEEE terminology) was to multiplex between different types of service. Cable TV, IP(Internet) and Telephone were the three mentioned in the literature. Implying a separate output socket for each service.

This was the old way of thinking of seperating everything, and if we had fttp uk wide, in the 90s, we would have say with a 100mbits service, 15mbits/s hived off for tv and 1mbits off for telephony, leaving 84mbits for internet.

Now we just chuck everything over an ip based system, be it ftp, https, sip etc so speration becomes pointless. 

[#8]

"Now we just chuck everything over an ip based system, be it ftp, https, sip etc so speration becomes pointless."

Sure. But, from the consumer/householder POV - in particular in relation to home phones - it would have been a whole lot easier and simpler if the ONT did have a separate telephone function.

But then again, I guess the rise of the mobile over time made home phones increasingly less relevant.

[#9]

Moderator's note:
Full quote of preceding post removed as per Forum rules.

if you have seen how often the analog master sockets got replaced and that onts fail you may not want to have everything in one basket 

The decline in landline useage was probably a factor too.

EverythingOverIP makes sense. if you need guarenteed speed for a service QoS it.

[#10]

---

@pvmb wrote:

Sure. But, from the consumer/householder POV - in particular in relation to home phones - it would have been a whole lot easier and simpler if the ONT did have a separate telephone function.

---

Why the hang up with the phone? The sensible solution to satisfy your desires is simply to connect the incoming fibre to an optical input router with a built in ATA/DECT interface.

I believe that some Altnet’s do this. However this would result in there being less flexibility with respect to bespoke installations due to less choice of hardware.