Market Leader Programs
5G Transport - A 2023 Heavy Reading Survey 2023 Open RAN Operator Survey Coherent Optics at 100G, 400G, and Beyond Open RAN Platforms and Architectures Operator Survey Cloud Native 5G Core Operator Survey Bridging the Digital Divide 5G Network Slicing Operator Survey Open, Automated & Programmable Transport The Journey to Cloud Native
Carriers are not picking these for real at the moment. There is a vendor debate about it.
My view of the whole TR-58/59 thing is that it works very well as long as the DSLAM remains an unblocked element. The architecture was derived to allow carriers to keep their Alcatel DSLAMs (disclaimer I work on ATM DSL products). As long as the DSLAM is unblocked IP QoS ignoring any CAC requirements of the DSL line or the DSLAM. Video over DSL defeats that. Lets use an example. Carrier has an ASAM 7300 which has a OC-12 backplane and uplink. If one is not multicasting in the DSLAM, then today (with MPEG2 encoding at about 3.5Mb/s per SDTV stream) one can do 177 TVs across that DSLAM. IF one does ADSL (2 TVs/home) one can support about 90 subs. If its 3 TVs/home (ADSL2+) then one gets about 60 subs/DSLAM.
I have not yet talked about what form of PVC management exists yet. What this shows, is that one pretty much MUST multicast in the DSLAM to get to a reasonable price/port on a 300 port DSLAM. So this whole 1 PVC versus 2 PVC argument exists in 1 (yes exactly 1) place. Between the multicasting DSLAM and the DSL Modem. That is why this is not a debate. It does not matter. As one is pairing DSLAM + DSL modem to accomplish this service (see November's TR-48 testing to see that getting Modems and DSLAMs to maximum performance is a dicey thing).