More on PON

Not only did David S. Isenberg read my post on PON, but he responded to it in relation to Verizon’s FIOS on his own blog, specifically here. Whereas my analysis tended to suggest that point to point – which he calls home run, learned something new there! – was the technology that would optimise bandwidth usage (and hence customer experience), David rightly takes a divergent view that PON may be the technology that minimises operator hassle.

The points that PON is impossible to unbundle certainly weighs in the equation, he says, but if I understand his point correctly, he also argues that PON is more suited to closed service models, something akin to the walled gardens of old (well, of AoL). Using PON makes it easier for the operator - or facilty operator as he calls them - to provide his own services with optimal quality, and let all the internet traffic that doesn't generate revenue be degraded by P2P or whatever else.

It's a good and very valid point and ultimately, only customers - provided they are given the choice - will decide whether they prefer a closed service model or an open service model. I'm more of an open service model guy, both personally and from a business standpoint. I think that there's a lot more value generated in open models. I understand though, that these models scare big players off.

I've decided to open a new category in the blog called Business Models. Guess I don't have to tell you what it'll be about. More about it soon.