[106434] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: So why don't US citizens get this?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Frank Bulk)
Mon Jul 28 16:38:14 2008
From: "Frank Bulk" <frnkblk@iname.com>
To: "'Josh Cheney'" <josh.cheney@gmail.com>,
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jean-Fran=E7ois_Mezei?= <jfmezei@vaxination.ca>,
<nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <488E044B.1040402@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 15:37:53 -0500
Reply-To: frnkblk@iname.com
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
That's right on the money....now, when significant portions of the plant
needs to be replaced, fiber is almost the de facto approach.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: Josh Cheney [mailto:josh.cheney@gmail.com]=20
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 12:39 PM
To: Jean-Fran=E7ois Mezei; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: So why don't US citizens get this?
Jean-Fran=E7ois Mezei wrote:
> Does population density still REALLY matter ? Considering that fibre
> optic cables have a far longer reach than copper, and considering =
that
> the utility poles already exist in less densely populated areas, it
> would seem to me that fibre would be a superior alternative to copper,
> especially when you consider the costs of setting up remotes all over
> the place for copper.
>
>
> And I would reckon that laying fibre along existing utility poles to
> reach 200 homes would cost far less than laying fibre in a concrete =
high
> rise appartment building to reach 200 appartments.
My understanding is that for a rural area, in a completely new rollout
or a forklift upgrade, fiber is cheaper than copper. However, because
the majority of the copper that is currently deployed is still highly
serviceable, it is very difficult to justify tearing out perfectly good
copper and laying out fiber in it's place.
--
Josh Cheney
josh.cheney@gmail.com
http://www.joshcheney.com
