[116965] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alexander Harrowell)
Thu Aug 27 11:23:40 2009
From: Alexander Harrowell <a.harrowell@gmail.com>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 16:22:18 +0100
In-Reply-To: <20090827140459.GA64392@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--nextPart6027205.S8pspzlaZr
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thursday 27 August 2009 15:04:59 Leo Bicknell wrote:
> In a message written on Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 09:58:22AM +0100, Alexander=
=20
Harrowell wrote:
> > An interesting question: as the population gets sparser, the average
> > trench mileage per subscriber increases. At some point this renders fib=
re
> > deployment uneconomic. Now, this point can change:
>
> This statement makes no sense to me.
>
> The cost to dig a trench is cheaper in rural areas than it is in
> urban areas. A lot cheaper. Rather than closing a road, cutting
> a trench, avoiding 900 other obsticals, repaving, etc they can often
> trench or go aerial down the side of a road for miles with no
> obsticals and nothing but grass to put back.
>
> So while mileage per subscriber increases, cost per mile dramatically
> increases. The only advantage in an urban enviornment is that one
> trench may serve 200 families in a building, where as a rural trench
> may serve 20 familes.
>
> But more puzzling to me is the idea that fiber becomes uneconomic.
> This may have once been true, but right now you can buy 10km or
> even 40km lasers quite cheaply. Compare with copper which for even
> modest speeds requires a repeater every 2-4km.
>
True. But there is - there has to be - a limit, when the 70% or so civil wo=
rks=20
cost eats everything else. The limit may be more or less restrictive, but=20
limit there is.
--nextPart6027205.S8pspzlaZr
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4-svn0 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQBKlqS50c69vkueJcQRAs7jAJ9zJ1wNo1FePHqdc6vlIF0ME9H5pQCeNlr5
84F4OLbw/n+0it4TU11zMLY=
=//6G
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--nextPart6027205.S8pspzlaZr--
