[151585] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Muni Fiber
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Masataka Ohta)
Sun Mar 25 15:41:14 2012
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 04:39:46 +0900
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <4F6F60D3.6030703@foobar.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Nick Hilliard wrote:
>> wiring center you enable all technologies. GPON today, direct GigE
>> or 10GE where necessary, and all future technologies.
>
> yep, agreed - much more sensible, much more resilient to failure and only
> marginally more expensive.
You should suspect cost figures provided by those who want to
keep their monopoly.
At least, if population density is below some threshold, SS is
less expensive than PON, because the expected number of
subscribers to share a fiber with reasonably short drop cables
is small.
> It'll never be done though. Too much to lose by creating a topology which
> allows you to unbundle the tail.
It is still possible to unbundle PON if regulators want to do so.
See our paper:
Competition Promoting Unbundling of PON
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1914349
Masataka Ohta
