[160462] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jay Ashworth)
Wed Feb 6 11:04:43 2013
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 11:01:27 -0500 (EST)
From: Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com>
To: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <m3k3qljv3z.fsf@ursa.amorsen.dk>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Benny Amorsen" <benny+usenet@amorsen.dk>
> > I'm not *trying* to do the last thing.
> >
> > I'm trying to do the next thing. Or maybe the one after that.
>
> The existing copper network was in many cases built like a star with
> some very long runs. This worked fine for telephony, but not so well
> with ADSL. The result is that providers move their active equipment
> closer to the subscriber.
Well, it worked poorly with ADSL *because* it actually worked poorly
with voice, and they had to put load coils in to fix it.
> Is there a risk that up-and-coming technologies will depend on shorter
> fiber runs? Will the fiber be built in such a way that it joins up in
> places where it is possible to later add active equipment if that
> becomes desirable?
I think that risk low enough to take it, especially since my entire
city fits in about a 3mi radius. :-)
No, I expect ranges to get *longer* per constant dollar spent, actually.
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
