[160620] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Masataka Ohta)
Sat Feb 9 19:04:54 2013
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 09:03:34 +0900
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
To: "Robert E. Seastrom" <rs@seastrom.com>
In-Reply-To: <86obft7gpf.fsf@seastrom.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
>> Then, with the otherwise same assumptions of my previous mail,
>> total extra drop cable length for PON will be 204km, four times
>> more than the trunk cable length.
>>
>> Thus, it is so obvious that SS is better than PON.
>
> You're confusing fiber architecture with what gets laid on top of it.
> Where the splitters go is entirely irrelevant.
If you ignore so lengthy drop cables.
> Rule of thumb in the US is that 80% of the costs of a fiber build are
> in engineering, planning, RoW acquisition, lawyers, etc.
That's obviously because of your madogiwazoku quality of
engineering.
> Of the
> remaining 20%, more of it is labor than materials. Price per fiber
> strand in the bundle is noise in the larger equation.
Drop cables increase the length of the bundle and labor for it.
>> http://itpro.nikkeibp.co.jp/article/COLUMN/20080619/308665/
>
> Having actually been involved in building a business plan surrounding
> this,
As a person who have been involved in building a business plan
surrounding this several times, it is obvious to me that you
have no or little experience on FTTH.
> I don't need to read Japanese to be able to tell you that the
> outside plant engineering was clearly assigned to the madogiwazoku if
> they're only getting a 4:1 split on average.
Of course, anyone who try to use PON for FTTH is madogiwazoku like
you.
Masataka Ohta
