[160761] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Scott Helms)
Tue Feb 12 15:17:21 2013
In-Reply-To: <51199011.7050903@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 15:17:03 -0500
From: Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com>
To: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Masataka,
Numbers? Examples? This is simply incorrect in many places. The only
reasons to run PON are financial, since Ethernet out performs it, are you
saying that all greenfield PON installs are cheaper done as Ethernet
without exception?
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 7:42 PM, Masataka Ohta <
mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>
> > The fiber plant would presumably be paid for with 30-year bonds, same as
> > any other municipal infrastructure (eg. water and sewer lines--the real
> > "pipes"), for which interest rates are currently running around the rate
> > of inflation. There is no need to pay them off quickly.
>
> In addition, as PON is even less efficient initially when
> subscriber density is low and there are few subscribers to
> share a field splitter (unless extremely lengthy drop cables
> are used, which costs a lot), PON is slower to pay them off.
>
> Masataka Ohta
>
>
>
--
Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678) 507-5000
--------------------------------
http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
--------------------------------
