[160765] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Masataka Ohta)
Tue Feb 12 15:49:01 2013
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 05:47:44 +0900
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
To: Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMrdfRxsjwubKKxqijArBynLuy7KYdmxh_n0mstwvkonqYt+rg@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Scott Helms wrote:
> Numbers? Examples?
Greenfield SS and PON deployment costs in Japan was already shown.
> This is simply incorrect in many places. The only
> reasons to run PON are financial, since Ethernet out performs it,
No, the only reason to insist on PON is to make L1 unbundling
not feasible.
> are you
> saying that all greenfield PON installs are cheaper done as Ethernet
> without exception?
No, SS is cheaper than PON without exception.
If the initial density of subscribers is high, SS is fine.
If it is not, initially, most electric equipment, OE port,
fibers, splitters and a large closures containing the splitters
of PON can not be shared by two or more subscribers, which means
PON incurs much more material and labor cost for each initial
subscriber than SS.
Masataka Ohta
