[160772] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Masataka Ohta)
Tue Feb 12 17:58:54 2013
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 07:57:22 +0900
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
To: Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMrdfRzqEKuwZEzGBrWKF--11LfnOEeO4en410-ZPhiTnwjLVg@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.
> Japan has one of the highest population densities of major economies in the
The examples are in rural area and I already stated population
density in English.
>> No, the only reason to insist on PON is to make L1 unbundling
>> not feasible.
> I don't know what conspiracy theory you're ascribing to here, but this is
> incorrect.
PON being more expensive than SS, that is the only explanation.
>> No, SS is cheaper than PON without exception.
> Prove it.
See above or below.
>> 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
