[167359] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Caps (was Re: AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jared Mauch)
Mon Dec 9 14:04:07 2013
From: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>
In-Reply-To: <18497386.252.1386607084110.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 14:03:45 -0500
To: Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Dec 9, 2013, at 11:38 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
>> It costs you nothing to let people use capacity that would otherwise =
go
>> to waste, and it increases the perceived value of your service. Your
>> customers will eventually find themselves depending on that excess
>> capacity often enough that at least some will be willing to pay you
>> more to guarantee that it'll be there when they really want it.
>=20
> +10
>=20
> We've forgotten the Committed Information Rate already?
ATM/FRAME ftw?
I think the challenge here is that RF doesn't scale similarly to other =
mediums.
Cost per bit-mile on fiber is really low compared to RF.
If you assume 10G-LR optics (10km) @ $299 *2 (pair) + Cvt-5002sfp =
($500*2)
is around $0.16/Mbit
RF (cheap) NB-5G25 =3D $95*2 (pair) is around $3.16/Mbit (assuming =
60Mb/s unidirectional) or almost 20x the cost, assuming 40Mhz channel =
and spectrum available.
While fiber installation can be expensive, one needs to ask the local =
municipalities to install extra conduit every time the earth is broken =
for a local project.
- Jared=
