Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

Tue Feb 12 20:59:11 UTC 2013

On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Masataka Ohta <
mohta at necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:

> 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
world with an average density of 873 per square mile.  The US on the other
hand has 89 per square mile.  Canada has an average density of 10 people
per square mile.  I would also say that Japan's consumer behavior and
regulatory climate are all significantly different from the North American
market so making blanket statements is pretty silly.

If you want to make your case then why don't you, the only Japanese &
English speaker on this list I know of, extract the math behind the NTT
papers and present why its cheaper in Japan and we can then see if that
applies equally in the US & Canada.

>
> > 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.
>

I don't know what conspiracy theory you're ascribing to here, but this is
incorrect.

>
> > are you
> > saying that all greenfield PON installs are cheaper done as Ethernet
> > without exception?
>
> No, SS is cheaper than PON without exception.
>

Prove it.

>
> 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
>

-- 
Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678) 507-5000
--------------------------------
http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
--------------------------------